User talk:Moriturus/Archivum/MMVII-MMVIII

Cave lector: Haec pagina archivum est!

ARCHIVVM
MMVII-MMVIII

"Users by languages spoken" pages

I'm not sure these are really necessary. Perhaps you should inquire to the admins before creating a gajillion pages? Kokuou 02:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize that there was already an entire category. My apologies. Kokuou 02:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

why

felines but not canines? :P - BeX 07:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Because I prefer cats ;)

Well, in fact Hyenas aren't actual canines. I didn't see the point of creating a 'Canines' category only for the wolves.--Moriturus 14:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It just seemed inconsistent. - BeX 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Kurzick houses

Just as a note, you could add that deletion request as a speedy deletion on terms of G3 if you want since it qualifies. Like: {{delete|G3: Wrong capitalization|speedy}}. — Galil 05:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's done, thank you.--Moriturus 05:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia categories

Hey, I noticed you started making subcategories. I have two things in mind I'm not too sure about. The first is that I don't quite agree is the placement of Category:References to popular culture as a subcategory of "Category:Easter eggs". Seems simpler (to me anyway) if renamed to just "Category:Trivia", partially because since we have lots of festival-type items, we might actually get easter egg in-game items. Second is that I'm not too sure about Category:References to Firefly-Serenity. Do you think that such a specific category is necessary? I'm just wondering whether we might suddenly see a lot of "References to so-and-so movie/game/song/book title" categories that contain just one or two articles. Might seem to be a little too specific. Thoughts? -- ab.er.rant 15:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To the fist question: I chose the category Easter Eggs, because these references are not so obvious at first, it's a bit like little riddles in the game, you have to find their hidden references. Personally I'm very bad at this, maybe that's why it amuses me. For instance, although I'm french, i didn't even realized enadiz the hardheaded meant Zinedine Zidane! And also - i've just discovered it in fact - there's already an Easter eggs article with the same meaning (maybe it could be put in this category too). So, in short I rather like the idea of a category that would regroup all the hidden things the devs placed for us to discover (like also the trancription of Canthan ideograms and Tyrian alphabet...). But if it's only the confusing name that bothers you, you may change it as you like.

As for the second question, yes maybe it's superfluous. But I created these subcategories only because you said that it would be too huge a category ;). I thought four references to the same series might be worth a category (although, I admit, it's only because nearly all these NPCs are involved in the same quest, The Halcyon Job which seems to be a reference to The Train Job, the first episode in the series (should have added that in the article instead maybe)). So, let's say that since i like Firefly, I don't really feel like deleting it myself, but you can tag it, or revert my edits, I won't be offended ;). And I won't create any more subsubcategories in References to popular culture, I promise (unless the subcategories become too huge too). --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Moriturus (talk).

Hmm... I didn't even know easter eggs existed. I suppose "Trivia" as a category isn't all that intuitive or accurate either. I'll try to rewrite that article and put in definitions for the category pages you created. I agree with you that if there are several definite/confirmed references, then it does seem fitting to have a subcategory. I'm just thinking how to deal with single-article, unconfirmed/speculated, specific-trivia references. And I'm not preventing you from creating more "references to" subcategories, I'm just getting your perspective on the really specific categories because I know there are users who are already opposed to the trivia section and they're probably going to start complaining if they notice a lot trivia categories :) -- ab.er.rant 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And just for ideas, I think I've seen some additional categories like "References to sports", "References to internet culture", "References to literature", etc... and oh, one more thing, the Easter egg article seems to be currently defined as being more than just these references. It lists the Abaddon dance in the NF last mission as an example. I'm thinking it would be more appropriate for easter eggs and references should sit side-by-side in a trivia category. -- ab.er.rant 00:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this trivia thing is huge and indeed maybe it will be difficult to deal with such a category... but it might be a way to sort all that. I didn't know, there's even a Trivia Project, not everyone dislikes them then! As for me, I've just removed the one in Drakkar Lake. One less, some will be happy :D. I'd agree that sometimes trivia are excessive. For example, as I moved the Category:References to literature tag to Rabbit hole, I couldn't help thinking that the two trivia subsections there aren't that essential and should be in Wikipedia instead. But, well, trivia are also a fun way to learn things.--Moriturus 13:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"wikibugggggg!!!"

-- Brains12 \ talk 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Each time it gets me! =[ - MORTUIЯUS 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

God

Not to be a pain in the back or something, but what was wrong with the way the God pages were set up first? ~ Kurd 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me you prefered that http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Balthazar&oldid=960299!

Or Dwayna's page present shape ? (just noticed i forgot to edit that one!)

Well, my primary intention was in fact merely to add Kekai's art to the god pages. I started with Balthazar and Dwayna. Then I found all this big blank space quite ugly and tried to fix it. The only way I found to bring more density to the page was to move the inscription further down into the Statues section (which in fact seems a more relevant place imo, shouldn't Description be the topmost section ?) and reducing its width ... - MORTUIЯUS 12:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

@ 1024 there's a really big blank space at the top. Plus those images by Kekai represent the Avatars of the gods which doesn't have to mean they represent the Gods themselves. Also the edit buttons are messed up, you might want to add __NOEDITSECTION__ to them ~ Kurd 19:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems indeed that depending on the browser, the look of the page varies greatly. At 1024 everything was ok for me in IExplorer, but with Firefox the edit buttons were indeed messed up. While for the previous version of the Balthazar page, whatever the resolution, there is a big blank space after the description tag in IE and not in Firefox. As for the blank space you mention at the top, couldn't see it at all.

Maybe it was a bit illusory to try to get a perfect page (for everybody) considering my poor wiki skills...

Well, is the present look of the Lyssa of Dwayna pages ok for you? We could rest happy with that maybe? I don't care that much about the look of these pages after all, just wanted to add a pretty lille picture...

As for the avatar thing, I can't help finding you somewhat fussy. Does it matter so much? These images are so pretty. And what is an avatar after all ? Just one of the many shapes a god may take when among mortals, but that's still him.

Actually, I quite doubt they are depictions of avatars. Yes, they look somewhat like the dervish avatars, but isn't it normal for an avatar to look like the god whose incarnation he is. And the females all have human faces, so different from the avatars. And also Kekai simply called these images by their god names. Where do you take that they are avatars? Do you have documented scientific evidence? Haha, I like these pandit discussions!

Nevertheless, as I said, they are pretty, and to me that's enough for using them. - MORTUIЯUS 02:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm... Do you really need proof to tell that this is a drawing of this?. Also now that we have those images at the top i think we can remove the ones at the bottom(like this one) I'll do it right away. ~ Kurd 10:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed Balthazar a little. I think its alright now. I haven't edited the other pages in case you are going to change something. Lets try to get make the Balthazar page look good then change the other pages. ~ Kurd 10:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Moriturus on this. As far as we know, the avatars are how the gods look like. The original filename for those images were also just "Balthazar" or "Dwayna" (back when posted by their author), not "Avatar of ...". And they are rather pretty, it would be a waste to not add them to the articles. I also think it would be better to leave the avatar pictures on the articles - the one for Balthazar does look a lot like his picture, but the avatar of Melandru has nothing to do with the picture of the goddess, for example. Worst comes to worst, I think how the Dwayna and Lyssa pages currently look is fine. Erasculio 11:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaah, your support in this diffcult religious issue is greatly appreciated ;)

Concerning the avatar images, i'm quite ok with their removal though, there are indeed already many images on the god pages. On the other hand, just banishing them into wikioblivion doesn't seem the best solution, they are quite pretty too. Why not simply put them on the "Avatar of ..." pages, it just seems to be the right place for them. And on these pages they could also be bigger.

I tried to do a test with the Avatar of Balthazar page, but gave up as I would have liked to put the image on the left, and don't know how to do that nicely (don't feel much like trying and erring tonight).

And, Erasculio, when you say you like the present Dwayna/Lyssa pages, you mean you prefer them to the now-fixed-by-Kurd Balthazar page, or is the present look of the Balthazar page ok too?

PS: Incidentally I also tagged Image:DervishBalthazarAvatar.jpg for deletion as it has itself an avatar (hihihihi, i'm so funny) in Image:Avatar of Balthazar concept art.jpg - MORTUIЯUS 20:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's ok too : D I did a small change on Balthazar's page, so both murals are together and the god's main image becomes the focus of the top of the page. Do you think it's better that way, or worse? Erasculio 20:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely better! - MORTUIЯUS 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, kurdized everything! Hope it's bugless. As for the avatar images, I made a test with Avatar of Melandru - MORTUIЯUS 21:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Two things:

• I think the god pages are good now, we can leave them this way.
• I dont think we need the place the concept art image on the Forms pages. There's already a image of how it looks in the game which is (almost) identical to the concept art. Plus each page is also going to have a M.O.X. in that form making it three images, which really disrupt the page and is anoying for someone who is not interested in the images(E.g. Just want to know where to cap it.)

See: User:Kurd/Sandbox2 ~ Kurd 12:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could add plenty of nonsensical notes and trivia to balance the form pages on the left? What? No? Ok, as you like... - MORTUIЯUS 21:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh..."It is said Balthazar likes mudkips"? Hey, it could work! Erasculio 21:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)