User talk:Santax/2010/April

Archived Discussions

---

2007

---

• February
• March
• April
• May
• June
• July
• August
• September
• October
• November
• December

---

2008

---

2009

---

2010

• February
• March
• April
• May
• June
• November

---

2011

---

2013

About Dakutu Village

Hi, I've seen you joined me in fleshing out Dakutu Village :) How about we use

* [[Kryta]]

** [[Talmark Wilderness]]

*** {{NPC location|Dakutu Village}}

for NPC location? It will add all the NPCs to Category:Dakutu Village NPCs, which can in turn be added to Category:Talmark Wilderness Roland of Gilead talk 11:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha I just sent you pretty much the same message. Sorry I was a bit blunt, it's just that when we list the location as an explorable area we list the name of the explorable area rather than the part of the explorable area that they can be found. As far as the game is concerned, they're actually TW NPC's rather than DV NPC's, but you can feel free to add them to a separate category manually. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...

You know, we didn't reach an agreement for this change yet. -- Konig/talk 21:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You hadn't replied, so I assumed that it meant you accepted that Livia took the Scepter of Orr (although I suppose assume only makes an ass out of u and me etc.). We could probably revert and keep discussing if necessary, what is it exactly that you want from it? I compromised by putting the emblem at the top and changing the flyer, but it seems we've reached an impasse on the banner. It wastes space on the page that we can use for other images (which we don't discuss, since it seems we're not going to reach an agreement on whether those images are relevant) and it doesn't look nearly as good (in my opinion). My understanding is that you argue the emblem shouldn't be used because that doesn't look as good. So you see our problem. What do you propose we do about it? --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion went into whether Livia took the scepter or not, which is why I didn't respond. Forget whether she took it or not - the thing is is it relevant - and looking at the page, there's too many images in my opinion. Might as well make it a picture book. I still think that the banner should be used over the emblem, you never really commented on "Not to mention on the Shining Blade page, the banner is enlarged, thus taking more room" - if we have the emblem without enlarging it via the |px| bit, then we have room for your silly (imo) Livia image (which I think holds no relevance to the Shining Blade page and would be better off on Livia's page), you just commented on how the emblem is better than the banner. I think the banner is better because it's actually used in the game. We could also use the new banner seen in Talmark as well. -- Konig/talk 22:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Livia seeks a weapon of power (the Scepter). She seeks that weapon in order to bring an end to the civil war. Her entire character is explained around that fact in the manual. How is that not relevant to the Shining Blade? Although it wasn't me who enlarged the banner, having it it's default size makes the page look awful - it's not a particularly nice looking image anyway (it doesn't even look like a banner since the bottom is cut off, it looks like the emblem with lots of blue under it), and that's made worse having it out of step with the rest of the page. It's not so much a problem with the Mantle page as that has more content and so the images are better spaced (there's also the fact that the Mantle article begins with a hueg blockquote which would wrap around the emblem in an ugly way). The banner may be used in the game, but it doesn't tell us anything whatsoever that the emblem can't. It's exactly the same as the emblem, just with lots of blue under it. There's also the fact that the banner is tiny, the emblem on its own gives us a much better look at it. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, how about this: For now, we leave it. I'll run texmod and take the full Shining Blade banner (both old and new) and upload them - that way, it won't be cut off - we don't update the page until we got all of the current events down, then we put in all the new information. With that, there should be plenty of room of text that the "space" issues won't be an issue. Then we figure out which banner/emblem we want (I think the new one would be best, personally - it looks better than both the emblem and the current banner, but like I said, I'll have to get the texture). I really think how it is now is, to be blunt, fugly. -- Konig/talk 22:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem, what I think looks fine you think is fugly (although given the choice I wouldn't have the emblem at the top full stop) and what you think looks fine I think is fugly :P but this sounds like a good idea, I'm open to it. I suspect that the reason that the current banner is cut off, however, is because it was taken with texmod, but I could be wrong. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the wrinkles, I'm thinking otherwise. The Stone Summit and White Mantle banners were taken from texmod - there is no background, thus allows having the full banner without having something making it bad looking. I think the Deldrimor one was taken right from the dat (which gives is a white, black, or checkered background - they must of taken black). -- Konig/talk 09:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

War in Kryta

I'm tired as hell and off to bed, but this might help you put that page together. I'll get on it in the morning as well: [1] Shadow Runner 00:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tyvm! :D --Santax (talk · contribs) 00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It's missing the fact that http://www.guildwars.com/warinkryta/ updated today - it's now less blurred. Shadow Runner 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just went on that and noticed. Regina mentioned that we'd be getting an update yesterday to fix Talmark VQ, but that hasn't come, I reckon the update might include some Mantle stuff. But that's speculation. --Santax (talk · contribs) 00:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Monobook.css

I moved your comment to the community portal, as it's more likely to get community involvement there than on some system message page. poke | talk 08:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks poke! --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

{{CURRENTSECOND}}

So... why did you make that template, and how is it useful (especially the subst parameter)? --JonTheMon 23:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It was used for this revision of the editcopy, it was the simplest way to get a "random" page there. About your edit:

• The main concerns with "dynamic switching" were technical. Emily has said that we can give it a go provided we give her advance warning, so there's no reason not to really. If it turns out that is a problem, we can use {{CURRENTHOUR}} or even a longer timeframe if necessary, but each time we do that we increase the risk of people thinking we're choosing one side over the other.
• Half-and-half wasn't exactly favourable, but the one thing that was pretty much unanimously agreed was that we shouldn't be favouring one side over another (as we are in the current editcopy) - that'd be like aligning the wiki with the Kurzicks over the Luxons, as so far players have been given a choice between supporting the Mantle and the Shining Blade. If circumstances change, and it turns out that the Mantle isn't going to be a playable faction, things may eventually pan out differently, but that's a different kettle of fish. For now we should be giving both sides an equal voice.
• Despite all this, no, I agree that we hadn't reached a real consensus, and realistically, we weren't going to have reached a consensus until well into the event, if we reached one before the end of the event at all. Unusually, we are working on a deadline here. The discussion was dead, and even before then, people were willing to discuss and suggest but nobody was actually willing to do anything (with exceptions). So I decided to take the initiative and update the editcopy. I don't see why it was a problem anyway, if someone wished to restart the discussion before a merge to took place, they were free to do so - after all, it was the editcopy I edited and not the Main Page.

So would it be alright if I reverted your change to the WM MP? --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The content of the main page editcopy isn't what I was asking. i was asking why you made that template aka why couldn't you just use {{#time:s}} in the editcopy code.

And, uh, isn't the edit copy right now the White Mantle version? --JonTheMon 14:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit) Oh, and I really don't like your idea of transcluding your userpages onto main. I'll try to come up with something then. --JonTheMon 14:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the reason for that is because I wasn't really aware of it, I was just editing from an old revision of User:Seru/Userpage/code (I'm not too good at wikicode and things you see :P). I saw {{CURRENTHOUR}} and figured that there'd be a {{CURRENTSECOND}} (there wasn't) so I created it as a template using code from Wikipedia. And yeah, it's the White Mantle version now, my point was that we need to give both sides an equal voice. If you don't like the idea of using pages in my userspace, we can just use Main Page/White Mantle and Main Page/Shining Blade and transclude those instead? --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

GW Beyond campaign

Not meaning to troll, but Linsey called it a campaign in her interview.
"As I mentioned before, the War in Kryta is the first part of "Guild Wars Beyond," an ongoing campaign that expands upon the Guild Wars storyline by focusing on key characters and historical events that shape the world in the years leading up to Guild Wars 2."
Sorry if I offended you or if this is seen as trolling. I can be pretty picky when it comes to proper names.--Sage Talk 23:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's ok, I think I ought to explain myself. The reason I worded it as "series of updates" is to avoid confusion - "campaign" in the context of Guild Wars often refers to something completely different - Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall - and the context she used it in ("ongoing campaign") implies that by campaign she meant "A series of operations undertaken to achieve a set goal" (from Wikitionary). So wording it as "series of updates" rather than "campaign" keeps the same meaning, but avoids the ambiguity of just using "campaign". --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Another picky point (feel free to ignore me at any point :P), I think that maybe we should say that the War in Kryta update is confirmed to be part of Guild wars beyond (since it is referenced specifically in the interview), however, anything beyond that hasn't been confirmed, so I think we you just put those as unconfirmed elements until one of the Live Team confirms them. --Sage Talk 23:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be fairly obvious what is Beyond content based on a number of criteria:

• Was it developed after full-time development shifted to GW2?
• Was it developed by the Live Team?
• Does it occur chronologically after GW:EN?
• Does it pertain to the lore of The Movement of the World?

If the answer to all of those questions is yes, then it's most likely going to be related to Beyond. The Trial of Zinn and Thackeray's scavenger hunt are definitely Beyond content, as they were introduced at the same time as the War in Kryta. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to the interview? -Cursed Angel 23:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

[2] --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason

You didn't just upload a new version of the images rather than rename them improperly? -- Wyn talk 12:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Santax, but a Disguise is something totally different than a Costume and there is no reason to get the two confused. -- Wyn talk 12:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

My images were found in the dat, I didn't realise there were already similar images uploaded under the costume filename until after I had uploaded them. Not that it particularly matters about the filename. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I moved them to the costume file name. I guess I think it does matter given the differences between a disguise and a costume. -- Wyn talk 14:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No speculation!

As per on the GW2Wiki, that "source" sounds like complete BS - it sounds like a summarization and an incorrect understanding of the interview with Linsey which said that the Ebon Vanguard will have an important role. Nothing that is known to be official has brought up Ebonhawke, and that "source" probably connected the most-likely false speculation of the Ebon Vanguard forming Ebonhawke. And the FAQ for the book was most likely a typo. Please do not put unconfirmed and speculation, especially stuff which looks like BS, on pages. Not until a consensus is formed, at least. Instead of reverting time and time again (and I didn't violate the 1rr, I only reverted once - I edited the first time). -- Konig/talk 16:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There. A press release. Found using Google - and there are many other sites that seem to have also received this press release. Still sound like BS? --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering what Pling pointed out, yes. Comparing the dates, the one you just linked came out today. They could of found it and copied that information, correcting that erronous mistake. Until more reliable information, I'm saying BS still. I won't care if I'm wrong, but I'd rather be skeptical than going and changing a dozen articles based on what comes from multiple sites I've never heard of. -- Konig/talk 17:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

"[This unedited press release is made available courtesy of Gamasutra and its partnership with notable game PR-related resource GamesPress.]" --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well something was edited since one version of the exact same text says Gwen is an elementalist while the other says she is a mesmer. Clearly there are lies, and I mean, its like that can never happen with press. I mean, honestly. /sarcasm -- Konig/talk

Or...ArenaNet sent the press release to GamesPress, and then, realising their error, corrected it afterwards, but not before a couple of sites had already picked it up. Which seems more likely? And even if there are lies (which you have no evidence for, what motivation would they have to lie anyway?), it shows at the very least that the websites aren't copy-and-pasting from one another. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Santax, since there's still objection to including those pages as references, could you wait until the discussion is over instead of adding in those references regardless? (Also, it would be better to keep this issue discussed in one place, not spread over multiple talk pages on different wikis.) Anyway, I'm not too bothered about using it as a reference anymore. -- pling 15:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The only person who has an objection to the reference is Konig - for some reason he doesn't want to believe that Ebonhawke is established at the end of the War, so he does whatever he can to discredit the source. First he claimed it was a "recap", when that was proved wrong he claimed that it was speculation copied from elsewhere and edited, when that was proved wrong he claimed that there were lies involved - that it was a falsification. He's still claiming it's BS, and the only reason for that I can think of is that he for some reason doesn't want it to be true. It's clearly a press release from ANet, and I can't see why anyone else would think otherwise. But as you wish, I won't use it as a reference on any more pages until this is sorted out. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction: The only people to show objection (which others might not due to it having not been brought up on GW1W except here) would be myself and an IP on GW2W. I think we should keep the discussion to the Guild Wars Beyond page, since that is the original place of this issue. And I never changed my claim. I was never proven wrong. It still looks like a recap with speculation at the end - copied from one site to another. I didn't claim there were lies, I used that as support - its the same argument, but adding on support, instead of making one big wall of text. I don't care what happens in lore I just want to document accurately and keep speculation out of the main article. I don't think it is a press release from Anet because, after reading it multiple times, it shows no credentials as coming from Anet. -- Konig/talk 20:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so out of the 10,000 views that page has had (not to mention the other pages where the article has been referenced), only you and an IP with two edits across both wikis have found issue with the source. You say that you never claimed there were lies, despite saying, and I quote, "Clearly there are lies". Why would a number of reputable websites simultaneously publish identical "recaps" of gw1 and gw2 lore, and then definitively claim they were press releases, complete with all the registered trademark symbols and exclusive screenshots that come with it? If that's not claiming there were lies, I don't know what is. To me it's not speculation, it's confirmed, and removing it is intentionally witholding information of interest. What exactly would you call "credentials", anyway? The press release is consistent with all of ANet's other press releases. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since that post, more people have commented on it, thinking the same as me. Regarding the lies, I meant that whole line in sarcasm... Though if it is speculation being stated as fact, then it is a lie. And 24 hour difference is not "simultaneously." -- Konig/talk 22:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

[3] --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

To step away from the "is this press release right or BS" thing going on. I have been trying to think of a way to include this and this, along with the introductory bits here into the Shining Blade and White Mantle pages. But I haven't a clue how without ruining the flow of the pages... Any ideas? -- Konig/talk 22:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

We could put the first two under "in their own words" sections (phrased better than that obviously), and we could use the War in Kryta introductory bits as the opening sections of their pages. Of course, that could mean we'd have to use the {{quotation}}, which is the ugliest template on the planet when used for walls of text. We used to use {{manual article}}, but then someone took it upon themselves to change every single manual article page to use the quotation template for some reason. We could always use {{arenanet article2}}, although people might not notice it and edit the official ANet stuff (although I see no problem with that as long as they don't remove any information, and I don't think anybody had a problem in the past with editing the manual articles to reword them or what have you). --Santax (talk · contribs) 06:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I don't see how the quotation is the ugliest, to be honest. I quite like it for when its, you know, quoting something - and it easily shows "this is from an official source, don't change it." I don't think we should add the War introductory bits as the opening since it produces big spoilers - especially so for the White Mantle one. Edit: The other two makes it seem like the entire article is official, so I think we should only do that if we decide to make the pages either [[History of the Shining Blade]] or [[Shining Blade/History]] and simply have the whole thing over on that separate page. -- Konig/talk 11:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm

Please see the discussion on Talk:War in Kryta#Encounters. Regardless of whether these areas have separate ids in the dat file, it's a much better way to organize the information. Please discuss there before you continue to revert. Thanks! -- Wyn talk 16:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen the discussion, I'd assumed someone was going all gung-ho :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am... because I think it's ridiculous that this stuff has been in game for 2+ weeks, and has not been properly documented in any organized fashion yet. There has been some support for the idea at least, so I went ahead and made them. I won't have a problem if through ongoing discussion it ends up getting changed, but at least for now, people can with relative ease find it. I made the nav bar to add to the main War in Kryta page, and to link them together, and I kept all the Krytan provinces, to allow for future additions. These pages still need to be linked to the main explorable pages, but at least now they are easier to find if people are searching. -- Wyn talk 16:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are you placing deletion tags on this? Isn't the discussion that has been going on here and here enough consensus for you? Where does it say anywhere that something has to have an ID number in the dat to "exist" on the wiki? I really want to just remove all the deletion tags, because this makes the most sense for documenting this information. -- Wyn talk 19:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The deletion tags are there because there are people who want to delete the pages, me among them. I also, if you'll notice, added a link to the discussion. Deletion tags don't mean "delete this page", they mean "read the discussion about the deletion of the page (which I had linked to), hopefully wait for a consensus, and then make a decision on the deletion of the page". --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please wait until the discussion is complete before you continue to add the War in Kryta content to the main explorable pages. -- Wyn talk 10:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We should be updating pages according to the formatting guidelines until the discussion is resolved instead of intentionally withholding information or placing it in difficult-to-find places. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

So instead, you just make more of a mess by redirecting the original one to the one I created as part of my proposal, and moving the talk page there? You are seriously messing up the history of the pages by doing this... and confusing the issues, and the discussions... it now looks like the discussion from the originally created Talmark Wilderness (war in kryta) page is about the page I created that has the new content separated. It was unnecessary to do that, I only wanted you to keep the meshed content on a SINGLE page.. the one that was originally created, and leave the pages I created as part of my proposal alone, but you just couldn't do that... -- Wyn talk 12:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the Talmark Wilderness (war in kryta) page should never have existed, since it used the wrong case. The Talmark Wilderness (War in Kryta) page, although created as part of your proposal, is the correct name for that explorable instance. It's different for the other pages, since they don't have their own explorable id's, but this is a page for an actual explorable area. It's even linked to the game - which is why your proposal should be kept on a different page from there, and we should just be formatting the explorable area according to the formatting guidelines until then. And the old page no longer served any purpose, as it's been made redundant by Talmark Wilderness (War in Kryta)/Draft. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, you have totally screwed up the page histories, and totally muddied the discussion. Had you simply waited until the discussion was complete, IF people decide to go with a mixed content page, the pages I created could have been easily deleted, and the original page moved to the correct location.. now it's all just a mess. And again, I argue that your premise that because things do or don't have an ID in the dat it gives them some special status. This wiki is for organizing information in a clear and easy to follow way, there are many things here that don't have specific id's or correlations in the dat file, and there is nothing in the locations formatting guideline that says they have to. -- Wyn talk 12:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What's not clear and easy to follow about this, or this? It's certainly easier than splitting content up over multiple pages. And the discussion hasn't been muddied, the bulk of it is here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wilderness

Talmark Wilderness (war in kryta) vs Talmark Wilderness (War in Kryta). Bit of a duplication? Backsword 10:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I created the capitalized one (which is proper) so as to keep the content separate. Santax has since decided to mix it up by adding all the foes and npc's found in the normal version of Talmark, thus defeating my purpose, before the discussion on how to handle things was complete. I believe his edits should be reverted. -- Wyn talk 11:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Those foes and NPC's are also found in the new version of Talmark - nobody is mixing anything up. Not documenting those on the page for the new Talmark is misleading. They are two separate locations and should be treated as such. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please... if you wish to mix the content, then do it on the originally created page Talmark Wilderness (war in kryta) until the discussion is complete. Thanks. -- Wyn talk 11:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

NPCs

Uh, you don't list quest-only npcs/enemies on the explorable as per Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Locations#NPCs. --JonTheMon 14:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Right you are, I'll remove the Titans and stuff now. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)