User talk:Santax/2010/May
From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Archived Discussions
2007
2010
Titles
I don't mind the revert, I never noticed the differences, but can you at least put the titles back to a better form? G R E E N E R 00:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Once again
You are ignoring the fact there is an active discussion regarding the separation of WiK content from main content, why did you change the navigation template? I would really appreciate it if you would revert your edit. -- Wyn 
talk 15:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- I changed it to document the new War in Kryta explorable areas, while removing the ones that don't exist. Without being rude, all I'm doing is documenting the game as we have done as long as the wiki has been running, we can document your imaginary explorable areas if and when the discussion decides in favour of that. In the meantime, though, I'm not willing to wait around for this stupid and pointless discussion to be resolved before letting the game go undocumented. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to read or respond to the current discussion that's going on regarding separating the information on the explorable pages. And stop with your protestations of THEY DON'T EXIST. People don't believe you, or buy into it since there are obviously very separate areas (whether reflected in the dat or not) based on whether a player has unlocked the WiK content. I wish you would just see this, instead of continuing this. -- Wyn
talk 18:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're just wrong. The Peacekeepers, Mantle, etc. are just spawns altered based on when certain conditions are met. There's nothing to suggest otherwise. We don't have a different page for the version of the Underworld when Gwen is taken there, why should this be any different? And while we're on the subject, why did you remove Lion's Arch and Divinity Coast from the WiK EA template? Please say it wasn't just so you could put your imaginary explorable areas back on? Those are new explorable areas - by both my definition and your definition. I want to assume good faith but the only reason I can think of for you to have made that edit is to try to get one up on me. And it's clear that you have a problem with me, both from the emails you sent and the baseless accusations you have thrown around. I ask that you stop with this pathetic little vendetta you have going here, it's wasting everyone's time. Do you even care about documenting the game anymore? Because the way you'd have it, we'd stop everything to wait until this pointless discussion about imaginary explorable areas is resolved. I am going to continue documenting the game the way the wiki always has done until the discussion is resolved. That way, even if we have to split everything afterwards, at least it'll be documented. I'd suggest you actually make some constructive edits and do the same, but it's increasingly clear that all you're interested in is getting your way. --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- New explorable or not, there needs to be a separation of Prophecies and WiK in the pages. This is the thing you ignore Santax. -- Konig/talk 20:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- The reasons this should be different are many Santax. For one thing, the differences you talk about in the UW when Gwen is there are a matter of some relatively minor dialogue. The differences that players encounter after unlocking the WiK content are many. Dialogue, many additional spawns of foes, and in many cases additional allies. For a player who has not unlocked the WiK content to go to the main explorable page and see all these additional foes, and allies with various notes saying.. this one shows up if you have done x, y and z.. etc. is just confusing and unclear. However, if they go to the page and see the things they are actually seeing in the explorable, and then a section that says... If you have completed x, y and z, then you will find additional stuff link, it will be much easier for them to understand. Not to mention the sheer volume of dialogue in some of these areas where there are multiple encounters. It simply makes the pages overly long and unwieldy. This is why the information should be treated differently than the UW with Gwen. This is an entirely new set of content when it's been unlocked. There are many people who agree with me, if you bother to read the encounters discussions that are currently taking place on Talk:War in Kryta you will see that. -- Wyn talk 23:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- When there are divergent pieces of information on a single page, it can be beneficial to separate that out into a different page, depending on the level of divergence. I believe WiK content demonstrates a sufficient level of divergence. Collector pages are an example of this. --JonTheMon 04:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well I don't think there's anything more I can say about us documenting new explorable areas that the game doesn't actually consider new explorable areas, so the community'll have to decide on that one. But there are other concerns, like this. You could easily get the impression from reading that page that those are the only NPC's on the map, which is just misleading. Far more confusing, imo, than the alternative. Oh, and I don't think there is a precedent for this, from what I can see the reason collector pages are separated out is so those bits can be transcluded onto separate pages. Tell you what, as a compromise, I won't touch the pages that might get split (NKP, Nebo Terrace etc.) and make draft pages instead until the discussion is resolved. Sound good? --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- When there are divergent pieces of information on a single page, it can be beneficial to separate that out into a different page, depending on the level of divergence. I believe WiK content demonstrates a sufficient level of divergence. Collector pages are an example of this. --JonTheMon 04:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- The reasons this should be different are many Santax. For one thing, the differences you talk about in the UW when Gwen is there are a matter of some relatively minor dialogue. The differences that players encounter after unlocking the WiK content are many. Dialogue, many additional spawns of foes, and in many cases additional allies. For a player who has not unlocked the WiK content to go to the main explorable page and see all these additional foes, and allies with various notes saying.. this one shows up if you have done x, y and z.. etc. is just confusing and unclear. However, if they go to the page and see the things they are actually seeing in the explorable, and then a section that says... If you have completed x, y and z, then you will find additional stuff link, it will be much easier for them to understand. Not to mention the sheer volume of dialogue in some of these areas where there are multiple encounters. It simply makes the pages overly long and unwieldy. This is why the information should be treated differently than the UW with Gwen. This is an entirely new set of content when it's been unlocked. There are many people who agree with me, if you bother to read the encounters discussions that are currently taking place on Talk:War in Kryta you will see that. -- Wyn
- New explorable or not, there needs to be a separation of Prophecies and WiK in the pages. This is the thing you ignore Santax. -- Konig/talk 20:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're just wrong. The Peacekeepers, Mantle, etc. are just spawns altered based on when certain conditions are met. There's nothing to suggest otherwise. We don't have a different page for the version of the Underworld when Gwen is taken there, why should this be any different? And while we're on the subject, why did you remove Lion's Arch and Divinity Coast from the WiK EA template? Please say it wasn't just so you could put your imaginary explorable areas back on? Those are new explorable areas - by both my definition and your definition. I want to assume good faith but the only reason I can think of for you to have made that edit is to try to get one up on me. And it's clear that you have a problem with me, both from the emails you sent and the baseless accusations you have thrown around. I ask that you stop with this pathetic little vendetta you have going here, it's wasting everyone's time. Do you even care about documenting the game anymore? Because the way you'd have it, we'd stop everything to wait until this pointless discussion about imaginary explorable areas is resolved. I am going to continue documenting the game the way the wiki always has done until the discussion is resolved. That way, even if we have to split everything afterwards, at least it'll be documented. I'd suggest you actually make some constructive edits and do the same, but it's increasingly clear that all you're interested in is getting your way. --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Did you even bother to read or respond to the current discussion that's going on regarding separating the information on the explorable pages. And stop with your protestations of THEY DON'T EXIST. People don't believe you, or buy into it since there are obviously very separate areas (whether reflected in the dat or not) based on whether a player has unlocked the WiK content. I wish you would just see this, instead of continuing this. -- Wyn
[1]
You Sir, are my hero. -- 
Lacky 11:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks? :P I see it got reverted, some people don't have a sense of humour obviously :P not gonna add it back though 'cause I don't want an edit war over a little joke. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
NPC's
It should be Category:War in Kryta NPCs, without the apostrophe, similar to Category:NPCs. -- pling 
15:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ah okay, I was going with this - I usually put an apostrophe when pluralising acronyms. Will move now. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Dialogue Removal
Just wondering why you removed all the dialogue from Inquisitor Bauer's page?--Wingsy 17:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- We generally document that sort of thing on the explorable area page (see GWW:NPC), since those are dialogues between Bauer and other NPC's, and not dialogues prompted by a click or anything. I thought I may as well remove it while I'm adding the cat. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough :D --Wingsy 19:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Rahter than rv
[2] If you wan to create a landmark aricle, tha's compleely fine, it might very well deserve one, however here are many Asuran labs ou here, some already wih aricles, so i needs a beer name. Backsword 00:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've changed the link to Zinn's lab (as opposed to [[Zinn's secret lair|his older one). I think that's the best name for it. -- Konig/talk 00:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Wanted: Inquisitor Lashona
As I got reverted by you, and I'm new at using the Wiki, I have a question. Shouldn't we follow the same model of page used on the Zaishen Bounty? I mean, image of the guy up, tiny map at the bottom? Enoxon 17:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is what we generally do for quests, but there's not that many different models of enemies for White Mantle and Peacekeeper, and the map should be at the top because it's the first thing players will look for on these White Mantle quests. It's just making the page more usable is all. Welcome to the wiki btw :) --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your reasons, my only concern is that there is no current model of page uphold on all the quests. As such, there are the ones I edited with the map at the bottom and the render on top, and the ones you edited with the map at the top. There are also some that just have the map at the bottom and no render, edited by other users. Also, shouldn't we follow wiki policy for these things? Thanks for the attention :) Enoxon 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there are the quest formatting guidelines, and they do suggest putting a map on the bottom, but those are just guidelines, and I think it's more appropriate for single-objective quests like the bounties to have the map at the top. If you feel very strongly about it, you can always revert my revert, and because of 1RR I can't un-revert your revert - who knows, maybe it could spark some more discussion of this with other users? --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Naaa, too much trouble for now. Also, as I said before, I understand your point. So, I'm just gonna let all the heat cool off and then maybe I'll think of changing it. Thanks for the reply mate :) Enoxon 23:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there are the quest formatting guidelines, and they do suggest putting a map on the bottom, but those are just guidelines, and I think it's more appropriate for single-objective quests like the bounties to have the map at the top. If you feel very strongly about it, you can always revert my revert, and because of 1RR I can't un-revert your revert - who knows, maybe it could spark some more discussion of this with other users? --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your reasons, my only concern is that there is no current model of page uphold on all the quests. As such, there are the ones I edited with the map at the bottom and the render on top, and the ones you edited with the map at the top. There are also some that just have the map at the bottom and no render, edited by other users. Also, shouldn't we follow wiki policy for these things? Thanks for the attention :) Enoxon 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
