Talk:Druid

It seems they are Spirits when they spawn like Nature Spirits. But Dark Oak do not react to Gaze of Fury like Aurora Glade, Bloodstone Fen and Sage Land druids. It's a bit confusing. MithranArkanere 23:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Armor
Is the ranger armor REALLY named after them, or just a usage of the word druid/referance to DnD?Tearh 23:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes i think it is named after them, remember that the druids were once DnD-like druids before they turned into spirits --Soulforged 23:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite.php
With due respect to Gordon, the new article looks atrocious. I'm going to revert back to the original form until we figure out how to use this extension. Honestly, I think the experiments should be done in a sandbox before being moved into mainspace, but that's just me. NuVII  10:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on first iteration of citations
The first cite seems useful; we don't have an article that includes the full text of the manuscript and even if we did, it would be hard to find the reference without a magnifying glass. However, we do already have articles for the next 3 cites. Do we really need to repeat the in-game descriptions and dialogues? Wouldn't it make more sense simply to link to the [article#anchor]? And, if that is the right way to go, would it make more sense to link directly (rather than using the cite/reference convention)? In other words, what type of guidelines should we be considering to determine when we need to cite, when we should not cite, and the gray areas in between? &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking, myself, of making four new articles on the whole four manuscripts - we have their entries split up, History of Tyria, History of Cantha, History of Elona, and the various regions/NPCs/races. It's scattered all over the place, I think we should have a Regions and Landscapes, Kingdoms of Tyria, and a few other pages as per the different sections of the main lore sections of the manuscripts. The annoying part for the separation throughout the wiki is not the actual separation, it's that there are multiple entries on some (i.e., Devona and co, Ascalon, Cantha, Elona, Jalis) and the articles on the subject of said entries are not fully quoted. Meh, it's too confusing for me to work out on a possible how-to idea. -- Konig/ talk 01:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you set up 4 main articles with everything, then you can transclude as you find the right way to divide it. That way: there's a searchable main text and more manageable articles on individual topics. Best of both worlds and relatively few of the downsides.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no clue how to "transclude" - or what that even means for that matter... -- Konig/ talk 03:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! Check out the Game updates pages - they "transclude" the 10 most recent update pages onto a single page. That way, "this week's" update page is same as last week's...and at the same time, we have individual pages for each specific update. Transclude = portmanteau word of "transfer" and "include" iirc (might be "transposition").  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Split
I don't think it's necessary. The Forgotten page does the same thing, doesn't it? This doesn't seem different at all. It might need a cleanup though, I suppose. --Kyoshi (Talk) 03:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "only one kind of member of this race"? And the Abomination and Nightmare do relate - while those are creature types and this is a group, it is still the same concept; though I suppose a more similar comparison would be Order of Whispers and Order of Whispers (NPC). -- Konig / talk 04:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, but is it accurate that a link about a group leads to an NPC? Is it accurate that a link for an NPC leads to a group? Would it be accurate if the Nightmare page contained what is there, along with the information of the two NPCs of the same name? It's the same species, same model for the two NPCs, and same name. If we went for sufficiency, this wiki would be a mess. True, we cannot forget about it, but these are two different things - we do not have two different things on the same page. There is a reason why we have disambiguation page. Perhaps, since it is sufficient, we should merge Nightfall (event) with Nightfall (prophecy) and Nightfall. And a hundred other pages as well. Sufficiency isn't the most proficient. -- Konig / talk 05:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no NPC called simply "Forgotten" - that is a race with NPCs that are named "Forgotten " as such all the NPCs have their own page. This, however, is different and is similar to Abomination and Abomination (NPC), Nightmare, Nightmare (Kryta), Nightmare (Ring of Fire Islands) - among many others. The Forgotten page just has an image of the general Forgotten NPC, much like Mursaat and, well, every race/group page (although some utilize concept art if one can be found). -- Konig / talk 03:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a successful argument for merging short articles whenever [Group] and [Group (NPC)] are less than 200 words total. Could you help me to understand how it helps the casual reader of the wiki to have to read two Druid articles, when the current article is around 100 words? &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be inaccurate to have a link about an NPC to the group, and vice versa. You're talking about the group but hold information of a member of the group, it'll be confusing. They are not the same. Size of the article shouldn't matter. -- Konig / talk 04:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I think I see what you're getting at, the Nightmare and Abomination things don't seem to relate. Abomination is a creature type and an NPC name, so having a page for each is reasonable. The Nightmares are completely different creatures, if related, so different pages is natural. As far as the Forgotten page, there is only one kind of member of this race so the comparison still half-holds...but I suppose consistency, in that each individual NPC has its own page, would call for a split, wouldn't it? I support the split, then. --Kyoshi [[File:User Kyoshi sig.png]] (Talk) 04:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "As far as the Forgotten page, there is only one kind of member of this race so the comparison still half-holds..."
 * If we're arguing Affiliation vs NPC, wouldn't it be easier to make Druids the Affiliation page? -- R i ddle 04:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't make articles plural unless the term is always plural. -- Konig / talk 05:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "It would be inaccurate to have a link about an NPC to the group, and vice versa." Isn't it sufficient that an NPC-related link leads to an article that holds the NPC info? Isn't an advantage when the NPC page has room for species info (instead of forcing readers to click again)? I'm not yet convinced that splitting is beneficial. &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 05:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Isn't it sufficient that an NPC-related link leads to an article that holds the NPC info?"
 * I'd suggest this be the disambiguation page, linking to Druid (NPC) and Druid (affiliation) or something to that effect. But I'll let you go where you want with it, really.
 * By "only one kind of member" I meant there is just "Druid" as a race among the "Druid" affiliation, but that's irrelevant because I'm wrong.
 * I do understand your point and I agree with you. (Order of Whispers was definitely a better example.) As I said, I support the split, so don't worry too much about the rest of what I'm saying. =P --Kyoshi [[File:User Kyoshi sig.png]] (Talk) 17:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)