Talk:River Skale Tad

Profession
who says they are elementlists,granted they use ranged attacks,but that still means they could be 5 other profession!-- Neil2250  Evil Mantis Eats Ragers. 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As they drop elementalist weapons, they in fact can't be another profession. Updating articles. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 00:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Vote on profession
To settle this issue lets just do the traditional vote. Yes for the change, no against it.--The Emmisary 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * no--The Emmisary 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * yes. Voting on such a thing doesn't seem like a good idea to me though. I prefer to discuss so everyone can clearly state their point. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 19:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No on the vote. The wiki is not a democracy. -- R i ddle 19:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Seconded. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 19:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The consensus, however, appears to be that drops are not an adequate indicator of profession, regardless of observed patterns. --Irgendwer 20:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright I guess the easy way to end is has been voted down. Continue your argument.--The Emmisary 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Irgendwer, the consensus is that drops are not a reliable indicator of profession. - Reanimated X 20:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What? That's exactly what I just said. --Irgendwer 20:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahah read that again Reanimated. Fail tbh. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 20:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually reliable and adequate are 2 different things, but whatever, stupid debate is stupid. -- Salome   [[Image:User_salome_sig2.png|19px]] 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not different enough. Also, since I have found another issue that could use knowing this mechanic, it would appear you are wrong and it's not that stupid. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 23:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I like to think there's something that makes different this official wiki than others. We don't decide the data. We study the game, make tests, dive in the gw.dat, and work with what we know for sure. And when we make guesses or note what most players think, we note that they are guesses and that's not for sure. Info boxes for cratures don't have an option for guesses and inaccurate data. If you want to add 'guessed' professions, then you have to change the infobox to note that, adding categories of 'suspected professions' and things like those. That is, we can't just vote and decide what's their profession. We cannot know their profession, so we cannot note it in any other way like a trivia note that says something like "It is suspected that they are elementalists". If a dev looks at this and decided to take the time to either add an 'scan' skill we can use to check the data ourselves or tell us directly the data, then we will be able to note it. Until then, they are like all those NPCs all over the world that DO have professions, but we cannot note them because we cannot know them, since they never use skills. Remember all norn collectores in explorable areas? We know they are all warriors because we have seen them using the skills. But with the rest, we just can't. So we don't guess, we don't vote. We just leave that data empty. That's how I like to think this wiki works. Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 21:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This brings to me another question: So would it be fine to note what I have observed at least in the general drop article as you say? Would be enough for me as I have no special interest in Skale specifically anyway. /agree with voting part. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 22:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Something about lack of counterexamples not serving as viable proof"


 * Yeah, that's what a scientific law is, for the most part. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]] 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The real proof
So let's assume I am wrong. Okay, then it should be incredibly easy to prove it by a single screen. I am not sure if any of you besides Traveler who listed the excepted items though actually even bothered to spend a minute testing this. If you say monsters can drop any items regardless of profession, go outside any town, kill a dozen monsters and post a screen, I ask no more of you. No photoshop allowed. ***EAGLEMUT***  T  A  L K 20:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember that we're still consensus-based community. If consensus approves of Vladimir Lenin, by God, we bring in Vladimir Lenin. -- R i ddle 21:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol
Page length (according to Word 2007):
 * Talk page - 4190 words
 * Article - 82 words

Absolutely priceless. :) --Rainith 22:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hahah good point. Funny that my first real contribution to the wiki turned like this heh. I am wondering what will happen the next time lol. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A picture's worth a thousand words.
 * ...Crap, the talk page has a picture too (sigs don't count). Still, 5190 (well, more now) to 1082 is a somewhat less ridiculous ratio. - Tanetris 05:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahem <_< - M EI F EN   09:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahah nice comic Mei, and pretty accurate lol. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 10:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Although they sound more like a shriek than a roar. Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
Okay even the OP seems to accept that this in itself, is a bit on the pointless side, and that it is more a general topic of interest that is being discussed. Would it not therefore be an idea to create a project to help figure out the intricacies of the drop system and get a few of the wiki-ers involved. Surely that would be more useful to the wiki as a whole than debating a lvl 0's profession despite its lack of access to any skills what so ever. (also as an aside I think it is a necessity in the game coding to assign each enemy a profession, thus why some of the end game bosses without prof skills still drop skill tomes, therefore i think every enemy in the game actually will have a coded proff. In all likelihood skale tads are eles, as all other skales in pre are eles and they do seem to drop a high number of ele drops.) Now can we kindly move on? -- Salome    23:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has contributed to Guild_Wars_Wiki:Projects/Drop_research for a while, so maybe it could be evolved. Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Neptune.jpg|19px]] 23:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * /agree with all Salome. Also, what you say on my compromise of leaving the professions as they are and just add a note about the drops to drop? That should satisfy everyone around here. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 00:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to have more than ~3 people "confirm" that piece of information (ANet confirming it will work, too) before we do anything with it. If it is true, then perhaps we could do drop research for individual monsters to see if there are any anomalies to the pattern (like an ele dropping mesmer items consistently.) -- R i ddle 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm game. I'll do what I can. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler  02:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done some recently, so why not? - J.P.[[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png| ]] Talk  17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Off to do some research! I must admit that I've been paying more attention to drops lately, and I'm still to see a profession specific wand/focus skin to drop from a different profession. Anyway, I'll be testing Fire Imps for a while, as someone reported a necromancer offhand (Idol dropping from then in the talk page. Probably it dropped from one of the Bog Skales that roam near the Imps, but it's worth a try. --Lhoj 18:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @Riddle: Sounds okay to me. Also, I am very glad to see that my researching inspired more people into more researching :) Looking forward to see any other observation you might find! ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 19:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be fun. I'll try to contribute, hopefully after we get a reply from ANet. --Kyoshi [[File:User Kyoshi sig.png]] (Talk) 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Summing up this talk page
Invisible pink unicorns are real. Prove to me otherwise. 76.2.21.99 00:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Summing up this section. lolfail trolololololol. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 00:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument in a nutshell.76.2.21.99 00:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To spell this out more clearly, not being able to provide a counterexample against a theory does not make said theory fact. Since your argument is basically, "you can't provide a counterexample, so I must be right," (despite counterexamples being shown), your argument is flawed. It can't be proven that the skale are elementalists, therefore it has no place on the official wiki.76.2.21.99 00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference between that and your pink unicorns is that we have evidence that suggests the former. When you see hoof prints appearing out of nowhere and hear disembodied neighs, we'll look into your pink unicorn theory.
 * Once again, most modern scientific law is based on a plausible explanation for phenomena that cannot (or has not) been disproved. We can't ask the devs of the universe to confirm our speculation by checking the source code; we can only experiment, document the results, create "rules" that explain said results, and revise them at such point that counterexamples arise.
 * We have tons of (screened and verified) data that suggests that Eaglemut's proposition is correct. His proposition is a plausible explanation of that data.  I don't see why we can't adhere to it until data arises that proves otherwise.  &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  1:15, 14 Aug 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said Raine, thanks for explaining. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 01:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said Raine, thanks for explaining. ***EAGLEMUT***   T  A  L K 01:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)