User talk:Santax

I thought you hated the quotation template
Yet for both Winds of Change and now War in Kryta, you've gone and done nothing but added a quotation. The latter also fitting the issue that it's limited in the background - and imo a poor substitute for what was there previously as it makes no mention of Salma, who's a central character, or Saul/Dorion, who are important to why the White Mantle are acting as such, or the Mursaat's situation, which is also important to the story.  Konig / talk 21:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not fond of the quotation template at all, but so far the GW:EN manual gives the best summary of post-Factions Cantha. It's better than nothing, no? As for the War in Kryta page, that was mainly for consistency with WoC (and future consistency with the Ascalon chapter's page - given what we know so far about it the GW:EN manual seems, again, to provide an excellent summary of the situation, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Live Team are using it as a reference). If people want a more detailed summary than is currently provided on the WiK page, well, that's why we have main. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, the consistency should of been the other way around. When you put up the WoC "lore background" we didn't know more, but now we know more - most of the background focuses on the Yuudachi family and Tahnnakai Temple (that event led to the MoP's founding). We don't know much yet still, but we know more that we can have something other than the quotation from the EN manual. WiK was better off how it was, imo, though it wasn't as good as it could be. Ascalon's chapter actually wouldn't work best with the EN manual from what I know - it would deal with Ebonhawke and the Ebon Vanguard's recalling, and Evennia's disappearance (supposedly on that last part), along with a continuing of the Ascalon/Charr war. Only the last bit is really explained in the EN manual - everything else is explained best via WiK.
 * And I can tell you that they are not using the EN manual, as there was something I spotted when testing which by all appearances contradicted the manual and to paraphrase Andrew: If what's in the manual is not in-game, they are free to work around it; in essence, there can be times when the manual "is wrong."  Konig / talk 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't got as far as Tahnnakai Temple in WoC yet so I can't comment on any of that, although from what you say it seems like "new" lore that players would discover as they progressed through the storyline and therefore not be appropriate as background anyway.
 * The recall of the Vanguard and the establishment of Ebonhawke would (I gather) take place during the Ascalon storyline, and so wouldn't be considered background lore anyway. The Evennia thing could be a glaring omission though, depending on how significant her disappearance is.
 * Finally, obviously if there is a case where you know the manual to be categorically incorrect we would not use that, but generally I think constantly second-guessing the manual is something to be avoided. --Santax (talk · contribs) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thus far Tahnnakai Temple is not in WoC outside of a simple encounter. It is "new lore" but it's the background behind it. Unlike WiK, we literally have just Factions on WoC, which is literally just the main storyline - and, in particular, the Tahnnakai Temple mission (or rather, just the fact that it was invaded) as the build-up for WoC was a "behind the scenes" by all appearances.
 * What I meant for the Ebon Vanguard and Ebonhawke was that the events which lead to that is mostly seen in HotN - for what there is to be seen - rather than in the manual, which merely states that the Ebon Vanguard are in the north and that Ascalon is still at war. Summarizing Prophecies would be a better job than quoting the EN manual.
 * I agree on the manual part, but there's a difference between "background of a story" and "background of a scenario" - a scenario is the background for a story, a background of a scenario is the history to the story. Important but far from specific enough to be of any help. The EN manuals - what you put up in both cases and what you suggest putting up for when/if we return to Ascalon - are backgrounds of a scenario. Original words, in this case, is far superior. Though in WoC's case, I don't think we can accurately do such until we know more than just one part.  Konig / talk 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if we should have "new" lore as background, I can easily see it confusing readers who will think they might have missed something. It could go in some hypothetical "Winds of Change (event)" page where everything is arranged chronologically maybe, but for a brief summary I think we're better off without.
 * In any event, I've slightly altered the way that the lore backgrounds section is set out for both articles, I think this way we can both get what we want. See what you think. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

An Empire Divided
Why did you move it without even a discussion? That is not how things are done, and it's not a subtitle but the whole title. Please don't do that again, the least you could of done was put it up for discussion.  Konig / talk 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's very much a subtitle, by definition. Also there's nothing wrong with someone being bold on what they believe will be an uncontroversial move (though of course anyone else is still free to disagree and propose a move back). I suggest discussing the actual merits of the article names (on the appropriate talk page) rather than criticizing Santax's action. - Tanetris 22:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I was scolded in the past for lesser moves. By both non-admins and admins (the admins came later).  Konig / talk 01:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the links to the long form of the title. The vast majority of them were from the lore nav template, and that was a piped link displaying the short form. I've fixed that. As far as I can tell, none of the other mainspace links actually need to be to the long form, and many of them were also piped links. So I've also fixed those. I think we can do away with the redirect now. -- Hong 11:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Renders
There you go :P I tried to recreate the angle of the picture as good as possible. My first render ended up viewing the wrong side lol, so I had to do it again >_>. Anyway, the Shiro'ken model is having some issues, many models have that, but I saught help on a forum so I should be able to render it eventually. -- Magamdy 12:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Was just about to post on your talk, thanks! Only two images to go on that page now :D I can see how you'd have trouble with the construct, it only appears in some areas and IIRC it only ever appears with a boss aura. Thanks for all your hard work, though! --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the boss aura can be removed with one click really. The problem is that (beware for technobabble) the model has some 2D parts, and those 2D parts have black spaces between them, so called Alpha Channels. Those channels can be removed, but sometimes, like in this case, the whole model gets removed with it...So yeah.. gotta fix that lol. -- Magamdy 13:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, everyone seems to ignore my pleas for help with the Shiro'ken model. One thing I can do is take another look at it myself, although I still have no idea what to do. I could also just use the model with the alpha channels still visible, but that means there will be some ugly black spaces visisble :\ -- Magamdy 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, and I'm guessing these black bits can't be removed with Photoshop or anything like that? :/ If it's too much trouble, don't worry about it. Thanks very much for trying in any event! --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In Game Events
Every single entry on that site's page has the quotes used on the wiki pages, and to my knowledge, whenever a quote is posted on the official site, it is carried over to the wiki. The exception found were those two missing them. Each are official quotes, and that articles can be rewritten to reduce redundancy. So please stop reverting them. But if you feel so strongly about it, at least continue removing all the quotes from the other pages, because it was only consistent with the changes that *I* made. • • • Mora   16:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The only one that I consider relevant to WiK and WoC is Hearts of the North. The wiki doesn't consider Beyond content to be the same as any of those other events - that's why they aren't included in Special events nav or Category:Special events. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

1RR
Just b/c it's a dispute with a single user doesn't mean 1RR doesn't apply. --JonTheMon 19:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I had believed that Mora added the quote under the guise of "conistency" when in fact it was they who had created the thing to be consistent with by adding it back onto the WiK first. But I won't do it again. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Concept art namechanges
I was rushed for time yesterday after marking up those redirects so I didn't get around to bringing this up; I want to now before you move/upload anymore concept art files. I have 2 primary issues about the naming system you began: 1) The quotation marks (") are unnecessary and create an annoyance in the categories (having to have | and in some cases you went with | creating a bigger difference because now you have some with, say, Da being after some with, say, Dr). Secondly, art is redundant - obviously its going to be art; and in fact, some are concept renders but are still concept. As such, I propose the following naming system for all new and previous concept art:  - short, simple, precise yet also generic. For those with names provided which include something generic by the artist, for instance File:CH2 Beetle Hulk.jpg or File:Katy costumesfemale2.jpg, we'd remove the said "something generic" - in this case CH2 and Katy respectively - and put to the normal naming - for those two,   and  . Lastly, for those files which do not give a "proper" name, I say either a) leave as is - e.g., File:GWXPostDos020.jpg stays as such - or b) we rename to something that it obviously is - e.g., File:KKF13.jpg should be renamed to. Which of those two would be done on a base by base situation.  Konig / talk 22:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree about the annoyance of the quotation marks, me initially putting them as | was a bit of a brain fart; once they are all converted to | they *should* all be ordered correctly within their own letter of the alphabet - that was my cock-up and I'm willing to go through and sort that out before I continue uploading. I actually generally agree with you about the quotation marks. All of Daniel Dociu's artwork has been renamed with quotation marks because those denote the "titles" of the artwork, which are clearly defined by his website. In other cases, such as that of File:2549129 orig.jpg, I would have no problem of simply describing what the art depicts as part of the file name, without quotation marks (as you gave in your example above of ), as those artworks do not have a proper title. These should also categorise in the correct order with |.
 * I'm less certain about dropping the "art" from filenames. While I find it unlikely that anyone will actually be confused by "concept", I'd be more comfortable just removing that little bit of extra ambiguity by describing something as "concept art", which has a much narrower and clearly defined definition than  "concept". The only harm I can see in doing as such is in the having to type an extra four letters each time. --Santax (talk · contribs) 01:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if the category is fixed, you still have the issue that the concept art now automatically clogs up "File:" in the quick search. Previously it was shout skills (and the concept art also clogs that up). It's not a big issue, but I think that concept art would be searched far more easily without the quotation marks. I don't think there's really a need to diffentiate between "official names" or not. For all wwe know, the official name of the Toviros concept is "envoy bull head dude of awesome twinaxes" - which I personally wouldn't prefer over "Toviros concept (art)." Fair point on the art part, so it doesn't matter to me in the end on that particular issue. The quotation marks still vex me though.  Konig / talk 02:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To be honest, with the shout skills already, I don't think the quick search was ever really searchable like that in the file namespace. It's more difficult now if you already knew what the title of the CA you were looking for was (although the simplified naming system in some ways makes it easier), but that's what the massive categorization drive is about - so people can find more easily what they're after. As for official names, I think it's really important we preserve where possible ANet's names for the concept art. Some of them, for example File:"City of Gods" concept art.jpg, tell us things about the art that we would have not known otherwise. --Santax (talk · contribs) 03:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then here's my suggestion as a compromise:
 * If we have a good official title, we do what you were doing (quotations around the title, then concept art).
 * If the title we get is something like KKF13 or whatnot, we do one of two things, depending on the situation:
 * If we know what it's of (e.g., the four envoys), we make up a title but no quotation marks (e.g., files like File:Vetaura concept.jpg remain unchanged, as the orginal versions vary between a KKF# name to a #orig name).
 * If we don't know what it is, remain unchanged until/unless another source of the image from artist or Anet is found with a better title (such as from artbooks if they include one).
 * Any opposition? If not, I'll start doing that for Kekai's works, as I looked through all I can find of his.  Konig / talk 21:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I saw this...  Konig / talk 23:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd have no problem with your proposal. If we can't find a proper name for the title, then I definitely agree we should simply describe the image (but without quotation marks, so people know that it's not the images title) if possible. What situation do you anticipate where we would be leaving the original title unchanged? I imagine most artworks will be easily described. By the way, I have a large (700+ images) folder of concept art gathered from artist websites, do you want me to send it? --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I only see titles being left unchanged for things not implemented in the game. So most Utopia/EN stuff with technical naming. And I'd rather not describe them (like it was done for GDC images over on the GW2W) but if we know if its of a certain NPC/place, we put the NPC/place's name rather than the technical name. E.g., GWCH2Cha005.jpg becomes "Factions armor concept art5.jpg" (5 because there's 5 up there that I see) and GuildWars2.jpg becomes "Echovald pillars concept art.jpg" - what we wouldn't do would be to move something like File:GWXPostDos010.jpg to "army march concept art.jpg" as that becomes unnecessary and the technical name may be better. I'm also considering splitting off the various combined concept where possible - such as File:KGW.jpg and File:Monster3.jpg, as its obvious anything with multiple images was put together for showing off, and I have alternate versions of the images in Monster2.jpg and Monster.jpg - these alternate versions giving new creatures too. Or would you prefer they are kept together? Lastly, regarding the Utopia/EN concept art - I think it'd be better rather than renaming the Utopia concept art category to "Possibly Utopia" we merge the Utopia and EN concept art, since its nigh impossible to properly split anything not in the game. And of course have the Utopa/EN concept art as sub-categories. In other words, the concept art we know relates to one of the two but not sure which one goes in "Eye of the North and Utopia concept art" while those we do know go in either "Eye of the North concept art" or "Utopia concept art."  Konig / talk 18:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Why.......
Did you replace all profession renders with half-assed artwork? That is not cool >:( -- Magamdy 12:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Half-assed? Those are the official renders that ANet used to design the professions...nevertheless, I'll add the in-game appearances further down the page in a gallery section. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No man, those pages were good as they were, and those renders were official too, made someone who work(ed)s for anet. -- Magamdy 12:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But people are going to see those every day when they log onto GW, they aren't going to see the hi-res renders ever. Using in-game as the main pic on the page is the boring option. Besides, the images used in the gallery sections depict exactly the same thing as the game enging render, but in higher resolution, and with male and female separate, so it's better for readers anyway. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take Shiro Tagachi as an example. You have a render of the ingame model in the infobox as main picture, and artworks beneath it. Should be the same for profession pages. After all, we're documenting this game, so "We don't use this image cuz you can see it ingame" seems a pretty inapropriate argument here. Btw, the proffesion pages have been like that since 2007, so randomly changing them because you don't like them is not the way to go. I also think it makes the pages look much worse. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Magamdy (talk).
 * Shiro Tagachi is an NPC page - completely different. If Shiro had artwork as the main image, you'd have to make every other NPC page the same for consistency, which is just impossible. Not to mention the fact that you're less likely to see Shiro in-game than you are, say, a Warrior. There's an actual chance that people will visit Shiro's page wanting to know what he looks like, but what are the chances that people would do the same for a Warrior?
 * Saying that it's been that way since 2007 is no argument for leaving it that way. That's an appeal to tradition, a common logical fallacy. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not gonna edit war with ya, but placing the artworks there looks pretty terrible. Might I recommend putting the renders we had back, and adding the artwork left-aligned alongside the attributes? Also, when someone protests what you're doing, it's better to stop and work out the problem on talk rather than steamrolling along with what you're doing. - Tanetris 12:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like a fair compromise. The continued editing after Magamdy left the message on my talk wasn't me continuing what I was doing btw, it was adding back the info (in-game pics of males and females) that Magamdy objected to the removal of. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What I suggest is that you indeed put back the renders, and then try to find some other profession artwork to fill up the gallery. That seems a lot better imo. -- Magamdy 13:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no way to pull that off and keep all the pages consistent with each other. Why are you so against using the hi-res renders on the pages? --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, since this is a game wiki, how something looks in-game should always have priority over eventual artwork. And I have problems with them because they make, as Tanetris said, the page look far worse. Also, you tagged them as renders, what they are not. They may be drawn images or 3D model. In the 3D model case, they are officially classified as renders in the world of 3D models, but not here on the wiki, where a render is a render of an in-game model. -- Magamdy 13:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eventual artwork? These were created before the game was created, the professions are based on them. And with Tanetris' proposal above, the in-game render of both male and female in the same image would be back on the page, and in a more prominent position than the hi-res renders, so they would, as you say, "have priority" over the hi-res renders anyway. And I'm afraid they are renders, unless you can point me to a discussion which agrees that the wiki defines renders differently to ANet. As for making the page look far worse, that assessment surprises me as ANet's artists aren't exactly known for making terrible art. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then why don't you change the pages like Tanetris proposed? Then we can stop this discussion, since you don't seem to be listening to me anyway. I explained well enough why those artworks of yours aren't classified as renders here on the wiki. If the would be classified as renders, they would be exactly the same as this Luxon warrior.jpg, and that cleary is not the case...... -- Magamdy 13:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While the concept art is nice and all, when going to a page it would be nice to immediately see both the male and female artwork. And yeah, I wouldn't classify those images you added as renders; they're more artwork. --JonTheMon 13:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to originally, but your language ("try to find some other profession artwork") suggested that you would be against that, so I held off. And if I weren't listening, then I wouldn't have added back in-game images of the professions to the gallery sections, which I did. And you have failed to point me to any discussion where it was decided that the wiki's definition of "render" would be different to ANet's, or indeed, anyone else's. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, the cg is nice and all, but on this wiki the generally accepted definition for render is short for "in-game render", not artwork render or cg render. --JonTheMon 14:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ Indeed. And with not listening I mean that you keep repeating the same things, which force me to keep repeating the same things; namely that in game models have priority over eventual artwork. Doesnt matter at all if that artwork is official or good or bad or 3d or whatever. -- Magamdy 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike using renders over in-game screenshots, I'd rather have the renders than the artwork on top. It gives a more formal and standard appearance. Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Neptune.jpg|19px]] 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what I've trying to say the whole time. The renders make the page looks better. I have said nothing about the renders or the artworks themselves. -- Magamdy 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that looks a whole lot better. -- Magamdy 14:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A little late to chime in since this discussion happened while I slept. But I agree with Magamy that in-game renders take priority over concept art. However, I find that the current form of Elementalist is utterly distasteful and horrendous. Then again, I find all 10 profession articles to be highly lacking. Rather than arguing about which images to use or how to use them both, why not figure out how to improve the words of the articles, because as it stands, those articles are far too small for anything but one image, except in the form of a section.  Konig / talk 20:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Arenanet article2
I don't think those articles are "comprised of only ArenaNet sources" --JonTheMon 16:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since this is on the same topic, may I ask where your source for your additional lore on Paragon came from? It sounds familiar but I don't think there's such a thing as "Mists of Eternity" - unless its referring to the Mists.  Konig / talk 20:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is the Guild Wars Nightfall Pre-Release Bonus Pack. There's also a description of the Paragon and Dervish on there that slightly differs from the one on the website and in the manual, but I'm not sure where that should go yet.
 * As for use of the template, I'd say that literally everything on the weapon pages is either a verbatim description of the item or technical information. The profession pages are pushing a bit because concept art galleries, trivia sections and see also sections aren't official, but the bulk of the content is verbatim descriptions of attributes and descriptions of the profession from official sources. And there was no way I was willing to use quotation on those pages again - 2 quotes in a row is bad enough, 3 consecutive quotes, one of which being a massive wall of text for both pages would have looked awful. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)