Talk:Living Land

Deletion
The fact that the term "Living land" has been all but expurgated from the wiki (but not replaced with another term) doesn't mean nobody's going to want to search for it. There are over 40,000 google hits still. --mendel 10:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * R2: Unnecessary redirect. This includes redirects for implausible typos or search terms.

There's also a piece of concept art by Katy Hargrove named livingland_katy.jpg, though it's not uploaded here. --mendel 10:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Hardly a common name, as I've never seen it ever used except in the above situation. It appeared to me as a purely wiki-created term, though now it appears to come from a single concept art.
 * It was previously, and incorrectly, used as an "affiliation" - living land is not an affiliation. Elemental was suffering from the same situation that Plant current suffers - someone marked naming consistency (or in the case of living land, a concept art, by all appearances) as affiliations. This was wrong and removed. If there's any affiliation that's solely elementals, it's Djinn but I find that unlikely personally (especially when considering Proph's djinn).
 * Granted, I didn't know of the concept art (please provide a link to somewhere it is located). Concept art, however, is poor definition for such.
 * In regards to Falconeye's summary: "Common name redirect for earth elementals"
 * Provide source of it being used as more than a concept art, then we could remove the delete tag, but not without consensus and a single concept art is hardly enough to create a redirect. Even if it is used, somewhere, it's 1) Not an affiliation and 2) Not common.  Konig / talk 18:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Gordon Ecker added the term "Living land" to gww's precursor, GuildWiki, in November 2006, and it has since found its way onto over 40,000 pages on the web, including its own page on guildwiki.de. You removed that term from this wiki in September 2010. It does not follow from your removal that the term is no longer used in the Guild Wars community. --mendel 23:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see where you're getting 40k articles on Google, as I'm not getting a number anywhere near such. I'd like to ask if there was ever any evidence for the term "living land" being anything but the fact that the land is moving - e.g., a descriptive term (fun fact - there's no "subtype" or anything that'd fit the placement of "living land" so Gordon's placement there was incorrect - except in use as a descriptive term for moving land).
 * In all of my 5 years of playing GW I have not once come across the term living land outside of the few incorrect placements of the term as an affiliation or subtype for certain elementals. And I pay astute attention to lore, mechanics, and community. I'm not saying that it can't be such, but it seems rather unlikely to be "common" from my standpoint. Also note that I not once said "no longer used" - I said common.
 * My removal of the term from what you link was me cleaning up inaccurate documentation, which is still widespread in the topics of affiliation and creature type, it was not and never will be linked to whether I think the term is commonly used in the community or not.  Konig / talk 00:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also find it humorous how you have yet to link to this concept art that you brought up.  Konig / talk 00:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "guild+wars"+"living+land", livingland_katy.jpg --mendel 00:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That concept art never made it into the game, so I fail to see the relevance of it to this particular topic. We don't have redirects based off of concept art titles either anyways. Should be uploaded onto the wiki though. Looked through a bunch of the links in the living land google results (fun fact: I have always sucked at googling and didn't know of the quotation trick). They are all used as a descriptive term for earth elementals or, in some cases, used to describe the crags and mesa elementals (the later being fan-based incorrect documentation of affiliation or sub-type groupings of elementals). In the first case, it doesn't strike me as something that'd be search worth, however I wouldn't be against of a lowercase redirect (it's more reasonable to assume people would type it lowercased imo, since folks aren't typing it out capitalized throughout forums and the like, and through a search, it is used as a descriptive term but again as lowercase), the second case should be wiped completely because it's wrong and has 0% support for such an affiliation/grouping outside of unofficial terminology, which the fewer of the better.  Konig / talk 01:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good job digging up where the Whispers Informant calls those monsters "living lands", proving it is not a "purely wiki-created term" as you initially thought. These beasts usually group together, and have the Sentient Lodestone as their common drop, so it makes sense for players to have a name to refer to them. --mendel 05:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Many creatures share trophy with each other without having a dedicated article or redirect. I fail to see why this is so special when elemental does perfectly.  Konig / talk 05:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

so there's in-game references to it, a history of search hits to it, and no harm in its continued existence... why was this even tagged in the first place? - Auron 10:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)