User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive03

Desolation!
My creativity on updating this thing has worn out... so before replacing the Desolation Run with my current version I'd like you to take a look. Comments/edits before it's transferred over will be good. Linky: User:Aro/sandbox. Aro 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't speak towards the accuracy (Kormir knows, I'm no runner), so I can only address the flow, language, usability/teachability, and overall impression. It looks to me as if you have done very well. I made some minor edits (mostly, adding/removing stubs, adding redlinks to maps that should probably be in the article).


 * I don't think there's anything that must be added/fixed before moving to the mainspace; the beauty of a wiki is that others will help improve the article after you've set this strong foundation for the article.


 * One thing that would be very helpful if/when you have time would be to place colored markers on the map, showing landmarks, important foe locations, shrines, safe spots, and so forth. (The article doesn't require them, but they do make it easier for folks to follow in your, ahem, shadow steps.)


 * Again, my overall impression is that this is a solid article and ready for mainspace. Gz! — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Feedback/Suggestion Process?
OK, so I have jumped through all the hoops and created a suggestion page. What's the next step? Is there any sort of review/process for them? From what it looks like with other suggestions in the same category, the only comments seem to come from other wiki users, and some of those suggestions have been in there for a long time. Is there any indication that they are actually read or considered by Arenanet employees? Silromenar Curutur 21:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They are read by Anet employees, but you will not see them commenting on the feedback pages. Wiki users, as you saw, give their two-cents. Concepts are taken and discussed by Anet in their offices (leading some to erroneously claim that it never happens because they don't see the process). If something is implemented, the feedback pages will not be edited by Anet, either. This is, of course, a general statement. G R E E N E R  21:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so it's basically a black hole. Glad I bothered to go into detail, then. I guess that means I am done here for now. Silromenar Curutur 21:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Feedback is a one-way street: we talk to ANet (and each other) and they almost never talk back. However, we can see evidence that they are listening and acting on our suggestions. If you do the math, you can see why it's likely to remain that way: for GW1, there are barely a handful of people at ANet and hundreds of suggestions. Any time ANet staff respond (see: Feedback talk:John Stumme and Feedback talk:Joe Kimmes), folks digress into all sorts of tangents and we (as a community) waste a huge percentage of their discretionary time.


 * You'll see that I'm not discouraged by this: I create suggestions (including detailed ones) and comment on other people's thoughts. Given the limited resources that ANet has (and the number of ideas that they have on their own), I'm impressed with how often player feedback affects the product.


 * I'd also like to see more change by NCSoft, which sets a lot of the customer service policies/guidelines/rules. Reading between the lines, my guess is that NCSoft doesn't pay that much attention to ANet staff, so there's less progress in this area. Still, there have been changes (probably because a dedicated few ANet staff keep pushing for improvements).


 * I'm glad you have taken time to put your thoughts into a formal suggestion. I'll keep an eye out for your suggestion space and lend my support (assuming, o/c that I agree). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 22:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know the drill; I have been there on both sides of this equation (I am in the industry). Thanks for the info, though! Silromenar Curutur 08:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My apologies; I misread your comments. (Or we can pretend that I was offering the digression above as a primer for others unfamiliar with Customer Relationship Management .) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Sandbox
Mind if you figure out something regarding the categories on that page? Rather bothersome, to me at least, to see user pages in mainspace categories. -- Konig / talk 05:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Whoops &mdash; that usually bothers me, too. I am surprised I didn't notice that before.


 * For the future, you have permission to edit anything in my user space (I trust your editing...and, at worst, I can revert if I think it didn't fit the spirit). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 05:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not fond of you removing the categories on the main space pages. Official names or not, they should remain. Other non-official creature type names are in categories, and should remain such too. :| -- Konig / talk 07:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what happened. I followed the link you provided and edited the cats on that page. I thought I was editing within the sandbox. I didn't realize when I edited the "section" that the wiki had taken me to a mainspace page. (Wasn't paying attention, unfortunately.)


 * Short story: there's no easy way to setup an example within a user sandbox that transcludes mainspace articles without also transcluding categories. The only ways to "fix" this are:
 * re-write from scratch via copy & paste &mdash; this defeats the point of the example.
 * add tags to the original source articles so that the categories are not transcluded &mdash; provides unnecessary confusion to mainspace article.
 * Delete the example
 * Move the example from my user space into a sub-page (as a /draft) of something else &mdash; this adds some confusion, but probably less than leaving it in my user space.


 * I don't love any of those choices. However, since someone removed the link that pointed there, I'm gonna just comment out the page until the issue of splitting/merging comes up again. — ''

Tennessee Ernie Ford'' ( TEF ) 08:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial/Official Update Notes
I understand the reason for this edit--it hasn't appeared on GuildWars.com yet--but would you object to changing the text back to the official note? Currently, it looks as though the note has come from the community, but this information is official. It will likely appear on the main website when those responsible for keeping it updated return from the holiday break. » Matthew Moore 20:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection now. Previously, I couldn't see any sourcing for attributing the update note to ANet. Thanks for letting me know. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's definitely a grey area when the note isn't on the official site yet. I appreciate you keeping an eye out. » Matthew Moore 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if I had paid more attention to who added created the page... My apologies for not recognizing you as ANet staff. I very much appreciate it when folks take the time to keep stakeholders informed of what's going on. Especially as there are protocols that need to be followed. Thanks for your patience and for letting us know. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 22:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to share it with someone, I choose you because you edited the edit I made
18:13 The Great Destroyer (cur; prev). . (+666) . . Konig Des Todes (Talk | contribs) (Lore is not trivial) Ironic, don't ya think? -- Konig / talk 00:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * 
 * lmao. Are you sure that's an ironic reference about evil dragons (and not about Kings of the Dead)? ;-) (More seriously, good eye &mdash; I completely missed it. And: I'm honored that you chose to share it with me.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's King of Death (well, technically, it's Konig of Death). :| -- Konig / talk 05:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, was my attempt at parallel construction, evil dragons vs kings of death looked better than w/o the s. And, I suppose, the missing umlaut uncrowns the name, so... TEF: 0, Grammarians: 2. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 06:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient with me on Gaile's page
It can be very frustrating to avoid just venting your frustrations with support there sometimes xD--TahiriVeila 04:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. It must be very frustrating to have received a hopeful response...and then nothing. Anyhow, Gaile will sort it out. I hope it turns out to be good news for you. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 05:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing "*BONUS*" on the second objective for Wanted: Justiciar Kasandra
Hey, I have this quest on two of my characters (one pre- and one post-BFLA) and have other Wanted quests to compare it against. I noticed this a long time ago but decided now that I've seen this missing text for 3 cycles in a row now, that it isn't just me, and it's really getting on my nerves. This message is in regards to this change that you made. If you have a screen shot that shows that it is there, please post it. Else, I would like to say that I'm just documenting the game as it is in-game. I have screen shots if you need. I hope you did not revert my changes based on speculations only.StealthDevil 07:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake &mdash; I compared against the wrong SBB (thought I was looking at Kassie, but had one of the other K-bounties live instead). Incidentally, it helps to post source data on the talk page when you are pointing out something like this (e.g. an anomaly that was undocumented for a long time); it helps to clarify why/what we have missed for so long. In this case, you might also want to officially document the bug(s).


 * I've reverted my change. Again, my apologies for my mistake. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

They Live! reference
The reason why I worded it the way I did was to help denote that Keiran's line is actually newer than Gwen's, while the older and current makes it seem like they're either equally as old or Gwen's is newer. -- Konig / talk 03:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you mean newer as in Keiran's was added later, that's less important in my view than the fact that the two lines are logically connected now. Typically, we try to word things as they exist in the game currently. Also, the bullet read very awkwardly :-/


 * It is a trivia note, so game-historical background is fair game. Consequently, I'm not opposed to finding some way to pointing out that K's line was added second. Can we try to do so without losing the benefit of seeing that the now-married couple's individual quotes tie together nicely? (That strikes me as something that Stumme & Co would do intentionally.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

can you really kill a soul?
It seems so in GW. But I suppose it depends on how you define "kill." Since a soul cannot "live" after being "destroyed" it would also be "killed" but it wasn't really living to begin with, by most meanings, and thus like undead you cannot "kill" souls. So it depends on how you define "kill" and "life." But the same is also for undead, rather than just undead. And yes, people have argued that in gw you don't really die until your soul is destroyed (to me, that is). -- Konig / talk 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On GWW, one doesn't really live until one has re-hashed an obscure point of Lore or Mechanics ;-) (And, I'm consistent on this point; I also wonder about using the term kill for removing undead from our plane of existence.)


 * On a serious note, I think destroy makes sense in the context of Mr. Nin (Ms Nin? is the gender specified anywhere?), since that is what Shandra asks of us, . I wouldn't argue that it's generally appropriate, since, as you note, the metaphysical nomenclature of Guild Wars is inexact.


 * Regardless, I have no concerns if you want to restore kill for Lost Souls. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 19:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer destroy - more ambiguous - I was merely answering your question. -- Konig / talk 20:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, well thank you. :-) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fendi Nin is male- "Those dealings have condemmed us all; Fendi's curse seals us withing this horrid place. Our souls can only be freed by destroying him." (from the quest dialogue) – Emmett  00:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I missed that even after reading Lost Souls 3x. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to finish the joke
Did the pot and kettle say "ow" when they walked into that bar? :P -- Konig / talk 22:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Your current choices:
 * They were both arrested for impersonating a punch line.
 * And the bartender said, "what is this, some kind of joke?"
 * Although, under the circumstances, ow is not too shabby. ;-) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding trivia of previous skill functionalities
Well placing these trivia notes is all and well, keep in mind that doing on a page for a skill which hasn't actually changed in functionality such as here, and here (and I'm certain there must be more instances of this) is both redundant, and may be confusing for some viewing the page, especially when they follow the respective link to find a skill description which is exactly the same as the one already listed. Ryuu  - lol wiki 16:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a bad assumption that the existence of a skill history meant that there was a history to the skill, so I systematically linked them all.


 * I think the skill history page should be deleted unless there's been a change, so that when people look at Category:Skill histories, the only skills listed will be ones that have changed. (I suppose we could move relevant /Skill history pages to a different category, e.g. Category:Skill histories without changed functionality, but I think it's easier just to delete them.)


 * Thanks for catching this. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 16:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection, it's clear that applies to skills that have changed (all the text is consistent with out-of-date data). So, I've created a new template, , which more accurately notes that the skill is unchanged and that the info on the page is identical to the main article. I've also created a parallel sub-category, so that it's easier to identify which skills are original.


 * This way, if people choose to create history pages for unchanged skills, it will be much easier for others to update the article to point to the historical data. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 10:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was confused about this too, and I made a note on the talk page of Glyph of Essence which said this (sorry for the wall of text):
 * "The article says "The functionality of this skill has changed since its introduction; see its skill revision history for details." However, the only difference between the old skill and the new skill is that the recharge was shortened from 30 seconds to 20 seconds. How is that a "new functionality"? A "new functionality" is like what happened to Aura of the Lich, when it was changed to a MM skill. By this point, nearly all of the skills in the game have been "tweaked" like this (changes in recharge, duration, energy cost, etc), but those are not new functionalities. The functionality of the skill is still the same (For 15 seconds, your next spell casts instantly but causes you to lose all Energy). I vote for removing that note, but I'd rather get a second opinion to see if there's something I'm missing. Thanks. Ailina 02:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)"
 * Basically, what I was saying is that while the SKILL has been changed in the past, its FUNCTIONALITY has not changed. So while it might be ok to link to the skill history page, it is entirely misleading to say that the functionality has changed.  So I propose rewording it in a way that says "This skill has had aspects of it changed since it was introduced" or something like that.  Sorry if I come off as a little short, I'm just exhausted.  :)  Thanks!  Ailina 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I responded on the Glyph page before I read this note. In brief, I agree that it's worth having two kinds of notes: one for function changes (as you describe them) and one for tweaks. (There might be the occasional disagreement about the borderline between them, but I'm sure that GoE falls into minor and AotL falls into function change.)


 * I didn't really pay any attention to the nature of the change when I did the first set of edits. It turns out that we have skill history pages when there has been no change at all...and pages for minor tweaks, but plenty of completely altered skills without a history page. So, it was IMO rather disorganized. I did my best to clean things up...and what you've noticed is that I didn't finish the job.


 * Do you think that we should have different categories, one for changed functionality histories and one for tweaked skills? Or simply rename the category so that it encompasses both?


 * Let me know if you want to do the heavy lifting of going through all the relevant pages...or if you want to share the work...or if you would like others to do it. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps we can change the standard phrasing into, This skill has been altered since its introduction, which makes no claim about whether it's a function or a minor change. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, there's a very simple and clear distinction: If a skill has had its wording in any way changed, excluding numbers (which would cut out duration, energy/hp gain/loss, damage scaling, etc), then it is considered to have had its functionality changed.  If the only changes are in regards to numbers, with no change to how the skill functions, then it has not had its functionality changed, but merely has "been rebalanced" or "has gone through minor changes" or however you want to word it (but there must be one general phrase that applies to all like this).  Now, there are three separate categories which leave no room for debate:  1)  skills who have remained entirely unchanged since their introduction, 2) skills who have only had changes in numbers, and 3)  skills who have had their functionality (wording) changed.  So since GoE, for example, has only had its numbers changed, it falls into the second category.  Do you see any problem with this categorization system? Ailina 17:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I support the goal of distinguishing skills that have histories worth reviewing from those that do not, but I am not sure that would be easy to do. Some players might have a conceptual problem with differential treatment between changes to text and changes to numbers. For example:


 * Skill A is changed to correct a text error or to correct a misunderstanding; that would count as a function change.
 * Skill B is changed from requiring 5 &rarr; 25 and 5 &rarr; 1⁄4; that would not count as a function change, even though in practical terms, the skill can no longer be used in the same way.


 * So, I would prefer a more neutral phrasing and to stick with two categories to avoid implying a value judgment about the importance of the change. And yes, that would make it harder to filter out the less important changes from the more important ones.


 * If we really need to distinguish 3 types sooner rather than later, then I would recommend these (although the wording here leaves something to be desired):
 * Skills that have not been changed since introduction.
 * Skills that have had qualitative changes since introduction.
 * Skills that have had quantitative changes since introduction.


 * When we're ready to define the line between major and minor, we can apply additional categories. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to stay away from the words "major" and "minor", since those are inherently subjective and up to debate. Your idea of calling them "qualitative" and "quantitative" changes is good, though some people might have difficulties with the similarities of the words (I've learned from experience never to underestimate the ability of people to misunderstand even the simplest of things) (oh hey, see how I avoided using the word "stupidity"?  I'm so proud of myself).  :)  Anyway, the reason of my categorization choices above is that they leave no room for interpretation, and thus the sorting and labeling of the skills becomes easy and simple.  Ailina 18:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok, so we agree that we should stick to neutral terms and, at worst, we don't disagree about distinguishing text from number changes. So how about this:
 * Skills that have not changed since introduction.
 * Skills with numerical changes since introduction.
 * Skills with textual changes since introduction.

That avoids the implied value judgment that worries me if we use phrases such as, function, minor, rebalance, or tweak. It establishes two broad, non-trivial categories; although skills might fall into both, the definitions (and titles) leave no room for interpretation. It replaces $5 words (that have the potential for misunderstanding) with nickel words.

Hmmn. Now, that makes me suspicious that I have missed something, especially a bigger issue. What do you think? — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mister noteman, bring me a theme
Just wanted to ask if you can go over Ascalon (pre-Searing) since it's notes section and see also section is huge (even after my removal of unnecessary notes), since you're so good and active with combining and better-wording of notes. -- Konig / talk 22:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for your kind words and gracious request. I've taken a look and instead created Ascalon (pre-Searing)/Draft, since I did more than just re-word the Notes. We can continue that discussion at Talk:Ascalon_(pre-Searing)/Draft. As I note there, I'm not married to anything in the draft. Rather, I wanted to make sure we have a chance to cover the full richness of the region that has given rise to its unique community of perma-Pre players.


 * It might turn out that a better solution is to create another article covering what I've called isolation, allowing us to move about half of the draft there, leaving only a note, e.g. .  — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Naco Dueii
removing my bio, feel free to delete once read I made it up for fun. Many people have Bios for their charhacters. If you want me to remove the story, tell if you want to. I personally want to keep it. - GreenEarth28 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreenEarth28 (talk &bull; contribs) at 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC).


 * Ah, that makes more sense. Character bios go into your user space. I have moved the page to User:GreenEarth28/Naco Dueii. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nick's dialogues
Typically that structure is only done for those seen in a lot of different campaigns, but Nick is unique since he only has 2 dialogues at a given time, so I don't really see that being necessary since it isn't like Devona, Eve, and so forth, where there's multiple dialogues per campaign. Just saying, not complainin'. -- Konig / talk 01:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Y'know, I was going to ask your opinion first about this...and then decided to be bold for two reasons:
 * I found the original presentation awkward to look at (too much bold face using similar/same fonts, too close together)
 * I thought it might help distinguish Nick's weekly from his continuing dialogues (esp. given recent discussions).


 * It's true he only has the one dialogue in the second category, so it might be overkill. On the other hand, he's a toon of mystery, so this is a more extensible solution than before. I wouldn't argue that it's necessary (as it is with Mhenlo et al), only helpful. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I agree with your removing the bold of the "for more" line. I'd probably change the second section to "Beyond" (since he cannot be in Beyond as a collector, technically speaking). -- Konig / talk 03:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Naga Chart
I just wanted to ask whether you noticed my suggestion here, since those minor discussions tend to be forgotten. –aRTy 03:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you pointed that out; I had deliberately left that conversation alone so that someone besides Konig or I could get in their own views. I like the system you have come up with to separate the always spawning and the (nearly) never spawning types; your method is probably also easier to use for other foes than my suggestion would be. Thank you for taking the time to put it together and present it. And thank you for taking the time to remind me to take a look. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned
The UTC times you use in unsigned comments aren't correct. E.g. the IP posts at 15:23, 7 February 2011, but you list it as "07:23, 7 February 2011". --Silver Edge 07:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Odd. I've got UTC listed in my prefs and I'm copying from the history. I'll try to fiddle with that and make it match again. Thanks for letting me know. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 08:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

beta tests
here you have a link :) http://www.guildwars2.com/en/the-game/game-faq/#two


 * thanks! (that's also weird, because still has the old phrasing).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (added) I've updated the feature page. My take on the phrasing is that there will be private alpha/beta tests, but ANet hasn't yet ruled out public beta. (Please amend if you think that something different was meant from the-game FAQ that you linked). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to push a couple things along
Druid pretty much just has you against the (age old) discussion for a split. Which is ironic since you agreed to the split on Oni (which now looking at it I'm unsure why it hasn't been split yet outside of not being sure if the Shing Jea version is the same as the other version). Care to rethink that so that we can get consensus on the age-old discussion and get it out of here? -- Konig / talk 02:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Isn't it sufficient that an NPC-related link leads to an article that holds the NPC info?"


 * My preference hasn't changed: whenever possible, one article is better than two (or three or...). When NPC and Race have the same name and we don't know much about either, I don't see how it's better for the reader to have to visit two links.


 * I think you misinterpreted my remarks on Oni &mdash; I was saying that if we do split, then Oni should redirect to the NPC article; it should not be a disambig page nor should it redirect to Race.


 * Finally, I don't see where there's a general consensus on this: on Oni, there's 4 ppl commenting (with a split on splitting). On Druid, there are 3 people (and Kyoshi seems to have split his own decision).


 * Mostly, it looks as if you and I have commented the most. I still am not sure why you think it's so critical to split pages when we don't know much. However, if you feel extremely strongly about this and if you feel sure that you understand why I think splitting is bad unless there's a compelling reason, then... I'm horribly opposed to you re-organizing.


 * I would want you to first write up a guideline so that this never has to get discussed again. Even if it doesn't get approved as an official guideline, at least we could point to it (in the future) so that people understand the convention and why it exists. Otherwise, speaking from experience, people are going to second guess and go through this all over again. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding consensus: Druid is 4 peeps, actually (Kyoshi, you, me, and Riddle with one comment) - Kyoshi and me were for, Riddle was neither, then there's you; Oni was, likewise, four. Since I misinterpreted your stance, I suppose there was no consensus like I originally thought (so I jumped the gun a bit there...). Regarding the whole "why split when we know so little" - the answer is simple: they are not the same thing. It would be like merging the skill Obsidian Flame and the guild Obsidian Flame because we know so little on the guild - or the Shadow Blades and Shadow Blades. That's just not how things are done. A group is not an individual. I understand why you think splitting is bad - I just disagree.
 * There is also no reason for a disambig page because, well, it's just two things - the otheruses tag exists for that reason. And the main name should belong to the group because that's how it's done for everything else - consistency.
 * Plus, I don't think the druid page shows all we know of the druids... -- Konig / talk 03:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Erm, my point about consensus is that there aren't that many opinions being offered. And I don't accept your Guild vs Spell analogy as close to the the current situation. The Oni are a race that, as far as we know, only includes the Oni NPC. That doesn't make them identical, but that makes too little meat to force a reader to navigate to a second page to learn about the race and the NPC. They might not be the same thing, but neither are they completely different. Most of what we know about the race are the stats of the NPCs (at least for Oni).


 * If we learn more about Druids, or, rather, once the druid page contains all that we know, then I would agree that two articles would make sense. Then, there would be enough information to populate two pages and to force readers to navigate.


 * Anyhow, as I meant to say, there's little enough interest that I don't want to block resolution based on my principle of don't make readers click an unnecessary link alone. I do wish that, before executing, you write this up so that we can point to it next time this comes up.


 * Finally, whenever I search for Oni or Druid or any similar idea, I'm looking for the NPC, so can we setup Oni&rarr;Oni (NPC) instead of assuming that the generic means the race? Consistency that makes the reader work harder is not the best reason. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You may say that the skill-guild example is not "close to the current situation" - but it's the same exact argument. "We don't know enough about it, but it's the same name, so lets combine them" is basically what the argument is. My point in bringing that up was to show the silliness of such an argument.
 * Honestly, forcing a more-widely used (in-game) term to be second-best seems absolutely silly. Why should we make a [[Druid (group)] page? Not only would "Druid (NPC)" look cleaner, not only would it be more consistent, but a single click is not valid enough, imo, to warrant making "the most desired by players" to overtake "reasonable naming." Which, imo, having a larger and encompassing topic to be the base is most reasonable.
 * And redirecting Druid to Druid (NPC) is even worse. That's one of the things distasteful of GuildWiki - how an article like, say, Fort Ranik would get redirected to "Fort Ranik (mission)" when the redirect could easily hold that information. It just makes the system look ugly and it's already being disapproved and changed last I saw. Inconsistency makes a just as chaotic or weird looking system as that.
 * Meh, now I feel like I'm going into a rant.
 * This is why this hasn't been solved. It all boils down to preference - nothing else - and when it boils down to that, the best solution is consistency and organization. And this is the easiest way to do such. -- Konig / talk 05:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * LoL. I disagree with almost everything you say except that it's about preferences. I still think the analogy is poor, I still think it's easier for more people to point to the NPCs, consistency is but one of many considerations, etc. (And Konig, I wish you wouldn't call my arguments silly; you write well enough that we can agree to disagree on the merits. )


 * However, I also recognize that you have a clear concept of how things should be organized and it will work better than good enough. (My method, of course, would be better. ^-^) So, let me be more clear:


 * As long as you write up the plan so that we can point to this in the future when the issue reappears, I'm willing to concede on everything. I still disagree, but I won't block consensus. Does that work for you? — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 05:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your email
Thanks, and sorry for not replying earlier. The points you raised were actually interesting and helpful, and while these days my time here is limited I'll be sure take them into account and see if I can do anything with them. :) &mdash; Why  21:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I wasn't expecting a reply. I'm glad the comments gave you something to think about. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW
I think I'm going to start calling you Teffeny. Because TEF is too weird and Tennessee Ernie Ford is too long. We'll see. -- Konig / talk 03:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * TEF is what folks have been calling me since I started using the fantabulous gospel singer's name as my nick, although some three people at GWiki took to calling me Ernie. (That became a brief meme and then, as happens often to memes, fell away due to inattention.) (I'm not sure how Teffeny is less weird, but... ) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Teffeny is less weird because it sounds like a real girl's name. -- Konig / talk 03:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And you would use a girl's name to refer to someone using a man's moniker because...? (It might helped to remember that TEF is pronounced, Tee Eee Eff, not Teff. Although, mebbe that's no help at all, either.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fun. Also, TEF can be an acronym, not just an initialism (or as Hank Green would say, a dufba), and acronyms are not spelled out when said. I, obviously, am using it as an acronym so that I can have some fun with mind games, Teffeny.-- Konig / talk 04:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if we isn't hasing fun, then we doin' som'fin wrong, fer dang sure. (Apparently, in some areas, pronouncing acronyms is more common than initializing them...and I'm sure there's a spy story that hinges on that point somewhere.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no comment, I just wanted to put something in the summary. -- Konig / talk 04:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)