User talk:Falconeye

P.A.R.C.S. - All Things Active

 * Disclaimer: All Rights Reserved within their respective parties.


 * -Goals- (please add any missing goals)
 * Urgent Objective
 * - Standardize Active System (almost complete!)
 * A) Binding Rituals (75% complete)
 * B) Particular Skills That Target or Directly Affect Rituals (75% complete)
 * C) Weapon & Item Spells, and skills related to them (75% complete)
 * D) All Other Skills, and those affected by spirits in general (25% complete)
 * - Unified Formatting (I believe we should go -Concise-, but thats my opinion)
 * Mid-term Objective
 * - Generate innovative ideas and user feedback from friends/guildies, wiki-users & elite-players...
 * whether playing as rits, party'ed to them, or caught on the recieving end.
 * Long-term Objective
 * - To hopefully create a finished product & 100-page essay detailing ins-n-outs of A.R.C.S.
 * - To obtain 10,000 signatures of like mined guildies. We need to convince them that...
 * A) This has a real shot of happening.
 * B) The Active Ritual Campaign System is -Superior- to current version.
 * - To convince Izzy and the good folks of Anet to seriously take A.R.C.S. into consideration.
 * - To hopefully be recognized/rewarded for our efforts by being given free GW2 accounts.
 * (Lancy they're not going to pay their customers ^_^)

Standardizing Active System

 * 25 Binding Rituals

Attack Spirits        Shutdown Spirits       Support Spirits        'Pop' Spirits          Utility Spirits Pain                  Soothing               Union                  Agony                  Recovery Bloodsong             Dissonance             Soul Twisting (Elite)  Destruction            Empowerment Anquish               Disenchantment         Shelter                Life                   Earthbind Doom                  Shadowsong             Recuperation           Lamentation            Restoration Gaze of Fury          Wanderlust (Elite)     Displacement           Rejuvenation           Preservation (Elite)

-Spawning Power Synergy- (Ive done the numbers; however, please add/adjust list if changes are needed) -- For every 3 ranks in Spawning Power, [Spirit's Name] lasts X second(s). -- -Spirit Levels-                            Recharge   Duration      Spawning Rank Lifespan   SR's Effects - Laughable HM Survival        30 sec     dies 25 sec   SP 3 rank = 10 sec       Neglegible - Average For Support Spirits  25 sec     dies 20 sec   SP 3 rank = 5 sec        Minimal - Average For Attack Spirits   20 sec     dies 15 sec   SP 3 rank = 3 sec        Moderate - Stronger Then Normal         15 sec     dies 12 sec   SP 3 rank = 2 sec        Potent - Tough as Flesh Golem         12 sec     dies 10 sec   SP 3 rank = 1 sec        Dramatic 10 sec    dies 9 sec 8 sec     dies 6  sec

 -3-Types of Binding Rituals-    -Passive/Failed Concepts-     -Active/Balanced Concepts- The 'Chained' Aliens            Nearby & Area Range           (SR) Soul Reaping/Spirit Range -=or=-(ES) Eartshot Range The 'Totem' Lords               Killing off Spirits           All Spirits cannot directly benefit from or affect each other. And 'Popper' Spirits                                          All Spirits effects non-spirits +30 sec recharge sucks       Spirits -YOU- Control -=or=- (ES) Eartshot Range 5 sec activation sucks       Static duration (6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 30)
 * After +2 years of playing, we both can agree on most of these.
 * I have always treated Binding Rituals as 5 seperate types; with Nature Rituals being the 6th type.
 * Did you know that Soul Reaping & Spirits share the same range?

Standardizing Weapon Spells Energy  Casting   Recharge   Duration   Triggers 5       1         3          3          1 10       1/4       5          5-20       3                    8          8          5                    10         10                             12         12                    15         15-45                    20         20                    25

Of Binding Spells
This is only a generalized rough-sketch and is not finalized. As are Assassin's Daggers are devided into Lead-Attacks, Off-Hand Attacks, Dual-Attacks & Follow-Up Attacks... so too are Binding Spells. And yes, part of my plan is to deliberately berid this profession of as many enchantments/hexes as possible (except Painful Bond) then rebalanced it from that perspective; in my mind Rits have next to nothing in common with core professions in that category. However, they are still classifed as spells for balance purposes and ease of skill descriptions.


 * Weapon Binds:
 * Same as before, except most of these are offensive/active oriented.
 * Dulled Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. For 5...17...20 seconds, target hexed foe and all nearby foes cannot achieve a critical.
 * Weapon of Aggression - Binding Weapon Spell. (5...13...15 seconds.) You attack 25% faster.
 * Weapon of Warding - Binding Weapon Spell. For 5...9...10 seconds, target ally has a Weapon of Warding that grants target ally +2...4...4 Health regeneration and a 50% chance to block.
 * Vengeful Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. For 8 seconds, the next time target ally takes damage from a foe, that ally steals up to 15...51...60 Health from that foe.
 * Spirit Light Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. For 10 seconds, target ally gains 1...12...15 Health per second and an additional 1...12...15 Health per second if that ally is within earshot of a Spirit.
 * Weapon of Remedy - Elite Binding Weapon Spell. For 8 seconds, the next time target ally takes damage from a foe, that ally steals up to 15...63...75 Health from that foe and loses 1 Condition.
 * Sundering Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. For 4...9...10 seconds, target ally's next 3 attacks have 10% armor penetration and cause Cracked Armor for 5...17...20 seconds.
 * Guided Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. For 5...10...11 seconds, target ally's attacks cannot be blocked.
 * Brutal Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. Give target ally a Brutal Weapon for 15...39...45 seconds. The bearer's weapon strikes for +5...13...15 damage as long as the bearer is under no Enchantments.
 * Weapon of Fury - Elite Binding Weapon Spell. For 5...17...20 seconds, target ally gains 5...41...50% more adrenaline and 1 Energy whenever that ally successfully hits with an attack.
 * Weapon of Aggression - Binding Weapon Spell. For 5...13...15 seconds, you attack 25% faster.
 * Warmonger's Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. For 5...13...15 seconds, if target ally attacks a foe who is not attacking, that foe is interrupted.
 * Wailing Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. For 5...10...11 seconds, target ally has a Wailing Weapon. Whenever the Wailing Weapon strikes an attacking foe, that foe is interrupted.
 * Splinter Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. For 20 seconds, target ally has a Splinter Weapon. Target ally's next 1...4...5 attacks deal 5...41...50 damage to up to 3 adjacent foes.
 * Nightmare Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. For 12 seconds, target ally has a Nightmare Weapon. Target ally's next 3 attacks are reduced by 10...42...50 damage and steal up to 10...42...50 Health.
 * Wielder's Zeal - Binding Weapon Spell. For 10...26...30 seconds, whenever you cast a weapon Spell on an ally, you gain 1...4...5 Energy.
 * Weapon of Renewal - Binding Weapon Spell. For 4...9...10 seconds, the next time target ally hits with an attack Skill, that ally gains 1...6...7 Energy.


 * Armor Binds:
 * Same as above. Several Weapon Spells and Enchantements are converted into this; They are generally defensive/passive oriented. Besides the obvious advantage to -finally- have a reason to take 2 'weapon effects' and combo them -- along with (as-of-now) unstrippable buffs -- this also forces the Rit to decide what effects should apply at any given situation (particularly ex-Enchants).
 * Ghostly Haste - Binding Armor Spell. For 5...17...20 seconds, spells you cast while within earshot of a Spirit recharge 25% faster.
 * Renewing Memories - Binding Armor Spell. For 5...17...20 seconds, while holding an item, any spell and ritual you cast cost 5...29...35% less.
 * Wielder's Remedy - Binding Armor Spell. For 10...26...30 seconds, whenever you cast a weapon spell on an ally, that ally loses 1 condition.
 * Armor of Unfeeling - Binding Armor Spell. (10...30...35 seconds.) You have 10 base damage reduction while casting binding rituals.
 * Binding Chains - Binding Armor Spell. For 5...15...17 seconds, target hexed foe moves 90% slower and cannot attack. Binding Chains ends if that foe takes damage.
 * Resilient Weapon - Binding Armor Spell. For 5...17...20 seconds, target ally has a Resilient Armor. While suffering from a hex or condition, that ally gains +1...5...6 health regeneration and +24 armor.
 * Vital Weapon - Binding Armor Spell. For 5...29...35 seconds, target ally has a Vital Armor and has +40...148...175 maximum Health.
 * Weapon of Shadow - Binding Armor Spell. (4...9...10 seconds.) Inflicts Blindness condition (5 seconds) on anyone who attacks target ally.
 * Ghostly Weapon - Binding Armor Spell. (5...17...20 seconds.) Target ally takes half damage from all sources except shadow damage. Cannot self-target.
 * Weapon of Quickening - Elite Binding Armor Spell. For 5...21...25 seconds, target ally has a Weapon of Quickening, and Spells and Binding Rituals recharge 33% faster.
 * Xinrae's Weapon - Elite Binding Armor Spell. Elite Weapon Spell. For 3 seconds, whenever target ally takes damage from a foe that, damage is limited to 5% of that ally's max Health and that ally steals up to 20...68...80 Health from that foe.
 * Ancestor's Rage - Binding Armor Spell. (1 second.) End Effect: deals 5...89...110 lightning damage to foes adjacent to target ally.


 * Item Binds:
 * No change. (no point in listing them)


 * Chakra Binds:
 * These are former-enchantments and may be stacked -- provided conditions are met. Ironically under current Active-Rules, they are also only found under Spawning Power at this this present time. While the above can be made non-permanant, Chakras are relaint on those effects to work and cannot be forcefully removed (similar to Echoes) and may also end immediatly if conditions are not met. Many spells that are weapon or items spell reliant can be reworked to be triggered only by chakras; since the preciosly weapon/item spell have clearly been met. Chakra's are meant to reinforce the everyday Rit-style contradiciton... like the classic conundrum with AwS, GH, and Recup: I need to cast Recup spirit, but it costs too much... so I'll cast Attuned item, but it activates/recharges too slowly... so I'll cast Ghostly Haste, but it requires a Spirit present. Something needs to be placed first to jumpstart the neverending -Rituals- the is this profession's namesake.
 * Boon of Creation - Binding Chakra Spell. For 30 seconds, whenever you create a summoned creature, you gain 5...41...50 health and 1...5...6 energy. No effect if not under the effects of an armor spell, weapon spell, or item spell.
 * Explosive Growth - Binding Chakra Spell. For 30 seconds, whenever you create a summoned creature, up to 5 foes near that creature are struck for 20...56...65 damage lightning damage. No effect if not under the effects of an armor spell, weapon spell, or item spell.
 * Spirit's Gift - Binding Chakra Spell. For 30 seconds, whenever you create a summoned creature, all allies near that creature gain 5...41...50 health and lose 1 condition. No effect if not under the effects of an armor spell, weapon spell, or item spell.
 * Spiritleech Aura - Binding Chakra Spell. For 30 seconds, whenever you cast a Spell you steal 5...41...50 Health from one Spirit within earshot. No effect if not under the effects of an armor spell, weapon spell, or item spell.


 * Heres A Prime Synergy Example:
 * Sight Beyond Sight - Binding Chakra Spell. For 8...18...20 seconds, you cannot be blinded. No effect if not under the effects of an armor spell, weapon spell, or item spell.
 * Spirit's Strength - Binding Chakra Spell. For 15...51...60 seconds, your phsysical attacks deal 5...29...35 more damage. No effect if not under the effects of an armor spell, weapon spell, or item spell.
 * Great Dwarf Weapon - Binding Weapon Spell. (20 seconds.) +15...20 weapon damage and 28...40% chance to cause knock-down with attacks. Cannot self-target.
 * Great Dwarf Armor - Binding Armor Spell. (22...40 seconds.) +24 armor and +60 maximum Health. Additional +24 armor against Destroyers.

Summoning Sickness
Summoning Sickness: For Skill. (60 minutes.) You are unable to use summoning stones. (Summoning stones) can only be used in explorable areas and there can only be one summoned ally in an instance at once [).
 * So here I was trying out those nify Summoning Stones when 3 things occured to me:
 * A) Summoning Sickness is yet another homage/parody of the oldest/most successful Trading Card Game -- Magic: the Gathering created by Wizards of the Coast (aka Anet totally pawned it off of them) -- the same folks that brought use Dungeons & Dragons, and the foremost industry-leaders in hobby gaming; (http://www.wizards.com/magic/). The Five True Gods are another example of Anet's love for the game, as each represents the 5-Colors of Magic Theory represented in M:tG (White = Dwayna, Blue = Lyssa, Black = Grenth, Red = Baltahzar, Green = Melandru)
 * B) The Icon/Descriptions of it are awefully Ritzy-looking flavor wise;
 * C) Anet once tried to give Binding Rituals Exhaustion, and failed...
 * *Light Bulb* what we have here is another option for adding a layer of complexity and balance for Ritualists -- most likely as static effect (like exhaustion or knock-down) -- useable for any profession/skills.


 * EX: X-Skill: The next creature you create/when you drop this item/your interrupted action inflicts Summoning Sickness for 5 seconds.
 * EX: Ghostly Haste: Enchantment Spell. For, your non-Ritual skills activate and recharge 33% faster and you are you are immune to Summoning Sickness. No effect unless earshot of a spirit.
 * EX: Goblin Warchief: (http://www.wizards.com/magic/autocard.asp?name=Goblin_Warchief)
 * EX: Spawning Power: Your so Summoning Sickness duration is reduced by an amount (seconds/percentage) equal to your ranks in Spawning Power. (If seconds, use amount equal to Spawning Power, or -1 second per 3 ranks. If percentage, use existing 4% health bonus.)


 * (In M:tG, -Haste- is enchant-effect that ingnores an aspect of the 'Core-Rules' -- dictating that every newly 'summoned creature' must be 'put into play tapped' (they cant do anything, aka knock-down) -AND- you must wait until everyone else's turn is completed before you may 'Summon' again).

Recycle Bin
Ethereal/Ghostly - You see the world as a dim, transparent place and all creatures see you as a transparent figure. You can only be targeted by nearby creatures (and vice verse); targets require larger amount of concentration. When affecting (casting a skill on, or attacking) a non-ethereal/ghostly creature, the "increased concentration" makes you cast or attack 60% slower for each level of fourspace. Movement becomes slightly random (twisting and turning at unexpected speeds and angles, thus you move 15% slower than normal speed. The spot representing you on the Minimap disappears.
 * You become ghostly & transparent by 80% so players that aren't nearby may be able to see you but may not target you.
 * Ethereal/Ghostly creatures can be affected by non-targeting skills and effects.

Amnesia - You cannot use skills unrelated to your profession's primary attribute, with the exception of unlinked skills.
 * Amnesia does not affect Minions. However it does disable Spirits' attack casting for the allotted time.

Falconeye's Comments

 * Issue:
 * It has come to my attention that roughly half of the skills in Skill feedback/Ritualist are either yours or mine (I'm slowly mergin my suggestions with yours). I'm not yet familiar with every official policy/fomatiing since creating this userpage at your request, but I do recall Gorden stating that '...precedent of allowing skill feedback suggestions which only address hypothetical future issues... no context and doesn't address any current issues on its' own...' and being neat-freak that I am and considering it from the perspective of something managing these pages (those 'This Page Has Been Tagged For Cleaning/Deletion' and 'It Has Been Suggested That This Section Be Merged With' are freaking me out.) ^_^ What I'm proposing is create Bundles under -each attribute- and move all Active-related issues under it... this has an added bonus of keeping spirits attribute related spirits under one roof for easy comparison. I'll start with one bundle as an experiment, using the most comprehensive formatting (see top link) and just wait and see if anyone scolds me again. lol. --Falconeye 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User:Shard/Conceptual_Changes

Lancy, there's still hope! ^_^ (Shard's page)

 * Quote from various arenanet employees "We can't scale a knockdown duration."
 * Quote from various people who disagree with me "Arenanet can't scale a knockdown duration."
 * Quote from me "Yes you can."
 * Quote from update notes "Backbreaker - Now knocks down for seconds."
 * Shard > ArenaNet.
 * Shard > people who disagree with me.
 * Next time you think I'm wrong because arenanet said so, think again. ~Shard  [[Image:User Shard Sig Icon.png]] 02:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sad part is that Shard knows how to code GW better than ANet does, and he's not even seen the code. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 02:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The most sad part is that he seems to think that proving yourself replaces the effort to brace for the next thing. Short: Only because you were right does not mean we heave to rethink next time we doubt you. That's untrue for everyon and every discussed topic. Ɲoɕʈɋɽɕɧ 03:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * He was right this time, he was right in the past, and he'll be right again. Is that so hard a concept to grasp? -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 03:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Half the time ANet says they can't do something, it doesn't mean "we're totally incapable of doing so," it means "it requires so much time and effort that we probably won't be able to do it because we don't have the resources." I'm fairly certain it was that way in this case. Shard just lucked out. - Auron 03:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Izzy said something along the lines of "The GW code can't scale KD durations, it's hard coded to the skill." Search for it.  ~Shard  [[Image:User Shard Sig Icon.png]] 18:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tbh, you can code anything, it's just a question of time and effort and they finally decided it was worth the effort, except they did it wrong. If they actually wanted to nerf BB sins they needed to make it 4 seconds at 13 hammer, that wouldn't have hurt hammers at all and just slightly nerfed BB sins, you can still get the combo off in 3 seconds but they will be standing up for BoS. Misery  18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Lancy's Comments
I stole your talk page virginity! Welcome to the wiki and hit me up anytime falcon:) Feel free to reorder everything to make it neater. Thanks again for your help and input.--Lancy1214 22:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you reorder the monk skills as well too?--Lancy1214 22:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Modifications are going to take a while so hang on tight:P--Lancy1214 21:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are officially my partner in crime when it comes to updating the ritualists. Lol we should so get hired for this don't you agree? By the way, what's your in-game name so I can add you?--Lancy1214 22:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My primary ingame character is Tranquility of Soul (ill return the favor and add you on my list). I am a Ritualist purist and PvE'er by nature (75% of time spent with both; my poor monk as been freezing her off in S. Shiverpeaks since Factions release ^_^). I am a member of prestigous guild Heavens Royal Knights (recruit mode >> google our site for more detailed information!) and formerly of the Shiverpeaks Alliance (info about them located on this wiki).  What time/day are you most likely on? Do you have ventrilo? And as your unofficial campaign manager, I do hope you approve of that 'Active' campaign messege. (Will be taggiing where appropriate here and at other sites. --Falconeye 14:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol it's got my name on it so why WOULDNT i approve?:P lol yes i do approve...i'm trying to figure something out for the durations of the spirits.--Lancy1214 18:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow I really like some of these suggestions such as moving Empathetic to Healing Prayers and Moving Martry to Smiting! Keep it up! :)--Lancy1214 23:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Heal other, Jamei's Gaze and Healer's Boon is going to result in INSANE healing numbers and cast times...Reduce Max healing to 150 so it's comparable with Spirit Light and Gift of Health.--Lancy1214 21:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Updated the monk list with some other elites. I think I'm pretty much done with the Monk Skills now.--Lancy1214 20:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How are things? it's been a long time since I've gone on this wiki...or spoken to you at all! Reply back (I think you should archive/organize your page:P:P...it took me like 10 mins to find the appropriate spot to comment on :)--Lancy1214 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * HEY you, check out the new formats of the ritualist and monk skills. Also, I loved your idea with giving ritualists passive energy management so I shamelessly stole your idea of Spawning Power and implemented it. 1 energy every 2 ranks in Spawning Power would have netted you, if you ideally invested in 13 Spawning Power and 14 into your Primary, 6 energy. Some weapon and spirits now only cost 5 energy and that proposal would be a little overpowered. While keeping the same idea, I just increased the requirement to 4 in Spawning Power. That way, at an ideal position, one would earn +3 energy everytime they cast a weapon or spirit spell; essentially making them free (due to energy regeneration mechanics).--Lancy1214 02:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Urgent!
I realize we are close in funneling our ideas to each other but PLEASE stop using my signature/name for YOUR proposed changes. If you're inspired by one of my ideas, please put your name in there as well. I have gone over all the changes and added your name where appropriate for my skill balances as well. Thanks again!--Lancy1214 23:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you reverting my page constantly? I made several minor tweaks to the Ritualist skills and you just utterly destroyed the whole purpose of me doing that. PLEASE consult me before you start reverting stuff. I told you to email me when you make changes that you want me to look at and you don't see me mindlessly reverting your userpages so why are you doing that to mine?--Lancy1214 22:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I didn't know about your computer crashing on you. Sorry for flipping out.--Lancy1214 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Farewell

 * Hi Falconeye, its been a long time since we've spoken and sorry for that. I just had my computer reformatted/preparing for University so its been quite hectic for me. I unfortunately don't have the will to install Guild Wars again, most notably after having my hopes being crushed after reading the "big" April update. Even if they change the whole game, I've played it for over two years and I've turned to a new game called Atlantica Online. Don't boo me, I just dont find Guild Wars the same alive MMO it once was. Until then, continue being the great person you are and thanks for being my partner in crime:)--Lancy1214 02:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I have returned. Lol:)--Lancy1214 21:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Other User's Comments
I realize that you and Lancy are collaborating on a balance page project. I'm just curious to the specifics of why you temporarily moved the monk skills from her page to yours. I just find that a little odd. -- Ezekial Riddle 04:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did so upon request and after discussion possible solutions with her. Its formatting issues and there have been talks between us of working on several other professions in addition to monks. (The Ritualist project itself is getting really long and may continue to diversify as we play around with new ideas.) This is only temporily until she and I figure out how to create fancy/multiple user-link like some other wikiusers do on thier talk page (see top links). If you know anything on how to do this, please let us know! ^_^ --Falconeye 01:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wiki!!
Welcome to wiki, if you need help just ask me or any other Helper for all your wiki needs!. Once again, welcome and happy wiki-ing! Blood   03:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a question: When are these pages cleaned/refreshed? And anything else i -should- know about but might have missed?) --Falconeye 14:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By cleaned do you mean archived? Also it helps if you sign your comments with ~, the fourth "~" is the time stamp. Blood  [[Image:User Blood234 Blood sig .JPG|19px|]] 22:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do... and already found the answer to my stated question... thanks for replying though! ^_^ --Falconeye 14:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem man. =] -- Blood [[Image:User Blood234 Blood sig .JPG|19px|]] contribs  01:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a page thats lists the links of all notable wiki-users? Also, where is the links for the old 'Create-a-Profession' contest submissions/winners(assuming they still exist)? I found some such as Xiaoling's Bard, but cant might that imfamous Drunken Master designed my a notable-user who's name i cant remember. --Falconeye 03:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found them ^_^ --Falconeye 03:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User page etiquette
Just a FYI, it's normally considered bad etiquette to make changes to someone else's userpage. If you see a problem, bring it to their attention on their talk page. -- Wyn 04:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I overstepped, as I was attempting to create minor adjustments based on what I can best assumed was her 'intention'. Since she has declared me 'her partner in crime' and have twice previously requested edits to her page -- she's perfectly allowed to edit my page once I get it running. ^_^ I've been known to get carried away regarding any subject I fell passionate about. I'll do as you suggest and instead use my page for my recommendations and temporly hold for work-in-progress. --Falconeye 04:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's just often with small edits people don't even notice... I'm just suggesting you suggest your changes to her on her talk page and let her decide :D--[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 05:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The amount of feedback we're sending to eacht other is likley to overwhelm her talk page. ^_^ --Falconeye 03:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Random Posts

 * 1) Rolling Thunder:
 * -- Bring back old Order of Undeath that buffs your minions for 5 seconds, as every Order should be (but at least leave the IAS, if no other buffs, its -very- nice!). It was PERFECT for A minor buff like this was all that this skill needed; if it needed anything at all!


 * 2) Army of One:
 * -- What veteran necro player wants to kill-off ALL thier minions but one; thats what Flesh Golem's for? Its completely against sanity? If they really want to, just give the Golem an area/nearby 'Aura Effect' such as mild regen/degem that benefits minions and/or harms foes. Or some kind of buff that weakens for each minion you control, giving you, the master, an tactical incentive to keep Golem going solo?


 * 2) Shock-n-Awe:
 * -- If Anet -Wants To Play Around- with new game mechanics, why not try using Jagged Bones as the experimental test subject -which this Elite where made for bombing-. Instead of 'All But One Dyeing' crap, after a set time-limit of enchanting the X-least healthy minions trigger, and/or whenever any X-minions are called back to grenth, a number of -X- leveled allied Jagged Horrors spawn in thier place. PvE Necro-Heroes are notoriusly uber with this skill, and this setup would allow players near-exact bombing control if said players are without mad-leet skillz to rival A.I. This could be a PvP/PvE skill function split (as with Unyeilding Aura) to maintain balance.


 * Wow thats one heated discussion... I cant tell who here loves Rits enough to make them better, or hates then enough to remove a 'broken' class from play? Either, way, I advise against tempering WoR until all other Rit & Non-rit elties area brought up to speed, or if the current Meta-game demands shifts ina drastic new direction. Bless your Armond and your campaign to buff Hex-removal. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/ArenaNet_talk:Skill_feedback/Ritualist/Weapon_of_Remedy

Purpose of the talk page....
I'm not sure you realize what the purpose of your talk page is. This is the place where the community can contact you and have discussions. The information you have here is better suited to a subpage of your userspace. There are also restrictions in the user page policy about removing comments from your talk page, so when you eliminate large chunks of stuff it sends up a red flag to people watching the Rechent changes. -- Wyn 05:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A) Will comply and move to a 'sandbox'; exactly what content should be moved? B) Removed/edited comments were not intentionally deleted but merely reorangized feedback between lancy and I. ^_^ --Falconeye 09:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Symbols of Inspiration
In this edit to ArenaNet:Skill feedback/Mesmer, you added a link to a nonexistent Symbols of Inspiration feedback page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-existent? Have I made a mistake? --Falconeye 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Double linking
Hey, if in a section a word is already linked, it doesn't need to be linked again. So, if a skill has links in the full description, you don't need to link again in the concise. --JonTheMon 18:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Minion nav bar
May I ask why you are putting it on all those skill pages? Where was it discussed and decided? -- Wyn  talk  06:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you adding it to pages that aren't about creating minions? --JonTheMon 06:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A) They all relate to and directly depend on the use of minions. B) The List of minion skills already list these. C) The non-necro skills are not reliant nor directly relate to minions.
 * You don't make changes of that magnitude to large numbers of mainspace pages without proposing the change and discussing it with the community. I personally do not think it fits with the formatting guidelines of skill pages. I would like to ask you to revert your changes and propose it on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Skills. Once there is general consensus it can be readded. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  06:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. --Falconeye 06:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And done! ^_^ --Falconeye 06:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you proposing the change along with your reasoning and letting the community decide, I just think it should be a community decision. :D And.. Thank you :D -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  06:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Start up a disscusion so I cam vote on it -- Halogod35  [[Image:User Halogod35 Sig.jpg|15px]] 06:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

suggestions?
For anyone who cares for commenting.... ''This is an old suggestion page. Do not post any new suggestions on this page or any of its' subpages. After the feedback namespace goes live, suggestions should be posted there. Until then, there is no appropriate place to post new feedback on the wiki....'' Naturally, after June 2009 update, I've (and others) have been eager to to update various suggestions to reflect the current metagame. What/where are any additiona information regarding this (other then whats stated) and what can we do until then (besides editing our userpages)? --Falconeye 08:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Fake drops no no
Please do not vandalize drop research pages with fake entries. Thanks. --Adul 10:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think he was vandalizing. I think he just added up how many final items he had, no how many groups of items he got (20 aged ales = 2 groups of aged ales). But yes, either way the data line needs to be corrected. --JonTheMon 13:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I hardly think that would be the case, as it would be quite a coincidence for someone to find exactly one of each of the 'rare' items, like the everlasting crate of fireworks, the spider egg, and all 3 miniatures. --Adul 14:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After looking at it again, the data is clearly not valid, but I have to assume good faith that it wasn't fully intentional. --JonTheMon 14:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're perfectly right. Let me rephrase it then. Falconeye, please take the time to preview your edits and check your data thoroughly before adding entries to drop research pages. One of your recent entries in Gift of the Traveler/Drop rate contained data that was almost certainly incorrect. Thank you. --Adul 15:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

So i should use -groups- instead of actual numbers.... understood, anything else? Sorry, I was adding up the sum-total from 400 gifts gathered together from my account, my brother's, my sister's, my other brother's, my cousin's and two friend/guildie's accounts, Those rare drops did occur, of which where divided up between us (I love my moss spider) and/or given thankyou for lending me all those gifts for research/storage; including an everlasting crate of fireworks which now makes it 4th of July everyday at our guildhall. ^_^ --Falconeye 04:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Spiritform
Whoooot? -- Yullive 15:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey hey hey..
No, you don't put links in the concise description. →← 04:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this the official policy? I keep getting alot of mixed messages on this issue (read above posts/links) --Falconeye 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that you don't put it in the concise, the policy states, if it's already linked once. Doesn't need to be linked again. →[ » Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png  (talk)« ]← 04:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And what of the policy regarding listing pages (such as List of elite ritualist skills or List of PvE-only skills)...Ive asked about this beforehand and the responce regarding this was "I never considerd that.../I suppose ok to continue". If I and/or they were incorrect, and this is indeed the correct policy, should I undo -ALL- my concise edits over the past years and remove all links from the "List of..." edits ive made? --Falconeye 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, just leave it as is. →[ » Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png  (talk)« ]← 06:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Henchmen attributes
When adding attributes for henchmen found in Shing Jea Island  or any other region where the level of the henchmen differs from outpost/explorable area to outpost/explorable area, please indicate at what level the attributes correspond to. --Silver Edge 06:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Work in progress. Feel free in taking the initiative to edit anything you find to be incorrect and/or dont agree with. With the exception of 22nd October 2009 update, the majority of these were disorganized/inaccurate/outdated, as few seems to bother with them and with little imput from anet. Thus im forced to use a combination of probability/testing/guess-work. ^_^ --Falconeye 06:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So.... do we need repetitive lists of skills, if the skills are pretty much the same? --JonTheMon 01:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Henchmen formatting is all over the place. im trying to aggragate them into standardize layout that is detailed and informative for newbies. And I really tired of looking at these bars and wondering what exact skill and what extact attributes, ect. --Falconeye 01:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, pretty much, if there's a after a skill, you probably won't have it until the character is level 20 (either naturally or in HM). And do we really need to say in what areas the character is what level? I do agree that knowing the attributes is nice. --JonTheMon 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Repetative bars were not my intention, since still in midst of editing dozen hero pages simaltaneously while triple checking thier skills/behavior in the game and cross referencing various outdated pages looking for errors. If I were a newbie with little knowledge of gw, id appreciate the levels since there may be instances where such info is relavent/useful (as an Allied NPC for instance) and/or may directly corralate with Attibute spread. Attributes are nice! Again Im not 100% certain what attributes they have (only Anet knows for sure) particularly the newbie areas, so im left with a combination of testing vs. comparisons and level-advancement vs. the "learning curve" and the assumption that Anet also tweaked the attributes in a way Players/Heroes would actually use. We both assume elite skills are available to henchmen for HM-play unless proven otherwise, but someone might not which is what this wiki is designed for in mind. But then again Aidan and Odurra and Gehraz -never- had elites in either level 20 (either naturally or in HM) before the update. Since the October update, many of the heroes (and relating pages) "...contains information...that has changed since the original writing... updated to reflect the current state of the game..." and thats what im trying to do, since mostly everyone uses heroes and didnt bother editing/updating anything beyond skill-bar changes. As a side note perhaps I should create a feedback page requesting attribute/skill-bar displays (same way they display for GvG/HA Henchment) that could double in giving new players effective "sample" builds. That would be nice. ^_^ --Falconeye 02:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gods and their patronity
I think you're going overzealous with that. For instance, Grenth is the only patron of Ritualists, so all of their attributes is his. You're doing the same thing that you did here on all of the god pages, and this is incorrect. All of rangers goes under Melandru, all of Necromancers and Ritualists go under Grenth. Not every profession is split so much like you seem to think - which, by the way, your additions to the Gods of Tyria article were very off, and now you're doing the same to the individual god pages. Please look more into these things before adding. -- Konig / talk 04:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Odurra
You should read this. - Reanimated X 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rotting Flesh?
Rotting Flesh doesn't function even remotely similarly to Glyph and Signet. Why are you adding it to the various notes? elix Omni 06:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If an error is made, please correctl; its late and im tired and may not be thinking straight. Also see this build AP Signet Synergy. &mdash; The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falconeye (talk) at 06:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Having the skills in a same build doesn't mean they always have a synergy. - J.P.[[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png| ]] Talk  06:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Skill history
Hey there Falconeye and thank you for your interest in the Skill history project. When creating skill histories, please follow the guidelines. Here is an example for you. – alistic 23:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Skill history and also a clear isn't needed at the end of a page :P – User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 02:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't remember where, but at some point it was recommended to wait til many pages had skill history before putting a link in the infobox, making your added notes obsolete. Just pointing it out. i'll try to find where we talked about that. --JonTheMon 04:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, here Template_talk:Skill_infobox --JonTheMon 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your changes to NPC lists
Was there some discussion where name suddenly meant profession because last time I checked a name doesn't mean one's profession. For instance there are multiple names to a single profession in many groups of NPCs. Likewise, there are some which have a single name with multiple professions. So surely there was a discussion I don't know of where there was a consensus to change profession to name despite the fact that it is simply wrong. Mind linking to where that is, please? -- Konig / talk 20:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ive been updating/merging/cross-referencing/correcting incosistencies to the Creature type/Affiliation, and been using links to and from relating pages as an example. If ive errored, then is there a standard formatting applicable to all? --Falconeye 20:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know but Profession!=Name. That, aside from you adding creature types to creature type pages (such as you did with Nightmare), is the only issue really. -- Konig / talk 20:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you took it upon yourself to clean up the army/affiliation/creature pages, but it does seem that "army" is the semi-official way of referring to the different groups. Any way that this could be brought up? Also, the current way that you have Species and Army set up leads to some circular searching. I don't know what your final plan is, but could you make the proper information easier to find from those pages? G R E E N E R  18:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Feature
Only put the feature tags on pages nominated here, please. The purpose of the tag isn't to put it up to nominated but to make nominated pages recognizable by those who are not commons in the project, and to direct them to the project/discussion on the article. -- Konig / talk 20:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "shadows"...
There's no such thing as that. Nor is there an "Joko's Army Awakened" and the like. Also, please don't put specific names in the lists of hostile NPCs - those are meant for generic members otherwise we'd be putting in every boss (also, Joko in the desolation is never hostile). Please be a bit more careful with your edits. Thank you. -- Konig / talk 06:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was figuring that out until you resolved the issue. The mummies have Awakened and Ancient, and others have distinctions between region/affiliations. What should i use in place of shadows and darkness in terms of affiliation? --Falconeye 06:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the Awakened and Ancient pages are perfect for the armies of Joko and Zoldark (and not just those with that name in it). It shouldn't be done by name, otherwise we'd have a Charr Lord page, and many others. Why would the shadows and darknesses need an affiliation when there is the Shadow Army and most of the things which I'm assume you mean are Nightmares in elite areas. If there isn't a known affiliation in lore, it is most likely just a wildlife affiliation or no affiliation. I don't know how people classify non-elite area wildlife, so if there isn't a known affiliation (lore or not), I just leave it as "unknown." -- Konig / talk 06:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just assume there was different "subtypes" of Nightmares should it be proven that Nightares were not a subtype, but infact a Supertype/Type. So I am to assume that the FoW army of shadow, the RoT army of shadow, and the DoA army of darkness are in fact the same Shadow Army fighting force, just operating in mutiple spheres of conflict, in the same manner as we veiw our U.S. troops operating in Iraq, Pakistan and Afganistan? --Falconeye 07:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said over on Talk:Nightmare, I don't think there are any "sub" and "super" for either creature types or affiliations. There are just multiples for some creatures. And I fail to see how there would be any subtypes among the Nightmares. And yes, all three Shadow Army groups are indeed of the same Shadow Army. They are all explicitly called such in-game and are all said to be serving Menzies. And it isn't so much as three areas of conflict so much as it is all in the Rift in a war against the then five gods - mostly against Balthazar, the others are aiding Abaddon (or Mallyx). -- Konig / talk 07:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Trait, susceptibility, resistance
Those don't seem like noteworthy terms needing their own articles. --JonTheMon 18:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Source. It may very well be a necessisary distinction; I know it looks messy, but its a place holder until a better version is found... the undead are driving me crazy. --Falconeye 18:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mith helped clear things up over here. Undead have one affiliation: Undead. Not all undead take double damage from holy due to having or lacking a skill (as I thought but couldn't remember the name nor find it). -- Konig / talk 22:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Kanaxai Trivia
I don't recall a "Kanaxai" ever being added to Cthulhu's name. Where is Kanaxai in any of the Cthulhu mythos? -- Konig / talk 22:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Source. Kanaxai is a play on Cthulhu's many name references. I tacked the wiki link for independed research, since ive got 5+ reference-books currently laid out infront of my desk regarding creature types/affiliations (undead chiefly among them), and digging threw Lovecraft material is time consuming itself. --Falconeye 23:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I went through the wiki and found no "Kanaxai" so I think that your source is incorrect. At least, with the Kanaxai name. Cthulhu is indeed served by "Deep Ones" - and Oni do have a Cthulhu-like look (just take off the wings), but aside from that what else is there aside from similarities which can be found in, well, any cult. -- Konig / talk 23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A valid point. ^_^ --Falconeye 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

New Suggestion: Lore Faction

 * (Repost)

Based on Mith's details. In cases of Creature Type overlap, the primary takes precedence while the secondary takes desciptor "(-)", and Lore Faction frees up Affiliation for The Undead Army while allowing StoneSummit/Dredge, Afflicted/Sickened/Shiroken, etc. This would actually allow for notable distinctions such as Bandits, Guilds, Warbands, etc, (such as Arred's Crew, The Fierce, The Oddbodies, The Obsidian Flame, The Peacekeeper, and The Ebon Falcon) that operate seemingly independently within any said Affiliation/Creature Type. --Falconeye 05:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Example 1: After presearing, "<-insert your party->" are recruited into the ranks of the Ascalon Vanguard, an elite "special forces" Faction of the greater Ascalon Army Affiliation composed entirely of the Racial Creature Type known as Humans.


 * Example 2: Maybe D&D Ranger and Hunting Grounds can help is out with better ideas.

Stop with the affiliation page
Most of the things you're putting up are lore only (Affiliations and Creature types are mechanics!). Nearly everything you put up should be removed in fact. So please, stop editing. Before you said you can research but it takes too long in regards to the trivia - but research, it's better than having to go back and undo everything you did (or fix it). -- Konig / talk 10:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please hold up with your template changes.
Before you go spreading the template changes any further, I'm trying to figure out a good way to condense these into fewer templates without making the templates too big. So, to avoid unnecessary changes in the (near) future, please hold off on those changes. -- Konig / talk 02:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Minigame
Were you planning on creating the categories and their structure for the minigame tag you added? As well, use plurals for the 'affiliation'. G R E E N E R 00:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you going to tackle this? Or shall I just do it tomorrow? G R E E N E R  21:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just tossed the categories under Category:Minigames, but I didn't know if you wanted to move the actual minigames to the new sub-categories. I really think there's a better way to handle Tolkano's service, as I don't think it's even necessary in the infobox and it's category would be awkward. Suggestions? G R E E N E R  06:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was away for the weekend. Honestly whatever you feel is necessary is fine with me, i was looking for proper affiliations, services, professions, etc. to fill in on various pages that had those blank, and thus minigames was the only one that seemed appropriate, so i used it. Unfortunately, im not wiki-savy enough as id like to figure out half the things your guys do here. ^_^ --Falconeye 07:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries! I've been busy too, and I've only learned a small amount of the wiki code, etc., through trial and error. The infobox tends to create categories for most of the information that we put in there, such as affiliation and type. It also combines information, such as campaign and service to create different categories, such as what happened with Tolkano and the attempted creation of Category:Core automated tournaments. I think it would be best to strip poor Tolkano of the "service" detail for the moment. G R E E N E R  18:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not add unrelated templates to pages
I'm talking about the continents nav template. Stop adding them to every race article. It's irrelevant! -- Konig / talk 04:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should I create a "Races" template instead? --Falconeye 05:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be an unnecessarily and pointlessly large template. Categories are used for a reason. Template navs are not needed to be put on every single article... -- Konig / talk 05:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Spirit note
I removed that note because I tested the behavior you mentioned and was not able to replicate it. Have you found otherwise? --Irgendwer 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is almost-to-always an average 1 second lag between the completion of a ritual's skill activation, and the actual skill effect. Before Signet of Spirits became meta, I would use Offering of Spirit noticed that when skill-chained to Ritual with no existing spirit, while using a 40/40 mod, I would still sacrifice health even as my spirit was halfway through its "rising from the ground" binding animation sequence. For all the Spirit Lord variations ive ran since Factions, the spirit range effects of skills such as Recuperation and Shelter have on average 1 second lag after completion of the skill's activation time, which is approximate to the spirits binding animation sequence, which also leads me to believe that the spirits lifespan and "other" variable statistic factors dont kick in until after it completes its binding animation sequence. Now that Im thinking about it... would Banish or Spiritual Pain trigger their conditional effect in mid-binding? --Falconeye 02:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to reproduce that at all using Spirit Siphon, a 40/40 set, several different binding rituals, and 16 Fast Casting for overkill's sake. Even for Displacement, whose effect icon doesn't appear for an unusually long time after it is summoned, I was able to queue Siphon and get energy every time. I tried Offering of Spirit too and got the same results. --Irgendwer 03:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So, at what point was this anomoly changed/fixed? Mind you I havent rigorously tested this since the last big rit update. --Falconeye 03:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Judging by a note in the Offering of Spirit revision history, I'd say...more than 9 months ago. I didn't even start using spirits until some time after the SoS buff so you know more about their history than I do. --Irgendwer 03:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That does place it roughly the same time as the last rit update... Ill need to retest parameters/variables for both PvP and PvE. If you or others feel this anomally has truly been removed, then perhaps this shouldbe marked as a historical footnote like so many other anomolies/glitches? --Falconeye 03:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the change was indeed made, it's a fairly minor mechanical detail. I don't find it nearly as interesting as balance-related historical notes such as these. Of course, that's just my opinion and others may feel differently. --Irgendwer 04:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Henchmen Categories
Hey, just trying to figure out the structure that you wanted for the Category:Henchmen. Obviously this category holds all of the possible henchmen by name, but were you hoping to create sub-categories based on profession, or in-game title, or both? For example, the disambig page Assassin Henchman is included under Henchmen, which effectively is redundant as those henchmen are already listed in Henchmen. But if you had wanted to create a sub-category for all assassin henchmen, that could be possible. I'm just trying to figure out the over-all structure you were hoping for so that I can help organize it a bit better. G R E E N E R 00:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly sub-categories based on profession and those sharing the "--- henchmen" descriptors in addition to the existing campaign-based category; ran into problems with descriptors such as Monk Henchmen, and redirected pages like Grave Henchmen. --Falconeye 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, yeah, I see how Monk henchmen would be a pain. Let me sit down with a quick pen and paper, and see if I can get some nicer subcategories done. You've basically mapped them out already. G R E E N E R  04:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try something like User:Greener/Sandbox/Henchmen categories. Let me know if you were planning something different. G R E E N E R  04:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe... to help prevent "--- henchman" clutter on the Subcategories section of Category:Henchmen (particulary since Pages in category "Henchmen" already lists them) and to kill two birds with one stone... it could be something like: Henchmen → "by Campaign" and "by Profession" → "by Blood Hench, Cultist Hench, Grave Hench, Vile Hench, ect.?
 * Yep, that's basically what I've done. If you look from the standpoint of Category:NPCs by profession, you can see how each profession now has two sub-categories (bosses and henchmen). I've also gone add added professions under Category:Henchmen. For those categories which didn't fit into either profession or campaign, I've chosen to delete them. I'm sure there's some fine tuning that can be done, but I hope this is close to what you were aiming for. G R E E N E R  06:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ritualist Playing guide article
I know you want this article to be complete and up-to-date as possible but can you please keep in mind that these playing guide articles are meant to be for beginners? Adding more information to these articles that can be confusing to starting players. Especially information of niche builds that are either non-viable, hard to play, or mediocre. The article grew by over 6kb since my last pruning. . It is by far the largest playing guide article, and I would like to get it back under 29kb by highlighting the skill combinations that ritualists excel at instead of having every possible combinations of everything in there. Thanks! --Lania  18:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Pointless categories
You know most of the recent categories you've made are fairly pointless, right? Particularly the Category:Toy makers and the Category:Councilors... and all those other empty ones. They serve no purpose, really. Along with half of the stuff in Category:Occupations. That category should be shrunk, not expanded. Because it's just not that useful. And going into specific jobs is less helpful. -- Konig / talk 05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was covering as many broad categories I could think. I suppose Toy makers could be moved to category:artist. Wikipedia defines Artificer is a specific-kind of engineer/mechanic. Are there no NPC's that can remotely be considered Doctors or Scientists? --Falconeye 06:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the last: No specific NPC. There's only one person called an artificer that I know of. And really, the whole occupations category is unnecessary. It was a set of categories made to link like-in-universe job NPCs together... for some odd reason. -- Konig / talk 06:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging Artificer with Engineer; tagging the rest for deletion; should Toy maker be renamed, or moved to engineer/golemancer or artist? --Falconeye 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Artist for now. Though I'd prefer all of those categories removed. -- Konig / talk 07:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Stub pages
Stub implies that it has some sort of content. Just stub by itself is worthless. --JonTheMon 21:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Skill split
I see you've not given any reason for these splits. Yes, i've made contributions on these pages myself. But some of these skills, like Endure Pain, function just as it's warrior skill duplicate, which clues that it is infact the same skill. Then the split would be absolutely pointless... So i'd like to know your reason behind the splits. - J.P. Talk  23:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, poke has a point at Talk:Dragon Slash (Turai Ossa). - J.P.[[Image:User J.P. sigicon.png| ]] Talk  09:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Attribution
I see you've created a bunch of articles on aoe and spirits and stuff. And that's perfectly fine, if you htink they are needed. And I see ypou've done it by copypasting stuff ftom other articles. ANd that's fine too, in a way. But you haven't attrbuted the stuff ypou copy.

This site is under the gfdl license, and that means content is not free to use. You must pay, not in money but in other ways. One of the key ways is in recognition, and thus the license has a lot of requirements for that. The easiest way is normally just to post a line to the original in the edit summary, but listing the contributors on the talk page will do.

Psating this because I don't want to go around and delete tag all the articles you've made. I'll hope you can do this. Backsword 15:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is attribution? Can you please elaborate/link to it, because im just a non-wiki fluent-user getting by though oberving, and have always tried to make things better (and not worse). ;_; Besides thoughs youve mentioned, I have no idea what (let alone how many) pages relate to this matter; do I need to manually go to EVERY page (over +3 years) to "post-originals/list-contributors"? --Falconeye 08:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Flash spell and Flashchant?
First of all, these are not general terms. And second, are these commonly used, or did you just make them up? - J.P. Talk  10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ive encounterd random Zaishen PUG's throughout this week that used these (and other variations), and specifically several allaince members have used these two abbreviations (they claim to be Magic:tg players). I have no knowlege of it being more common-usage then that though. --Falconeye 10:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please comment
Talk:Shiro_Tagachi. I'm curious why you put Shiro as "Demon" - I have a feeling it's due to the Lightbringer skill (which actually doesn't look at the type of a creature, despite the wording, since NF titans count but not Proph titans, or NF torment creatures count but not Proph/Fact torment creatures, etc.) -- Konig / talk 22:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because 4 of 5 envoys had their type set as demons. --Falconeye 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Quest lists navbar
I've undone some of your recent edits adding quest lists navbar to quests. As the navbar documentation indicates, it's meant for quest list articles, not every quest. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nav bar on the UI page
I moved the navbar on the User interface article to the bottom (where navbars are located on all/nearly all other articles). You reverted. Could you explain your reasoning? Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 06:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was confused with the Navbar on quest pages; so thank you for that; same goes for the User Inferace as I dont even remember how/or if/or when i reverted them. Sorry! I need to stop wiki-editing during graveyard hours ^_^. --Falconeye 07:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * NP either way. For the UI page, I thought you might have had a specific reason why it made sense to be above the fold; thanks for changing things back...at least until you remember why it made sense to you earlier. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I may have been thinking along the lines of "... that UI box could replace that list of Panels and dialogs, for a "at a glance" effect ..." but by then was close to falling asleep (insomnia sucks). --Falconeye 07:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's probably a better way to show the panels and dialogues (but probably not the navbar and the current list). Hmmn, let us both give that some thought. (And, yes, worrying about insomnia keeps me up all night). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Skill history
Thanks for creating some of the missing skill history articles for the Avatars. Remember to add skill history to the top (that also categorizes the page as well). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 06:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do; Truthfully, im tempted to tag EVERY skill page with an actual history with the "Trivia: this skill has undergone revisions..." since I think the majority of folks who would taken the time to edit Skill History pages do not know or are unable, as there is now easy/direct/non-confusing link to the "Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Skill history" nor easy access to references to skill versions available BEFORE this wiki came online (Gamependium helps; but its accuracy at times are questionable). I do plan on (eventually) completing the Ritualist skills with as much accurate-details as possible whenever I have the time/energy/boredom, but its impossible for me to check the other 3,000+ skills. So im thinking of doing that (even if they are RED) to help motivate others players/wiki-users into updating on a need-to/case-by-case basis. I didnt know the project existed until I stumbled on it by accident and tag-lined to my user-page. Are there plans to make these skill history "Standerd" in the skill info boxes, similar to skill animation and other? If so, waiting until there is a "sizable archive" before unloading such a feature will take forever! --Falconeye 06:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a worthwhile project, but I wouldn't tag every skill. (1) Some skills haven't changed (not many, but there are some). (2) Putting the trivia in the article begs the question, what was changed; if we can't answer that, well, it's not a very helpful note. Plus, if we can't document the changes, perhaps people only think it has changed. However, if you really think it's important, please raise the issue in a more public forum to see what the community would like to see. (Near as I can tell, many would love to see the histories; some don't care at all; and hardly anyone wants to do the painstaking work &mdash; it's like baking cookies: everyone wants to eat 'em, no one wants to clean the dishes.)


 * Guild Wiki (this wiki's predecessor) has older information about skills in its history. You can check there and there's a handy tab on each article that allows you to go from Guild Wiki directly back to any identically named article here.


 * The project has evolved some since the project page was started, so perhaps you want to update it with the current practice:
 * There's skill history and unchanged skill history.
 * There are standard notes (but no template) for the skill pages: for split skills, combined skills, and skills that have been split (but no longer are).
 * When the skill has changed, the original project participants tried to include all iterations of the skill on the page: current, original, and everything in-between.
 * PS Don't forget to also add the current version of the skill.
 * When the skill has changed, folks have included links to the update in which they were changed.
 * I haven't done this in my recent edits (why? laziness).


 * Again I think it's great that you are adding more skill histories (esp. for the Derv update). Thank you. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may want to double-check the removed skill history, as it was my attempt to address the "skills that have been split (but no longer are)" annoying issue, as im pretty sure ive goofed somwhere. I may as well do seperate tags "split skills" and "combined skills" for easier editing references, as once this project gets halfway done (if ever) the primary category:skill history page will be MONSTROUS! ^_^--Falconeye 07:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use removed skill history; after a merge, the PvP skill article gets retired, but its skill history still applies (we just add the merge as current). In other words, there's nothing inherently different about a a skill history page for a PvP skill vs a PvE skill (regardless of how many times it was split/merged). I think it's more confusing to add a third template into the mix.


 * However, as with adding a note (even without a skill history), it might be good to check with others. I have a strong opinion, but I can see others strongly disagreeing for good reasons. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So... it makes simpler to do something like this Ritual Lord and let readers compare, then to do ''this skill's history is listed under these categories as "split skill", "merged skill", "removed skill", "unchanged skill", "capture/aquisition skill", "alpha/beta/original-version skill", etc? What about profession based sub-categories; Ritualist skill histories? How i wish for standardize policy/format so I can at least do Ford's assembly-line style editing without condradicting opinions from other respected users. --Falconeye 08:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you please
Remove your skill balance suggestions from the pve category? Cuz it really doesn't belong there. --Boro 08:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which one(s)? And why do they not belong there? --Falconeye 01:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Currently, some (all?) of the skills are classified as:
 * Skill feedback &rarr; [Prof] &rarr; [Skill] and
 * Player vs. Environment &rarr; PvE skills, suggesting that they are PvE-only skills


 * I don't find it a problem, but others might not understand why e.g. Feedback:User/Falconeye/Earth_Shaker appears on the second list, instead of merely on the first. If you remove the second categorization, others might find it easier to filter. I guess the thinking is that, if you want to comment on a split skill, you could create a suggestion for [Skill X] and another for [Skill X (PvP)] rather than adding the second category to distinguish. Ultimately, though, I think it's up to you. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 02:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So some are confused by how the "Feedback:List of X" organizes and displays suggestions, and cannot discern the difference of PvE-version of skills suggestions from the PvE-only skills? (I never had trouble with those distinctions.) So Boro is requesting I post BOTH PvP/PvE-versions of skills using only the Prof &rarr; Skill categories, instead of using multiple overlapping categories when more then one equally applies? I suppose if its easier to him filter things, then its maybe easier for Anet. ^_^ Anything else? Will others be recieving this notice, because im not the only one who does this.
 * And while on the subject, theres been alot of traffic on John Stumme's feedback-page; is there concencus regarding outdated feedbacks (such as all those Shadow Form ones) and those that are just not technically feasible for whatever reason? I feel that most wik-users who use the feedback process would benefit 100% from any kind of vetting/filtering process; I'd even welcome deleting most of my pages, as it will only serve in forcing me to redirect my focus on refining the good ideas. --Falconeye 03:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for Boro, so I'm not sure whether I've ID'd the issue correctly or not. In your shoes...I would probably drop the second category because the first would be sufficient. (I would use the second for a generalized suggestion about skills.) However, as I mentioned, I think it's your call.


 * On the other topic: I don't see any consensus developing about evolving the current feedback space much...and least, not yet. (I have some strong personal opinions about it, but those aren't relevant to the current topic.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Functionality has changed vs will be changed
Could you explain why you are marking skills such as Oppressive Gaze and Invoke Lightning as if they have changed already?

I commented out the text for OG so that it will be easy to make the page current whenever ANet releases the update. But until then, the skill remains the same. It's especially confusing to follow the link to a skill history page ...and find that it shows the same functionality as on the main article.

Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 05:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So he like to get an early start on things, good for him.
 * Tho i would suggest keeping them on your user pager for now, as thing do change and maybe these skills won't get changed as planned -- BobbyT [[Image:User_BobbyT BobbyT_Sig.jpg|19x19px|User Talk: BobbyT]] 05:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Existing pages are easier to edit then creating new ones for most users. Apologies for any errors. --Falconeye 05:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that editing the existing pages is the easier way to go. My question is: why are you changing them before the skills have actually changed? You can easily use to comment out the changes until the day they go live.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 06:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I plan to work on each individual skill using Gamepedia/Guild Wiki as reference while they are presented on Feedback:Skill update previews while the are presented in bite sized chunks. ^_^ I doubt it will be an issue within 5 days by anet's reckoning. (the dervish updates were so massive, i was in "oh, hell no!" mode) lol. --Falconeye 06:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with using commenting to add the notes, but suppressing the display until the release actually happens? For all we know, it might be delayed a week for a variety of reasons. As it stands now, the articles incorrectly state the functionality has changed. And the skill histories incorrectly imply the same. I think it's especially confusing to anyone who isn't aware that ANet sometimes releases update notes in advance of a release. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 06:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that changes to the pages should not be "visible" until the changes are actually made in the game. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Again, please hold off on making visible any notes suggesting that a skill has changed unless it has already done so and you are prepared to create the skill history article in full. If ANet releases on schedule, it will be a week before the changes are in the game; we document the game, not what might be. The skill update preview articles tell us ANet's plans; we don't need to confuse the readers by acting as if those changes are already in effect.

Thank you. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Articles should only have a disambiguation identifier in its article name when two or more different articles share the same article name. See GWW:NAMING. --Silver Edge 03:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Disguises
Can you explain why you moved all of those disguises to different naming convention? Take a look at Disguise. We don't add terms such as "Costume brawl" to the disambiguation unless needed. G R E E N E R 08:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had asked that questions, then initiated bold 5+ months later. About 25% of them had Costume Brawl, and since they are all costume brawl variety disguises, its makes better sense as its more accurate, less confusing, and conforms with Saul D'Alessio, Lieutenant Thackeray, Gwen, etc. On that note, I was also considering costume brawl skill page versions of past skills but stopped after considering that they arent static like Mission-oriented ones and thus time would be better spend on Skill History with links to those pages.
 * Yes, sadly they aren't static. Sorry I had missed any old push on the topic, but the recent alteration had caught me off guard. You've got some gusto when it comes to making changes, I'm just not always following your line of thought. Even the odd "Summary" note could help in explaining the direction you're hoping to go with some items. G R E E N E R  04:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Email
Hey Falcon, would you mind accessing this page? I wouldn't mind having a chat with you off wiki, if you're comfortable with it. If you're not, no worries. I'm not sure if you need to have entered your own email address into your preferences to properly access my email, but if you must, and you don't want to put your email on this site, let me know and I can visibly post mine here. G R E E N E R 04:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * << I will delete this after three days. ^_^ --Falconeye 04:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambigs
Do we really need all those disambigs you are creating? --JonTheMon 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It does helps with short names, spell errors, and abbreviation from within the game's chat and search options. --Falconeye 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But how are your disambig pages any better than just a search? --JonTheMon 18:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all variations of a keyword search appears on the list; im attempting to create ones that matter to the user/play and also works inconjuction with skill nomanclacture's main page list. --Falconeye 19:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So how are Wrath and As One any better than the search? --JonTheMon 19:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Granted, not all of them would benefit, just getting an assembly line going and will likely tag a deletion on any that dont work out after completion. --Falconeye 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrath in particular is awful. Pages like that aren't useful. - Auron 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If anyone here would like to assist me, please red tag any keywords on the Skill Nomanclature page that you feel could be linked, and I will leave the black/non-linked pages alone; this should be a reasonable compromise. ^_^ --Falconeye 19:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Extend enchantments
For Extend Enchantments, you might want to make use of Skill progression to complete your table (since the results will be linear progressions). Probably:
 * attribute = Mysticism
 * var1 name = Base: 5s
 * var2 name = Base: 10s
 * etc

(Then you just have to fill in the at0 and at15 variables, which will be a lot easier than calculating everything.)

Until you have the table fully fleshed out, please make use of a Sandbox for editing; it doesn't do the wiki readership much good to see partial tables. Thanks! — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I original did so 10 days ago, but Silver Edge reverted, stating the table doesn't work for that, which I assumed he was refering to variables not syncing correctly (as was the case with Destruction and others). --Falconeye 00:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Right! I forgot about that; that was a clever idea. You'll have to ask Silver Edge what he meant by that. My spot-checking of the numbers didn't reveal any significant discrepancies (although I'm not sure if skill progression handles rounding the same as +20% enchant items do).


 * Regardless, please make sure you've checked the numbers and filled in the table before adding it back in...and it wouldn't be a bad idea to publish on the talk page first, to make sure folks think it's helpful. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Skill damage types
The skill damage type categories that you are adding should prove useful. Couldn't we figure out a way to update the skill infobox to include damage type (and/or healing type) (so that we don't have to manually cat the skills)? Is it worth postponing further updates while we figure out how to make that work? — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * TBH, when I saw you were doing that, my thought was that it was an overly broad categorization that isn't even specific enough nor helpful enough to aid organization. E.g. Avatar of Grenth converts your attack damage to dark, but it doesn't directly deal dark damage and Mantra of Earth deals with earth damage but only when you take it. --JonTheMon 12:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmn. Jon makes a good point. Is category:dark damage appropriate for AoG? Or should the categories include category:deals dark damage and category:converts damage type? — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 16:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever concencus is reached, I would like to know before continueing with my BOLD categories. ^_^ --Falconeye 05:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to say no, since the damage type pages themselves can handle the lists. --JonTheMon 13:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But do you think those pages it look better as they are now, or with the list format (as Ive gradually been doing with all the other "List of 'related' skills"). --Falconeye 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think i like the skill tables, since it's just needs a list, and many of the entries don't need more than the name and possibly a quick note. --JonTheMon 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Entry 51
Interrupt effect... the page is not completely filled out. I saw you created so if you want to fill it out, I have most of the skills that say interrupt effect or might be interrupt triggered in a link on the notes of the interrupt effect page. Previously Unsigned 01:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I also think that on Professions Roles, you have Mesmer and Necromancer mixed up. Previously Unsigned 01:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Skill histories
I appreciate the work you are putting into making sure that every skill has a skill history; this will make things much easier each time that ANet tweaks a skill (and, I hope, result in having more accurate skill histories). However, some of your contributions are making things more difficult in the meantime. Could I ask of you the following:


 * 1) Please do not create skill history pages that are simply stubs. It's actually easier to see that they are missing if they don't exist.
 * 2) Please do not link from the skill pages unless there is actual content on the skill history page; it gives readers the impression there is a link worth following.
 * 3) Not every skill history involves a functionality change. The text I have been using is, This skill has changed since its introduction...

If you want to avoid the issues associated with points (1) and (2):
 * 1) You can look at the history of the skill, grab the original content and the latest skill infobox.
 * 2) If the skill hasn't changed, you can slap on the unchanged skill history tag instead of skill history.
 * 3) If the skill has a long history, you can add the stub and people can backfill the intervening changes later on.

Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 19:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to add to what Tennessee said, you can also find the main Project page for it here. No worries if you make a mistake - I'm going through skill histories and double checking them for accuracy and consistency (most notably this article, which has been cleaned up). Tools regarding research for past revisions of skills can be found on the main project page I linked above. :)
 * Blue Clouded 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you mark Heart of Holy Flame/Skill history with unchanged skill history? The skill changed noticeably since its introduction (became a flash enchantment, for instance). A simple diff on the article's history shows that. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 15:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

There are good alternatives that allow you to prepare the wikiwithout creating article skeletons or prematurely changing data.
 * You can use <tt> </tt> to hide skill article edits until the changes are released.
 * You can create a sandbox page in the Skill History project space before the update that includes the completed skill history. On the day of the update, you can move (without discussion) that page to the appropriate location.
 * If there already is a skill history article, you can use the comment trick above to add the data without changing how the article appears before the release.

The wiki's credibility is damaged unnecessarily by unfinished pages, premature skill updates, and/or linking skill articles to empty or misleading skill histories. Keep in mind that ANet has merely announced intended changes; things could be different after implementation. Thanks for your help. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 16:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Blank cost
Do we really need to spell out those costs as separate pages? It seems like you're trying to define the obvious. --JonTheMon 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

ZV pages
Hey, could you be so nice and stop editing the Zaishen Vanquish quest pages unless someone makes an error and you want to fix it? The '' '' does not belong on there, as the page already has 2 links to the explorable area article and if you haven't noticed Hong's edits, vanquish notes also do not belong on the ZV quest page. Kthx. --weby [TALK] @ 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your edits are meant well Falconeye, but I agree with Hong and weby. I think the messages for zv's belong on the explorable pages as notes (with a link to the zv). Happy Editing! :-) Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 22:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as ZV's for explorable areas with a mission of the same name go, the Location disambiguation makes sense, but otherwise I don't think it's needed (like I said, every ZV page already has 2 links to the explorable area's page). And I realize now that the 1st message probably wasn't written in a very friendly tone, for which I apologize. --weby [TALK] @ 22:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Move requests for 200 articles: please centralize it
Please stop posting a move request on every single Zaishen quest article in the wiki. If you have a concern about the naming convention, then address it in a single place, allow time for the community to discuss it, and then (depending on the outcome) a bot can easily update all the necessary links and articles. There are lots of ways to handle a perceived discrepancy in how ZVQ articles are named short of changing 66 bounty articles, 69 mish articles, and the already 70 or so ZVQ articles (not to mention any other names that consistency has an issue with).

Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Editcopy
While I appreciate you adding those links. I just wanted to be kind and let you know why I reverted you. :-) Kaisha   19:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) We don't add external links to the main page.
 * 2) The internal links you added from the Community portal area, belong there and not on the main page. Hence, a link to the community portal is fine in it's self and we don't need links from both areas.

Guide to killing Rotscale
I've moved your proposed addition to the Rotscale article to your user space:
 * It's not ready for main space yet (you are still sorting out the details, including formatting and half the advice).
 * It's not really appropriate for Notes and there should be some discussion about where to include it (perhaps a sub-page).

I imagine the wiki could use some more guide articles for defeating otherwise annoying bosses, but we mostly have relegated such advice to the talk pages up until now. While you (or we) are working out the details, let's leave it out of the main articles.

Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that you could use the formatting of the boss-fight articles I've written for my own purposes. I hope you can improve the quality of the style, if not also the content with your Rotscale guide. (I'm not happy with how mine have turned out.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ive been considering on merging elements of Rotscale, your Glint article, Earthbind/Stun Imminity, ect. into a page listing: the most powerful/annoying Monster Skills --> Bosses/Boss-like foes & creature types that are associated with them/frequently encountered using them --> the most effective skills/tactics used to counter them... all with as concised descriptions as plausible;  a sorta quick list/link guide at a glance that especially deals with 10% of situationss that cant be easily dealth with 90% of tactics gleaned form experienced. --Falconeye 00:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there's something to be said for a Guide of guides that includes generalized tips that don't need to be repeated everywhere. I imagine that was what you were trying to do with guide to killing bosses (or whatever that stub was called); those are good things to sandbox until it's clear that (a) there's a need/demand and (b) they are in good shape (which is why a lot of my advice never makes it into mainspace). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Strongboxes
I appreciate you taking the time to make Strongbox articles consistent with those for the other gifts. On the whole, you have done a thorough job of it.

However:
 * The miniatures are not disputed; we (at GWW) simply don't know which drops.
 * Per ANet, each mini is unique to each type of box.
 * Only one of two different EL tonics can drop from each type of box; ANet's phrasing makes it ambiguous whether it's 8 total ELs or only 2.
 * We do know that none of the boxes has three potential ELs

Please make sure your final updates reflect the currently available evidence by using ambiguous language (e.g. to be determined) instead of including combining disputed, plausible, and factual data (along with that which might be posted by those trolling). We can certainly wait to screens (if not here than on Guru or other sites) showing which mini/ELs drop from which boxes.

Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Stun Immunity+Shiro/Dhuum
I literally just tested knocking down with various skill combinations on both Shiro and Tundra Giants. Shiro allows kd via Stonefist Insignia while the Tundra Giants do not. Ergo, "cannot be knocked down unless the duration of that knock down was enhanced." is not the same as Stun Immunity, ergo, Shiro and Dhuum do not have Stun Immunity. They have a mockery of the skill, possibly given via monster skills which give no description, such as Strong Natural Resistance. -- Konig / talk 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
As a heads-up, some redirects such as Delicious and Chocolate do not need to be created, as they actually conflict with the desired target when using the search option. The only other "Delicious" and "Chocolate" are the actual end-targets of the redirects. G R E E N E R 04:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A good rule of thumb is probably: we probably don't need it.


 * Put another way: ask why we might need it. Are people typing the wrong thing frequently? In-game, do people refer to the redirect name rather than the main name? What will show up first in the search box's predictive text? The goal is to make things easier to find without a redirect; add the redirect if there's an issue that the redirect (or disambig helps solve). Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 05:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What they said. You seem to have a passion for categorising and organising information. While that's not a bad thing most of the time, it can be taken too far. -- Hong 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New guild categories - could you rename them please?
I think these categories need to be renamed: recruiting farming guilds sounds like a group that recruits farming guilds. I think what you mean is, Farming guilds that actively recruit or (more simply) Farming guilds that recruit.

However, the best choice is probably: Farming guilds. If we end up with 100+ guilds in each cat, then, sure, it might be sensible to distinguish. (OTOH, if we end up with only 2-3 member guilds, it might be better to drop the idea.)

Can I leave it to you to make the changes? Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * All I did was follow the established pattern... should "Recruiting" be eliminated all together, or should they be renamed to something like this? --Falconeye 18:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:Notable guilds         & Notable guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:Mature guilds          & Mature guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:English speaking guilds & English speaking guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:American guilds        & American guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:PvE guilds             & PvE guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:PvP guilds             & PvP guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:PvX guilds             & PvX guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:AB guilds              & AB guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:GvG guilds             & GvG guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:Running guilds         & Running guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:Farming guilds         & Farming guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:HA guilds              & HA guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:Social guilds          & Social guilds/Recruiting
 * Category:Kurzick guilds         & Kurzick guilds/Recruiting


 * I apologize: I completely missed this style table when I was first looking at this; near as I can tell, your naming appears to follow its convention.


 * Unfortunately, it's a very awkward style ...and no one has reviewed it in two years (and the general consensus on how to name/create cats is somewhat different). I prefer your suggestion above; it seems more sensible to use subcats for those subset of guilds that recruit actively. However, please don't do any renaming; there needs to be community discussion before changing a long-standing style (even if it's a demonstrably terrible style...and arguably, this one isn't terrible...just awkward).


 * So that leaves only these issues:
 * Are you applying a tag that matches a primary activity? (i.e. don't use every possible tag; just the most well-suited ones)
 * Some tags have special requirements; in particular, notable means recognized by ANet. (A tag which fits HRK...for anyone following along at home.)
 * Is it really important to create a new category (even if it follows the convention)?
 * Before adding a recruiting label, did you consider whether that's a primary criterion for recruiting new members?


 * For example, if a guild is a general PvE guild that does many things, I wouldn't add the farming label. Also: if the guild has mature members, but doesn't use that as part of its vetting process, I would label it Mature Guilds, but not Recruiting mature guilds (the first is true, but the second is misleading).


 * So, short story: I withdraw my objection to the cats you created (my concern is with the style guide). Also please consider whether all the tags you are using for your guild are essential and help clarify its purpose/goals rather than diluting it with too many tags. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 18:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I like to cover all plausible bases ^_^. I edit & maintian the HRK (& others) on behalf of Nealie (and others officers). By request, 1) I added those tags as part of our recuiting efforts; 2) most of our members have diverse interests and/or are currently active in said categories; 3) its ALOT easier/quicker to forward players ingame to HRK-page (spam-typing repetitive LFG is boring/annoying) and/or allows wiki users to hopefully find us more easily within thier search criteria. --Falconeye 19:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Templates
What are these for? Honestly, if for the feedback pages... I can only see issues. Nothing positive. :-( Kaisha   19:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Falconeye means to find a way to filter out certain suggestions from various auto-generated lists by adding relevant categories, e.g. suggestions that are obsolete due to certain updates; e.g. suggestions that were +/- adopted. I think that is an important and useful goal.


 * Unfortunately, the Feedback space includes a huge number of articles. And, several people who are very knowledgeable about wikicode went to great pains to set things up in a particular way (largely with authorization of the community through various discussions). That should not be taken lightly.


 * I think, therefore, if someone wants to jumpstart the process, they should create templates in their own user space and show how they could be used in their own Feedback area. Then, propose that the community adopt the templates. Discussions will abound; tweaking will take place; and the idea will evolve into something that has the consensus of the wiki.


 * Alternatively, you can create the templates in your own user space and use them to tweak your own feedback page. (Falconeye: if you look at my feedback home page, you can see an example of that; you can tweak your own to filter based on your own criteria without affecting mainspace.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, I was wondering why they weren't created in the user space, if meant for his feedback only... I was wary that it might mean for the whole, cause imo some people don't like being told their suggestion is bad, etc. - even if it might be or not. It's not really something that I think the players should decide with other players, because that imo diminishes the usefulness of a feedback for players to give bad or good feedback/responses, etc. Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look again. This isn't about calling a suggestion good vs bad; it's about Outdated (meaning no longer applies to the game) or Successful (meaning already implemented). Of course, other words imply more objectivity (e.g. Implemented vs Successful). However, that issue is, imo, besides the point.


 * The whole area of feedback is sensitive. None of us, including the original implementers, should proceed hastily into upsetting the current balance. Things might be imperfect now, but they work. It's important that we go through a well-vetted process so that whatever we end up with has the support of the community. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 20:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Template:GW feedback infobox has a "resolved" parameter which, imo, would take the place of any successful/outdated template. --JonTheMon 20:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True there, which would make these templates kind of useless imo. If one thinks their suggestion is outdated, they can delete it or update it. If it's resolved (or successful), they can use the infobox and mark it as such. Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 21:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would welcome more options than resolved: implemented suggests that it's in the game; outdated implies that something else happened that makes the idea moot now (but perhaps the submitter still prefers their idea); resolved tells me a problem has be fixed (but many suggestions are not about bugs or even things that don't work as well as originally thought).


 * For example, here are two resolved issues:
 * Lots of people requested adding more ele heroes; those suggestions are outdated due to mercs and being able to change Razah's prof. However, many would have preferred more ordinary heroes.
 * A lot of people requested making drinks spammable; that's been implemented.
 * This emphasizes my original point: none of us should attempt to add new features to the Feedback space without community backing. Falconeye's ideas for templates might be good (TEF), bad (Kaisha), or moot (Jon)... but they should remain in user space until there's substantive discussion followed by a groundswell of support. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, my discussion page over the last few days has never been this active before! ^_^ --Falconeye 01:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

New EL Tonics
The dev updates states that each strongbox has 2 unique el tonics. We have a list to help us sort out what goes where. Make sure you check it before you start changing any relevant pages. Thanks :) -- Moto   Saxon  15:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop
Despite their name, the Nightfall Behemoths are not Behemoths. Likewise, the howlers are not Simians. Both of them are Beasts. Hell, we don't even know if simian is anything more than what vaettir or Shadow Army or Nightmare Horde are. To call the howlers in Elona "Simians" is even more speculation than assuming that "Simian" is an affiliation. So please stop adding things which have no basis to them.  Konig / talk 23:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is a list of Affiliations in affiliation, which I'm happy to say is corrected by Konig. I think it was my understanding that if they didn't have a "specific" affiliation, like some creatures - then they'd belonged to that region's wildlife. Hope this helps. Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 00:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not corrected... just more accurate. We still don't know a lot and I bet 50% of what we mark down as affiliations are, in fact, not mechanical affiliations. Most NPC's affiliations are probably the default "region's good guys" and "region's bad guys" affiliations (the later we denote as " wildlife." Though some, like Charr, are certainly their own affiliation.  Konig / talk 02:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking some might be done via regional. Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 02:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Images on affiliation and creature type pages
While no where explicitly said, I'd like to note that prior to your additions lately, the images are either concept arts or renders - renders are preferred. Images like what you put on stone guardian are, imo, poor and shouldn't be placed. Likewise, if a render (e.g., white background) is used, do not thumb it, as that makes it look worse.  Konig / talk 18:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Moves
Can you point to where there was a consensus? You have three responses: one strongly objecting (me), one with no opinion (Zesbeer), and one support (Hong). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
Dude, what is the point of making yet another zillion redirects? -- Hong 07:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Quest listing for love (but not money)
Thanks for adding the link to Beyond quests to the navbar. I've been trying to spotcheck all those articles and knew I was forgetting something critical... and that was it. (I got so involved in making sure that the quests were showing up in the right lists that I forgot to make sure that all the lists were present and accounted for.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What should be done with Zinn's Task, Hearts of the North and others? Should the Non-Core/Multi-Campaign be treated as Beyond content? --Falconeye 01:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hearts of the North (like WiK before it and WoC after) is part of Beyond, so that shouldn't be an issue. I think Konig would argue that Zinn's Task is accidentally part of Beyond (technically released as its own thing, but, for all intents and purposes, we could treat it as Beyond now); I don't love that approach, but it might be the best we can do without creating a special category/section just for that one set of quests.


 * Are there lots of others? (I can't think of any that are truly cross-campaign and that don't fit neatly into Beyond or Festival). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Zinn's Task is the only non-core, non-beyond, non-festival multi-campaign quest. TEF is right in how I view that - as something which became, rather than made to be, part of Beyond - however I do not see why it cannot be given its own category if we have a category and article for a single quest. Though I'd rather place it in Beyond.  Konig / talk 02:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So, Zinn's Task is either beyond or another category entirely... i have NO IDEA what valid category that should be... so i will use the precedent already set by The Last Hierophant and Norn Catering. ^_^ --Falconeye 06:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, those are different than Zinn's Task. Last H is clearly part of EotN and is just weirdly classified by ANet; we're sort of stuck with that. Norn Catering is clearly part of HotN (no access to it otherwise). Zinn's Task is the only one where there's really any doubt. And I think Konig's idea is by far the best of any that I've seen: make it part of Beyond (either it's own thing, parallel to WiK and HotN...or ... possibly something else). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 06:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If thats the agreement, then would you mind tagging the relevant pages as Beyond: Zinn's Task, i have no idea how to go about tagging them as you did. That and i think by now when any person/page says Core, its refering to content thats universally accessible, rather then PvE-only multi-campaign content (which seems to be the common trend of Beyond content). --Falconeye 07:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mind retagging (although I'm going to wait to see what Konig says about calling it part of WiK or it's own thing — iirc, he suggested that ZT get its own category).


 * I think that Core got used in a variety of ways before and we are trying to return it back to the narrower definition you stated (universal rather than cross-campaign). There's relatively little that's true cross-campaign outside of Beyond (which, by definition, is now on its own instead of overlapping with everything else). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 07:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call Zinn's Task as part of the WiK, but they do overlap. Personally, I'd dub it "Zinn's tale" and slap Trial of Zinn in that, since it's not really part of the War in Kryta but parallel to it like the first portion of HotN - 3 tales that merged into one. How it is now, though, is fine, imo.  Konig / talk 07:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused now: currently, it's treated as core even though it's not accessible unless you own the three original campaigns (P/F/NF). Shouldn't we change ZT (and its component quests) to Campaign=Beyond? — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 15:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Zinn's Task
- instead of silently breaking GWW:1RR, would you mind explaining your edits? Again, Beyond clearly states that Zinn's Task is NOT part of Beyond (in fact, it predates Beyond by almost two years), so please change it back to Core or explain why you think that beyond is the correct category. Tub 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC) can't be of Beyond.
 * On the topic of 1RR, there hasn't been a break, afaik. Falconeye changed the page, you reverted (1), he reverted (1). Nobody's reverted twice yet. --JonTheMon 18:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as i know Zinn's Task is part of GWB. It may have been introduced much earlier on than other GWB content but it has been added after EoTN and involves GWB story line with the Trial of Zinn and continueing in WiK. Wich also has yet to be reveiled and will most likely be a part of GWB as well later on is the one who messed with his golems. That it has been released 2 years earlier than WiK wich is when people started to become aware of GWB does not mean it isn't a part of it. If you still wanna stick to that early release then you can say it's been integrated into GWB after it's release. Damysticreaper 19:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "main" discussion thus far has been above this one. Technically, it was not implemented as Beyond, but intentional or not, it effectively "became" part of Beyond in a sense. Core is not correct, as you must have multiple campaigns. Technically, Zinn's Task is all alone just as The Last Hierophant is all alone in the elite difficulty quests. Either it's creating its own category and list article - something that unlike the elite difficulty quests will not ever get expanded - or consider that it is "unofficially the first part of Beyond" - it's story is a part of Trial of Zinn's story and in turn a parallel to the beginning of the War in Kryta (just as Hearts of the North has part of its story that runs parallel to WiK).
 * To put it simply and in comparison:
 * Hearts of the North, officially, is the content that takes place post-War in Kryta.
 * HotN's story, however, begins sooner and runs parallel (read: independent for a time) of the War in Kryta. As such, wiki now categorizes a piece of WiK content as HotN content for ease of documentation.
 * Likewise, Zinn's Task is officially not Beyond content - it takes place pre-WiK.
 * However, part of that story which I dub "Zinn's tale" is War in Kryta, thus beyond, content. But, like the beginning of what wiki considers HotN, Trial of Zinn runs parallel to the War in Kryta.
 * Conclusion: Sometimes, wiki organizes things with ease, consistency, and/or similarities in mind, rather than being technical and following how Anet organizes things. If we didn't, we'd be using Family and Army rather than creature type and affiliation - the former are less specific and potentially confusing terms.
 * In effect (aka TL;DR): Officially it is not Beyond content, but it is highly tied to Beyond content, is not part of a campaign or expansion, is not core. It is, literally, alone. One of a kind in that those quests are the only ones that are multi-campaign and not tied to either Beyond nor a festival. As such, for ease of documentation, the wiki could (and should in my, TEF's, and Falconeye's opinion) be considered Beyond, as the only thing it lacks to be Beyond content is the fact that it came out before Beyond content (it does the same task that Beyond does).  Konig / talk 20:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only did it come out way before Beyond content, up until today anet states that beyond starts with WiK, not with Zinn's Task. It's an independent update, though (unlike Sorrow's Furnace etc) we can't just cram it into an existing campaign.
 * The argument that it's Beyond because of the storyline connection doesn't really hold; by that logic every quest involving the White Mantle should be Beyond, too. Though in that case nobody is arguing because they fit neatly in prophecies, where they belong.
 * Listing Core may technically be wrong, but since the requirements are listed right below that line in the infobox, that shouldn't cause too much confusion. Listing it as Beyond is also wrong, considering the official word. I consider Core the lesser evil.
 * Though, if neither is acceptable, we could trivially set campaign=Zinn's Task and have it end up in its own category, or set campaign=Multi campaign, and have it only end up in a category it's already in. Tub 01:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Zinn's Task wasn't a story arc, unlike WiK, HotN, and WoC. Your statement that all WM-related quests should be of Beyond by the story argument is incorrect, as the WM are also a part of Prophecies and EN, and all WM-related quests are either Prophecies, EN, or Beyond (split between WiK and HotN). Beyond is effectively "post 's story" story. So something that "fit neatly in prophecies"
 * I'll disagree that listing it as Core is the "lesser evil" in this scenario - it's more of a continuation of the games rather than something independent from any game in both immediate story and requiring. I'd settle for "campaign=multi campaign" as that's the most true, though it feels out of place - then again, it is an out of place quest.  Konig / talk 01:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)


 * There is no easy way to categorize Zinn's Task. It's not strictly Beyond, not really Core, and so forth. I think the lesser evil is finding a box that requires the least amount of shoehorning. ANet is inconsistent about all sorts of things ... and they don't really care if GWW has trouble with classification (nor should they); I don't think it matter much (in this single situation) what they have said about when Beyond started — it's a marketing/brand name to them. Our choices are:
 * ZT is part of beyond.
 * ZT is its own distinct campaign.
 * We call it Core
 * We create an other box, and ZT might be its only member.
 * I think the cons outweigh the pros in all cases, but I'm willing to go with Beyond b/c it has a connected storyline (via Zinn's trial). Core is my least favorite choice (I think it's the opposite of being Core: it requires owning all the major campaigns). But my stronger preference is that we make some decision and stick with it for at least 6-9 months before second-guessing ourselves.


 * (To be fair to Tub: Falconeye jumped the gun: this discussion should really be taking place on a public talk page. There was no rush to update ZT and its component quests this week; it can remain unclassified while we spend more time documenting WoC.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Im just trying to make All Quests fit neatly into the Main Quest Page, the Quest Lists Navbar, and all relavent quest lists and categories. As stated in Quest listing for love (but not money), Core is misleading, confusing & inconsistent; and thus until anyone can come up with a BETTER/OTHER option or can justify giving a single set of quests its own campaigns (itself misleading, confusing & inconsistent), Beyond is the best option we have (same like I did with Vanguard Foes and other stuff). --Falconeye 04:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For future reference
You will not find any affiliation with just one or two NPCs in it. Likewise, don't create categories for just one or two NPCs. It is pointless.

Also, I suggest archiving some of your talk page. It's huge.  Konig / talk 07:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ministry of Earth has at least three; and how do i go about archiving? ^_^ --Falconeye 08:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still unnecessarily small for a category, and still highly unlikely to be their own affiliation, all things considered. As to archiving - just move the comments to a subpage, for instance User talk:Falconeye/Archive 1.  Konig / talk 08:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Should i just slap Kisu with Canthan Imperial Family as a pre existing affiliation? From what i understand, the Celestial Ministry (and sub-divisions), the Imperial Guard, etc., all answer to him. --Falconeye 08:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he may be of the same affiliation as the Imperial Guard - the Celestial Ministry is pretty much against him. Not in terms of combat or political intrigue, but they even cause issues for him.  Konig / talk 08:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me! Kind a like how the historical Chinese Imperial Family focused on the big issues, while outsourcing a Second Family to handle the "mundane day to day grind", and a third family as a "secret service". --Falconeye 08:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Zaishen quest renames
You are using Talk:Zaishen Challenge Quest as a justification for moving over 60 articles.
 * 1) That conversation doesn't (at the moment) support any of those moves.
 * 2) If and when it does, you can ask the admins to setup an automated process to move all relevant articles (there's no need to slap a move tag and invite 60+ discusssions; that's why the discussion remains in one location).

Accordingly, please remove the move tags and instead, first try to encourage other people to your point of view. Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 11:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You just moved Zen Daijun (Zaishen quest). As per TEF, stop moving these articles before consensus has been reached. -- Hong 17:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects again
As if to confirm that your mania for redirects is getting out of hand, you have now redirected a page to point to itself. Stop it, please. -- Hong 08:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * To not create a new section - regarding all of your Shiro redirects; most people will merely search "Shiro" rather than slapping on one of his way-too-many titles. I don't think any except most common are needed.  Konig / talk 04:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking NPCs as Beyond
While I'm not opposed to marking NPCs in WiK and WoC as "Beyond" it is best to wait for the discussion to finish before acting. So please stop for the time being, especially when you're adding "Factions" or "Prophecies" to NPCs and they are not part of those campaigns - at least for the time being, let's just wait for a consensus on how to document.  Konig / talk 07:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oroku
I get the feeling that posting here is pointless, but here goes anyway. I put the move request on the Oroku page, as opposed to doing it unilaterally, because I felt that there might be objections to the move. Sure enough, someone chimed in with a reason for keeping things the way they were. IOW, there was no consensus for moving, as you would have known if you had read the talk page. I've raised this on the admin noticeboard since I can't automatically undo the change.

Being bold is all well and good, but the fact that there are multiple posts on your talk page asking you to stop should be telling. -- Hong 17:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Official forum suggestions
I had an idea to incorporate the feedback suggestions into the official Guild Wars forum. As you and a a small group of others routinely suggest things, and the feedback space pretty much dead, it would be a better place to get our ideas visible and a better fit than the wiki. I posted a a topic here https://forum.guildwars.com/forum/forums/web/Would-it-be-possible-to-incorporate-Wiki-s-suggestions-into-the-forum/page/1#post3339 and if I could get your support, thanks! I think it will go nowhere but if some of us can jump on board maybe their stance will change or they can humor us! What do we have to lose!? Previously Unsigned 00:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Request
Please stop removing deletion tags without any sort of discussion. Its getting annoying.  Konig / talk 08:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When did i delete? When was a "less than 7" standard established? Im not surprised with Battlestar Galactica (may as well tag Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), but Princess Bride, Resident Evil, etc... thats a cluster clicking if a curious reader wanted to find them all. ^_^ --Falconeye 08:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you deleted it on both The Betrayer and on Category:References to comics . Less than 7 isn't a standard but to have anything smaller than that, especially for such a trivial category, is silly. In most cases, it's a single group or quest/mission that has a shared theme to it (Terminator, Resident Evil, TMNT, and Kill Bill). Personally, I find any sort of specificity outside of differenciating "popular culture" and "folklore & mythology" rather silly - well, except maybe in some cases, like where Keiran has a poem reference.  Konig / talk 08:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, I'm okay with categorizing references so that those who are curious can find them more easily. That said, Falconeye: before you create a new category (and especially before creating a subcategory), consider whether there's an existing category (or sub) that fits the bill. A reasonable rule-of-thumb is: if the list is short, it makes things worse to add a new one. So, seven is a reasonable rule of thumb. But sometimes, we shouldn't add a cat (or subcat) even if there are 20 items in the list; the context is important, too.


 * Keep in mind that the wiki's primary emphasis is documenting the game, not documenting popular culture's relationship with it. So, it looks strange that we have articles with an NPC who's in 5-6 game categories and 3-4 reference cats. It also increases the number of cats listed at the bottom...making it harder to find any one of them. So perhaps the best argument for only have a single references to popular culture category is so that the list of categories is never cluttered by categories about the trivia.


 * However, all of that is besides the point: if someone slaps a delete tag on something...or a move tag, then it's important to let people have a chance to discuss it before unilaterally removing the tag. You can disagree with Konig (or me or whoever). You can disagree strongly. But that doesn't make it okay to move forward; in fact, it means it's very much not alright to do so. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 08:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative currency
An alternative currency is something that is used in place of gold, both when the price is too high to trade directly (e.g. armbraces for ecto) or as a convenience (e.g. 6 GotT for 5 zkeys). I have seen fewer than half a dozen examples (in-game or at the estimator or on trade sites) where someone is offering to use gold zoin as a substitute; that's about as frequently as I see people attempting to trade various other items in lieu of cash.

People will trade gold zoin for ecto, but that is using ecto as the alternative currency. Before adding to the list of alternative currency, we should see numerous offers involving zoins used as currency. The comparable numbers are hundreds of armbrace-based trades, thousands of zkey-based ones, or tens of thousands of trades ecto-based trades

This is the second time in two months that you have attempted to add gold zoins to the list, even though there is no new evidence that things have changed. Please consider carefully before updating the articles a third time. Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)