Talk:Sarah

sarah in the UW doesnt talk to players anymore... u used to b alble to open a chat dialog with her... whats up? -TehBuG-


 * GW:EN?Backsword 01:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Husband
Why would he be in UW searching her husband, as he died three years before players see sarah in pre...

uhhhh cuz there both dead now???--Vørråx 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== anny dialoge after you've cleared the UW and you have Gwen in your party? :o 78.20.153.111 12:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Template
I've changed from "type = human + ghost" to just "type = human", because template acts oddly when non-plain texts are set as parameter (there was a string before description). Maybe should be split between Sarah (Pre-Searing) and Sarah (like Ahtok <-> Scout Ahtok and Lady Althea <-> Ghost of Althea)? Personally, I don't think it's really worth having an almost blank page just to put a couple of quotes and to say she'll become a ghost after some event. --NIN37 08:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwen in the UW dialogue
I have to say, this is one of the most emotional dialogues I've ever read in GW. GJ Anet! -- Large 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is, especially when you take Gwen to the UW and see their dialogue.MystiLefemEle 13:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah appears very rarely
I think it's important to note that Sarah spawns very rarely, so I've rephrased the introductory text and relevant note to reflect this. My own experience was that it took 10 times, which justifies the phrase, nearly a dozen times. Please discuss here before allowing the text to imply her spawn rate is greater. Thanks. &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 03:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the section because I think it's redundant. Why do we need to put a value on it? I've had Sarah spawn on my third, fifth, second, second and fourth attempts so I would hardly think that is "very rarely" and having a value could possibly be misleading. If the note suggests players rezone until she appears then they would (should) understand- "Oh Sarah isn't here, I'll just map travel back and rezone". Sure you say you may but still, would we put "The drops rarely and you may need to complete the dungeon nearly a hundred times" or "This spawns occasionally and you may need to zone up to half-a-dozen times before he spawns"?. Sometimes less information is more. I won't remove the note, but I just think it's unnecessary. ~Celestia 03:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for some she seems to show up more than for others, so I guess the 'rare' sighting would remain. MystiLefemEle 06:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's consistent to quantify Sarah's spawn frequency for three reasons: (1) she's an unusual NPC in appearing less than 100% of the time (is Vael the only other?); (2) this wiki quantifies the appearances of bosses; (3) this wiki generally attempts to quantify rates (e.g. rates of salvage/expert salvage, chest contents, and the contents of Gifts of the Huntsman and Traveler). Generally, the only reason we don't quantify something is because we lack enough data, as in Sarah's case.


 * Given the lack of data, I thought including an outside number would be helpful; the original text implied it takes only 2-3 visits, as opposed to the 10 tries I needed. Celestia's experience suggests that rare is inappropriate; sometimes is consistent with 3/5/2/2/4/10.I've updated the text accordingly.   &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 08:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

split
See Benton and Benton (post-Searing). – Emmett  21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sarah and Sarah are the same person, but Benton and Benton aren't (I think). - Mini Me  [[Image:User Mini Me sig.png|19px|talk]] 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the intro paragraph on Benton's post page. – Emmett  21:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well. Yes. - Mini Me   talk  21:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * they look kinda different >.>
 * I do not support splitting a page unless there is a compelling reason to do so. Perhaps we should be merging Benton rather than splitting Sarah: the underworld lore is scant and there's even less pre-searing data. It's less work for a reader to be able to see Benton in all his manifestations on a single page. For now, I'm okay with leaving things alone so we can have a larger discussion about when it's appropriate to split. Right now those discussions are taking place on individual talk pages.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 was why I proposed it. Unless the infobox is modified? –  Emmett  15:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the infobox should drive this wiki's decision to merge/split articles. Rather, I think we should make an editorial decision as to whether merging/splitting is sensible and ensure that our other tools/guidelines are able to support that decision. In theory, our emphasis is documenting the game; in practice, the game doesn't change because we know that pre-Sarah is human while post-Sarah is a ghost. That is, we make the wiki (arguably) harder to use/read every time we split, so let's make sure we make something else better for users if/when we do decide to split articles.


 * So, while I support the instincts that suggest splitting, I still think we should leave Sarah be. (Hasn't she suffered enough? ;-) And again, I would prefer to see a wiki-wide discussion about guidelines on splitting/merging (and the infobox) instead of tackling so many on a case-by-case basis.  &mdash; Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think that if anything, there is an argument for JOINING different pages that refer to the same NPC in different stages of the game. Just have the link that is for the NPC at say stage 2 point to that part of the ONE wiki page for that particular NPC.  It keeps it more collected so that a person can read more information about that NPC in different stages of the game if they choose to, instead of having to navigate to yet another page.

69.182.188.52 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

=The missing dialog= Added to the page -- Miriforst fox   09:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit of speculation...
Notice that Thackery says that it was given in honor of something. Maybe it's a bit of a foreshadow to his relationship to Logan --Sage  Talk  08:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While that comment may well be foreshadowing towards something, I doubt it has any relevance to his relationship with Logan, whom we already know is his descendant and who won't be born for at least another two hundred years. --Wormwood 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)