User talk:Santax

The latest game update was on Thursday, May 16 (2013)

userpage discussion characters fsk gallery sorrow's furnace shop guild

---

Welcome to Santax's talk page! To begin a new discussion, press shift-esc-+. To contribute to an existing discusion, scroll down to the section the discussion is in, and click the [edit] link to the right of the section header. Remember to be descriptive and please, sign your comments.

Archived Discussions

---

2007

---

• February
• March
• April
• May
• June
• July
• August
• September
• October
• November
• December

---

2008

---

2009

---

2010

• February
• March
• April
• May
• June
• November

---

I thought you hated the quotation template

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

I'm not fond of the quotation template at all, but so far the GW:EN manual gives the best summary of post-Factions Cantha. It's better than nothing, no? As for the War in Kryta page, that was mainly for consistency with WoC (and future consistency with the Ascalon chapter's page - given what we know so far about it the GW:EN manual seems, again, to provide an excellent summary of the situation, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Live Team are using it as a reference). If people want a more detailed summary than is currently provided on the WiK page, well, that's why we have {{main}}. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the consistency should of been the other way around. When you put up the WoC "lore background" we didn't know more, but now we know more - most of the background focuses on the Yuudachi family and Tahnnakai Temple (that event led to the MoP's founding). We don't know much yet still, but we know more that we can have something other than the quotation from the EN manual. WiK was better off how it was, imo, though it wasn't as good as it could be. Ascalon's chapter actually wouldn't work best with the EN manual from what I know - it would deal with Ebonhawke and the Ebon Vanguard's recalling, and Evennia's disappearance (supposedly on that last part), along with a continuing of the Ascalon/Charr war. Only the last bit is really explained in the EN manual - everything else is explained best via WiK.

And I can tell you that they are not using the EN manual, as there was something I spotted when testing which by all appearances contradicted the manual and to paraphrase Andrew: If what's in the manual is not in-game, they are free to work around it; in essence, there can be times when the manual "is wrong." Konig/talk 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't got as far as Tahnnakai Temple in WoC yet so I can't comment on any of that, although from what you say it seems like "new" lore that players would discover as they progressed through the storyline and therefore not be appropriate as background anyway.

The recall of the Vanguard and the establishment of Ebonhawke would (I gather) take place during the Ascalon storyline, and so wouldn't be considered background lore anyway. The Evennia thing could be a glaring omission though, depending on how significant her disappearance is.

Finally, obviously if there is a case where you know the manual to be categorically incorrect we would not use that, but generally I think constantly second-guessing the manual is something to be avoided. --Santax (talk · contribs) 00:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thus far Tahnnakai Temple is not in WoC outside of a simple encounter. It is "new lore" but it's the background behind it. Unlike WiK, we literally have just Factions on WoC, which is literally just the main storyline - and, in particular, the Tahnnakai Temple mission (or rather, just the fact that it was invaded) as the build-up for WoC was a "behind the scenes" by all appearances.

What I meant for the Ebon Vanguard and Ebonhawke was that the events which lead to that is mostly seen in HotN - for what there is to be seen - rather than in the manual, which merely states that the Ebon Vanguard are in the north and that Ascalon is still at war. Summarizing Prophecies would be a better job than quoting the EN manual.

I agree on the manual part, but there's a difference between "background of a story" and "background of a scenario" - a scenario is the background for a story, a background of a scenario is the history to the story. Important but far from specific enough to be of any help. The EN manuals - what you put up in both cases and what you suggest putting up for when/if we return to Ascalon - are backgrounds of a scenario. Original words, in this case, is far superior. Though in WoC's case, I don't think we can accurately do such until we know more than just one part. Konig/talk 00:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should have "new" lore as background, I can easily see it confusing readers who will think they might have missed something. It could go in some hypothetical "Winds of Change (event)" page where everything is arranged chronologically maybe, but for a brief summary I think we're better off without.

In any event, I've slightly altered the way that the lore backgrounds section is set out for both articles, I think this way we can both get what we want. See what you think. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

An Empire Divided

Why did you move it without even a discussion? That is not how things are done, and it's not a subtitle but the whole title. Please don't do that again, the least you could of done was put it up for discussion. Konig/talk 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That's very much a subtitle, by definition. Also there's nothing wrong with someone being bold on what they believe will be an uncontroversial move (though of course anyone else is still free to disagree and propose a move back). I suggest discussing the actual merits of the article names (on the appropriate talk page) rather than criticizing Santax's action. - Tanetris 22:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I was scolded in the past for lesser moves. By both non-admins and admins (the admins came later). Konig/talk 01:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at the links to the long form of the title. The vast majority of them were from the {{lore nav}} template, and that was a piped link displaying the short form. I've fixed that. As far as I can tell, none of the other mainspace links actually need to be to the long form, and many of them were also piped links. So I've also fixed those. I think we can do away with the redirect now. -- Hong 11:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Renders

There you go :P I tried to recreate the angle of the picture as good as possible. My first render ended up viewing the wrong side lol, so I had to do it again >_>. Anyway, the Shiro'ken model is having some issues, many models have that, but I saught help on a forum so I should be able to render it eventually. -- Magamdy 12:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Was just about to post on your talk, thanks! Only two images to go on that page now :D I can see how you'd have trouble with the construct, it only appears in some areas and IIRC it only ever appears with a boss aura. Thanks for all your hard work, though! --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the boss aura can be removed with one click really. The problem is that (beware for technobabble) the model has some 2D parts, and those 2D parts have black spaces between them, so called Alpha Channels. Those channels can be removed, but sometimes, like in this case, the whole model gets removed with it...So yeah.. gotta fix that lol. -- Magamdy 13:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh, everyone seems to ignore my pleas for help with the Shiro'ken model. One thing I can do is take another look at it myself, although I still have no idea what to do. I could also just use the model with the alpha channels still visible, but that means there will be some ugly black spaces visisble :\ -- Magamdy 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and I'm guessing these black bits can't be removed with Photoshop or anything like that? :/ If it's too much trouble, don't worry about it. Thanks very much for trying in any event! --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In Game Events

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

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

1RR

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

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

Concept art namechanges

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Concept art

Why.......

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

Half-assed? Those are the official renders that ANet used to design the professions...nevertheless, I'll add the in-game appearances further down the page in a gallery section. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No man, those pages were good as they were, and those renders were official too, made someone who work(ed)s for anet. -- Magamdy 12:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

But people are going to see those every day when they log onto GW, they aren't going to see the hi-res renders ever. Using in-game as the main pic on the page is the boring option. Besides, the images used in the gallery sections depict exactly the same thing as the game enging render, but in higher resolution, and with male and female separate, so it's better for readers anyway. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll take Shiro Tagachi as an example. You have a render of the ingame model in the infobox as main picture, and artworks beneath it. Should be the same for profession pages. After all, we're documenting this game, so "We don't use this image cuz you can see it ingame" seems a pretty inapropriate argument here. Btw, the proffesion pages have been like that since 2007, so randomly changing them because you don't like them is not the way to go. I also think it makes the pages look much worse. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Magamdy (talk).

Shiro Tagachi is an NPC page - completely different. If Shiro had artwork as the main image, you'd have to make every other NPC page the same for consistency, which is just impossible. Not to mention the fact that you're less likely to see Shiro in-game than you are, say, a Warrior. There's an actual chance that people will visit Shiro's page wanting to know what he looks like, but what are the chances that people would do the same for a Warrior?

Saying that it's been that way since 2007 is no argument for leaving it that way. That's an appeal to tradition, a common logical fallacy. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not gonna edit war with ya, but placing the artworks there looks pretty terrible. Might I recommend putting the renders we had back, and adding the artwork left-aligned alongside the attributes? Also, when someone protests what you're doing, it's better to stop and work out the problem on talk rather than steamrolling along with what you're doing. - Tanetris 12:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a fair compromise. The continued editing after Magamdy left the message on my talk wasn't me continuing what I was doing btw, it was adding back the info (in-game pics of males and females) that Magamdy objected to the removal of. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

What I suggest is that you indeed put back the renders, and then try to find some other profession artwork to fill up the gallery. That seems a lot better imo. -- Magamdy 13:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no way to pull that off and keep all the pages consistent with each other. Why are you so against using the hi-res renders on the pages? --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, since this is a game wiki, how something looks in-game should always have priority over eventual artwork. And I have problems with them because they make, as Tanetris said, the page look far worse. Also, you tagged them as renders, what they are not. They may be drawn images or 3D model. In the 3D model case, they are officially classified as renders in the world of 3D models, but not here on the wiki, where a render is a render of an in-game model. -- Magamdy 13:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Eventual artwork? These were created before the game was created, the professions are based on them. And with Tanetris' proposal above, the in-game render of both male and female in the same image would be back on the page, and in a more prominent position than the hi-res renders, so they would, as you say, "have priority" over the hi-res renders anyway. And I'm afraid they are renders, unless you can point me to a discussion which agrees that the wiki defines renders differently to ANet. As for making the page look far worse, that assessment surprises me as ANet's artists aren't exactly known for making terrible art. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, then why don't you change the pages like Tanetris proposed? Then we can stop this discussion, since you don't seem to be listening to me anyway. I explained well enough why those artworks of yours aren't classified as renders here on the wiki. If the would be classified as renders, they would be exactly the same as this , and that cleary is not the case...... -- Magamdy 13:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

While the concept art is nice and all, when going to a page it would be nice to immediately see both the male and female artwork. And yeah, I wouldn't classify those images you added as renders; they're more artwork. --JonTheMon 13:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I was going to originally, but your language ("try to find some other profession artwork") suggested that you would be against that, so I held off. And if I weren't listening, then I wouldn't have added back in-game images of the professions to the gallery sections, which I did. And you have failed to point me to any discussion where it was decided that the wiki's definition of "render" would be different to ANet's, or indeed, anyone else's. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, the cg is nice and all, but on this wiki the generally accepted definition for render is short for "in-game render", not artwork render or cg render. --JonTheMon 14:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

^ Indeed. And with not listening I mean that you keep repeating the same things, which force me to keep repeating the same things; namely that in game models have priority over eventual artwork. Doesnt matter at all if that artwork is official or good or bad or 3d or whatever. -- Magamdy 14:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As much as I dislike using renders over in-game screenshots, I'd rather have the renders than the artwork on top. It gives a more formal and standard appearance. Manifold 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That is what I've trying to say the whole time. The renders make the page looks better. I have said nothing about the renders or the artworks themselves. -- Magamdy 14:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that looks a whole lot better. -- Magamdy 14:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Template:Arenanet article2

I don't think those articles are "comprised of only ArenaNet sources" --JonTheMon 16:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Since this is on the same topic, may I ask where your source for your additional lore on Paragon came from? It sounds familiar but I don't think there's such a thing as "Mists of Eternity" - unless its referring to the Mists. Konig/talk 20:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The source is the Guild Wars Nightfall Pre-Release Bonus Pack. There's also a description of the Paragon and Dervish on there that slightly differs from the one on the website and in the manual, but I'm not sure where that should go yet.

As for use of the template, I'd say that literally everything on the weapon pages is either a verbatim description of the item or technical information. The profession pages are pushing a bit because concept art galleries, trivia sections and see also sections aren't official, but the bulk of the content is verbatim descriptions of attributes and descriptions of the profession from official sources. And there was no way I was willing to use {{quotation}} on those pages again - 2 quotes in a row is bad enough, 3 consecutive quotes, one of which being a massive wall of text for both pages would have looked awful. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Found more D.D. works

[1], [2], [3], and [4]. I'd upload them myself but they're not on my computer and attempting to rightclick->save image as is just attempting to save as "Attatchment.php" which just doesn't work. I'll probably try to work around that when I'm not nearing hallucination stage of lack-of-sleep. Konig/talk 10:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Scratch the second and last ones - those I do have from somewhere else. Konig/talk 10:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Found the third one. All that's left to find is the first. I'll upload sometime... Konig/talk 10:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Good work finding these! I'll upload them now. Are all these confirmed Nightfall? --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They're from Nightfall's conceptart.org thread. That one and the GW2 conceptart.org thread should be solely for the stated campaign (Factions' thread has some Sorrow's Furnace and EN's thread has Utopa obviously). I uploaded 2 of the 3 I had, the third one I have as titled "Centaur" but I want to double-check the name if I can. I think that's the closest-to-official name we'll get though. Konig/talk 21:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just leaving this here as a note-of-remembrance and to keep things together - [5] and [6] need work-arounds to get (for me at least). Both by Katy Hargrove. Konig/talk 05:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Concept art

Hey Santax, I'm in the home stretch of organizing the concept art on the wiki (finally), but I have three inquiries which will stifen my progress:

1. Regarding the BMP mission loading screens - they are all set up as wallpapers with really good quality and resolution on the main sight, however they have the GW logo - do you think that it's reasonable to replace the wiki version with the wallpapers, or to upload them individually (I uploaded all other wallpapers onto the wiki, using a similar naming method). Not sure which route to take myself on this.
2. For the BMP storybook pages, should we name them like concept art images, or like the mission storybook page images (e.g. "File:"Salvation" concept art.jpg" or "File:Salvation page.jpg"). Again, wasn't sure which route to go, since either really works.
3. You said to Kirbman that you'll be able to get to your concept art stash this Christmas; still the case? With all the concept art I can find (short of scanning the Factions, Nightfall, and GW2 artbooks, and the PCGamr 2007 GW issue) being uploaded now (all I can do at this point is finish moving, organizing, and attempting to find the unknown artists for works). Konig/talk 06:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

God pages and their statues

Hello, have you any plans for putting a list of statues somewhere, or are you just intent on removing them from the god pages? (seperate statue pages maybe?) Chieftain Alex 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The statues used to have their own pages (I think), so after finishing up the god pages I will restore them. I'd be fine with them as a section on the god pages, but since Abaddon and Kormir are actual NPC's all they serve to do is clutter up those pages. Although to be honest there's not much that can be said about the statues that isn't already covered on the gods' pages, and I'm not really sure how the list of locations for each statue would be of interest to anybody. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm the only one who'd like it.. I'll mock up a list of the statues in my sandbox + you go ahead and remove anything you like then :P Chieftain Alex 17:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I can keep the list of statues if they'd be of interest, I just don't know why anyone would ever need them? --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds kind of like "why do we need to list where foes are in-game" ( I hope that does sound silly to you! ) I have no real explanation really. Chieftain Alex 20:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So I'm curious, other than uglifying the god articles with the quotation template, was there ever truly a point to dividing the articles of statues and gods when they've worked so well together for years? I mean, sure, Abaddon and Kormir are actual NPCs in-game, but there was never any conflict with the format before. But whatever. What's done is done and though I think it's far worse now, I'm not going to argue them.

And reason for list of statues - so we know where they are. Just like why we list where we see NPCs or other objects. Though these are more important objects since you can get blessings from them. Konig/talk 03:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I gotta say. I really really hate how you consistently use NPC dialogue verbatim, as if they couldn't possibly be wrong. Konig/talk 03:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Goddess of Truth.jpg

"File:Avatar of Kormir.jpg does not accurately reflect Kormir's in-game appearance" Actually, it does. It's just that it lacks the additional shiny aura (which, iirc, even the avatars have) much like bosses having a less-shiny aura. File:Dagnar Stonepate unmounted.jpg reflects his in-game appearance, despite the lack of said aura. No difference here. And the image you keep uploading is quite bad - bad perspective, via bad angle and the fact that her legs get cut off by the bloody screen. Unless Kormir's "in-game appearance" is lacking feet. Konig/talk 22:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Kormir's aura isn't the same as a boss aura. I think it can be assumed that in lore, all bosses aren't "shiny", whereas a god just might be. The image is the only full-ish body shot of Kormir post-ascension, so I'm afraid it's just something we'll have to live with. Bottom line is that the render doesn't look anything like the in-game appearance of the NPC, which is what we should be documenting on the wiki. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that in lore the bosses don't have auras, we do know that the gods' aura is blinding so that's not really able to be shown. Bottom line is that the image is rather horrendous and I *know* that there are alternative angles to get. And regarding this, to avoid a revert war (despite the fact you broke GWW:1RR and you seem to have a knack of making sure its your version that's up while proclaiming for "discussion" to go on): because there's no figure that's so unimportant as Gallick. He's just a random named tossed in, whereas Desmina, Sara, and so forth are prominent in the scripture and are also prominent lore figures. Furthermore, whether its brought up in GW2 or not is 100% irrelevant to this wiki. In other words, Gallicks page is literally no more than "Gallick is a citzen who denied Lyssa as shown in her scriptures" (wording may vary), Desmina and Sara, and even Ewan are much more. Konig/talk 07:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding GW2 lore to this wiki

Since you're adding a lot of lore from GW2 onto this wiki, I thought I'd point you to this discussion. Typically, it was agreed to avoid adding GW2 lore so that this wiki presents lore as seen from GW2. I don't really agree with it, personally, but its there. Konig/talk 07:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Want your opinion on something

Given how you're the only other major lore article writer on either official wiki, despite our arguments, I'd like your opinion on the matter of Abaddon. As you may have noted before reading this, I added two links to fan-translations of pre-release Nightfall lore presented solely to the Asian community. One has been known for quite some time, though the source has sense been taken down (the entire website it was on was, in fact) - that source's main contribution would be that Abaddon was able to take down two gods on his own. The other, not so, and gives a lot more lore. It's been translated here on Guru2, but I'm uncertain as to how reliable it is (as is the translator). I wanted your opinion on its reliability and, in turn, how to treat it with this wiki. Konig/talk 07:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely a load of lore that ANet has had for years internally and never released, I remember them talking once about how little of the details about the Ascalonian civil war just prior to Prophecies made it into the game - this could be some of it. It's really interesting stuff and if true, definitely deserves a place on the wiki. It all fits with what we knew (or what we thought we knew) about magic and the Bloodstones at the time, if not containing a little more that was later confirmed to be true, which is a good sign. Do you trust the translator, and their ability to translate? If so, I think the information should be added, heavily referenced. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't trust absolutely. I'd much rather have the original version of both alongside a fan-translation, but the older one is from an NCsoft site taken down long ago, so that's not really reliable, and in the latter the translator says the origin of that bit is uncertain but seems to be official (basically). So I'm more dubious about the origin than the translation. Like you said, it matches everything we knew and was implied before. It's really only the fine details (Abaddon's pre-fall appearance and how the Margonites struck first being two main examples) that's new. The description of Abaddon from that for when he became evil matches this concept art with "His wings lost their lustre and became scythe-like, bloodied and battered", though, given the dark scythe-like appendages coming from the back.

What I'm personally wanting to do is separate what we have seen in-game/from interviews from the lore from these two (though one definitely came from a canon source, the fact it was taken down and that it was pre-release means it could have been retcon just as easily as some of the manual excerpts' lore got altered here and there), so that we have a distinction from "absolute" and "incredibly highly likely" facts. Thing is, I don't think that'd look particularly good. Konig/talk 08:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

An honest question

Why do you seem so intent on copying dialogue of NPCs/Objects verbatim, even when said things could be wrong or confusing? Take King Zoran - you added 112 characters and unnecessary prose for something that said the exact same thing, in fact your version gives less as you removed mention of Zoran being Reza's father and the second to last king in favor of copying gw2:Orrian History Scrolls verbatim. It's not only unnecessary but potentially confusing depending on the wording. And in regards to this wiki - see the directly above section where we focus on GW1 lore here as its presented in GW1, per consensus of the wikiers (though I'm not in 100% agreement). Konig 10:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more convinced your question was honest if you hadn't started reverting me before posting it, let alone waiting for me to respond. I'm going to work now so I'll reply later, when I have time. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Region loading screens

Why'd you put them to the original concept art? They're altered in game. You don't see the full of File:"Sail Sleigh" concept art.jpg, but only a portion of it - seen on File:Shiverpeak Mountains loading screen.jpg, which is the original dat file from the game. Whether you agree with it or not, that's what was put - so why go and change everything without consensus or discussion? You often say I'm wikihounding you, but honestly if I do it's because you never follow procedures or seldom follow consensus. I can't even remember how many times I've told you "it was agreed upon that we don't put GW2 lore on this wiki" yet you still do, or on GW2W when everyone else agreed against you, you kept at it. Honestly, it's tiresome. Can't you learn to change how you do things if others disagree? I sure as hell did - because I don't agree with all consensuses yet still go with them (such as the "no gw2 lore on GWW" which I only break when there's no GW2W article for the subject - e.g., Dhuum, King Zoran, Abaddon, etc.). Konig 10:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No Konig, I say I'm wikihounding you because despite the fact that there are tens, possibly even hundreds of articles that need improvement (lore-wise), you only ever seem to edit them after I have made an attempt, in order to rewrite my edits. What's more important? That you believe that some of information on the Lost Scrolls page belongs on the Cataclysm page, and that this is worth starting yet another ridiculous debate over, or that the Storyline of Beyond page barely contains any information related to Winds of Change? The former, apparently. I mean sure, the wiki is lacking crucial information in a lot of places, but it's a better use of both of our time to bicker over the smallest of details. Even minor edits won't go unchanged. Yes, you are this obnoxious to everybody but it's only my edits that you follow around this closely - that is why I say I'm wikihounding you. And by the way, it's a bit rich for you to be saying I'm the one who never follows procedure.

With all that in mind, could you point me to the discussion on loading screens, and where that consensus was reached? Because it seems to me that actually, you were the one who took it upon yourself to change all the loading screens, without any discussion, after over a year of them being the way they were during a time when the wiki was far more active. We can have that discussion now if you like, but don't pretend you have the weight of consensus behind you, because that is a big fat lie. Having the original concept art of loading screens is better than the "in-game textures" because the textures are (a) an incomplete version of the concept art, so why have less information when you can have more at a low cost? (b) low resolution and extremely ugly, what with that big black bar across the top, and (c) often distorted or squashed so actually, they don't even resemble the loading screens in-game themselves!

By the way, the number of times you've told me "it was agreed upon that we don't put GW2 lore on this wiki"? Twice. Short memory. Lore that appears in GW2 but is relevant exclusively to GW1 topics is not "GW2 lore", it's the reason we have two wikis. Yes, you're totally inflexible, you don't understand subtlety and you aren't capable of doing anything but read the most obvious interpretation of any given consensus. People like you are the reason we have practices and processes rather than policies on GW2W. We get it. Can we move along now? --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

1) On this wiki, that's because most articles are complete as far as GW1 lore is concerned. There are some left - like the one you mentioned, which I did begin and haven't had the patience to go through again (as I really don't know how to properly document the storyline of the first part of it, because my attempts prove to be 1-2 sentences for 10+ quests).

2) It was discussed somewhere - it's been so long I no longer remember - that the actual loading screen would be preferred. It was a minor discussion because it was a very minor thing. Either way, that's the actual version of the loading screen taken straight from the gw.dat (any "squashed"-ness is actually due to your own computer screen for those you replaced) - even if they're incomplete of their concept art versions. It's what's seen in-game, and we shouldn't be blatantly lying about what the loading screen is by having something that's not in-game at all being called such.

3) One, two, three, four times I've told you about the discussion - off the top of my head. And yeah, two were in edit summaries, but still, one was over a month ago.

For the record, I honestly wouldn't give enough damn to start discussions, but I know you would anyways. Others besides myself have said what's the issue. To quote Pling from GW2W commenting on the exact same reason I find issues with your edits: "I prefer objective, concise documentation to more subjective, story-esque wording. The latter can leave things unclear or "fluffy", as you say... Take Jotun#History: "They were great spellcasters once, but sacrificed that knowlege in blood." - what exactly does that mean? Also, it'd be harder to achieve a consistent style, as that kind of wording won't come easily to many editors." (pretty much my exact point in all of your contextual edits). Konig 15:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Concept art vs Loading screens

Hello. I've had a look through all of the replacements you made of loading screens with concept art. I've reverted a few of them because the concept artwork is dissimilar to the loading screen artwork, e.g. File:Shiverpeak Mountains loading screen.jpg + File:"Sail Sleigh" concept art.jpg are similar images, but they've been recoloured a fair bit. I've realised that the concept artwork for the ones I've reverted would be a valuable addition to the gallery sections for those pages, so I'll add them there instead. --Chieftain Alex 18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)