Talk:Battle Lion

I've seen this term in use for quite some time on observer mode and always wondered what it means. Thanks to whomever posted it! --12.217.38.85 17:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My guild Guild:Dragon_Killaz has used this tactic succesfully in GvG matches -Rusty Nignuts

can someone add this to PvP tactics category? thx. -done

Do not delete cited source references. People credit Paris Hilton with, "That's Hot." The same can be said of Thomas Bangalter and the term, "Battle Lion." - thx. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Black mischief .

Do you have any proof to back this up? I think it is hard to say who originally came up with a phrase or saying. It seems tenuous at the very least, and probably not that relevant who came up with it either way. --Lemming64 17:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I can source it. I was talking to a few members of KGYU one day, (namely champ) and we were talking about his days in cow and how pushing on the flag runner would score kills, boosts, and wins. I called it fierce, and norad thought calling it 'fierce' was 'gay'. I linked it to being a lion (thinking back to he-man of my youth) in battle, and champ said "oh you're a battle lion? oh ok" and voila! the term for the agressive style of play was born. --Thom Bangalter 17:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this entire line of discussion is absurd. Who invented the 'linebacker' - guildwars.com itself points to iQ. Do we sit and question the validity of this term and where it came from? Is Guildwars.com lying to us all? It seems like a complete waste of time to even have this discussion when every single well-known PvP player knows where the term Battle Lion came from. --Black mischief 17:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) Ok, but that is still just your word for it, I could come up with a reason why the phrase l33t sauce should be attributed to me, that doesn't make it true though if you see my meaning? In addition any idea why this page is a source of repeated vandalism? In addition to the addition what is wrong with a healthy discussion if it resolves the issue? --Lemming64 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I use the term Battle Lion irl, this is a valid term.--Narcism 23:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As do I. Kellogs 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle lion is valid and commonly used pvp term. Guilds without battle lions are doomed to fail. If you don't PvP enough to know this term, you shouldn't be editing the PvP section of the wiki.68.38.113.179 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Totally. All top GvGers use this term. --TimeToGetIntense 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then change the tag to a cleanup one or clean up the page, but images of lego figures, nor the majority of other edits to this page, are not something conducive to the purpose of the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is attracting huge amounts of vandalism currently. Either I suggest we do one of two things

1. Get a completed page that we are happy with and protect it.
2. delete it and move on, the information it can provide is minimal at best.

I can't see any other solution based on current information. --Lemming64 23:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually disagree with the deletion of this page. While it may not be *entirely* serious, it is a real term. Heck, if it wasn't before, it is now, especially considering the number of edits/hits this page has gotten (650+ view, that's absurd for a page that was created yesterday). Sure, it's a highly-vandalized page, but we don't delete people's user pages just because they've been vandalized (for example).
We've also kept articles for Lurn2play, QQ, and Meat shield - I don't really see why this is any different. MisterPepe talk 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with retaining the page if it can survive in anything approximating a decent form, however the page history hasn't really indicated it can. I wouldn't mind Lemming's suggestion of protecting a basic page, but something needs to be done. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibly RV to and protect [1]. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the lego figure is the most representative picture of a battle lion we could possibly use. It is vicious and ready to do battle and if the picture was bigger you'd see it was in the frontlines. Kellogs 23:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MisterPepe. Deleting this page is short sighted and knee-jerk reactionary because of a twit or two. Is there no admin here with any sense of reality? I've seen vandalism and graffiti on buildings, but they don't level the entire city block because of it. I think the lego toy picture is not necessarily the most realistic, but I must admit it is very inspiring and exciting. I look forward to my next opportunity to be a heroic battle lion! --Black mischief 00:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest and level here, I added the tag to see if there were actually any involved authors that actually seriously wanted to see this page retained. That, at least, has been demonstrated, so I'll be removing the delete tag. I do, however, still think that this page would most likely be better of reverted to the version I've noted above and protected, unless someone has a better suggestion. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add, for completeness, it is actually a transformer and not a lego figure. Kellogs 00:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't zoom in, so fair enough. ;) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Source

Topic headers really make things easier to read. Anyway - I removed the absurd trivia - it's un-sourced and un-substantiated. At best, it's hear-say. A quick Google search turned up no matches for a search of "Battle Lion" and "Thomas Bangalter" together. At best, a reference to the term being derived from the He-Man comic book series might be relevant, but no credits to a particular person/player is justified. --76.104.218.101 01:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously so stupid that you cannot see Thomas Bangalter posted in this thread above your own statements, which say you cannot find anything with Bangalter talking about this subject (Battle Lions)? Not only that, he explained the entire genesis of the phrase! --66.65.162.219 01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. And I agree that the trivia is difficult to believe. You'd need more proof before claiming something like that again. -- ab.er.rant 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Careful, you're getting close to GWW:NPA. However, it was also discussed above that a single person testifying to origin of a phrase isn't really decisive. Unless it can be sourced somewhere, it's most likely best left out - it's not exactly a key part of the article. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's hard to justify, and best left out. Incidentally, this article is getting a lot of activity for something so minor ... why the heavy vandalism target here? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

#gwp. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes this article and the Dragon Killaz guild one both seem to be attracting a lot of anon vandals at present, whilst they can not be directly linked back to #gwp there have been implications. --Lemming64 02:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of us at #gwp feel strongly about this article. We want it to be accurate for the benefit of other PvP players. --TimeToGetIntense 06:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

- This is fucking retarded. Also, on a totally unrelated note I just lost to Atletico in pk's; how does that happen? ~Apollo

Fail less @ gw tbh -70.95.73.60 22:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Apollo make a freaking account. --TimeToGetIntense 22:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

devine

wouldnt devine entervention b a good example of a battle lion? seeing dev throw channeling up and run into a mob of enemies was a common sight on obs; almost as common as seeing him monk with a staff

"Theres a thin line between courage and stupidity" — Skuld 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

unofficial term

the category should be "Unofficial terms" instead of "Glossary". --VVong|BA 05:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ready to be de-protected

Ok so it has been quiet in general for a while, and on this talk page too. Think this one is ready, seeing as there is no time specified for temporary protection as yet. --Lemming64 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a week seems to be fine for now. If any further activity occurs it can always be re-protected. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)