Talk:Captain Langmar

Anyone know if the sword and shield skins she is weilding are reproducable? They look great. 24.188.58.75

I cant find her. I beat Missing Vanguard and i cant find her anywhere.--File:Mister Resetti.jpgGRAARR /RESETTI Crossfire 22:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to make a note that when you take the Special Ops mission you only get one chance at it. You loose the cypher and the paper! 82.17.247.6 12:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

but you can get more copies of the Decoder and paper Zachariah Zuan. 17:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Pigtails

, made an userbox. --Arduin 10:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I'm so used to seeing just an ingame screen shot that fruity stance just made me laugh. LunchboxOctober 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Totaly agree.1 eyed sexy pose girls ftw ^_^ --Neil2250 The Render Nazi 14:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed?

I have The Smell of Titan in the Morning but I haven't done any Vanguard quests. How did I get it and where can I find Langmar for the reward without doing the story? --Risus 06:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler concerning Langmar

Gonna add the spoiler to the trivia section for the time being. Feel free to move it when need be. 98.161.52.101 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, a random IP beat me to it :P. I was the comment above btw. For The Quin 23:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I decided since I was gonna put it up anyway that I should clarify the circumstances of her tragedy. For The Quin 23:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I found her outside Longeye's Ledge after WIK story. She really is not that dead :P --65.8.206.147 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It finally makes sense that Gwen would pursue a heterosexual relationship. elix Omni 05:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing! For The Quin 05:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@IP: Time continuity sucks in online games. -- Konig/talk 05:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Taking bets on who has the Lt. 20/1 Jotun >>> 15/1 Grawl >>> 10/1 Bandits >>> 3/1 Char >>> 100/1 He is dead >>> 5/1 He is Lost (or on a little adventure).

We were told from an article that he and Gwen marries and establishes Ebonhawke. So he isn't dead, unless they're retconing it and Keiran got it on with someone in Kryta (if so, my bet is Livia). -- Konig/talk 20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone tried to find the grave? Ramei Arashi 20:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that Gwen's not already pregnant? elix Omni 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

With how she acted, I doubt she and Thackeray got it on. -- Konig/talk 21:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

@Ramei, the grave is off of Lesser Giant's Basin, so it's not in an explorable area. --- Ness Hrin | 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Image

I would like to move that the old rendered version is used instead of the current version. The current version has small thumbnail due to it's full size, shows way more than is need for just Captain Langmar, and honestly just doesn't suit the page in my opinion. --- Ness Hrin | 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't pages be using rendered images over screen shot images? So why was the image changed from render to screenshot? -- Konig/talk 21:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, that's my point. It's silly to downgrade. --- Ness Hrin | 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is preferable if possible, imo. The reason we generally use renders isn't because we don't like screenshots, it's because we don't like images like this this. Which, incidentally, is why I'm wondering why this image was replaced with a frankly horrible render. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And on that note, you can't possibly tell me that you prefer Saul D'Alessio's page with the ugly wall-of-text (and inaccurate) quote pushing actual content down the page? --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is official lore and it is not pushing any "actual content" down. The quotations point out what is the most basic knowledge of the article and shows that it is from an official source without having to use something to denote that "this is undisputable fact." Summaries (your "actual content") are easily disputed due to simplistic things like how things are worded or having to provide sources (the later is something that has become a plague over on GW2W). Quotations, however, are never subject to disputes, nor are they ever "inaccurate." Duplication of information is easily avoided by rewording the summary.

But back on topic: I have noticed that renders are used because they are cleaner - and honestly, I don't see a difference between the image you linked (the shadow ranger one) with the one you put up. Both are, imo, horrendous. Yours is also unnecessarily large (that is, so much is kept that is unnecessary meaning that the part which actually contains Langmar, the subject of the article, is freakishly small and near impossible to make out in comparison to the old version). -- Konig/talk 22:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The summary is, in this case, undisputed and the reason issues like this are a problem on GW2 is because new news is constantly incoming and people were putting it on the wiki without citing it, so others were also curious to read the news or were concerned that it may be inaccurate. That's not a problem on a well-established game. On some pages, we just have a list of quotes that are easily available (and prominently linked to) from the GW website. What about those? And you can't tell the difference between an image from a cinematic on max settings and a low-quality image with GUI and a player present? Right.

I'd also like to mention this revert: linking to an unfinished discussion between four or five people is hardly grounds for a revert, and I think you'll find that Beyond isn't an expansion - Eye of the North is an expansion, it is a boxed product for which money is paid. Beyond is just a series of updates with a name - the same as Sorrow's Furnace or the Domain of Anguish, which are both still considered Prophecies and Nightfall, respectively. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, By the difference, I meant that they are both clunky and both very much unnecessarily showing more than they need. And distracting from the purpose of the image. There are great differences between the two, but those are not important differences. Not in this case, at least (to clarify, I mean that the differences between your image on this page and the shadow ranger image are important, but it isn't the topic of this discussion where the topic shows no differences between the two, that is, again, that both images are clunky and distracting from the purpose of the image - I hope I don't confuse you again, as it seems I did prior).

As to the discussion - an incomplete discussion is grounds for a revert. Why? Because it is an ongoing discussion regarding the very things you changed, which shouldn't happen until said discussion is settled. You can easily join in the discussion, instead of going against what everyone in said discussion is going for. It is even in the requests for comments - there's no reason why people cannot join in on the discussion.

And finally, for the campaign/expansion/update difference: The Sorrow's Furnace/DoA were both intended from release that were added later on, and are of one time deals. GW:B, something called a campaign by the developers is a free and continuously added expansion. An add-on if you must. Not every expansion has to be paid for, though I certainly wouldn't have minded if Anet decided to make GW:B like EN just utilizing pre-existing maps (something not done prior to the M.O.X. introduction, excluding the Titan Quests). -- Konig/talk 21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Konig, just put this in your signature. It'll save you a lot of trouble. :P --- NessHrin | 21:32, 21 Jul 2010 (UTC) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I figure I'll bring this up here: "rv - since there's an ongoing discussion on quotes in these articles, you should probably refrain from adding even more" The discussion, as it seems to me, is more on the use of multiple quotations. Not one. But either way, I did forget to mention one thing, Santax. You seem to be arguing the wrong point in your distaste for the quotation. From what it seems, there are two things about the use of quotations that you dislike (and please correct me if I'm wrong): The template itself (as you brought up once before that you disliked the use of the template on pages like this, which I have since removed since it did indeed distract from the article), and the fact that the summaries underneath said quotations usually duplicate information. In turn, you argue for the complete removal of the quotations. This is not what I you should be arguing for, in my opinion, but rather one of two things: 1) The change of the template (which could be very beneficial if you can find a cleaner format for it), and 2) To not duplicate information (which I fully agree with). As it stands, you seem to be the only one who dislikes how we format things. If you merely change your argument - make a medium we can all agree with - you'd get more favor and, truth be told, there are issues with the quotation template. But the answer is not to completely remove it as there needs to be a method to denote lore copied verbatim compared to lore or information summarized. The quotation does this differenciating and as such is highly important when taking lore out of manuals and from the official site - the only time when said quotation should be used (with the exception of when the article utilizes just lore out of manuals or the official site in which it would get that ArenaNet content template). -- Konig/talk 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The image I uploaded shows just as much as the render, and also looks nicer and provides a bit of context (it is also probably higher quality, as that render was taken directly form the manual). I disagree that it is clunky completely.

The very things I changed? Why should we use your system in the interim when no consensus has been reached? Surely we should just use that one that has been used all throughout this event (and is consistent with current definitions of "campaign" and "expansion") until the discussion is resolved?

And on that subject, Beyond is most certainly not a campaign. In the context of GW, campaigns are always standalone products released for a price, and are released in their entirety. Beyond may be an "ongoing campaign of updates" but it is not in any way a GW campaign. I also see nothing describing it as an expansion, either. Sure, it's an expansion in the sense that it expands the game, but then so does pretty much every other update ever. It is at best an add-on, but I would personally consider it a series of updates with a name.

As for the quotations, yes, I don't like the way the quotation template looks, but it's also the fact the quotes become outdated and are often inaccurate. Since the content technically property of ANet despite being on the wiki, we could just integrate it into the article and keep it updated (so if a character dies, change present tense to past tense etc.) as long as we add {{arenanet article2}} or something so that other websites know not to direct copy-and-paste from it. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

As an extra note, when do you suppose we should stop adding quotations to articles? Should we add Thackeray's quote from Wintersday 2008 to the page? Should we add the quotes about him from that page to the wiki? Why is it necessary we have quotes on Confessor Isaiah from both the White Mantle and the Shining Blade on his page? All they say is "Isaiah is good" or "Isaiah is bad" with a bunch of adjectives inbetween. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer non-rendered screenshots for the "flavor" and context they add. I'll reiterate my position that a system using both (either with a "click here for a gallery.." or "click to toggle image") would solve this reoccurring issue. I also like using quotes, but I do think it looks bad when that's the only descriptive text on the page. Manifold 19:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we could have both a render image and in-game shot. I made a template for the weapon infobox that would provide for that and be highly unobtrusive. Could be modified for NPCs and the like very easily.--Neithan Diniem 19:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of a solution that allows for both a render and a screenshot to be displayed, as long as that solution leaves room for cases where screenshot > render (so the screenshot should be more prominently displayed with a link or drop-down box for a render), and cases where a screenshot really adds nothing to the article and a render would be preferable. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Go here to see an example. Unfortunatly I couldnt find an active non-render for the example weapon, so both pics are renders. This could be converted for NPCs and other such things.--Neithan Diniem 20:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I hardly see how a screenshot provides so much more information as you seem to be claiming, santax. It's a screenshot of the NPC, a render is basically the same thing but with a white or transparent (dependent on how it is done) background. The background allows it to be just the NPC - which your screenshot on this page is not but should be (otherwise, you can't make out said NPC without clicking on the image and is thus a distraction to the article as it forces one to leave the article in order to see what the article should be showing - definably not something that should be done). I'd need to see how Neithan's template works with both a render and a screenshot, but I'm still rather certain that render>screenshot in every case excluding where the render is done poorly - which should not be used for an example for how screenshots are better, but rather as an example for how we need a better render. Not to mention that renders allow the image to be used in more places, where as screenshots - not so much. For instance, if one were to screenshot say Captain Greywind that wouldn't normally be used for articles of other NPCs but the same skin, while a render version would - and with a more generic name used than if a screenshot were used. An annoyingly obvious situation is [[:File:Dark Oak.jpg|the]] [[:File:Elder Druid.jpg|many]] [[:File:Vargil the White.jpg|screenshots]], not renders, used for the various druids and nature rituals - all of which uses the same exact skin. Some of [[:File:Druid.jpg|which]] are very poorly done. But if those were renders, all but one could be deleted and that one could be used for every article. In fact, in the case of the Druid screenshot, that's not even a screenshot of a druid! So, are screenshots, which are far too easy to either clutter or distract, truly that superior to renders? (to the rest of Santax's post, that belongs elsewhere) -- Konig/talk 03:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a new template dedicated for NPCs that allots for both a rendered and screenshot in the template without breaking the template, taking up too much room, or requiring much skill to implement. I posted a query about it in the talk page here, considering my template directly relates to that page, not this page. You can test it to see how effective it is if you wish, though to fully test it youd need to make a new image for an NPC and test it on that character's page.--Neithan Diniem 05:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention this earlier, but isn't using screenshots against the whole point of this project, which appears to be dedicated to turning screenshots into renders? If I may quote... "This project was designed so that duplicate NPC models could be represented on the wiki in the same way that duplicate inventory icons are used to represent in-game icons that are shared among different items. In plainer terms, we wanted to find all of the NPC who share a particular NPC model, give that model a name and use a render of it on the NPC pages." Effectively, screenshots can easily force a need for multiple screenshots of NPCs which use the same model. And, in turn, this project is trying to reduce that - in which renders are the primary use to replace screenshots as they do not show the background. And, once more in turn, Neithan's template would be in direct contradiction of this project. -- Konig/talk 06:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Links a bad link, But if such a project is currently enforced by the wiki, then yea I can see how my templates would contradict it in the most direct way.--Neithan Diniem 06:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Correct link. I still hold with, given the former standards of renders being used over screenshots, this should be a non-topic. Not sure how so much dispute is being caused on something that has already decided. --- NessHrin | 6:44, 27 Jul 2010 (UTC)

Because all policies and guidelines are open to discussion and change. Manifold 14:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Goodnight sweet Princess

/cry Zachariah Zuan. 00:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

/cry too. I never expected that T-T 213.166.207.113 21:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

/cry :'( The Holy Dragons 18:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit late, but /cry :<--78.105.242.214 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LIES!

All lies! She's not dead, she's hiding in Grothmar Wardowns, she even talked to me!, but seriously, she shouldn't die else they had removed her from some places.--Markisbeest 10:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

so your saying they should remove (SPOILER) Master Togo from Shing Jea then? seeing as he's dead too Zachariah Zuan. 13:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be more plausible since in that area, he isn't the subject to side quests, just primary quests on Shing Jea. Unlike Langmar, who has multiple quests. -- Konig/talk 14:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

She didin't die! Na ah! I bet she and Thackeray will be found in a few weeks/months! --Monolito 10:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

She is back for Snowball Dominance 78.105.242.214 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Rest in peace

Pity she had no funeral dialogue, a proper funeral that is. I would've collected items for her burial rather than for Thackeray. I guess Langmar wasn't much of an NPC after all. Wolcott 12:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

When Keiran came back they just completely forgot about Langmar... --'Mai Yi' talk 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

She was forgotten the moment that Gwen was told she died... 24.197.253.243 13:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

She's not dead....--Smithy-Star 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not dead? so she's captured by white mantles and became their cexslave? 64.255.180.189 17:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

merg

See also: the same discussion on the Lieut's talk page

im all for it. someone make a sub page showing that it can be done and then make it so.- Zesbeer 05:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Against it --RhoninSoren 07:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely against it. "Captain" and "Lieutenant" Langmar are two different people in two different times. - Adark 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We have two seperate pages for Nicholas Sandford and Nicholas the Traveler, so why the need for these two to be merged? 75.111.129.224 14:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Split.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion is difficult. out of a lore perspective it is the same person. looking at it from a game perspective they are different. I say split, but change the background story of the captain with the info bout her role in pre, and add to the lt. page a note bout her role in post. (not the whole story cause of the spoiler alert warning you get then), maybe something like the Nicholas Sandford note by saying she survived the seering and became captain of the vanguard82.170.196.12 16:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, there are three kinds of NPCs: Those who are the same in every meeting, those who have minor/few differences, and those who have major/multiple differences. Sarah, Salma, Benton, King Jalis Ironhammer, Van the Warrior Gwen, and Keiran Thackeray were merged due to being the second - the first three only have a model change, the fourth having multiple models and multiple uses as the same NPC thus denoting the second page to be unnecessarily split, and the last having only minor changes outside of its purpose. Nicholas Sandford, Goddess of Truth, and Spoiler-related boss are three examples of the third case, where there are multiple differences - name, model, and for some, purpose - some of these also hold spoilers.

I say this goes into the third category. But overall it doesn't matter too much to me. However, if this gets merged, then Sir Tydus needs to be merged with Warmaster Tydus. -- Konig/talk 19:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Till consensus decide otherwise I updated the two pages with a trivia note, to make the link between them like was also done on the nick pages. If we decide to merge later it can be reverted (or anytime if you don't agree on this change)Rumian 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

add that she's one hot bunch of pixels? :3 --The Holy Dragons 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would tap that. Hard. 38.100.109.4 18:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I like her hairstyle. --'Mai Yi' {TC} 19:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And her pose. I mean, come on! --RhoninSoren 12:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Location details

→ moved from User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford#no, that was not a typo

Sure can! It was the edit you performed at [[1]] see what I mean now? This should not be such an ordeal! LOL!Previously Unsigned 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I see the edit, which was, this one. Here's why I reverted:

• In every other NPC article, we don't offer directions to the NPC in the bulleted Locations section.
• We do offer maps.
• We do offer details on finding NPCs in Notes, especially when they are hard to find.

I can't see a good reason to make an exception for the Captain. I can see wanting to have at-a-glance directions and a map is great for that; it's worth 1000-words of details (even more so with a modest caption).

Finally, why did you want to have the conversation here on my talk? I would think it might be of interest to others (who, incidentally, might disagree with my edit...or want to see the current style convention changed).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it was just directed to you, so on your page. It wasn't needed to be this lengthy, I was assuming you'd guess the context. I would have tried to. Oh well. Since there are multiple portals to Grothmar, I just wanted to list one, since a picture would be overkill, given he is SO close to the portal. I think a couple words would have been more efficient than an entire picture. I'm not really into getting into an entire change of the rules, but if you want to get opinions or such, that is ok. I'll provide a picture, I just think it's kinda silly for something so "obvious". Previously Unsigned 18:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Gravestone

So it's the gravestone that reveals her name and birthyear, I see... Does it also mention a year of death? If so, does it match with what we know from WiK storyline (somewhere around 1079)? Jeree95 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• It does, 1045-1079. I thought it better not to include it there, as a possible spoiler. - Alexis Toran (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I'll see if it's worth adding on the page. We can always slap a spoiler sticker on it, though this would be a very minor spoiler to carry the "red alert". Most people don't even pay attention to the timeline, and having the spoiler tag would just draw attention to it.

Edit: then again there already is a spoiler tag on top of the page, lol. Jeree95 (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)