Talk:Charr Stalker

Split

I agree. -- -- Konig/talk 03:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. there already is an article called vanguard foe. What would be split from this article?  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The creatures are two different things. The split tag isn't saying "split into Vanguard foe" but apparently falconeye was lazy and just copied the same tag to multiple pages - this one would be split with the second being [[Charr Stalker (Vanguard foe)]], the reason being as discussed here. Effectively, they are different creatures based on coding and mechanics. -- Konig/talk 04:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. This is to separate the pre-Searing version from the post-Searing one. I don't know that they couldn't be on the same page, but the workings of Vanguard Foe/Initiate are confusing enough that it makes sense to have separate articles.

However, should the name be Charr Stalker (vanguard foe) or Charr Stalker (pre-Searing)? For comparison, there's Skale Fin and Skale Fin (pre-Searing) and also Wailing Lord (The Underworld) and Wailing Lord (Fissure of Woe), each of which are named by location (not by creature type).

For accuracy, let's adjust the split tag accordingly; there's no reason to leave it with a partial destination. (Or, is there?)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

For this one, going with (pre-Searing) would work, but for others it may not (Restless Corpse (Prophecies) being such a case). -- Konig/talk 04:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The convention works for Restless Corpse that is the vanguard foe (it's only slightly more complicated b/c that's already a split). Unless you object, I'm going to change the split tags to point to [x (pre-Searing)].  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were talking about for the Restless Corpse. For clarity, the Restless Corpse is a normal foe in the Catacombs and appears once during a quest in Kryta, but shares its name with a vanguard foes - much like the bandits (which are already split). I don't object, but be sure to make sure that the enemies do not exist in pre-Searing like the bandits and restless corpses do. I think only the charr and non-restless undead do not exist in pre-Searing outside of the quests, in fact, and the grawl also do. -- Konig/talk 05:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) On second thought, it would be best to name those which need splitting to (Vanguard quests) or (Vanguard foe) for consistency since there are 5 enemies which exist in pre-Searing outside of these quests and they need splitting more-so than the two which need splitting between pre and post versions. I say Vanguard quests because the two bandit enemies are already split in such a way. -- Konig/talk 05:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's not go by what was done recently, now that we have the leisure to review all possibilities and choose the best one. I don't like using Vanguard quests or Vanguard foe because those are unofficial terms and relatively inconsistent with what we've done elsewhere on the wiki. The primary benefit of using Vanguard foe would be that we don't have to worry about any other type of similar name now or down the road.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

In regards to "consistency" - from what I notice, for NPCs, it's campaign preferred (with rare exceptions), then region if multiple within a single campaign, then profession, then quest (which is hardly ever used). There's multiple within pre-Searing and I'd prefer consistency amongst these fellas personally, and we unfortunately can't (or rather, shouldn't), put the actual quest in parantheses simply because there's multiple quests they appear for, therefore (Vanguard quests) is the best alternative. The two charr are the only ones which the pre-Searing would even work to begin with.

It just doesn't work with campaign (well, the two charr do), nor does it work with region (all in pre-Searing), and they're the same profession, thus leaving quest. -- Konig/talk 05:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just one problem: we don't acknowledge vanguard quest as a quest or type of quest; we settled on Lieutenant Langmar as the article. Which suggests Vanguard foe is somewhat better. (There is also an argument that, for all intents and purposes, we treat pre-Searing as campaign-like for these types of things.) I think the short story is that none of the choices is entirely suitable, so it's down a style preference.

Thanks for updating the tags. Let's give other ppls a chance to offer an opinion and, with some luck, there will be some sort of consensus (if not in favor of a particular choice, perhaps we can at least reduce the possibilities).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely so, Teffeny (yes, I am still intent on calling you that). We settled on Langmar's NPC page for where the information on the quests will be, not because "Lieutenant Langmar" is the "quest or type of quest" but because it mirrors existing pages which used NPC articles for daily quest information. Zaishen Bounty is an npc, and the quest "type" is Zaishen Challenge Quest. Lieutenant Langmar is an NPC, and the quest "type" would thus be "vanguard quest" (lowercase for unofficial terminology; vanguard quest because it's related to the vanguard) - or if that, "vanguard challenge quest" for consistency (hmmm, is the ZCQ name official?). One hasn't really been "dubbed" as commonplace but they're often referred to as vanguard quests from what I've seen.

Luckily, despite the zaishen quests not holding any form of new spawns, they still have a consistent naming system which we can take from here. They all have (Zaishen quest) added to the end. That shows it being a quest, but we can take that to this situation - it's not "Zaishen Challenge Quest" which is the technical scenario would call for (though I don't know why it isn't simply "quest" either...), and come to think of it having the NPCs moved to (Vanguard quests) would imply that they're quests when they aren't. I think going with the unofficial affiliation is the best alternative myself. -- Konig/talk 06:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you should choose Vanguard Quest foe and not pre-Searing foe, because the mechanics of a Vanguard foe are different from the main foes in pre-Searing. Under the assumption that Vanguard foes only appear in pre-Searing, then you should take Vanguard Quest for the split name. If you name it pre-Searing foe, then this is only partly true and you would still have to explain why it does not appear in normal pre-Searing and only in Vanguard quests. When people are searching for this foe on wiki, in the context of Vanguard Quests in pre-Searing, it makes more sense to search for Vanguard Quest foe and not pre-Searing, because it is a bit too ambiguous to search it for pre-Searing, the search space is a bit too wide. So to conclude, reasons to name it Charr Stalker Vanguard Quest foe are:

1. Charr Stalker does not appear in normal pre-searing, only in Vanguard Quests.
2. Charr Stalker in Vanguard Quest has a different mechanic than normal foes in pre-Searing, leading to ambiguity or extra space to explain the difference between this foe and normal other foes in pre-Searing.

Hopefully this helps and I'm interested in your opinions about it. --EmpressOfMisery 10:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)