Talk:Dredge Gutter

Both are assassins, so I suspect both use the same model, but there may be enough for a split anyways. Backsword 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Their lead and dual attack are the same, so they are simliar enough to stay 1 page =P--Bive 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a split. Certainly, the EotN Gutter is not affiliated to the Echovald Forest. - Reanimated X 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No please. There are plenty of other cases where a single page suffices to describe monsters in multiple campaigns (the shadow army in NF and FoW, for instance). Splitting the page and adding disambig links just adds at least one more page to click through en route to the content. The affiliations may be different, but in this case it's irrelevant; you're never going to be in a situation in-game where it matters. -- Hong 13:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you forget the main reason we're here and that is to document the game. The EotN dredge has almost nothing to do with the Factions one except for the fact that they're from the same species and are the same profession. - Reanimated X 13:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The page is documenting the game. Dredge gutters exist in the game, and they are described on the page (both variants); it's not like the content here is made up from whole cloth. The point of the wiki is to be a useful resource to people who are playing the game, and excessive division of content into separate pages goes against that. -- Hong 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

But the page in its current state is inaccurate which lowers its usefulness. - Reanimated X 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is the materiality of that inaccuracy. The allegiance of a monster is probably the least important piece of info on the page. It doesn't affect how the monster reacts to players, or how it uses skills; it only affects which other monsters it fights. If I was a betting type, I'd bet that most people who come to this page don't really care about the allegiance; they want to know what skills it has and other info pertinent to killing it. Even if they wanted to know if the monster fights other monsters, the allegiance entry is a poor way of finding that out, because different allegiances aren't always hostile to each other.

Ultimately, if the allegiance entry bugs you, the best solution would be changing the infobox so that it allows multiple allegiances, not splitting every affected page up. -- Hong 14:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Hong, for all the reasons he points out. -- Totte 07:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The concious when I did this was agreeing on the split. It out weighed the opposing. So hence the split, which makes sense. If you disagree. discuss b4 changes r made. 72.148.31.114 15:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any consensus here. I'm not even seeing a clear majority in favour of the split. -- Hong 16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Hong, you can't change the infobox to what you are wanting. I tried that first, before the split. Don't get me wrong. I do agree with you, but there's too much information to confuse people and have the two separate campaigns on same page. So therefore I'm with Backsword and Reanimated. You don't want people who only have factions to get confused and expect things that comes from Eye of the North. They may be similar in what they do, but they're from two totally different campaigns and areas. May drop different things as I saw with what links here. So my thing is. If you want it merged. Explain why, before going and trying to delete the pages. I have seen another split or two done similar to this with no complaints. Some of the others were fixed on the pages with no problems. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what "obtain consensus" means. It doesn't mean making a change, and then getting people to agree on it afterwards.

• I also fail to see any reason why someone who only has Factions should get confused by EotN stats in the article; the two sets of stats are clearly labelled as to what is what. I've never seen anyone complain that they were misled into expecting an EotN monster in a Factions area, or vice-versa; this is an issue that is entirely insignificant as far as actual impact on the game is concerned.
• The Gutters also don't drop anything that's particularly significant or valuable, so I'm not sure why you consider the item drops to be a major factor.
• Finally, I still fail to see why the affiliation in the infobox is so important. Nobody really cares about that, as far as I know. That info is never published in-game, and in most cases it has practically no impact on the player. If it still bothers you, the infobox may be rigid, but it should be possible to modify it so that it allows multiple affiliations: eg an "affiliation-2" entry.

-- Hong 16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about what's signifant or that the players don't care about the split. It's about being accurate. We're here to document the game. Period. - Reanimated X 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I addressed this issue above. Repeating it doesn't make what I said go away. If you think what I said is invalid, provide an argument beyond what you said initially. -- Hong 16:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You failed to see why someone who only has factions get confused by Eye of the north? I don't, because I have had to explain things to those with only factions. So, open your eyes and be optimistic that those who have factions can and WOULD get confused. They have with me and others. Just because you haven't experienced it,doesn't mean it's not plausable. Secondly, they do drop significations, Try doing what links here and looking at those sections on those that are split. Thirdly People do care about affiliation when it comes to the campaign they play. They care that they want to know what to look for in their campaign, not in other campaigns as well. This documentation of splitting would be more accurate and correct. So, Hong if you want to fuss on Dredge? Fuss on the other 'species' from many 'campaigns' that are split too. Because this isn't fair to the others that are split and so far Most aren't having problems with those. The split was to be made for ease and less problems of others. It is to show the species for each campaign to themselves with links. Not quite done as more is going to be added per page to show what else they drop and they do drop different things for different campaigns. Just because two things are 'listed' doesn't mean there's more. maybe 'what links' here and compare that to the two. You'd see a major difference as well. If you had looked at the original page you'd see a difference in that there are many different skills, etc. that nothing is the 'same'. Similar, maybe, but too much difference to show that it should be together and separate to show less confusion. I wasn't the only one planning on the split as I saw this as a to do project anyway on a couple of other pages. So the conscious is that more was wanting the split than just only discussed in discussion. I do know more than you think. Thank you. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 16:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @ Hong I disagree with you. The affiliation does matter. It shows the general group the monster is affiliated with. And as Ariyen said you can't change the infobox to what you want. The only real solution was for a split to occur. You saying that the affiliation is not important does not change the fact that it is required by the Formatting policy. - Reanimated X 16:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is, who exactly cares about "the general group the monster is affiliated with"? As said above, you never see it in-game; it doesn't affect gameplay; it doesn't affect skills; it doesn't help distinguish friend from foe. The only thing it affects is which other monsters this monster fights, and it's not even a very good way of predicting that. I don't see the point of making the wiki more cumbersome just so that it can be technically correct on a matter few people apparently even notice.

Re editing the infobox: I don't see anything that precludes adding an "affiliation-2" line by duplicating the code for affiliation. Then you could list both affiliations in the box, but again, this is really making a mountain out of a molehill. -- Hong 16:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh so for you, just because the species are greatly different, you think they should be together. Despite the formatting Policies? I found that this was in the works to be split for a good while Here. It was added by Backsword on 21 April 2008 (History would show this). ♥ Ariyen ♀ 17:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm trying to follow the pros/cons here and I'm getting lost. I am going to try to summarize; please let me know if I've mischaracterized any of the arguments:

(1) Split: current policy calls for an info box that specifies certain attributes that are different for GW:F and EotN types.

• Counter: these attributes can't be seen by the player and do not affect game play.

(2) Split: some peeps have gotten confused by stats differences between the types.

• Counter: then let's change the article so that is less likely.

(3) One Article: 90% of the info is the same, so there's no great need to split.

• Counter: Actually, the two Dredge Gutters aren't that much alike.

(4) One Article: splitting creates is more confusing to the average reader, not less.

• Counter: not everyone agrees

Generally, I think the case for splitting an article should be compelling; it seems like more work to force people use a disambig box. Even in Factions, it can be annoying to search for an outpost only to be warped to the mission article. So, I'm not sure that the case has been made for a split here. If the problem is handling multiple affiliations, then couldn't that be a problem with the infobox itself? Maybe the policy/infobox should be updated to allow for the possibility of multiple affiliations.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you compare the two as they are, (Chrome is easiest to do this with) you would see that the skills, infobox, most of the things if not a lot are so different, that together gets easily confusing. Can be combined again, but would need to be made clearer. As is, they're only similar mostly by name... Check out all the information yourselves. If more want it combined, can be done. I'd undo the split and make it workable. If more are okay with as is, Okay, can be left alone. -- riyen ♥ 07:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ariyen. I'm seeing the same data as you (I think), while drawing different conclusions. I agree that the differences are substantive, but I'd still rather visit only a single page. (And be able to compare without switching between tabs or having to choose a particular browser.) Mandragor Slithers differ depending on location, but we seem to manage a single page for them.

Personally, I blame ANet: they keep giving similar (or different) things the same name. Pre-Searing Skale grow up and become Bog Skale or whatever. Were they really running out of names by the time that Nightfall came out? Did both types really have to drop "Skale Fins," leaving it up to us to figure out how to handle their classification? (The Istani Skale couldn't have dropped, say, "Brown Skale Fins" instead?) In other words, for me, this is part of a large debate: where do we draw the line when the game has made things ambiguous? Again, I prefer to see fewer articles so I don't have to click/wait. In the absence of that debate, I think it's probably fine if you leave the split for now...as long as peeps don't assume that the b/c this foe got split articles it means that everyone agrees that should always happen.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, They do like to confuse us, it seems. I just am like this sorta... Eye of the north stuff should be eye of the north and all that link together in it's own way. Prophecies linked to it's stuff it's way. Elona (nightfalls I should say) linked it's way. factions linked it's way. Now things within each campaign, with multies? They can be fixed easier and this is by even viewing the policy list that is shown. Basically they can be combined and "easier on the eyes" and less wording rather not so much as like seeing (factions), (factions), (factions), (eye of the north), a lot.

Now, it's not that it'd be a lot of clicking as things can be linked easily even. To me, it'd be to where things are more Clear. I can get it to be clear (to happen rather), if a merge was to happen, using the policy guide, might be slightly difficult, but can be done. It's just, I'll wait to see if more agree towards the split, or if more agree towards the merge. I just hope more would speak out on their views. I am sorry for going through the splits, trying to help, improve, etc. (left it alone now), but there was and are very many projects like that (and more) to do. Love projects, one of the things that's always kept me busy. :-D -- riyen ♥ 08:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would've been prudent to await a majority for a change before doing the split in the first place. Even more prudent when you even went so far as to do a re-revert. Which is generally not the way to go ahead on this or other wikis. Totte 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

At the time, there were more for the revert. That's all I'll say. Had already done the pages, before hong posted. (just submtted and hadn't 'rechecked' the talk).-- riyen ♥ 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to be splitting hairs. But when you did the change there were two persons against the split (Bive and Hong, who posted two days before you committed the split) and three persons in favour (Backsword > 1 year prior, Reanimated X and presumably yourself). Calling this a settled majority is stretching it a bit. -- Totte 19:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was already being edit by me the day before that. I didn't check the history since. So, now you shall see the 'settled' majority. And just note it's Now in discussion to either keep it or have it merged. Stop bringing up the past. It does no good as what's done is done. -- riyen ♥ 21:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The past is useful in order to help us make the future more fun for us all.

Ariyen: I think peeps keep bringing up the past because they would like something different to happen next time. Are you saying that you will wait for consensus before moving forward with another split or merge? And that you understand that consensus is different from 10 people modestly in favor and one person strongly against? If so, then we have probably learned all we need to. If not, it might be worth continuing a discussion on an appropriate talk page.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am saying I would wait for a clear consensus. Repeated that two times already. I do understand the 'agreement' aka consensus thing. I just hope more would respond with their opinions, instead of so few. -- riyen ♥ 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

re: new plan of attack — cool (and thanks for taking time to respond once more :-). Re: low response to the split/merge discussions — yeah, I would expect we need to wait at least 4-6 weeks to hear from a lot of folks (and that's if we encourage people to visit the discussion page). It's always going to be a problem for low-traffic pages. Now, if someone proposed splitting something from either of Nick's pages...  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol! We'd get results for sure! There's many pages besides this one that either need splitting, fixing, or something done to. However, nothing gets done, because so many don't bother looking at those pages or voicing their opinion and the pages for 'split' suggestion are on project pages. It can be easy to over look the discussion page and do ... like what I did for example. -- riyen ♥ 07:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)