Talk:Gwen/A3

No revert war

→ Moved from Talk:Gwen (Eye of the North)

Don't try to start one with me, it may be speculation but a good size chunk of players believe in it, and most have said it should stay so please do no revert it again, remember it is not saying that it is 100% but that it is widely believed to be so, through several facts, Lt. Thackeray is a persistent guy and likes Gwen, It is Anet they are quite predictable in what they will do and this screams it, it is not unfounded. So please do not entice a revert war over this.--Lord Randy 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If you make enough assumptions you can get to that trivia point. I prefer to minimize the level of assumptions needed before putting something in trivia. And in the above section, it certainly wasn't most who said it should stay. The most I would agree to would be the line of "Players speculate that..." but then this is supposed to be a guide to help players, and not just keep all their speculative ideas. --JonTheMon 05:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stick to the one-revert-rule. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki:One-revert_rule --Drake of Storms 05:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Think for 5 seconds, how predictable is Anet, is this something they would do, if you say they are unexpected and its not then you need to think again, and drake stfu you did multiple reverts on it you have no right to speak o nthat--Lord Randy 05:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I did one revert only. And no personal attacks policy. And the wiki is not for what YOU think or me think, it's for the FACTS. --Drake of Storms 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not make a personal attack towards you, you are trying to discredit people and should stop and be somewhat polite about it--Lord Randy 05:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is to talk about the article, not about my attitude. --Drake of Storms 05:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's extremely likely to be true, since Thackery is otherwise a nobody. Introducing a love interest is about the only way to carry Gwen into the future lore. People who do not do his quests, or pay enough attention to them or the Voices of Tyria video will miss the breadcrumbs that A.net has left for us to follow. Helping players follow these breadcrumbs is a worthy trivia note. Manifold 05:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's possible but not very likely. There's no real development of a romance, just a very subtle possibilities (that could result in a mere friendship). I think the chance of this happening is only slightly higher than the chance of him marrying Captain Langmar. Honestly, I believe Gwen could end up alone or even with a Prophecies character, since there is a quest in which she travels to Old Ascalon just to give him/her a simple flute.--Drake of Storms 05:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You should stick to this instead of making personal attacks at me and claiming i am the attacker, stick to the issue of you not believing that there is even a chance that this could be true(on an added note Don't bait people into revert wars makes you just as bad)--Lord Randy 05:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Jesus, enough of the derailing. I added a reference to the Gwen-Thackeray marriage thingamadoo. --Riddle 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Said Riddle 3.5 months later? :P And that link calls Gwen an elementalist... O_O Rose Of Kali 20:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this sets the whole Gwen-Keiran Thackeray → Logan Thackeray ordeal into stone, so we don't have to worry about player speculation and how said speculation starts revert wars. And yes, I believe that statement was released from NCSoft, since NCSoft has a knack for messing things up :p --Riddle 20:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't look like that came from NCsoft, nobody can find a link from these quotes that hit internet like they're viral and are being re-quoted word for word (except actually calling Gwen a mesmer). The only official thing I've seen so far is the news link of an interview with Linsey that's on guildwars.com, and it says nothing about Gwen and Keiran's relationship. So I'm still doubtful of this... Rose Of Kali 22:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, remember Captain single eyed blonde? that would also get Lt.Thackery into a high ranked place.--Neil2250 , Render Lord 17:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

http://us.ncsoft.com/en/ncsoft-and-arenanet-celebrate-guild-wars-5th-anniversary-with-guild-wars-beyond-and-the-war-in-kryta.html "Gwen and Lt. Thackeray are destined to marry and establish the human city of Ebonhawke, a key location in Guild Wars 2, and their descendent, Logan Thackeray, is one of the iconic characters in Guild Wars 2." That should be solid enough for everybody. --Hawk Skeer(Talk) 17:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, so they unblocked that finally... and fixed Gwen's profession. 21:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rose Of Kali (talk).

Told you--Lord randy taylor 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Revert war 23rd April

→ Moved from Talk:Gwen (Eye of the North)

Guys, I'm a bit unclear as to why people are reverting over the top of one another on the point of Logan. NCsoft has stated that Logan is Kieran and Gwen's offspring and that he plays a large role in GW2. Is it just that people feel the point isn't relevant to the article or that they think the point is in dispute? (which it isn't) Please debate it out, if I see that point reverted again without some form of consensus reached beforehand, I won't be over the moon about it. Cheers guys. -- Salome 14:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two separate issues: is the information in the press release valid (Nathe) and should there be a citation. For the second one, there was a discussion about whether the citation was right for Keiran's page (result, no) but that was applied to the Gwen page w/o much discussion (preliminary result is it should be on this page). --JonTheMon 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jon, for the succinct summary. Well in answer to the first point, I would say that it's pretty clearly stated by NCsoft that it is the case and regardless of NCsoft's ability to issue accurate press releases, we should for now function on the basis that the information is valid. As for the second point, that's up to the community to discuss and decide rather than continual reverts on the point, thus my initial point stands, from now on guys please discuss if the note is applicable to this article, rather than just reverting over one another. Cheers. (Also my personal opinion is that their is nothing wrong with the note being added to both Keiran's and Gwen's pages as trivia, as it is relevant information and far more pertinent than alot of the questionable "this skill name references X song title" type stuff that we have) -- Salome 14:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to clarify further, the discussion on Keiran's page was about whether there should be the citation, not the note itself. So, even more! --JonTheMon 14:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, Nathe hates the idea that Keiran and Gwen end up together and has been very vocally opposed to it ever since it was first speculated upon. He is just in denial and I think also the only person trying to remove the note (in violation of 1RR I might add). I knew he was going to be pissed with the way things progressed as soon as I saw the new dialogue. Arenanet can be very transparent sometimes. Misery 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Nathe is the only one in opposition to this. I think he's just arguing for the sake of arguing... or something. I don't know why he has such a problem with it. Aside from him, the consensus among the rest of us is that what comes officially from NCsoft is official. I believe the dispute tag can be removed, as there is no dispute, just one person trying to stir up revert wars with everyone else over a confirmed fact. --Hawk Skeer(Talk) 15:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok so I did some more poking around to try and find the deeper issue... it appears Nathe has an entire user feedback suggestion posted here posted September 2009 that is basically railing against a Gwen/Kerian relationship. Also on the talk page of the Lieutenant Thackeray article, he is very outspokenly opposed to the idea of a Gwen/Kerian relationship. I think the issue here is that he is just trying to push his own grudge against the storyline, because he doesn't like it, despite it being confirmed by NCsoft/Anet. --Hawk Skeer(Talk) 16:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if that is the case. He can further his own rant on his own user space, however the wiki is to document the game and anet says that gwen and kieran get it on in the future and who are we to judge who chooses to jump whom. If their are further objections, then fair enough, but if its just Nathe having an issue, then I expect him to not be removing or reverting any such notes relating to their future relationship. Cheers. -- Salome 16:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So, any objections to me removing the section disputed tag? The consensus from this talk page, the article's edit history and people arguing with Nathe on his user talk page is that the NCsoft/Anet press release is a reliable source and Gwen and Kerian marry as stated, and that Nathe is acting against it alone out of personal dislike. --Hawk Skeer(Talk) 17:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections from me. --JonTheMon 18:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You all seem to have forgotten that Ebonhawke wasn't founded until about a century after EOTN, when the Vanguard and the Norn were forced out of the far north by Jormag's minions. So Gwen and Kieran couldn't have founded it. Which means the "press release" is wrong.

Retcooooooon. Misery 19:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ghosts says Ebonhawke is founded 2 years after the defeat of the great destroyer. retcon complete.--Lord randy taylor 18:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the game yet to suggest a child between them. If NCSoft wasn't stupid we wouldn't be having this discussion Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That's right on the money, NCsoft and its press release mistakes.--Lord randy taylor 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagined an older more mature Gwen establishing Ebonhawke. Ascalon isn't dead yet and she's still working out her anger issues by cooking some tasty charr meat in the north at EOTN (actually, does she ever go out on assignments or does she really just sit there forever?) Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 23:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Graphical oddity

→ Moved from Talk:Gwen (Eye of the North)

I just noticed that Gwen appears to be holding her right arm at a horribly uncomfortable angle. Her shoulder clips right through the strap of her Deldrimor dress. Have others noticed this? If so, is it a recent thing? --Irgendwer 03:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I never noticed that before. Seems to be how her model is made; it happens regardless of her armor or weapons. My guess is it's a negative side effect to blowing people up as a child. --- NessHrin | 03:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Never noticed myself either, though, could be from what Ness mentioned and also from her time in captivity, amongst the Charr.MystiLefemEle 10:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Does that really belong in this article?

→ Moved from Talk:Gwen (Eye of the North)

Gwen (Eye of the North) article, and the first non-quote paragraph is a spoiler for WiK? That's wrong on multiple levels. Rose Of Kali 14:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I propose a split. This article is cluttered and unorganized, bouncing between information from the EotN expansion and WiK, which are different parts of the game. Anyone who has not unlocked WiK content (or doesn't own Prophecies) will be facing a bunch of spoilers and having to figure out what belongs to which time period. Rose Of Kali 23:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, could we do something like Gwen (adult)? --Riddle 23:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

She's an adult everywhere besides Pre, I don't see the point of doing that, unless it was sarcasm. The purpose of this particular split would be to take out all of the WiK stuff from this page. Suppose you just went and bought EotN, got Gwen as a hero and decided to read about her. You come to her EotN page and the first thing you see is that she's the captain of the EV and Langmar is dead. What? Then you read notes about her and Lt getting married while they're acting like teenager BF/GF in game. This is just bad. Rose Of Kali 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's two lines of text? Doesn't really strike me as needing it's own article. Backsword 02:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the split. Rather, I propose moving to a page name that would better suit the adult gwen - so there's no EN/GWB issue. It's the same person, same NPC. Spoilers exist in both forms, but for different things. This is a spoiler page, so that's a poor reason for a split in this case. Yes, this article needs a tad bit re-organizing, but not a split. -- Konig/talk 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify that at present, her pages are divided by how old she is - ten, 17, and 18. In GWB, she's 19 (since it happens a year after EOTN). Maybe it could be divided that way, dunno. --Nathe 00:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the split, i was about to add "Trivia: She has never liked Lieutenant Thackeray's ponytail." , only to find there isnt a page for her post-war... It made a little bit of me die inside. --Neil • 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am neutral as to the split. Neil, you sure? I thought I saw here mention it once, meh. might be just me thinking that way as to KT' pony-tail.MystiLefemEle 12:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? An article for Gwen as a child, Gwen as a charr prisoner, Gwen as a Vanguard hero, and Gwen for the War in Kryta? Seeing as the Eye of the North Gwen and the War in Kryta Gwen aren't even technically separate NPC's, how about we just have a single "biography" article? There's no need to have a separate article for Gwen in every year of her life. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Taking info specific to WiK, like Thackeray's scavenger hunt, to a different page should be ok. Removing info about Gwen itself should be not. Spoilers are not reason enough. Splits should come when pages grow too big or when there's a clear differentiation.MithTalk 19:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm trying to say that there is a "clear differentiation." At the very least, instead of splitting into different articles, it should be clearly split into sections, showing what pertains to EotN and what's in GW:B (WiK and now HotN). EotN and GW:B are different parts of the game and don't happen at the same time. It's not even about spoilers, it's about being able to follow what's relevant to the part of the game you're playing at the moment. Also, if it's not split, it needs to be renamed. Gwen (adult) seems to fit much better. Rose Of Kali 18:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to have this discussion moved to Talk: Gwen/draft. -- Konig/talk 22:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, wouldn't it be easier if her EoTN name was changed to Gwen Thackeray? I'm just saying, it sure would remove alot of confusion and would warrent a seperate article imo. - Lucian Shadowborn 03:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen's Death?

Is it not possible that Gwen is going to die in the near future. If you read the Guild Wars 2 wiki lore about Ebonhawke, and how her and King Adelbern make the city into a fortress, it says that the city will be set to flames because of the Foefire. This takes place about ten years after the current time in Guild Wars. Isn't the current year in Guild Wars somewhere around 1079 AE? If she is inside, then she may die. But we also have to remember that some how Logan Thackeray is a descendant from them, so they also have to have kids. This will be very interesting to see how this plays out! 96.42.76.19 00:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

She's human, so she will die. But Ebonhawke was untouched by the Foefire. -- Konig/talk 22:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge

→ Moved from Talk:Gwen/draft

The two articles Gwen and Gwen/draft are too long for the casual reader to understand what would happen if they were merged. It would be helpful to list the issues with Gwen that one hopes to resolve and how Gwen/draft resolves them.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"what is being proposed? and why? ---- The two articles Gwen and Gwen/draft are too long for the casual reader to understand what would happen if they were merged. It would be helpful to list the issues with Gwen that one hopes to resolve and how Gwen/draft resolves them " You just confused the confusion thar. --Neil • 17:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue with the Gwen pages is that we currently have 3 articles for the same character at different stages in her life, with a fourth proposed (and if that goes through, three of those different stages will be within a year of each other). This proposal is to simply have a single "biography" page rather than the convoluted set of pages we have now. All these pages for a single character simply isn't necessary, and this page shows that all the information on the character can be combined into a single page effectively. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with the merge (BTW, Santax, we only have 2 - the charr prison article from the disambig page is just the disguise skill - with a third proposed). However, I'd like the re-placing of the quotation template and using the render for the NPC infobox. However, I am not against having a child and an adult form of the pages - Pre-Searing and other. Which is what we have now (i.e., I am against the third article). -- Konig/talk 22:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

i think what should happen is we should have a gwen page on that page there is a section called gwen pre-searing gwen in the bmp and gwen in eotn and maybe gwen in guild wars beyond that way its clear to see her at all stages of her life in the game. and its all on one page. i think having more then one page is redundant and makes you look around longer for information.- Zesbeer 06:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see any purpose about having a Gwen in the BMP/EN/Beyond sections. At most, there should only be 2 sections/pages - Gwen in pre-Searing (childhood), and Gwen outside of pre-Searing (adult). BMP info: a build, a model, and lore; EN info: 2 builds, 3 models, location, quests, lore; Beyond info: location, new quests, lore, wedding dress model. I don't see a need to separate those. I prefer the gallery for all the different models, the quests don't need separation, nor does the lore, and the locations between Beyond and EN atm is more or less the same. There's little need to separate the builds between BMP and EN, and even smaller need to separate that lore.

So, again: Either mix it all up (like this page, but I say we need a better image - I do like using the render, for consistency if nothing else), or have it as two pages - Gwen (child) and Gwen (adult). To have more is completely redundant and unnecessary. As to having section, also pointless imo as it would just make the page larger. You can separate lore (ala Devona's biography section), but the rest should be kept together. -- Konig/talk 21:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

i dont see why we need 2 pages. they are the same person and should all be on the same page. i dont care how many sections there is i just think it should be one page. - Zesbeer 04:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There's multiple NPCs which are split in two, despite being for the same person in lore, due to the immense difference in game mechanics and/or spoiler reasons (Etham and Etham the Artisan being an example for the former, Kormir and Goddess of Truth being an example for the former). -- Konig/talk 04:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

etham and etham the artisan should be merged and i see no reason why little girl gwen and hero gwen cant share the same page.- Zesbeer 06:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with the merge.MystiLefemEle 10:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Some people still play this game. They need all the info. If it's imortant enough, I suggest you make an articlaon gw2 wiki. Backsword 12:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where the comment on the gw2 wiki comes from... or rather, responds to. -- Konig/talk 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The point being that while some people don't play the game anymore, and is only interested in lore, particularly as it pertains to gw2, there is still plenty of players of gw1. Thus this idea of removing gameplay info and focus on gw2 relevant lore is a bad one. Backsword 03:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

But there is no removal of gameplay info and there's absolutely no focus on gw2...? It just merges gwen as a child and gwen as a teen/adult, and fills in lore which pertains to both that was missing before. The only gw2 information there is, is merely two notes - one about Logan, the other about her title as "the Goremonger." -- Konig/talk 11:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is on this draft. Backsword 06:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, some of the info is directly incorrect. But it's all a sacrifice worth making on the altar of lore, eh. Backsword 06:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

can u point out this "incorrect info" and gw2 focus?- Zesbeer 08:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please, since the only "gw2 focus" I see is two notes which exist on the hero page (as stated, the info of Logan Thackeray and The Goremonger). The only other future-lore info there is would be the comment of 1080 AE, which isn't that big of a deal since we know it happens, even if not mechanically. I just looked through and found no incorrect info, so please do point it out - or correct it yourself - instead of just complaining. Back up your words, oh, he-who-can-see-things-I-cannot. -- Konig/talk 14:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Different suggestion with slight changes

→ Moved from Talk:Gwen/draft

I didn't want to replace the draft with a few but significant changes so I created User:Konig Des Todes/Gwen for an alternate suggestion. I'd prefer that version for:

1. Consistency in infobox image - renders seem to be preferred, I think we should keep it that way.
2. Quote template - while I dislike the looks of it, I think the quote template should be used except with flavor quotes (like what's being done on the gw2wiki atm).
3. Neither takes away from the article, nor adds too much (like the quote template of Turai Ossa or Saul D'Alessio. -- Konig/talk 11:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

i like either.- Zesbeer 16:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Decided to add the quote up top and render image into the infobox, since Santax used a render over on Keiran Thackeray/draft. -- Konig/talk 16:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Thackeray?

Could someone provide the source that indicates Gwen decided to take Keiran's family name? (Sure, their descendants are Thackerays, but that doesn't mean she decided to adopt it.) Thanks! (In case it's not obvious, I haven't completed HotN or read any of the GW books; feel free just to point to the relevant dialogue if it's that easy.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Would the descendents then be called Thackery-xxxx  ? --Neil • 21:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Source or not. She is known as Gwen in game and is the most searched for the name. She's "Gwen" in pre, she's "Gwen" in the HoM - even post wedding, I believe - and she's "Gwen" as a hero. No move imo.-- Konig/talk 21:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving makes no sense. Besides what Konig said, it would also be a spoiler for those who didn't complete HotN yet. It would be like moving Prince Rurik to Undead Prince Rurik just because that's how he ends up. Idmz 21:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking whether she should even be referred to as Gwen Thackeray, although I agree with Idmz & Konig about keeping her article centralized as Gwen. (This issue will probably also affect articles at GW2W.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

She is, but not in game. She's referred to as Gwen Thackeray in the Ghosts of Ascalon novel. -- Konig/talk 22:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the quick answer. (I presume that GoA counts as canon for this wiki.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

All three novels are 100% canon until contradicted in GW2 - which, according to Jeff Grubb, will not be a likely event as they even went out of their way to re-create a few things after GoA was written. -- Konig/talk 22:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)