Talk:Mursaat/archive 2

Guild Wars 2 wiki article copy

I'll accept the change, mostly. But the "250 years later" section is irrelevant on this wiki and the rest is written in "historical past tense," as if from that 250 years later standpoint. I'll add spoiler tags and remove what I think is undisputed, but I'd appreciate further discussion on how to clean up the article. --Kyoshi (Talk) 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree it needs some editing but it is a lot better writin then what is there i don't necessarily agree with the repeat info that Ariyen put in.- Zesbeer 23:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I definitely don't think it needs to be so long. I also think the creature info should be put up top, and the lore beneath, as people searching for the article will be looking for creature info more likely than lore. --Kyoshi (Talk) 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't undo my edit without better justification than "you're doing it wrong". --Kyoshi (Talk) 23:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me sum it up right here, I think we should go with the old version until the new version is cleaned up. Otherwise this is going to become an edit war zone as well as a construction zone, and we need to keep it available for people who want to look this page up. We can work on the edit in a user space. --Kyoshi (Talk) 23:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

or you could not revert my edit seeing as i am editing it right now. now i have an edit conflict thanks to you.- Zesbeer 00:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

also i am following the be bold guideline and this is a wiki if you want to edit something then do it i think how i have it now is a lot better and more detailed. and it can now be a featured article.- Zesbeer 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could give a rip that I'm trying to keep the page readable until it's cleaned up. I'm trying to be civil and discuss this with you, and you took an entire hour to work on an edit without caring that I would want to discuss it with you. Frankly at this point I find it hard to care about your edit conflict. Being bold doesn't mean you go looking for trouble, nor does it mean you can ignore discussion on insane overhauls of pages like this.

No, the GW2 lore is NOT fine here. The "Return of the Unseen Ones" is a combination of GW2 speculation, GW2 history of Kryta that hasn't happened yet in GW1, and Eye of the North lore that has already been mentioned, in the directly previous section. None of it should be here.

This entire article reads too much like storytelling when people who come to the wiki will mostly come here for answers. To be honest the writing shouldn't even suit the GW2 wiki article, though it borders an entertaining touch to historical content there. Either way, on this wiki the page should not be split up into sections for the sake of storytelling. It should read simply and succinctly and give the facts straight without making users scroll all the way to find their answers.

Now, I'm going to ask one last time before I call in an admin to resolve this. Discuss. Making hasty edits to make it ready for featuring isn't going to help any more than making deliberated and slightly later edits to make it ready for featuring, and it's certainly not earning you any gold stars. --Kyoshi (Talk) 01:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

or you could have let me finish my edit instead but your the one who brought me being an ass apon your self. i am fine with discussing this but you didn't even let me finish my edit so please let more of your actions be more hypocritical. also i already had this other discussion with people on the feature page. if you want to remove the guild wars 2 stuff that's fine i dont care but what i have now is a large improvement to what was there. who cares if its in story telling mode? if someone is visiting the wiki they want more info and thus is why i think the guildwars 2 stuff is good to keep. also i didn't brake any rules, so i don't see how a threatening me with a admin is going to change what you did.- Zesbeer 01:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) YOU overhauled the page in the first place without discussing the specifics of the edit. I reverted it and asked for discussion on the talk page. You reverted my revert, and I discussed it and tried to improve your version. You undid my edit saying it was "aids", then took over an hour, ignoring the talk page, to perform an overhaul of the overhaul without discussion, while I discussed that I would rather have the page clean for users coming by and edited to that end. Stop getting defensive and accusatory, because I haven't done anything.

The storytelling vibe consists of excessive amounts of fluffy writing and unnecessary page breaks. The history of the Mursaat could be done much more succinctly than this, and saving space on the article is more convenient for the user. Pushing the information about the creatures off the first page of the article is hardly warranted for this purpose, and will confuse users who expected to come here to learn about the creature and not just the lore, or not the lore at all.

Again, the GW2 section is vague speculation about the Mursaat's potential GW2 return, the future history of Kryta without the Mursaat, and Eye of the North lore that has already been stated. Nothing about it has to do with the Mursaat, and so it is not pertinent to this page and should be removed. Wanting more info does not facilitate adding irrelevant info to the page.

I was not making any threat, I was going to ask an admin to come and oversee this discussion and the edits to this page, because you kept editing, and reverted every single one of my edits. I could also put up a request for comment on this page. If you weren't going to be reasonable and discuss your edits, I was going to make you discuss it, whether by consensus or calling on those with power. Seeing as you've clearly decided to discuss it, there's no foreseeable need anymore.

Now, if there is no contrary argument to what I've said so far (about the irrelevant info and fluffy writing), I'm going to edit the page. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

you can remove the guildwars2 info. but i don't see how the rest of the article is "fluffy" also you clearly didn't read where WE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT and that isn't my fault its yours. also you didn't want to discus it until way after i told you to let me edit it. please don't make any edits to the page until we get someone else to take a look at it seeing as i disagree with what your trying to do. also the discussion on the features page has been up for 3 months. you should have said something then. on top of that there is no harm in letting a article be a construction zone if its only for a few hours. that's how articles are made to btw and on top of that that is what a wiki is i think i need to dig up what a wiki is because increasingly people don't seem to understand that 1.anyone can edit and 2.articles are ever evolving. and part of the being bold guideline is to make a change and edit it latter. and that's what i did.- Zesbeer 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your discussion on the featured article page was just you saying that the page should have more on it, requesting to edit this page, and getting permission to do so there, but in no specific way were you told that you could overhaul the page completely, nor did you mention your exact intentions for the page and get permission for those intentions. I didn't bother to look at the featured articles page to discuss because I don't participate in that project regularly, and you shouldn't assume that anyone will look in an unrelated project page for discussion on an article. Discussions on edits to a page should be done on the corresponding talk page, not on a sometimes-related project page.

You already made edits to the page before discussion to technically it should be reverted to before all of that so it can be looked at without interfering with the user's ability to look at a coherently presented page. But fine. I'll make my own version of the page and upload it to my userspace to show you exactly what I mean by "without fluff."

As for what a wiki is: Yes, anyone can edit. Yes, articles change. And yes, you should be bold. However.

No, you shouldn't edit just because you can, and people can revert your edits. No, articles should not change without good reason. And no, you shouldn't be reckless and change a page without discussing your good reason on the corresponding talk page, where it is relevant and accessible.

Anyway, I'm finishing an edit of the page, which I will post to my userspace and link to here. --Kyoshi (Talk) 03:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I removed some incorrect lore, the GW2 lore, and the doubled portion about Lazarus. I honestly don't think a history of the Mursaat for during the Prophecies campaign is needed. Instead, just use the lore (not what happened, but things like the Chosen being sacrificed, the prophecies, the Titans, and the Door). -- Konig/talk 03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

@kyoshi whatever. @konig des todes thanks your change was for the better.- Zesbeer 03:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

@Zesbeer: Please provide a valid argument if you still plan to oppose my intentions for this article. I'm not trying to be your enemy, but you keep ignoring my arguments.

Thanks for your input, Konig. My version is here, opinions? It shouldn't be missing anything. The information about what's on the other side of the Door isn't really pertinent to the Mursaat, besides the Titans, and neither is the information about the Mantle after the Titans' release, in my opinion. --Kyoshi (Talk) 04:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

i stoped caring what you had to say about the article when you edit conflicted me and just all together didn't respect my wish to edit the page. and then you wrote a wall of text that is just plain bs i mean i linked you the discussion but you just ignored it and acted like it never happened and wasn't important i clearly out lined my plains for this article in that discussion and i expect someone to read what i link to them if its proving why i made changes, but as you said you didnt even bother to read it so gg u. also i think the page is fine the way it is right now with out your edits.- Zesbeer 04:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I looked at your discussion. I mentioned I did, and I did not say that I ignored them, if you'd bother to read my actually-informational "walls of text". All your discussion at the article features page says is that you could use the GW2W info and update it to fit GW1 as it stands. You simply copied and pasted the GW2W text into this window and left the original article below it, with no update for fluency or fitting GW1 rather than GW2.

If you really don't care what I have to say, then obviously you don't care about my edits. I might just have to put a call out to moderate the discussion after all. Please read my so-called walls of text before you assume that I ignored your arguments. GG yourself, now please present an argument that I can't refute for your edits to this article, in part or in whole. --Kyoshi (Talk) 04:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"I didn't bother to look at the featured articles page"- Zesbeer 05:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Before you linked to it. Excuse me. Is that all, then? --Kyoshi (Talk) 06:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That was cold. Kyoshi, in my opinion, I'd appologize to Zesbeer, if I were you. (Zesbeer, am sorry for past 'conflicts' between you and I, but I think this one you did good on.) -- riyen ♥ 06:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please point out how I'm being more cold than he is? From my point of view, I asked politely, twice, for Zesbeer to stop editing the page and discuss the potential changes. Only then did I start getting pissed off, when he ignored my requests both times and continued with his edits. I assumed good faith and I still am, but when people ignore what I say over and over I'm probably going to snap back at them. I got rude nearer to the end because he wouldn't stop editing but gave no reason why I was wrong, and then blatantly said he didn't care what I said over an edit conflict and not wanting the page edited, which was clearly not my intention. I think that my rudeness (and there's not very much of it) is about all that warrants an apology above what Zesbeer has done, and just barely. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, and I'll promptly apologize.

More pertinent to the page: I've presented my arguments with no refutation. I've posted a link to my proposed version of this page. I'd appreciate unbiased opinions, but either way the current page just looks too long for users who, as it was said on the featured article project page, don't care too much for lore, especially when the previous version of the article held only creature info and nobody had a problem with it except when Zesbeer said it needed a cleanup (and, while I agree it needs a cleanup, this was not the way to go about it). I would like to see this reverted until a new page has been made, for the sake of people who will be visiting the article hoping for creature information and not a full browser page worth of lore. --Kyoshi (Talk) 07:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

lie more plz about what happened the time line clearly shows that i told you to let me finish my edit way before you even started with your lets discus the edits campaign, the edit history shows this and this talk page shows this. and on top of that u then went and reverted it before i even got a chance to read what you wrote on the talk page or finish my edit. Also there is no need to revert it the page needed a more flushed out lore section. also your only argument is that it needs less "fluff" which i disagree with and i think the way it is is fine and that is the only argument you provided. and on top of that your adding in this generalization that people dont want lore which isnt true i want all the lore i can get and it frankly makes articles interesting to read. you also keep saying you want more "creature information" but there is alot there and i dont know what other "creature information" you seeing as it wasn't in your version of the page when i first checked it out. and on the fluff side of things i spent a lot of time going though the article weeding out "fluff" and merging the existing info. who cares if its a long article, as long as it is well written and informative i think it is a keeper. - Zesbeer 09:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who told you, Kyoshi, that this was only for 'creatures', but this is guild wars and Lore is part of the game. This group has 'lore', so both is needed. I like the article. I think it should stay and since Zesbeer started the edits, before you jumped in. I think you should let him finish. -- riyen ♥ 09:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Okay, first off, you took an hour to complete that edit that I conflicted. Was I supposed to know you were editing it at that point? You said to let you edit it, you didn't say when, and you didn't discuss why, other than saying that my version was "aids" which I can only take as an insult and isn't very informative on your decision to ignore my repeated requests to stop and discuss (except maybe the ignoring part), nor to undo every edit I have made to the page.

The fluff I refer to includes labeling sections as if they are chapters of a book and having so much dramatic tension ("What they did not know is..."). It doesn't need any of that, and I remember no other article on this wiki, aside from full-lore articles, that are written like that, and certainly not any creature articles. We can keep it consistent without stripping it of everything lore-wise, it just needs to be more concise.

I did not say that I want more creature information, but that I want it to be visible without having to scroll down, and with the size of the lore section that's currently impossible. The reason I find this important, at least partly, is because people will look it up mainly for the creature information, not that they will only look it up for that reason, and coming to a page with a wall-o-lore will confuse them, especially new wiki users. Also, again, no other creature page is written this long, even though many of them have similarly sized lore. (As before, point things out if I'm absolutely wrong.) It can be written shorter and written just as well, and so I think it should be.

I ought to mention that it's also redundant in the same spots that the GW2W article was and fraught with grammatical errors and is dotted with spoilers outside of spoiler marks. I dunno if I should bother editing because you certainly didn't pay attention to the purpose of my previous edits before you reverted them.

@Ariyen: I never said I wanted to do away with lore. I said it could be shorter without sacrificing quality, and on the other creature pages it is, so I think it should be. It's inconsistent to have creatures with just as much lore that could be written taking up so much less space, and it's a lot to sift through if someone does want one piece of lore information, when we can shorten it.

Also I think because Zesbeer started the edits without discussing any of them and without leaving the page as readable as the original for the time it's being edited, and if you feel so strongly that my version is irreconcilable, that this should be moved to a userspace and the page reverted until the new version is finished and agreed upon, as I've suggested this whole time. But clearly that proposal is rubbish. --Kyoshi (Talk) 10:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Okay, first off, you took an hour to complete that edit that I conflicted. Was I supposed to know you were editing it at that point? You said to let you edit it, you didn't say when, and you didn't discuss why". it should have been clear to you that i was making the edits right then. and the why should have also been clear to you. but if it is not it was because the article needed some work and your version wasn't good because it turned it into a gross wall of text.
• "other than saying that my version was "aids" which I can only take as an insult" good because your version was bad. and was not a improvement to it at all.
• "ignore my repeated requests to stop and discuss" what? dude you ONLY ONCE SAID LETS DISCUS THIS. and i did not ignore you, not only that i only reverted your "changes" becasue you reverted myen and 90% of the time your changes made the artical worse
• "The fluff I refer to includes labeling sections as if they are chapters of a book and having so much dramatic tension ("What they did not know is..."). " needs labeling to brake up the information i don't care if you want to change the labels or make them have less page brakes ie change it from == stuff == to ==== stuff ==== as for the "what they did not know is.." if you feel that needs to be change go ahead i don't care.
• "visible without having to scroll down" really you said that i just searched the page and that's the only time you said anything of the sort. also on a lot of screens the main page of this you have to scroll on, and on top of that i never heard of anyone dieing from scrolling. or rage quiting a website because they had to scroll. also i am betting you had to scroll to get to this information.
• "is because people will look it up mainly for the creature information" let me fix this for you "is because I will look it up mainly for the creature information" just because you look up pages on the wiki for "creature information" dosnt mean everyone else doese please stop putting that generalization on me and others.
• "coming to a page with a wall-o-lore will confuse them" LOL your kidding right you really think people will be like "oh shit wtf a wall of text?!?! its unreadable and unthinkable who could do this i am so confused yea now". funny joke. also a lol side note is your "version" of the page is way more of a wall of text then it is now. like i already mentioned. page brakes are used just to avoid the issue of a wall of text but you would rather remove them as seen in your "version".
• "Also, again, no other creature page is written this long, even though many of them have similarly sized lore. (As before, point things out if I'm absolutely wrong.)" i dont know if your wrong but who cares really. and if there are pages that are longer good we need as much detail as we can get.
• "I ought to mention that it's also redundant in the same spots that the GW2W article was and fraught with grammatical errors and is dotted with spoilers outside of spoiler marks. I dunno if I should bother editing because you certainly didn't pay attention to the purpose of my previous edits before you reverted them." alot of that has been fixed by me and kong. if you feel there is more feel free to fix it.
• "Also I think because Zesbeer started the edits without discussing any of them and without leaving the page as readable as the original for the time it's being edited" yea proved you wrong 9000 times on this one i did discus my changes on the features page which i linked to you. and the page seems very readable to me. maybe you cant read i don't know.
• "and if you feel so strongly that my version is irreconcilable, that this should be moved to a user space and the page reverted until the new version is finished and agreed upon, as I've suggested this whole time. But clearly that proposal is rubbish." just make the changes here. i never said your version was "irreconcilable" what i said was i disagree when it comes to what you think fluff is. and that you rather not change the current page because it is readable and works, until we had someone else come in who was neither of us.

i hope i made this as blatantly clear to you as i could because you don't seem to be getting it and are making the same untrue arguments.- Zesbeer 12:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of bickering, you two should focus less on the "he said she said" issue going on, and more on the "how can we make this article better" issue... Honestly, this has gone on long enough.

On the topic of the article, I think the issue now is that it is in a historical storytelling mode. As these things happen during the game, I don't think that is really necessary - in fact, I dislike the format and how it is written should only be written for the history of the races (such as the GW2W article). If we remove the story-telling part, we can essentially remove about half of the lore, which makes the article far more realistic (all that removed info can go on other pages, such as the Kryta, White Mantle, Shining Blade, etc. pages). Also, should be noted about the lore from Nicholas when he collected the Mursaat Tokens (which that page should be updated if it hasn't). -- Konig/talk 12:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

@Kyoshi, I don't like some kid undoing work of another, when they were in the process of doing what Konig did. I think you have been way too immature from the get go. Remember this. This is not JUST your page, stop acting like you own it and give people a chance. You have NEVER AGFed since you first undid a revert. You have been bickering and not let much anyone get anything done. 72.148.31.114 18:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

@IP: "Some kid," right, thanks for the personal attack. I am not acting as if this is my page and I have given Zesbeer many chances and assumed good faith from the beginning, and still am; I know that he wants to improve the page, but it is my opinion that he has been going about it wrong. I wanted this to be discussed civilly, BEFORE it got overhauled, because I disagree with the additions. Isn't this how it's supposed to work? If there is dispute about the edits then people are supposed to stop editing and discuss it before taking further action. The first time I reverted I admit I didn't comprehend what was being done. I tried to be reasonable and edit the page as he had it to make it seem better in my eye, and he immediately reverted it with an explanation equivalent to "you're doing it wrong, let me do it". Why is it that nobody sees this as wrong when what I've done is apparently immature and cold?

I have been losing sleep lately and probably snapped too quickly, I'll admit that. Is that all everyone thinks is so wrong with my posts and why Zesbeer is being made out as a victim? Yeah, I got angry. However, justifiable or not, getting pissed off doesn't make me, by necessity, wrong.

@Konig: The main problem, it seems, is that we disagree completely on how this should be done. The "he said she said" argument is just tagging along.

@Zesbeer: I'll get to your arguments later, because at the moment I don't have the time on my hands to discuss that entire thing. --Kyoshi (Talk) 19:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Been where you are with Zesbeer. Just take off some time, get fresh air and sleep. Give him a chance first, then if you still need to feel like you should edit out things, do it, but only after he finishes. That's my suggestion, before getting into a big 'war'. I know about the 1RR, btw, but don't you know about the AGF? Give the guy a chance as well as a bit of time. -- riyen ♥ 07:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I did get some sleep, and I'm pretty certain at this point I blew it out of proportion. However, it still doesn't mean I'm wrong. As I've said, I assumed good faith from the beginning. I know he wants to help the page as much as I do, but I believe he is going about it all wrong, and he was arbitrarily rejecting my opinion on the matter (both how he's going about the edits and how the finished page should be) until he recently started making coherent arguments (after starting with "your version was aids", on the edit log).

I still don't think Zesbeer's any more in the right than I am considering the way he went about it, but since my asshattery is what's been noticed most out of my actions and statements, I suppose I have little choice but to drop it and let this finish. --Kyoshi (Talk) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I reduced the size of the article and the amount of storytelling in the Rise of the White Mantle and The Veil Falls sections. Also edited the introduction portion and moved the note of the Seer/Mursaat lore to the above portion. -- Konig/talk 12:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Location of 'types' section

Would anybody be opposed to me partially undoing this edit? GWW is primarily a reference and guide for players, so the functional information should be at the top, and the more lorey bits at the bottom. This isn't a problem with most species pages, but this one has quite a bit of text so the actually useful information is pushed way out of sight. I know it's not consistent with most of the species pages, but then most of the species pages don't have great walls of text - I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just that it needs to be recognised that we are a guide first. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made this exact point before in the above wall of text and it got shot down. I fully support putting lore at the bottom unless it gets significantly shortened (I think Konig was working on this?). --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

/agree. Info usable in-game belongs closer to top; lore stuff at the end.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

@kyoshi no what got shot down was ridicules clams. personally i think the page is fine how it is and matches other articles.- Zesbeer 22:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

These so-called ridiculous claims are the same ones that have been specifically brought up in this section and agreed with by two other users, Zesbeer. Address the issues, or continue to ignore them, I don't care, but right now you have more people against you than for you, and it would be to your benefit to give some better proof than "I'm right and that's that" to say that my claims are so ridiculous. --Kyoshi (Talk) 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

dude i already went through and showed you how i was right just scroll up but oh wait that's too taxing for you isn't it.

on topic i think that it should stay the same as the other articles. like i already said above who cares if you have to scroll also just add a table of content and people will be able to just jump down.- Zesbeer 22:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks. They're not getting you anywhere.

Regardless of what you think is right about the article, you have three people besides me who disagree with you. It's not just me you have to convince. This was mostly my point in saying you'd have to give some better proof. I'm not going to bother rebuking your reasoning unless you plan to post it here again, as I don't want to create another wall-o-text argument without good reason to. --Kyoshi (Talk) 22:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

i am glad we agree with the personal attacks. on that note see charr Tyria (world) Gods of Tyria ect if you want me to list more i will be more then happy to. as it seems all of thous articles have the same format. - Zesbeer 23:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Let's return to the subject at hand: on a long article (such as this one), where does the lore belong? I prefer that information I can use during the game is placed towards the top (so I don't have to study the table of contents hoping to find it). I, therefore, would prefer that Story be moved to the end, as it is more like Lore (which generally appears at the end) or Trivia (also at the end) rather than anything else that I have seen to date. I wouldn't be opposed to a longer-than-average introduction that helps draw attention to the fleshed-out details now appearing in the article.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, @ Tennessee, the article is long now, but it isn't the final outcome, as there is a lot of unneeded portions (honestly, it might as well be a copy of a portion of the Storyline of Prophecies article). Secondly, about the topic on all pages not just this one, it is done like so everywhere: A quotation, then a brief paragraph to summarize the basic knowledge, then the lore, then the lists and whatnot. This is done on many pages, such as the three linked above (Tyria (world) doesn't for that though), but there is also Kurzick Luxon, and well, every page really, has that set up. Aside from just about every page already being set up like this (which would be a pain to fix, mind you!), I personally think it looks a lot better with this than with the tables and the like at the top. It just looks cleaner. So my say is to keep it as is, just make sure to word things as small as possible (i.e., this page is not the best example for an article). -- Konig/talk 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Lore and Trivia are not the same at all. Lore is the background of the game, Trivia is for things like references. -- Konig/talk 03:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I made my points poorly. What's the most useful way to present the information for most players? Are people more interested in Lore than in locating all Mursaat and scoping out their skills? Then Lore should appear first. Would people like to find usable info at the top? Then Types should appear before the walls-of-text (regardless of whether it's Lore or something else). Of course Lore and Trivia are not the same...except that neither has any impact on gameplay. I prefer to find such info at the end of articles. I have gotten lost looking for things in the Kurz/Lux articles, too.

My impression is that people currently editing the article have very strong feelings about what type of information that belongs in the article. I hope to see more of this background (in this and other articles); I missed these details while playing GW1. I am happy to see these efforts completed before worrying too much more about the order of topics.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"except that neither has any impact on gameplay."Before I get back on topic, I will have to tell you this is absolutely NOT the case. The lore is the storyline, the lore gives the why to the what and is needed for any game, doesn't affect gameplay? Sometimes gameplay is based off of lore, keep that in mind. Both are important and both influence each other and the game as a whole.

Onto the topic at hand, I am less interested in "what people are more interested in" and more into "how the order makes the page look." Why? Because people can scroll. So they have to scroll a little more than usual, so what. Besides, the lore is the most overlooked part of the game by the majority, but not because they are not interested - most people I talk to like the lore, but don't know where to go to find it in wholes (which is why I've been rewriting articles) - and seems to be the case for yourself even. By having the lore and basic descriptions at the top, like it always has been, then the lore is more known and those who are just browsing the wiki articles just to browse will see it. If you have the tables up at the top, then people will start thinking that is all there is, because tables have always been at the bottom (or more specifically, in the middle).

So to reiterate my stance: I would like the order of sections on articles to be: Quote(s), basic description, Lore, lists (skills, places, NPCs, etc.), Gallery (if there is one), Notes, then Trivia. This, in my opinion, makes a nice clean article in looks, and shows the most overlooked parts at the top so that they are no longer overlooked. If people want something at the bottom, they can scroll - it is how it is done now, and what if an article becomes popular because of the Trivia and Notes section? Will we move that section to the top? I don't think we would.

Thus, my opinion is that the argument that "the most viewed should be at the top" is a flawed and incorrect argument and should not be considered. -- Konig/talk 08:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks konig thats what i have been trying to say but have been failing.- Zesbeer 08:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In terms of aesthetics, am I only person that finds the table-at-top look an improvement? Compare 1 (original), 2 (my layout changes), and 3 (Konig's layout changes). In 3, the spoiler tag is cut off by the image, which also pushes down the image of Saul, which should go at the top of the section. A solution would be to put the image of the Mursaat lower down on the page, but then people wouldn't actually be able to tell what a Mursaat looks like from first glance, which was one of the problems with 1. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not saying the current version is the best it can be. Secondly, you changed the spoiler tag to be where it is. Personally, I don't see a need for the Saul's Story portion of the spoiler, which would allow the spoiler to be moved to under "The Veil Falls" which wouldn't be cut from an image. Also, the spoiler as is can be fixed by making the first image 249px (tested via preview) instead of 300px. Or, the spoiler can be moved to the top, like it is on the Abaddon page. Thus your issue can be fixed by a one of two very simple solutions, and not the complex one you're trying to get going: either make the image smaller (it is rather big after all...) or move the spoiler tag. -- Konig/talk 12:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the spoiler tag because 1 template is better than 3, and thanks for the fix, didn't think of that :P I still think that the people who are most likely to visit the page are gonna be the ones more interested in the functional information rather than lore, so that should be the most accessible section, though. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Before there were only 2, but for the fix, with your other changes (I think we should keep the section called History to mirror the other pages, tbh) the fix isn't made. Especially so with the table of contents on hide. Perhaps just move the spoiler to the top? After all, the entire page is a big spoiler for the Prophecies storyline. -- Konig/talk 14:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I moved the spoiler tag to the top and changed the section to History, adding more lore on the war (which I forgot to put before). As for whether or not to move the table up, it has so little information itself, there really isn't a need to. People want to find out about where they are? Only in two places. Their drops? One trophy. Their bosses? Could of just searched Category: Mursaat bosses. It isn't like this is the Nightmare page or something like that where the table has what is actually useful, not just 4 monsters listed in 2 locations with 1 drop. If any pages should have the "useful" information first, it should be this or this page - which are insanely long. Far longer than this page. -- Konig/talk 14:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)