Talk:Shadow of Death

Killed the boss for the first time ever today, awesome name 188.179.10.184 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't think I've ever seen this boss. Ramei Arashi 18:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

Disputed for obvious reasons, but nonetheless:

• No credible source is given to link the trivia to the boss's name
• As stated in Nightmare: Nightmares are "Shadow-like" creatures, plus it's a Necromancer with high Death Magic. These all directly link to the creatures' name.
• The GW universe has its own slew of religions for a reason, so very unlikely its gonna mention some others
• Having "less likely trivia" on other pages isn't an argument to add this one

Erszebet (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm working from memory here, so might not be 100% correct: For name-trivia, in some cases a source is given and the text reads something like "name is a reference to" (Anet employee, famous player, some RL stuff). In others, there isn'T a source and it's formulated like a speculation "might be / could be". In the past almost 20 years this seemed fine, so why do you want to change that approach now and in this very case?
• Yes. There are 21 nightmare bosses, some have dusk, murk, night, dark in their name, 2 have shadow. Others do not. That doesn't mean it cannot be both: alluding to the shadow part and additionally be inspired by something else.
• The GW universe has a sh1tload of (implicit and explicit) references to the RL, be it ANet, players and other RL stuff. Here our interpretation/opinion differs 100%.
• That is correct. That was the summary line and you can't write out a whole lot of stuff. Should've left that out / taken something else.

Too kind, but I'm not going to search the wiki for these things. When it was too glaring people would remove it (including myself), othertimes it might get trimmed down / reworded.

I'll copy this over to the talk page, doesn't make sense to have the same discussion on 2 different pages. Steve1 (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Granted, unsourced info has been an issue on this wiki practically since the beginning. I think some of the "Trivia" sections should actually be "Notes" at best, or simply moved to the talk page (see: formatting guide). Of course I'm not going around this wiki searching for these things either, I just happened to come across this one purely by accident, checking the recent changes log. And I try to take care of this wiki, just like you :)
• I don't think wanting as much accurate information on any given page is childish at all, nor "totally irrelevant"

Just for the sake of argument: how and why is this relevant and accurate information that should be kept ? And if it really is irrelevant, what's the problem with removing it ? I doubt we'll get enough people involved to solve this so we can leave it at that, just curious in your reasoning. Erszebet (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

"childish at all, nor "totally irrelevant"" That was regarding our behaviour of edit warring over trivia, not even "hard GW facts". Relevant and accurate inforamtion is good. :)

Here's a skill name edit I made a while ago: https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=%22Together_as_One!%22&diff=2675385&oldid=2674945

The reference to Galdiator was too far fetched for me. Even htough I don't know the Inheritance Cycle, the possible reference was okay or int he realm of possibilities for me.

And it's my understanding (and it might be wrong!) that possible name sources are okay in the trivia section - at least that's how it had been done before I started editing here.

If there's an "official" spec that speculation shouldn'T be included, then we should remove it.

ANother example would be Heroic Refrain. I saw the skill icon and thought: THatÄs THanos! And someone else did as well and added a trivia that the icon might be based on THanos. I later looked at pics of THanos and kinda changed my mind. So stopped defending that trivia.

IOW: This is not guaranteed to be acurate, therefore the speculative sentence structure (and I changed a few trivia from "based on" to "might be based on" myself). I don't have a hard rule for it, sorry.

Bottom line: I felt like the addition was in a similar spirit of what had been ok on this wiki for the past 18 years for trivia. But it's not a certain thing, so if it get's removed again I won't shed any tears (or revert again - if you had reverted another time I wouldn't have re-reverted again and let it be). Steve1 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't disagree all that much after all :) Erszebet (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers! Have a good one, Steve1 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)