Talk:Tyrian royalty family tree
From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Merge suggestion[edit]
Should we remove this tree from the gw1 wiki, and just redirect to the gw2 wiki version instead? Thing is; keeping both trees updated causes a lot of double-work, and potential for errors and variations between the two. I would keep the article page here, but put in a disclaimer/redirect. Also: this tree is constructed by gathering information from both games, and is not exclusive to info given by gw1. Titus The Third 
14:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- This tree should only have GW1 info on it, albeit perhaps dotted vertical lines at the bottom to symbolise continuation in the future (gw2). We shouldn't be updating this frequently because only the gw2 source is still changing.
- We can't do full wiki redirects, only interwiki links. (Chieftain Alex) -149.254.250.115 14:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that POI. But restricting it to "only have GW1 info" would mean we have to remove A LOT of info. E.g. the wives and son of Oswald Thorn. Info about dates of birth and death (e.g. Duke Barradin dying in the Foefire). Even if it is info about gw1 characters, a lot of it is not gw1 info. That's what I find very hard to separate. I'm not sure if this tree would be of any great value if we restrict it to contain only gw1 info. But, we could try. Titus The Third
17:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC) - Edit: what about the gw2 tree? Should that tree have "only gw2 info on it"? I think you can see how this gets quite problematic eventually. "There is no "gw1" and "gw2" in "lore"..." Titus The Third 17:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that POI. But restricting it to "only have GW1 info" would mean we have to remove A LOT of info. E.g. the wives and son of Oswald Thorn. Info about dates of birth and death (e.g. Duke Barradin dying in the Foefire). Even if it is info about gw1 characters, a lot of it is not gw1 info. That's what I find very hard to separate. I'm not sure if this tree would be of any great value if we restrict it to contain only gw1 info. But, we could try. Titus The Third
- Edit 2: see this draft on how a gw1 only tree would look like. We might have to remove even more, like the info about Oswald's uncle and cousin (can't remember where we got that info). Titus The Third 17:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- Edit 2: see this draft on how a gw1 only tree would look like. We might have to remove even more, like the info about Oswald's uncle and cousin (can't remember where we got that info). Titus The Third
- A third option would be to show only information up to 1080 AE, and then cite GW2 as a source for information on Oswald's family etc. This cut would leave the fate of Ascalon untold, as I believe it should be, but would give players an accurate overview of the families. The tree on the GW2 wiki, though, can definitely take all the info you've found in GW1, as it is canon; again you can use interwiki links to cite any sources you may come across.
- As for updating the GW1 tree as more information comes in from GW2, I don't think the onus is necessarily there. The effort you've put in already is appreciated, but maintaining the tree here and on GW2 is above and beyond what we should expect. G R E E N E R 19:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
