User talk:Chrono Sirus
GWW:1RR[edit]
I'd like to state that it is relevant that the individual pet (e.g., just the pet the page focuses on) gets a unique statue, and it would be relevant to note all three on "Fellowship" and pages about or including the monument, but it is not relevant to state on the Black Widow page that the Phoenix gets a unique statue. That is like stating on Prince Rurik's page that Mad King Thorn's cape holds the same emblem as Rurik and Adelbern's cape. It's not relevant to Rurik just as the other two statues are irrelevant to the third pet (it could be argued that the statues are relevant to each other, but no more). Konig/talk 05:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Recent reversions[edit]
Your recent edits to Black Moa, Black Widow Spider, and Phoenix (pet) go against a generally established consensus for similar edits. The health of the wiki depends on all of us recognizing that no one of us gets to decide what's best (even when we know that we are right and/or correct). Since you participated in the conversation regarding pets with unique statues in the HoM, you must be aware that Konig isn't the only one with the view that each article's primary focus is the pet in question, not any other pets.
Accordingly, I ask that you take another look at our wiki's reversion policy before unilaterally undoing or redoing previous changes. If you feel that not enough people have opined, then take the conversation to a single talk page (I recommend starting it at Talk:"Fellowship", but the choice is yours). Then use your rhetorical skills to convince the community that it's important to mention the names of other qualifying pets in each pet's articles. If/when that happens, then the community will also help phrase the text so that it the most useful to the greatest number of people, which is the ultimate goal of every editor here (whether we realize it or not).
For what it's worth, I agree with your aim to better cross-pollinate data and help people become more knowledgeable about their options. However, I think it's always a mistake to dilute the strength of an article by including information that can (and should be) found in a primary source. Less is almost always more (up until the point at which critical details are lost). Or more concisely: I agree with others that the three pet articles should not reference each other. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
