User talk:Falconeye/Archive04

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



Please stop moving the zaishen quest articles; the community hasn't agreed on the naming convention. Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Anti-summon skill[edit]

Thanks for moving anti-summon skills (and all the various links) to the singular. I apologize if I led you astray with my original suggestion (one reason that it's usually best to discuss moves of any article that has been around awhile or that is linked-to/transcluded a lot). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Spirit lord[edit]

Why did you add that information and not combine all information over on Spirit Spam? Now we have two pages that are similar, one having more information that needed that you can find on pvx... Anyway, I'm just wondering why you did two pages, when one was needed. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 17:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

moved to Spirit Lord --Falconeye 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Form skills[edit]

So, just for my information, where was the consensus that they are separate skills? Also, don't duplicate the skill ids. --JonTheMon 21:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There was discussion here, but I'd hardly call it consensus. Tub 22:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, don't you get weakness in the togo mission - meaning a variety of attributes might be reached? --User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 22:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


Hey Falcon, I see you're a fan of creating redirects, which in themselves are double edge swords. Please check to see if the redirect is even necessary, as "Recov" actually hinders the search for "Recovery" rather than aides it. If the person is searching for "Recovery" and the letters that they are entering are correct, we do not want them to see additional options in the search which could confuse them. The only options they should be presented with are Recovery and Recovery (PvP).

Obviously, there are some very useful redirects. Nightfall assumes that the general user does not know to add "Guild Wars" at the start of their search, which holds true for the vast majority of people accessing the wiki. That particular redirect also aides people when adding wiki-links to articles. It is a common and useful term, though improper, which does not interfere with people accessing information; hence the redirect. G R E E N E R 15:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick question: I know why we have Restless Corpse and Restless Corpse (disambiguation), but I can only find one type of Undead Necromancer, which is a redirect to Undead Necromancer (Vanguard quest). Is there a new Undead Necromancer which I haven't seen yet? Otherwise, we do not need Undead Necromancer (Vanguard quest), much as we don't need Danthor the Adamant (Hearts of the North). G R E E N E R 00:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I've now stared and stared at all of those unnecessary changes you have made, and honestly I cannot parse out the few which are actually needed, and I'm quite sure that many others are struggling to correct the redirects and names. Please take the time to consult/present your ideas before making such big changes, as they rarely are required. After this many years, big changes to the game which force us to change the wiki in large ways are few and far between. G R E E N E R 03:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


tl;dr'd rc, wtf are you doing to the touch skills, everything was honestly fine 00:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

idk what you're doing, but just *stop editing* and explain it, Category:Skills by range now has Category:Touch skills, Category:Touch ranged skills, and Category:Skills with touch range, not to mention Category:Longbow ranged skills, Category:Skills with longbow range, Category:Spirit ranged skills, and Category:Skills with spirit range, there's no reason whatsoever for you to be doing this without talking about it anywhere 00:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if your edits are right; I do not know if your edits are wrong. The problem is that was a huge amount of change based on no consultation, and as far as I can see, no presented research/data. If it turns out that those are all different categories and types of skills, great! I can easily undo my reverts.
Please take this time to gather the information that you have so that you can present it to the wiki. G R E E N E R 01:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)



You have a lot of interesting ideas for things that the wiki ought to do to make things easier on our target audience. I have to confess that I react skeptically to many...and then later, after consideration, become a convert to some of the concepts. However, this often happens without hearing from you about why these changes are important and/or necessary.

Recently, you seem to have made some major changes to the wiki without garnering an appropriate mandate. I'd like to offer these rules of thumb for how you might decide if it's okay to be GWW:BOLD or if you first need to get strong support from several other contributors and/or from active contributors:

  • Will the change substantially affect more than three articles?
  • Will it require more than one new category?
  • Will it redo or undo large amounts of work done as part of a recent project?
  • Is it following standards set years ago (rather than recent practice)?
  • Does it involve renaming, splitting, or merging articles that have been around for a while?
  • Does it involve changing the current GWW direction for a new (or relatively new) part of the game?

If the answer to any of the above is yes, then any of us should post a query or suggestion (or appropriate tag) indicating why this is important. If there is any negative response, then we need to be sure that appropriate concerns have been addressed (and, often, we should try to get additional support as well). No response is not at all the same as a positive response; it should not be taken as consensus to move forward — at best, it indicates ambivalence or apathy rather than actual support.

It is critically important that folks understand how an idea will make things better for our readers before we try to change 1000s of bytes, create new cats, split articles, or otherwise change the organizational structure of the wiki.

Going forward, I would appreciate it if you would take more time to convince more of us. This has several benefits:

  1. Makes it more likely that there is support.
  2. Offers an opportunity to improve and fine-tune the idea.
  3. Offers an opportunity for others to help contribute.

Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(speaking to Falconeye) Dude, you really need to have some discussion, and like TEF said, form some kind of consensus about the stuff you're doing. Please stop creating all these categories and new pages and propose them on the formatting pages instead. If you refuse to cooperate with how this wiki works in terms of policy and guidelines, especially regarding page and organization layouts, I'm going to re-block you. ~FarloUser Farlo Triad.pngTalk 02:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Shouldn't you wait til Template_talk:NPC_infobox#Feature_request:_non-map_images gets resolved/implemented before adding all these images that will need to be changed? --JonTheMon 21:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of these images use the "old" concept art naming scheme, and will need to be reuploaded before they can be placed on pages, but can I interest you in the concept art project? The archive is down for the forseeable future since I no longer have access to the computer it was originally stored on and nobody else has seeded it, but there is plenty of concept art already on the wiki that needs organising. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Assassin and ritualist descriptions[edit]

I'm somewhat curious about where those came from. --JonTheMon 00:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I skimmed what he added and at least most of it comes from An Empire Divided. I will go and fact-check it next time I get access to a computer with internet. I can tell you now that at least rit has errors and both have serious fluff. I think he copy-pasted the sin one, going off of memory. Konig/talk 01:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
The other 6 profession pages have non-existing backstories compared to paragon and dervish; ive scouring sources from ingame, wiki pages and official books/sites to piece together backstory thats interesting. Also, it was suggested that "flavor text" be moved to profession pages in favor of "tactical overview" tone. Sadly i dont have any GW novels and my GW lore is a faction of Konig's; could use help with better fluff text, cause what I currently have is my limited. Paragon and Dervish have interesting history, and compared to the core professions, the Assassin and Ritualist should technically have a rich history as well, especially since its stongly implied that they predate th other existing professions (do they extend back to the first emperor?). --Falconeye 07:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
No no no, Falconeye. Fluff is bad. You want to be detailed (give as must (relevant) information as possible) but concise and fluff is not concise. "Flavor text" is text which is not directly relevant to the article it is on, and thus should be moved to where it is relevant, but that does not mean to add fluff.
Sadly, the core professions don't even have historical lore - the four expansion ones do (Sin+Rit's comes from An Empire Divided; Derv+Rit comes from a CD in the pre-order package which I sadly don't have, but Santax quoted it for us). Konig/talk 19:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup, at least its now less boring. The way I figure, Warriors/Rangers are the oldest (for obvious reasons), followed by Assassins/Ritualists once Canthan society developed enough to warrent their existence, then Paragon/Dervish emerged from Elonian cultural traditions once the gods' arrival; and finally the four core casters arrived on the seen. As for "a lot of the lore stuff I've never seen before", much of it is from official/semi-official sources: wheather those are canon I dont know (such as The Mists part), but was happy to have something to work with. Its my opinion that when Gods of Tyria gave magic, they effectively created a new skill-type that comprised roughly 33% of all skills--Spells. How would Ritualists profession work if one removes the "spell" keyword from thier description. I am curious to how they pulled this off through non-ritual methods, as lore/theme-wise these are the only Ritualist skills not converted into spells-types, and some sources suggest that channeled other-worldly energies from The Mists (would any of the Anet folks care to elaborate on this?). Which makes me think; while the core professions are running on five lithion-ion batteries, Rits can directly tap into the mists, without external aid... awesome!
The dagger part however was partly from wikipedia/non-GW sources and personal experience of martial arts; paragons/dervish partly explains why they use thier weapon of choice, so tried to give a plausible explanation as to why daggers are assassin's weapon of choice. (Example: if you watch "Deadliest Warriors", nearly all non-gunpowder matches end with use of short/concielable-type weapons.)
Konig, ever wonder how the game would be played back before the gods arrived on the seen? Might be a fun Bonus Mission add-on suggestion! I can picture running around lugging ancestral weapons and ashes that are treated as two-handed weapons, or sneaking up marked targets oldschool ninja style. ^_^ --Falconeye 01:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, Dervishes are the youngest profession, as it was formed during the Shattered Dynasty Era, and nothing actually says ritualists are older than the rests, just that they predate the widespread gift of magic. One must recall that both Grenth and Lyssa, at least, granted magic to a human before 1 BE, as proven by the scriptures at their statues.
A lot of what you put sounded like misunderstanding or, in some cases, trying to turn mechanics into lore. Both are great fallacies, as big as placing speculation in the mainspace. An even bigger one is putting non-gw things into the gw wiki.
To your rit speculation, I'd argue that they do take power from a bloodstone, but that they also take power from souls and thus can use more than one school of magic, unlike the others - by using the spirit to use its school of magic. Konig/talk 02:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox on skill pages[edit]

Is there a reason why you are adding parameters to skill infoboxes on skill pages without filling in the parameters? --Silver Edge 23:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Better? I copy-pasted from existing skill infoboxes from other skill pages. --Falconeye 23:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Also the infobox editors removed the |slot = parameter so no point in adding it to anything. --User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 00:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You added parameters that will not be used for certain skills. For example, adding the "aoe" and "range" parameters to Signet of Mystic Speed is pointless, since it doesn't have an area of effect and its range is exactly identical to all signets (except Signet of Judgment (PvP)). --Silver Edge 06:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Here's the rule of thumb: if you don't have a reason for changing the infobox(es), don't change them. It's actually worse when you copy/paste if you don't know why.

If you have a reason, please let us know what it is. If you don't, please stop these type of edits. Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


20 (20) [20][edit]

Mind not doing that given that they're all the same? --User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 00:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm also curious as all hell where the third set of numbers for certain NPCs come from - like those on Jade Brotherhood - as when I last checked, the HM version of quests in WoC were the same as the NM version of quests done in HM. Konig/talk 01:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Why are you adding the levels "20 (20) [20]" to articles of NPCs that don't even appear in a hard mode quest or only appear in outposts? --Silver Edge 07:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/NPCs#HM_levels_in_WoC --JonTheMon 16:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Skill Suggestions[edit]

I've been going through all of your skill suggestions. I keep finding myself saying: "Thats way too broken." While it is your suggestion place, or whatever, and you're more than welcome to flood it with whatever comes across your mind, perhaps you should stick to a few skills and develop them more. I'd be more than willing to help you balance said skills and I'd be more than willing to let you bounce ideas off me in game. Let me know ||-- ChaosBurst 02:55, 3 October 2011

Ingame name is Tranquility Of Soul of the HRK. --Falconeye 00:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


Mind that policy when reverting; you just broke it on Pious Renewal. --JonTheMon 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Category sortkey[edit]

Hey, could you please use a longer sortkey than a simple D? When a sortkey is used, it is the only thing the pages are sorted by. So two different categories, both sorted using the sortkey D can end up in any order although their lexical order would be very different. So a better sortkey would be for example Damage Blunt, Damage Chaos etc. Thanks! poke | talk 07:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I didnt know this, thank you for informing me. I'll fix it next chance I get. ^_^ --Falconeye 09:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sugar Infusion[edit]

Just so we don't get in to a power struggle, let me explain myself: Sugar Infusion sacrifices 50% of your current health, like Infuse Health. It does not technically have a blood cost, like Holiday Blues does, which sacrifices 50% of your total health. Sugar Infusion cannot directly kill you, where as Holiday Blues can. [ Tyloric ] User Tyloric t.jpg [ Talk ] 20:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Recently created categories[edit]

I've requested that all (most?) of the categories you recently created be deleted:

  • We are still discussing terminology.
  • There's no consensus (yet) on how the skill info box ought to apply these terms.
  • Some of the naming conventions you are using a non-extensible and/or confusing.

Please be patient while the discussion is going on. Changing templates and creating categories has wide-spread impact on the wiki and should never be done lightly, without considering all the implications. Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


You have mail. I am not expecting a reply, however, I would like to know if you have had a chance to read it (or if it ended up in your spam folder by mistake). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


Moved template[edit]

I have moved User:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Templates/Template:BrainFart to User:TEF/Templates/BrainFart. Please update your articles accordingly. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

{{former name}}[edit]

You are adding that template to every article which gets moved and a redirect remains. That is not the purpose of that template. It is for when in-game names (or official names) change , not when wiki article names change. Konig/talk 02:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


Please wait for consensus[edit]

Once again, you offered a proposal to {{split}} Control, but failed to wait for consensus before proceeding. Please do not create Support (team roles) without allowing time for people to discuss it. Your proposed naming convention might or might not be the best choice, e.g. we might decide that Control and Support should be the team role articles and create Game control and Game support as new names for the original articles.

Thank you. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Understood. ^_^ --Falconeye 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks :-) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Support (Team roles) was created three minutes after you created this section. --Silver Edge 07:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Falconeye: you've started editing the various articles as if everyone is agreed about how to proceed. Please refrain from adding categories or navbars until there's a consensus. Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The update that didn't happen[edit]

ANet accidentally released update notes that give a strong clue to upcoming changes in the game. A new skill type, new functionality, and changes to weak elementalist skills. However, that update is not announced nor officially far as we know.

So while it's fine to create doublecast skill (see below) and 1-2 likely mispelling redirects, it's not okay to update anything else: it's entirely possible that ANet will decide not to release this update. More likely, ANet will make a couple of changes that we won't know about until the actual release. For example, the notes we have seen refer to Doublecast skill, not Doublecast spell.

So, please: do not update any skill pages, do not change the skill history pages, etc. And please be more careful about nomenclature: either use what we see on the document...or wait until the release is official. Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Only used spell due to "...a new type of spell..."; I am -so gonna- attack those pages once they're green-lighted! ^_^ --Falconeye 09:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me if they either change the name...or if DCSs include some other characteristics that are unlike most spells, e.g. different aftercast delay, resource costs, or prerequisites (for casting). But that's why we need to wait until (a) ANet makes this official or (b) we get more info from someone who's actually playtested 'em. (BTW: I agree with you that, so far, spell seems a better choice. But that kind of nomenclature laziness is common from ANet...and it's also generated a lot of work for the wiki community, as we try to disentangle words like miss or ping which have common meanings mangled by GW.)
Remember: the green-light for changing the skill articles/histories is the day of the game update, which is later than when we'll have more info about this (which will be the day the official dev notes are published).
PS Thanks for the fixes to the page I created for this. I missed the apparent typos (more evidence that DCS might be spells later on) and you also caught a couple of missed linking opportunities. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The funniest part? Over the years, Ive made suggestions approximate to half of what Anet has listed in "this leak" (& others), only to inevitably delete them after every-other commentor effectively told me "your ideas ----s". (I can only wonder about Anet.) Ah well, almost time to clean-out my pages, and I do plan on making "more effective use" of my feedback/sandbox (per your advice). ^_^ --Falconeye 10:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The issue with your ideas is numbers, not concept. The similarities I see between ANet's actions and people's suggestion is almost always concept (usually general concept) and not numbers suggested. Your ideas are terribly overpowering (and Anet has been increasingly going towards GW2's approach of "higher numbers" but fail to affix the fact that armor health etc. of players haven't changed), but the general concept about them can be salvaged into something much better. And another problem with you and suggestions is that you seem to like everyone's suggestions. Konig/talk 10:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Falconeye shouldn't be penalized for only posting positive comments (and he doesn't post on every Feedback page). More importantly, we should evaluate each idea on its own merits, not by comparison to anything else.
ANet is always going to implement concepts and never specifics: they have to balance any particulars we post against the rest of the game, existing AI, what's easy to implement, what's easy to playtest, etc. I would take it as a coincidence (albeit an interesting one) if a skill update closely matches something in Category:Feedback. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Redirect categorizes[edit]

Please see Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Redirects#Types of redirects when deciding which category to use for a redirect, as you occasionally categorize redirects incorrectly. --Silver Edge 05:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, please see the link I provided above, since you continue to add templates that don't exist to redirect pages. [1] [2] Also, use the "Show preview" button please. --Silver Edge 04:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

outdated info template[edit]

When you're adding {{outdated info}} to a page, would you mind linking the game update or whatever caused the page to be outdated? You can simply use the unused first parameter, e.g.

{{outdated info|Feedback:Game updates/2011xxyy changed a few skills; skill lists need to be updated}}

Unless someone documents which changes need to be checked, it's virtually impossible to update the page and remove the template later, since nobody knows what to look for.
If you have the time, could you please go through Category:Outdated info and either remove, or document the templates you added? Thanks! Tub 01:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


About your feedback moves, forgetfulness and the rubbish that this subsequently creates[edit]

Hi, i am here to inform you of a simple (and important) matter about your frequent moves. The problem is that you (almost) *always* forgot to tag for deletion the redirects that your moves create. In this way you clutter the wiki with unnecessay move remnants redirects, so PLEASE before you move something, think, and tag your remants for deletion! By the way, instead of the normal deletion tag, use the speedy deletion {{delete|speedy reason|speedy}} tag, it's more indicated for this things --User Kyx signature Skull.gifKyx 23:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Merges, splits, move proposals[edit]

Going forward, I ask that you first provide an argument that supports a {{merge}}, {{split}}, or {{move}} before you add the tags to an article. Each time a tag is applied, good faith requires that the community discuss and reach consensus before rejecting (or approving). Therefore, application of the tags should only be done after careful consideration of the impact and alternatives.

If, as I hope, you are weighing the issues off-wiki, then, as the person recommending change, it's also up to you to provide the rationale. Without it, there's nothing really to discuss and the tag(s) ought to be removed. Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to what TEF has said above. Nobody sees a reason for them to be split other than you and you arent even sharing any of them with the wiki. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 01:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


You have mail (on an entirely different topic from any active discussions). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Skill infobox[edit]

It is unnecessary to add "target = foes" in the skill infobox of hex spell pages since the infobox will automatically place Category:Skills that target foes on hex spell pages. All that does is add unnecessary clutter on the page. --Silver Edge 08:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, please don't add "range=projectile", since there are at least 5 different ranges for projectiles, as documented on Range. Frankly, you have once again created useless categories without prior research, discussion or consensus. Please start heeding the requests put forth here. Tub 15:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
And ward spells are automatically have the "target" and "aoe" parameters set, so you don't need to add them to ward spell pages. Before adding any parameter to a skill page, please check the categories at bottom of the page to determine if it is necessary to add the parameter. --Silver Edge 05:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

List of concised terminology[edit]

moved from Talk:Concise description

Frequently used concise skill descriptions

Cost and Effects
Extra Conditionals
  • Lose all adrenaline.
  • Lose all enchantments.
  • Cannot self-target.
  • No effect unless you are wielding a "<insert-equipment>".
  • Ends if you use a skill.
  • Spirits are unaffected.
Orphaned terminology

Nick Category[edit]

Wouldn't it just be easier to add it to the collector transclusion? --JonTheMon 22:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Figured I'd start with "the most annoying items"; most can be farmed within an hour or less. --Falconeye 22:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Huh? I don't see where you're going with in relation to the topic. --JonTheMon 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
But why not just categorize all nick items at once using the transclusion? --JonTheMon 22:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
If transclusion is a better alternative, then I currently dont know what/how to do that. -_- --Falconeye 22:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
By transclusion I mean when you use a template. Like for the nav boxes, often times they will automatically add the page to the category as well. --JonTheMon 15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


blatantly copying talk pages and forum posts into articles[edit]

I've noticed on several occasions that you've improperly copy/pasted snippets from talk pages, user pages or external sites into articles. This is a problem for several reasons.

  • Copyright. You've copied content from a forum post which was NOT released under the GFDL. This puts both you and this wiki into an awkward legal position with the original author of the post and is thus disallowed by GWW:COPYRIGHT. It doesn't matter if the poster is also an active GWW contributor, you DON'T copy anything from off-wiki unless it's an official quote with attribution or you have permission of the author. Since this was my post, I guess I'll just give you a stern look instead of sending a lawyer, but don't misunderstand that as having permission to copy my stuff.
  • If someone chooses not to add a piece of information to an article, but to a talk or user page instead, there's usually a reason. Unless you're absolutely sure about the reason, keep it where it is. For example, TEF's zoin guide was on a user page for a reason, namely GWW:CONTENT. Adding it to a mainspace article without checking back with him was a mistake. If he wanted it there, he would have added it himself.
  • Things mentioned on talk pages or forums are usually not presented in a format suitable for articles and require some copy editing to be useful - not just fixing spelling and adding wikilinks. Unless you're quoting, these things usually need to be rewritten from scratch. This edit added both speculation and user opinions - both are acceptable on talk pages, but don't belong on articles.
  • Unless you've personally verified the information given in the content you're adding, you must assume that it contains nothing but lies. Be very mindful of speculative wording, assumptions or contradicting opinions before assuming anything on a talk page or forum to be true.

Please keep these issues in mind before copying content in the future. If in doubt, don't copy; ask on a talk page instead. And if you still choose to copy something, please provide a link to the source in the edit summary - the edit summary is there for a reason, and it'd make everyone else's life easier if you finally started using it. Tub 17:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, please stop marking all your edits as minor. In the links to your contributions Tub provided above, you marked all of them as minor edits when they are clearly not. --Silver Edge 19:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
strike two, copied from Mustering a Response. As usual, large parts of the copied portions don't apply to the Ministry of Oppression quest at all. This behaviour isn't helping the wiki, spreading misinformation is borderline vandalism. Tub 12:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
What Tub said.
There's no wiki {{stub}} so egregious that it ever has to be addressed by copying anything. It's not all that hard to take a few minutes to ask the original author for permission. And it doesn't take all that long to rewrite something so that (a) it fits the circumstances and (b) is sufficiently different from its inspiration to avoid plagiarism (either actual or the appearance thereof). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


You have mail via the wiki. (On a topic unrelated to any raised on your talk page.) Please take a gander and get back to me. Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do! ^_^ --Falconeye 00:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't heard back from you. Does that mean you aren't interested? (Or has the mail and/or response been lost en route due to one of our spam filters?) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding categories w/o discussion[edit]

You've added category:adept weapons without discussion. Is there some gap in the wiki that this addresses? Were people unable to find the end game weapons from Factions? How does this help?

And if we do need the category, how is "Adept weapon" an appropriate title? The weapons don't use "adept" in the name; the only connection is that the amulet of the mists collectors happened to be called Adepts. So that article could be called, Factions end-game weapons, Amulet of the Mists weapons, Weapons of the Mists, and any of another series of names equally appropriate (or poor).

What was so urgent that required you to create the category without asking anyone else's opinion? – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ive been updating Unique ""green" item page in an attempt to alleviate the frustration by minimizing unwanted clutter and/or the ability to search/list by any precise criteria conceivable. Weapons of the Mist (much better name, thanks!) was the ONLY end-game/trophy-redeemable NOT in its own "family". --Falconeye 00:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
First, you created Adept weapon as a new category without discussion. Now, you've updated this to Weapons of the Mists without discussion, creating even more confusion on the topic. Please stop doing any more of this (unless you are going to undo all of these changes). I get that you want to address a gap, but you need to discuss this first; there are ramifications of adding new cats and this is a community-driven wiki, not a single-person resource. Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 11:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Please stop using category:Peacekeeper weapons until we've agreed upon a naming convention. Law and Order drops from White Mantle Enforcers, so it's not strictly a PK weapon. And, please (please!) talk to someone else before creating another category. There is no urgency to resolve this and the current degree of haste is causing unnecessary work for the community. Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

"Weapons of the Mists"[edit]

Stop moving the weapons without a discussion. The move was literally suggested today and it was a big one, those kinds of discussions you do not just go ahead with. Furthermore, I disagree with the name chose, I assume, in a half-hearted manner by TEF. Konig/talk 01:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was meant to illustrate that we have equally strong/weak alternatives, not to offer a choice to anyone to start making changes today. This isn't a decision made lightly nor does it rest with any single one of us. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 11:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

What about "wait" and "stop" has been unclear?[edit]

Why are you still creating new weapons categories without discussing the organizational implications with anyone? "Campaigns" are not locations, but you've put NF uniques etc in with category:unique weapons by location. You've created the ungainly Category:The Deep and Urgoz's Warren unique items when there are a dozen other equally plausible choices. You're also redundantly categorizing items in super- and sub-categories (they should be one or the other, not both).

Nothing was broken before you started rearranging the status quo; wiki readers have lived with the current arrangement for years without any major issues. Accordingly, we have plenty of time to figure out how to proceed to address any gaps or existing issues. Rushing in to fix is creating more problems than it is resolving.

Stop creating more categories and first discuss your concept with someone else. Thank you. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Alright. --Falconeye 00:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. (As you know, I'm more than happy to discuss your ideas with you, help flesh them out, and assist in the actual implementation.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Category discussion[edit]

I don't know if/where there's a discussion on how they should be, but the fewer the categories the better. IMO, unique item categories should be limited to: Campaign (default - holds all thanks to our infobox), End-game, special sets (very much non-existent in uniques - in fact, only I can think of are end-games), and Elite (I'd consider each individual Beyond chapter to be on par to one elite). Only exception to this rule would be the Deep and Urgoz which should be combined due to being only 3 each (in which "Factions end-game") or alternatively ignored all together. In other words, this set up:

  • Core unique items (defaulted?)
  • Prophecies unique items (defaulted)
    • Deldrimor unique weapons
    • Tombs of the Primeval Kings unique weapons
    • Sorrow's Furnace unique weapons
  • Factions unique items (defaulted)
    • Factions end-game unique weapons
    • Factions elite mission unique weapons (Alt name: Urgoz and Kanaxai's unique weapons)
  • Nightfall unique items (defaulted)
    • Forgotten unique weapons
    • Domain of Anguish unique weapons
  • Eye of the North unique items (defaulted)
    • Droknar's unique weapons
    • Hierophant unique weapons (note: Slavers' Exile)
  • Beyond unique items (defaulted)
    • War in Kryta unique items (defaulted)
    • Hearts of the North unique items (defaulted)
    • Winds of Change unique items (defaulted)

Though so long as it's 1) consistent and 2) clear, it doesn't matter too much. But again: the fewer categories and duplications, the better. We do not need another Category:Locations which has at least 5 different ways to get to the same sub-sub-category. Konig/talk 02:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Understood, I will resume using your formatting perposal. (currently testing long-overdue AI update ^_^) --Falconeye 22:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that is merely my opinion and not consensus, it would be better to move this section to somewhere where consensus could be made. Konig/talk 23:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with most, but not everything proposed; more importantly, I'd like other people who are interested in wiki-cats to offer their opinion before moving forward with this. I do agree with Konig's stated principles: fewer is better, avoid duplications, and avoid misusing terminology just to flesh out a category.
Until this conversation gets moved to a public page (and gets more feedback), none of us should consider it meeting any of the conditions for consensus. i.e. do not resume using this proposal. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Unique galleries[edit]

And just why do they have to be separated into campaigns? As a gallery, the biggest intent is showing images, not categorizing them. --JonTheMon 22:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see the above 5 comments: Would they be better served categorized by profession/attribute/requirement/etc? All other galleries are categorized, why is this an exception? I've been working to update/cleanup/re-categorize/etc. the various (galleries of.../lists of.../ drop locations/category:----/etc.) --Falconeye 22:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
What galleries are you seeing categorized? I quickly picked Swords and Staves since all campaigns have a lot of those, and those weren't separated by campaign. And pretty much, this comment is only about galleries. --JonTheMon 23:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm? --JonTheMon 19:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The Campaign gallery sections are separated into weapon types; the Profession gallery sections are separated into weapon types/subtypes and/or profession/attribute requirements (whichever is most appropriate); the Weapon Type gallery sections are seperated into campaign and/or profession/attribute requirements (whichever is most appropriate); etc. Anything else i missed? --Falconeye 19:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
That's referring to categories, not galleries. If you want analogues between categories and galleries, then you would have individual galleries, but then aggregate galleries would be a single section. --JonTheMon 20:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
After finding what you were looking at, i still say it doesn't apply to unique weapon galleries; those are already separated into type. Separating campaign weapons into type makes sense both b/c of the quantity and the fact that swords don't look like bows. For a weapon type that's the same, separation by campaign isn't needed. --JonTheMon 19:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


Sweets - could you give some reasoning for your edits please?[edit]

I'm referring to this and this At the moment this creates two pages which are 99% the same. And sow confusion. Steve1 21:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the edits are consistent with all other currently accepted "List of..." categories, transclusions, & autocategorizations. The primary "Face" page talks about sweets (which can be further edited with lore/notes/trivia), the other has "the list" which is the only paged required to updated the list (instead of updating 2 or more pages) and can be tagged to whatever pages requires such a list (be it a "user:page" or the sweets article). (To use an allegory, the Sweets article is akin to a "Car" meant to expedite friendly use; the list of sweets page is the "engine" meant to aid the "wiki-mechanic" make speedy edits.) If this is not current concensus, then I'd be happy to merge-tag the various sweets, alcohol, festival item and other "list of..." articles. --Falconeye 22:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I looked at your other examples and I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. Steve1 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The content on List of alcohol, List of festive items, and List of sweets are currently only being transcluded on Alcohol, Festive item, and Sweet, respectively, and aren't linked to except for one talk page and one redirect. The Alcohol, Festive item, and Sweet pages have so little content that it is redundant to have the table on another page (e.g. Sweet page without the sweet items table). If someone in the future wanted to transclude the sweet items table on another page, they would use {{:Sweet}}. --Silver Edge 05:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WoC Explorables[edit]

Stop adding categories for deleted pages -__- e.g. thisUser Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 23:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


Navboxes 2.0[edit]

moved to User talk:Falconeye/Sandbox/Navbars

Permission to edit[edit]

If you notice a gap or error in articles in my user space:

  • Please do update them directly, if you see I have tagged them specifically to allow it.
  • But if I haven't, put a note on the talk page and we can discuss the idea.

There's a reason I don't give general permission for people to edit articles in my user space. Recently, you edited my analysis of the value of War Supplies, which gave the impression that I thought that the trade value of that item should be tied to the value of Sweets.

I don't.

In fact, I don't think the discovery (or game update?) that supplies offer sweet points changes the trade value for them at all.

  • No one should spend more than 200Gold/point for sweets unless the sweet offers other benefits.
  • Sweets that offer other benefits are priced at market value, i.e. supply and demand drives them. In the case of War Supplies,
    • The demand drivers are O-weapons, Royal Gifts, and the +1 regen/+armor benefits (useful for farming/soloing). Their sweet value is immaterial.
    • The supply drivers are completely unaffected by their value as a sweet: you cannot farm more of them b/c you progress Sweet Tooth.

Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant well and had no intentions of giving false impression. --Falconeye 21:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I accept your apology. And I offer one of my own: it's clear that your intentions are always well-meant and heartfelt and I apologize for implying otherwise by my words above.
All I'm really asking is for you to consider being less hasty. For War Supplies, it's entirely possible that I missed something important in their value, especially because of its newly discovered (or added?) sweet value. So you are correct and appropriate to point out a potential error. And that's exactly the right kind of thing to post on a talk page. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Skill ranges and types. This is the same type of thing: there is no rush to adjust things, so please wait until the discussion has come to a consensus and the current articles/cats are stable. Every change you have made in the last few days confuses the issues and the adds to the amount of work that the community has to do (it also creates more work for you).
Do add your comments to the discussion. If you have an idea for how to arrange things, lay it out in a sandbox and link the idea to the primary discussions. Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirects once more[edit]

Howdy, there is no need to have these redirects to a disambiguation page. It is misleading and have a higher chance of confusing people than helping. User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png Drogo Boffin 20:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because a red link is on User:Smurf/Sandbox doesn't mean it should exist - let alone as a redirect. That page is seldom updated, and is vastly out of date. Almost every single redirect you made today is pointless, unnecessary, or actually harmful to the wiki (via cluttering the search).
In fact, just about every single redirect you made today is only linked by said userspace page. That means it is not linked to anywhere in mainspace, and do you know what that userspace page is for? Listing redlinks in the mainspace - proof it's out of date. So stop, and think more on the redirects you make, please. Konig/talk
Understood. I assume you have a plan regarding this, that and merging these? --Falconeye 05:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
What merge? There's no need for such. List of bosses by profession, and list of bosses by species - separate completely. I have no clue why there's a List of Nightfall bosses though, and I don't see a purpose to it. Not one that elite skill lists already solve, at least. Konig/talk 05:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


Places like Lion's Arch Keep (landmark) are unnecessary because Lion's Arch Keep is solely the keep (unlike situations like Mourning Veil Falls and Mourning Veil Falls (landmark) where the latter is just a very small part of the large). There is nothing that the landmark article can add that cannot or is not on the exploreable area page. Konig/talk 03:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, while I appreciate you creating the pages I was going to, it is not worth creating them when 1) you put next to no information on the articles and 2) you put incorrect information (see Grand Cataract of Jahai and Academy of the Arcane Arts). And most of all, the reason why I haven't yet created the pages - especially Jora's village and Fenrir's den is because I wasn't certain of how to name them (for instance, Jora's village is probably far more accurately called "Jora's homestead" as per Flames of the Bear Spirit). So please put a little more thought into making them, or leave a list of landmarks you suggest creating on my talk page, so that I don't have to clean up after you. Konig/talk 03:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you decided to completely ignore me (not surprising), but instead make things worse. I've gone and fix the articles... please don't make new landmark articles, please. Fun fact: a landmark is not "something that looks neat" (well, it could be, but that's worth a screenshot on the "something"'s holder page). On this wiki, a landmark is something of lore or community value or interest. An entrance to a dungeon is not a landmark, it's "something that looks neat." Konig/talk 07:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Henchmen pages[edit]

It's redundant to add a ==Henchman== section heading to the skills section on henchmen pages when they don't ever appear as an non-henchmen ally or foe. Also if you wanted to create monthly sections on your talk page, you should have used =<Month>= instead of ==<Month>==. --Silver Edge 23:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


Collector tables[edit]

Just to say, those look very pretty :P good job. User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 10:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

White space sucks... and since no user (or bot) had done so, let alone ever doing so, my patience inevitably ran out. Please post any other "lists of..." links in need of beautification on my Sandbox/Projects in Progress, and correct any errors if/when you see them, as I was in full robotic-assembly mode (and got corpal tunnel as my reward ^_^). --Falconeye 06:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

3 Hour pre-emptive Birthday wishes[edit]

Birthday Present.png - Happy birthday! User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 20:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, now thats speedy delivery, thanks! ^_^ --Falconeye 20:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Happy Birthday! ( even if its belated )... Royal Gift.png --Thon Ghul User Thon Ghul Signature 2.jpgTalk 20:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Since it seems to have been your B-Day, to copy the 2 above: a belated Happy Birthday!
Birthday Present.png
Royal Gift.png
Da Mystic Reaper 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

PvX idea[edit]

Does anyone think a trial-category based on Yoshida Keiji [Safeway]'s concept (similar to experimental pre-7hero Mercenary category). For example, MTSC has a medly of high-speed/risk mixed in with easy/slow-n-steady. --Falconeye 19:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus revisited[edit]

This is a difficult decision to make, but I've blocked you for 3 months for wiki disruption due to editing without consensus. You've been blocked in the past for the same thing. Other longtime editors have created sections on your talk page, emailed you several times, and bent over backwards to try to get you to realize that wiki consensus actually matters, and that editing without it (or worse, against it) is not okay. You've done a lot for the wiki, and I hope you contribute in the future - but between now and then, make a serious effort to read your talk page (particularly sections like this one) and understand what they mean.
For a recent example, take a look at Food. You create a page and edit many other pages with categories for it, despite the page not being useful; other editors have to go around and tag them all for deletion, and because it's not a clear-cut "speedy" delete, days of talking and discussion is required to reach consensus on whether or not we're actually deleting. Many of your rewrites of articles are reverted/inaccurate, a ton of redirects/templates/pages have to simply be tagged for deletion (some that take months to clean up, some that are still there because people have stopped caring enough to argue against it), and... you never stop. You just keep going without ever realizing what our point is here.
Basically, the wiki needs you to take a step back and figure out what you're doing. Do not edit without obtaining consensus first. I'm not talking about playing nice for a week or two and then doing whatever, I mean don't edit without consensus from now on. Consensus is not always clear, but if you ask and nobody likes the idea, it's pretty clear that doing it anyway is bad news. If you don't ask and do it anyway, it will lead to more blocks. The wiki is getting less and less active, and there are fewer quality editors around that we can count on - and to be blunt, their time is wasted by constantly monitoring your edits. Nobody should have to follow another user around, tagging their created articles for deletion, removing questionable edits from pages, and spending most of their effort simply cleaning up messes left by someone else. It's a serious problem - editors are having these issues, and it's interfering with their ability to remain active and interested in the wiki project. I need you to get to a point where you don't need supervision; where you can figure out, before editing/creating a slew of new pages, whether consensus is for or against it, so nobody has to follow behind you and revert/place del tags/etc. I think you can do it, and I've seen it come in short bursts; but from now on, it needs to be permanent. Make sure the widespread changes you make are a legitimate benefit to the wiki, and put some serious effort into avoiding the creation of articles/redirects/categories that will simply be tagged for deletion.
Again, I want you to remain an active editor - your desire to edit is really fantastic. It just needs to be tempered by consensus. Without consensus, editing blindly creates more work for other users who have to clean it up, and that leads to a net loss for the wiki project. -Auron 00:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read this section again. As noted by the sections below (#Military vs army and categorization and #Affiliations in infobox), get consensus before editing massive number of pages, which creates more work when your edits are reverted. --Silver Edge 05:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Some selected quotes from above:
  • "Do not edit without obtaining consensus first. "
  • "Make sure the widespread changes you make are a legitimate benefit to the wiki"
  • "...get to a point where you don't need supervision; where you can figure out, before editing/creating a slew of new pages"
It's frustrating to see the creation of a new category and the misuse of an old one your first week back to editing. I hope this is just temporary, a side effect of getting reacquainted with this wiki.
  • "Again, I want you to remain an active editor - your desire to edit is really fantastic."
  • " can do it, and [we've] seen it come in short bursts" 08:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It may indeed be wise not to fall back into your old habits wich got you a ban. Cleaning up some old dusty pages is fine but it would be best not to create any new pages since it really isn't needed. Also, WB to the community, please enjoy your stay and don't cause any trouble :). Da Mystic Reaper 11:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)