User talk:Konig Des Todes/Archive 2010 1

Yay Archived!

With the new year, an empty talk page (kinda). Leave a message after the beep.

...

...

Beep. -- Konig/talk 03:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"You are not connected with the network, please try again later." -- Cyan 22:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Testing new signature... I like. -- Konig/talk 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It has more style. Style is good. Style is 2010. -- Cyan 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

+1 for your new signature. -- Lacky 00:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

Let's try baby steps:

• Line 1: "Player characters may not be members of the Gold Legion, so it is speculated that they are the antagonists of the Charr story"
• Line 2: "Player characters may not be members of the Gold Legion, which is believed to be due to their role as antagonists in the beginning of the Charr story"

Now, what does the first line say? Think a bit. Read it again, if you have to. It claims that player characters cannot be members of the Gold Legion, and thus, as a consequence of that, some people believe the Gold Legion is the antagonist of the Charrs.
Now let's try the second line. Pay attention to the transition between both statements there. What does it say? It claims that the Gold Legion is the antagonist of the Charrs (as has already been stated by Arena Net), and thus it may be a consequence of that how player characters cannot join the Gold Legion.
Let's see...The second states a fact, and speculates from it the reason behind another fact. The first states a fact and tries to speculate from it. Are those two meanings the same? Erasculio 00:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Try not to be condescending... I don't think they have the same meaning, but I vote we leave speculation off of the GW2W, though (reserve speculation for the talk pages).-- Shew 01:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So sorry for reading the beginning of the sentence, which is what I used to find where said sentence was. -- Konig/talk 01:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I don't see why you are insisting on those pieces of lore. We don't have an article about Desmina, since all information about her is already stated on Grenth's article; we don't have an article about the village of Wren, since all we have is a name. Meanwhile, there are a multitude of very incomplete lore articles that could use the attention you are giving to those small subjects, like the Exodus of the Gods, The Cataclysm and so on. Erasculio 12:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, I'm not against an article on Desmina. I am against the deletion of the Ewan article because it is on par to Burian, Brag, Feodor. And I know of those articles as well, it is better to take care of the smaller articles then the larger articles (takes care of more articles faster!). And I really don't understand you and your ridiculous zealousness about GW2 and GW1 lore. Especially since they completely influence each other... -- Konig/talk 12:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bigger articles have more impact, though. I think it's more important to make the article about the Jade Wind more complete, since it's going to be used as a source of information by more users, than trying to make an article about Desmina.

GW1 and GW2 are different games. We have a few users who are trying to mix the lore of both games under the point of view of trying to add as much content as possible to the wikis, which is a noble goal, but is ultimately wrong; since they are different games, not everything from GW1 will affect GW2, and events retconned in GW2 won't affect GW1 unless said retconn is implemented in the first game. Erasculio 12:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As I just said on the Sohothin talk page: Yes, GW1 and GW2 are two different game, but the lore isn't limited to games "GW1 lore" and "GW2 lore" is just when the lore is introduced - it is all simply "Guild Wars lore," no 1's, no 2's, no "book"s. Just Guild Wars Lore. Separating the lore by the game is idiotic and pointless, because the lore from each game affect each other. Speaking about the games being the same or different, and speaking about the lore being the same or different are two different things, and it is the biggest flaw in your argument - one that you refuse to realize. In fact, the very idea of separating the lore of the two games is idiotic and will cause confusion, mistakes, and repetitiveness.

But a fact is a fact, especially when stated by a developer about the game he or she develops: lore introduced in GW1 and lore introduced in GW2 will affect each other both ways. -- Konig/talk 12:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If a developer claims that GW2 lore will impact GW1 lore, not that GW2 lore does impact GW1 lore, it means today GW2 lore does not impact GW1 lore; so all those articles about GW2 lore have no place here right now.

See, you are assuming this is the wiki about the Guild Wars Universe; that's "idiotic", "pointless" and something which would cause "confusion, mistakes and repetitiveness". This is the wiki about Guild Wars 1; lore from GW2 that does not directly impact GW1 has no reason to be here, since it has no impact on the subject of this wiki, and adding it would only be "pointless" and a source of "repetitiveness" (since it's in the GW2 wiki anyway, and we could simply link there). Erasculio 12:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Royalists

Do you know who they consider the rightful heir, if it's not Adelbern? If you do, you might want to consider adding that. - Mini Me talk 10:14, 25 February 2010

Meant to add that, but apparently forgot (for the record: Duke Barradin) -- Konig/talk 10:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. - Mini Me talk 10:17, 25 February 2010

between a rock...

remember, remember the instigator 127.0.0.1 03:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

redirect categories

yes redirects haev categroeis no not those you removed i think their was an abbrevaition categoriy for example for teh redirects :P 127.0.0.1 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Canthan Languages

I have an idea. :-) Kaisha 21:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A mural

I figured you'd be a good person to ask about this. I found this: in HoS today. As far as I can tell it's not anywhere else on the wiki, and certainly not on the Dwayna page, whom is all I can think of it being. Do you recognize it from anywhere or know for sure who it is? Manifold 03:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a mural of a a Kurzick. I wonder what that's doing in HoS. o.O-- Shew 04:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What HoS are we talking about here? elix Omni 05:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Heart of the Shiverpeaks, in the Western area of the first level. There's a single Fleshreaver Harrower under it, and when you approach and a bunch of Fleshreavers appear. Strange, but thanks. Manifold 13:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A conversation on the desolated talk page that belongs to me! O.o Anyways, that is indeed a stain-glass version of a Kurzick concept art. As for what it is doing there, throughout ALL Eye of the North dungeon, and even the catacomb in Gwen's Story, there are murals and stain glass versions of a lot of concept art. This holds little to know lore value and was just done to make things look more pretty, more or less. Well, so the speculation goes. I have my own more specific theory that I made after some research here (warning: LONG ass op thread). But for now it seems to be nothing more than decorations. -- Konig/talk 22:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

White Mantle and Shining Blade images

I was gonna restore the images to the Mantle and Shining Blade pages and put this message on their talk pages, but I figured I should put it here since you were the one who made the edits and I wondered if you have any further input. Before I revert I should probably explain my reasoning:

• The propaganda poster is better than a logo at the top (on both pages) because it adds character, gives an idea of what the page is about, as opposed to just a logo, which doesn't really tell us anything about the page at all. It also helps that the propaganda posters are awesome :P
• The damaged version of the poster is better in the case of the White Mantle page, since we can still see the original version and the damaged version gives us a bit more non-spoilery info - about the conflict with the Shining Blade.
• The image from Rise of the White Mantle shows all the different White Mantle skins, whereas the one from the official website contains just one and lots of ugly whitespace.
• The Shining Blade poster has the advantage of blood spatters, which tells us about how the Mantle deal with rebellion. However, most of the poster is torn so we lose a lot of information there, and it could be construed as kind of spoilery, so I'm going to leave that in its current state.
• I'm not sure why you removed the screenshots on the Shining Blade page, the first just showed the leaders in Prophecies, didn't contain any spoilers, and prettied up the page. The second was spoilery but (a) it relevant to the page, (b) i wouldn't be surprised if it was relevant to whatever ANet are hinting at and (c) the image is well below any spoiler tags and isn't accessible without scrolling. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

In response respectively:

• Best to keep it consistent, all pages in which we have the emblem for the group has the emblem at the top, it shows that is the group's emblem and I don't think that should change. It might be "better" but that's an opinion and I think consistency is better than "interesting", especially since that image is still on the page. Same reason why we don't put concept art at the top - the propaganda might as well be propaganda anyways.
• I fail to see how the damaged is non-spoiler where the original isn't. I'd say the opposite. If you want, have both versions on the page, I have nothing against that - but original>damaged, in my opinion.
• I don't think that white space is ugly, personally, and I think that's a better image than the screenshot (and you seem to love the cinematic shots, which I think are ugly to add in). I prefer concept art over everything, but if that's not possible, then I prefer something that isn't a screenshot - like a rendering, and the image of the knight is the closest thing we got. I don't think you consider the "white space" on renders to be ugly, do you? If so, you're in the minority.
• As per above: Go ahead and include both but don't have just the damaged.
• As per above: I find screenshots ugly on wiki pages - they are cut off and in my opinion don't fit in well. Those specifically are also unnecessary and didn't add anything to the page. It was just filler pictures, and the only filler pictures I'd have are either concept art or the propaganda images. -- Konig/talk 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• The reason we don't put concept art at the top of pages is because screenshots are a more accurate and informative representation of the thing the article is trying to describe. I don't agree with the convention of putting a boring and uninformative "logo" at the top of pages on this issue, and to quote our formatting page - "Please note that these guides are meant to be a help, and shall be seen as a recommendation rather than strict law restricting creativity. If in any case the standardized formatting doesn't fit the purpose, you are free to modify it. Also, if you think that a formatting is generally lacking in any respect, question it! You are always invited and encouraged to suggest improvements on the respective talk page.".
• I don't think either the damaged or undamaged Mantle posters are particularly spoilery, I just prefer the damaged one because it contains more information (about the conflict with the Shining Blade) unlike the Shining Blade posters which lose information when damaged (because it's all ripped). I think reaching an agreement is important on this cause having both versions is just redundant - it'll make the page look ugly and waste valuable space.
• The render in question is literally 50% whitespace (and more an off-yellow than white). I do happen to prefer screenshots (if they're high-quality), but yes, I am in the minority on this. I do, however, think most people would agree that a screenshot containing all Mantle models is preferable to a render (and a pretty bad one, as renders go) of just one.
• I added the screenshots because I thought they would look nice and give readers a better feel for what they are reading about. We've been using screenshots on Guild Wars wikis far longer than we've been using renders, and nobody's ever had a problem with them. Imo when illustrating an article, screenshots > concept art > boring group "logos", although you've already said you don't like screenshots, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this, unless someone else has an opinion? --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The propaganda posters should not be the first image. Just because they look "awesome" and you think it's more meaningul- it doesn't mean it is. The other image is their guild cape. This is Guild Wars, the guild capes play important roles in the identity of their guild. When you see a White Mantle you think of the white armor and the red cape, not some "propaganda" image which we still do not know the extent of yet. Don't base the page on rumours and assumptions too. ~Celestia 23:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rumours and assumptions? Just for posterity, we're discussing this vs. this, and this vs. this. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that I haven't read most of the discussion above, but would like to say that the images of the Mantle's founding members and Shining Blade's councillors were rather nice and relevant. Why are they gone? (apologies for derailing the discussion at hand) — Why 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the group emblem - they are very important to the group, as Celestia said they are the most commonly associated thing for the group. The emblem is one of the main things which keep guilds separate and are the thing which identifies a group. Not to mention that unless one intends to change a lot of articles, consistency is always good. Regarding the propaganda, I think the original should be kept up for sure, they are harder to find now and more than likely we'll end up having a page to describe these events - if we do, then both the original and the damaged shall be there, and the damaged does not go alongside the purpose of the page. The damaged flyers are about the conflict of the two groups, the original flyers are about the groups themselves, and the pages are about the groups themselves.

Regarding the screenshots vs. render and to Why as well: These things are just for fillers in the pages. It's to make the pages more interesting to look at. On the shining blade page this is 100% unnecessary - why? Because as you can see if you go there now, we're extending the page as is, we should have the emblem, and adding in one flyer removes any filler place. The screenshots there had no purpose, they were just fillers. I do prefer screenshots over renders (for reference, I prefer the filler images to be as follows: concept art, equivalent of the flyers, renders, screenshots). Concept art are the least seen aspects of the game, and we have them on the site, so why not use them? Renders look on the page better in my opinion (no sudden cut off), and the flyers fit even better. Screenshots should, in my opinion, only be used if otherwise unavoidable while wanting to not have a lack of images. Images, on the whole, are in fact unnecessary so one doesn't need to fill every article with images - keep that in mind.

With that said, I'd like to remind that screenshots, while they may "look nice and give readers a better feel for what they are reading about" are unnecessary in every case. We use renders now because they are cleaner (though we usually only use them for the template boxes), as said above everyone can see what is in a screenshot - but few people will look at the concept art, so while screenshots might "look nice" concept art is a new look to readers, thus more interesting because it is not something they've seen time and time again. -- Konig/talk 03:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Rumours and assumptions?" Yes, this edit included "A new page recently appeared on GuildWars.com teasing upcoming content related to the Krytan civil war". We do not know this, you said it yourself in the concluding sentence: "No official word on the matter has yet been forthcoming". While it most likely is the Krytan civil war, we don't know for sure. Do we know it's a content update? No. We assume. As for the picture of the WM founders, that should stay IMO. It has more of a place in the "Background" than the propaganda flyer (which could just be grouped together). ~Celestia 08:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Konig: When I search for a page, I don't want to see concept art of the article subject, I want to see what it actually looks like in-game (I'm not sure how we actually ended up having this discussion, since the flyers are the only concept art that actually exists on either page). I would argue that we don't use renders because they are "cleaner", but rather that they are easier to manage than screenshots which are often low-quality when taken of a single NPC, coupled with the fact that many NPC's share the same model. But we're talking in general terms, on this specific page, what tells us more about a group - screenshots of them in the context you would find them in-game, or a picture of their logo? In the case of the Shining Blade, the flyer even displays the logo prominently, making the other image redundant. And the Mantle would still have the logo displayed on their page, just further down, in the units section. The damaged Mantle flyer tells us about the group and the conflict, which is pretty much what defines the group in GW:EN and GW2 anyway, while not spoiling Prophecies. The point is, the flyers tell us the same amount (if not more) information about the article subject as the logos, without making the page look fugly in the process. That's why the flyers should be displayed more prominently, and if room has to be made for more images, the logos should be the first things to go.
Celstia: Well, what else is it going to be if not a content update? --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Santax, it appears that you think that I think we should use that knight image. I merely replaced it because there's no reason why not to. The screenshot does not show every profession, like you claim, and sure it fits with the background area - I honestly don't care about that right now. However, I will still say that, out of consistency and organization we should keep the emblem at the top, just as it is done for these pages and many many others. It may be impossible to have a single screenshot "describe" a group, I think it is, unless it's a very covering image, which means it'll be hard to make things out with it scaled down. I also think that looks better to have the flag of their emblem on the top, instead of at the bottom, as if it is unimportant. The flyer for the Shining Blade actually does not have the Shining Blade's logo - it's an altered design (the sword is upsidedown and there is an added hand). And the conflict is not defined in GW2 (the Shining Blade are the queen's right hand). You cannot have one article having the damaged version and the other having the original version, like you said you wanted yourself (specifically you said that the shining blade article should have the original since it's hard to make anything out of the damaged). Lastly, the flyers actually only tell us about the conflict after Eye of the North and before Guild Wars 2. It does not "explain the article best" - not in the least. It just explains current events, not events of the past or future. I'm still even unsure if we should even bother with the flyers being on the pages for now, it might just be a waste of time as they may be better off on a page that describes the whole event that we're seeing unfold. -- Konig/talk 20:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Think of it this way: what does the flyer tell us? That the Mantle are authoratitive, imposing, and the damaged version shows that they are at war with the Shining Blade. What does the emblem tell us? It shows us what they like to wear on their capes and tells us that red is their favourite colour, which players would know already. A slightly altered design for the logo is still a logo, and it's more recent, so I'd prefer we use that for the Shining Blade page than the current dull one. The same applies to the Mantle - the undamaged version of the flyer even contains the Mantle emblem, so maybe we could compromise on that. You say that consistency is important for these pages but I disagree - as long as they have the same general layout, images don't have to be contained in the same rigid structure. Formatting should be adapatable, especially in this case where there are no guidelines. The pages you gave as examples for consistency are actually reasons why it's a bad idea - the Stone Summit page has an emblem that I don't think I've ever seen in my life, and from the caption on the Deldrimor image, it seems we don't even know if that really is their emblem. How does that tell us anything about either of those two groups? And why not use damaged on one page and intact for the other? We should use whatever's best for the article, not whatever's most satisfying to think about in an organisational sense (although I have stated I'd be willing to compromise by using the undamaged versions at the top in lieu of the emblems, which also has an advantage because they are no longer displayed on the website). And by the way, the war for Kryta's crown does happen after Prophecies, not GW:EN, because you have all those run-ins with the Mantle in GW:EN. --Santax (talk · contribs) 07:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"hat the Mantle are authoratitive, imposing" - guess what, Prophecies spoiler! Spoilers shouldn't be at the top if possible. The logo wasn't altered, it's just for the flyer - go to the Facebook page, emblem's still the same. I don't think we should have the flyers at the top, because they are spoilers to the Prophecies campaign, and, despite what you said about the civil war (which is true), they flyers (not the war) is post-EN (much like how the M.O.X. quests are post-EN). I also think that it's painfully obvious that the White Mantle and Shining Blade are in war, at least to anyone who actually reads or played Prophecies or Eye of the North, so that is hardly a reason to put the flyers at the top. Neither the flyer or the emblem is "more informative" - despite the saying that a picture contains a thousand words, the article can contain more - this all comes down to "filler images" and I think that an emblem would be more worth while at the top, with the flyers further down (just as we have the older information at the top and the newer information at the bottom). I don't see why it is such an issue to change something that has been the case for a long time. -- Konig/talk 08:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Mantle being authoritative is a Prophecies spoiler? Ok, you're clutching at straws now. Just as it's painfully obvious that the White Mantle and Shining Blade are at war, it's painfully obvious that the Mantle are an authoritative and imposing group, hell, you can get that impression from reading the manual. The logo being an altered design were your exact words, and we don't know what time period the posters are from, it could be pretty much any time in the game series (although most likely after Proph), and this ambiguity is exactly the reason why they're okay to go at the top - they don't spoil anything. I think you actually put it better than I could - a picture is (or can be, rather) worth a thousand words. We only really have older information at the top when we are using text, or when there are spoiler images further down to put some scrolling space in (not that we have many examples). Arguing from the position that it's been the case for a long time is also a bit clutchy-at-strawsy, considering that the new images have only been available to use recently. But I don't think that we're going to get anywhere with this just discussing between the two of us, and we haven't really had enough other people comment to see what the general consensus is (although 3 of the 4 people who chipped in, us included, seemed to prefer keeping the screenshots). So I'll create a couple of draft pages in my sandbox and we'll reach a compromise, and merge when we're both reasonably satisfied (I don't think it's reasonable to be expect that either one of us will completely get their way, unless we can find a bunch of other people willing to discuss this so we can see what the consensus is). --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't learn of the Mantle being oppressive until Bloodstone Fen's mission. Before they seem like the "good guys" - in the manual it says that those who are not with the white mantle are poor people, but that doesn't point blank mean that they are oppressive and demand people to "obey." I would hardly call a revelation coming through halfway through the game being "grasping at straws." I know that I said that the design on the flyer is an altered state of the logo, but it isn't the logo and I never said it is the logo, in fact I said "The flyer for the Shining Blade actually does not have the Shining Blade's logo". As for the time, thus far every new content has been in a direct time order - why would this be any different? Sure, the posters might have started with the fall of the White Mantle in lore, but what we're seeing unravel is taking place in the now not the then - and now would be post-EN, post-M.O.X. even. I'll go along with using screenshots, on the condition that they are only used as fillers like I believe they should (i.e., no need to put them in the voice response section when the emblem and the flyer covers the area already). I still believe that the emblem should be at the top, as it is for every page in which we have an emblem (Stone Summit, Deldrimor, Luxon, Kurzick, etc. - and those we don't have the emblem on the page, but there is an emblem for, I think we should add to the top). It might not be "the most informative" - but if people are going to scroll, let's make the bottom good looking too, no need to put the most important things at the top, like it seems you want. I personally do think the emblems should be at the top, unlike the signposts for the region pages which are all at the bottom.

To be honest, the only thing I really care about is concept art over screenshots (and since we have no concept art, then screenshots are fine) for filler art and the emblem/flag being at the top. As such, the flyer would act as a "filler image" thus effectively removing the need for (some - including all of the shining blade page's) screenshots. -- Konig/talk 19:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, I have a couple of draft pages up here and here. Give them a look over when you have time. Haha, all this over a few images, I need to stop doing things like this. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looked over them and here's what I have to say:

On the White Mantle Page, I still prefer the original over the vandalized one. Again, the page is meant to be about the White Mantle, not the conflict. I do believe that, if we wait, we'll have to make a page such as Krytan civil war to document not just the vandalization/viral ad campaign, but also future content that revolves around these. I think the vandalized posters would be best to be placed there. When the new content is released, we can also add a new section (I'm also unsure of the names of the sections, and heck, I haven't read all of your changes from when you first changed them, if they're at least half of like how others were by yourself and others, there's fluff there thus needing to be reduced).

On the Shining Blade page, I think using the banner would be far better than using the emblem like in your draft page. I'm unsure of the need for the second filler image (Livia+the Scepter of Orr), and I'm sure that, like with the White Mantle page, we'll be adding in new information to the page.

Overall: I think we should just wait until all this new information is released, and we can document it all. Then we can figure out how many images, and which images, we will need and where. -- Konig/talk 23:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree we'll need a page for the conflict, maybe Krytan civil war ARG, as it's more of a marketing thing than an in-game thing, for now at least. We'll be able to give it a proper name once we know what it's actually teasing.

Using the emblem on the Shining Blade page saves us a LOT of space. The majority of this image is just blank, so it's good that there's an image available where we can cut all that out. I don't see any advantage of using the banner rather than the emblem, all it does is waste space from what I can see. I'd like to leave the image for Livia and the Scepter of Orr stay for now if possible, if these events do take place after GW:EN it's probable that Livia will tie into it. That said, I think that image is probably the least useful on that page, and should a more useful one come along in the ARG, that would be the first to go. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what ARG means, and I'm fairly sure it'll be an in-game thing (*cough*), regarding the emblem - if we remove the livia image, then the banner would be fine, not to mention that, in my opinion, the banner looks better than the emblem alone. -- Konig/talk 21:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit:Not to mention on the Shining Blade page, the banner is enlarged, thus taking more room... -- Konig/talk 21:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit2: BTW, during this edit, why did you remove the table of members? -- Konig/talk 21:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

WP explains it better than I can. If we removed the Livia image, there'd be enough room for the banner - but then we'd lose the Livia image. Why use one image when we can easily fit two in? The majority of the banner is blank, that's a lot of wasted space. The emblem is a compromise - it puts the "logo" at the top without the wasted space (and imo, fugliness) of the banner.

The reason I removed the table is because we don't generally list friendly NPC's on pages like that, and there's a perfectly good category for such NPC's at Category:Shining Blade. --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC)EDIT: I imagine you'll already have seen this. I think we have a title for that page. --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

We see a new Livia in Talmark Wilderness in the new Shining Blade camp - she has no scepter, so it may be irrelevant to the whole thing. For now. As such, we won't be losing much. -- Konig/talk 10:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Come on. If you're right about it happening after GW:EN, then we both know it's going to be very relevant. --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: Ogden's Benediction doesn't happen right after EN. Thus this is before Livia finds the scepter, possibly. Or she simply didn't take it. -- Konig/talk 10:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with you there. Let's take a look at what we know:

• During the Epilogue she states, "You survived. I'm pleased. When I return to Kryta, I shall say that heroes still exist in the world. But first, there is another place I must go... a little city called Arah..."'. This tells us that she heads there straight after the Epilogue to retrieve the Scepter.
• Her manual bio states "She seeks a weapon of power—anything that will keep Kryta safe. And she is willing to give her life for it... as well as the lives of those around her.". Her in-game bio states "she seeks a weapon of power to bring an ultimate end to the civil war" (so we know it's related to the war). She asks Gadd about the Scepter of Orr. She is seen in the epilogue about to grab the Scepter of Orr. Why would they have all that build up if she'd decided at the last moment that she didn't want it after all. It's more speculative to say that she didn't take the Scepter than she did. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's true. But then why doesn't she have the Scepter? Either she ran into a dead end in Arah and didn't find it, thus the Scepter of Orr is not in Arah, or she did find it, but didn't take it. Thus, we're still no further. As for why she wouldn't - she might think that it is too much trouble for its worth, people do have change of heart, and if she learned of the history of it, and I'm sure she knows of the events of Prophecies dealing with the Prophecies, she might not have taken it. It's still up in the air, even if people think it is more likely she did take it. -- Konig/talk 11:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a clue. She might have it in her tent rather than hulking it around (there's also the fact that it's not traditionally a wieldable weapon), or she might be saving it for the right moment. I don't think ANet would drop all those hints and have all that build-up at the end (where it's pretty much shown that she takes it) and then be like lol nvm. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dorian trivia

Is that an official GW page? -- FreedomBound 19:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The two facebook pages, including what I linked, are part of the White Mantle/Shining Blade viral add. You can get to the facebook pages from [guildwars.com/white_mantle/] and [guildwars.com/shining blade/] - just click the flyers. -- Konig/talk 20:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There was nothing on the pages to indicate they were official, and Regina admonished a twitter account by the name of WhiteMantle for using the Arenanet logo, and mentioned that a Facebook app was fan-made, so I wasn't sure if something similar was occurring with the Facebook pages. -- FreedomBound 20:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Easter

Hope you have a good one. Reaper of Scythes** 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Though I don't celebrate the holiday, I thank thee, little Christian. -- Konig/talk 09:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, I'm not a Christian. Reaper of Scythes** 09:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite interesting. I retract the last word of my previous statement and replace it with "person." -- Konig/talk 09:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still like chocalate eggs :P Reaper of Scythes** 09:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Category

Cheers for helping. I'm still pretty fuzzy and am bound to miss bits. Shadow Runner 12:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahem

Why was the Location for Mantlecon Changed from the Normal Maguuma Stade to Hendge of Denravi? :( , Also. could you Double-Check my Times i added on the page. :P --Neil2250 , Render Lord 19:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I felt like a bigger place was needed, plus the theme of the event changed so I was presented with a chance with an explanation to change the place, which I've been wanting to do. So I did. :p And I checked the times when they were added. -- Konig/talk 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You moved the event?! /Facepalm Frozenwind 01:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You wanted to move it to D'Alessio Seabed last year Daniel. The Henge is more appropriate, given the amphitheater and not just simple steps to act as seats. :p -- Konig/talk 01:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Le' facepalm Frozenwind 01:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I take your Le' facepalm and give you a el facepalm! Language is ftw. -- Konig/talk 01:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Way to mess up my plans and stuff. /Ferfpaerg Frozenwind 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I sent you a PM about that. Your plans are unnecessary. Rethink them with the Reformation in mind. Down to the Peacekeepers! -- Konig/talk 01:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

i had 5 places that looked awesom to hide from mursaat hordes in Maguuma Stade.And since its now in denravi...THERE BETTER BE SOME MURSAAT NPC KILLING PEOPLE AND SOME EXPLOSIONS *Cough* But other than that, yeh.denravi sounds good.--Neil2250 , Render Lord 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Also.are the times i added on the page correct in conversion, i dont wanna make a total fool out of myself D: --Neil2250 , Render Lord 01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No where would be safe if Linsey sent in Mursaat marauders. And I'm going to say "there won't be any" due to the reason given last year. Edit: If central Australia is GMT +12 then yes. -- Konig/talk 01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"And I'm going to say "there won't be any" due to the reason given last year" Excuse me? D: , what is this reason? :( --Neil2250 , Render Lord 12:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The person who programmed the Mursaat invasion is working on GW2 and didn't have time to re-program it for the MC last year. And I hope you don't mind, but I made your quote less shout-like to read. -- Konig/talk 17:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

so no NPC's just a boring old party? :( --Neil2250 , Render Lord 18:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a pessimist! Why dis the MantleCon 1080 AE as being boring when you haven't gone to it yet? -- Konig/talk 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just my luck, the one year nothing is going on during the event, not only is it completely changed, but there's no Mursaat invasion. QQ rofl Oh well, I'm still looking forward to it! :D Tender Wolf 22:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Costumes?

I remember you asking Anet if they would give you a heads up on things so that you could do the MantleCon. Then I read this;

"We shall have a contest for the best dressed as a White Mantle..."

Did they give you an indication that they are not planning to introduce actual costumes? Or are you planning to rule them out if Anet ends up introducing them? Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 17:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

... MantleCon 1079 AE, Mursaat Rally 2, Mursaat Rally. The White Mantle Costume contest has occurred since the beginning of the event. And even if that was still the plan, I wouldn't allow costumes in it just as people don't allow tonics.

To your actual question: No. I was told nothing. By the way, recheck the costume contest. -- Konig/talk 17:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, cool! Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation (again)

I noticed you used lowercase for race names on the War in Kryta article, and also on the Shining Blade camp page in the dialogue. Is this the case used for it in-game? --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ever since August 2009, even in GW1 the race names have been lowercased. Old dialogue has it capitalized, but the new ones it is lowercase. I think we should edit all non-dialogue to be lowercase, personally. But for now, I'll just keep the new information as lowercase, because it is presented as such. -- Konig/talk 10:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Old Ascalonian text on that Mantlecon image

Did you make that font and it is downloadable? ~~000.00.00.00~~ 10:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not, but it is. Enjoy. -- Konig/talk 11:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Something for you?

This user supports the Shining Mantle.

Reaper of Scythes** 13:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

hehe I made that. :D I figured, why not, considering today's MantleCon was about the reformation, and a lot of people like it. :) Tender Wolf 22:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Will use. -- Konig/talk 00:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

CharrCon

Hey Konig I know you just got done with MantleCon (Gret Job!) but I was wondering if you had ever thought of some sort of a CharrCon since they probably feel left out with all this talk of White Mantle and Shining Blade. It could be hosted in Frontier Gate or Doomlore Shrine with riddles about the charr and some prizes. Yay Killing Charr talk 17:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC) (The Represenitive For The Peace And Well Being Of The Charr)

The Charr will be a race in GW2, how are they left out? o.O And I'd rather not host more events. I'm going to do one more MantleCon, if GW2 isn't out by this time next year, and be done with events. -- Konig/talk 20:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Press release

It's legit. If you go on the NCSoft website there's a press release there about it. Unfortunately the link is to a 404 error, suggesting perhaps someone jumped the gun releasing it, however, the opening paragraph, seen in that screenshot, matches word for word the opening paragraph of this. So unless NCSoft has been getting its own press releases from third-party sources, I'd say it's definitely legit. And I apologise for my tone in some of my recent posts, I've been a little stressed lately. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where does it say Keiran and Gwen will get married? Or that they will establish Ebonhawke? -- Konig/talk 22:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In the press release. Which we have now established to be legitimate. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no link to that press release. -- Konig/talk 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The link is a 404, but as we can clearly see from the screenshot, the opening paragraph matches word for word the "BS" here. That can clearly be seen (for now, at least) on us.ncsoft.com. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The "BS" was the last paragraph, not the first. So until the last paragraph - the one that mentions Gwen and Keiran marrying and establishing Ebonhawke, I'll remain skeptical. Even if it makes me out to be an ass later. At least I don't jump the gun. -- Konig/talk 22:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You said the entire source was BS. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A generalization statement. If a bit of something is BS, then the whole thing is BS in a general statement. Once that bit is fixed, even if the rest stays the same, then it isn't BS. Isn't that how it is for other people? I mean, if politicians or other important figures make one screw up, their entire career is a screw up. -- Konig/talk 22:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So what are you saying? That RPS saw the press release on NCSoft's website, made up everything but the first paragraph, somehow turned into a "recap", and then Gamasutra, along with a number of other sources, copied it, corrected it from Elementalist -> Mesmer, added in a load of trademark and registered trademark symbols (which aren't present in the RPS source) and posted it, complete with exclusive screenshots? Because I don't see any other way that what you are saying would work. --Santax (talk · contribs) 06:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it could be that the first "source" you found which has the elementalist made a recap and BS at the end, was copied by others, and then NCSoft saw it and thought "this must be from Anet" - since you know, they are different companies, the PR of Anet might not always be in touch with NCSoft about every single internet press release - and put up a copy of the first bit (since it works for it) which was jumping the gun for the link. I find that equally possible. But either way I'm still skeptical about it until we see it or at least know that it is canon. I mean, how many press releases do you see that are the exact same thing when its official? Because I don't recall a single case. -- Konig/talk 10:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So let me just get what you're saying through my head. Correct me if I'm wrong, we have two ways this could have happened:

• Rock Paper Shotgun posts a recap, complete with exclusive screenshots, claiming that it's an "exclusiviostatement" from NCSoft and that they removed lots of trademark and registered trademark symbols in posting it. NCSoft, seeing this, think that ANet must have not made their own press releases available to them, so they make one correction, add in a load of trademark and registered trademark symbols and post it on their website. Gamasutra, as well as a number of other websites, then pick it up, and claim that they got the press release from GamesPress for whatever reason.
• Alternatively, NCSoft issued a press release (which is for whatever reason currently inaccessible from clicking the provided link), RPS picked it up, NCSoft later realised they had called Gwen an elementalist so they made a correction, and then a number of other gaming media outlets picked it up. As would normally happen with any other press release.

And you believe the two things are equally likely? Riiight... --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The exclusive screenshots existed before, from what I saw, and was given in a press release that interviewed Linsey. And yes, I do think both are equally likely, but I didn't say that NCSoft gave the others the press release... Because that isn't equally likely. -- Konig/talk 11:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation (again) (again)

Using it on Beyond articles is one thing, but you seem to be updating every page you can find with lowercase letters for race names. Now, I know they use that convention in GW2 for the playable races, but (a) this isn't GW2, the vast majority of the game is documented using the uppercase-first-letter naming convention for race names because, with exceptions, that's the convention that's been used for the entire of GW1, (b) quite worryingly, you're lowercasing race names like Tengu, Forgotten, Dwarf, Centaur, Grawl, Titan, Dredge etc., many of which have not been mentioned in the context of GW2, so you don't actually know if that's the convention that will be used for those names in GW2, my understanding is that races like the asura and norn have had their names "demoted" to put them on the same playing field as the humans, who have always had their names decapitalised, and to mark their ubiquity. The same is not the case for other races, particularly the Forgotten and Titans, who by GW2 are all but extinct outside the Mists. Oh, and (c), it wasn't actually discussed anywhere whether we start using this convention. Sorry that was badly worded. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you think about it, his corrections make sense. I mean, the names of real 'species' don't get capitalized (i.e. humans, cats, dogs, fish, mice, moosen, and many others). ThrainFile:User Thrain Sig.pngcontribs 23:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but that's not the case in Guild Wars. All race names except human are capitalised in GW1, and in GW2, it seems to be all non-playable race names that are capitalised. Have you ever seen the Forgotten referred to with lowercase in-game? If not, then why should we document them as such on the wiki? --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get what you mean. If you mean that in in-game dialogue/text they reference the as "... the Tengu are a..." why not just slap a [sic] tag on the text to show how it's done in-game, and then format the rest of the wiki as everywhere else does? ThrainFile:User Thrain Sig.pngcontribs 23:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, as long as it is not dialogue or a quote of official lore, the race names should be lowercased. This isn't a "suddenly in tyria, they began saying names lowercased" but rather a "Anet decided they should lowercase race names and will be done in every new instance but won't be changed in old works because that's too much work" situation. And I don't go editing every page I see with lowercase, but rather I make sure all races are lowercase when I go to edit pages. If you noticed, in all of those I was bypassing a redirect based on a capitalization of the Shaman caste (caste was capitalized before, but in the Ecology of the Charr, it is lowercase while Shaman is capitalized). I see no reason why not to edit to lowercase, but it is one of those things which it doesn't matter enough to edit on its own. -- Konig/talk 01:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh the irony

Peacekeeper Enforcer:mmmmphy eees ellphin ehh ruuuph. Frozenwind 23:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Why don't you take that stupid thing out of your mouth!?" They are humans, that isn't an non-existent language called "giantish" - giants speak a poor grammar version of "human." -- Konig/talk 01:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I took that into account, they do speak giantish but the thing in there mouth makes it sound like a poor grammer version of a human. Also they are giants.Frozenwind 03:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They're not giants, they're just hunchbacks of Notre Dame. elix Omni 04:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This is your so called giantish: "What you here for, human? Trrok remember you. Trrok tell you last time he give you death with honor if see you again. Human should run now if not ready to die." -- Konig/talk 04:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No thats just a giant who has learnt human. Also did I mention they are giants? ;o Frozenwind 15:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This time, no, but time and time again you have. And this was in support for that incorrect claim. -- Konig/talk 17:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Peacekeeper Enforcer: Ummph emphaaarrool eemmph? Heeeeheeeeheee Frozenwind 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)