User talk:Konig Des Todes/Archive 2011 3

Assuming it was splitt

re: this tag removal (and others like it)

Yeah, a lot of skill articles were split by Falconeye. The problem is that there was no consensus to split (if anything, sentiment seemed against it). I'm not sure what should happen now, though (i.e. it's probably not worth my time or yours to undo what has been done).

However, in the future, when there's a lot of articles like this, could you double-check the context and make sure that the split/merge/whatever was supposed to happen (and supposed to happen the way it did) before removing that many similar tags? Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I'll look more thoroughly next time. I was wanting to reduce the size of Guild Wars Wiki:List of proposed moves, splits and merges and saw that they were split. Technically speaking, they should be split based on empirical evidence of similar skills (e.g., BMP skills) as the latter are different skills - I recall seeing that someone (Kaisha? Kyoshi? Someone with a similar name) tested a handful and found that they had different skill ids - I'm guessing that's what prompted Falconeye to make those moves (he tends to move things on the slightest reason). If that is indeed the situation then the problem isn't that they were split but that the splits are incomplete.

What "should happen now" is people test those particular skills via going into the BMP missions and going through their F10 link. Though I don't see the need to name them after the name of the hero we play as, as a simple "(Bonus Mission Pack)" would do and furthermore be more consistent with our naming systems (if there's only one in an campaign/expansion/release and doesn't have a more generic name to give it (e.g., "explorable area") then its named after the release). Having (Saul) (or worse "(Saul D'Alessio)") is outright unneeded specificality. I didn't bother to move them since I wasn't 100% sure of the situation.

Though the first skill I looked at was Healing Signet and, ironically, Illusion of Haste was the last (and by that point I was simply checking the other page). I never saw a discussion on splitting them. Konig/talk 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't mean to put you on the spot: I think it was a sensible move (pardon the pun) on your part based on what was easy to find, especially since you've been trying to keep the merge/split/move suggestions up-to-date. Unfortunately, there was additional background, which would have required substantial research to discover. (As you note, there was really only one discussion and it was well-hidden.)

I think you are correct about sensible next steps...and about alternative naming conventions (we at least should have a discussion about the names).

Another page that was created before discussion was completed is the ungainly, List of unique species bosses, which is misleading (the species aren't unique, the bosses aren't unique, it's just that there's only a few known bosses for certain species...and heck, there are no doubt species without any bosses at all). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

So the BMS skillbars should all be moved to "[Skill Name] (Bonus Mission Pack)"? --Falconeye 22:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

So long as it has consensus. Konig/talk 22:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

They should not be moved unless there is consensus. And it does not seem that there is. 15:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

On NPC Skills Formatting

Hey man. Isn't it proper formatting to list the professions next to the build in an NPC's skills section? Especially when there are multiple builds possible on the same NPC? I noticed you removed them from the Angchu Tengu pages. If they don't belong there, then shouldn't we remove them from the WiK White Mantle, the Ministry of Purity, and the WoC Sensali pages too? For example. Also, I've noticed other people changing the skill order and listing the 2nd prof skills first. Is this correct? --Musha 20:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen no such formatting rule for that nor do I see that it is necessary. Why is it not necessary? Wiki viewers are not morons and can tell which professions the NPC/build utilizes. If the issue is "which is primary, which is secondary" then that's another matter but as is when it's a case of multiple primaries like Bandit (Kryta) and Charr Scout. In the former of those two, I think finding a way to denote the primary profession is better; in the case of the latter, then utilizing the prof-template would be reasonable but still unnecessary as one can simply name the skill bar by the primary profession. Konig/talk 21:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good 'nuff. What about the skill order? --Musha 21:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What about it? Konig/talk 21:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What's listed first? Primary prof skills or 2nd prof skills? --Musha 21:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to change that from what it is now. Konig/talk 21:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What? Which comes first? Primary or 2ndary? --Musha 21:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Or are the skills listed in profession order according to Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Professions? --Musha 21:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The skills are indeed listed by order of that link's formatting guide - warrior, ranger, etc. etc. Not by primary or secondary.

Strangely. Konig/talk 21:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Strangely, indeed. Well, I get it now. Thanks for your help! :D --Musha 21:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I believe putting the profession icons in the skill subheadings for multiple-build NPCs started with WiK, and has continued on "unofficially". As for the order of skills for NPCs with multiple professions, it was inconsistent, and I've been beating hundreds of these pages into profession order since I noticed it. Manifold 23:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Angchu & Imperial Guard

The Angchu article is tag Category:Imperial Guard; am I correct to assume that due to Tengu Wars and resulting "Peace Accords", the Angchu are effectively honorary members/affiliates of the Imperial Guard (by virtue of the exact peace treaty agreed upon with Emperor Kisu), especially if one considers the events leading up to A Treaty's a Treaty? Also, is there any way to expand on the lore regarding the angshu/canthan history and relations (what is the Peace Accords?); maybe even update some outdated articles to be "featured" as relavent to Winds of Change?

On a side note, I hope Anet brings back Day of the Tengu; especially if the Angchu prove instrumental in assisting the Emperor in quell all this "purity" nonsense. --Falconeye 05:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

How on earth would that be the case and why on earth did you add that category? That is so wrong it's nowhere close to right. Angchu is the affiliation.

Honestly, and I know this will be harsh, but honestly over half of your edits are always reverted or heavily altered because they make little to no sense and other edits are just not worth altering despite them being unneeded. You never listen to consensus and your talk page (and archives!) are full of people telling you to stop your series of edits.

Please, for the love that is (un)holy, think before you edit. Konig/talk 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

E-mail contact

Do you have an email address I can reach you at? Something private I wanted to get your opinion on (nothing to do with anything that you or I might be currently discussing with each other). Or email me via the wiki and I'll reply back. (I don't have logins for the sites you list that support PMs.) Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

idk if you noticed...forever trees

Would be difficult to avoid the healing signet warriors near the tree when making the npcs explode, unless you want me to employ another person to go around rupting the heal signets. It just suprised me that nobody else had put any notation about the leaf explosion. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 17:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"however, if they are killed, the Forever Trees will die" - I wouldn't really call it a "leaf explosion" - the trees simply die, and the leaves fall. I don't recall them exploding. Sure, it may look like such with them all falling at once, but still... Either way, multiple images in a <gallery> is, imo, preferred over one long stretched out and hard-to-see image (which also makes unneeded white space). Konig/talk 17:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't catch the explosion with screenshots tbh, maybe if I used some image capture stuff.. pity I uninstalled both of the ones I already had. I'll try and follow Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Skills animations for the video upload if I get to that stage. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 17:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

meh video of it on youtube, very poor quality - my video software flaked out on the encryption into .gif, so the only proof I have that it explodes is on youtube. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 19:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hey Konig, I would like to contact you via email; could you enable wiki-email in your preferences please (at least for a short while)? Thanks. poke | talk 14:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I disabled it cuz I got random emails from who-know-who's, and now that I did people want to contact me (and not just you poke)... Wtf? Konig/talk 15:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha :D Thanks for enabling it :) poke | talk 16:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Spam in the mailbox is better than spam on the talk page. One of them I can remove completely. Konig/talk 17:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

this might just be a invite to getting spam mail but i have never gotten any spam from anyone on here.- Zesbeer 22:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleansing v2

That does look cleaner. gj – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

you are both scaring me 24.130.140.36 18:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

feature preview

can you review the mad king feature text. i set it up but i am unsure if i missed anything thanks.- Zesbeer 23:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

GWW:ULC

1. You have my support whenever you boldly move a title case or mixed case unofficial term to all lower case.
2. Shouldn't we update our style guides to reflect the recent consensus? (I'd hate for this discussion to take place again a year from now, when you and I (I hope) are spending more time worrying about GW2W and GW2.)
3. I know I said I wouldn't help move articles, but I probably lied about that. If I should start moving articles, do you have a preference for where to begin (so we don't go after the same targets)? Or any edit I make is one you don't have to?

(Also: thanks for moving so many articles already.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Thanks...?
2. Probably, but I'm not really concerned about guides as, as far as I know, few look to them (and probably minimal new folks do).
3. That'd be helpful if you moved too, I only moved those that were tagged or outright noticed, so idk if there are more out there or not. I say just move those you notice. Konig/talk 22:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

re(2). I don't know who it is, but someone will at some point change a bunch of articles to upper case (or break some other well-discussed consensus) and the heavy contributors will waste time looking for the reason we adopted the style. So, I want to reduce the likelihood of that happening by documenting those cases where we have agreed to a style/guideline (esp. for ones like this, which took someone like yourself to lead the community to a standard).

However, I can well understand the lack of appeal. I'll find the relevant styleguide and propose the idea in my next marathon session. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Live lore video

Hello Konig, for some reason you are the one who popped into my head when I wanted to discuss the new Guild Wars 2 lore video from the Live team. I'd like to ask you a few questions, so if you would like to discuss the video I'd be really glad if you'd come talk to me on steam or skype or something. MadSkillz1o1 20:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What video are you referring to? Konig/talk 20:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

if u haven't found it yet they are talking about this i believe.- Zesbeer 22:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Elemental

I'm missing the elementals in the list of races. Da Mystic Reaper 13:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lust of races where? Konig/talk 19:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm weird, i found a page with a list of races and the descriptions i noticed that the elementalst were lacking. When pressing the talk page link i ended up here so i left the message here. ADDED: ah it's the article of remakes, then i gues the Elemental race article does not need a remake (assumed all races were one it). Da Mystic Reaper 21:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you're referring to User:Konig Des Todes/Remake. Actually, the list you saw was my remake for Species, which takes the races/species of the GW universe in a lore view. Undead, spirits, elementals, constructs, golems, etc. are not a w:species, so they wouldn't go there. Konig/talk 21:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Guild and Alliance

When you type at search box: "guilds", you see the description of what feature is to gamers...AND it has a link at the bottom "See Also" that takes wiki users to listings. Then why alliance cannot have such a listing as well? Same between Mainspace and Userspace for both.Yoshida Keiji 11:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Grawl

Please tell us what the plural is? :D File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 21:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, but searching the grawl blogpost, there is no "grawls" and I don't recall a case where "grawls" was used, so without looking too heavily into it, I'm guessing "grawl." Konig/talk 21:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks <3 --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 21:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Images

Changing a perfectly good image to another one that you arbitrarily deemed superior, then marking the previously used images for speeding deletion based on the fact they are an "unused image" when in fact they were in use not 5 seconds prior seems rather useless and potentially harmful to the wiki. I'd ask that you please stop what you're doing and what until a consensus can be reach on something that is affecting the whole wiki based on a single user's crusade. Thanks. Utopian 01:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am reducing the number of images on this wiki based on the model (and for bosses, aura as well) used by NPCs. It is not harmful - I cannot fathom how in fact, as the images have been replaced by an image of equal or better quality featuring the same model (and aura combination).

If someone disagrees, then they are free to go and disagree, state why, and change the deletion tag to a regular delete so that it can be discussed. I mark them with speedy because the admins must now be prodded into going through and deleting things. I - and they - always make sure that there are no images linking to the to-be-deleted images, and they have disagreed with me before and kept the images.

True, this is my "crusade" but it is merely to reduce redundancy and nothing more. There has yet to be complaints until now, and in fact I have been thanked for cleaning up the images. Konig/talk 01:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

But who determined the quality of the image aside from yourself? For example, the image you have chosen to replace all Margonite paragons with is of inferior quality compared to the majority I've looked at and attempted to revert. There is absolutely no need to "clean up" the images if they were never of poor quality in the first place, and if they are in bad taste, than it would probably be better to take a better one yourself, or set up a community project to do so. If the quality of the images is so bad that you want a generalized image, get a render rather than simply replacing them all.

There are far more practical (and helpful) ways to clean up the images than simply making them all the same and marking the rest for deletion. Utopian 01:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) yea can you please give an example of a image that he that was in use? ideally we want as high quality images as we can get with little to no non used images, and there are a lot of mobs that use the same skin but have a different name. also i looked at his contrubutions and didnt see any that were still in use, with that said make sure you are i think its ctrl+f5 to clear ur cash on a page.- Zesbeer 01:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) All paragon boss images are of terrible quality. I chose the best I could of the terrible selection I had. If you disagree, point out which one you consider to the better, and I shall reconsider.

And I disagree on the no need to clean up hundreds of images that feature the same thing with different background - which I noted on Alex's talk page, are irrelevant in the page itself. Konig/talk 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide which one is better and whether or not you will change it. I'm telling you to stop changing the pages and get community consensus on your project before you go further. Utopian 01:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not my project. And as I said before these images are placeholders - they will not stay. If you disagree with an image, point it out and I shall explain to you why I think it's of lesser (or equal) quality.

A wiki, by definition, is something which can and is edited by anyone. As I now have 3 people backing me up - another thanking me for my recent 300+alterations, along with User:Tanetris deleting the images I tagged (and we did disagree on one, which I explained and thus it was back to what I said), and User:Poke had also aided in deleting images; a long time ago, User:Greener deleted some as well - so I think I do have consensus. 3 people actively defending my edits now, 3 admins deleting the tagged images (thus no complaints), an entire project with the purpose which I am doing (I admit that I'm not end-all-be-all with which is better quality, but again - placeholder), and 1 person who was highly active of said project thanking my work. Konig/talk 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sysops deleting images you tagged for deletion is hardly consensus, it's just a chore. 3 people saying "thanks", and admins doing their job isn't consensus, unless you have no concept of what that word means. Utopian 01:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is beginning to feel like you have selective reading. Admins have disagreed with me on which is better quality (or if the model was the same even). I didn't say that the admins doing their job was consensus - but admins are supposed to do more than just delete when it comes to delete tags, as they must make sure the tagged pages should be deleted (reason is accurate and there's no argument and all that). And to be clear - consensus on this wiki has become hard to come by and discussions take months - without being bold like I have been, nothing would change on this wiki and this wiki is far from of well quality. Konig/talk 01:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, I detest using the same image over and over when the background is inappropriate (a creature in an area it obviously doesn't belong in). I also feel like I wasted dozens of hours getting screen captures of everything (that was reachable) on the wiki that didn't have an image (many of them not having an image for years). Would have been pretty swell if instead of people thanking me for taking so many pictures, they'd warned me that they'd get deleted for being "redundant". This issue, among other things, has led me to be less interested in editing the wiki. I didn't complain until now because we've had this conversation before, and no one seemed to care. Manifold 01:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

While images of each individual NPC are not bad, it seems silly to me when the focus of the image is not the scenery, and said scenery should be minimized from the get go. I do think that individual images is much better than using renders that don't have auras.

Anyways, while I still think that the abundant number of images is unnecessary, I shall wait until I figure out how to render properly before altering any more renders. Konig/talk 01:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Besides, based on a project that existed since 2007, all NPC images are placeholders until renders are made. I've gotten a good number of images myself. Being a wiki, it should be expect that one's edits would be altered, reverted, or completely changed, so tbh, attachment to the images you went out to get is silly - they are and were helpful, but a lot of the wiki is out of common editing practice. No offense is meant to you by these changes (or comments), but sooner or later its expected for things to change as people find alternative means of organization and classification. Konig/talk 02:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Behemoth

I notice you're recatting all the Nightfall behemoths from Beasts to Behemoths. So Backsword wasn't just talking out of his butt this time? -- Hong 06:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Only had to fix one. Source is User talk:Andrew McLeod/Species. Konig/talk 14:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, cool. Didn't know about that page. -- Hong 15:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunate Krytans

Sadly, I couldn't talk to them. Once I got in range two were already dead and the third stepped on Styx. They are only level 8 and surrounded by those 20 golems. Maybe a group with party IMS and healing hands can save one to try if they talk. 88.152.25.23 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, going into hard mode may do the trick (allies go to lvl 20 automatically, those leveled foes should only go up to lvl 24 if my memory's correct), even with the immense number of enemies. If not, flagging heroes via the mission map before spawning the NPCs may be able to do the trick. Konig/talk 23:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Jotuns are Ogres?

Jotun bosses are classified under category:Ogres. Do you remember how we tested that all Jotuns are Ogres? (I don't mean to start a new debate here; I just wanted to review any existing discussion.) Thanks! – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Of slaying mods were used before my time, as far as I know. I once stumbled upon a discussion about it - and about the trophies dropped by them versus by the Tomb Ettin and Forge Master. On a quick search Talk:Ogre includes a single comment about Jotuns being Ogres due to of ogreslaying. Konig/talk 19:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool (I missed the reference). Thanks for the link. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, stop that

You know I hate it when your edits are better than mine. In other words, good job :-) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But I don't want to stop! I want to keep going and going and going ~aallll night long~. Konig/talk 21:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

thats what she said....- Zesbeer 00:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that's what he said. Konig/talk 00:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Profession icon removal from uniques

Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Weapons says we should have those icons. :/ Mind terribly if I revert to keep with the guidelines? File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 00:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't recall such on most other articles... and tbh, it looks bad, especially when is used. I'm going to petition to change that, as usually the green dropped fits the profession of the NPC (only off case I can think of is The Darkness (boss) and the MoP casters). Konig/talk 00:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To note, I understand with putting them on weapon pages (e.g., the "other weapons with this appearance" section for caster items and shields), but on NPC pages, it seems silly except in the odd case (The Darkness). And it should be noted that the page you linked to is for weapon articles, not NPC articles, which I have been altering. Konig/talk 00:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. Ignore. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 00:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You EC'd me as I was going to correct myself: You linked to weapon article formatting, I've been formatting for NPCs, and best I can find Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/NPCs has no such rule.

Though your notification has prompted a realization of something unnecessary, but I'll ignore (said unnecessariness is marking profession icons next to profession-restricted weapon types). Konig/talk 00:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Rare Pet Edits

i put those edits there for easier findings with future players. i didnt know when i got the black moa that there were 2 others that could be dedicated in the monument. so i added it too all of them. so the other new players would know that there is more than just one without having to refer to the actual monuments page. ease of access --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Chrono Sirus (talk).

Please sign your comments using 4 tildes. Also, you could of responded on your talk page. Secondly, it is still irrelevant to the page. If a person was interested in the monument, they should go to the monument's page, and if they don't then it's their own fault. The wiki shouldn't cater to idiots and the lazy (just recognize that they exist). There's far to much duplicate information out on this wiki merely for the silly pretense of "ease of access" - I'm sorry, but typing in "Fellowship" instead of Black Moa is not that bloody hard. Konig/talk 05:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

sorry to be the bearer of bad news. but read again in the fellowship monument page. you will notice that it only mentions they have a unique statue. nowhere in that page does it say that those three are rare pets. it does mention at the bottom the any rare pet score for calculator but the link is broken. and it doesnt in any way mention how those three correspond with the any rare pet score. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Chrono Sirus (talk).

"They have statues" and "they are rare pets" are mutually exclusive phrases; they are rare pets because they have statues. And if anything, your statement merely shows that it should be "Fellowship" that is edited, not three relatively unrelated pages. Konig/talk 06:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

lol there you go again with the relatively unrelated topic. each of them are 1 of the 3 rare pets in the game. all 3 being rare. thats pretty relevant. in which case stating the only other 2 in each pets page is relevant. and yes felloship does also need to state that as well. not just state them as unique statues. but both calling them rare pets and unique statues. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Chrono Sirus (talk).

That is what I meant by relative. The single and only connection between them is that they are pets which have statues (thus are deemed "rare"). There is, nor should there be, a note on Oppressor's Staff regarding the Destroyer Staff or Tormented Staff, despite the fact that those three are the only staves with HoM statues (thus are deemd "rare"). They have a connection, but they are not relevant.

And please, for the love of god sign your comments with 4 tildes (~). Or just press the signature button above the editing box. Konig/talk 06:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

i partially agree with your logic regarding the staffs. no there doesnt need to be one directly referring to the other type of staff.if someone were to do that on every weapon yeah that would match your comment about repeated information. but there should be a link referring to destroyer and oppressor weapons list. since they are again rare items with statues. what im trying to get at is that, there are only 3 rare pets. some people dont know about the monument and only know about the pets from what they overheard. therefore labeling the ONLY other 2 rare pets in each of their pages makes them highly needed.--Chrono Sirus 06:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If people don't know about the monument, they can click the link to the monument which holds information about all three pets - same goes with any Destroyer, Oppressor's, or Tormented weapon - they all link to the HoM and should also link to "Valor" which holds information on all 33 weapons that have statues. It is unnecessary to have such information on the individual articles, as it becomes redundant. A few extra clicks and page loading will not kill people. This isn't the only case where information has been redirected elsewhere simply to reduce redundancy and (potential, direct, or indirect) irrelevance. Dozens of times, if not hundreds by now, in fact. I can almost guarantee that your edits will, in a few months (if not weeks), be undone simply to reduce said redundancy. Konig/talk 06:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Konig is right. Wikis work by linking pages. Each page is not an encyclopedia, but a single page of it. Two prestige pets that are related only by the fact that can have unique statues do not need links to each other, they just need a link to the common page that deals with that fact. It's not like you can't add a list of all similar unqiue cases in some pages, but there's times when that isn't needed. For example, there's a "Fellowship" page to list the animals that can be added to the monument and all animals are related to the monument, but there's no "Henchmen that appears in all campaigns" so that trivia can be added to each of them, and list the other 4 in each of them, because that can't be put in the generic Henchmen page, since that info is just a small trivia that only pertains, those 5 henchmen, and making a page just for it would be moot. But with the monument, just add the info: "This is one of the animals that can be added to the Hall of Monuments" and the average IQ>70 human that has used the Internet for more than two months will think: "If I want to know more, I should click blue word". It's ok to have some redundancy, and sometimes it comes in handy to present the information in different ways, like with galleries and lists by name, and different categorizations, but there's no need to put all info in every page. Also, by sending people to the Fellowship page, they'll not only learn about the other animals that can be added but about the heroes that can be added and even have links to the other monuments, and learn about the other things they can add. That's how wikis work. MithTalk 21:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sheer

I've taken a look at the move log and I'm overwhelmed by the sheer enormity of your current project (renaming concept artwork using a sensible naming convention). Wow. Thanks for making that happen (boy, it's sooooo much easier if people realized from the start that good naming conventions offer huge, long-term, sustainable benefits while impatiently imposing the first idea generates only minor short-term value).

I wonder if there is some way that we could take advantage of the convention, e.g. updating the {{NPC infobox}} so that it automatically finds relevant (i.e. well-named) concept art. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues with auto-adding concept art lies in three problems:

1. Sometimes, concept art is misspelled in its official name, so it is misspelled on the wiki while in quotations.
2. Sometimes when we make up names, it isn't always the best naming we can do, and can very well be wrong or, such as with File:Ice Elemental concept art.jpg, is unrelated to an article of the same name (Ice Elemental).
3. Lastly, a lot of NPCs, and even bosses, share models. It is very silly to slap the model's concept art on every NPC using it. Konig/talk 20:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Article title

If we decide to go with creating a [[Control (team roles)]] article (instead of moving the gaming controls to [[Gaming controls]] and using Control for the role), would the correct naming convention use a capital T for team? or the lower case? Hard mode quests use "Hard mode" (capital H), but that's arguably our official term for less-easy-mode. We seem to mostly go lower case, e.g. we use lowercase "disambiguation" for {{disambig}} pages and lowercase profession names (e.g. Margonite Scout (warrior).

Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

See Snare (tactic); lowercase unless a proper noun or capitalized in game - Margonite Scout should be (Warrior), though I argue all Margonite Scout articles can and should be merged into each other. I'd also argue that hard mode should be lowercase per hard mode (and normal mode). Or alternatively, mode needs to be capitalized and the articles moved (since in game they're capitalized). Konig/talk 22:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)