User talk:Santax/2013

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

God pages and their statues

Hello, have you any plans for putting a list of statues somewhere, or are you just intent on removing them from the god pages? (seperate statue pages maybe?) Chieftain Alex 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The statues used to have their own pages (I think), so after finishing up the god pages I will restore them. I'd be fine with them as a section on the god pages, but since Abaddon and Kormir are actual NPC's all they serve to do is clutter up those pages. Although to be honest there's not much that can be said about the statues that isn't already covered on the gods' pages, and I'm not really sure how the list of locations for each statue would be of interest to anybody. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm the only one who'd like it.. I'll mock up a list of the statues in my sandbox + you go ahead and remove anything you like then :P Chieftain Alex 17:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I can keep the list of statues if they'd be of interest, I just don't know why anyone would ever need them? --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds kind of like "why do we need to list where foes are in-game" ( I hope that does sound silly to you! ) I have no real explanation really. Chieftain Alex 20:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
So I'm curious, other than uglifying the god articles with the quotation template, was there ever truly a point to dividing the articles of statues and gods when they've worked so well together for years? I mean, sure, Abaddon and Kormir are actual NPCs in-game, but there was never any conflict with the format before. But whatever. What's done is done and though I think it's far worse now, I'm not going to argue them.
And reason for list of statues - so we know where they are. Just like why we list where we see NPCs or other objects. Though these are more important objects since you can get blessings from them. Konig/talk 03:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I gotta say. I really really hate how you consistently use NPC dialogue verbatim, as if they couldn't possibly be wrong. Konig/talk 03:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Goddess of Truth.jpg

"File:Avatar of Kormir.jpg does not accurately reflect Kormir's in-game appearance" Actually, it does. It's just that it lacks the additional shiny aura (which, iirc, even the avatars have) much like bosses having a less-shiny aura. File:Dagnar Stonepate unmounted.jpg reflects his in-game appearance, despite the lack of said aura. No difference here. And the image you keep uploading is quite bad - bad perspective, via bad angle and the fact that her legs get cut off by the bloody screen. Unless Kormir's "in-game appearance" is lacking feet. Konig/talk 22:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Kormir's aura isn't the same as a boss aura. I think it can be assumed that in lore, all bosses aren't "shiny", whereas a god just might be. The image is the only full-ish body shot of Kormir post-ascension, so I'm afraid it's just something we'll have to live with. Bottom line is that the render doesn't look anything like the in-game appearance of the NPC, which is what we should be documenting on the wiki. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that in lore the bosses don't have auras, we do know that the gods' aura is blinding so that's not really able to be shown. Bottom line is that the image is rather horrendous and I *know* that there are alternative angles to get. And regarding this, to avoid a revert war (despite the fact you broke GWW:1RR and you seem to have a knack of making sure its your version that's up while proclaiming for "discussion" to go on): because there's no figure that's so unimportant as Gallick. He's just a random named tossed in, whereas Desmina, Sara, and so forth are prominent in the scripture and are also prominent lore figures. Furthermore, whether its brought up in GW2 or not is 100% irrelevant to this wiki. In other words, Gallicks page is literally no more than "Gallick is a citzen who denied Lyssa as shown in her scriptures" (wording may vary), Desmina and Sara, and even Ewan are much more. Konig/talk 07:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding GW2 lore to this wiki

Since you're adding a lot of lore from GW2 onto this wiki, I thought I'd point you to this discussion. Typically, it was agreed to avoid adding GW2 lore so that this wiki presents lore as seen from GW2. I don't really agree with it, personally, but its there. Konig/talk 07:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Want your opinion on something

Given how you're the only other major lore article writer on either official wiki, despite our arguments, I'd like your opinion on the matter of Abaddon. As you may have noted before reading this, I added two links to fan-translations of pre-release Nightfall lore presented solely to the Asian community. One has been known for quite some time, though the source has sense been taken down (the entire website it was on was, in fact) - that source's main contribution would be that Abaddon was able to take down two gods on his own. The other, not so, and gives a lot more lore. It's been translated here on Guru2, but I'm uncertain as to how reliable it is (as is the translator). I wanted your opinion on its reliability and, in turn, how to treat it with this wiki. Konig/talk 07:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There's definitely a load of lore that ANet has had for years internally and never released, I remember them talking once about how little of the details about the Ascalonian civil war just prior to Prophecies made it into the game - this could be some of it. It's really interesting stuff and if true, definitely deserves a place on the wiki. It all fits with what we knew (or what we thought we knew) about magic and the Bloodstones at the time, if not containing a little more that was later confirmed to be true, which is a good sign. Do you trust the translator, and their ability to translate? If so, I think the information should be added, heavily referenced. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't trust absolutely. I'd much rather have the original version of both alongside a fan-translation, but the older one is from an NCsoft site taken down long ago, so that's not really reliable, and in the latter the translator says the origin of that bit is uncertain but seems to be official (basically). So I'm more dubious about the origin than the translation. Like you said, it matches everything we knew and was implied before. It's really only the fine details (Abaddon's pre-fall appearance and how the Margonites struck first being two main examples) that's new. The description of Abaddon from that for when he became evil matches this concept art with "His wings lost their lustre and became scythe-like, bloodied and battered", though, given the dark scythe-like appendages coming from the back.
What I'm personally wanting to do is separate what we have seen in-game/from interviews from the lore from these two (though one definitely came from a canon source, the fact it was taken down and that it was pre-release means it could have been retcon just as easily as some of the manual excerpts' lore got altered here and there), so that we have a distinction from "absolute" and "incredibly highly likely" facts. Thing is, I don't think that'd look particularly good. Konig/talk 08:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

An honest question

Why do you seem so intent on copying dialogue of NPCs/Objects verbatim, even when said things could be wrong or confusing? Take King Zoran - you added 112 characters and unnecessary prose for something that said the exact same thing, in fact your version gives less as you removed mention of Zoran being Reza's father and the second to last king in favor of copying gw2:Orrian History Scrolls verbatim. It's not only unnecessary but potentially confusing depending on the wording. And in regards to this wiki - see the directly above section where we focus on GW1 lore here as its presented in GW1, per consensus of the wikiers (though I'm not in 100% agreement). Konig 10:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be more convinced your question was honest if you hadn't started reverting me before posting it, let alone waiting for me to respond. I'm going to work now so I'll reply later, when I have time. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Region loading screens

Why'd you put them to the original concept art? They're altered in game. You don't see the full of File:"Sail Sleigh" concept art.jpg, but only a portion of it - seen on File:Shiverpeak Mountains loading screen.jpg, which is the original dat file from the game. Whether you agree with it or not, that's what was put - so why go and change everything without consensus or discussion? You often say I'm wikihounding you, but honestly if I do it's because you never follow procedures or seldom follow consensus. I can't even remember how many times I've told you "it was agreed upon that we don't put GW2 lore on this wiki" yet you still do, or on GW2W when everyone else agreed against you, you kept at it. Honestly, it's tiresome. Can't you learn to change how you do things if others disagree? I sure as hell did - because I don't agree with all consensuses yet still go with them (such as the "no gw2 lore on GWW" which I only break when there's no GW2W article for the subject - e.g., Dhuum, King Zoran, Abaddon, etc.). Konig 10:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No Konig, I say I'm wikihounding you because despite the fact that there are tens, possibly even hundreds of articles that need improvement (lore-wise), you only ever seem to edit them after I have made an attempt, in order to rewrite my edits. What's more important? That you believe that some of information on the Lost Scrolls page belongs on the Cataclysm page, and that this is worth starting yet another ridiculous debate over, or that the Storyline of Beyond page barely contains any information related to Winds of Change? The former, apparently. I mean sure, the wiki is lacking crucial information in a lot of places, but it's a better use of both of our time to bicker over the smallest of details. Even minor edits won't go unchanged. Yes, you are this obnoxious to everybody but it's only my edits that you follow around this closely - that is why I say I'm wikihounding you. And by the way, it's a bit rich for you to be saying I'm the one who never follows procedure.
With all that in mind, could you point me to the discussion on loading screens, and where that consensus was reached? Because it seems to me that actually, you were the one who took it upon yourself to change all the loading screens, without any discussion, after over a year of them being the way they were during a time when the wiki was far more active. We can have that discussion now if you like, but don't pretend you have the weight of consensus behind you, because that is a big fat lie. Having the original concept art of loading screens is better than the "in-game textures" because the textures are (a) an incomplete version of the concept art, so why have less information when you can have more at a low cost? (b) low resolution and extremely ugly, what with that big black bar across the top, and (c) often distorted or squashed so actually, they don't even resemble the loading screens in-game themselves!
By the way, the number of times you've told me "it was agreed upon that we don't put GW2 lore on this wiki"? Twice. Short memory. Lore that appears in GW2 but is relevant exclusively to GW1 topics is not "GW2 lore", it's the reason we have two wikis. Yes, you're totally inflexible, you don't understand subtlety and you aren't capable of doing anything but read the most obvious interpretation of any given consensus. People like you are the reason we have practices and processes rather than policies on GW2W. We get it. Can we move along now? --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
1) On this wiki, that's because most articles are complete as far as GW1 lore is concerned. There are some left - like the one you mentioned, which I did begin and haven't had the patience to go through again (as I really don't know how to properly document the storyline of the first part of it, because my attempts prove to be 1-2 sentences for 10+ quests).
2) It was discussed somewhere - it's been so long I no longer remember - that the actual loading screen would be preferred. It was a minor discussion because it was a very minor thing. Either way, that's the actual version of the loading screen taken straight from the gw.dat (any "squashed"-ness is actually due to your own computer screen for those you replaced) - even if they're incomplete of their concept art versions. It's what's seen in-game, and we shouldn't be blatantly lying about what the loading screen is by having something that's not in-game at all being called such.
3) One, two, three, four times I've told you about the discussion - off the top of my head. And yeah, two were in edit summaries, but still, one was over a month ago.
For the record, I honestly wouldn't give enough damn to start discussions, but I know you would anyways. Others besides myself have said what's the issue. To quote Pling from GW2W commenting on the exact same reason I find issues with your edits: "I prefer objective, concise documentation to more subjective, story-esque wording. The latter can leave things unclear or "fluffy", as you say... Take Jotun#History: "They were great spellcasters once, but sacrificed that knowlege in blood." - what exactly does that mean? Also, it'd be harder to achieve a consistent style, as that kind of wording won't come easily to many editors." (pretty much my exact point in all of your contextual edits). Konig 15:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Concept art vs Loading screens

Hello. I've had a look through all of the replacements you made of loading screens with concept art. I've reverted a few of them because the concept artwork is dissimilar to the loading screen artwork, e.g. File:Shiverpeak Mountains loading screen.jpg + File:"Sail Sleigh" concept art.jpg are similar images, but they've been recoloured a fair bit. I've realised that the concept artwork for the ones I've reverted would be a valuable addition to the gallery sections for those pages, so I'll add them there instead. --Chieftain Alex 18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)