User talk:Santax/Abaddon/Temp

Oh wow thats a lot of text. -Chieftain Alex 00:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A request to Santax - don't replace the main article with this for a bit. I'd like to go over it but as Alex said "thats a lot of text". You use a lot of arbitrary wording throughout the whole, which I think comes from the sources, and it's best to still link those sources because otherwise folks wouldn't know where it comes from. Plus, we really should separate modern from historical situation, because that's just one huge wall of text which really pushes folks away. Konig/talk 03:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't planned to - anything in this article that comes exclusively from the forum thread (i.e. has no in-game source) should be referenced to that thread, because it is likely to be questioned and we'd have no way to cover our backs if parts turn out to be inaccurate. That needs to happen before this article can replace the other one. We also need to compare the two versions and make sure no information on the other one is lost, and make sure that any lore on this one that is inconsistent with GW1 lore is reworded.

Re: this edit, I think it's pretty important to note on the page (a) that Abaddon has a predecessor in the same way that he is Kormir's predecessor, and (b) that parts of his realm are composed of the corpse of a dead god. They're both interesting, so should at least get a spot in the trivia section. It is canon that Abaddon had a predecessor and it is semi- or non-canon that Arachnia was a god before Abaddon. At some point it was likely that Arachnia was intended to be that predecessor, but the note doesn't even go so far as to say that. The note that was removed was composed of two sentences, both of which were statements of fact. Any link between them is made in the reader's head, not on the page, which is fine - that is the fine line we must walk.

As for the length, I can't see splitting the introduction into sections gelling very well with the mechanical sections, but most people are going to be on this page from GW2W for the lore. What I'd suggest is to be pretty brutal in the intro as to what needs to be kept what doesn't. We don't have the room the intro to accommodate all that info, and I'd rather not split it up into sections, so for once I'd suggest moving the parts that aren't directly relevant to the character of Abaddon to other pages, such as magic, Exodus of the Gods, Margonites, Forgotten, and so on. It's an excuse to rewrite and update those articles and it keeps the new information featured prominently on the wiki. A lot of lore articles on this wiki need an update anyway, particularly those that are prominently linked from GW2W. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wordy wordy wordy. That's why I've been unwanting to proof-read yet (walls of text are off-putting even to me). Regarding response to the edit: I agree with point a, but this is relevant enough to denote in the main paragraph (which for the current version is); I disagree with point b - all we know is that his realm has insect-like aspects in some places. Everything else you mentioned has "canonocity questionable" placed all over it (not semi- or non-canon; it either is or isn't, and we just don't know). "Any link between them is made in the reader's head" because, whether you realize it or not, you're imbedding the thought into their head. You present a set amount of points, right next to each other, but you don't connect them - you're just given them a connect-the-dot diagram, numbering the dots to show which connects to what, but letting the reader draw the line. It's just a psychological trick to make them think it was their own idea (the very premise of the movie Inception, no less, though the movie does it a lot more physically).

For length, I think one section will do, along with removing your much-beloved prose style to make it more concise (without removing any information). We've done this before, though I can't remember which NPC it was, where we had the first paragraph be about modern times, then make a History section about everything prior to the game. In this case, taking half of the first and last paragraph, then splitting the rest into one single section. Konig/talk 13:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Editing notes.

1. Added a "History" section - for the time being at least - to separate Abaddon's past life from his general description.
2. I'm unsure whether to use the external source's description of Abaddon since it may be an old design description that followed this concept art or the like, given how we don't see any wings in his in-game version.
3. I didn't include "It is said that Abaddon's appearance is a direct representation of his heart." because it possibly contradicts the gw.dat that says he created a new body from the Realm of Torment itself, which is likely more up-to-date but less canon-plausible.
4. Added a bit from gw2:Quiz Terminal that says Abaddon gave different groups unique magic.
5. Returned the external links, as otherwise we'd be ref linking the same two links dozens of times.

Will be editing the rest (5 paragraphs) later. Konig 02:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Look. You came to me for help, so when I give it, don't respond with sarcasm, bizarre allegations (such as accusing me of trying to "psychologically trick" readers), or tangents about Inception. I also see you've extended your "no speculation" rule to "no content that, whether relevant or not, might possibly provoke speculation. I don't want another repeat of what happened on GW2W so I'm going to back out of this discussion now, but I urge you to get a second opinion from someone as I don't think much of the changes are an improvement on the original draft (which needed a lot of work), and may not even be an improvement on the current Abaddon article. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted your opinion because you are - for better or for worse - the only other major lore article editor on the wikis. I didn't respond with sarcasm, at least not intentionally (do you refer to "wordy, wordy, wordy" et al? Because that wasn't sarcasm but just a response to length). The psychological trick wasn't an "allegation" so much as "this is what becomes, intentional or not." And sorry if my edits to not copy verbatim a fan source is "bad" (but then again, you desire everything in prose so of course anything I write up will be "bad" for you) - but I certainly don't think it's great either, just better than copying a really old source which seems to have had changed information. Konig 10:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

After much consideration, I believe it would be best to not add in the info from here and here - adding information from the latter being why this draft was made. My reasoning is simply this: in the case of the former, the original source no longer exists (it was from the Taiwanese version of NCsoft's website) and what's there is a fan translation. Though the source is official, since the source no longer exists we cannot verify the translation (though I doubt it's wrong). In the case of the second, it's a (more viable) translation of a document found in various asian GW fansites' archives of lore documents, but the origins are not entirely verifiable and more important, some of the information seems to be from pre-beta and having been changed since (for instance, Abaddon's appearance). With both of this in mind, I think it's best to write an article with what's only presented from more verifiable facts and leave these two as simple "further reading" links like they already are. As such, I view there's no need to keep this draft. Konig 22:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

if Santax is still around, I'd like to check that they also are ok with the deletion. (both of you put considerable effort into it) -Chieftain Alex 08:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't delete...yet please. I would like to get into the minds of Konig and Santax to see from their eyes. At least post-pone. Yoshida Keiji(talk) 10:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

text from Talk:Abaddon/Temp. -Chieftain Alex 19:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)