Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Guild Wars 1 Articles
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
This needs fleshing out, but genral idea, what do peeps think? RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 22:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- IMO lore / backstory should get covered by both wikis, and GW1 NPCs who are also significant historical figures (anyone mentioned in Guild Wars 2, the GW2 manual or official GW2 2 lore articles such as The Movement of the World) should get articles here, but those articles should omit GW1-exclusive info (level, profession, campaign, skills, in-game dialogue etc.) and include a link to the GWW article. -- Gordon Ecker 06:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, Guild Wars I is the backstory to Guild Wars 2, so why not have Guild Wars 1 articles in lore type of things? — ク Eloc 貢 07:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- as far as i know, gww has an article about each gw's lore, which we could just c+p here and make them exceptions to this policy. - Y0_ich_halt
15:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- as far as i know, gww has an article about each gw's lore, which we could just c+p here and make them exceptions to this policy. - Y0_ich_halt
- No, Guild Wars I is the backstory to Guild Wars 2, so why not have Guild Wars 1 articles in lore type of things? — ク Eloc 貢 07:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm against duplicating the effort so we should use the link prefix for most cases. If we have a Gwen article for Gwen in GW2, we can always add a See also section with a link to Gwen in GW1, and that should do. Same thing with lore, here the Dwayna article is about Dwayna in GW2, we can add links to GWW in the article (i.e. when naming a GW1 event involving Dwayna to tell her story) and a See also link to GW1 Dwayna, so we won't have to add non-GW2 content to GW2 articles. Also, I think this proposal should be part of a Content policy and not a policy itself.
reanor 02:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that GW1 info should be painted in broad strokes, such as "Created by Primordus, the Great Destroyer was one of ancient dragon's most powerful minions and the leader of the Destroyers. It was killed in Primordus' cavern near the Central Transfer Chamber, leaving the Destroyers leaderless and disorganized." or "After the Searing, Gwen was captured and enslaved by the Charr at the age of ten, she escaped at the age of seventeen, becoming a Mesmer and joining the Ebon Vanguard.". -- Gordon Ecker 03:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think we should just use the interwiki links (when they are working). If, for example, the Destroyers were mentioned by an NPC, there'd be no sense in including a Destroyer article here because they don't exist in GW2. An interwiki link would be more prudent. For things such as Primordus, which exists in both games but is only significant in GW2, we should have a brief article on GWW which links to a more detailed article here. If we define this policy too loosely, we could end up with brief, past tense articles on everything from Flaming Scepter Mages to Candysmith Kringle. We don't want more GW1 articles than we do GW2 articles :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- But Candysmith Kringle and Flaming Scepter Mages probably don't have any post-GW1 significance, while Abaddon and Pyre Fierceshot do. -- Gordon Ecker 10:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the case of lore, I believe that the "Broad strokes" approach is best, with a See also utilizing the interwiki links, but if the NPC/Monster/Entity pertains directly to GW2, it's storyline, game play, etc., it should have it's own article here. --
Wynthyst 19:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- The way I see it, there are two types of lore. There's background lore for GW1, and background lore for GuildWars. The stories of the gods, for example, are Guildwars background lore. The story of Saul and the Mursaat is GW1 lore. Gods (very likely) affect GW2. Turai Ossa (liekly) doesn't. GuildWars lore should be included, but GW1 shouldn't be. And interwiki links in dialogue etc. seems to be the most reasonable way to go. And do we need a sister policy for this on GWW? Calor (t) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- A policy on GWW would be a lot easier to define than one here... "any event that happens after 1078 AE or any item or any NPC that is created after 1078 AE belongs on GW2W, not GWW". --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mandatory gw1 prefixes would be messy. I think a better option would be to give anything primarily or exclusively GW2-related name priority over anything primarily GW1-related but significant to GW2. -- Gordon Ecker 10:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- A policy on GWW would be a lot easier to define than one here... "any event that happens after 1078 AE or any item or any NPC that is created after 1078 AE belongs on GW2W, not GWW". --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- The way I see it, there are two types of lore. There's background lore for GW1, and background lore for GuildWars. The stories of the gods, for example, are Guildwars background lore. The story of Saul and the Mursaat is GW1 lore. Gods (very likely) affect GW2. Turai Ossa (liekly) doesn't. GuildWars lore should be included, but GW1 shouldn't be. And interwiki links in dialogue etc. seems to be the most reasonable way to go. And do we need a sister policy for this on GWW? Calor (t) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the case of lore, I believe that the "Broad strokes" approach is best, with a See also utilizing the interwiki links, but if the NPC/Monster/Entity pertains directly to GW2, it's storyline, game play, etc., it should have it's own article here. --
- But Candysmith Kringle and Flaming Scepter Mages probably don't have any post-GW1 significance, while Abaddon and Pyre Fierceshot do. -- Gordon Ecker 10:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think we should just use the interwiki links (when they are working). If, for example, the Destroyers were mentioned by an NPC, there'd be no sense in including a Destroyer article here because they don't exist in GW2. An interwiki link would be more prudent. For things such as Primordus, which exists in both games but is only significant in GW2, we should have a brief article on GWW which links to a more detailed article here. If we define this policy too loosely, we could end up with brief, past tense articles on everything from Flaming Scepter Mages to Candysmith Kringle. We don't want more GW1 articles than we do GW2 articles :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Images[edit]
What's the policy on using images from GW1 on GW2W? I've removed all the images that have cropped up so far and replaced them with concept art for now. Any thoughts? --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- There shouldn't be any copyvio problems. IDK what else can be said about it.
reanor 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think they should be used for historical figures without concept art and those who differ significantly from their concept art. Additionally, I think that the ancient dragons in their dormant states warrent separate images. -- Gordon Ecker 10:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
