Talk:Mesmer/Archive2

Request addition of Queen Jennah note, and a description of the lore behind them. As EoD has confirmed (even if not a playable profession) that mesmers still exist. Thus, describing what they are is now our job. Please do not direct me to the discussion here as that is for something else. Eive 22:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Made slight alterations to the article. Needs improvements though. Don't think a note on that one specific mesmer is necessary. -- Konig/talk 00:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think mesmer will definitely come back since such a high figure(Queen Jennah) is one herself. And all of the minor references shown in the two novels.--BookofTyria 00:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Still speculation that it'll come back as a playable profession though. Which is why this article needs to be rewritten - it's still around during the time of the game, but perhaps not as a playable profession. It should be refitted to be akin to golemancer until we get proof that it is a playable profession. -- Konig/talk 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Ought to say it's a spellcaster in the opening sentence, not profession, since saying it's a profession (along with linking it to the profession page) is a bit misleading. Also fixed some grammar. --ஸ Kyoshi 07:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

@Konig, I suppose (after looking through the other "Profession" pages) that a note about Queen Jennah is unnecessary. However, this article still needs some actual information in it. Preferably lore. Such as what a Mesmer can do, which God they are typically aligned with. You know, the basics. Or whatever we decide as a collective is the basics, which may or may not include what I've already listed, I don't really care, but this article needs a major improvement. Eive 06:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"which God they are typically aligned with" that's no longer really accurate... While human mesmers may still be alligned with Lyssa, 1) it's speculation due to the distancing of gods, no profession may be alligned to certain gods now; and 2) what about non-human mesmers? We have nothing on that. But yes, it still needs improvements. But... that's hard, due to the lack of information about mesmers and how they are in GW2. -- Konig/talk 07:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How, and for that matter, whether. --ஸ Kyoshi 19:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Konig & Eive: I think the term "god aligned" is a bit too specific for GW2, perhaps what Eive may have meant, (and correct me if I'm wrong Eive) is more so which god they are commonly represented by or associated to, from a human (or the majority of races, if you would take it so far) perspective. Charr Necromancers exist, and Necromancy in general is represented by, or associated to, Grenth. On a more personal point, I disagree that the mesmer profession will be deranked to a position akin to that of golemancers, the profession is rather unique to the Guild Wars universe, and although it isn't necessarily a flagship feature, it'd be much easier for ArenaNet to incorporate them, perhaps combined with the more roguish aspects of the assassin (who are also tied to Lyssa occasionally, and are also with Grenth). Depends entirely on your opinion of mesmers. I'd primarily argue that Golemancer is more of a professional/personal title, such as Seraph or Tribune or First Born or Sculptor, whereas mesmer still falls into line with elementalist or warrior. My opinion on the whole disassociating "Charr" with "Gods" is that the Charr state that they do not place faith in gods, do not rely upon them, and do not trust them ("There are no gods for the Charr!" doesn't forcibly equate with "We believe there is no such thing as a god!"). Though one may argue that there will not be a playable monk profession, this can be attributed to the fact that monks rely "solely" (open to speculation) on the favour of the estranged gods, and as you cannot have charr relying on gods (outside of the flame legion) due to the lore of the game, it'd be a little hard to work a charr monk in, thus relegating it to professional/personal title (like the monks of the Durmand Priory and the Zaishen in Lion's Arch). In short there is very little that can dispute the return of the mesmer in GW2 as a playable profession and supplying information as to the god(s) they are most often associated with isn't going to do anyone any harm. Darke 14:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There's one major factor that prevents us from assuming that the mesmer is playable--we don't have official confirmation that it is. This means that anything about the mesmer apart from the information we do have confirmed (that they use illusions, and that Queen Jennah may be one, etc.) is speculation, and doesn't belong outside of the userspaces. ~Ekko (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why do I feel like this will be a class and it will be announced Feb. 14th? [Daegalus - talk] 07:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What's a class? Eive 07:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no professions that can wear the armor class "mesmer armor". What is this?! - Infinite - talk 12:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

@Infinite Where do you see "mesmer armor"? @Daegalus Why do you think it'll be announced Feb. 14th? Any word on the interlink? And also, it wouldn't hurt to put down that (for humans at least) the patron goddess is Lyssa. Even if they aren't a confirmed profession it never hurts to have bits of information on the page. 68.144.77.185 20:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Class" refers to armor class in GW2 (light, medium, heavy). Profession is the word you were looking for. - Infinite - talk 22:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a good sign

← moved to User talk:Ph03n1x

"Considered likely"

I took out the note that said the mesmer was "considered likely" to be playable, for a couple of reasons. First, it's probably speculation. Second, it doesn't have anything to do with the mesmer in Guild Wars 2--it probably doesn't belong on the page regardless of speculation issues. Third, we don't know who "considers it likely"--it's weasel wording. And, most importantly, its presence seems to encourage or legitimize speculation on this page.

Before anyone shouts "but the mesmer is SO the third scholar!", I think it will be, too (and would be willing to talk about it on my user talk). That belief just doesn't have any place on the page or this talk page. ~Ekko (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Human armor image linked to Mesmer profession

I think everyone is at the conclusion that mesmers are in GW2 by now. New character design shows a comparision between GW1 Mesmer armor and GW2 Armor (Not stated as Mesmer armor but clearly heavily influenced from the GW1 armor set, Mesmer Elite Kurzick). Take from this what you will. --Decoinferno 20:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Just want to remind you that clothing and armor is not tied to profession in Guild Wars 2. The first image is comparing a Mesmer in the original Guild Wars to a human character wearing a similar outfit in Guild Wars 2, but this comparison has absolutely no bearing on the second woman's profession. Remember: we are also having town clothes, which allows players to further customize the look of their character. The second character in this picture is not wearing armor, but town clothing. This picture was meant to show you how the technology has advanced from Guild Wars to Guild Wars 2." — Regina Buenaobra ShadowRunner 20:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But she never said it wasn't a mesmer. --'Mai Yi' talk 20:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If we were to document hinted speculation that ArenaNet not specifically denied, this Wiki would be 10 times in size, at least. - Infinite - talk 21:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

worst kind of speculation is the one where they don't deny the fact... (Xu Davella 12:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

Okay, let me tell you this, I've played the demo at Gamescom last August, I've fought against foes who had the professioj Mesmer, note the chaos damage and the Jeweled Chakram (Illusion Skin) which I've seen returning in Guild Wars 2. Ascalon Ghosts wore these. Of course this doesn't confirm anything 100%, but lets say.. 99% Mesmers likely return. 213.93.116.60 22:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Too bad the only professions in the demos where the necro and everything before it. Mainly since monsters are not tied to professions, and nether is weapons or armor--Elemental Phantom 22:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Even disregarding what Ele points out, 99% is still not confirmation. If you're so confident then you can bother to wait until they release it. --ஸ _[User:Kyoshi|Kyoshi]] 01:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yay mesmers. --'Mai Yi' talk 02:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There's also the chance that: 1) It's a non-playable but mechanically different profession; 2) "foes who had the profession Mesmer" is incorrect and merely suspect (e.g., similar capabilities to gw1's mesmers but never stated to be such in game); 3) Chaos damage returns and is usable by non-mesmers. Also, I believe it was stated that there will be no requirements for attributes on weapons in gw2, just as armor is separated into 3 groups rather than per profession. -- Konig/talk 02:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Say It Aint True

:( http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-02-23-mesmer-and-assassin-in-guild-wars-2? No Mesmers ?? *SadPanda* Bob soddoth 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There are mesmers, in the novels. Whether they are playable as profession is NOT officially announced OR denied. Eurogamer needs to shut their pieholes, their article is majorly based on assumptions from the interview. - Infinite - talk

Ye have read both Novels so i know Mesmers are mentioned in them ..the novels also haz Chiurgeon ( however u spell it ) Healers))so ....... Bob soddoth 18:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll summarize Eurogamer: Massively uninformed and bad at interpretation. Don't let their third rate article get your hopes down. :) - Infinite - talk 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

+ we already know that one of the final 3 professions has the same name as a GW profession.-- Shew 20:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And it is very unlikely that that would be assassin, as Assassin is an achievement. The only dupe names are traits to attributes and skills of the same names on different professions. In short; it's very likely the Mesmer returning. (Plus we've seen footage of it on the retrospect video.) - Infinite - talk 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If there aren't mesmers I'm going to Panic then have an Aneurysm and Blackout. Then I'm going to let out a Cry of Pain and a Cry of Frustration. I will have Accumulated Pain and Mistrust towards Anet that I would send Feedback to them through my Frustration about how they were Ignorant and Inept. Then I would feel Shame and Guilt. I would have many Visions of Regret. --'Mai Yi' talk 21:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mai, you are officially my favourite mesmer fan. =] - Infinite - talk 21:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --'Mai Yi' talk 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. I've also planned my mesmer character so far, that if I can't make it happen, there's not going to be much Empathy between me and Anet.--Tuomir 21:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Having no Mesmers would sure be a large Complication as all my plans would Backfire. LOOK OVER THERE!!!!. --'Mai Yi' talk 21:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting confusing images from there. I can't play ignorant, I'm getting a migraine from this overload of distortions.--Tuomir 22:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Uuuummmmm... What? --'Mai Yi' talk 22:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, t'was just my fevered dreams taking over...--Tuomir 22:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You already killed it... Let it die in the Archives... --'Mai Yi' talk 22:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As seen here, mass spamming mesmer hexes kills everything. EDIT: forgot to sign... --Tuomir 22:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) PEACE AND HARMONY! - Infinite - talk 22:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just asking me to shatter your delusions...--Tuomir 23:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh joy... mesmer jokes... ;) - Lucian 23:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh joy... Fireball.. Problem solved. -- Cyan 23:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The way they phrased it is important to note - They said they are not confirmed to be in GW2, not that they have been confirmed to not be. Until a few weeks ago, the Guardian wasn't confirmed to be in GW2, but now it is. They also added the word 'Mesmer' in that little quote (which could have been referring to any play style), giving the sentence the connotation that Mesmers won't be in the game, but something to appease Mesmer fans will be. Anet wouldn't be stupid/cruel enough to give several blatant references to them in official material and then replace them with something slightly different. Forget business ethics - pissing off your customers tends to lose business. --Ph03n1x 01:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup. It has already been on the page. :) - Lucian 3:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't fit the lore

It wouldn't fit Anet's own lore if mesmers weren't implented. One year before the Exodus the Gods gave magic to the world. They also created the 4 bloodstones (Magicals seals). Each bloodstone represent one of the schools of magic (aggression, destruction, preservation, and denial). We've already been presented with Destruction and aggression (elementalists and Necromancers), so all we need are monks and mesmers. Hope is within reach! :D -195.181.32.132 13:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There aren't going to be monks, but they made lore that said monks combined with paragons to make Guardians, so they fulfill the old monk portion. The only one left is the mesmer.--'Mai Yi' {TC} 13:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Mesmers are in the game. Queen Jennah is one. We just don't know if they're playable. Please stop speculating - it's not going to make them announce anything sooner. ~Ekko (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately not! Detom10 15:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not guild wars without mesmers. And if they dont put it in but realize their mistake further down the road, adding it in later as part of an expansion just wont cut it. Seriously, non-mesmer players in gw1 would probably mourn the loss of the mesmer... Its not all about the mechanics, its the name! ;-) Justice 05:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Dedicated healer and tank players are already committing large scales of suicides. Let's keep our excitement of 'presumable'-features to ourselves, and leave the speculating up to Anet. (everything we currently know has a chance to be changed in future information or versions of the game) Ge4ce-Talk-Contribs 05:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This worrying is needless. We have the concept art staring us in the face, and it's never yet been wrong. Look at the thief reveal. It was right there in front of us all along. Mesmers will come. ANet's just torturing us by leaving the best for last. Arshay Duskbrow 09:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The speculative discussion is also needless. We have proof they exist, but not that they are playable, and from there anything to be said is only opinion. Let's leave it at that for now, 'kay? --ஸ Kyoshi 16:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing konig #2. Justice 21:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we need mesmers in Guild Wars 2 from day one. Mesmers are just so Tyrian (they never felt like they fit in on the other continents). But I know one thing for sure -- ArenaNet is reading this laughing as they think, "let's just hold off the mesmer reveal a liiitttle longer. This speculation is driving people mad and I love it." 216.185.250.92 22:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

GDC concept art - Only one left!!

Now that thief has been revealed, out of all the GDC concept art, there is only 1 that is not associated with a revealed profession. So it's pretty much a shoo-in. --Voidvector 08:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Watch out for the K&K (Kyoshi & Konig) Alliance! This is speculation! (given, it should be noted somewhere around that this is the only one that remains xD) 68.144.77.185 08:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Kyoshi and Konig who look stern upon speculation. - Infinite - talk 08:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nah this isn't speculation, it's good observation. All of the GDC images that have been shown have directly related to be revealed professions. We can't actually say that the last image is going to be the next revealed profession, only that its the one left that isn't tied to one. That'll probably stay on the talk page though, not really something noteworthy. (Xu Davella 09:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

Yep, that and that old statement (one new, one changed, one returning). With the guardian being new, the thief changed from assassin, the last caster has to be a returning prof. only casters from GW1 that aren't yet included are monk (confirmed to not being on this game), ritualist (merged partially into the necro and guardian, probably not returning), and Mesmer. I think the returning is a caster because on adventure spots we only have the Dervish who is now part of human racial skills mostly. Still not a confirmed profesion, but it has more than one shoe into this game right now. Lokheit 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, we have seen everything about the mesmer already, except an official word it's in the game. (Seriously; concept art, massive references, ArenaNet gameplay footage, etc, etc.) It's much less speculation, moreso just re-stating the things many did before and many will do in the future. This is why we have that self-proclaimed "K&K alliance", except it's more like the "GW2W alliance". It's not speculation but at the same time, we don't state "Warriors are in the game!" in the present over and over either. - Infinite - talk 12:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Not so much "self-proclaimed" since I don't like the name. But yes, as it's been said, there is nothing new to say on this except "MESMERS ARE IN THE GAME" or "NO THEY AREN'T".

As told to the last person who scoffed at the idea of disallowing speculation, we've already determined this as the best way to go about keeping the wiki from being cluttered. If you'd like to oppose that motion, you can read through the discussion we already had on the issue and then contribute your own opinion. --ஸ Kyoshi 14:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mesmer/Ritualist hybrid profession

I believe I read somewhere that they're going to have something that will cater to players who enjoyed both the mesmer and the ritualist; with that said, I'm going to guess that the mesmer will have spells called "illusions" reminiscent of ritualist spirits. Anyone know where they mentioned that they're going to cater to players of those two professions? 98.154.210.8 00:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Source is here. And you can sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Chriskang 00:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

First, please heed the comments above to avoid speculation on the main space talk pages. Second, the article says: "People will, who play a ritualist or a mesmer or a necromancer or any of the old, old characters, will feel like they have a home somewhere in Guild Wars 2." That doesn't say that anything will be combined from those mentioned, just that someone who plays one of those professions will find a similar one in GW2. --ஸ Kyoshi 03:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

IPs make me laugh. /undo Eive 22:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, Godwin's Law. --ஸ Kyoshi 23:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

By stating Godwin's Law you activate the law itself by relating to the law which relates to the comparison of Nazis. SO just by mentioning the law you fulfill it. --'Mai Yi' {TC} 00:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions". So no, mentioning it is not violation, but by continuing the discussion, you broke it. --ஸ Kyoshi 01:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Centaur Mesmers! Zolann The Irreverent 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

lolz?

← moved to User talk:Getefix

Buffed Article

"...we know that many enjoy mind tricks and aspects like that. And we'll quite certainly not disappoint those people."

Source... [1] Randomdawning 17:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the interviewer says the word mesmer, though. As before, let's leave it until it's confirmed. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Speculation

On the Hall of Monuments Reward Calculator page there are three characters complete with what seem to be identifying icons. The warrior is carrying a mace and is marked by an axe. The ranger, marked by a pet icon, is in the center. The mesmer has a mask at her feet. I speculate whether the profession will keep its name. Also, much like how the concept of the assassin evolved into the thief, I wonder what new tricks lie beneath that mask. -RZ-76.218.9.81 04:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is just something I want to point out. Wiki doesn't like speculation on pages or discussion pages but this whole page is speculation. So far the page is using a book as evidence while ANet specifically mentioned the books wouldn't provide details about the game other than some background information. As it's in between GW 1 and GW 2 a mesmer profession in the book might just as well be a leftover from GW 1 or an interpretation of the writer of an idea for GW 2 at the time of writing the book. I think putting this page up for deletion is a little radical but it amazes me nobody else said it was ridiculous to have a speculation page... Malice- 22:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the only thing that is speculative on the article is the "possible concept art" image. - Infinite - talk 22:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

And the part that says unconfirmed profession imo Malice- 22:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. If you want, you can make a move to delete those sections. The campaign that most of the page is documenting is something that is actually happening. I couldn't care less; eventually, the professions will be revealed and the speculation will remove itself. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 22:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The unconfirmed part is fact. It has not been confirmed nor denied. Therefore it is fact that it has not been confirmed. - Infinite - talk 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally fail to see the point of the note - the article isn't about a playable profession, it's about the casters known as mesmers. It'd be like making a page for the "chirurgeon" (something mentioned multiple times in Edge of Destiny - some kind of doctor/medic) and adding a note that it isn't a confirmed profession. -- Konig/talk 02:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason why it is only applicable to mesmer is because we have had references and mentions and we factor in the returning profession note. The note is valid, the concept art should go. - Infinite - talk 02:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The note is far more reasonable with the mesmer, due to it being a profession in Guild Wars 1. If the Chirurgeon had been a profession in GW1, such a note could be applied on its page as well. ;) 98.23.51.8 03:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Have it your way, the part that says profession (in GW 2) is speculation. There is a difference between unconfirmed and possible. The Thief and Necromancer were unconfirmed when videos showed up showing both the professions, Mesmer is just a possibility imo. The concept art says possible concept art for the Mesmer, it's just a little different than saying unconfirmed concept art for the Mesmer. Malice- 09:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Make edits not word play. Aqua (T|C) 01:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

i messaged A-Net over a picture i saw on GW2's official web page(where you type your name for HoM), i noticed a very Mesmer looking picture, so i print screened, edited out the mesmer, and sent the mesmer to A-Net asking if it was infact a mesmer, and also asking if it was an intentional leak, and the answer i got back was "you solved a clue ;)" so here is the pic of the mesmer.. http://guildwars2.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Professions sorry have to link it, i dunno how to add images yet --118.210.220.160 19:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)VanderBeltLegacy

Implying Anet support would ever use a wink-face. - 19:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

take 1 second to think, you DO NOT contact support about crap like that, u contact community relations...DUH!!!--118.210.220.160 20:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not open these floodgates again. That image has been around since forever and is no "leak" at all. Please get the facts straight. - Infinite - talk 20:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

and i believe you need to READ correctly, leakis just a title, INTENTIONAL leak was addedd when i asked A-Net, and no shit the pic's been around for ages...and also known, A-Nethad stated, the Assassin and Mesmer will not EXACTLY be returning, but will add equivalents http://leakerz.net/wp/2011/02/23/mesmer-and-assassin-equivalents-in-guild-wars-2/ <as seen here, and proven already by the Thief...so weather solving a clue does not mean i was 100% correct or not, i think what they implied is its the equivalent to a mesmer, so please READ carefull next time--118.210.220.160 20:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The only image I see in the initial link is of this, which is the Hall of Monuments scholar human armor. It should be noted that armor is shared between armor classes (in this case, scholar) and therefore all three scholars (Elementalist, Necromancer, and unknown) can use the armor of the image. Not a leak or implication of the mesmer. Repeat: the image is not an indication, leak, or implication of the mesmer profession. It is an armor set used by all three scholars including Necromancer and Elementalist. No armor, be it concept art, render, in-game screenshot or whatever, is an indication of a profession. -- Konig/talk 21:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:118.210.220.160

Pets

Well... Unless we classify turrets as pets, then mesmers now have pets, of a sort. - 21:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Engineer is not a Mesmer. Also, turrets are no more pets than spirit weapons are. >.> Teddy Dan 22:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not what Eive said, it has been said that there is one more profession with the access to pets other than the ranger, and the one profession left is supposed to be returning. The mesmer seems to be the only old profession left whose return makes sense, so that means that either the turrets are pets, or mesmer has pets. Also, sign your comments.--Tuomir 21:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Teddy... Remember to sign. And yeah, Tuomir hit it right on the spot. Of course the second pets are supposed to have limited control unlike the ranger's. - 21:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The term pet has been used interchangeably to mean an entity that you can summon/create or that follows you. It doesn't necessarily mean an animal companion, and I believe in Eive's context it doesn't. Although I'm perplexed as to where it is going. oh I understand nowVenom20 21:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Aha. My bad, then. Here, smack my hand. Also, thanks for telling me about my forgotten signature. I'm all over the place, today. >.< Teddy Dan 22:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:Amannelle

To end the discussion of pets GW2 already has 2 pet users. The ranger's animal companion and the necromancer's minion. Guardian spirits are not pets since they lack the criteria to attack on their own and cannot be attacked. I do believe this type of discussion has been done before and i already explained it before what the needed criteria are for something to be concidered a pet. Travels with the owner, can attack a target sepperate from it's owner, can be attacked by a foe, can be targetted by allied skills (healing, enchantments, etc), gain experience and can level. With this piece of info i hope the unneeded discussions and speculations about pets users has ended. Damysticreaper 15:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your definition and criteria of a pet are not necessarily Anet's definition and criteria of a pet. And while it is still possible, I'd imagine if minions were considered pets then we would have been told 9 months ago, when the Necromancer was revealed. Besides that, even if your criteria was the same, then minions would not be included, because they cannot gain experience. Also, "can be targetted by allied skills (healing, enchantments, etc)" to the best of my knowledge there are no ally-targeting skills or enchantments in GW2. - 17:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This has already been moved. Please continue this discussion on the user talkpage it was moved to, rather than here. ~Ekko (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Is There Really Any Doubt?

← moved to User talk:Strill

Enough!

(This is not speculation! Don't bring any here!)
I think it's funny that ArenaNet knows we all think it's 8th profession, yet won't say anything. I also think it's funny that we're responding so silly towards what we have - picture, color, the works. Yet ANet isn't doing anything to deny these ridiculous claims. It almost feels like that's a "reveal", and yet I'm just cracking up laughing that people still feel the need to explain all the facts a million times... We have all the fan-based proof we need to silence the masses, so when will people finally pretend it's already been revealed, noticing ArenaNet isn't saying "no", and focus on something new to speculate about, like its skills? xD or even the sylvari? Or elites?? The mass of mesmer speculation about it existing is killing me. ~~ Kiomadoushi 00:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The wiki will not pretend it's been revealed. Not saying "no" is not the equivalent of saying "yes." Anyway, assuming this section can't be classified as speculation, it's still not relevant to this page, and since you're at least slightly familiar with our position on irrelevant content, the next step ought to be simple enough to figure out. --ஸ Kyoshi 06:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You really irk me, but its not worth the space here to tell you how much. I still say the masses need to find something new to speculate about. This topic is all burnt out. I don't think anybody really wants to hear the same speculation about the mesmer anymore. I know my boyfriend can't stand the word. People - note: not the wiki - need to accept that there's enough of the same "proof" all over the place, and start moving on. ~~ Kiomadoushi 06:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to fans in general and not just this site, then why not make this post somewhere it is relevant, on-topic, and more likely to get a larger audience and response? --ஸ Kyoshi 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me offer an ultimatum for you: You're both right, now shut up. Everyone. Konig/talk 18:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed Mesmers.

"I can confirm that there are mesmers in Guild Wars 2. Unfortunately they’re not playable because they are dead mesmers in ghost form nailing me with Blackout." Should this be added to the article, it was taken from http://guildcast.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/guild-wars-2-the-catacombs/ --92.24.177.220 09:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Only playable characters use professions - monsters have their own skills. And as the article said, those are ghosts which have likely taken inspiration from GW1 professions. --Xu Davella 09:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but isn't that site fan based...--Icyyy Blue 09:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless it was an interview, we can take the dungeon intro and the gameplay footage, and that's about it. --Xu Davella 09:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

But if Arenanet has made an announcement about it I don't think we should jump to conclusions.. cuz what other profession could return?--Icyyy Blue 09:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All articles written by the fans that attended Fan Day are accurate, up-to-date sources and can (or rather, should) be used. - Infinite - talk 14:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

yeah but Fan Day doesn't mean that got to play the unrevealed profession they could have not put it in the game for them, unless Arenanet flat out told them no playable mesmers in the game at all.--Icyyy Blue 14:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you might be misreading the quote: What is said specifically is that there are NPC mesmers in the game, but that there are yet no signs of the playable mesmer profession. That doesn't mean mesmers are out. - Infinite - talk 15:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Xu, I disagree. Even if it isn't an interview, we could take information from it. That was the whole point of this discussion. In regards to "NPC mesmers" - or rather "NPC professions" - I think that considering we know some races have professions - Destiny's Edge are certain professions, Jennah and Anise are mesmers, etc, that it's just "NPCs don't have to have a profession" rather than "NPCs don't have professions." Though that's opinion. Secondly, we already knew that there'd be NPC mesmers - Anise and Jennah are both most likely to show at some point in the game, especially Anise. Whether mesmers will be in the game or not is not debatable. What's debatable is if they're playable (which as the above section states, it's so obvious that there's really no debating outside of "not officially revealed"). Konig/talk 16:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Take note that monk NPC with RoJ were also encountered in the dungeon wich is a non playable profession. Having mesmers in it doesn't prove that they are playable. Damysticreaper 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

lol, you're a little late. that's what just about everyone has been saying. ~~ Kiomadoushi 00:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there would be monster guardians/thieves/rangers etc., but they would be using their own set of skills, which is separate to what playable professions use. That's based on a late blog saying that all monsters will have their own set of skills, if only I remember where it was. Or...if it was even real. --Xu Davella 04:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

In videos, I don't even see monsters showing the skills they use - if they use any. So honestly, they could be using skills from all 8 professions and then some for all we know. Konig/talk 05:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe anet already had a response to this and it was along the lines of..."any of the npc's from gw1 (that are now ghosts haunting ascalon) will retain their original professions" which explains why ppl are getting nailed with roj and mes skills. --Moto Saxon 05:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Another proof of them, on Hoelbraks statues, they mention the profession of some heros like a guardian, then you can find the profession mesmer on this description. Lokheit 00:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yay, speculation that isn't the same that we've been hearing for a year! Still speculation though, cos remember, npcs can have professions that players can't. That npc may be referencing to the mesmers of old, like the ones fought in the Ascalon Catacombs that use blackout. (speculator me: Good find though!! >.<) ~~ Kiomadoushi 00:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

edit btw, what's that heal in slot 6?... that's not the med turret... ~~ Kiomadoushi 00:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Lokheit: Again the mesmer exists, but nothing, and I say nothing says it is playable. So honestlly, stop bringing these things up people! @Kio: That's a statue not an NPC. Konig/talk 00:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it mentions an NPC name. That's what I was talking about. The statue was not for a player. ~~ Kiomadoushi 00:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, then you would of wanted to say "That npc may be a reference ..." - English Major=nitpicky and easily confused by some wordings. :p Konig/talk 01:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

would have *cough*. :) But yeah, in reference to what we know of the skills that monsters use almost nothing, we can hold off on jumping to conclusions I guess. --Xu Davella 01:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

...Still doesn't answer the heal skill question... Does anybody know? ~~ Kiomadoushi 02:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would guess either Elixer H or Med Kit given the skills we know of, but that discussion belongs elsewhere. --ஸ Kyoshi 01:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Way to give no helpful info. Was hoping the person who gave the link would know, or would have a source that lets known what it is, so that we could point out that as the icon for either elixer h or med kit... or something else. ~~ Kiomadoushi 04:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

IF the last profession is the Mesmer

If Mesmers are released as the last class, I see an awful lot of people coming onto the wiki and posting "i told you so" messages on this talk page. I'm thinking it might be an idea to have a plan for that, maybe lock the talk page or limit it to registered users for the first fews days after? Thering 12:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree for different reasons: Every time a profession got revealed, its talk page exploded. Especially the latest ones. Konig/talk 17:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

+1 --Moto Saxon 17:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and with this talk page it will even get worse than with the Thief and Engineer, since this page exist for a far more longer period, also pointing out to the speculation archive. -- Cyan 17:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The large quantity of people coming here to be like "I predicted this, and you told me to take it elsewhere, well, now I'm right..." is just going to be annoying and generally irritating, ignoring the fact that it will be completely unnecessary and useless at the same time. I don't think we need 200kb (more) of pointlessness on this page. Aqua (T|C) 17:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

BUT wouldn't the Spamm IP's just register an account and spamm like that? --The Holy Dragons 18:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to limit a talk page to only certain people? --Amannelle 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside semi and full protect, don't think so. I'm not against a full prot of the talk for a few hours after reveal, whether its mesmer or not. Konig/talk 19:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's users who've been registered for, say, at least a week so that spam IPs don't have that ability, I see no problem with it. However, if it's restricted to users selected by another group of 'elite' users, that seems like an arbitrary exercise of power.--Ph03n1x 19:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed users only? (And, as to the whole "select group," I'm nearly positive that that is impossible.) Aqua (T|C) 19:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I really do think the lock on the page (with a message warning about no "i told you so" for either side after the unlock, etc) would be a great idea. That next reveal has got to be coming soon, so this is a good topic to talk about. ~~ Kiomadoushi 22:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Both Talk:Mesmer and Talk:Professions reveal page, and for the latter it doesn't matter much if we ever un-protect since it'd be past content. --ஸ Kyoshi 23:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do we stop speculation and forum-y comments? Because we want people to be able to discuss the article without the extra fuzz. What would happen if we protected the talk page? No one would be able to discuss the article at all. It seems counter-productive, particularly during the time when the article's potential to be fleshed out is greatest. I'm not really comfortable protecting this talk page - usually protections are carried out for vandalism and maybe revert wars, not pre-emptively to stop certain discussions from happening. pling 00:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should for atleast a week. +1--Icyyy Blue 01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) maybe not a week, but at least a day after its release, with the people who know how to format the page jumping on updating the page so we don't need the talk page for that. Then the people who want to focus on "I told you so!" claims, and all the stupidity that will follow (you see what the people say and do already about it, release will be crazy and have so many unrelated topics springing up). A short protect will let people keep calm, and then the unlock will let people be able to talk about stuff relative to the page, ways to make it better, color schemes, icon, fandom...
Even 12 hours helps people keep their cool. I'm sure you've heard of the Xu Davella Theory of ANet Sadism, people will retaliate if they reveal the mesmer. Security often protects things when people are likely to riot...
Perhaps wait an hour or two, and see if people go crazy, then place the lock for 12 or 24 hours, just to let people calm themselves... You guys should consider that. ~~ Kiomadoushi 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest semiprotecting (only registered users) at most. The Engineer talk page had a lot of blather, but it also had a lot of constructive work going on shortly after reveal. That said, if the mesmer ISN'T the last profession, preventative measures for "WHY ANET WHY!"/"I TOLD YOU SO" should be taken here. ~Ekko (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think locking down the article for any duration is the best choice. It prevents honest IPs from helping the article and hinders people who forget to login (AKA Me, but only sometimes). I think that we should perhaps archive any talk prior to the release of the profession and then start moving the "I TOLD YOU SO"s onto the user talk pages.

Archiving this talkpage after the reveal shouldn't do any harm because all the conversations prior to the article are about why the mesmer is in, why we can't document player speculation, or what counts as "speculation." Seriously, by the time the mesmer is released, this article will become drastically different, and all of the old talk will just be extra text for me (or anyone) to scroll down.

Lastly, moving superfluous/forum-y/"I TOLD YOU SO" text to user pages should, at the least, reduce the clutter on this page. Hopefully, it also serves as a warning to not bring idle chit-chat to the page.

I think this should suffice. I get the feeling that a good chunk of the potential "I TOLD YOU SO" candidates know that we know the mesmer is the next profession, anyway. --Riddle 05:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe that something similar to Auron's actions for the engineer talk page is good enough. - Infinite - talk 13:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no particularly strong views on this myself. I just foresee some potential problems and thought it would be good to discuss potential plans/responses. I think Riddle's idea to immediately archive the entire talk page after (potential) release is good. Also, Kiomadoushi's idea is good, where we leave it open unless it looks like spec/chatter will get bad, and if so then we protect the talk page. As to the first bit Riddle said, about locking the page - i never thought we should lock the page, only the talk page. As for the talk page and ip's; in my experience, very few ip's post constructively (non spec) on talk pages, and so a short semiprotect on the talk page will impact very few ips. It would allow the registered users to get the page put together quickly before the talk page becomes potentially bogged down. However, if there is a sysop who's on the ball and ready to protect the talk page if necessary (and knowing they have support for that action in advance), then that means slapping a protect on immediately is not necessarily the best solution Thering 19:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Auron took to that page with a hack saw - just tore the thing apart. It was definitely exciting to watch, though. We could use that method if it gets as crazy as that page did/ --Xu Davella 11:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

+1 to the idea of locking it for one day, i dont really like the idea, but we wont be able to put any info on the page if we don't, so it's in our best intrest to do so. PS I do like the idea of puting up a sign folr about a week after saying, "Don not say i told you so, etc." IrishNation 23:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thumb's up irish, funny stuff. This doesn't need a reply... In my opinion: it's chaotic and disorganized on here as it is. I'm new to Wiki, but not Guild War's; so I don't know what kind of power you can and can't make happened... but if it's really possible, locking this page is definately best. Some people just want to feel important (or always right), you know? I saw a suggestion about putting a full protect on the page would just block everyone from discussing the article? Again, I don't know if that's true or not, but I'd suggest finding another way to pass communication. Like agreeing to make discussion's on someone elses talk page, then copying and pasting here once the smoke passes.

And sorry, I just have to do this, but it's gotta be the Mesmer. It was stated in an interview that it will be a returning profession, and we know it's a scholar related profession. Well let's play process of elimination... There's what, two remaining scholar professions? Mesmer and Ritualist. Faction's will be a later expansion where we will once again see our assassin and ritualist friend's (yes assassin's & theives are very much different). Thus leaving the Mesmer. But again, I know you can't state anything untill it's actually confirmed.

Oh, and one more thing... If possible, I'd suggest deleting all of our comment's/discussions; because once the profession is announced, it's obvious that this mile long of disorganized text is going to be of no importance. Well, that's how I'm seeing it anyways, hope it helps. --SpiritSplit 23:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

@SpiritSplit, once the page is to long or to old we archive it and start a fresh. If you look back in the archives (and on user talk pages) you will find miles of speculation talk. The general thought is to try and keep all speculation on your talk page and to a minimum so we don't crowd the main space. There are also some well documented threads on guru2 on the topic :) --Moto Saxon 00:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank's, I did see that; couldn't believe how long people were going on about something so simple and no-brained. Thank's again.--SpiritSplit 00:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm mildly offended that you called my mesmer simple and no-brained, but I'm happy that you didn't get sucked into those discussions, they were a bit of a headache. --Xu Davella 03:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

They are a bit of a headache. I don't think any of that is even worth archiving. I didn't call your mesmer "simple and no-brained." Isn't that the point of the profession; having strong mental strenght to trick other's or your own mind? I was talking about the discussion's, it's simple and no-brained what the returning profession is, but people go on and on explaining the same old think. It's why I didn't get sucked in... I was able to differentiate between what was mess and what was important.--SpiritSplit 15:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sucked in? afaik, everyone's contributions are voluntary. Mediggo 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is why excessive speculation gets either moved or its special archive. It's extremely overdone and adds absolutely nothing. People should be glad that they can comment at all; Wikipedia has policies against comments that are not revolving around the edits done to the article itself. Asking to keep speculation off the talk pages on popular pages is being generous, not oppressive. - Infinite - talk 20:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much all the possible speculation has been done already. Imo the whole talk page should be locked from edits until the last profession is revealed. It seems rather unlikely to me that we'll get any info on mesmers in GW2 any time soon, whether it is the playable profession or NPCs. Mediggo 21:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We're not locking any talk page down any time soon, unless there is a case of excessive vandalism. Also locking down talk pages will prohibit comments regarding the revisions of the article itself, effectively nullifying the purpose of the talk page. Speculative topics, random chatter and such will all be dealt with as usual; moves and special archiving. - Infinite - talk 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I was unclear there. I meant that there probably isn't much information that the current article lacks. No need to discuss revisions if everything is there already, right? This is mostly about the possible playable profession and NPCs lore-wise, after all. Any NPC creatures, hostile or not, could still be documented on creature/mob pages. Well, that's just an idea of mine anyways. Mediggo 07:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

speculation question

Yes, I'm starting a discussion off of one small edit. If something can be logically deduced from facts, is it speculation?-- Shew 20:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think most people know it is the mesmer and wouldn't argue that. The issue is that it does not make sense to change the wiki until it is confirmed by anet. --Moto Saxon 20:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

So what's the harm in saying the mesmer hasn't been "directly confirmed" rather than just "confirmed?" Indirectly, it has been confirmed...via all the facts. I think you're right in that no one would disagree with that.-- Shew 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would not object, but some do. I guess some people feel that with in the logic of deduction there is still some room for error. and secondly, some people feel that the wiki should only confirm that which has been confirmed as fact. I dunno really. --Moto Saxon 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It just feels like withholding a fact (which it is), which I disagree with.-- Shew 21:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This was discussed before as well. In conclusion; "deduction is still speculation, no matter how obvious." - Infinite - talk 21:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh.-- Shew 21:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

My reaction exactly. :P - Infinite - talk 21:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's reaction. I agree it's so PAINFULLY obvious that it's the mesmer. BUT WE DON'T HAVE CONFIRMED PROOF, we have obvious bits and pieces. If you are given a puzzle and put it together and everything fits, and you have an image... But the box has a different image, and you didn't look at it, well, then it doesn't matter how well everything fits - it's not right. Heck, we may get monk as last profession, just not a dedicated healer. Monk and Mesmer mix together to get a divine caster who wears purple and weilds fans. Makes so much sense. ~~ Kiomadoushi 21:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's good enough for "everyone", it's good enough for a wiki article. This "speculation" stuff is taken way, way too seriously, often to the detriment of articles. pling 22:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You can state it as a fact about the community? :) "The majority of the GW community believes the mesmer is the final profession to be revealed. All hints from ArenaNet and information known about the final profession corroborates this." I don't think there is a single person who is seriously following GW2 who thinks there is any other possibility. -- aspectacle  23:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If Pling says it's okay for the page, then should we reflect that? ~~ Kiomadoushi 23:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We should have it anyways, not just because pling says it is okay. Aqua (T|C) 00:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well it does kinda count as speculation, saying not directly revealed, cos we still don't have that 100% proof, it's like 99-point-something... But Pling says it's okay cos it reflects the general view of the public, and we're overdoing our reaction to speculation stuff... I guess we should make the change then... ~~ Kiomadoushi 00:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The community generally likes it, then it should be added, regardless of whether or not Pling okays it. His opinion does not (and should not) count anymore than anyone else's opinion. Aqua (T|C) 00:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As a sysop/bureaucrat, it should count that he says it's okay for a contested range of information to be mentioned on a mainspace page on the wiki, as that generally would not fit with how the wiki works. ~~ Kiomadoushi 00:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but he'd still be right if he weren't a sysop/bcrat, which is what I think aqua was sayin. --BriarThe Spider 10:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Why people who read this article care if most of us think that the mesmer is the last one? He don't!! yes, we all think so, but we have user's discussion to agree. it's not matter on the article himself! -- Itay Alon • Talk 10:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I just realized that the listing of the mesmer in the profession infobox has been on this page for bloody ages, and because the infobox is only supposed to list playable professions, we've had speculation on this article (and every profession article) the whole entire time we've held these discussions. Silly rabbit, trix are for kids. If we're going to add the note, can we change it to reflect the first paragraph? It'll be one of the original speculations that makes a link between how there are specifically three spellcasters in the novels, and that there are only three scholar professions to be revealed on initial release of GW2. We could also use Intinite's (?) mode of deduction he had in one of the earlier discussions (which I think is in the profession's reveal archive), to help elaborate. --Xu Davella 11:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I generally don't care if it's added or not. But if it is added, I shall reserve the right to say I told you so if it is not the mesmer. It is a small chance that it isn't, but I'd like to hold that right. As long as it is stated to be unconfirmed, then I do not see why it cannot be added. It has been unconfirmed in the playable class navbox for ages now anyway. Logic dictates that it will be the mesmer anyways (even if the argument is all based on conjecture). Venom20 12:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with adding deduction to the article (especially considering the reveal could happen any time now) but I'll apply the same strategy as Venom. Do what you like and I'll joke about it later if you're wrong. --ஸ Kyoshi 15:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: comments made by admins on content issues have the same weighting as comments made by non-admins. Aqua was correct. My comment above was an observation made as a user, just like everyone else's here. Generally speaking, it should be clear when an admin speaks as an admin (it'll usually be about something like blocking, etc) - if in doubt, consider them to be a normal user. pling 15:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So long as it's clearly stated to be speculation - which it is - I don't mind personally. I only dislike it when speculation is 1) poorly supported or not supported at all, or 2) not clearly stated to be speculation. Also @ "the listing of the mesmer in the profession infobox has been on this page for bloody ages, and because the infobox is only supposed to list playable professions" Technically it wasn't speculation because it merely says "professions" and mesmer is under "unconfirmed" as in "we don't know" - meaning "it's a profession but we don't know if it's playable or not" so that was always stating a fact. Mesmers exist, but their form isn't certain. Konig/talk 18:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

But it is certain. Everything ANet has said points to the mesmer; they just haven't said "it's the mesmer."-- Shew 20:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Schrodinger's cat anyone? --BriarThe Spider 20:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:Kyoshi

The discussion deviated here but it's not clear through whose fault, and everything before was relevant to the discussion and to the page itself. So I'm moving it to my own talk page to prevent drama over "why did you move it to my page?" and any more discussion here should continue to be relevant to speculation rather than degenerating into speculation. It's a thin line I realize, but let's try to keep on track.

Anyone who likes is free to use my talk page section to speculate on the return of the mesmer, but I'll shut that down and just archive it if it degenerates into a "no it isn't, yes it is" kind of discussion. --ஸ Kyoshi 13:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

mmhmm ill let anyone speculate on my talk ;P bout anything except stupid stuff ;P!--Angelkiss 06:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

same, don't let the wiki get populated by misplaced discussions just take them to a talk page. (Amanda's or mine for example)--The Holy Dragons 07:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Should't we just suggest people to speculate on your talkpages and put a notice on the top of this page (with redirects to your talkpages)? Glastium | talk 07:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Or we could leave it as it is now, an unconfirmed playable profession. --Briar AHOY! 23:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:68.82.120.123

← moved to User talk:ShadowedRitualist

For the record, nobody here arguing that the mesmer should be considered confirmed has said anything that has not been said before. None of them have said anything that would contribute to this page.

The mesmer is not confirmed, and will not be considered confirmed until it is officially so. You can say all the I-told-you-so's afterward, you can talk about it on user talk pages all you please -- but here on this page, any logical deductions beyond those already mentioned on the mesmer page are irrelevant. --ஸ Kyoshi 21:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The Mesmer Page

Except for the title of the page, the proper name, "Mesmer" is written as "mesmer." Except for the term, "mesmerism" the name "Mesmer" should be capitalized, as it is in the GW1 page, Mesmer. IMHO --Enda 15:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency with the other profession pages, it's not capitalized. There is no proper reason to capitalize the word mesmer, and we didn't for the seven revealed professions. Also, I'm moving this at the bottom of the talk page — where a new discussion should be. -Alarielle- 16:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

On the Guild Wars 2 wiki, professions are not capitalized. - Infinite - talk 16:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.arena.net/blog/lead-writer-bobby-stein-talks-gw2-house-of-style - Tanetris 17:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your capacity to create a fuss over nothing is exceptional.

The wiki will replicate whatever is in game. Y'know. In Guild Wars 2. That thing that's not finished yet. Until then, leave it alone. You can hardly say an upper or lower case letter is breaking pages left right and centre. It. Doesn't. Matter.

Contact me on my talk page if you're an Administrator on this wiki open to bribes and willing to consider protecting this (talk) page. A F K When Needed 20:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Mesmerism reverts

This needs to resolve. Infi or IP, please give your source as to having a period outside of quote marks for a single word in standard American practice so that we can all be on the same page. 27.242.139.44 17:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In all my 21 years of living, I have always been told by every English teacher I had to never under any exception put punctuation outside of a quotation mark. - e.g., <words>". is wrong no matter the situation. Konig/talk 18:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

http://grammartips.homestead.com/inside.html Zomby138 18:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Though I question who this "Tina Blue" is - "Universal American usage places commas and periods inside the quotation marks, regardless of logic." "This rule applies even when the unit enclosed at the end of the sentence is just a single word rather than an actual quotation." and "The only exception is when that last little item enclosed in quotation marks is just a letter or a number". Just to pin-point Zomby's link's statements on the matter. Konig/talk 19:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me quote The Chicago Manual of Style, a "de facto guide for American English style, grammar, and punctuation."
6.9 PERIODS AND COMMAS IN RELATION TO CLOSING QUOTATION MARKS
Periods and commas precede closing quotation marks, whether double or single. (An apostrophe at the end of a word should never be confused with a closing single quotation mark; see 6.115.) This is a traditional style, in use well before the first edition of this manual (1906). For an exception, see 7.75.
7.75 DISTINGUISHING WORDS TO BE TYPED AND OTHER ELEMENTS
When a greater prominence than capitalization is called for, boldface, italics, color, or some other scheme may be used to distinguish elements. A single treatment may be applied across different types of elements. In general, avoid quotation marks lest they be interpreted as part of the element they enclose. If quotation marks must be used, any punctuation that is not part of the quoted expression should appear outside the quotation marks (as in the second example; see also 6.9).
To insert a thorn, choose Symbol from the Insert tab, then enter 00FE in the character code field. Click on Save As; name your file "appendix A, v. 10".
That's all on periods with quotation marks. No other exceptions. So Konig is definitely right here. Alfa-R 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I just realized the source I used spoke about single words that are quoted directly from a source in which the word is not followed by punctuation. In this case there is no instance of any such quoting, thus the period should go inside the quotes, as I initially stated. The exceptions are very specific and I overlooked the "quoted mid-sentence" aspect of it. The original revert was correct, the period goes inside the quotes, as per standard punctuation.

Alternatively we can simply drop 'as "mesmerism."' and close the sentence after illusions, since the mesmerism part is implied already. - Infinite - talk 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to note, for reference, that whether or not the punctuation goes inside or outside of the quotation marks is dependant on whether you are following American or British standards. The British standard follows logic, ie. the punctuation goes within the quotation if it is directly relevant to the quoted words, or outside if it is referring to the entire sentence. American it goes inside regardless. I'm not sure if this wiki has a standard, but if you are following similar standards as Wikipedia, you use American (due to the majority of readers being from America). Though I definitely prefer the British standard (how can you argue with logic?). Hope this helps. 152.91.9.9 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're not intending on quoting a source, then you don't use quotation marks. That's what italicizing is for... I'm changing the article. Btw for reference, we're using American English standards.--Xu Davella 12:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Quotations are also used for referring to a word as a word, as the use of "mesmerism" here. (For example, in this sentence where I used the quotes I am not referring to the use of illusions in this article, I'm referring to the word and how it is used.) Italicizing is not used for this purpose afaik, and especially since we are using italics for Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 it clashes strangely. --ஸ Kyoshi 19:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this may help; Chicago Manual of Style section 7.58

7.58 Words and phrases used as words

When a word or term is not used functionally but is referred to as the word or term itself, it is either italicized or enclosed in quotation marks. Proper nouns used as words, on the other hand, are usually set in roman.

The term critical mass is more often used metaphorically than literally. What is meant by neurobotics? The i in the name iPod is supposed to invoke the Internet.

Although italics are the traditional choice, quotation marks may be more appropriate in certain contexts. (And in some electronic environments, quotation marks may be more portable or otherwise practical than italics.) In the first example below, italics set off the foreign term, and quotation marks are used for the English. In the second example, quotation marks help to convey the idea of speech.

The Spanish verbs ser and estar are both rendered by “to be.” Many people say “I” even when “me” would be more correct.

So normal usage is to use italics, but if you use quotation marks, then the period goes inside the marks. Thering 22:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just remembered the italics would not copied over. The words; critical, mass, neurobotics, ser and estar, and the letter i in "i in the name" were in italics in the source.Thering 22:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Mesmerism isn't used as a word, it's used as a term. If I were to use it as a word, I'd explicitly refer to it as the word "mesmerism", and not go into detail about it's meaning - like I just did there. --Xu Davella 10:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"When a word or term is not used functionally but is referred to as the word or term itself..."

There's no difference between saying "word" and "term" in this context, because mesmerism is a word which itself comprises a term. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should buy reading lessons. Sorry man, I'm more used to seeing italics in this context because its preferable and ideally, you would normally try to avoid quotation marks. But I can't argue with a manual of style so I wont push it. I'm not too sure why we italicize Anet products, but I guess the reason is because they're Anet products. --Xu Davella 11:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, English just sucks. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, especially once you have to change between the two different sets of spelling and punctuation Thering 22:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)