User talk:Bobit
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Location histories[edit]
I just want to note that we tend to want to keep most lore on GW1 on the GWW, not here. When I said "summarize" I meant shorten and not simply restate everything that happened during GW1 on a different page. There is a huge difference and the summaries you've added are far too long. Konig/talk 03:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Stating everything that happened in GW1 on a single page is a summary - being able to fit an entire game's worth of plot (that's how many hours?) on a single page bad going, as summaries go. Tyria, Cantha, and Elona are all topics that people are going to search, and a brief (and yes, it is brief, since we have entire wikis dedicated to the histories of these places) summary of their histories is what they will be looking for. --Bobit 03:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're missing my point. We don't need to state everything that happened. There is a reason why inter-wiki linking exists. We only detail the essentials in regards to GW1-related lore. Your so called "summaries" are far too long and clutter these pages - people will be looking for histories when looking here, but that's more than they'll likely want and it produces a sensory overload for some folks. Furthermore, you're removing the geography descriptions which are more relevant to the articles than history. Konig/talk 03:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and your other edits are also removing content as well. I don't mind rewording things, and some aspects are better, but don't remove known facts (or for that matter, reword things to create false facts in an attempt to shorten wording). Konig/talk 03:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Are you honestly saying that people are going to be getting sensory overload if they see more than four lines about Cantha on a page when they search for it? The summaries aren't cluttering the pages if there's nothing else we can put on it (although there is plenty - we're just going over the core details of what went down in the first game, not into the details of each of the Emperor's illegitimate children or something). Also, you're the one removing content! After expanding the Tyria (world) page greatly, it was you who then removed everything that'd been expanded upon, including the content that was originally there (complete with a condescending "That's nice, but...", so thanks for that). And now you have the cheek to just completely revert the whole thing, with the claim that I'd been removing content! The intro, in particular (although that's all that was left of the article after your edit) was important, because it really clarifies the nature of the Mists and where Tyria fits into it all, which I always felt has been expressed clumsily in the past. --Bobit 03:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Whoever mentioned anything about four lines? But 22 paragraphs of wall-of-text will diswade people from reading it - it has before, it will again. Hell, I'd have simply shortened it by removing any fluff and unnecessary facts myself if it wasn't so damn foreboding (and I'm an English major and writer! I look at large texts on a near daily basis!). That 22 paragraphs, btw, comes from the "short" Elona page. Let's not talk about what you had on the two Tyria's. It's just unnecessarily overly detailed, we have pages like the Foefire and The Movement of the World so as to not have to go into detail on these events (e.g., everything in the "Contact lost" sections of Elona and Cantha are basically rewordings of the Movement's lore - actually, it looks to me as if they're both exact wordings from the Movement, which is 100% pointless to have the same thing on multiple articles of the wiki). Those articles should be short summaries - if people want to learn more about events then they can click links to read more. It's why templates like {{main}} exist, and why, as I said, we have inter-wiki linking. Konig/talk 03:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, if you're an English major, you should probably get your plurals ("Tyria's?" and spelling "diswade") right. I wouldn't have said anything, but if you're going to throw your credentials around as if that somehow makes your contributions somehow more valid than mine, that's what you should expect. It's funny you should mention the Movement - I've never seen you complain about that page being too long. And when I moved the lore from Tyria to Lore, which is one of those "pages like the Foefire and the Movement" for extended summaries, you complained that it didn't belong there either. The Cantha and Elona pages are short summaries - in each one, we fit an entire campaign's worth of information onto one page. They only became unwieldy when you re-added the geography sections, which just contain information that is re-stated within the text below. Just because you personally disagree doesn't mean you should just revert everything without even attempting to have a discussion; in fact you seem to be reverting or "correcting" every edit you can on the wiki that is lore related. In particular you seem to have a problem with me, having attempted to revert almost every edit I have made in the last 24 hours, and when that is not possible (because I am creating new pages, you know, actually adding to the wiki instead of putting down others' contributions), you have gone out of your way to find something wrong with my edits to change, stopping only to be as patronising as possible in the edit summaries. Many of your summaries have been to the effect of "this is how we do things", or "we don't do things like this", without referring to any discussion in particular, leading me to think that the only person involved in such consensuses is yourself. Take a deep breath, play some GW2, and let someone else play with your toys for a change. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] --Bobit 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Is there even a plural for Tyria? I don't think so. And it was very late (around 1am I think) so yeah, I can misspell sometimes - everyone does, even those who write up the dictionaries can and do. I don't bring up my credentials - I state I'm an English major and a writer to show that I deal with a lot of walls-of-text, nothing more. I'm not saying I'm better than you or anyone else, so don't misunderstand.
- The Movement is a verbatim copy of Anet text, in other words it should be no shorter and no longer than it is because it is verbatim of, as tvtropes would say, the Word of God. The main Lore page isn't a page like the Foefire, which should detail the entire aspects of that one event, but instead an overview of the lore (mostly the history since there's no other proper place for such). As to your "summaries" - you're missing the entire point. We don't need to put the entire campaign's events, or the history prior to the campaigns, on this wiki. As I said multiple times before, we have inter-wiki linking for a reason. All we need to do is link to, for instance gw1:Storyline of Factions; if we talk about a specific event, say the Jade Wind, we can have 2-4 sentences (rather than 3 paragraphs, which you turned into an entire section) and a link to gw1:Jade Wind. Done and done. It's not that hard to understand.
- As to my reverting you - it's because I disagree with your changes. Some are superfluous, some removed lore, and on rare occasions you had reworded things into becoming false information. I didn't fully revert you, I haven't touched your changes to, say, the dungeons. I merely removed what I thought was unnecessary changes - and in that I mean that I view that your edits made them worse. We have opposing opinions, obviously, but the bigger issue atm seems to be communication errors. Konig/talk 19:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Edit: and just to note, Jon's edits to yours are closer to what I'm talking about in regards to summaries. For instance, compare this to this. Though I would argue that further edits (mostly reformatting those sections) is in order still on that particular article. Konig/talk 19:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, if you're an English major, you should probably get your plurals ("Tyria's?" and spelling "diswade") right. I wouldn't have said anything, but if you're going to throw your credentials around as if that somehow makes your contributions somehow more valid than mine, that's what you should expect. It's funny you should mention the Movement - I've never seen you complain about that page being too long. And when I moved the lore from Tyria to Lore, which is one of those "pages like the Foefire and the Movement" for extended summaries, you complained that it didn't belong there either. The Cantha and Elona pages are short summaries - in each one, we fit an entire campaign's worth of information onto one page. They only became unwieldy when you re-added the geography sections, which just contain information that is re-stated within the text below. Just because you personally disagree doesn't mean you should just revert everything without even attempting to have a discussion; in fact you seem to be reverting or "correcting" every edit you can on the wiki that is lore related. In particular you seem to have a problem with me, having attempted to revert almost every edit I have made in the last 24 hours, and when that is not possible (because I am creating new pages, you know, actually adding to the wiki instead of putting down others' contributions), you have gone out of your way to find something wrong with my edits to change, stopping only to be as patronising as possible in the edit summaries. Many of your summaries have been to the effect of "this is how we do things", or "we don't do things like this", without referring to any discussion in particular, leading me to think that the only person involved in such consensuses is yourself. Take a deep breath, play some GW2, and let someone else play with your toys for a change. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] --Bobit 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Whoever mentioned anything about four lines? But 22 paragraphs of wall-of-text will diswade people from reading it - it has before, it will again. Hell, I'd have simply shortened it by removing any fluff and unnecessary facts myself if it wasn't so damn foreboding (and I'm an English major and writer! I look at large texts on a near daily basis!). That 22 paragraphs, btw, comes from the "short" Elona page. Let's not talk about what you had on the two Tyria's. It's just unnecessarily overly detailed, we have pages like the Foefire and The Movement of the World so as to not have to go into detail on these events (e.g., everything in the "Contact lost" sections of Elona and Cantha are basically rewordings of the Movement's lore - actually, it looks to me as if they're both exact wordings from the Movement, which is 100% pointless to have the same thing on multiple articles of the wiki). Those articles should be short summaries - if people want to learn more about events then they can click links to read more. It's why templates like {{main}} exist, and why, as I said, we have inter-wiki linking. Konig/talk 03:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Are you honestly saying that people are going to be getting sensory overload if they see more than four lines about Cantha on a page when they search for it? The summaries aren't cluttering the pages if there's nothing else we can put on it (although there is plenty - we're just going over the core details of what went down in the first game, not into the details of each of the Emperor's illegitimate children or something). Also, you're the one removing content! After expanding the Tyria (world) page greatly, it was you who then removed everything that'd been expanded upon, including the content that was originally there (complete with a condescending "That's nice, but...", so thanks for that). And now you have the cheek to just completely revert the whole thing, with the claim that I'd been removing content! The intro, in particular (although that's all that was left of the article after your edit) was important, because it really clarifies the nature of the Mists and where Tyria fits into it all, which I always felt has been expressed clumsily in the past. --Bobit 03:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and your other edits are also removing content as well. I don't mind rewording things, and some aspects are better, but don't remove known facts (or for that matter, reword things to create false facts in an attempt to shorten wording). Konig/talk 03:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're missing my point. We don't need to state everything that happened. There is a reason why inter-wiki linking exists. We only detail the essentials in regards to GW1-related lore. Your so called "summaries" are far too long and clutter these pages - people will be looking for histories when looking here, but that's more than they'll likely want and it produces a sensory overload for some folks. Furthermore, you're removing the geography descriptions which are more relevant to the articles than history. Konig/talk 03:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
1RR[edit]
Technically, I didn't break it. The first was a partial revert - an edit that brought back some elements of your change while keeping others. Same for my more recent edit, which again is an attempt to compromise your edits, and mine. Which aren't technically reverts. Konig/talk 03:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- So you managed to avoid a breach of etiquette on a technicality? Congratulations, you should be proud of yourself. --Bobit 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Regions[edit]
So, at some point in the past we reorganized the categories, and as part of that we removed the designation of "region". Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Projects/Category_reorganization fyi. --JonTheMon 13:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
