User talk:Konig Des Todes/Archives14

Abusefilter #27

You'll have noticed that the filter rejected your one word edit to Malchor the Sculptor since Santax was one of the last editors to that page. I expect you'll bump into this a few times since you move in the same circles, but if you think that the change is worthy, then put a note on the talk page + someone will review + make the edit for you. Thanks. -Chieftain Alex 17:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed, and I recall the filter set up, and though it should be changed to Church of Grenth (because Church of Dwayna is simply incorrect - Rhie is a priestess of Grenth), I rather stopped caring for being so precise anymore. I'm just here to empty out the 1,000+ screenshots of dialogues and models from my folder really, if that much. I don't want to run into another conflict here and my general interest in GW has been on the decline as of late. I'm literally going to limit myself to dialogues, image uploading, and making new pages if I deem such necessary (_maybe_ small changes like that, if I'm not filtered out and I feel like it). Konig 18:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there actually is a Church of Grenth; unless there is some undocumented dialogue it has never been referred to by anyone. Meanwhile, a "Church of Dwayna" has been mentioned by Alesia Baptiste, Acolyte Rockhammer, and of course the Prophecies manuscripts entry for the Mouvelian calendar. –Santax (talk · contribs) 21:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

During the human personal storyline if you chose to seek out Alastia Crow's ghost, you can talk to Josir at the end of the step before Speaker of the Dead in which he will say "Priestess Rhie is greatly favored by Grenth. She can pierce the veil and call Alastia back. It may be dangerous, but we'll learn a great deal." (not sure if this is on wiki, I got a screenshot of the line from waaaay back). Josir will also say in the cinematic before: "I have a better suggestion. Even if Alastia Crow is dead, she can still be helpful. I know an accomplished Priestess of Grenth who could summon the pirate's spirit." On top of that, you can ask Rhie in the instance itself "You're a priestess of Grenth? What does that mean?" and in the same dialogue tree she says "I am his foremost priestess. I work with the Priory, and one day I hope to purify his ancient temple in Orr." In the story step Cathedral of Silence (story) she say "Grenth is Dwayna's son, but only half-god. His father was a mortal sculptor, but that is one of the greatest secrets of our church."

These all explicitly point to Rhie being a follower - and the foremost priest - of Grenth, not Dwayna, and she says our church, indicating that there is indeed a "church of Grenth". It may not be called Church of Grenth (note capitalization of church) like the Church of Dwayna I believe is, but such a thing exists.

It would be surprising, in fact, if each god didn't have their own church - especially since Kormir has a monastery dedicated to her. Konig 21:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverting Yourself?

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Durmand_Priory&curid=409&diff=848201&oldid=848200&rcid=940636

You removed the line, "Compared to the other choices, the Priory story line includes solving more puzzles and mysteries.". That was a paraphrase of your original edit, "Joining the Priory will involve solving some puzzles and mysteries, although no less combat.". So, in effect, you reverted yourself. I thought you might be as amused as I was. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny, but wrong. I moved the entire Personal Story section up from the bottom. The line was added by Alad in May '13. Konig 20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Unique NPCs with generic names

I decided to rename the pages for the unique Veteran Risen Wraith, Noble, and Abomination to have (event boss) after the NPC's name rather than just (boss) or (event). It's less ambiguous/confusing and uses the same format as the more recently made Champion Toxic Hypnoss (event boss) page. -Somohexual (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Orrian Runestones

Thanks for pointing me to the Orrian runes :). Unfortunately though, it seems to be just random symbols scrambled together. Titus The Third 13:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"The Reaper’s Bounty" by John Smith...

Does it deserve/qualify for a Short Story entry here on the Wiki - in spite of it's "weird" publication? Here's a suggestion.
The concept art is thrown in to create some relevant space + visualization. I feel the first four are justified (as justified they can be without the author inserting them himself), while the last two is ? ...as you can see, I couldn't find anything 100% suitable here. Titus The Third 00:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't really take it as canon. It felt more like fan-fiction written by a dev, the only purpose of which was to give hints to creating the Reaper of Souls. IMHO, if it gets put on the wiki, it should be placed on the weapon's article's trivia section to denote how it was found out. Konig 01:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that it could easily be placed on the wiki as part of Category:Tales, but I wouldn't put it on Short Story and I'd put a disclaimer note on the article. Konig 02:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I see your point. As much as it was mainly story-styled hints, he did eventually come up with some interesting backstory on Zomorros. The last chapter seem to tell us that Zomorros hasn't always been tied up to the Mystic Forge, but had this "gift" even before he was. But as you said, it can't be taken canon just from the forum posts.

What do you mean by "Faolain's Dusk" btw? Titus The Third 10:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You placed her beneath the Night firstborn. She was born in the cycle of Dusk. We don't know who the third Night firstborn is. Konig 18:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I see :) Source? I can't find any other info than that "the two women emerged together from the Pale Tree" (Edge of Destiny). That was why I put her up together with Caithe in my table. Titus The Third 21:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Looked through the history of the wiki article because I was certain I had put it there before. [1] And oh look! See who removed it from the wiki? >.> It was for reasons like this that I was so "harsh" on maintaining pages that often resulted in "reverting" things. *sigh* Well, whatever, I've long lost my interest in helping folks who just yell at me for preventing accurate information's removal. Konig 04:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) For the record, the firstborn-cycle situation is thus:

• Dawn: Aife
• Noon: Niamh, Riannoc (not 100% sure)
• Dusk: Kahedins, Faolain, Dagonet (not 100% sure)
• Night: Malomedies, Caithe

And there's really no indication of where Trahearne lies, though my guess is Dawn (making Aife, who says she was born when the sun first rose on the race, the 5th sylvari; second Dawn - Trahearne would just be born after sunrise on the first day). Dagonet is completely a mold cut of the Dusk description, but I don't _think_ it's ever been said what his cycle is, and Riannoc is the same - a warrior through and through thus likely Noon, but I don't think it's ever been stated.

Thus the three unknowns would be in Dawn, Noon, and Night (most likely). Konig 04:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I started making some guesses on my own before I saw this comment now. But seems we came to the same conclusions :)

I would say that these "guesses" are pretty canon, considering they made the characters while the "Cycle idea" was still very central. It doesn't seem to be that central to them anymore, but yeah: it's pretty clear which cycles the Firstborn belong to. And Trahearne would be the "great diplomat of Dawn" who was able to unite everyone into the Pact and trollbind the players with his wonderful charisma (haha :P). Titus The Third 13:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Lore question

Is there a reference to when it became known to every Tyrian this last dragon's name was Mordremoth? – Valento ^msg 14:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a forum post by Bobby Stein explaining that the Priory and thus Pact already had this knowledge - it was just never brought up to the players, and the reason the PC knew in Episode 2 was because s/he was Commander of the Pact.

It was very poor delivery and they admitted such, but there you go. "It was always known." Konig 18:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Late reply is late, but thank you! (I had forgotten about this question) – Valento ^msg 16:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

your thoughts on a theory I just came up with

If Livia is still alive, could it also be possible that Evennia is as well? and that she is actually E? feel free to poke holes.- Zesbeer 07:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Theoretically, any character from gw1 whom we were not told is dead could be alive. The thing is, however, such likelihood is very, very slim. Ogden is still around because he's stone and no longer ages; Livia is around, supposedly, because of her studying the Scepter of Orr and Orrian magic in general. Last we knew of Evennia, she was in Ascalon and likely had a plot to her disappearance. Since we don't know that plot, just that she disappeared, she could have been killed offscreen by Adelbern (directly or by his order) for all we know.

You have as great a chance of being correct as claiming Jurah is still around somewhere and is, in fact, E.

IMO, the only heroes from gw1 that's likely to still be around would be Razah, M.O.X., Livia, and Ogden. Most NF heroes have unknown fates while most EN heroes' fates are semi-known (Vekk, Jora, Pyre, and Gwen are all either dead or treated as dead). No hero, or henchman, or other allied NPC, gave a hint at dealing with powerful magic besides Livia. So I doubt that they'd suddenly go 'she's alive!' with Evennia when last we knew the likelihood was more of 'she's dead'. Konig 16:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

New categories created

← moved to Template talk:Lore discrepancy

P.S. Totally forgot to say: hope you feel better soon! :)

Formatting guidelines

I changed your formatting in Grawnk#Dialogue to conform to the formatting guidelines. The current formatting is almost the same as the formatting before your edit. I don't want any edit war, so I thought I would explain it here. Hyareil (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've been meaning to ask you about this, Konig. Is there a specific reason why you prefer the "old" dialogue formatting or is it just how you're used to formatting the dialogue? --Ventriloquist 13:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Was not 'old' last time I checked - in fact, that's the newer format (go ahead, check the history). The general formatting page just never got updated from what I see.
2. I find the format I use to be easier to read - I find the alternative (not 'old' let alone 'older') method easier to find and separate player lines while also not resulting in the dialogue tree reaching into far right field and becoming tiny sets of lines; I don't care as much as the bold but the indentation should remain as I've been editing - it's why newer formats than what Hyareil linked (again, go ahead, check the history of changes) is with fewer indentations. I also find the current story instance dialogue format to be eye-bleeding too; Secrets in the Earth looks *FAR* better than Return to Camp Resolve and Into the Labyrinth - perhaps ironically for the reason that people preferred the super-indentation and italicizing version of dialogue on NPC articles. Konig 19:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The formatting on Secrets in the Earth is excessive. Italics and bold should be used when necessary to offset a subset of text from the surrounding text, marking it as different in some way. There is never a reason to use both italics and bold without a baseline for them to be offset from. The style used on Into the Labyrinth is much better in this regard - NPC lines are plain, player lines are in italics, and NPC/player identifiers are bold; nothing excessive there. —Dr Ishmael 22:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ish, and frankly, all of your opinions are a complete opposite of mine, heh. I find that the current style is better as it is almost identical to the in-game version, much easier to format, at least for me, and it doesn't have any over-the-top accentuation. --Ventriloquist 23:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I rather disagree on the formatting being excessive - it is no more convoluted than the sections-upon-sections and excessive indentation of the other articles I linked, with the bolding to denote new placement of dialogue at every point plausible - whereas Secrets in the Earth utilizes italized and only for groupings rather than each individual line. Regardless of the formatting, anyways, the outcome is far more legible.

And besides, the apparently "new" (it isn't) version being "much easier to format" is not true at all. They're effectively the same quality of formatting difficulty, it's just doing it slightly differently. And the indentation is particularly annoying... and the sub-titling with ; for every separate dialogue and scene...

In the end, the main points that bother me of the "new" formatting is the excessive indenting (ask your self: does that help in any way?) and sub-heading each individual dialogue line (makes sense for NPC articles, but on story instances? We do not need 6 separate sections beneath == Dialogues == that each has a different sub-section (lines beginning with ;) for each individual scene, cienmatic, and NPC - or naming the NPC for dialogue boxes every line when it's the same NPC each successive line!). Konig 00:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

...And now you changed formatting for Grawnk's dialogue. Again. "Unnecessary excessive indentation". When was it decided that this style is "excessive indentation"? Hyareil (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Very first thing I said the first time, is when and where. Discussed extensively on the talk page there. The article you linked is out of date compared to the one I linked by about a full year, leading people to think the old is in fact the new, incidentally. Konig 01:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The page you linked claims that its goal is "to decide on a unified format for dialogues" and lists several variants of the formatting. I understand that the purpose of that project is to discuss and to pick one correct style of formatting dialogues. However, I don't see anything there that would show that the agreement was achieved. Hence my question. If there is no such agreement, then we should stick to general formatting since it's the current "default". Hyareil (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus on the talk page about the indenting shouldn't be +1 every single line, but +1 every NPC and PC combination (though there was argument on which style). In the end the outcome was "any of these is acceptable" because a consensus couldn't be reach. And that includes the so-called default not being a consensus. There is no general formatting in reality, that was just what one person put up which sparked the discussion. In reality, people put the dialogue up in a myriad of different ways. Konig 02:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Is your only issue the indention or the style itself? I don't really care all that much about indention, I just think it looks cleaner with more spaces - but that's debatable. My issue is with the style, specifically - the emphasis put on the text in the dialogue. There should never be a reason for both italic and bold text in the same text box; it is tedious to read, looks messy (subjective) and puts emphasis on the less-relevant parts of the dialogue (player response, mainly.)

Konig is right, there has been a ton of discussions regarding the dialogue format, it changed a lot throughout the course of months and years and we never really reached any sort of consensus regarding it, nor have we accepted a single format. Like I mentioned before, if your problem is only the indention of the style, that can easily be tweaked to make it more user-friendly. --Ventriloquist 09:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If there was no consensus, why Konig's version should be the one that articles are changed to? Grawnk's dialogue was fine the way it was, before any edits made by Konig. If it's just a matter of personal preference, then I prefer the previous formatting and I'm going to continue using it in my future edits (unless this style of formatting is considered wrong - then I will switch to the correct one). Hyareil (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Pale Tree physiology

Thanks for Sylvari page clarification. I knew what I had written was a little primitive, however. I do consider myself to know a lot about gw in general but theres a point where I stop caring about all the copious amounts of lore and fine detail and would rather do something else lol, but having said that I really appreciate something taking the time to improve on the contribution rather than delete it and say 'no wrong', in a non constructive manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Puk (talk • contribs).

"Silly calendar syncing"

I don't think they have dropped it; the Story Journal entry for Point of No Return says that it occurred in 1328 AE. Incidentally, I think the exact dates should probably be re-added to the Living World Season 2 page. I know you don't like them and think they break lore or whatever, but it doesn't make them any less important to document. Readers should have an idea of the kind of timeframe that the story is happening over. –Santax (talk · contribs) 11:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

They don't give exact dates on the LW, and it seems clear to me that everything in each update doesn't happen on a Tuesday (or the same day per update). That makes it near impossible - if not actually impossible - to determine exact dates. Especially when they outright say "the Twisted Marionette happened one time in lore" or when they give such heavy hints to subsequent releases being closer than 2 weeks (Escape/Battle for LA is implied via wording to be 2 days, imo). Konig 12:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with you Konig that it's a bad idea. I think it was a wonderful and necessary change to sync years, but it is unfortunately poorly executed. When that's said...

I wanted to add exact dates myself to begin with, but quickly realised I had no clue what the exact date is. Nowhere have ANet mentioned that 1st of January aligns with SotZ day 1. Even if we'd known how many days there are in each season, it wouldn't add up 100% with the in-game storyline. Some episode cliffhangers leads me to think there's no break between certain episodes (at least not 2-week breaks, or a lot more in some cases).

I think ANet knows this, and this is clearly why they only add year themselves, not the exact days. If they did, it wouldn't make much sense. The pacing would not be good at all. I imagine the in-game storyline takes place only within a selected timeframe of the year. The rest of the year is not being shown to us (kinda like any movie: they don't show you every second, people sleeping for 8 hours etc.).

In other words: no, please don't add the exact date. I do however wish ANet did start to add specific dates in the story journal (and not in sync with our months). They never needed to change Tyria's 360 days to sync years, but I don't think they realised that before later on... Titus The Third 13:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The All

I'm sure that with your enormous number of watched lore pages you won't have missed it, but Paddymew has asked a question about your interpretation of the cinematic. Thanks. -Chieftain Alex 21:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've actually unwatched a great deal of articles due to the problems with Santax all but destroying my desire to edit the wikis. This, however, I would have seen. Thanks anyways, though. Konig 21:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Speeeeculaaaatioooooon"

WHAT!? That is SO not speculation. Definately true, definately! Bloodstone Caves expansion confirmed! xD Titus 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's facing the wrong direction, and the door was rectangular with bloodstone inscriptions, not asuran! /grumbles Konig 23:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the back door. Made by Gadd (or Vekk) after he found it back in '78 :D Titus 10:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Eye of Thundera...

"Sight beyond sight" just sounded better to me than the previous iteration, which was "blindfolding." I assume they have some ability to perceive their surroundings beyond normal eyesight, but hey, they might just be stumbling around bumping into things for all I know. :P - Felix Omni 02:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The blindfold is only part of Rytlock's armor, which is becoming the "iconic Revenant armor" but is hardly a mandatory thing as far as we're informed. Proclaiming that blindfolds are a huge deal for revenants is like proclaiming that they were for necromancers just because they were revealed with a charr wearing light T3 armor. Konig 02:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The blindfold (or similar obscuring headgear) has appeared on every single Revenant they've shown us thus far, as well as in the class concept art itself. I think it's safe to assume that it is a thematic element of the class, though I have no doubt it can be hidden in-game like any other headgear. - Felix Omni 02:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

They've also used the exact same armor, in its entirety on every single revenant they've shown us thus far. One armor set does not create a precedent. One piece of data does not create a correlation. It would be like tossing four exotics in the Mystic Forge for the first time ever, and getting a precursor, then proclaiming that the MF gives a 100% chance of a precursor. One piece of data is insufficient. Konig 02:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How's this for confirming blindfolds are relevant to Revenants specifically? They're not wearing the same armor! - Felix Omni 16:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• rolls eyes* Same blindfold, same armor. Show me multiple revenants in-game using different blindfolds and I'll be convinced. Better yet, show me the biography option for revenants choosing between 2-3 blindfolds like a necro chooses facepaint or a mesmer chooses masks or a ranger chooses pets. THEN I'll be convinced. Until then, it is a subjective connection, and the wiki should not denote subjectivity. Konig 21:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Now that it's no longer speculation, I will admit that the blindfold is a thing for revenants. And for similar reasons as the ritualists - who wore a blindfold to see the spirit threads in the world, whereas revenants use them to block out the physical world to focus on the Mists (spirit world). Konig 16:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Scarlet Briar, a revised timeline

Care to take a look at the timeline I put up for Scarlet? If anyone can point out things that doesn't add up, or things missed, it's you :) Titus 12:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather avoid that abomination. Konig 16:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm.. all in all, I think it added up quite nicely in the end (though it was a hell to get there). Though there are still a few anomalies, I wouldn't go as far as to call it an abomination anymore. Titus 19:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The timeline was just a tenth of what makes that... thing... an abomination. And anomaly? More like lore discrepency. Steam creatures were never sent by any Tyrian hand to Brisban Wildlands. Tenagg has some words for you. Konig

Not sure if I follow. What did you mean with "Steam creatures ... Brisban Wildlands"? Now, I'm not here to defend or trivialize all the things inconsistent with Scarlet. Rather the opposite: I made the timeline because I wanted to add Category:Lore discrepancies tags. But in the end, I found considerably less conflicting info than I had imagined. Maybe you were referring to the implementation of Scarlet as a character in-game when you say "that abomination"? In that case I would understand a bit more where you're coming from. If not, maybe you could point me in the right direction for conflicting info I've missed? Titus 06:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In Episode 1 with the hologram journal in Prosperity, Scarlet mentions unleashing her Steam creatures in Lornar's Pass and Brisban Wildlands. But there aren't Steam creatures in Brisban sent by her - there might be some that spawn from the Thaumanova Reactor fallout, but that - like the others - isn't her doing (well, the explosion is, but not sending those creatures there); the only other case, which is definite, is during the asura Infinity Ball storyline, but those steam creatures are from the possible future and made by the possible future asura PC (which is another error - Angel claimed that in that possible future reality the steam creatures were made by powerhungry future asura PC; issue: they already existed so it couldn't be a possible future but a complete alternate reality, however, it isn't an alternate reality, but a possible future, so says 2(+?) interviews and the game itself).

• That* is what I meant. Konig 06:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

that whole thing about "blanking before move..."

We don't have to do it anymore since the upgrade to SMW 2.0. It was only really necessary for pages with #subobject calls anyway, which object pages almost never have. —Dr Ishmael 23:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Didn't know, and had been told to do so for all pages in the past - in retrospect, probably meant as a "just in case". Konig 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry we took so long to tell you to stop. :) —Dr Ishmael 02:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Havroun Grechen

--Relyk ~ talk < 22:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. I wonder if the same can be done for affiliations? ;) Konig 01:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if that would be a good idea, since some NPCs are affiliated with over 3 organizations, and it would crowd the infobox IMO. Louise 1:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Only NPC I know with more than 2 affiliations (aside from sub-groups like Godforged in Flame Legion) are the racial sympathy leads who are part of your order and the Pact (thus 4 in total but 3 change and thus I don't think is worth documenting). Honestly I'd just use it for those who are in Pact and another group (orders, lionguard, racial armies, etc.) and non-generic ones at that. Konig 01:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I just think it wouldn't be that useful. What difference does it make if we add the category manually at the end of the page instead of inside the infobox? Louise 2:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Same difference it made for why Relyk added the alt races - to denote it in infobox. See why he thinks it matters. Konig 03:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I still doesn't really understand the point of all this. Doesn't it yields the same results. That you put it in the infobox of manually, the NPCs will appear in all the categories that you write in, doesn't it? Louise 4:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Besides categorization, the infobox also performs semantic annotation. —Dr Ishmael 04:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Temporary content versus historical

Hi, I noticed you changed two events from historical to temporary. This seems to put these no longer available events into the {{area events}} generated list. Is this desirable/intended? --Spionida (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't think so, but that's what the temporary template was meant to be used for. Unless things had changed while I wasn't looking... Konig 03:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the temporary template i meant to be used for such circumstances, but it does not set the historical parameter or the newer status parameter. Personally, on the rare occasions that I have used the temporary template, I have added historical = true or, more recently, status = historical. --Spionida (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the {{area events}} template should be adjusted to account for not showing temporary. I don't know, or how to for that matter. --Spionida (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't like using the temporary template and setting historical to y because the double box looks bad, IMO. But I think the issue is that area events reads directly from categories, but the temporary template doesn't remove an event from said categories whereas the historical parameter does. Personally, I really don't like removing historical events from the categories. So I think the whole system needs a look at. But like you, I don't really know how such coding works in the fine print. Konig 03:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully one of the coding geniuses (flattery helps) will see this conversation and come up with a solution. :) --Spionida (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

{Arena events} works on a semantic query, it doesn't "read from the categories" (that's what the old DPL would have done). The query selects only pages where Property:Has availability is set to "Current," which is handled by {{infobox status}} through the status= parameter of the infobox. I suppose the problem is that {infobox status} doesn't support "temporary" as an input. Most of that stuff was designed by Relyk and Alex, so I wouldn't feel right mucking about with it (at least not this late at night). —Dr Ishmael 04:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

maybe the infobox status needs to allow a "temporary" choice, which does not throw up the historical banner, but marks the Property:Has availability as not current? --Spionida (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that sounds most reasonable, though it would require going through a lot of old LW articles. And I do mean a lot... I have a rough idea on how it should function so I'll give it a shot later if no one else who has better understandings goes at it. Konig 04:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) In my opinion, temporary content should not be appearing in {{area events}}. The area events template currently filters for only events marked as "current". Hence any page with temporary content should choose a different availability ... likely "historical" is the most fitting.

The problem when we were doing the {{infobox status}} stuff with regard to the temporary template is that this template required multiple parameters... so we can't really just slot in a one word option like I did for "historical", "future" etc. Thus I think keeping the temporary template separate from the infobox is the only reasonable option.

Use {{temporary}} separately above the infobox - I've just coded {{infobox status}} to mark any temporary content page as historical. -Chieftain Alex 11:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to have done the trick on the pages that I was looking at. They no longer appear in the {{area event}} list. --Spionida (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

PoIs in zone navs

IIRC, you were the one who argued against them because they would greatly expand the size of the navbox (for standard maps, anyway - Claw Island is special) without adding much value. Something about how tasks and skill challenges are useful to list because their articles include details on how to reach and/or complete them, but all you have to do for a PoI is be close to it. It may have been someone else besides you, but I definitely remember that being the argument. —Dr Ishmael 14:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah was thinking I might've argued something like that, be it alone or in agreement with another, but it seems that since their creation and now their use has been expanded greatly, being placed on PoI articles and the like. Plus, over a year opinions change. :P They're already bloated so now they're bloated and incomplete, used on articles that they don't even link to. So if all that's going to be done, might as well go the full mile than just 80% of the way. Konig 16:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinions can... change??? Don't tell that to a politician. :P —Dr Ishmael 17:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Fun fact: I took one course of political science and decided that I would be a bad politician. I'll give you three guesses as to why. Konig 17:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Another fun fact: I am a municipal politician. And believe me: politicians' opinions do change; but for some they seemingly change every kitten day, while for others: never kitten at all... Titus 01:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Titus, their opinions didn't change. The blackmail and bribery on them make them claim different things every day. Konig 01:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hehe. Well, it's not all that bad here, thankfully. Norway is a beautiful country to be a part-time politician in. Normal people with normal jobs and average salaries dominate the political landscape, rather than the big investors and profiteers - campaining balloons and fireworks. Though I'm afraid we as well have begun moving towards that direction... Titus 02:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Elder Dragons waking order

You justified the revert w/ "However plausible, we have no indication that the orb sequence is waking order". Then I have some comments:

1) Do we have any indication that the Deep Sea Dragon awoke between Zhaitan and Kralkatorrik, like the text now implies?

2) If we do, than the summary table should be changed, as I did before self-reverting.

3) If we don't, why is this version "more correct" or better than "mine"? Steve1 (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Originally we were told that the Elder Dragons woke in approximately 50 year increments. There's 100 years between Zhaitan and Kralkatorrik; Mordremoth would be an oddball because he got a breakfast in bed that the others didn't. The Movement of the World#Dragons also talk about the Elder Dragons in their original (implied for DSD) order - this was pre-release lore, and during the writing of that Jormag and Zhaitan (not yet named) were reversed in their order of waking (thus the order indicated would have been Primordus -> Zhaitan -> Jormag -> DSD -> Kralkatorrik; for release, this was changed to Primordus -> Jormag -> Zhaitan -> DSD -> Kralkatorrik to all our knowledge). And thirdly on the matter, the first influence felt by creatures in the Unending Ocean was ~50 years ago, placing him ~50 years between Zhaitan and Kralkatorrik; the DSD is said to have woken in the deepest parts of the seas while the krait lived in the deepest trenches and it was the krait and quaggan that first felt his influence and the quaggan felt the DSD's influence ~50 years prior.

So while it seems this was another subliminal change to not-quite-confirmed lore, we haven't been told that the orbs do indeed mean waking order (which now seems far more likely given that we know the dark green orb is Zhaitan and not the black-to-lime one - presuming, of course, that the Durmand Priory is correct with their ceiling design).

2) The table is not representing waking order, but order of orbs.

3) Simply because the DSD entry doesn't - or at least, shouldn't - depict when it woke up. Implies, yes, but does not state. If it helps, the paragraph could be moved to the bottom with a denotation of "we don't know when, just that its first influence was felt by the krait and quaggan about 50 years ago" in some form.

I hope that answers your questions to enough sufficiency. Konig 18:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I moved the DSD paragraph up again, but tried to reword it so that it doesn't appear as a fact. Also cited the sources for that presumption, and I felt it was important to add that the first known influence didn't happen before 1207 AE. Does this seem ok to you Konig? Titus 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Last time I checked, 1325 minus 50 is 1275, not 1207. Where do people get 1207 from? Not the first time I've seen folks claiming that for when the DSD had its first known influence, but that was 12 years before Zhaitan rose, and the DSD' first known influence was ~50 years *after* Zhaitan rose. I'd rather the DSD get mentioned last if we want to fiddle about with mentions being order of whatever because if we do that then there is no right. Either you go with orb order or you go with the historical order that The Movement of the World made, which puts the DSD as forth, not second. Konig 21:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Okay, seems that 1207 came from a typo of my own making. Odd how that happened, not sure how. Konig 21:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

probably quick maths + a typo on 1270. -Chieftain Alex 21:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds likely. Konig 21:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. Much appreciated. Steve1 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

druids

Why did you go and move that category? Category names are supposed to be plural (or collective). —Dr Ishmael 18:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Because putting Druid in the organization parameter in the NPC infobox made it a singular category. Seems to be the same for all Category:Organizations. Which makes sense (Category:White Mantles or Category:Consortiums is silly). Druid isn't a race, so I don't know why it was denoted as such. An issue that remains, though, is that it links to the specialization, and going to the correct article would result in a [[:Category:Druid (group)]]. If you can fix it feel free to, but at least this is closer to accurate. Konig 18:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If that's all it was, you should've just posted on the infobox talk page. Fixed.

The difference is in the organization's name. Some of them use an abstract concept as their name and have to use an extra word to name a member (e.g. "the Arcane Eye", "an Arcane Eye agent"), while others name a member with a singular form and the group with a plural (e.g. "the Aetherblades", "an Aetherblade"). —Dr Ishmael 19:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WTH??

You've gone and reverted most of my hard work yesterday stated "Most of this was properly formatted already", which is wrong as I following the Dialogue formatting guidelines exactly to CORRECTLY format the articles, care to explain? --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 01:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Quotes and Dialogues is the up-to-date format style and should be the one followed - it is linked as the primary article for the section you linked. There should be no italicizing for voiced text. The one you linked is, while the more direct-to-find one isn't always kept up-to-date - it's also only talking about the most generic situations, and not all situations. I've been in the process of standardizing story instance formatting, which includes working on things not brought up on either, so it too isn't 100% up-to-date - and thanks for the reminder that it needs to be updated. Konig 01:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Nav

Then Make a Dragon Nav that covers Elder Dragons and Dragon Champions. It's obvious that this will be needed. --69.249.29.124 23:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you know how many dragon champions there are in the game? And that ignores lore. Dragon champion refers to more than just the dragon-shaped creatures. Besides, we have a category for the job, a nav is just redundancy that overfills the articles with links. Konig 23:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add that the category only lists confirmed or obvious dragon champions - if we were to add other strong candidates, we'd have at least eighteen other figures - fifteen being for Zhaitan from Orr/the Personal Story - for a grand total of 43 entries and the list will only grow. Can you imagine that in a nav, with or without the Elder Dragons and dragon minion types? Konig 00:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

NPC Dialogue Subpages

Hi Konig, I noticed you deleted all the forwarding links on the Marjory Delaqua/dialogue page. At the end of S1 an effort was made (largely by me, despite advertising on Projects hub and Request for comment pages) to standardize the dialogue subpages. In the middle of S2 when it became clear the dialogue was occurring entirely behind instances, I made a little update on the issues going forward if that pattern continued.

If we're going to make your change we should do it across all NPC dialogue subpages. However, my plan was to see how S3 goes. If they model it precisely after S2 in its lack of in-world dialogue, removing the forwarding links seems like a fair discussion to have. They could end up splitting the difference between S1 and S2 for S3, however, and in that case I'd like the dialogue archive pages to be as uniform as possible. Removing the links also makes archiving the dialogue pages by season a little clunky - we're left with a S2 archive page with one entry or a S2&3 combo page.

It really all hinges on the utility of the dialogue subpage, which I'd love to hear your thoughts on. They started out as a place to hub release-specific non-instanced ambient dialogue and text quotes. Even then, they would also forward you on to the dialogue section of the instance. When I found them in S1, they became a place for me to retrace the story from that character's perspective. Without the sections pointing to relevant living world episodes, the dialogue pages seem to insinuate that the NPC had no dialogue or that editors have abandoned the page to the average reader who doesn't follow behind the scenes wiki reasoning.

Since the Living World Involvement section is growing so long (the end of S3 will likely cause the section to take up almost a full page for main characters like Marjory if we assume a similar length to S2), my thought was that we'd end up having to re-evaluate or reformat that section and that perhaps it would roll in nicely with the dialogue archive pages. I'd be happy to even summarize the NPC's involvement in each episode, which is what I always thought the LWI section should ideally include. Some NPC pages have a little summary under their main paragraph that deals with their Living World plot - but usually they do not stay anywhere near updated (see: Taimi) and my understanding was that this space was for generic facts and main-campaign(s) involvement. Heck, I've even been told by an editor that the NPC dialogue subpages should never have been made to begin with and that the ambient dialogue should have been attached to location pages, in his opinion. But they're here, so I've been trying to keep them uniform, up-to-date and useful.

On a related note, the Dialogue section on NPC pages bothers me, as well. The dialogue is often leftover from old releases and without a lot of context clues (like Taimi's current quote) it becomes difficult to archive them properly. Furthermore, now that most dialogue is instanced, the section is obsolete. There are a lot of intersecting issues I don't feel comfortable deciding alone and that may even turn out to be non-issues depending on S3's format. So I've been waiting before really pressuring people to respond to my concerns.

For now, I'm reverting the change for uniformity's sake, at least until we can have a chat about all this. I'm excited that someone with Opinions might be interested in discussing the situation since it often feels like I'm wandering around bothering random editors about it or talking at a wall on a talk page, haha. -Kymtastic (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We have never bothered documenting personal story instance dialogues on NPC articles (at least by format). While I understand why it was done for S1's historical dialogues (we were still trying to figure out what to do with all that dialogue then), in retrospect I think they should be treated like personal story instance dialogue. Same goes for S2 and even HoT and S3 which will most likely be formatted like S2 - story told in both open and instanced world, but with main characters in instances only.

As you said, with S1 the dialogue subpages became a place to retrace a character's involvement in S1. But we have the "Story involvement" section on NPC articles which denote their instances now (we didn't always before because, as I said, we were still trying to figure out what to do with everything - there's a *lot* of S1 stuff that's documented improperly). But we don't need this for S2 as that retracing is possible via the Story involvement section now. I would also note that some of the S1 redirecting aren't to instances but instead events (e.g., Kiel with her Southsun arcs).

Regarding "the dialogue pages seem to insinuate that the NPC had no dialogue or that editors have abandoned the page to the average reader who doesn't follow behind the scenes wiki reasoning." - I would hope that the lines at the top of the subpages would clarify the purpose of the subpages, that they're to denote the open world dialogue. If it currently doesn't, then we need to reword that one-sentence introduction so that it does, as that is the entire purpose of that introductory line.

Regarding story involvement size: the thought had crossed my mind too, and I figured going the route GWW went with NPC locations for henchmen, e.g., gww:Mhenlo. Basically use the sub-categorizing of storyline (Personal Story, Season 1, Season 2, Heart of Thorns, Season 3) as collapsing headers. This would reduce size. And probably should be done for the main PS figures like Destiny's Edge.

Typically a character's overall involvement should be kept to the story summary articles which summarizes the entire storyline (and thus all characters involvement). Currently the personal story lacks such an article (one of my longer-term intents to make), but Season 1 and Season 2 have them and are linked to at the top of their respective story involvement sections. Character pages only need brief summaries for what they have done and do, though staying up to date on those paragraphs is something that most people tend to ignore. GWW would have next to nothing on those paragraphs if I hadn't gone through and updated almost all of them while waiting on GW2's release - and I've since lost my love of intently documenting the lore (what I do, I do more out of habit and boredom than interest).

Regarding "Heck, I've even been told by an editor that the NPC dialogue subpages should never have been made to begin with and that the ambient dialogue should have been attached to location pages, in his opinion." I've seen this opinion too and I see good arguments for both sides. Personal opinion is to document them on both articles, but should they be removed it should be restricted to the NPC article.

"Furthermore, now that most dialogue is instanced, the section is obsolete." Only on the characters that show up solely in instances - which is currently primarily just the biconics and Canach. Most NPCs, even Destiny's Edge, have a non-story instance or the like they show up in. And the section showing up blank on 5 NPCs with a link to past open-world dialogue is not a big deal. Only other NPCs that it would show up on are NPCs without dialogue anymore. Konig 17:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Exalted appearance

Are you sure about [[:File:Sage Renna.jpg|this NPC]]? It seems to have a green glow which is different from the basic yellow one. I haven't reached Tarir yet, so I'm not sure if it's the lighting playing tricks or if it's different coloration. —Ventriloquist 22:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am 100% sure. The "green glow" is from computer settings. Konig 01:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

To clarify: At certain settings and backdrops, all sages can have a greenish tint to their gold, but all burnishers look the same (silver, no decorations on mask), all sages look the same (gold or gold/green depending on setting and backdrop, looks like a GW1 White Mantle's confessor's hat on their mask), all bastions look the same (gold, trailer dudes that made many scream Mursaat), and all enchanted armor use either burnisher or (more commonly) bastion models. Luminate - and possibly Ruka - are the only unique models that I've found. Konig 01:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Neat, thanks for the clarification. Would you prefer the golden version (yours) or the green-ish tint from the german wiki? The latter is of higher quality, but as you said, it's not accurate. —Ventriloquist 10:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Mine's not higher quality? But it's max resolution (that I can get at least), top graphics settings, and full-screened. :( TBH, the german one looks like it went through some sharpening in a photo manipulation image to me given what my max settings show in-game (only issue I've got when I put on max settings is fps lag). Konig 17:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, the only issue with your version is the bloom effect, which can be suppressed by disabling post-processing. I'm 95% sure the german screenshotters leave the option off, which allows for a more natural look. —Ventriloquist 19:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah. I opt to have post-processing at max so as to show the game how ArenaNet intended it. There's a HUGE difference between high post-processing and no post-processing in certain places - Tarir is one of them, a lot of Orr and The World Summit's Shadow of the Dragon fight are others. It might look "more natural" but it's not meant to look natural - it's meant to look magical. The main difference with Tarir is that it's brighter, more golden (this is actually how you get the green-gold look, iirc, by disabling post-processing), and a lot of floating golden particles in the air (akin to wisps in other games). Konig 21:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that, I just hope the glare won't make the NPCs' features less distinct. At the end of the day, the post-processing effect is a matter of personal preference, but I'm fine with keeping your version up. I'll always despise the unnatural glow, though. —Ventriloquist 10:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Proper gold glow with 'unnatural glare' or greenish gold glow that's not intended? Until I find a Sage that's outside of Tarir's local, it's what we're stuck with unless we go with 'not what we see in-game'. Konig 00:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bitter Harvest

Hi Konig. I think that you can get the area to appear on your map without visiting it during the story, however this is only by doing the old gw1 map scraping along the boundaries to the north of it - you can't truly visit it, and there are no enemies. So I agree that the main article should be the story Bitter Harvest + the location should be Bitter Harvest (area). -Chieftain Alex 10:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I did the story before exploring Dragon's Stand and was standing in the area just after the beginning of the instance. It wasn't a case of uncovering first or scrapping along the sides. When I couldn't get in last night, after beating the Mouth when all areas open, I figured I broke out of the map and decided to remove my tags. Konig 15:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

VB cleanup

Thanks for doing that cleanup for those VB events. That stupid event chain was driving me nuts, and I'm 50% sure that in the end I made it worse than it originally was... So yeah, thanks for making it pretty :D. -Darqam (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Curious Question

I kinda prefer the 2nd version of File:Luminate.jpg,the one you uploaded, as it's a nice full body shot, while as the one that's there now is kinda busy. Did you re-upload that one because of the quality, because if so I have a nice quality picture of the first version you uploaded. =o Just curious. - Do_odleplex 03:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The original showed more details. When I saw how small the Luminate was in the infobox I didn't like it. And it only added pointless trails of light. Konig 07:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Maps maps maps

Thanks for catching the goof on the dungeon, I totally forgot about pvp. In regards to Twilight Arbor, I got a bit confused, I'm not sure if the Upper Root Areas are listed, and since you seem to have all the maps for that, would you mind double checking that? Also I'm using your projects page to see which maps need updating as I find it quite handy to see what needs updating, so I hope some of those X's can become checks. =) - Do_odleplex 21:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean File:Twilight Arbor map (Branch Level).jpg? Nothing in Aetherpath takes place there - that's only for the Up paths (both original Up and Forward/Up). Konig 23:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't part of Aetherpath, but you answered my question with that edit to TA, the Branch level areas weren't listed and I wasn't sure if they should have been or not. So all good here. - Do_odleplex 23:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, all areas should be listed. I'm not liking the current layout for the Location table though - it's not very friendly to multi-layered maps. Which is becoming a bigger thing as of HoT (before it was just 3 cities and I think 3 dungeons discounting Arah story (not sure if CoF, CoE, or SE were multi-layered), but now it's also 3 zones on top of that). Konig 23:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've updated my list of maps a bit. Still incomplete. Honestly, I kind of forgot about that list. On an aside: Sorrow's Embrace, Twilight Arbor, Crucible of Eternity, and Citadel of Flames are highly faded maps in-game (AC too I think), so I think to properly show them it might be best to use some manipulation to place waypoints, poi, and names in clean maps from the API on those cases. And CM's in-game map is a HUGE MESS. Ugh... Konig 02:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Bria

Regarding the removal of my added {{anomaly}} tag: The Defiance article states that Bria is one of the few foes still using the Defiance/Unshakable system. Such an exception to the rule is the very definition of "anomaly" in my mind. At the same time, while possibly unintentional, I don't believe this qualifies as a bug. However it is an (almost) unique mechanic that may be unfamiliar to new players, and I feel that it's worthy of special mention somewhere on the page. What are your thoughts? --TerrorBite (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Anomalies in the case of wiki tags refer to situations where we, the players, are unsure if a behavior is intended or a bug. At best this is intended, and at worse it is an oversight. Not really meriting the anomaly tag in my opinion. Unique mechanics are not anomalies. Special mention I can agree with, but such belongs as a standard bulletpoint under a Trivia section. Konig 16:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If you're ever not sure

...you can feel free to contact me in game. Doodleplex.3752 =) also do you like how shared model thing is now, or do you wanna keep tweaking it before I move it? - Do_odleplex 15:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to keep that in mind next time I log on. As for the shared models thing... Regarding nav bar and sub-cat, if you're that insistent on alphabetical subpages instead of subpages per race (your call), I'd suggest this nav bar set-up - modified from the GWW project. Made it based on just adopting Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Creature screenshots but using your username space for the subpage links. I just think that the nav bar in this case is better set up near the top than at the bottom. Konig 17:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd pretty much just remove the several sections in the main hub since there will be the nav bar. Konig 17:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I prefer alphabetical as it makes things easier to find, but if you have a better idea, I'm all ears. I do quite like that bar(well not the colours, but the bar itself), but what's Multi-racial groups, just another way of saying "orders"? =o - Do_odleplex 18:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It is alphabetical - I just excluded the player races because the amount of models for them are so huge compared to any other race or group. As for why multi-racial groups and not Orders: because Lionguard, Pirates, Mist Warriors, Zaishen (if we can find the removed models QQ), and any unique Pact models are not part of the Orders but are multiracial. Konig 19:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I totally misread above about alphabetical stuff, my apologies, I do agree with subpages for the main player races if that's what you meant. And that works for me for multi-racial, (Consortium fits too), can we have sub groups for that, as currently, there are a lot more Order models than I knew of X_x, and I don't want that page to be the scrolling page of doom and quaggan tears. - Do_odleplex 19:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I started playing with the navigation bar to change the colours, and wound up doing so much playing around I just redid my own nav instead of editing yours because they're a bit different now. Is that what you were trying to go for in regards to sub categories/what do you think of that? And is there anything else in general you would prefer different or anything? I don't want to move it over to the projects pages until I know we're both happy with it. - Do_odleplex 18:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need a nav link for the racial groups like Soundless, Wolfborn, etc. They just clutter that portion. I also think the alphabetical list of minor races is best one (maybe two) per line. Currently it's just a jumble to my eyes. But I do like the layout. Konig 18:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay changed it to be 3 a row, looks much less cluttered now, and I've removed the smaller groups from the top racial groups, or did you mean remove those sub groups all together? And in regards to the sub pages, E for example , are you okay with how they are right now or is there anything on them you dislike/would prefer to change? - Do_odleplex 18:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I meant removing the racial groups (Inquest, etc.) all together. I see no need for them in nav. Especially since some have non-major race members (e.g., Inquest golems) and might confuse some folks. As for subpages.... Made a minor edit to it, otherwise, I have four issues:

1. Tables should be standardized in size, currently your Elemental table is wider than the Ettin and Exalted tables - make all the same size (preferrably Elemental sized)
2. Is it possible to get rid of the title of the page being a section header?
3. Do we need that "Type" column? In the case of unique or mostly-unique models (e.g., Hounds of Balthazar, Fire Elemental, Earth Elemental Hands), all it does is repeat the "Used by" column.
4. Get rid of the first column. It just repeats the section headers - unnecessary clutter.

Removing the first and third columns ("NPC" and "Type") would also allow the other columns to be wider - particularly speaking, the image column.
And a side note: I believe there are four Ettin models. At least. There is no name differentiation though, but I've noticed that at least the northern Metrica Province outside the Inquest base ones look different skin tone than the ones in SE Queensdale, iirc. Konig 21:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay, I'll remove them all together, no biggie.

1. Tables are not my forte, I mostly copy past tables, so if you can make them a standard size, please do, I have no idea how. =(
2. I removed the top line, if that's what you meant by title.
3. I put it to figure out what we want to call the file, for example "Ember" has a note that's it's called that instead of "Fire Elemental" because that's a boss, but if you think it's redundant I don't mind taking it out. (Or maybe just rename it "Notes")
4. Sure, That was mostly when I was testing about having that columns be possibly used for breaking up races like having a short column for Inquest or Peacemakers. Sandbox for testing woo!

I'm only grabbing currently what I find on the wiki to start setting things up, so if you think there are different Ettins, go ahead and grab 'em. And totally not related to shared models, but uh, dungeons are just like any zone, the "Clouds" vanish as you explore meaning they can be sectioned off just like zone maps can. Yay? =x - Do_odleplex 21:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why I did that on Ascendant's Ring, I might have been getting distracted by the point as dinner was almost ready. Anyway, other than the tables not being even(fixed thatI think), if there's no other issues, do you mind if I move the current pages to the project page? =o - Do_odleplex 02:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Event formatting

I'm going off of: Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Event_formatting which shows Objectives, NPCs, then Rewards, which is how I've seen it for nearly every other event before HoT. Did something change for HoT? =o - Do_odleplex 18:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I've always seen and done it Objectives, Rewards, Walkthrough (if needed), NPCs, Objects, Dialogue. When I've seen it otherwise, I changed it to that. It just looks better that way, and makes more sense - the rewards are more related to Objectives and the Walkthrough than NPCs, Objects, or Dialogue (which are in turn related). A lot of pre-HoT events actually lack the last four sections (and not because they should in case of NPC and Dialogue sections), so rewards end up on the bottom. Common formatting changes a lot over the years which leaves those formatting guidelines out of date. 20:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly where it was said, but I remember somebody saying "pages should be structured so that the important info players wants is at the top, less important details on the bottom" and I definitely would call the rewards box lesser details. If I'm doing an event I want the objectives to know how to succeed, the walkthrough on how to(if needed), and the NPCs that I might need to save or the foes that might cause me trouble at the top. Most events have pretty much the same rewards with exp/karma/coin, just scaled, and by level 80, I'd bet most players don't care by this point how much experience or few bits of copper they might get as by that point it's moot, making the rewards boxes on the pages less important. True, the objectives and rewards might go hand in hand, but in regards to the players and formatting, I think it be best to stick to the format for the rewards box, which at least in my opinion, looks a little better at the bottom, putting it under the objectives feels clunky. - Do_odleplex 21:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a balance between demand and appearance. If it's tedious to read, that's not helpful. Furthermore, the average person usually cares more about loot they'd get over the NPCs involved in an event - hence why most pages don't even get made with an NPC or dialogue section. The rewards section would include any unique rewards (particularly for world bosses) and any achievement tied to the event, and that's far more worthwhile than NPC listings. And since those are likely wanted more, we need consistency in placement. Besides, NPCs/Objects and dialogues typically go hand-in-hand and look weird separated, like trying to separate the NPCs and Objects sections. Konig 21:47, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this needs to go on to the template page and discussed, as there's also the fact that if anyone makes a new event they'll use the current template, and if anyone comes to an event you've changed, they'll probably think the same thing I did, that you accidentally moved them and revert them the way they are in the template. So everybody needs to agree to something before people create more work by changing what you do or by not doing it the way you do. - Do_odleplex 22:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Walkthrough goes after objectives and can be omitted if not needed. Rewards goes before NPCs, the ordering is grandfathered from area pages iirc. I do not like rewards being stuck in the objectives section.--Relyk ~ talk < 03:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong images

I think we might need to double check some of the images Louise was mass uploading to the wiki, I'm not entirely sure they're all correct models, ie the icebrood one you found and I've found quite a few others that now I need to check and or fix because they're the wrong model, as the German wiki's image was old, pretty maybe but old. Just a heads up in regard to the project. - Do_odleplex 16:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The icebrood/son of svanir one was definitely false but uploaded not by Louise but User:Ventriloquist. Louise heavily altered a single NPC that used that image, however. It might be worth checking that one NPC but I originally made that NPC's article and I wouldn't have made such a huge blunder as to get its model wrong (I am *very* careful of that when I put NPCs to share images like I did with that one), unless they changed it. Konig 16:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'll leave image moving and whatnot to you since you, for some reason, can suppress redirects while, for some reason, cannot. Konig 16:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I also figured out how to do search queries to search for npcs in specfic categories but not other ones (like searching for asuras but not for inquest)so I can tackle the main races too, unless you have a desire to sort throgh a thousand pictures of midge...erm asuras. 8D - Do_odleplex 16:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Just gonna jump in and confirm that his model changed. IIRC, I was leveling a norn character and wanted to look up the skill hero challenge on the wiki and saw the old image, which I then replaced, but I should've uploaded to a new name. —Ventriloquist 23:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair 'nuf. I've edited article accordingly. Konig 00:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Lore Q&A

Salutations Konig, Do you currently have plans to update the wiki pages with the information from the Lore Q&A? I've been thinking of updating pages such as Languages of Tyria though wondered if you had anything planned for it. - Nero - Finite (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I was going to get to it soon (tm) but do not mind if others do first. Was mostly waiting to see if we'd get more responses. Konig 18:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Alright, works for me. Thanks for the quick reply. - Finite (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Page Problem

I'm hesitant to make the "M races" and "N races" pages for the Shared Model Project as the Nightmare creatures seem to overlap with the Minions, so I'm wondering if it should really be "M/N races". Also I feel like the Animal page/category is just like a "NPCs who initially didn't have enough for their own category" page but now quite a few of them do have enough in my opinion, so I haven't made the A types page for that reason just yet. For example there are 23 cows (Bovine), 10 Sheep/Ram(Sheep), 7 Marmox, 5 Deer(because Moose are actually a type of deer), and 6 rabbits, though 3 I'm not sure need to exist-do rabbits mentioned just because they got a name needs a page? Or is there some reason I don't know about that says they don't get their own category and all of those need to stay animal? - Do_odleplex 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The only overlap between minion and nightmare is the Shade. Just slap them in nightmare since that's more common place use for them. Animal is an actual mechanic categorization of wildlife creatures with no tameable counterparts, AFAIK. All those you mentioned, sans rabbit, are definitely of the same kind - IIRC there was some testing done to figure this out. I don't know why rabbits are outcasted. I think you should bring the whole Animal thing up to Alex or someone else higher up with wiki management than I. Konig 22:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The whole point

I named it "Shared Model Project" and not "NPC Model Project" for a reason. The description says "NPCs with unique models/images(example: Elder Dragons, Destiny's Edge, members of the Arcane Council, etc.) are not listed as they are stand alone images." I will not list unique models, without a valid reason. Like "upcoming dragon" or "possible dungeon/fractal" (The Twisted watchworks in a fractal wasn't my idea, I've heard it from quite a few places) or "not all NPCs have pages yet" is fine, but like I said before, there are NPCs that are made unique on purpose(the Exalted's leader for example), they will not have a shared model, and it defeats the purpose of why I created the project to list them. The project is not to list every model, only the shared ones, and that's it. What you want to do sounds more like the defunct creature project, to be honest. - Do_odleplex 01:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

If there's one thing I've learned from ArenaNet, it's that no model is truly unique. There is always a potential for a model to be reused in some fashion - especially since Fractals and WvW exist. I mean, I'm sure many if not everyone would think that the Legendary Imbued Shaman would have a unique model until the next game... but that model is used for a standard mob in the desert BL. And since you slap on miniatures and tonics, that's even more likelihood for models to be used more than once (if they can turn Tequatl and the great jungle wurms - normally stationary foes - into miniatures, then they could turn any world boss into one, no doubt). Now chances are we'll not be seeing Zhaitan or Mordremoth again, but pretty much any other - be it Scarlet Briar or Xera's psuedo-mursaat giant form - possibly could be. Konig 04:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: I'd like a list of unique models too for the sake of ensuring they all have good quality images (or images at all!). If we don't list it with everything else, I'd at least like to put them somewhere else. Konig 23:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm in a rush, but I asked anet staffers for a list of who was unique and who wasn't, so I made a rough page to start from. User:Doodleplex/Sandbox6, list the uniques there that aren't what I mentioned on the top of the page(those ones were specifically listed for me as being unique on purpose, will not have a double yadda yadda) and I'll make it pretty when I get back. I have to go through the historical content page as there probably are shared models in there. - Do_odleplex 06:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

List isn't accurate. File:Priestess Alye.jpg and File:Priestess of Melandru.jpg are shared models that caught my eye immediately. Konig 07:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

List is accurate, one looks Krytan, one looks Canthan, different hair, unless they have new in game models. - Do_odleplex 07:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Missed the hair difference. Skin doesn't look different to me, just a lighting thing, but w/e. Konig 07:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your old fan fic...

Hi Konig! First time wiki user so apologies if this is formatted incorrectly. Unto my question - I remember years ago reading a fanfic I think you posted way back when gwonline.net existed. Think it loved Grenth pre-godhood and an Orrian prince? Did you ever complete it, and if so is it around on the Internet still? One of the better GW fabrics I remember reading... Luxon18 (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I finished that a long while back, but after GW2's release I began rewriting it very slowly, which is now done halfway and I'm unsure if I'll bother finishing it (less interest in the game's lore and I want to get to writing original stories). As for the old version still being on the internet... It does not appear to be anymore, though I do still have a word .doc file of it. Konig 03:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ahh ok. Getting tired of the game in general of just how lore has shaped up over the years? If that doc ever finds its way online I wouldn't be averse to rereading it.... Luxon18 (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

A bit of being tired of the constantly whining community, and how poorly written the story is feeling compared to GW1 (it was no perfection but the lore and story felt stronger and more intriguing).

Oh, fun fact: though the rewrite is "halfway done" it is already over 50 pages longer than the original (original being 112 pages; rewrite currently standing at 174). Konig 03:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Been feeling similarly about GW2 for a while, not helped by me briefly dipping back into GW1 a year or so ago.. Hopefully things improve in the future.... Wow, had no idea it was that long - think I must've dead 20 or so chapters however long ago it was. Impressive stuff! Luxon18 (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Since I've gotten even more folks asking about it, I put the old fan-fic up on google docs. Enjoy if you see this. [2]. Konig 01:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Object Templates

The current template for articles regarding objects can be found here: Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Object_formatting

If you feel the template needs to be revised, or is otherwise inadequate, please feel free to make the edits to the template which you deem necessary, so that all object articles continue to maintain a uniform appearance across the wiki.

Leech (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I actually don't deem the templates necessary because, quite frankly, we change stuff so often and no frequent editor remembers about them that they become outdated within a month or two's time. I was talking about consistency in article formatting not formatting guidelines. Two very different things. Konig 05:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, the page you link is only about the infobox. Has no information about the rest of the article. Go figure. Konig 05:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That one does need updating. Most of the other style guides are very thorough. SarielV 15:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi! I am really sorry if I've done this wrong, I'm still trying to understand how to do things right for the Wiki. I saw you formatted and organized the Veteran Steam Fabricator page a little while ago, and I wanted to say thanks, and ask if you wouldn't mind helping me to organize better in the future? Chances are I can see what you did and learn to mimic that, but I'm trying very hard not to make a complete mess of things since I'm new. I've found a couple of other creatures during that one specific event where Veteran Steam Fabricator spawns and also intend to create pages for them. Muirellthe Moon (talk) 09:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about getting things perfect. Everyone misses stuff, even old editors. Folks will often edit anything out of consistent format. It's more important to just get the information up there on the wiki than to only put it up when it's perfect. The "getting information" part is harder. Konig 16:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Involvement

Hey Konig. Since there's a new user that's adding a lot of new object pages related to hearts, I figured it'd be nice to decide on how we want to call the "involvement" sections. Our consensus for event-related objects is 'event involvement' which I believe we both deem fine.

How do you want to format heart-related objects? I used 'involved in' in the past, that eventually evolved into 'involvement', as seen on the recently created object pages. I see you changed one of the object pages to use 'heart involvement', which is fine (if we're going for consistency, I'm gonna have to fix a few of those recently created object pages).

However, how do you want to deal objects related to both events and hearts? Call them 'event and heart involvement' or simply 'involvement'? Granted, there isn't that many, but still. —Ventriloquist 13:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Involved in" is inconsistent, "Involvement" is too generic. We also have "Story involvement" as an alternative to locations. I'd rather not mix event and hearts together since they are rarely the same - when they are, it's usually just an event-spawned object that happens to give credit to hearts (like (nearly) all NPCs and object interactions tend to do in heart areas). I'd limit the listings of heart on object (and NPCs) pages to those which disappear when the heart is completed (or for those who's sole purpose is giving credit to the heart). So I'd say separate sections, one being "Event involvement" for only-around-with-events stuff and the other being "Heart involvement" for only-around-until-heart-completion stuff. Konig 16:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Ventriloquist 17:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Volatile Nightmare

Can you check into this NPC? It was at one point a spider, but the picture got removed to be a ghost-like sylvari, but nothing else on the page was changed. Not to mention, the name calls it a Nightmare, so shouldn't it be that instead of a spider/various? - Do_odleplex 21:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

TA story is already on my list to do (as is all story mode dungeons - need better pictures of the bosses, most of which I'm 80% sure are unique, particularly speaking the humans/charr/sylvari/asura ones). Konig 21:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! - Do_odleplex 21:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Dungeon areas

Hey, since you seem to be spearheading the dungeon areas project: what do you think of adding path info to dungeon locations lists and area infoboxes? E.g.:

Area	Area Objectives	Path(s)
The Lovers' Crypt	Crypt Waypoint (story only) Lovers' Waypoint Vassar's Vault Relena's Sepulchre	Story Path 1 Path 3

I reckon this would make a useful addition to the articles, but it'll involve tweaking a few templates so I thought I'd ask for your opinion first.. --Idris (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've only been bothering to denote paths for those that are unique to a single path/mode. Consider that the entrance would be marked for all paths - would look a bit silly, I think. And it's not very critical information for a table like that - a simple note at the bottom of area pages seems sufficient. So while I'd love to find more information to fill those tables with, I don't see anything that's worth denoting. Konig 18:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd still like to see some sort of easy reference to paths as they relate to the dungeon map -- a screenshot of the map with path lines drawn on, perhaps? --Idris (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

You'd only be able to get the most efficient paths, else it'd just be a big mess as some dungeons have multiple possible pathways (particularly thinking AC). But that's probably the easiest solution. EDIT: Should have one map per path for this, however. Konig 20:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll be challenging; another complication is that some dungeons have paths that traverse multiple levels -- TA will be particularly challenging since it switches back and forth a lot. But I'll see what I can come up with. --Idris (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

CM and HotW would be harder since they have four levels each. Konig 20:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I can see CM being a bit of a bitch, but HotW should be fine. You start at the top and make your way straight down; afaik there's no backtracking upwards again. --Idris (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've completed maps for TA [[Leurent's Path (Twilight Arbor)|up]] and [[Vevina's Path (Twilight Arbor)|forward]]. They're not perfect, but I think they turned out alright. Lemmie know what you think before I commit to doing the other dungeons. --Idris (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Lines and circles/diamonds are too thick, it's hard to tell which areas in the map the path goes through. Cropping the map causes this problem too. Might be worth considering layering the maps over each other since they don't overlap upper and top, or rather than using a dotted line use number or color to denote "continue at this other point" similar to File:Twisted Castle Map.jpg. Konig 20:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Pssst

Template:Merge, see parameter 3. ;D - Do_odleplex 20:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I tried that and it did nothing. D: Da hell. Konig 20:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Means something is busted and needs to be fixed. *goes to poke it with a quaggan paddle*(Edit) It worked for me on the sandbox page. Weird. - Do_odleplex 22:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably just screwed up the parameter on my test. Konig 22:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Lady Valette Wi

I added a picture of her. It's definitely not Lady Wi (way too young) but could be her daughter or even mesmer magic? —Ventriloquist 22:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Who knows. Konig 22:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that with both parents having blond hair, and the "daughter" having brown hair, this is somewhat unlikely (but possible genetics wise) so one can assume one of the following: 1) Someone somewhere was unfaithful (tsk tsk), 2) Unrelated to either 'parents' and thus hair has nothing to do with it. 3) Brown hair is 'in' at the moment in Tyria and all the girls are dying their hair brown, or 4) She's a mesmer, so who the hell knows. -Darqam (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Parents and children can have different hair colours naturally. Both my parents had dark brown/black hair and I came out as a dirty blonde so a parent's hair colour being different from their kid's means nothing. I'd bet it's the daughter being corrupted by her Uncle Caudecus. - Do_odleplex 22:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I only state that because technically (if you get into the whole genome stuff which is semi-black magic to me) 2 blond parents having a brown hair child is actually quite uncommon. The opposite not so much, but for some reason (and there is a reason, I just don't know all the proper words), this is more uncommon... anyway; I have nothing more pertinent to say... just thought I'd waste people's time a bit. -Darqam (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Lady Wi and Minister Wi are also both old. Their hair isn't blonde. It's grayed. Konig 22:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Mouvelian template

Fair enough if you think it's not needed anymore since ANet desync'd the calendars; but I just thought I'd mention it's not as confusing to use as it used to be. The date can be entered in human-readable format: {{Mouvelian|06 Aug 2016}} -> 38 Scion 1329. --Idris (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough but they were all written in the straight string of numbers which, frankly, is confusing. Every single situation. That's why I removed the ones that only listed the year - and saw no need to keep them if they only mentioned year anyways, even in simpler format it's still far easier to just write out the four number digits than try to be super fancy with templates. Konig 03:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I completely understand, that timestamp was horrible. I do think there's value in using the template, though. For one, the template adds the date in a nice hidden tooltip, rather than spilling the information out onto the page; adding the tooltip by hand would take up more space (and be harder to edit) than using a template. The template also makes it easy for editors to add a touch of lore without having to do any research or maths. Secondly, I'm not convinced ANet have really desync'd the calendars... they're sort of implying that they have, but also sort of implying that they haven't, and that the gaps are just something we're supposed to ignore, because fictional fantasy land. --Idris (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed your edit to Mouvelian calendar. Good point; I concede. --Idris (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

LS season 1 audio

So I'm managing to find some of the audio laying around for LS Season 1and am currently attempting to split it up per chapters (Kind of hard since I missed more than half of it myself). Which section was it that you wanted specifically? At the moment I've gotten to the Bazaar of the four winds, so within an hour or two I should have most of the season 1 slightly sorted out. Problem is sometimes audio is placed in many chapters prior to it's use, for example all of Ottilia's dialogue is placed in flame and frost section. Event specific dialogue should be placed in the right order though. -Darqam (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Main things I was hoping for is The Lost Shores, Secret of Southsun/Last Stand at Southsun, Clockwork Chaos, and Tower of Nightmares. Those seem to be missing the most dialogue. Konig 17:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, if you're ready to start a very painful experience: looky here. Put all the audio files in my google drive. Don't share them everywhere, it is still Anet property. In there are all the files from that time zone. So you have random 1/2 second blurbs of sound as well as complete dialogue sentences.... good luck. -Darqam (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I am genuinely curious; have you managed to get anything you wanted out of those files?-Darqam (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Haven't had time to look after it downloaded. Been a busy week. Gonna get busier. Konig 21:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Elder dragon thing

I'm not saying it's incorrect, I'm saying we don't seperate foes by race. —Ventriloquist 23:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Most event pages actually do, though it's inconsistent as to whether using a bulletpoint, e.g.,:

• Elder Dragons
  • Mouth of Mordremoth

Or using the semicolon bolding as on that page. It's even further inconsistent for allies, but enemies are almost always separated. Konig 23:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

"Most event pages actually do" I'm not sure how true that is. Maybe for the HoT events (definitely not all of them or even a majority), but almost all of the core events use the formatting described on the template page. —Ventriloquist 23:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I was thinking of the core events. If they don't show that separation either I have one fucked up memory - and I doubt that - we're looking at two different wikis - and I doubt that too - or they were recently heavily edited to not have such anymore. Konig 23:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's some quick links from various zones that don't seperate foes/allies:

• Drive back Underworld creatures by destroying portals in the swamp
• Clear out Balthazar's temple
• Help Lieutenant Fynn and Kor the Warcaller's assault on the Behemian Grand Kraal
• Defend the charr at the Megathumper until it builds up enough sonic energy to force the chak gerent to emerge
• Defend the seal until the Pact cannon is back online
• Hold Swampwatch shoreline from the Risen
• Escort the master-at-arms to safety

I randomy selected them from Category:Events, and I only encountered seperated foes twice (one for a TD event and one for a VB event). I can't say how many of them were updated, but I don't ever recall seeing the formatting 'officially' change. —Ventriloquist 23:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd guess it might have been like that at the start, and has been changed over time to match the current formatting. If it helps any, I just went through all of the events in Caledon Forest, and out of the 76 events there 4 or 5 had ;[[Risen]]and then the foes, of which there were the only risen foes anyway. For Hot events definitely not the majority, that's probably the only one I know of actually. Also I for the event that brought this up, I could swear it's just Mordremoth, no Mordrem guard foes spawn on that island, so it wouldn't be needed anyway if that's the case(I need to finish going through screenshots oy). - Do_odleplex 23:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Mordrem only spawn with the destroy-this-object event (such as this one), I think. As for the seperation, I don't find it useful because it's pretty obvious to which group "Mordrem X" and "Mordrem Y" belong to, for example. Maaaaaaaybe for events with multiple-raced foes, but even that seems unnecessary to me. Especially with events such as Defeat beasts disgorged from the blazing unstable rift, where we'd have five or more seperations due to the nature of the event. —Ventriloquist 00:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Mordrem guard (a stalker and... blocker I think?) spawn for the vine cluster and ley line distruptor events, and mordrem bombers show up for the body attacking event, and mordrem guard snipers appear for the bomb-the-head event. There's mordrem for every event. Konig 00:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Section headers

← moved to Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:NPC formatting#Headers for combat abilities

Orrians Write Once Again

Take a look here, from that_shaman: orrian.thatshaman.com. -Darqam (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

...I was planning on making something like that. :I Konig (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

skill description and icon for npc skills

I don't think we do this since we can't verify that the skills are in fact the same. -Chieftain Alex 06:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If it functions like it... why wouldn't it be it? Konig (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, for where we denote where NPCs inflict conditions: which skill inflicts it? That skill's description is where we put it. Konig (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No idea which skill, neither dragon's tooth nor fireball inflict burning, but there is the burning effect on me ticking away. -Chieftain Alex 06:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well you can't really be sure they're exactly the same as player skills. The range could be greater, the cooldown could be shorter. Take Inquest Sapper Kloddi for example, she uses all elementalist skills, but her phoenix doesn't give her vigor, she has no cast time on her Dragon's Tooth and she also spawns three of them, as opposed to one. We just can't really be sure unless ANet ever decides to give the players a way of seeing enemy skills with all the tooltips an' stuff. —Ventriloquist 09:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Kloddi's skills are obvious examples of the skills not functioning like player skills. Range and cooldown could be different though, I cede on that. I've just seen it done before so I did it there. Konig (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)