Talk:Mhenlo

Oops, forgot to check that the Fire Islands link worked... :) IMO 'Ring of Fire Islands' should be moved to 'Fire Islands' (or Isles), this is what Arenanet calls them. --Midk 09:43, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Where does Arena Net call them that? In the game they are called "The RRRing of Firrrre island" as King Jalis says. :) --Karlos 10:03, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Haha. :) Is that a direct quote? For one, here, it reads "...Three new collectors will be present in the Fire Island Chain...". Checking the game manual, though, there's a page on the "Ring of Fire Island Chain". Hm. I've seen it referred to as "Fire Islands" in more places, but I can't remember at the moment... well, never mind, if it's in the manual, it's OK, I say. I swear it was "Fire Islands" just a few weeks ago when I was arguing about whether it was RoF or Fire Islands with someone... I was saying RoF, he was saying Islands.. I finally gave in, but I guess now I can tell him I was right. :) --Midk 10:12, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * It's the corny dialog at the end of the Thunderhead Keep mission. When the Vizier says the players have to go to the Ring of Fire islands, the King says "The Rrrrring of Firrre??!!" In a fake Scottish accent. :) --Karlos 10:17, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Right. :) I'm seeing lots of contradiction here actually.. the manual says "Ring of Fire Island Chain" and also says that the islands "make up the Ring of Fire". The art-book that comes with the collector's edition supposedly says "Fire Islands", as well as the references in update notes and the like to "Fire Islands"... well, at the least, I'll make a Fire Islands page that redirects to RoF (location).. It's impossible to tell which one Arenanet uses, then, I guess either work. --Midk 10:25, 8 Sep 2005 (EST)

Quotes?
Nuble just devised a "Quotes" section in Mhenlo's page. Is this something we want to have? I thin it is highly subjective and highly unnecessary, not to mention that not a single NPC in the game (with the exception of perhaps Rurik) will be remembered a year from now. --Karlos 14:30, 19 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * I think it isn't necessary and it doesn't add much, but it doesn't hurt either. Keep 'em. --Tetris L 15:32, 19 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * There is an inherent problem with highly subjective content (such as "memorable quotes" and "the hardest mission ever") in that if we allow it, then it becomes a battle field of edits. Every Tom, Joe and Molenin will edit the page and put in their perspective and then delete others' and modify and all of a sudden the page is a jungle. This is why I like to keep subjective content to a minimum. We may lack "color" and "fanfare" but we will remain credible. Cynn has a colorful character, But Mhenlo and Aidan are two very forgettable NPCs. --Karlos 15:43, 19 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * That, on the other hand, is just your opinion. ;)
 * Seriously: Off course you are right that we should avoid subjective content. But NPC quotes is really not a controversial topic that will cause a "battle". Most users won't even take notice of the paragraph. No harm done IMHO. --Tetris L 15:50, 19 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Sure it's only my opinion... That's more proof that it's subjective. So, while you believe it's harmless, I believe it is a precedent. He added a section into the page. I would like to think there is a system to how and what we do here. This links back to the categorical difference in view between you and me on how this site should operate. So, I'll keep the debate there when I respond on the Main Talk Page. But for now, I think it defies consistency of structure, for the sake of something you describes as irrelevant. What's to stop User:Molenin from editing this page and adding a section called "Funny things I did with Mhenlo" and then another section "Dumb Mhenlo moments" and how about a "Mhenlo death count (number of times Mhenlo died in my party)!!" --Karlos 16:09, 19 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * 1. Off course objectiveness should be our goal, but I think we all know that in reality few things are black or white. The world is mostly shades of grey. You think the term "tank" is reserved for warriors, I think it can also be an elem or necro. There you go ...
 * 2. Never forget that this is a Wiki - open for all users. This is what makes Wikis so fast and flexible, but also "chaotic" to some degree. It must be possible for an average user to create and edit articles without having to read through 20 pages of rules and instructions first. Sure it would be nice if all articles follow a common "system". But then we'd have to "close" the Wiki and make it a standard website like GWGuru or GWonline.net, maintained only by an admin team, not by a community of users. My point? I think we don't need a rule for everything here. --Tetris L 23:08, 19 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * Personal philosophy is not exactly a compelling argument, is it? Your personal perception of the ration of black, white and grey in the world is not binding to anyone else. Personally, I see a lot more blue. :)
 * Having a system does not conflict with having users edit. See Wikipedia. They have a TON of rules. The trick is that, it's not expected of the average contributors (whoare the heart of the wiki) to know them. User:Molenin makes an edit and goes away. The veteran contributors, they examine his edit and if it hold up to the rules, they leave it, if not they change it or delete it. Likewise, I am not saying he never should have done it, I am saying, are we Okay with it? I am not, you don't care, no one else answered, so I am removing it. --Karlos 08:09, 20 Sep 2005 (EST)