Talk:Acorns

Screenshot or it didn't happen. ;-D --◄mendel► 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to AGF, but this just seems ridiculous. I don't even think there are any oak trees in the game.-- franc likes tacos 02:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Plus, considering things like that are all but impossible (Hall of Monuments is the only place anything except quests changes the area), having a personal tree is just stupid.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]Entrea  [Talk]  02:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest having a sense of humor for two days and then moving the page elsewhere.... --◄mendel► 02:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Incredibly doubtful...no doubt the "rarest item in the game" quote unquote would have gained some repute prior to now. Left a note on the IP's page. - [[Image:AdVictoriam1.PNG|19px]] Ad Victoriam  03:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For a second I thought this person was claiming to have gotten a 'chestnut'. Now that would be a rare item to have. "They've begun calling the strange brown boxes 'chestnuts.' We've discovered that when we place them on the stone pedestals they light up." - Found southwest of Augury Rock. Then again, since the icon image was eventually reused for Powerstones I think they would have removed them from the game even if an alpha tester still had one (ignoring the inventory wipe on launch too). Ezekiel   [Talk]  03:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an extremely easy way to check this. Simply go with one of the two people who claim to have grown a tree, then check the exact same spot alone. If the tree's not there when they're not there, they grew it. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 03:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Mestara Adalet doesn't exist. --Macros 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Entrea, the acorn action could be a quest, with a specific spot to drop them. Though, as I said, I believe that's unlikely. --◄mendel► 13:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, This is just another hoax page. I Q.Q 'ed at it for a moment, checked the names (No luck) and passed it as a hoax. PossessedLinebeck 13:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

tasty acorn is tasty
kk. ♥ Mis fate ♥ 04:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Adopt-a-page program
When it is decided that proof won't be forthcoming, please move the pages to the redirects in my userspace, unless the real author steps forth (no, it is not I). --◄mendel► 13:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, just delete this crap. It's so blatantly obvious this is total rubbish. --[[Image:Progr.jpg]] - talk 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. PossessedLinebeck 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with them. The burden of proof should not be on us, the wiki community - it should be on the editor who added the information.  The anon who created the article has no other contributions on the wiki and has not responded to any of these comments.  Furthermore, how could something like this be completely unknown to the GW community at large (Guru/GWO/etc.)?  If two people can find it, then two more people can find it, and eventually it would be mentioned on some fansite.  If the claim is true and the players had to wait a month for the trees to grow, then I find it extremely unlikely that no one else would have found an acorn in that time and posted on Guru/GWO to ask, "WTF is this?"  &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 14:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Actually, given the vanity level of the average GW player, I would've expected people to be all over Guru shouting, "HEY LOOK WHAT I GOT!!!" rather than simply asking what to do with it. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] 14:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think GW:AGF would at least extend to not assuming these two players are not the very pinnacle of humility. If people want to post "exclusive" information here first, we should be grateful, not suspicious. Nonetheless, it's very dubious information, and I'm working to verify or disprove it in-game. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm all for (re)deleting this. Mendel is just about the only person who actually thinks this has value. It's not even that funny, it's just a guy making up stupid bs about an "easter egg" in the game that no one else has even heard about. If there was even a hint about it actually existing, there would be a hundred threads about it. Miniature Polar Bear, anyone? Even though there were only a few in the game, there were wild discussions about it all over various forums. Special items that let you grow a tree? Not a word. This is just stupid keeping a page like this because one person thinks its funny and a couple more are insistent on proving its existence one way or another (which, by the way, can't be done, as the people who "found" the acorns don't seem to exist). Let's just get it over with and delete this junk.[[Image:Entrea Sumatae.png|Entrea Sumatae]]Entrea  [Talk]  16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dr Ishmael, of course we're waiting for some comment. How long do you think is a reasonable wait in this case? It's been only 15 hours now, not even a whole day. My suggestion was (and still is) to wait a reasonable period, in this case 1-2 days; we expect no proof to be forthcoming, so then we can delete. The argument arises only because some people want to delete earlier, but I don't see why it is necessary. The wait shows our assuming good faith, there is an end to that as we have made it clear via this talk page and the delete tag that we don't believe the information as of now, and that it will be deleted (or archived, if I get my way) if it remains unproven. So what can we gain by being hasty in deletion? It's not as if there's a flood of spoof pages at our door. (What's the last spoof you've seen outside user space?) --◄mendel► 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary reason there is no flood of spoof pages is we are usually quick to revert vandalism and delete foolish articles. Quite frankly, Mendel, you've shown a bizarre and very irritating propensity for defending things that ought not to be defended. [[Image:Maui_sig.png]] 17:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So we agree to disagree with anyone who supports the acorn? I say we have a good argument against it considering NOONE has ever really reported seeing one before, no forum posts have been made and those who supposedly found one do not really exist. All in favor? PossessedLinebeck 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I bet the anon is getting a kick out of this. --Macros 17:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)