Talk:Zos Shivros Channel (outpost)

followed by is a violation of Only revert once. 66.173.227.152 10:56, 12 May 2006 (CDT)

Trivia
Come on, Skuld, Every three letters are someones tag. every 3 words "came from somewhere". is Return of the Yeti a referance to return of the jedi? No! it's just a common use of three English words. get someone from the creative department say it, and then we could include this kind of comments. I can assure you I can find a 'referance' to most if not all mob and location pages. Foo 11:20, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Uhh.. return of the yeti and revenge of the yeti are obviously starwars references.. xD Skuld  05:46, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, if there are two maching ones, then your probably right. Foo 13:12, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

Special reasoning for including ZoS?
My understanding is that ZoS is an alpha testing guild; however, listing it here seems to go against the standard policies on not mentioning guilds in articles unless there's documentation from ArenaNet for it. I have no problem with it if its documented by Arenanet; otherwise, I think we should stick to standard policies in re: to guild names not being listed in the articles. Note: ZoS was once added to the article Zos_Shivros_Channel (which is now a redirect to the mission article), and I had reverted it out of there and discussed it some in my discussion page with Stabber (no one else joined in on that conversation).

Note: I agree with anon above: we have a re-revert taking place here again without it first having come to the discussion page. If we expect newcomers to the wiki to take our policies seriously, then the regular contributors must also take them seriously. As a result of a recent full-out revert war taking place, I am being much more careful about this myself, and would hope others would as well. --161.88.255.140 11:22, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Come on guys, we just got done this crap! Ok, my thoughts:
 * Zos has no more indication that it is regards to the guild ZoS than any other 3 or 4 letter word used in the game. I might think different if the name of the location was "ZoS..." but it isn't.
 * We don't post guild info in general, if this is an alpha guild that is no longer around, even more reason not to post it.
 * Now I might accept that the note is true if we had some sort of confirmation from ANet in some way, but barring that it should be removed.
 * As for the revert war issue. I don't think we're there yet.  No one has reverted anything more than once.  Foo reverted something once, and Skuld reverted to an edit that he didn't do in the first place.  Then Foo did the right thing and brought it into the talk page.  (note: I know that isn't quite following the letter of the law, so to speak.  But I'm inclined to feel somewhat lenient.)  --Rainith 12:14, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Rainith: Good point, I just re-read 1RV and noticed the fine distinction. If Skuld had made the original edit, then his revert would have been a re-revert.  But as he was a third party, it technically was not a re-revert per the current policy. --161.88.255.140 12:27, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I actually wasn't sure on that point (I don't think I've read the article since it was first created and don't have time to give it a read now (at work)), but it made sense to me to view it that way. I don't think any of these edits were made in anything other than good faith, but I stand by my views (about the Trivia section of the article) as I listed them above.  I would like to hear other's opinions.  --Rainith 12:32, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I vote for removing the trivia. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 16:15, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * We're not hosting an article about ZoS Shivros, we're just saying this is named after them. --Karlos 16:23, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
 * The assumption that it's named after them is likely correct; but it's still an assumption. I see no reason to differ from how we've treated all other mention of guilds - the relationship to the subject of the article is documented by ArenaNet, or else not included in the article. --161.88.255.140 16:30, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, if this goes then all references should go.. we can't prove them after all.. There was a guru thread listing all the stuff ppl found and there was a number of alpha guilds e.g. amazon basin -> amatz basin Skuld  16:36, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Is there really a list of those guilds and in-game references? If yes, please post a link. I voted yes for removing, because we have earlier removed all guild/player adverts. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png|User:Gem]] 16:40, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * They're not trully adverts, as they were primarilly alpha-testing guilds which wouldn't even exist now (unless they've been retained for C3 testing). However, the list showing the presumed hidden names is a fan-compiled list - nothing official, from what I've seen, has been documented by ArenaNet. --161.88.255.140 16:59, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * My stance: prove it or remove it. &mdash;Tanaric 22:16, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Your position (and Gem's) is inconsistent with all the "trivia" in the wiki about the Ogre-slaying Knife, Bonetti's Defense and the Gavel of the Niphilim. Are you saying we should prove all of those and verify them with ANet or remove them? If not, then it's not our fault that in this case they chose a Guild or a player or even Jeff Strain's mother-in-law. We're not the one advertizing, they are. When we list the quest Mhenlo's Request as part of the Prophecies quests, are we not advertizing for GW Factions? Yes, we are. But it's not our fault that ANet did that. We are documenting the game. The observation that X is named after Y is information pertinent to the object. That is all that matters. I would be very firmly against making an article for ZoS, because we had a discussion on that and deduced we would not document the players, but only the game. Zos Shivros Channel is IN the game. And you know what EA Sports says.. If it's in the game, it's in the game! :) --Karlos 02:41, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The connection in Bonetti's Defense is pretty solid, seeing as there are two references that can very plausably be taken from the same scene in a cult film. A random collection of three letters is not. If you're asking me to choose one way or the other, I'd rather remove both than allow the ZoS bit to stay. Unless, of course, the Zos bit can be confirmed as being named after the guild. If you can confirm it, I wholly support that it stays in the wiki. Right now, the claim that they are related is tenuous at best, as Rainith describes below. &mdash;Tanaric 04:41, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I also would rather see both removed rather than having the reference to ZoS stay. But I do think that ZoS is the only one that really needs removed as it's a different case than the other ones referenced.  I have no problem with inserting trivia where third party publications, movies, books, TV shows, etc can be referenced with the specific phrase or name.  I do have a problem with the idea of listing a guild name or an assumed meaning of a random series of letters.  We've set a precedent on only listing guild names if they are documented by ArenaNet.  This inclusion, even though it's a minor item, alters that precedent.  If we keep this fan-determined trivia, then we should be careful and very clear in what degree of inclusion we are going to allow going forward.  Especially as it's something that has no specific third party reference other than a fan-generated list.  If you want third party references, you'll find far more for Zos pointing to the programming language, or the Zos-Kia Cultus, or even the Zos Nightclub in Melbourne. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 09:06, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * (I'm referencing points made by several people, put togetether for convenience). ArenaNet has already established a precedent of naming things in the game after testers.  For example, it's no coincidence that the collecters Louise Haup and Losi Hapatu have such similar names to tester Lois Haupt or that merchant Gnik'ekaj spelled backward reads the same as tester Jake King.  Given this precedent, it's not really surprising that they'd name Amatz Basin and Zos Shivros Channel after two guilds, both of which are and were involved in testing and both of which were among the first Guilds of the Week.  Certainly, such references are more likely than Melbourne nightclubs or South American rain forests.
 * However, as with many such references, they opted for a bit of subtlety and modified the names a bit. Someone who doesn't know the source of the names can play the game normally and perhaps not even notice that the names are references or out of place.  Certainly, this discussion is proof of that.  Thus, because names in Guild Wars almost always follow title case, Zos Shivros Channel does, too.  If they had named it "Zealots of Shiverpeak [ZoS] Channel," the reference would certainly be more obvious, but I think the problems with that are clear.
 * Now, I don't have any proof or official statements from ArenaNet. However, ZoS and the Amazon Basin know that the places was named after them, just as the testers know what NPCs bear their names.  I do consider those references to quite solid.
 * However, even given that, I have no stance ont he issue of whether or not such references should be included on our pages. --adeyke 02:01, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

I have a new thought on this trivia, I believe that it was named after Z/OS. Its rumored that Jeff Strain cut his programming teeth using Z/OS and this is his way of showing his roots. <--The preceeding coment was complete and utter BS.

Seriously though, if they wanted to name it after ZoS, then why not use that specific capitalization? And as for amatz basin, I just figured it was after Amazon Basin yes but this one. --Rainith 02:48, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * You and Tanaric are arguing that "Zos" is too vague and ignoring the "Shivros" part of the name, which is a dead giveaway for the "Shiverpeaks." Zos by itself is not convincing enough for me, but Zos Shivros is. I was the first one to question this issue in talk:Amatz Basin. When the contributor mentioned Zos Shivros and ZoS I was convinced. It's too obvious guys. --Karlos 05:05, 14 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I have more important battles to fight; I'm willing to give this one up. :) &mdash;Tanaric 05:13, 14 May 2006 (CDT)