User talk:Karlos/Archive1

Titans
Aww, man, I wanted to do the Titans today. You beat me to it. ;) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 19:17, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I knew it!! :) I was planning to break down that Titan article for a long time. Today I was aked to help someone in that mission and I saw the Lich Lord question and thought I'd do it.
 * Still much left to do... Can you get the Titan boss info. Also, the Armageddon Lords have no entry at all (the party I was with was in no shape to do bonus at all). :) I could not catch all the skills used by all the bosses. Screen caps would be nice too. So, don't worry, we still have a lot to say about the titans. --Karlos 19:23, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I still need some elite skills from that mission, so I will do it again someday. Yes screen caps... I forget to take them all the time, and when I think of it the mobs are already surrounded by henchmen and engulfed in sparks and fire... :-/ Hmm, Armageddon Lords... I remember they use Flam Burst, but that isn't enough to justify creating an article. :) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 19:35, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Ok so I betrayed you again. :) Sorry, went to help another friend. This time I got more coherent info. --Karlos 21:10, 6 Sep 2005 (EST)

Umm... is there a reason why you removed the "sort names" from the categorization of A Gift of Griffins (Gift of Griffins, A) and The Wailing Lord? Now they will be listed under "A" and "T", while they should be under "G" and "W". --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 09:34, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Sorry, I thought it didn't serve any purpose. :)

Skill listings
I personally think that having the list of skills to cap right there when you're looking at an area is very convienient. At a glance I can tell if I need to bring a capture signet along when I'm venturing into that area, as opposed to needing to click on each boss name to find out what elite each uses. It doesn't seem to clutter up the listing, so I don't really see the point in removing them. 67.182.143.162 17:35, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * The problem is the redundancy it creates. Normally you don't want the same information in more than one place in a database. Imagine ANet changes something about bosses and their elite skills. We will have to go through the bosses page, the elite skills themselves, the elite skills locations listing and the locations to reflect the changes. With every instance it grows worse. Chances increase that things will be forgoten to be changed and that leads to outdated and corrupt data. I understand your point, though. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 18:12, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Amen. :) If this was a programmable database. We would put in a few lines of code that would say: List all bosses whose "location" is "Mineral Springs" and next to their names, list their "elite" skill. This would mean the data would be in the boss and we can show it around in as many ways as we want. Unfortunatley, this database is simply searchable and linkable (and categorizable). I just think the hassle of one extra click is a lot less than the hassle of updating all those articles after a major change in the game (like when they removed elites from pre-desert bosses). --Karlos 19:06, 15 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * You could put the boss information in the zone articles and have the boss pages redirect. There about 5 bosses that are in 2 zones.--Cloak of Letters 05:48, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * That would be poor data structure. We would be a website, not a database. The power of this wiki is that you define entities and then link them together and search them. If we start making the page about Mineral Springs also contain the info for Zameel the Unworthy and Willa the Unpleasant then the Wiki would lose meaning in my opinion. --Karlos 15:13, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)

Pre-Searing Quests
Karlos, as I know we've kinda butted heads on this before, take a look at what I did to the Pre-Searing quest list. I want to try to show the quests that you have to do, but as I noted in the discussion for that page, I don't like the way I did it at all. I do think that that information is somewhat important, and should be listed, but I want a second opinion. As I figure you're the most likely to tell me its crap, I'd like to hear what you think. :) I need to sleep now, but I'll respond to any suggestions/comments you have in the morning.  --Rainith 15:47, 16 Sep 2005 (EST)

Quests that happen nearby
Karlos, works for me. I was listing it as Quests Started: until I came across quite a few NPCs that had it listed as ==Quests Started==. I assumed that I had been doing it wrong before.

As for the "quests involed in" part, I think that if a character is an integral part of the quest (green ! over their head, must be killed in the quest, must be protected and kept from being killed) then it is warrented. To me that is what this wiki is about, information. Much of the info here I consider useless. Do we need a description for the creatures to play the game, or do we just need to know how to kill them, and what they drop? IMO we don't need a description at all, the game tells you what the creature is when you attack it, so it isn't like you're going to get confused. I feel the "quests involved in" falls into the category of what some people consider useless, and others may find useful. --Rainith 17:29, 18 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * True, and this is why I said, if you feel it is important. Instead of an ambiguous list of quests. You should say: He must be protected as he delivers a message in the quest ABC and he helps the players out in quest XYZ. I guess I am looking at it from a story prospective, you are looking at it from a pure usability perspective. What use is this guy to my XP and Gold caches? :)
 * I just see the list as being VERY subjective. The word "involved" is as loose fitting as the term "axis of evil" :) --Karlos 17:36, 18 Sep 2005 (EST)

ANTI missions crusade?
I spend the day updating all the links so they link directly to the missions page and now you go about and remove them all to make them double redirects? Errr, I dont understand. --Xeeron 10:57, 24 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Allow me to elaborate. Some time ago we had a clear conflict between the "Ruins of Surmia" (the place) and the "Ruins of Surmia" the mission. Some article "Ruins of Surmia" and "Rins of Surmia (Mission)" while others were "Fort Ranik (Location)" and "Fort Ranik" for mission and finally there was "The Wilds (Location)" and "The Wilds (Mission)"


 * After much deliberation, it was decided (against my personal wishes) that the wiki would go with the following format:
 * Location of mission will be "Ruins of Surmia (Location)"
 * Mission Article will remain "Ruins of Surmia (Mission)" (mainly because 90% of them were already like that.
 * Unqualified article "Ruins of Surmia" will redirect to MISSION page.
 * When editing, we will simply refer to "Ruins of Surmia" if we mean the mission and we'll use the Ruins of Surmia for the location.


 * The reason for the last point is to simplify editing of at least one of them. What you were doing is making it referring to the mission the hard way. I was undoing that and it was not based on own design. (My preference was "Ruins of Surmia" is the location and "Ruins of Surmia (Mission)" for the mission.) --Karlos 11:05, 24 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Shrugs, ok. I dont care whether its (mission)/(location), (mission)/nothing or nothing/(location). Just thought it would be nicer not to start doubling the redirects (plus it makes it clear to everyone doing future edits, which page is refered to, even without knowing the (mission)/(location) rule. I dont blame anyone for not using the hard link, but what harm is there in using it? --Xeeron 11:11, 24 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * More cumbersome edits for new users. Harder maintenance for the rest of us if we decide to rename it from "Ruins of Surmia (Mission)" to "Ruins of Surmia - Mission" then we only need to change the redirects, not the entire wiki. :) --Karlos 11:15, 24 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * OK =) --Xeeron 20:30, 24 Sep 2005 (EST)