Talk:Sunspear (weapon)

This is for documentation. This is the third time this article has been created since August 11. Twice deleted by Rainith created by a 64.109.164.120 and this last time, deleted by me, created by a Steel and Stone. All of which have nonsense or advertisements in them. -Gares 13:13, 12 August 2006 (CDT)

I hope this time it doesn't get deleted. Tried to make an actual article for the item. Shadowed 18:51, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The previous incarnations of this article had nothing whatsoever to do with the in-game item. They originally only listed a person's in-game name and general graffitti, which is why it was appropriately deleted.
 * Now that it's an actual item article, I doubt it will be deleted, although I am going to add the c3 tag to it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:12, 21 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Image deleted.
 * Taken from the trailer and therefore a violation of GW:IMAGE
 * Possibly another spear
 * --Rainith 11:14, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * How about this one? --zeeZ 11:34, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Stats confirmed
official site--heach 14:18, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

Small problem
I cannot see part of the code related to the weapon, (the code for the box, image, etc) so i cannot edit it to be smaller.--Phoenix 18:34, 6 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I can't edit it either because the template is poorly made and specifies the image width hard coded inside. *grumble* *mumble* --Karlos 04:46, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * As a quick work-around I've rotated the image 90° --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:07, 7 September 2006 (CDT)


 * could change the templete to use parser function to select a width size, and if nothing is filled, use the default width that they are using now for compatability. -- [[Image:Ritualist-icon-small.png]] Cwingnam2000 06:10, 7 September 2006 (CDT)

The image and stats for this weapon are incorrect. It isnt +15% damage in stance, its +5 energy
 * Yeah, the ingame stat is +5 energy, but not +15% damage while in stance, can someone check again? --Sora 23:33, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
 * It is +5 energy. Also, do Paragons even have any stances?
 * No they don't have even one stance.Glenn 05:42, 3 December 2006 (CST)

Upgrades
Is anyone else having trouble upgrading these? -- Gordon Ecker 02:19, 7 November 2006 (CST)
 * It will not let me do so. Foo 09:30, 8 December 2006 (CST)
 * So u can't upgrade i take it? Antz191 03:26, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Move Discussion
My attempt to move this article was reverted. I'm not sure about the updates to the public pages I made, hopefully those were reverted as well. Here are my thoughts on this page and the corresponding page for the Icy Soulbreaker of Enchanting from the pre-order pack. This is a unique item from the pre-order pack, as such it deserves it's own unique entry. The same goes for the Icy Soulbreaker of Enchanting weapon which was currently listed as Soulbreaker. These weapons do not have mods (as has been suggested) as they can not be salvaged anymore than any other unique item. Not listing them because the weapon name happened to have as part of their name a mod description just makes them hard is not impossible to find in the search or reference them without already intrinsically knowing where the article is located. I vote that the articles are moved make the current naming convention based on their being unique items, as I listed in the original move comments. Glamtre 17:55, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree - this is a unique item, they do not have salvageable mods - the proper name for the item just happens to have a mod name in it. To me, this is just as deserving of having the article named the same as the weapon as is Kepkhet's Refuge, Icy Dragon Sword, or Drago's Flatbow. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:57, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

I am having a similar discussion on my Talk page. The question I have (from a process point of view using this incident as the example) is that since a Move creates a legacy redirect is it better to Move the article to a more descriptive name that more closely matches a existing article naming standard or to create the new empty page with the more descriptive article name and then add a redirect on that page to the existing legacy page? Inquiring Minds Want to Know! Glamtre 01:58, 28 March 2007 (CDT)