GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.


From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Two reasons why this is a bad idea:

  1. I always think of processes. So, in that article, there is a one line definition followed by Wikipedia's definition. That's redundancy. We need to remove one.
  2. If we remove ours, and keep wikipedia's then we ought to do so through out this wiki since very article we defined (from Sword, to spell to Hydra) exists in Wikipedia and much more expounded upon even.
  3. Is that the decision we are making?

This is why I removed your edit. I am not sure you are aware of the consequences of that "nice quote" you like. I am trying to confirm that people are aware. I actually would mind that we dump all the articles we did for the sake of wikipedia definitions. This is (whether you meant it or not) what you are doing. Because it is only a logical step to look at that one line and then the paragraph below it and say "I'll delete that one line" and then the next step is.. I'll do that for every definition article in GuildWiki. I am thoroughly against that. --Karlos 09:36, 29 Sep 2005 (EST)

First of all, and most importantly, let me say that I think we don't need a strict policy on this matter throughout this wiki. (We have far too many rules already IMHO.) There are many cases where the definition of Wikipedia (or any other dictionary) isn't any better than our own. For example Crusty added the dictionary definition of "Sword". That, I think, was unnecessary. Everybody knows what a sword is. In such a case I don't mind that the dictionary definition was used, but I wouldn't mind if we dump it either.
But there are other cases where ANet used things that have quite a complicated background in real life, history or mythology. For example Griffon, Hydra, Titan, etc, which are pulled from the Greek mythology. There are lengthy articles about these on Wikipedia. In such a case I think it is often (not always) appropriate not only to link to the Wikipedia article, but even to pull the definition straight from it. Why not use something that is already there? Wikis, unite!
Again, I don't think we need a strict policy here. If the author of an article thinks that the Wikipedia article on the same matter contains valuable information, then by all means quote it. If there is nothing worth mentioning on Wikipedia then leave it away. What's the big deal? --Tetris L 17:02, 29 Sep 2005 (EST)

Latest revert: All griffons are melee attackers, even those who are monks. And PBAoEs are not countered by Spell Breaker as evident by the Whirlwind/Aftershock combo I use to nuke the Skeletal Bonds. The Blessed Griffons themselves use Holy Wrath as a PBAoE. --Karlos 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Whirlwind & Aftershock won't be blocked by Spell Breaker because the Griffon isn't the target of the spell, the caster is. In addition Spell Breaker only stops enemy spells, so Holy Wrath won't be affected by it. Using a PBAoE spell that targets an enemy with Spell Breaker will fail.--William Blackstaff 09:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you agreeing/disagreeing/endorsing/critiquing? :) --Karlos 06:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Does a Vabbi Griffon exist? There is no article for it and I've never seen one. Maybe this should be taken out? -- 15:49, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Fixed it. --Rainith 16:48, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Can anyone confirm that Blessed Griffons drop Monk Tomes in Hard Mode?Jkyarr 16:42, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Any foe in Hard Mode can drop it's profession's tome. Blaze 08:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)