I guess I couldn't tell. I can pay the guards. But I don't want to pay, I want to talk to the old man. When I start talking to the guard, there's only the option to pay. And the task is not updated as "Find Baron".
I think I have two options:
Restart the mission and fight with the baron's men.
Accept the payment.
by now you are pretty much deleting more than half of everything that I edit and I do not entirely understand why. I took notice of a couple of mistakes I made at the beginning, such as creating articles for too minor characters and formatting problems and the like, but I cannot really see the point now. I am simply trying to add as much information as I come across to make the wiki as completed as I can.
So we try to only go by what the characters themselves reveal, not what others theorize (as naturally other characters don't have firsthand knowledge, that is, not the main character in question). So for example going "X mentions Y did this for this reason" doesn't help with pages. Instead need to go by what the characters reveal and any evidence reveals (like in side quests in TW3 you learn quite a bit of information just from asking around that the characters may not have revealed).
Also for notes like the golden dragon issue, that's more for significant notes regarding the topic (it would more accurately go on Villentretenmerth's page but as his page is fleshed out to include that in the bio there's no need for it as a note).
Also we don't try to write every details in like for Aryan's, or else needs to be fleshed out as a biography and not written like a side ntoe.
So if I do want to include even more minor details (not counting theories and such but like with Aryan), I may do that when I put it in a separate biography section instead of in the first paragraph where information is supposed to be kept brief?
Same argument could be used in favor of combining animal with bestiary, kingdom with location, character with real person. Yet we do not merge those, because it is way more useful to have them separate.
Actually we did try with those but it turned out the animal and bestiary were too different (bestiary goes by game information that changes across the games, you don't know how badly I want to combine all the bestiaries boxes into one T_T ) and same with the kingdoms/locations, the game item boxes, etc. Basically if we have a box that can reasonably work for a page it's best to go with that unless there's something crucial that means it has to be split up.
The main problem with that is the format of the infobox: locations are generally smaller and therefore it's set to have an image at the top with coa (if any) further down and not nearly as many headers as kingdom (which we break down by general, government, etc.) while kingdoms don't have image fields for an overall image, instead being replaced by a prominent flag/coa at the top of it's box.
And vehicles do not need as many headers as characters. They don't have eye colors, families, groups of worshippers. Location is a bit closer (vehicles are technically mobile locations), but lacks of certain headers useful in case of vehicles (who owns it versus who is in charge, when was it invented in case of vehicle types and when it was constructed in case of individual vehicles)
The question more is is that important enough to have in the infobox? Affiliation works well for who owns it, born for when it was created, etc. Same reason we don't have, or example, a "notable people" in location infobox (but do have it for organizations).
That said, can take another look at the infoboxes in general to see where some can be combined or fixed up some more.
Vehicle types may seem minor but they "matter" in gameplay imho. In TW2 we can shot some arrows with a ballista, in TW3 we have boats, paper RPGs have some rules for ships and carts. I think it would be ok to have an infobox for wehicles.
I see no reason to delete/not use a separate infobox for vehicles. We don’t have to worry about some space issue on this site either, since that’s the corporation’s thing (and to be exact, they don’t hinder us in any way and never did). Furthemore, there are a lots of pages which can use this box (ships, caravans, siege engines etc.) so the argument of “few pages” is also invalid.
It's not about the space issue, it's the idea of not wanting 50 some infoboxes running around when we can consolidate infoboxes xD Also we don't have any pages for caravans O.o (or are you meaning like groups, who actually use the organization page)?
Oof, that one is a more tricky one just because it's not a typical caravan but rather a mobile training center (like the flotilla in Mass Effect). Not to mention there's a few other oddball cases like that where it's both technically a vehicle but also a location (like the Flying Stag). May have to rework some things for those.
Who’s saying we’re going to have 50 or more boxes? That’s ridiculous. But, as kingdoms are locations and yet distinct enough, so are the vehicles and sorry but I don’t feel convinced this infobox is redundant.
Except there are a few exceptions as noted that some aren't just vehicles but locations as well. So unless we can agree to use say, locations box for those oddities and just a vehicle template for the rest, it might be better to just modify locations to add in the necessary fields for vehicles as well and use it as the standard. Admittedly neither is appealing but we need to figure out what to do about the outliers that are locations and vehicles to set the standard for the rest.
Btw; it is a common practice that after another battle takes place in the same location, the previous one is called "first", especially if the second is called "second" :P It wasn't named "first" in the book because the only mention of this battle was before the second one was fought, when Dandelion was fleeing Cintra
I can't remember off the top of my head in the books, but throughout the games many only say "the battle of Sodden" even if they mean the second so it gets very blurry on which one they're talking about :/
Back to vehicles: may I rename "drakkar" into "longship"? Drakkar is way more specific term, denoting only the best, "flag" ships. Most of the Skelliger boats are smaller longships. Even the pic we use on Drakkar page is called Longship in Gwent.
And your point is...? Just because her hair doesn't have literal streaks of blonde hightlights like the right image doesn't mean it's not dirty blonde (which her hair is far closer to than chestnut, which is more brown with red in it).
Back to an old yet unresolved topic: I'd propose to bot-change the license for all game images from "free use" to "permission". The game images, concepts etc are obviously not "free use". Their usage on fan websites and vids is permitted, but it isn't free to use in commercial projects - one cannot, let's say, use Gwent cardarts for their own commercial card game. I believe we should correct the licensing in order to avoid confusion.
As explained before, it's not to do with any of that, it's the fact that the fair use template is like that across all wikias (not just this community) so changing it would very much cause confusion as a whole (it'd be like if we changed the "clear" template or renamed it something like "break", certain templates remain the same across all communities). However we can try to re-word it to mean anything from the games are considered property of the developers as well.
Ohhh I discovered something (a page that had been deleted almost 10 years ago) that is used to edit the licensing drop down. See the newest one I added right under the Fair use with permission list? :)
It wasn't supposed to be a dictionary page, I thought it could use it's own page because it is an actual new location and mechanic in the DLC. Other pages reference it so it would be fitting to have its own page. So could you please not delete it.
Do it again and I will put in a block. You've already been told not to do so as "gang" already enompasses the word. You can add to that page instead if you'd like though, but do not re-create a page just for "hanse".
And I'm sorry if that's coming off rude. Not having the best of days right now. In short, when there's a main page for a word and its variants, we group everything under that one word to prevent redundancy across the wiki.
Yes if I create a new article how will things work with that? I mean do I have to link it with what it relates to? Or will it simply be hidden before it is reviewed and only after earning the approval it will be added to the site?