I certainly hope that you have been well during these times! I'm writing to you this evening as I had recently discovered your revisions to the page regarding The Nameless King.
My friend, may I just start by saying that I'm terribly sorry if you disagree with my edits, but saying something like, "it is not explicitly stated," is a rather poor excuse give that it's quite obvious that The Nameless King IS Gwyn's firstborn son; there's really no room for speculation in that regard honestly. I know that the Lore to this series often involves heavy contemplation and delving deeper into subjects for more context....but.....that doesn't mean that such logic can or should ALWAYS be applied to EVERY aspect of the Lore. I feel that in this instance, it's rather clear that The Nameless King's identitly is to be taken at face-value based on the lore we are given, and there's no reason to believe or speculate that he is anyone else or that he's related to anyone else.
Either way, I extend my sincerest apologies regarding my edits, but you can't deny what has been rather blantantly spelled out for us. Please enjoy the rest of your evening and Godspeed to you!!! I hope that you and your family continue to do well during this time in our lives!
The First Born's relation to the Nameless King is stated in both of their respective articles. I feel that that is more than enough to let readers draw their own conclusions. It would not be proper to promote speculation, no matter how strongly supported it is, so long as it is not explicitly stated in-game. It's for that reason why there's no explicit mentioning that, say, the Queen of Lothric is Gwynevere, or that Priscilla is a child of Gwyn, or various other community speculations. Referencing the item descriptions is good enough without making direct statements.
I wanted to reply to your message after having noticed it just a moment ago!
My friend, I'm very sorry, but I really must stand by what I said last night, there's no, "speculation," to The Nameless King whatsoever; the Nameless King IS Gwyn's son.
I really don't understand why you seem to be insinuating that there is a differnce between the two articles or that there's still guesses as to who it could be, when the answers have already been given to us.
Gwynevere is/was the Queen of Lothric
The Nameless King is Gwyn's firstborn son.
Well anyways, I hope that you have a good day! Godspeed to you and your family!!!
"A scythe is a scythe, you're reading too much into it."
Hello and good evening to you Sir/Miss LordKelvinX2086!
My apologies if my previous edit has upset you, but I assure you my friend that it was simply a fan's desire to point out a possible parallel to another story, as MANY other weapons, items, armors, and people throughout the stories of Lordran, Drangleic, and Lothric have done previously.
My decision to add that comment was also done only after careful analysis from observing not just the physical appearances, but also the movesets and fighting styles of BOTH scythes from Drangleic and Dante's Inferno; I wouldn't have made that edit if I wasn't absolutely certain; the 720 slash attack is what truly convinced me of it!
Appearance-wise, the two scythes are very similar in looks, although there are indeed notable differences such as the segments of the handles and the obvious axel that Dante's scythe has that allows it to become a spear.
Either way, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, and I will not bring this up again! Thank you and have a good night! Godspeed!!!
I noticed that you undid my edit to the availability of the Lothric Knight Greatsword, and I'm assuming you'll also undo my future edits regarding Greirat's ashes, if you give the Shrine handmaid Greirat's ashes after he's back from his Undead Settlement expedition, it will not unlock his Irithyll items in her inventory for whatever reason, I tested it myself and looked up in other sites, you can try it yourself or actually do any research.
Regarding the edit to the Notes and Trivia sections, I put that information there because I think it could be interesting and/or helpful to people. Dismissing and erasing it because you think it is "Very obvious, redundant or unnecessary" is unjustified as the line added to the Notes section could genuinely help someone who is struggling with this fight. Someone may consider it futile to try to use poison/toxic mist on a target who moves around so much, based on experience with exposure times on other enemies. Being informed of the damage starting instantly may convince them to try the spell, and find it to be of great benefit.
As far as the Trivia section is concerned, is it not the function of a trivia section to house not-exactly-necessary-but-potentially-interesting information? If you disagree, should other entries in the trivia list that could be described as "Very obvious, redundant or unnecessary" not be removed? e.g. "He has a Scottish accent." and "Oddly enough, he still asks for his flail when he is met." both of which evidence themselves almost immediately upon speaking to Ariandel, appear to have been allowed to exist by you.
If you aren't going to remove other information that could be categorised in the same way you described my edit, then I ask if you would kindly reconsider your erasure of my contribution. My edit was not disrespectful, inaccurate or malicious, and as such I think it should be allowed to exist with the collective contributions of this community for the individual reader's benefit and interest. Isn't that the point of a wiki, anyway?
I agree that that page can be cleaned up and improved, however I didn't agree with the approach that you made. Generally if too much content is added to the notes and trivia parts of an article the quality will decrease, so I tend to err on the side of caution. I'll look into improving that page when I have time, and perhaps re-adding some of your additions.
Hi Kelvin, if I may ask, is there a particular reason as to why the piece of trivia I contributed with was entirely removed, aside from the aforementioned issue with the links that you spoke of in my wall?
But the helms weren't the only sources that I used in the trivia. There was a link to the Gyrm page, whose race's definition matches much of what is presented environmentally about Vamos: he lives underground, has a stockier stature, and has quite a rude atittude towards the player, who happens to be an undead/human. It was these three links summed up that formed the evidences to validate the information I added.
If it makes for poor trivia, I wouldn't know, because there are no parameters established in this wikia that says otherwise. On another note, I would have to disagree on your view as to what makes for speculation or not because, again, I *did* have evidence other than the helms to support it.
I'll ask an admin/moderator to check on our situation and let them decide what's best, what do you think?
The problem with trivia based on speculation in Dark Souls is that there's far too much room for speculation. If everybody added their own theories based only on that, then the trivia sections would take up an unnecessarily large fraction of every article and this place would end up no better than Fextralife. I've seen it happen before on other wikis, and it really destroys the quality of the overall site.
But I did not add anything without concrete evidence, that's the difference: speculation has little to no significant evidence that can uphold it. All the base of the Dark Souls lore is constructed upon pieces of evidence put together and connected dots, and like I said, I had more than just the helms to support mine.
I'm sorry that you've seen other wikias fall apart because of deranged editing, but I don't believe it's your place to deliberatedly delete people's contribution based on what you consider right or not when the wikia itself has its own small set of do's and dont's. I can agree with formatting and grammar and asking people to respect it, but detracting from a wikia on your own volition is not within your space of authority.
I personally think noting the similarities between Vamos and the Gyrm could be worthwhile, since they are quite numerous, and even somewhat ties into the Gyrm's connection with mythological dwarves (Gyrm sharing plenty of similarities with dwarves and Vamos being a skilled blacksmith). However, the part that says he may be Gyrm royalty isn't necessary, as one doesn't have to assume every little detail is relevant to the lore of the games.
But if either of you disagree, I'm open to suggestions.
My train of thought for writing down that he may be royalty is that, when there's no evidence that contradicts what's being presented, the game's pointing you in the most obvious direction; since he's in the possession of the helm, and its description starts with "Helm of Vamos", I did not initially think it could be anything else.
In any case, I'm ok with just adding a trivia saying he may be part of the Gyrm race, and let people take their own conclusions on whether he was a member of royalty or not.
So does everybody else who edits this wiki. But if your edits reduce the quality of the article, then it does everybody a disservice.
A lot of your edits lack the proper formatting and grammar that one should expect from a wiki article, which is one of the major reasons why they were reverted. If everybody edited an article like that, then it would be an incoherent mess that nobody would want to read. I would suggest that if you want to actually improve the articles that you're editing, start by learning how to edit a wiki. Otherwise, if you just want to offer strategies for beating bosses, you could write strategy guides on GameFAQS or something.
It has to be said. For someone who's telling others how to edit maybe you yourself LordKelvin should learn how to edit a wiki, because you have left links and useless redirect pages behind numerous times when you have moved pages.
If you knew how to edit a wiki these links and redirects would no longer remain.
I am now going through all the pages you left behind to mark them for deletion because you LordKelvin should have deleted them when you moved the page from said locations.
Regular users cannot delete pages. And they remain in place because there are still links to those pages from other sources. So changing the previous links to direct to the proper pages is the correct course of action.
Regular users can rename pages, but not delete them, only mark them for deletion. Deleting the redirect would leave red links behind anyway, since several of them are in old message posts that can't be edited by users, and those terms do get searched for and the redirect would still be very useful in that case.
Kevin doesn't even have his profile page completed and he's editing and maintaining the Wiki, HA! Let me share something with you, I am a published webmaster on a few websites for my businesses I created in the past that were both ecommerce and successful. So don't assume to know my knowledge, capabilities and computer editing expertise because you don't know sh*t about me! Furthermore, I think you should actually read the edits and determine their value or lack of before erasing them like a mindless spineless jellyfish.
can I just ask why was my edit removed? That fact is not mentioned anywhere on that page and I think it´s important. Maybe I can put it in the notes or something but at least there should be an explanation why it was removed.
Cemetery of Ash being the same area as Untended Graves is obvious trivia that doesn't really need to be stated, and speculation on whether it's in the past or future doesn't belong in an article. And it being the only area in the game that can't be walked to, alongside Archdragon Peak, isn't entirely accurate either since Kiln of the First Flame, Painted World of Ariandel, Dreg Heap and the Ringed City also share those traits.
I am sorry, but I disagree. That article has barely anything written in there. Also, I believe that the nature of this area is important to metion, whether we know for sure or not. All the other examples you´ve mentioned are DLCs or the final area in the game, which are special on its own and not part of the regular game world. It´s also a common courtesy to leave a message on why you´d remove someone´s edits, otherwise you´re just discouraging anybody from ever contributing here.