Talk:Xe'ra

Lost to the Great Dark Beyond

No one knows where that line came from? I vaguely remember it during  [45] Awakenings.--SWM2448 19:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"When our work is complete, I will be lost to the Great Dark." ? -- MyMindWontQuiet 22:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Death

So it seems Xe'Ra dies because Illidan refused to merge with her? I wonder if that was a late decision because of the negative feedback on her and Illidan as a "child of light & shadow" Xporc (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Illidan was skeptical about the elder naaru in the Illidan novel too, so I like this decision. --Mordecay (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah he already wasn't really enthusiastic about it in the novel, so I think they antagonized Xe'ra on purpose so it'd be the more satisfying for us to see her die. I still find it weird that they went so far as to create two entirely new models for Xe'ra just for a 2 second appearance.

I'm bummed however that the Shadow part of the Netherlight Crucible comes from a revenant rather than L'ura, the dark naaru, would've been a nice contrast with Xe'ra, a light naaru, specially since the void remnant is literally a shadowy textured version of Xe'ra's remains.-- MyMindWontQuiet 14:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Personality

You know, just because you disagree with some sentences of this part, you don't have to delete everything and the information it contains... Xporc (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't. I removed only 2 things because they were completely subjective. I said I kept all that was objective, because a wiki doesn't really have a place for subjectivity, at least not in the main article. Saying that all of Xe'ra's actions came from a form of pride is incorrect, or speculation, but it has no basis. Same for the "simply because it was to her advantage" thing regarding Illidan. Saying she imprisoned anyone who disagreed leaves out an important part: that she was still willing to forgive Alleria, but she knowingly went against her and the Army of the Light, so I put that sentence in the A Thousand Years of War section where it belongs (because it's true), but completed it with the missing information. So in the end only 2 ideas were removed (pride and using Illidan), and 3 were kept. Of which 1 was put in the main article because it was relevant and 2 into the Notes & trivia section. -- MyMindWontQuiet 19:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

And I brought it back, because her personality needs to be highlighted, as her negative traits were a key part of the character's existence (as per the Note). She was indeed proud, and she was indeed obsessed with her prophecy's completion. I never said she was 'using Illidan'. I said she was ignoring the bad things he'd done because he was key to the prophecy, while she simultaneously shames players for the same. The audio drama just explores more of her personality, it's not contradictory. Meganerd18 (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Seriously guys, discuss this here or i'm just gonna lock the page after deciding what I prefer myself. Xporc (talk) 09:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well now I've actually made changes to explain both sides, and to keep it looking like the wiki's own words, rather than just cutting and pasting bits and pieces from other sources and sticking them in like a magazine. I've limited it to things we've directly seen, and devs have confirmed that there are intended to be negative aspects to her character. Keep saying 'it's biased' without any actual problems, I think it's becoming clear who the 'biased' one is. Stop editing it. There is absolutely nothing here beyond what's been seen and mentioned before here. So LEAVE IT ALONE. Meganerd18 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No, you using words such as "Xe'ra is hypocritical" and "she goes as far" (like twice !) and "overbearing mother" who "knows best", that's all your interpretation. The readers want to read the facts, they don't want to read Meganerd's interpretation/analysis of the whole Xe'ra thing. The goal is to stay neutral. You are not simply describing Xe'ra as the section previously did, you are judging her. The only reason you want to change it is because you want the words to reflect your view, because the current section is already complete and is not lacking any information. If information is missing, do go and add it, no one is against this. I know you don't mean to, but all you are doing is changing the words so they reflect your view. I cannot stress this enough : you are not adding anything, you said it yourself, you are just changing the wording so it fits you. And that's not right. If what is stated is factually accurate, and you don't have anything to add or correct, there's no point in editing. -- MyMindWontQuiet 01:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Now you're back at it again I see. Discuss it here before just reverting. PeterWind (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

FFS this has been going on for so many months, do I have to threaten bans for the next person editing this part without discussion? Xporc (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion is already started. They have been talking back and forth but haven't come to an agreement. I don't understand why they keep reverting the edits when the discussion haven't come to a conclusion. — SurafbrovWarcraft Wiki administrator T / C 09:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

There's little to discuss, really. His edit solely consists in 1) removing information that was present, and 2) twist the rest with connoted/personal words. It adds no value, it is literally removing value, and what's left is modified with personal words/interpration instead of an objective account.

Multiple people including Kaydeethree, myself and Xporc have reverted his edit, only for him to return every few weeks and revert everybody again. At some point, maybe something needs to be done.

I would also be in favor of just removing the Personality section since its important points could just be part of the Notes section, while the rest will be too up to interpretation. -- MyMindWontQuiet 11:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

In some cases, I suppose a personality section can be warranted, but in general I dislike sections that make too many assumptions. Objective descriptions are fine, throw a few lines under speculation if need be. The rest, I think, should be up to the readers. PeterWind (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, never was fond of that idea, a Personality section is just too subject to interpretation. -- MyMindWontQuiet 12:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not remove information or twist the rest, I was improving the article by adding flow, instead of making the section sound tacked together. The only edits I reverted were yours, Mind, which were themselves just reversions, and the problem was you, not me. You get so addicted to articles being exactly the way you want them, and refuse to make concessions at any point. I made quite a few concessions to improve the section and reduce any of the "personal words" crap you liked to complain about. Specifically that little tangent about "fondness for Illidan is odd", which didn't fit in any way and I tried to streamline it to make it less awkward and to summarize the basic bullet point of it (which is literally hypocrisy, that's what that segment was describing). But you wouldn't have it, because for some reason you want the articles to be as badly written as possible. And it's always the same with you too. You try to act like you run the whole wiki and everything has to be exactly the way you want them, or you get mad and make up crap about 'not being objective'. It was absolutely objective, it was literally describing things that had been portrayed, but in fewer words.

I don't object to the removal of the personality section, but I object to being blamed. MyMindWontQuiet was the problem, not me. Their resistance to change, on a site that's defined by change, is toxic and unhelpful. And they're absolutely closed to discussion, which is why I stopped bothering. They refused to listen, make concessions, or try to be understanding. Meganerd18 (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, if you feel something is missing, but that something is contested, why not make a personal page where you pen the section as you would like it. Perhaps then, MMWQ and/or other interested parties can provide feedback in a civil manner there. Not to imply that anyone's version here is more right than that of another. I'm not interested in picking a side here, but the mainspace isn't the place for this tug of war. PeterWind (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)