Talk:Elf
I think that bit at the end is funny, really, we should leave it --Carcer 21:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- It seemed kind of... unnecessary. --Anonykota
- It's sole purpose is trolling, why should we allow trolling in the articles? Fatum 22:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Really this is why I deleted it to begin with... Anonymous 22:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- But it makes the pictures line op so nicely with the text ;_; --Myomoto 22:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's not trolling when it's blatantly fucking obvious, damnit. The section is for comedy value. --Carcer 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Really this is why I deleted it to begin with... Anonymous 22:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Comedy? What the fuck's wrong with me that I ain't laughing? 4E CharOp was here: Genasi are the OP, Elves are ok at best. The Genasi-specific elemental/enchantment combos beat the shit out of an encounter reroll and racial doublesword proficiency (wooo). I suggest dumping the naming and uses sections. It's not funny, or even clever, and mostly makes /tg/ looks permanently 10th grade LIMP BISCUIT FUCK YEAH!111. Plus, and even more shameful/amusing, all those olds "Elf Slave Wat Do" threads brought out dozens of /tg/ Not Just White, Bright! Knights who variously rescue and/or avenge the slaves so if there are no fucks to give about being funny or clever or creative it is in fact simply not accurate either. And fa/tg/uys get their numbers straight. Like it or, (Homosexuals, flaming homosexuals, Nature's fuckhole, Punching bags, Queeros, Retards) clearly not, it's a big part of classic fantasy and /tg/ can either be A) Getting Shit Done With Better Elves or B) STILL MAD BRO.
Contents
Common names for elves.[edit]
Sectioned, because the rest of the comments aren't specific about what they're bitching about.
I'm firmly in the camp of "this section of the article looks like it was shat on by thirteen year old children". /tg/ might be mad, MAD ABOUT ELVES, but these 'insults' are neither funny nor creative. Seriously, "retards"? Let's just put "poop" on the list while we're at it. At least Shadowrun and Dragon Age put effort into their slang. I'm going to edit it down a bit. Not as far as I'd like, but let's consider it some sort of compromise, eh? -- HK (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Weak article[edit]
The jokes here aren't particularly strong, for a moment I thought I was reading encyclopedia dramatica. I don't really know how to fix it to make the jokes stronger but... does anyone else even see a problem?
- Honestly? Yeah, this article really, really doesn't look good - it's clearly one of the older articles and, I can't believe I'm saying this, 1d4chan has actually grown and matured past this article since it was written. This isn't even like the gnome article, where the abundance of meme/joke lore before it reaches the serious lore is actually part of the greater joke that gnomes have so very little decent or interesting portrayal in games as is. Personally, I'd do to this article what was done to the dwarf article (which albeit isn't finished moving away from memes yet): rewrite it from the ground up to be facts first, and then put in an "elves on /tg/" to explain their memetic aspects - elf slavery, the disapproval of elves, the complaints about their vast number of subraces, etc.--QuietBrowser (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- 100% agreed. I've moved the most bullshit stuff to a collapsible at the bottom of the page, which needs some sorting and a lot of deleting. After that the page can become something better. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly? Yeah, this article really, really doesn't look good - it's clearly one of the older articles and, I can't believe I'm saying this, 1d4chan has actually grown and matured past this article since it was written. This isn't even like the gnome article, where the abundance of meme/joke lore before it reaches the serious lore is actually part of the greater joke that gnomes have so very little decent or interesting portrayal in games as is. Personally, I'd do to this article what was done to the dwarf article (which albeit isn't finished moving away from memes yet): rewrite it from the ground up to be facts first, and then put in an "elves on /tg/" to explain their memetic aspects - elf slavery, the disapproval of elves, the complaints about their vast number of subraces, etc.--QuietBrowser (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow, you three just sucked the fun out of the article. It’s like you guys copy/pasted an article on elves from Wikipedia, tacked on what you liked from the existing article at the end and then took all the jokes and shoved ‘em into a collapsible at the bottom of the page. This isn’s Fucking Wikipedia you humorless fucks! this is 1d4chan! You literally made the article WORSE by adding this giant wall of text that nobody gives a fuck about and shoving most of the jokes into a collapsible! The reason the dwarf article works is BECAUSE the jokes/memes are seamlessly intertwined into the info. For fucks sake!
- Yeah, not like people want actual info alongside the jokes that are specific to a certain type of elf.
- I mean, cleanup tag is there for a reason. Do you have anything to contribute besides ineffectual whining or...? --72.89.208.82 21:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Middle stance" implies I don't agree with the article being changed, which it is in some need of - I just don't care for aimless whining and then doing fuck all to actually solve the problem. --72.89.208.82 06:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
- honestly I think what needs to be done is have the info dump section heavily trimmed down to just the lore and sub-races specifically related to /tg/ related stuff (D&D, pathfinder, shadowrun, etc.) and weave in /TG/ related jokes and memes about elves throughout the article. that way it cuts out all of the unnecessary bullshit (like IRL influences, tolkin lore etc.) that's in the info dump section now. maybe a sentence or two to mention it in passing is fine but we don't need 5 paragraphs worth of IRL lore for elves to get across how they're represented in Tabletop games. aside from that I'd say the rest of the article past the info dump is fine, though I think it would be okay to re-integrate what's in he collapsible back into the article as long as it's just tacked onto the end with the header of /TG/ elf memes. though you could probably re-purpose the stronger jokes and memes in the collapsibe into the main article proper by sprinkling them in where they would feel natural. --RecordkeeperInferno (talk) 24 November 2018
On the Elves Are Gay Meme[edit]
I'm currently working on cleaning up the article (not gonna lie, at first it was just to remove the "gay" shit, but this article needs fixing, bad. I don't think the section is necessary, but I'm not going to remove it because I'm inherently biased, especially now because I'm trying to fix the Gay redirect to make it work for Gay Purple Man. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just to note: I put it in the "cleanupplz" section for some subtle yet obvious reasons. And as to the Gay redirect: I'll not object to that change, as that seems to be a logical place to redirect to as well. Saarlacfunkel (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Category Order[edit]
Why is D&D listed before Tolkien, particularly when the top of that article calls back to it? Its like mentioning Caesar before the Republic on an article about Rome. --Thannak (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Could someone add Dark Sun Elves?[edit]
IIRC (I haven't played Dark Sun in ~15 years) Athasian Elves were pretty unique (7 ft. tall long-distance runners.)
