Talk: Community Portal/Archive 17

GuildWars Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 17/topnotes

BeastInfobox system revamp

Proposal: turn it semi-similar to how the skill system works, so that non-creature articles that talk about creatures can easily provide more information (that don't need to be synced).

• Stuff we'll want to keep track about all Creatures
  • Everything currently in Beastinfobox
  • If it's Ally, Enemy, or Other (there are some you cannot attack and cannot heal)
  • If it's boss or not
  • A list of locations appears in
  • Skill Bar (separate entries for Normal mode vs Hard mode)

Articles about locations can then pull the monster's data (in either a table-row format or a bullet-list format, or something else) easily. And other types of articles may create custom formatting templates for their usage too.

-User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea - potentially a whole lot of work, but potentially extremely useful. Some of the work could be handled by a bot - taking any existing categories/skillbars and turning them into parameters in the existing BeastInfobox, then taking the box and moving it to a subpage. This is obviously one of your "troublemaker" ideas that will require 7-14 days of discussion first. ^_~ —Dr Ishmael 04:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same sorts of lines. Its been a while now, so mind if I start? —Warw/Wick 06:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Third warning, it has been over a week. I will start in Two Hours unless there are any objections raised. :) —Warw/Wick 14:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week since Pan proposed it, you just saw it today. 14:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I said it about a week ago I think. Though what I said was moved to the archive. I saw this when Pan proposed it. —Warw/Wick 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the case. It's Pan's proposal, get the go-ahead from him (or possibly her, still not sure) before you start anything. 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I said it before noticing pan's statement, but I've known this was here for a while. And pan is a guy. —Warw/Wick 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that so? Fascinating. Well, I'm going to bed. Good luck with the creature skill template thing. 14:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is to design the box first. ONCE the box is designed, we should go through a separate process to make sure the community likes the box designed. As for the statement that I'm a guy, you might want to refer to double check against my user page on GWW. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 15:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You know how there's an auto-category for the skill box? Like if you put "skill type = enchantment" then it will automatically go into the enchantment category. We should do this for the monsters, for things like species, profession, location, etc. --Macros 16:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

New Effect box template

Somewhat related to the BeastInfobox revamp, I would like to propose adding an "Effect box" template to all Effects. This will be similar to the Skill box template, except it would, obviously, provide different info other than full/concise descriptions.

• Info we'll want to keep track of on all Effects:
  • Type (see subcats of Category:Effects)
  • Campaign
  • Location, for localized effects (e.g. Realm of Torment explorable effects)
  • Consumable or Bundle item, for effects granted by items
  • Faction or god that grants it, for Blessings/Bounties

Unless anyone wants to make QRs for effects, I don't see any need to export this to subpages, like we have for skills. Also, for Consumables effects, one idea I had is to include the effect on the item's page, like I've done for Drake Kabob. —Dr Ishmael 04:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[[:Category:Effects]] makes sure this page isnt added to the "effects" category. Note the first colon. Changed it for you :) --- -- (s)talkpage 10:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bah! :P But do you have any comments about it? —Dr Ishmael 14:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. So long as it wouldn't get in the way of any other page layouts we use on those pages, right? All we have currently is a little image of the effect icon, which isn't much. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 14:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Muahahaha, you're gonna get in some serious trouble with this...reanor 15:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Welp, tomorrow will be seven days since I posted this, so I'll assume no one has any strong objections to it. I'm going to go ahead and start adding it where needed. —Dr Ishmael 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[1] Learn from that first.reanor 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

*grumble, grumble* Why didn't you just link that in the first place, instead of making that inane "getting in trouble" comment? /troutslap >.> —Dr Ishmael 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So you could realize it yourself.reanor 01:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Without ever looking at that, I actually had already included ~95% of what's in GWW's Effect infobox. They have a more effecient way of assigning categories, though, and a couple other things I hadn't thought of, so it was still useful.

It seems like the only real contention there was over what to call the Sunspear/Lightbringer/EotN effects you get from people at res shrines that give you points toward a title track for killing things. I believe the consensus here is to call them bounties, cf. Kurzick/Luxon bounty, Sunspear/Lightbringer bounty and Eye of the North reputation bounties. They are blessings, yes, but they are a special sub-type of blessing because of the points-for-killing-stuff effect. —Dr Ishmael 01:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple quick things related to categories before I go to bed:

• Yes, I know I made a lot of redlink cats just now, I'll deal with them tomorrow.
• What is the deal with Category:Environmental Effects? The in-game term is Environment Effect, so why does the cat have two extra letters?

—Dr Ishmael 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

GWW mysteries, there are many similar cases. Just do it they way you feel it's best before someone starts arguing against you with non-sense and slows you down.reanor 06:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Grammatically speaking "Environmental effect" is the right form. That wording is also used internally by ANet, as evidenced in all of the Game link: pages for this kind of skills that Mike O'Brien exported to the wiki, such as this; all of them have the comment "this is an environmental or special skill". So at the very least, using those additional two characters, -al, is not incorrect. --Dirigible

But, lower case and singular are preferred --- -- (s)talkpage 08:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Singular? Most categories I've seen are plural. Category:Bounties, Category:Templates, Category:Skale_Bosses, etc. —Dr Ishmael 14:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest to not bother with singular :P --- -- (s)talkpage 14:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In-game terms are also title-cased, Category:Enchantment Spells, Category:Dual Attacks. Since the description for a number of Environment Effects (those that don't call themselves Signets or whatever) do use that exact wording and case, that's why I was using it. I agree that "environmental effect" is the grammatically correct form, and if we're talking about them generally that's what I'd use, but not for the category. —Dr Ishmael 15:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, Environmental is the proper adjective form. RoseOfKali 16:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

I have finished adding the effect box to pretty much all Environment Effects, Disguises, and Blessings, as well as the EotN bounties and bonuses (which needed major cleanup/fleshing-out anyway). I've got a few questions before I continue:

1. The SS/LB bounties are each formatted so that part of the page (the gray box with the icon) is an inclusion into the main article. Should I:
   • wrap that bit with <includeonly>, then add the effect box?
   • subst: them into the main article so I can replace the individual articles with the effect box?
   • leave them as is?
2. The Conditions are already formatted nicely, and I think I'd mentioned above that I feel hesitant to change them. The concise descriptions need to be added regardless, as they give the exact numbers of the condition, and the effect box provides an easy way to do this. It would also add a degree of consistency to the effects in general.
3. There are a number of... "skilfects" which are currently formatted as skills, but are actually effects. Some of the more obvious ones I've gone ahead and reformatted, but others I've left alone for now. Let me know if you oppose these (and others I may come across) being changed to effects:
   • Mursaat Tower (Skill)
   • Lucky Aura
   • Lunar Blessing
   • Spiritual Possession
   • Sugar Rush
   • Sugar Jolt
   • Battle Cry
   • Melee Defense Zone
   • Elemental Defense Zone
4. Finally, consumable effects. This was brought up below, but there haven't been many comments on it. I agree with the logic that there really isn't a need for a separate page for the effect, especially when they have the same name (Armor of Salvation, Candy Corn, etc.). This has also been discussed elsewhere - Birthday Cupcake (effect) has had a merge tag for over a year now, and there were three users supporting the merge, with no one outright opposing it. Since there has been past discussion on this, I'm only going to wait until Monday for any further comments. Of course, this then begs the question: do we need a separate category for consumable effects if we're going to keep the consumable and the effect on the same page?

—Dr Ishmael 23:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, time to start adding consumable effects. —Dr Ishmael 19:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Naturally, right after I start I'm struck by a better idea that can satisfy both sides: leave the effects articles, and include them into the item articles. The only complaint there would be the formatting of the item article, but I'll leave that to someone with a better eye for design. —Dr Ishmael 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember the page "Titans get plus health regen and set enemies on fire each time he is hit"?

See this image I found on the official Wiki. Poke found it in the gw.dat file, and modded it into a skill bar. Respective pages. This is also linked from the Titans blahblah page. Found it rather interesting, perhaps have some mention of it? --- -- (s)talkpage 05:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I found those (and about a hundred more like them) when I parsed out the unicode files in gw.dat to get the concise descriptions for monster skills and effects. BAMPH!! is in there (desc: BAMPH!!), along with:

• "Fake Spell": Fake spell just to show casting animation and maybe effects.
• "Rurik Must Live": Buff placed on Rurik that prevents him from dying for 5 minutes. (I don't think this one ever worked as intended >.>)
• "Summoning of the Scepter": The Margonite utters words in an ancient tongue, and the ground beneath him begins to shiver and crack. (probably used for The Cold Touch of the Past)
• "Exposed Underbelly": While on your side, you take +X damage when you take damage, where X is twice your level. (Siege Turtle)

Those are a few of the highlights. If anyone wants, I can post the complete list. —Dr Ishmael 05:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons that monsters don't have a full skill bar. Some slots are occupied by these buffs. We could make pages for these skills, but... — Poki#3 , 11:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Margonite Paragons (stupid names they have>.> ) in the DoA have 9 skills, so I think they buffed Nightfall-and-further monsters with a greater skillbar :) But I oculd see this as being the reason Proph/Factions monsters have so little (and mediocre) skills. --- -- (s)talkpage 12:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Margonite Anur Runds have 7 skills, including Enraged :o And I heard Gaile or some other developer say a long time ago, that some special monster buffs have to occupy a skill slot. — Poki#3 , 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent "improvements"

→ Moved to Project talk:InterWiki

Proffesions

(I'm also going to mention this on GuildWars Wiki.) What if for all of the proffesions pages we also name all of the heroes that have those proffesions, like for Necromancer it would be Olias, Master of Whispers, and Livia.--‎FireTock 14:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we also list every NPC and monster that holds that profession? 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's kinda useless to list heroes there, cuz, like Felix said, you could list all NPCs and monsters from the game there as well.... Why not even add all the player names from all of GW too? — eXtinctioN 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The profession article should probably link to the corresponding category, which should then subcategorize. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-orphaned articles

I wasn't sure if I should put this directly into the GuildWiki: namespace, but I've created a page [[here]] to list all the "modular" articles, those that are only linked to as transclusions, in order to clear out Special:Lonelypages. If no one minds, I'll move this out to [[GuildWiki:Non-orphaned articles]] in a couple days. —Dr Ishmael 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the armor pages are in fact junk pages. They are remnants from some long forgotten armor gallery set up. I'd have to go through them to figure out which are which but usually anything with /ascended or similar is old. The setup to a mainspace page is a semi-useful idea. Just stuff that shows up in transclusions not actual orphans right? —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 07:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my thought: non-orphaned images is primarily for images that are linked to by text links only, so non-orphaned articles would be primarily for articles that are only transcluded. The purpose of both being to "fix" MediaWiki's error in calling them "orphaned" when they're actually being used.

I figured there were a few junk pages in there - found a few obvious ones where an NPC's name was misspelled, then corrected, but the misspelled module wasn't deleted. I didn't feel like checking them all at the time, but they definitely should be checked. I can add that to my to-do box. —Dr Ishmael 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved. I even went to the trouble of adding navbars to each section so it would be easier to look at. —Dr Ishmael 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Effect or effect?

Here is an article with a capitalized E in effect

[[Spear of Archemorus (Effect)]]

Here is one with lowercase e.

Urn of Saint Viktor (effect)

Which way is correct?Guild44 14:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Its kind of annoying when you want to find an effect page and you have to type it in twice if you don't get your capitalization right...Guild44 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Search/(effect) indicates that (effect) seems to be used more often than (Effect), so it would be more efficient to change them all to lowercase. 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This could take forever! We would have to change all the links and stuff too....Guild44 14:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a job for Ishmael. 14:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought I could save the day by going in game and grabbing a hold of both items in Sunjiang District. Well, I was mistaken there, as the game does not use the term effect at all. So would we go by GW:ULC? -- User:Isk8 (T/C) 14:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that seems to be the proper thing to do. 14:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think all the effect pages should be merged with the main page. Theres nothing thats said on the effect pages that cant be easily said on the main page. Like the items effects, http://guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Birthday_Cupcake_%28effect%29

I think the only effect pages that should stay are the Environmental Effect Pages.(are the even called that in the game?) Guild44 14:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are a number of effects with the type "Environment Effect" in the game - two examples off the top of my head are Approaching the Vortex and Thirst of the Drought. Regarding capitalization of (effect) for article names, it should be lower-case, as there is no simple "Effect" type in-game. There's a similar bot task already proposed for ULC-ing categories, it wouldn't be hard to write a script to do the same for articles.

As for merging effect pages with the item pages, I tested doing that on Drake Kabob. If we can get consensus on it, I'll do the same for all consumable effects. —Dr Ishmael 15:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I rather like the combined look, and it could help prevent confusion on items, ie: people wouldn't have to go to a 2nd page in order to see what the consumable item does. I vote to go for it. -- User:Isk8 (T/C) 02:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to begin renaming pages that use "(Effect)" to use "(effect)" instead, since that isn't exactly a 'disruptive' change. I'll wait a bit longer for any more comments on the doubling up of consumable items with their effect. —Dr Ishmael 15:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like there were only three, which have been fixed: Spear of Archemorus (effect), Energy Drain (effect), and Depths of Madness (effect). Let me know if there are any others, or if I missed anything when I moved them. —Dr Ishmael 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible new categorie in Game play types?

Not sure I this goes here on on the main page disscusion. Anyway I think we should have a categorie in Gmae Play types called User Created Mini-games that could archive mini-games created by users to play in a guild hall. What do you guys think?Mr Prash 22:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean things like Dodgeball? That thing has a category, and is alone in it... I'm unaware of any other minigames besides rock/paper/scissors and dice rolling. — Poki#3 , 00:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

They have football to.Mr Prash 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Poki's point is that we already have a category for these scrimmage games. If you want to create articles about other games, go ahead - they can all go in that category. —Dr Ishmael 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Strategy Guide

Check this out... Amazing, i didn't think it was possible. But, remember, it was made, and was last edited in 2005. Also, there's two more.

• [2]<--2005
• [3]<--2006
• [4]<--2006

Wow, just wow. And, it gave me an idea. If we cut and paste all of the walkthroughs from each primary quest and mission, put 'em in order, we can make a strategy guide for everything.--‎FireTock 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We already have all that information as far as I can tell, and it's up to date with updates, since those are ancient. They're basically the Prima Guide --Gimmethegepgun 02:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Was he joking or.....?-- 02:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG!! O_O Apathetic Aardvark does a guide for like every stinkin' game ever made! (The FFVII one is pretty good, though :P) I wonder if this guy ever meets real people... O_o RoseOfKali 04:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What Gep said - we've got all of that content already, and we keep it up-to-date. Also, we have it broken up into individual articles, which IMO is much easier to navigate. —Dr Ishmael 05:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That guy is a pretty good and thorough guide writer, as I can attest from his work on many many other games. :) Still, I seriously doubt there is anything worth salvaging from those rather old guides, that we don't already have here somewhere. By the way, GameFAQS > CheatCC. Plagiarism is always ftl. (T/C) 05:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You miss understood, i was trying to say two different things, 1. Look, a guy ACTUALLY WROTE a strategy guide for Guildwars, i thought it was impossible. 2. I have an idea, what if we took all of the information from the walkthroughs from the primary quests and missions, from gwiki (not those strategy guides above) and made a strategy guide from copy and paste.--‎FireTock 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Because its copyrighted to him.. — Warw/Wick 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, the question is why? What good does that have above the mission and primary quest articles that each contain walkthroughs.-- 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

uh. FORGET THE LINKS I PUT ABOVE!!! FORGET THEM! THEY DONT EXIST!!! THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I"M SAYING!!! Just ciopy and paste all of the walktrhoughs from the primary quests and missions from here. Gwiki. RIGHT HERE ON THIS WEBSITE and put them into a strategy guide.--‎FireTock 04:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

He's saying we should print out and sell Guildwiki as a strategy guide.Entrea [Talk] 04:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We would have to give attribution to every single contributor to every single article. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 05:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to play guildwars when you already have a computer with internet, why not just log into Guildwiki rather then pull out some printoff?-- 05:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think he's saying we should "sell" a GuildWiki-based strategy guide so much as just make it available. But still, why? The entire point of having the wiki format is to have extensive linking between articles so you can cross-reference information quickly and easily. Condensing the wiki into the plain-text GameFAQs-style walkthrough would remove that ease of access to information. Not to mention you'd lose all the images and tables, too, and someone would have to responsible for revising it due to game updates. I just can't see the point of doing this. But, if FireTock wants to, I don't see any reason to stop him, as long as he follows our CC BY-NC-SA license. —Dr Ishmael 05:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No! We dont print out and sell anything. WE just do something like this...[[Guild Wars Strategy Guide]], and put in the walkthroughs from mission pages and primary quest pages we ahve on this website. like from Jennur's Horde. We dont print it out, all we do is make a strategy guide so people dont have to constantly go to missions , they just go to the Strategy Guide then they read what it says.--‎FireTock 15:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems self-defeating... if you want to put it together, I guess... --Shadowcrest 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the individual articles? The Mission overview articles already index every primary quest and mission in each campaign, each quest/mission article links to the preceding and following quest/mission, and we have navboxes on the mission articles so you can easily flip between missions. On top of that, the "strategy guide" articles would be HUGE (many of the mission articles are already at or near 32 kB) and would require duplication of effort whenever anyone changed something on the original articles. I'm afraid I still don't see how doing this would benefit anyone. —Dr Ishmael 16:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

resetI really don't see why anyone wants to do this except the sake of saying that we have a strategy guide that will be obsolete with the next major update. The individual articles have the most up-to-date information. If you want to make a guide that badly, just make a list of links to those articles in a gameplay progression, or make a page that does the "include" code from all those missions, and update the mission pages with with "noinclude" code for the stuff we don't want duplicated. But still, waste of effort IMO... It would still take a day and a half to load with how wikia is handling things at the moment... RoseOfKali 15:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the Mission overview already does the former. I don't think anything more than that is needed. O_o RoseOfKali 19:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This could be done via {{transclusion}} of EVERY mission page. This would take minimal setup, reduce "actual" page size, and make a much less cluttered page. It would also update if any one mission guide was changed. HOWEVER, this page would be massive and probably not load properly, etc. (T/C) 04:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the massive part is exactly the part that creates a problem. A massive problem. It would be more frustrating trying to load that page (likely unsuccessfully) than finding the single article you need. RoseOfKali 06:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The benefit of submitting a properly attributed Guildwiki Strategy Guide to diverse FAQ websites is that people who go to these websites first for game tips get to know about Guildwiki. They can print out that guide to have it beside their computer, and they'll know to look up additional information on Guildwiki, which they may not have known about. So it'd be a great publicity feature for Guildwiki, and it'd be useful for those people who like to have printed docs. To fulfil the copyright requirements, the license from Guildwiki:Copyrights would need to be included, and absent any specific instructions on this wiki on how the sources are to be credited, I guess it would be enough (is it?) to cite Guildwiki as the source, listing the source articles and the dates they were taken. If I had the time (which I don't), I'd just go ahead and do it, posting the guide here for two weeks collecting comments and then getting it on as many FAQ sites as I could.(mendel 84.128.201.167 06:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

Screenshot licensing

I've been uploading some armor images today and using the drop-down menu to select "Screenshot" as the licensing option, but when the image is saved, the licensing does not show up. I've been having to put it in manually by using Edit>Screenshot template, which is really really annoying when you do a lot of images in a row... >_< Is it broken? O_o RoseOfKali 16:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice this as a bug whenever uploading a new version of an image. The drop down works for new images, but only intermittently works for new versions. (been helping you with the tagging :P) -- User:Isk8 (T/C) 16:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, I just realized that too, this happens only when uploading a new version. RoseOfKali 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work intermittently when updating an image, it's rather logical. If the image had licensing before, it will keep it, if it did not, it will not get it, even if you selected it in the dropdown. RoseOfKali 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

pvp versions of skills

how do we want to show the pvp versions? My preference would be to NOT have a different page for teh skills but include the info the same way. For things like qrs which version do we show? lots of things to consider for this. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 23:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't a table-thing be created, much like the 'Concise Descriptions' table-thing? Something like, Aegis (PvP Version): 15e 2a 15r. 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would probably be best.-- 01:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best, but so far we don't know exactly how this whole pvp oriented changes will roll out. Hopefully, as has been said by Anet, there will be as little skills changed as possible. Also, if we roll it out like the concise descriptions, I feel that the articles could possibly seem cluttered a bit. Just my 2 cents. -- User:Isk8 (T/C) 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea I had was to have a bar separating any variations in costs/casts/recharges for PvE/PvP versions in the template on the right, and for any variations in description/duration/damage/whatever in a table, like the concise descriptions. I'm trying to design a version of it in my userspace, but I'm having a hard time of it. --Shadowcrest 01:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean something like my version of Energy Tap here? I can't quite figure out what to do for differing green numbers, though... —Dr Ishmael 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, we couldn't roll it out like the concise descriptions because only a very few skills will be split - whatever formatting we put in the Skill box for the PvP version info would have to be hidden for all other skills. —Dr Ishmael 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Dr ishmael beats me to stuff, lol. I got a description to work though- if it was included in an if-statement, it could work. User:Shadowcrest/skill box test/Aegis is what I came up with. --Shadowcrest 01:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

side note: You can check what skills will be changed here: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Developer_Updates — Poki#3 , 05:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we've currently got three different people working on three different ways to deal with this.

1. Update {{Skill box}} to include the different PvP data (Shadowcrest)
2. Add a table below the existing Skill box to denote the PvE/PvP differences (Taki)
3. Split the PvE/PvP versions to two separate articles (Alari)

Wouldn't it be better decide which solution would work best before someone gets disappointed that all their work went to waste? —Dr Ishmael 00:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is feasibly possible to fix Template:Skill box to only display the additional content if there is a different PvP skill, then I would opt for the version in my namespace. If that isn't possible, splitting the pages would be my second choice. --Shadowcrest 00:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, before I actually waste more time on this can anyone tell me if there is a code like {{PAGENAME}} but where you can cut off part of the page name, for example Name of Page/Sub Page where I want only the Name of Page part? -- 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

{{BASEPAGENAME}}, see MetaWikiPedia:Help:Magic_words for more info. —Dr Ishmael 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm thanks but unfortunately that wont work in my test, would have to test in the main space, in theory it should work tho...-- 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright here here is my proposal, if someone could get the boxes to be on the same line I would greatly appreciate it because I am stumped.-- 01:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

How about we just use a different template for PvP skills? It would be a little harder to work out, but probably simpler to code.Entrea [Talk] 02:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What about how in the armor art gallery template (sorry, not sure how to link it) you can use a "switch" to include earrings/headgear if there is one, or put "zero" to omit that entirely, could that method be used to "omit" PvP skill version in a skill box if there isn't any? Either that, or I'm a complete idiot and don't understand how that switch works. O_o RoseOfKali 04:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Shadowcrest's update to Skill box would do a similar thing, it would use the presence of any PvP parameters (pvp_description, pvp_energy, etc.) as the switch to display the PvP-specific sections. —Dr Ishmael 04:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not saying we have to follow what GWW does, but they are using the split-article solution: GWW:Blinding Surge, GWW:Blinding Surge (PvP). This makes sense to me in that it mirrors the in-game mechanics - the PvP versions are actually different skills with different skill IDs (they're at 2852-2880). On the other hand, I like the idea of being able to display the info for both versions using the same Skill box template. One problem with that is the need to show progression tables for both versions, which would clutter up the page. —Dr Ishmael 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue against using separate pages, because that duplicates the aquisition information. You don't actually have to aquire that skill twice! (A redirect from the PvP name to the non-PvP name would be appropriate for people coming from the other wiki, though.) For a skill like Lightning Orb, only the description need change, because of the cracked armor. Shadowcrest's skill box looks fine (though I'd have gone for adding a second (reduced) skill box below the other with just the (PvP) name and the PvP stats on it, but omitting the campaign info). For those skills that need it, we could add a PvP Details section that lists the differences, but I think if it's just abbout putting in a second damage table, that wouldn't even be needed. This also makes it easier to see at a glance what the differences actually are; switching back and forth between two pages to find that out seems awkward to me.(mendel 84.128.201.167 06:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

In my humble opinion, we should edit the skill box template and have everything in one place. Just make it not viseble if there's no other version (a switch or a new template like Template:Skill box PvP) — Poki#3 , 06:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just my two cents: Split them, a separate PVP and a PVE page. You can still link them with each other and explain that PVP skills will be acquired if the PVE skill is capped or something like that. I think visitors will understands this quickly. The Advantage of splitting is that you don't know how big these changes will be. For now, they might differ a bit, but what if that will change, like a bug in de PVP version and not PVE ? Or mention of possible combo's that are valid for PVP version but not PVE. Or what to do with pages like 'skills that inflict xxx condition'. The only solution to that is to add ' (only in pvp/pve version) ' or ' ..in the pve/pvp version however.... ' everywhere in the notes, description, lists, catagories... It will be a mess. Don't get me wrong, but the 'dual skill' example from Shadowcrest looks confusing already (when do you sac, for the PVP or PVE skill? ) .For that, I can live with the small 'acquisition' disadvantage. IMHO, if *I* read a skill page, I want a quick description what the skill will do, I don't want to start puzzling which description, figures and notes belongs to what. Also, note that there are PVE of PVP only players that don't bother about the 'other use' of the skill at all.-- -- ( talk ) 06:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

We should probably come up with some kind of decision and implement it soon for the skill changes. I've had to revert a few PvP only changes from the articles, and I don't want to keep having to play revert wars if it comes to that. -- User:Isk8 (T/C) 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I say make them separage skill pages and, by using (#include PAGENAME-PvP) or whatever the real syntax is, include the PvP version into the PvE page, or even just simply link to it and that's it, just to note that there IS a PvP version and that PvP players need to look at that instead of the current page. This way, all the categories/references/etc of the PvE skills stay unchanged. There really is absolutely no way to interlace the PvE skill references with the PvP ones, since some skills cause conditions/effects in only one version of the skill. We will just need to remake all these references into a PvP copy. Thats what I think. Everyone is trying to come up with an "elegant" way to integrate this, and there just isn't one. RoseOfKali 23:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You could also create a PvP "switch" in the skill template, so that the PvP skill page will look exactly like a PvE one, but the page address will be Skillname/PvP, and it will link to the Skillname page (I know there's a "magic" word to genericly link to the main address part without the stuff behind the '/'). This checkbox would also place a note in some visible place saying that this is a PvP skill version, and give the link to the PvE skill page. A second "switch" could also be created to put a "note" on the PvE skill page just to say that there IS a PvP version of THIS skill. So, switch one is "has a PvP version = 0/1" and checkbox 2 is "is a PvP skill = 0/1." Just my thoughts. RoseOfKali 23:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• has a PvP version = 0, is a PvP skill = 0 >>> normal PvE/PvP skill, no difference
• has a PvP version = 1, is a PvP skill = 0 >>> "This is a PvE-only skill, for the PvP version of this skill see (PAGENAME)/PvP"
• has a PvP version = 0, is a PvP skill = 1 >>> "This is a PvP-only skill, for the PvE version of this skill see (PAGENAME-MAGIC WORD FOR JUST MAIN PAGE LINK WITHOUT /PvP)"
• has a PvP version = 1, is a PvP skill = 1 >>> invalid combination, both notices will appear and hopefully the editor uses "Show preview" and will realize he/she screwed something up.
• rewrite (mostly copy/paste at this point, as not many changes have yet been made) all quick references for PvP skills, include normal PvE skills if no split is yet made on that skill.
• RoseOfKali 23:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Or even better, just make one switch, PvP = 0: nothing; E: PvE version of a split skill; P: PvP version of a split skill. RoseOfKali 23:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this issue is an exception that should be acted on quickly. The easiest solution to implement (I'm not ruling out better solutions later) is to just do what GWW did: create an article for the PvP version of split skills, and put a plain old {{DisambigMsg}} (or a custom one like User:Alari/Split Skill) on both versions. This lets us host the correct content now, and we can still decide on a more elegant solution later, if we feel one is needed. —Dr Ishmael 00:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently working on one with an if'd showhide box for both descriptions, but first gotta figure out how to get them to default to "show" --Gimmethegepgun 00:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's currently impossible to make two or more NavFrames "show" by default, that's just how MediaWiki:Common.js/NavToggle works. The only way is to change the value of var NavigationBarShowDefault to 2, but that would probably break other pages that only have 2 frames and expect them both to be hidden by default. —Dr Ishmael 00:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, that still doesn't deal with the problem of having to show two Progression tables on the same page. Just look at Blinding Surge and tell me that doubling that Progression box wouldn't look horrible. If it weren't for that, I think the combined page idea would be great. We could delve into custom JavaScript and write a function to toggle the entire PvE template and the PvP template on one page, but the need probably isn't great enough for that. (Of course, if anyone thinks we should try that, I could probably write something in about an hour.) —Dr Ishmael 00:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was working on 1 part at a time, the same thing could be done for the progression boxes. Maybe a new .js thing could be made for skillbox showhide boxes? --Gimmethegepgun 00:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the progression box for Blinding Surge, and it wouldn't be horrible at all. Just add a row Blindness (PvP) below the existing Blindness row and you're done! (mendel 84.128.204.54 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC))

I still believe that if we throw both versions on one page then it will become very cluttered and hard to read. We should come to a decision especially since the coding discussion above seems to be getting very complex.-- 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to throw my two cents in, the skills should be in different articles because they're functionally different. 00:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of them share the same effect, differences are the mainly numbers (recharge, duration, costs...). I'm for one page. Splitting just increases the pages, the clicks and the browsing unnecessarily. Comparing is bothersome. Overview on one page is simply done with the table of contents as large articles have too and as new invention maybe a colored frame. I don't like it the way it is now. But I see that putting it on one page can be troublesome (also for the categories, the notes) and without a good thought would end up messy. But roughly maybe like that: http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1408/gwpvppvemp1.gif (image) --Birchwooda Treehug 20:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Caught between a rock and a hard place. The way this is now, you have to look at the PvE page even if you're interested in the PvP skill because you will miss pertinent notes. But duplicating the notes is another pain in the behind that makes editing the wiki just so much more difficult. If the skill box wasn't so heavily coded, it'd be no problem to adapt them (like I suggested above, sometimes it's just adding another line to a table), but then there are advantages to that, too. On another note, who wants to expand the skill article? Look at split skill if you need a rough draft to go from. ;-) (mendel 84.128.204.54 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

Poll

This is not a vote but a measure of peoples opinions on the matter:

The first 7 votes show a preference for split articles, 5-2. I'm not taking that as a final decision by any means, but I am going to go ahead and create the PvP-version articles (I already have the wiki-code for all of them, article and template, in a text editor, so it'll be a simple copy/paste job) just so we can get the info out there. Like I said above, we can always implement something else later, but I don't think we should wait any longer on working the kinks out of the other solutions. Also, I just discovered something awesome: we have Extension:StringFunctions installed. \^o^/ I will be using a function from that for the DisambigMsg's on the PvP articles. —Dr Ishmael 02:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

/catchbreath Whew, they're all done. I did them the most basic way possible, using the existing DisambigMsg template for now rather than adapting Alari's. I think Alari's template is a good idea if we decide to keep the split-article format, but it is currently designed for articles named like "Skill Name/PvP", whereas I named the articles like "Skill Name (PvP)" to match the actual skill names. —Dr Ishmael 03:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That could be fixed easily by changing the {{PAGENAME}}/pvp to {{PAGENAME}} (PvP)-- 03:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, my code will not work if the pvp version is not a subpage of the original, if the new pages were moved to Skill/PvP it should work fine.-- 03:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

revised single-page template

User:M.mendel created a nice single-page template. Here's what it looks like:

User:M.mendel/Templates/Merged skill

--Shadowcrest 20:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. (Love the separate PvE/PvP edit links.) There are a couple of things I would request, though. For once, put PvP/PvE in front of the casting stats (energy cost etc. part below the skill image). Also, how is it going to handle progression tables, or will those be removed entirely, since they do not appear here? Trying to implement both will look... a little on the large side? RoseOfKali 21:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume they (the tables) will be implemented; the PvE/PvP part is easy to put in, but I don't know how it'll look with sac, upkeep, dual, (etc.). --Shadowcrest 21:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the box will need to get wider for them. You can even go as far as making little PvP/PvE icons a-la the energy cost blue dot. Also, the icon looks like it's imposing over the end of the word Elementalist. RoseOfKali 21:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The isn't specific to this template, it's messed up on all ele (and necro) skills, floating above the box. --Shadowcrest 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Necromancer and Elementalist are just longer words, "showcasing" the overlap. RoseOfKali 21:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not done yet, people! What you have to realize is that this uses the split skills as they are now, it simply mashes them together so a single template can use all the stats from both (there's energy and pvp_energy, and so on). It needs more testing and then a move over to the main Template: namespace so that all the skills can be accessed - I'm talking about the underlying machinery here, not the looks. For the looks, my templates are set up in such a way that anyone can roll their own display templates for this, in their user space if need be, so it's easy to test and debug. Feel free to improve. There will be docs and help. Give me time. mendel 21:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If we use this can we please get rid of the concise, there's no reason to have the same thing said twice, and on here it is said twice two times... The concise details say the same exact thing as the normal if not less easy to understand.-- 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I argue that the information about "what the concise description is" needs to be kept. What can be explored is how the documentation of this information is presented on the wiki. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 08:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? It says the same thing as the regular description, except on the few cases where it has been reported as being erroneous. Before it was a minor annoyance but if we start stacking 4 descriptions one a single page as more pvp/pve splits are added...-- 14:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You're in basic agreement, please wait for a final design before arguing further. There are no plans (yet) to replace the current skill pages. The information itself doesn't reside on the page anyway, it stays in the template (that you reach by "edit skill details"), so it is kept but maybe not displayed on some pages. The concise descriptions might be in a hidden box so that they can be viewed at the click of the mouse, but that is just speculation right now. mendel 15:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on a solution to toggle full/concise descriptions that will remain persistent for each user - like when you hide the TOC and it stays hidden on all pages you view, once you clicked "show concise" it would show the concise description on all skills you view. It will be a template combined with JavaScript. —Dr Ishmael 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I never noticed the contents do that. That's what we need! Great! Feel free to modify the template in my userspace! mendel 16:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got it working except for the positioning of the "show full/concise descriptions" link. I have the divs set up in my sandbox and the javascript in my monobook.js (functions createSkillDescToggleButton and toggleSkillDesc) if anyone wants to try and figure it out. I'll be in a meeting for most of the afternoon. —Dr Ishmael 18:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That is so sexy :) The link is behind the "Description:" for me, which looks okay. --- -- (s)talkpage 18:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I got it fixed - the link is now right-aligned, similar to how the "show/hide" links for navboxes that people are used to. —Dr Ishmael 22:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything has just gotten simpler: put that on your page, use any skill on the wiki (as long as it's a split skill). Or change the skill here on the page and hit "Preview" (not "Save").

{{:User:M.mendel/Templates/Merged skill|:User:M.mendel/Templates/Skill box test|Song of Restoration}} {{clear}}

mendel 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A New Proposal

I have constructed a method we could possibly use for these situations, and could be used for some other stuff as well. To see it, you MUST copy the stuff below the line here (look for the notice) and look at my second Sandbox (ty M.mendel for deciding to alter your .js, it was VERY useful) --Gimmethegepgun 20:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's borked for me... I'll upload a pic within the next 5 minutes. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Osht~ forgot a force refresh... Anyways, it reads "PvE DescriptionsPvE Full: For 5...10 seconds, all party members within earshot have a 50% chance to block attacks." It isn't supposed to have "PvE DescriptionsPvE Full", am I right? --- -- (s)talkpage 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Haven't gotten rid of that part yet, look on the right next to the box itself --Gimmethegepgun 21:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ye, I tested the "links", they work :) It's what Ishy had too, but then for PvE/PvP instead of Full/Concise descr. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually based it off of those. It uses cookies too, so it'll stick around the next time you go in --Gimmethegepgun 21:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we'd only have PvP descriptions for skills where there actually are differences, then it's not "duplicating content", which was Alari's complaint about showing both the full and concise descriptions. I don't see the need for these toggles. Good work, though - I think you had the float:right thing figured out before I did. —Dr Ishmael 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

With the way I have it set in my template (which isn't really finished), it would only have all this junk set up if there was a PvP version of the skill, and we wouldn't have to duplicate crap like usage notes and stuff --Gimmethegepgun 23:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, and it wouldn't even show for all split skills, it would only show on those that have some difference in the description - Flesh of My Flesh or Energy Drain, for example, wouldn't have a "pvp_description" because the only differences on them are in energy/cast/recharge, the description is identical. Hmm... I still don't quite understand the benefit of implementing that for such a small number of skills, though. —Dr Ishmael 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've updated it again, gotta recopy the .js to make it work ofc. Now it has a functioning table for both (gotta get some labels in there tho) and the table is tied to the toggle, also it nukes the PvP stats row if it isn't needed --Gimmethegepgun 02:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A programming competition on who codes the nicest dual skill box? on Guildwiki? How cool is that?! mendel 08:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In your sandbox, remember to accommodate ppl without javascript on. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I require the .js is because if this goes well we can make a new serverwide .js thing to house it so everyone would have it regardless of whether or not they added it to their personal .js --Gimmethegepgun 18:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Pan means; notify people on the sandbox page that they need a .js hack to make it worth their while :P --- -- (s)talkpage 18:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what I think Pan means is that some people turn Javascript off by default, so make sure your box looks ok even when it is off. mendel 21:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't turn off the server JavaScript, if you could then there would be NOTHING! But yeah, added a thing on the bottom. Also, it has been updated again, the show/hide things were moved (they were being buggy, fugly now but whatever) and the table is now "prettyfied" to sync up with the toggles --Gimmethegepgun 22:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends. Some pages really do turn completely blank when you turn off or block Java. This wiki is not one of those pages :> (PS: NoScript is <3) — Poki#3 , 22:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

announcing a new short-term project for ppl to work on

I was going to do it myself the day after, but got distracted by other more pressing matters. It's been 20 days and looks like it won't be until this weekend until I would be able to work on it. So please help out with the project if you got some time to kill, thanks! -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Monster skill updates

As most of you would know, with the arrival of both Hard Mode and Eye of the North many monster pages have a pretty big (and unattractive) skills section. While it still conforms to standards (or something) and gets the job done, I can't help but feel that it's incredibly ugly. After looking at a page like the one for The Judge, I noticed how it has a pretty little box that houses the skill box. I made some mock up examples (under User:Blue.rellik/testMonster) to show how other pages would look like with those skill changes.

Now before I started to start this (immense) project, I wanted to make sure that you guys would agree with how they look, so I'm posting here to ask for some feedback. If you have any specific nigglings with any of those pages then post of the talk pages for those specific mock-up pages - b.r // talk 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Two columns is good. Having the rows do "valign=top" would make it look nicer. Background feels unnecessary. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 05:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I also like the idea of having separate skill sets next to each other and not under each other, but the background clashes too much with the rest of the page IMHO. Also, I think this should be in a template, so any modifications would be easy to implement globally (and we'll have another wiki-killing template, next to the skill box :P) — Poki#3 , 13:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, I spent a lot of time getting some test pages to work with colour and plenty of guys have been contributing based on the idea that the skill sections will be in colour. I'll make some test pages of the one I currently have up in colour and we'll decide from there which ones we'll use - b.r // talk 03:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've made some new pages without any colour (grumble), tell me what you think - b.r // talk 04:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks better. Now we just need a template and some fine toning. — Poki#3 , 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Toning? Are we gonna work these monster pages into shape or something? XD Mendel's already made a template, actually (it's linked to and explained on User talk:Blue.rellik/testMonster and a couple of the other talk pages). —Dr Ishmael 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks great and I like the color a lot better. What are you doing for monsters that don't have a known professions or just monster skills? (shiro) —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 17:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since professionless monsters usually only appear in one location (Shiro/Lich being exceptions) and use the same skill set for both NM/HM, I don't see that we'd need to change them at all. If we did add this template to them for consistency's sake, though, they could use the gray {{X-color}}s. —Dr Ishmael 17:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

New bot task

The following bot task: GuildWiki:Bot tasks/License reminder has been proposed. Before I start it, I would like some more input. The code and stuff has been posted for review. Just posting it here to bring it to attention. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 18:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Subpages

As a little thing inspired by this discussion, I suggest we create a category for Subpages to keep them out of that list. Basicly, I say we should go throuugh Special:Uncategorizedpages and add <noinclude>[[Category:Subpages]]</noinclude> to all of the /types, /collector, etc. Any thoughts?Entrea [Talk] 22:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Then you'd just be getting a category that is too long to list. Is it too much to ask to use meaningful categories? Category:Collectors/Items, Category:Armor/Male or Category:Locations/Quests, for example? Then you put Category:Subpages on the pages for those categories (I think that's how it works) so we have them collected (in a tree). --mendel 23:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See here. —Dr Ishmael 23:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikia's "New Style"

I do not know if any of you are yet aware of this or not, but Wikia is planning to add a new required skin to all Wikia wikis. The article on this is located here. The new skin will cause ads to appear in the middle of articles and thus disrupting content. This could be very bad for GuildWiki as it has the possiblity to drive off editors who simiply do not want ads in the actual content. There is a discussion going on here in which the community it discussing the "New Style". How will this affect GuildWiki? What should we do to try and keep editors interested? We need ideas and discussion. --Shadowphoenix 06:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm @#$% wikia we didn't want to come under their control in the first place, all I have to say about it.-- 06:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but we can't simply ignore this as it affects us as well. --Shadowphoenix 06:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I went and ranted on the "discussion" page.-- 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Logged in users should still be able to use Monobook. So this primarily impacts anon users, and logged-in users who has grown accustomed to the features offered by Monaco. If you are currently using Monobook, hold your fire until Wikia announces they are going to remove Monobook from the user's choice of skin. Anons, and ppl who are currently using Monaco, carry on with the discussion d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just want to reinforce PanSola's note about logged-in users - there are no plans to remove Monobook from the options for logged in users. The update of Monaco will result in a Monaco skin on GuildWiki that looks more than ever like Monobook, but with the added features. Kirkburn (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, except for some odd reason the monobook skin on the official wikia wiki, looks like @#$%ing monoco. I dont always log in either to view the site... God knows what will happen...-- 06:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at our license (see bottom of every page for link), using these big ads on GuildWiki at all seems to me to be a license breach (GFDL is fine with that). I can tolerate the google ads in the side bar as they hopefully cover operating expenses, more or less, but delivering ads like the commercial websites do deserves leagl scrutiny. --mendel 09:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we set the standard skin for anyone to Monobook? Should be possible... No? --- -- (s)talkpage 09:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

We lost our ability to set standard skins when we someone sold our souls to Wikia. Alarming change, although unfortunately, not a bunch we can do about it. -Auron 13:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am now extremely angry with wikia RandomTime 15:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The good news is that (in theory) when they see how the format screws everything up, they will hopefully have the good grace to admit it was a mistake and undo it.Entrea [Talk] 16:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That relies on the assumption that Wikia realises its mistakes. --Dr R. Phalange 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes me laugh is the "more article area" argument. Yeah, with a big add like that you'll have WAY more area... but not article area. Advertising area yes, but not article area. Also, forcing Monaco is a terrible idea. IDK why are they so persistent on forcing it on everyone. I tried Monaco personally, but cot annoyed by the big and unneeded sidebar, and the fact that I couldn't find the discussion pages for quite a while (I found it later... about 1000 pixels away from the place I thought it should be). And the thing that really made me laugh is the "increased traffic" argument. They can't be serious about it... Adds don't concern me personally, since it was a long time since I saw one anywhere and will continue to use Monobook, but I am concerned about random users coming to the wiki. — Poki#3 , 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This will be the final blow to those who were hanging in there and not moving to the official wiki... How many people do you think will stay here after the style change? Triple digits is my guess... I really don't think Wikia realizes that it has a competitor on this one... RoseOfKali 18:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt hardly anyone will stay. --talk 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

have the admin skin/default skin be monobook. it would be foolish on wikias part to carry out an action which would drive traffic away from the site. 162.84.143.170 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"it would be foolish on wikias part" -- Dude, stop giving them reasons to do it, they like being foolish. --Dr R. Phalange 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

well why dont you stop qqing the corner and take it to the wikia notice board. even if they dont apply it to the entire wiki, point out that changing things may tread close to violations of guildwiki's unique licensing. their advertisers can get over the fact that we don't use their gay skins. if hundreds of anons come in and sign a petition qqing about it, what are they gonna do, force them to leave? stop treating them like evil guys who are just trying to fuck us over and mount a protest. DAMN 162.84.143.170 19:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"When wikis have switched from Monobook to Monaco, they've seen huge jumps in the number of readers, contributors and user logins."
I lol'd. The users probably logged in more so they could change their skin.
The only thing that really affects me (since I'm always logged in) are the ads. It says there will only be 1 ad for logged in members. Where will it be placed in Monobook? I would prefer a banner ad across the very bottom... where it is now. Since they're only talking about Monaco, I hope Monobook will remain exactly the same. --Macros 20:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Monobook probably won't be touched, so nothing will change. The problem is the add will be viseable in the (forced on us) new default skin that is Monaco. The add will be in the place we currently have infoboxes for skills, locations, monsters, items... everything. You'll have to scroll down on practicly every page to see the infobox... Not to mention that it'll probably preak our main page.

Since Wikia will be monitoring trafic following a week after the change, can we issue a strike? I'm serious here, do our admins have the power to temporarely block the database so we;'ll have an edit cout of 0? — Poki#3 , 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is blocked by an admin, it will mean nothing. The no-edit strike has to be voluntary. All we gotta do is advertise it so that more people see it and know about it. When are they implementing this so that I know not to edit or visit? RoseOfKali 01:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what? Who cares? I'm sure our css/js wizards will whip up something we can use to fix the site pretty quick. You know what happened when they screwed up Monobook with the migration, it was fixed almost instantly. When this goes live, it'll probably be a few hours tops before someone "customizes" Monaco to the point it won't screw over our pages.Entrea [Talk] 01:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we can't fix it, we're in trouble. Using the masterful technique of adding a 250x300px image to the top-right, I have recreated the effect of ads on an average skillpage: Entrea [Talk] 02:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The only way it could be "fixed" to satisfaction is by removing the idiotic in page adds, which is against wikias all might TOS. Needless to say, GWW will grow quite a bit.-- 02:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to put a Snickers (TM) commercial on that Golem. — Poki#3 , 02:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

RoseOfKali 06:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mind moving to wikia, I don't even mind the present ads. I was mildly pissed off that my username was changed despite no active user with my name here. I figured, I'd stay because the articles just look and flow so much better here, not to mention the people I see around here. If they put ads in the way currently proposed then I will be gone. Oh I doubt I could be bothered to give GWW a chance, but I wouldn't be here. Ezekiel [Talk] 06:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd doubt I'd go to GWW, it still sucks worse then guildwiki stuffed with ads, but I doubt I would continue here, whats the point of helpinga wikia that looks like a billboard to the average visiting GW player?-- 07:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As an admin here, I would deal with the change one way or another, and stick around.

As an editor, I suppose I would scoot over to GWW. I'm already an editor there, the unwieldy policies there don't actually cause much damage, and the fact that it's ArenaNet-owned means we don't have to deal with any crap overflowing from non-Guild Wars stuff.

Given the choice of making Wikia more money with their silly advertisement spree, or making ArenaNet a bit of money from the few ads on GWW, I'd rather support the company that runs the game I'm in love with... -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait and see what the changes will actually consist of before we get upset. Quizzical 09:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikia's already done a lot of annoying things, and we're all still here, so yeh, best to complain after the fact. :D -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting comment from one of the Wikia staff people that I thought was worth quoting. I'd read it as saying those who don't use Monaco won't have any changes except possibly for a new ad on the main page--and that those who do use Monaco and object to the changes can switch to a different skin.

• "We've made the choice in this case to show more ads to anonymous users than to logged-in users for precisely that reason. About 95% of Wikia's readers are anonymous readers. 5% of the people here are creating the content that the other 95% read. We know that ads are annoying and distracting, especially when you're trying to write. So we're only showing one ad to logged-in users, and we're not showing any ads on the "content-producing" pages -- talk pages, edit pages, etc. We also know that the 5% of people who contribute don't click on ads much anyway, and often block the ads. That's okay, from a revenue point of view. The 5% are doing more than their share, by writing all the content and building the communities. But somebody's got to pay for the site to keep running, and that has to be the 95%."

So basically, the changes will be more ads shown to the people who don't register and log in. And to that, I say, so what? Quizzical 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's extremely selfish, I was under the impression that guild wiki exists so GW players can come and reference our info.-- 04:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)