GuildWars Wiki
Register
Advertisement

GuildWars Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 17/topnotes

You broke GWiki for browsers

Since some time, about 1-3 weeks I can't remember exactly, the Guildwiki is broken. Following issues:

  • Internet Explorer 6: Huge spacer on the right side which serves no purpose other than make a scrollbar appear
  • When in the field where you type stuff like comments, like I am doing now, you can write "outside" of the box,

it's kinda hard to explain, when you type, the typing will just go outside on the right side and you can't see what you type anymore

  • Opera 9: Same annoying spacer on the right side,
  • can't even contribute anymore in Opera, since when you press "Save Page", it will show a preview, and that preview is BLANK.


Everything worked fine before, please look into these issues. --62.158.104.40 14:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but it sounds like all of those are issues with the new Monaco skin (which was forced on us by Wikia). I suggest you create an account, then follow the directions here to set your skin to the classic (and bug-free) Monobook. As a bonus, using Monobook while logged-in will also remove almost all the ads from the site. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 15:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Quizzical (iirc) also filed a complaint about Opera being completely disfunctional. However, he didn't say anything about a white space, afaik.. O_o" IE6 is just a hopeless browser ;) --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 16:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No matter if a browser is "hopeless" or not, it's not like they're using a 10-year old program. There's no reason for it to be broken to hell like it is. Revert the default skin to Monobook until Monaco isn't crawling with bugs. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Generally a newer version is a version with less bugs and (visual) glitches, mrite? --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 17:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
True for IE6-7, but what about the Opera problems? And some people still prefer IE6 over 7, I was one of them, but I got so annoyed with wiki not working right in 6, that I finally cracked and downloaded 7. I think wiki should be a type of site that works ALWAYS, instead of being specialized to one single browser. It has a very large userbase, both net-savvy and not, and it should keep that in mind. Leave the fancy crap out if it doesn't work for half of the users out there. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG 18:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Microsoft just needs to figure out that standards compliance is a "good thing", then 99% of the browser-compatibility issues will go away (because 99% of them are caused by people coding websites for IE, which is maybe 50% standards-compliant, instead of coding to the standards, of which Firefox and Opera are 99%-compliant). All figures in the preceding comment are gross estimates, don't take them as fact!Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 18:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
As for IE, I have run GWiki in the latest versions of IE and it looks fine. However I will check again. The site should work in all browsers. I don't use Opera myself but I will investigate it. I will see what I can do to make sure that Gwiki works reasonably well in all browsers. In the meantime, I do recommend making an account so that it doesn't stop you from contributing and using Guild Wiki. —JediRogue 18:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright I just previewed GWiki in IE7 and it looks fine. I cannot make any guarantees about older versions so I recommend upgrading. I'll look into Opera later today. —JediRogue 18:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Heya. The Opera problem is a known issue and we're working to resolve it. I anticipate that it will be fixed soon. The bugs with IE6 are problems with the GuildWiki custom CSS (rather than Monaco itself), and I've been playing around with and working to fix for you. Unfortunately, there aren't any useful debugging tools for IE6, so it's a pretty big pain to figure out the problems. Fortunately, for IE, the bugs are annoyances ... I think all the show-stopping bugs are gone. If any of you CSS gurus are bored and want to try to fix some of the IE6 bugs, I've set up a test wiki here ... I can make you a sysop if you want to play around without flooding GuildWiki's recent changes. --KyleH (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
As the problems seem to be in monaco.css, logged in IE6 users can just switch to another Monaco theme if they don't like Monobook. Better yet, switch to a browser that supports CSS2 properly. --◄mendel► 01:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
IE6 is not the latest version of IE. I don't feel obligated to make us compatible with browsers that should be updated—JediRogue 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
For browsing, the wiki doesn't look appreciably different in Opera 9.51 from Firefox 3.0.1. There is a very thin empty space just left of the scroll bar in both browsers, but it looks fine to me. Opera does have a sidebar feature that sometimes shows up at nuisance times if you click on something wrong; by default, it appears on the left side, though, not the right. If that's your problem, F4 will get rid of it.
The problem with Opera right now is that some Wikia bug prevents the browser from saving edits. If you're only going to read the wiki, and not edit anything, Opera works just fine. Indeed, I'd argue that it works better than Firefox, mainly because of mouse gestures that make it easier to navigate pages. The Wand is also quite useful when the wiki logs you out. Quizzical 05:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, then don't hesitate to add mouse gestures to firefox here. --◄mendel► 08:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


It seems fixed now :P

Question Regarding Widgets

Moved to GuildWiki:Wikia staff noticeboard.

EotN PvE skill discrepancies

A number of PvE-only skills in EotN currently have discrepancies between the progressions given in the Aug 7, 2008, game update and what is actually showing up in-game. This was first discovered on Feel No Pain, where the notes said the Health regen should be 1...3 and no change to the health boost (previously 100...200), but it was discovered to be 2...3/200...300 in-game. Today, Radiation Field was edited for the same reason: from the notes, it should be duration 4...6, Health degen 2...5, and Disease 12...20; in-game, it is duration 5 (not green, so not variable), degen 4...6, and Disease 12...20.

My main character has all EotN PvE skills, so I checked his numbers against what we have, and I found that the following skills also have this problem. Based on his numbers at rank 7 in Asura/Deldrimor, and values for r0 obtained using CheatEngine on a mule character with no ranks, I extrapolated the second table for the "real" progressions.

Skill What the notes say it should be In-game, extrapolated from r0...r7
Smooth Criminal
Asura title track 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Duration 14 14 15 16 16 17 18 18 19 19 20
+ Energy 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
  5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10
Ear Bite
(Damage correct)
Deldrimor title track 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bleeding duration 10 11 13 14 16 17 19 20 22 23 25
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Low Blow
(Damage correct)
Deldrimor title track 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Cr. Armor duration 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
  14 14 15 16 16 17 18 18 19 19 20

Could other people please report their numbers for these skills at other title ranks to verify the correct progressions? —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 23:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Smooth Criminal Correct at R3 according to your chart, 13/6. (Rank 5 also correct, 15/7. Don't have earbite or low blow, unfortunately. -- Isk8 Isk8 (T/C) 23:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
All three correct at 5 Asura/6 DeldEntrea SumataeEntrea [Talk] 23:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You can get R0 easier. Just equip a skill and look at your template. Templates always show R0. A few skills had bad descriptions at the update page, and I don't know what rank range Anet used when posting that... Anyway I have characters with max or 0 so can't help here :( — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Checked on my wife's main character (should've thought of that sooner), r6 Asuran/r5Deldrimor (backwards from Entrea), and her numbers also match the table. Seems sufficient evidence to me. I'm-a gonna go modify them there templates now. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

abbreviation redirects to pvp versions

There are some skills which are more commonly used in PvP and that is where you are more likely to see the abbreviation. I would like to have the redirects for some of them point to the PvP version by default for those skills. I would make a list first in case PvE players want to point out that the abbreviation is equally common in PvE. Does anyone have any thoughts about this?—JediRogue 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The PvE skills are the unaltered forms; that would be like pug redirecting to Dog instead of PUG. So, no. Felix Omni Signature 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Not always - in some cases the PvP skill is the unaltered, pre-split version, while the PvE skill was the one that changed. I don't see a problem with changing some of those redirects, especially for abbreviations that are rarely used in PvE. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 18:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Unaltered form? Unyielding Aura is changed for PvE specifically. Fallacious logic. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
SciFi is having a cookie and a javascript hooked in that, if it detects a redirect to the game mode you don't prefer, re-redirects that automatically. --◄mendel► 22:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Reused Item skins

The Ancient Hornbow, Ancient Longbow and Ancient Flatbow share a skin, as well as the Ancient Shortbow & Ancient Recurve Bow.

  • Should we merge those, like we did with the Destroyer/BMP skins?
    • They all drop in the same basic region anyhow (The Desolation for Ancient), so that's not a problem.
    • Currently, there is no standard on it. My opinion is one shared page, and redirects.
      • I feel it's redundant to show the same skin 5 times, of which two (three if counting PvP reward Bow) are a minor variant.
      • It reduces the clutter on the Gallery page.
  • And should we merge the other shared skins?
    • Tormented/Bramble/Plagueborn/Skull/Vabbian/Azure/Bladed aint merged either.
      • If there are others, please tell. I just glanced over the Gallery.

Oh, side note: The Ancient Bow page exists because of the PvP reward item, which shares it's skin with the Short/Recurve bow. --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It needs more work either way. If we do a listing of bows by skin, this won't matter. If we want to have a gallery of just a single bow type (say, Hornbows) we need the "bowclass" attribute in the BowInfo, and if these bow "families" share a page, that probably means an awkward "name1=", "bowclass1=", "name2=", "bowclass2=" in the template. I just dunno. I think it's not too big a deal at the moment, especially when the gallery system is still in flux.
It would actually make a lot of sense to separate the bows into 5 categories - we don't put swords, axes and hammers in the same category, either. That would eliminate the need for "bowclass" completely. Or keep single pages for each bow in the family, and transclude the location and notes across them? --◄mendel► 18:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm for merging Bow articles. They're all bows... — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 16:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I would still like to see a differentiation between, for example, the Tormented Longbow and Shortbow skins, they look quite different. That can be done within the Tormented Bow article. But, both of the skin variations should still be in the Gallery. You can try to come up with a name convention of sorts, like the greater/normal that I'm seeing in the Ancient Bow, since in-game they're named the same (right?). Same goes for all other skins with this 2-3 split between bow types/skins. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG 17:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
An example of a 2 skin bow set is Undead Bow. You don't have to combine the picture though. The navbox can handle more then one image (Steel Daggers). Oh, and Lesser, "Normal" and Greater weapons are totally different skins altogether with different names. Previously we had different skins in one name (like the Steel Daggers), but in EotN weapons that behave like that are named different. — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 21:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Monster and NPC screenshots missing

moved from Community_Portal/Archive_16

I just updated the Monster images project with a long list of missing screenshots. These aren't all strictly monsters, quite a few NPCs (including PvP Zaishen), including quest-specific NPCs, have their pictures missing as well. Take a short look at the Style_and_formatting/Images guide and go on a photo safari! --◄mendel► 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

New list just in. In the past week or so, some editors (special thanks to Mrguildboi and Wizardboy777!) have provided 25 images and changed (2.55% missing) to (2.08% missing). Good job! --◄mendel► 20:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
New list just in. It's been awhile because the dump has been damaged (thanks to Dr ishmael for spotting that). There've been some uploads by half a dozen contributors, most prominently (and recently) User:Bikeboy854. We're at 1.82% missing images now, good job! --◄mendel► 13:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a Fansite?

I was looking on the official guild wars page, and then stumbled upon the the list of fansites. I was suprised that this site wasn't listed on there. Why is it not? I mean the wiki is popular, its part of the reason A-Net made their own. Is it because they don't like us because we're separate from their wiki, or is it that they don't think its really important. I mean, GuildWiki is usually more factual that GuildWarsWiki, and has notes that are more helpful than on their site. Is it just because GuildWiki is not connected to A-Net like GuildWarsWiki? Arcdash 01:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

They feel the GWiki (this here) shouldn't be promoted to draw more attention to the GWWiki (official), or something akin ot that. Basically, they're boycotting us :O I think --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 12:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
When i questioned our non-appearance on the fansite list some GWW person leapt to Anets defence - apparently the reason Anet made their own wiki is because of some licenscing law which means copyright bla bla NS-C something something license bla bla entails the copying of content under GDFL something and so forth meant that this wiki couldnt be linked to from the in-game help menu, so they had to make their own wiki to achieve help-menu linkage. And as such, because of this license stuff and the fact that they seem to beleive that since they've now got an official wiki we should just quietly close down or something, we can't be listed as a fansite - its all in the copyright--Cobalt6 - (Talk/Contribs) 14:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
We used to be a Specialty Fansite, but stooped being one right after the official wiki went live so yeah... -_- "According to Wikipedia GW.com, we don't exist!" — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 14:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Advertisement