Talk: Community Portal/Archive 17

GuildWars Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 17/topnotes

Mike O'Brien's message to the community

→ Moved to GuildWiki talk:Fansite status

Need help Not sure were to put this)

Hey, I know this is wrong place but I couldn't find the right place, but does anyone know how to upload a file or get your pic here? I can't seem to find it I tryed it but I kept geting werid warning, well any help is nice --Lancek 12:21, 23 September 2006 (CDT)

If you want to upload a file you can do so at Special:Upload. If you receive an error message then it would be best if you could let us know exactly what error message it was. :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 18:40, 23 September 2006 (CDT)

5,000,000 views on the main page

Huzzah! — Skuld 09:42, 6 July 2006 (CDT)

Arg, not enough ppl are skipping directly to Special:Recentchanges d-: -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 12:14, 6 July 2006 (CDT)

Hey, I skip directly to Special:Watchlist. ;) ~ Nilles (chat) 08:49, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

language

← Moved from User talk:Rainith

Hi, just wanna ask if we can freely add shortcut on page to the translate page in other language ? Is there spécifics rules or policy for that kind of link ? --Elenna 06:19, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm not quite sure that I know what you mean. Currently GuildWiki is only available here in English. There are French and German wikis for Guild Wars that are not affiliated with GuildWiki, and are not linked to from this site. Also PanSola is/was working on a Chinese (I think it was Chinese) version that would be affiliated with GuildWiki and linked to on this site much like the different language pages are linked on Wikipedia, but I don't know the status of that. If this doesn't answer your question, feel free to post an example of what you're talking about here on my talk page. --Rainith 14:29, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

Well for the french GW i can said that Gravewit didn't respond at mail, so they made it by their own. But i think that mostly 40% of the site is translated directly from here. But for the shortcut it's just an external link to add at bottom of the page, something like this : See this page in : Francais ([1]); Deutschen ([2])...

--Elenna 16:36, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

MediaWiki already has an "interlanguage link" feature. Go to an article on Wikipedia like wikipedia:Language and look at the navbar on the left. If GWiki decides to link to the French or German wikis, it should be done using that MW feature. --68.142.14.86 17:35, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

Now that I understand what you're asking, I think this would be a better place to post this question. --Rainith 19:08, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

I think if the sites aren't officially affiliated with GuildWiki, any links added should have indication as such. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:31, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

Like the "in other languages" on WP? (eg wikipedia:Rocinante) you just need to add [[fr:Rossinante]] there. I'm for it as long as we have an info page saying unofficially affialated (sp blaah) — Skuld 10:50, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

Ok...so there is an option in mediawiki, within this wiki, to make articles in other languages, right? Are we allowed to make that kind of articles? --Torins 11:18, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

My opinnion: Don't make articles in different languages in this wiki. Don't link to the article in a different language in individual articles. Make a link to the bar on the left which directs to the german/french version of the same article. -- 14:14, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

Hum... it would be the greatest waste of time ever seen Torins! Make isolated translated page would be useless without a core between them, also make such page here while there's already a native version i'm sorry but it would be really stupid ! Which advantage did u really expect with this kind of competition between .org .de .fr ??

I'm a little sad when i read all this "unoffically affialated" everywhere, that's not really fair. I think gravewit as his own responsability on this fact, we send him lot of request before the lunch of the native language project without any reply. So pleaze stop bother us with copyright, affilation, logo or other like if the .fr/de site were just some robber. Keep in mind that we had only silence when we have asked for common bases & coordination. --Elenna 14:37, 9 July 2006 (CDT) (sorry for my french)

I was rather thinking of gathering a few Polish friends and maybe translating the whole wiki, but now, i'm starting to think that it'd be too much work....a better idea would be just helping this wiki prosper.... Torins 15:21, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

If would be gravewit's responsibility, if his answer is "yes" but he never responded. On the other hand, it would NOT be his responsibility if his answer is "no" and he never responded. I'm not trying to imply you are stealing or robbing, but it is a fact that the .fr/de sites are not currently officially affiliated with "the" GuildWiki, despite your attempts/intentions/desire/requests to be so. I don't see why they cannot be officially affiliated, but on the other hand I do not see any obligation that forces Gravewit to say "yes". I am all in support of GuildWiki going multi-lingual (at least for languguates that the game itself supports), and I'm all in support of your involvement in the french/german translation efforts. However, if for whatever reason Gravewit says no (again I don't know why he would say no, but he could), I think the best course of action for the french/german sites would be to not use the pun "GuildWiki" and simply come up with a different name (and logo), which does not affect your ability to translate GuildWiki content at all. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:08, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

Our logo is actually under the CC license, like everything else. I dunno how to treat usage of the name. --68.142.14.86 22:49, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm not agree with you. This discussion shouldn't exist if an answer has been tell 6month ago. Yes or No it's not the matter. Gravewit has the right to say No, if he wanted to, but he didn't. I think you can understand that the main goal was just to give access at guildwiki.org for those who didn't speak english (even for those who can read english, some name can't always be translated from english, for bosses for instance) like i think that you're weel-placed to have a good idea of the work such project involve. So i think it was our right to expect an answer. Anyway let's forgot about that, think we'll make our editorial choice on our side and won't interfere further on your stuff, it should be easier for everyone. --Elenna 14:56, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

The interlanguage links aren't "on Wikipedia." Each different language has its own servers, policies, admins, and so on. They've just all agreed to link among each other. --68.142.14.86 16:30, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

I thought they all belonged to the Wikipedia foundation, despite being on different servers and having different policies and admins. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:11, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

They do, but I was trying to point out they still operate independently. Jimbo (or anyone) doesn't get to say "Spanish WP, go translate this article from English WP" or "this is how we do it on English WP, so you do it like that on German WP." Or, more relevant, if someone starts up a new language wiki, they don't get an automatic spot in the alternate languages navbar. I think it's the same point you were making about "responsibility." --68.142.14.86 22:49, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

Special:Wantedpages usage

On my userpage, I have links to several special pages and categories that I like to patrol periodically and that I found useful back when the special pages page was broken. But, one of those pages has always bugged me. Special:Wantedpages is, at this point, little more than a listing of missing user pages. I know that there have been multiple recent debates on the creation of info on user pages for existing users. But for anonymous IPs that are unlikely to ever create a userpage, I propose that we (I'll do it if others agree) create a template that says something like:

This is the userpage for a contributor using an IP address. If this IP is used by you, you are invited to create a login ID to improve tracking of your own contributions as well as other benefits.

The template could then be {{Subst: into the IP userpages, dropping them from the Wanted Pages listing. Any opinions? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:04, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Note: Not for all anonymous IPs, that would be a huge undertaking; but some criteria could be used: all those with double digit counts of links, or all those in the top 50 or 100 or whatever of the list. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:16, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

I agree - 2 days ago I was patrolling that and it was congested with talk and anon userpages, maybe if it has >5 links to it? or some other arbitrary and meaningless number existing only to save work but meaning the difference between a red and a blue link? ST47 09:22, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Good idea — Skuld 09:32, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

If you put it on the user page though, then I doubt the anons will notice it... -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:46, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

Having wantedpages display things with more than a certain number of links is a just a variable value change, but I don't think that makes much of a difference for usability. If you want to ignore things with less than X broken links, just stop browsing wantedpages when you hit that number. It shouldn't be too difficult to change the code to ignore a certain namespace, such as user, but of course Gravewit would have to do it. --68.142.14.78 21:48, 11 July 2006 (CDT)

I think the problem is the HIGHEST ones are the ones come from anon signatures. It's especially ironic to look it up and find User:68.142.14.* take up the TOP THREE most wanted pages. out of the Top 20 most wanted, only 5 are NOT links to user pages. So setting a threshold won't help with the situation at all. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:06, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

As I said, doing that won't make much of a difference. --68.142.14.78 02:28, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Adding a {{subst: ... template to those user pages would drop those pages from the most wanted pages list, making it cleaner and more useful/informative. The ideal solution is to have the code for the page modified to ignore links to user pages; but barring that, I think the above is the best available alternative. As for setting a threshold to view; not sure why that came into the discussion - doing so wouldn't make any difference. My mention of a threshold above was strictly in relation to determining what triggers adding the template, not in restricting viewing the list in any way. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:39, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Okay, disregard this request. After looking closer at the list, I've realised that the only solution will be to get the Wanted Pages to ignore anything in the User namespace. Out of the top 50 wanted pages, I think that I counted a total of 8 or 9 actual articles flagged as needed. Trying to manage the user pages with a subst:template will be too cumbersome, and not worth the relatively small gain. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:39, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

On another note, if a contributor has been involved enough to show up in the wanted pages list then can't we safely assume that they know about registering but don't want to? I don't necessarily disagree with adding a template to such pages, but I think that saying "you are invited to make an account" is a little insulting as the contributor has consciously opted not to make an account. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 02:42, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

In my case, I have intentionally opted to not use an account. I'd be willing to go through "my" existing broken links to de-red them, but I don't really think I'll remember or even want to keep track of future ones I create. --68.142.14.33 02:58, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

It seems Gravewit has already fixed this since now I fail to see even one page in the User-namespace. — Galil 01:10, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Documenting mission cutscene dialog

I'd imagine some players may feel pressured to skip cutscenes during missions when everyone else in the party wants to skip them, or they may choose to skip them and regret it later. Therefore, I was thinking that it might benefit to players if the mission pages were to include an extract of the cutscene dialog. Would people agree? I'm happy to initiate such tasks, however I was wondering how best to go about including the dialog into a mission page. Perhaps there is a mission template that could be updated. What do people think? --IAmAI 07:57, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

Yeh, good idea :) Limit to the transcript and a summary image maybe — Skuld 08:00, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

I agree with documentation. I don't think a template is necessary or warrented. Just put it somewhere in the mission article. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:45, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

I think it would be a good idea to start this out and see how it goes. It's certainly a nice idea. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:55, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

I'd assume that if we were doing cutscene dialogue for missions, we'd perhaps also want non-mission cutscene dialogue? Factions introduced many instances of non-mission cutscenes, particularly as you're entering a specific town after a primarly quest.--Zampani 14:47, 12 July 2006 (CDT)

I considered this as a possibility also, although I thought the cutscenes would be more important as they are more easily missed and a player can go back and read non-cutscene dialog even after leaving the mission area. For this reason, I probably won't be doing this myself, but I can't stop you or anyone else from doing so, of course! :) --IAmAI 04:19, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

I've added cutscene dialog to the page Dunes of Despair (Mission). Please review. Thanks --IAmAI 16:16, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

Looks good, though I added the spoiler-template, and stub-template (seeing as it was incomplete). Will document the next time I do missions. — Galil 00:58, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm not so sure about the spoiler notice as, I assume, it is implied by the fact the article is a 'guide'; if not, there would be a spoiler notice on all mission guides. If it should not be completely removed, may I suggest a compromise of placing it just under the dialog heading in the article, rather than at the top --IAmAI 09:39, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

I was wondering, should we document the dialogues between NPCs in factions as well? For example the numerous dialogues involving Mhenlo and Master Togo. — Galil 17:05, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

I have no objection to this, although I will not be undertaking it myself. The only problem/challenge I can forseen is distinguishing between cutscene and non-curscene dialog (if necessary) and indicaiting the point at which within the mission the dialog appears (also, if necessary) --IAmAI 09:39, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

Pro/Contra Templates

Hey, I just found these on the german wikipedia: Template:Pro Template:Contra. Since this mediawiki doesn't support .svg, we can't just copy the templates, but we can find a way to convert them if the community would like those templates. Opinion? ~ Nilles (chat) 14:23, 16 July 2006 (CDT)

Server problems

A lot of images seem to be missing and some pages are messed up. I'm pretty sure it's a server-side problem, and I think this is the appropriate place to report it. -- Gordon Ecker 01:01, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki:Software_&_Technical_Issues/Bugs, down at the bottom. --Rainith 01:03, 17 July 2006 (CDT)

WTS/WTB on user pages..

It's been brought to my attention what User:Blastedt is doing in his user page. The question is, before this becomes a practice done by all, do we wish to allow this?

The issues I see are bandwidth issues (no disrespect Blastedt, but all that for a bunch of Charr carvings and some dye?)... Soon, every wanna be in-game businessman is gonna make a user page in the wiki especially to make it his/her own auction site. Also, there are a few concerns about scamming. Do we interfere if we see someone offering a fake Crystalline sword as the real one?

A side issue is, what defines WTS and WTB? Does Honorable Sarah's list of things she's looking for qualify as a WTB list? I think not, but I am sure others will ask, where we draw the line.

Your thoughts? --Karlos 23:05, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

My thoughts/opinions: You have a really good point that user pages will start sprouting like wild. If the marketing and trading in-game wasn't bad enough (I mean all the spam and shouting), I feel that it certainly doesn't belong here. I think something like Honorable Sarah's wishlist or things she wants is ok as long as she doesn't start listing prices explicitly. If she meets with someone in-game and discusses it privately between players, that's fine. Small short bullets of text like "I'm looking for ABC weapon pm me in-game" is fine but tables and explicit WTS/WTB and numbers is where I personally feel the line should be drawn. --Vortexsam 23:20, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

When I see a page with mutable content, I think "rechaching penalty" and "recent changes spam". In my opinion, putting whatever crap you want on your user page should be okay, but changing it repeatedly for no good reason should be discouraged. I would say the same about, say, an XP counter updated every 10 minutes. But if someone wants to list a few items, I don't really care very much.

I can definitely see where your slippery-slope argument is coming from, though, Karlos: Guildwiki should not be a glorified auction house. It shouldn't be a glorified Geocities for people to make little pages about their characters and contribute nothing to the actual content of the site, either, though, and we're not exactly cracking down on that. =) — 130.58 (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

I don't think that selling items on the GuildWiki will take off (famous last words...). It's not designed to be an auction site, there's no bidding system implemented or way to view past trade etc. Sarah's thing is fine, it sounds like she's largely after items for damage testing on the GuildWiki. In some ways I don't really mind people selling things on the GuildWiki, (GWGuru is a much better place to do it anyway) but on the other hand I don't want to patrol the recent changes for people putting bids on things and I definately don't want to get into an arguement where for example I revert an edit where someones blanked another person's bid but they say IP address just changed etc. The GuildWiki is not setup for auctions and there's better, dedicated auction sites so I don't really want to see them here (but I'm still ok with Sarah's) --Xasxas256 23:40, 23 July 2006 (CDT)

I think my final conclusion is that doing something really bad (policing user pages) in order to prevent something potentially bad (people posting about items on pages) is unwarranted. Much better to just leave users messages if their page editing activities get out of hand. No different from "I know you used the 'minor' checkbox, but you do realize you just made 100 edits to your user page in the course of an hour, right?" No point in trying to make up all kinds of procedures and restrictions for something that isn't - and probably won't be - a problem, though. (And wishlists like Sarah's should definitely be considered kosher.) — 130.58 (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

There will be no policing and nothing really bad. If we're against it, then it will be policy (i.e. no WTS/WTB on user pages) and if someone violates, the admin will remove it as they do a porn link. No big deal. I can see the arguments for "no big deal" and "it won't fly" so I don't really care that much. Just thought we'd consider it before it becomes an issue. --Karlos 04:29, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

I don't really see how "policing" user pages is something "really bad." Though we have no policy on it, there shouldn't really be a difference between a user page and a normal article. A user page isn't that user's safe haven from normal GWiki operation. On WP, policy says that user pages shouldn't be used for purposes that don't further the project, which is an easy way to say WP is not a blog, webhost, social network, or whatever (which is what we've said about GWiki in the past). Listing personal information can let other users know about you to understand your knowledge/experience/credibility a little better, just as character info/game experience (not XP)/unlocks or whatever can help here. --68.142.14.19 04:45, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Personally, I'm not too concerned by people posting wts/wtb or wishlists on their user pages, provided they are only maintained as lists. The lists use relatively little memory, and as long as they keep the number of edits per hour to the same page within a reasonable count, then no issue (c'mon people, the preview button exists for a reason).

My bigger concern is if users where to start using us to host images of gold weapon stats that they're trying to sell; those do start to chew up considerably more memory than a simple list. We've deleted those types of images in the past; but at the time, people weren't using them on their user pages, just hosting them here. To me, we should still eliminate those types of images even if they are used on user pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:37, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

I guess I should say something, since two wikians pm'd me ingame about it and I went to Karlos for advice, as there is no set policy and while I may be respected (maybe *shrugs*), I have never seen this in my time here at GuildWiki.

As I had said before and I will say it over and over, I believe GW is an information center, not a regular forum per say, and definitely not an auction house. If it gets worse, then obviously action should be taken. I would not want to go to Special:recentchanges page and see nothing but posts for buying and selling items.

I know even before I write this, that it may construed by User:Blastedt as picking on him and its not the case, but seeing how he has not responded to this discussion yet, I might bring up that it may be a joke. The items for sale are not really in high demand, nor worth more than a few gold for each piece, hence my reasoning it could very well be a joke. -Gares 09:44, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Overall, I am against this. It takes up bandwidth and storage space and provides absolutely nothing to benefit the wiki or the community. I think the best thing is to simply post a link (like this to your auctions in your user page. --Karlos 18:46, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Im against it too, it may not be a problem at first, but it will cacht on. I can already see people with a full gallery of things they want to sell.—├ Aratak ┤ 18:56, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

It could be argued that very little on the user pages provide any absolute benefit to the wiki or community. Arguing memory usage is a moot point too, unless "WTS" lists start poping up with images, I'd worry foremost (if at all, mind you) about people posting high resolution in game shots of their characters, which, at last count, are both more frequent and more memory hungry than pure text lists. I do beleive it might be time to start encouraging people to be more thgoughtful about what they put on their user page, but more like guidelines, not "thou shalt not use more than 1 MB for thy user page"-like policies. --Theeth (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

I wasnt intending to make auctions, just like "I'm desperate to sell my dye" or "Come to me if you like the colletor's items in Piken"...I didn't expect even MYSELF to put all my mods.... I will remove some of this if wanted. I wasn't intending auctions, nor had I known that they were EVER used in Guild Wars. I have no idea which hat you pulled that out of. Maybe if we limit it to 5 items you are REALLY desperate to buy or sell...I thought this would probably be already common in the wiki user pages.

I am sorry for anyone who may have taken offense to my assuming that.

And why would I take half an hour to post a JOKE?

Blastedt 20:34, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

My main reason, I belive, for registering in this wiki, was to open a user page. I use it to store my skillbars and elites, to introduce myself to people, and to offer or ask for help. eventualy I started editing atricles, and testing game mechanics and builds. I would be afraid to limit users, and new ones in particular, in the use of their user pages. Blastedt did not hold an auction. yes, it should be said that a user page is not ment to be a place for selling or buying, but both Sarah and I, (and god knows who else), have alreasy been using it to find items we need. I think that as long as it seems that no one is being scamed, and as long as people will reply the user in game, and not in the wiki, things like that should not be a problem. Foo 20:51, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Ditto

Blastedt 21:04, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Except I was the other way around...I wanted a page of my own yes, but I was helping edit articles for like half a day before signing up.

Im sorry, once again, if I caused trouble.

Sincerly,

Blastedt 21:04, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Don't worry Blastedt, if you hang around here long enough you will see that there is a lot of these little talk. It's not directed at you at all, it's the idea of selling. Its just to establish what we accept and what we dont want on the wiki, that is all. You are just the first user to put something like that, well that cleary focus on trading, so they often use you as a exemple. No need to take it off your page yet, just follow the discution and input your tough like you did already.—├ Aratak ┤ 22:06, 24 July 2006 (CDT)

Alrighty :)

Blastedt 08:42, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki is now a "large" wiki

Just a little heads-up that GuildWiki is now listed here, as one of the 100 largest MediaWiki wikis. If you count only the non-Wikimedia wikis we're even among the top 25. :) -- 08:05, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Omg. We are the only one in that list to have over 100 million page views. -- (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

yeah...we hacked... (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

:O Foo 09:33, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Boo ya! — Skuld 10:30, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Holy! O.O We beat all wikipedias even, except the english one. — Galil 20:32, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Edit: I take that back, we beat them too. Easy to see here: http://s23.org/wikistats/wikis_html.php?sort=views_desc :p — Galil 20:34, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Heh I'm impressed. I thought we were a reasonably big project...to receive some kind of confirmation of this is quite nice, it actually makes me feel quite proud to be a part of this project. --Xasxas256 21:19, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Didn't know where to put this compliment; free feel to move/delete it. You are not only a "large" wiki, but one of the best. I use you all the time and constantly refer players to your site. While in the Sanatarium giving away low req weapons, a new player asked about spending skill points. I referred him to guildwiki.org. A few minutes later, he was back to say "You have answered ALL my questions." Keep up the good work.65.7.211.83 17:03, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Thanks 65.7.211.83 :) It's always appreciated when the contributors' hard work is recognised! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 01:56, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

Viewing the Wiki

The Wiki takes a very long time to load on my home computer, although I usually don't have any trouble on other machines. I've tried two different browsers (IE and Firefox), but it still takes forever to use the page. Does anyone have any advice? --Willow 23:58, 7 July 2006 (CDT)

Try at it at different times, it was slow for me 3 days ago, but now its fine, tell me if it doesn't change over time — Skuld 10:30, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Images Cleanup

Would some people be so kind as to have a look at Special:Unusedimages, and chuck some of these? Gravewit 16:39, 2 July 2006 (CDT)

Took care of a large chunk of ones from last summer/early fall. Plus every unused one that I uploaded (unless I missed some). It would be good if people could look thru there and mark for deletion images that they've uploaded that there is no more use for. That way admins don't need to guess about it or wipe out something that someone actually wanted to keep. --Rainith 18:33, 2 July 2006 (CDT)

If nothing links there, and it's older than a few months, give it the axe. --Karlos 20:15, 2 July 2006 (CDT)

I deleted 190 a while ago and kind ppl keep flagging unused, i'll get some more tho — Skuld 10:30, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

I noticed though that if you make a text link to the images instead (eg. Image:Warden_of_Saprophytes.jpg), they page will not show up at "What links here?". So images could be in use, it just doesn't show. Unless that got fixed with the wiki update? — Galil 20:28, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

I went through all of those images and gave Skuld a list of those which could be deleted. (I ignored all armor images, but I'll go for them today) I also noticed that images can be linked to without it being shown on the 'what links here' list. From a few images I knew they are in use somewhere, but I couldn't be sure about the rest. I hope no one lost anything important. -- (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2006 (CDT)

Canthan collectors

They have unique dialogue lines unlike the Prophecies ones, so what do you think about adding those to their articles? - Lavvaran 16:17, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

yeh! — Skuld 16:20, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Well, so I might get some then :) - Lavvaran 16:26, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

you go right ahead, i've done my mass edit for the month. --Honorable Sarah 16:31, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Seems they need a unified pattern, sometimes it's in the end, in the beginning, formatted differently... - Lavvaran 03:28, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Wishlist Category

Many users have created Wishlists with many different names. I think it may be a good idea to create a category where all could be listed, I suggest either Category:GuildWiki:Guild Wars Suggestions or Category:Guild Wars Suggestions. --Phoenix 00:42, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

suggestions not Suggestions!! rah!! — Skuld 04:16, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

all users pages, and half of them are half joking. it's not worth tracking. --Honorable Sarah 08:37, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Alexa rankings

← Moved from GuildWiki:Community Portal

The Alexa rankings for the most popular English-language Guild Wars–related sites (as of August 6, 2006) follow.

guildwars.com:  5,831 
gamewikis.org:  6,055  — Covers more than just Guild Wars
ogaming.com:  7,556 — Covers more than just Guild Wars
guildwarsguru.com:  8,159
stratics.com:  9,548 — Covers more than just Guild Wars
coldfront.net:  10,547 — Covers more than just Guild Wars
gwonline.net:  12,322 
gameamp.com:  12,956 — Covers more than just Guild Wars
warcry.com:  15,843 — Covers more than just Guild Wars
mmosite.com:  20,451 — Covers more than just Guild Wars
tentonhammer.com:  22,185 — Covers more than just Guild Wars
gw.ign.com (estimated): ~25,000
systemshock.co.za:  58,975 — Covers more than just Guild Wars
guild-hall.net:  168,613 
rpgstars.com:  211,374 — Covers more than just Guild Wars
photics.com:  233,039 
arena.net:  342,093 
crossingtyria.com:  409,671 
ncsoft.net:  424,075
gwkb.org:  490,357 
guildwarsrealm.net:  864,354 
knights-templar.com:  870,846 
gwversus.com:  1,036,623 
guildcast.com:  1,505,221 
tyria.net:  1,721,084 
anzgw.com:  3,797,486 
loreofmythos.com:  4,144,779 

In short, we're the most popular fansite for Guild Wars! We're very nearly as popular as the offical site itself. We're also significantly more popular than many of the largest fansite networks that cover multiple online games. This is a huge accomplishment, and one we should all be proud of. Thank you to our editors and our readers for your support in making GuildWikis the best fansite out there!

Alexa rankings are a fairly good indicator of how popular a website is. gamewikis.org is ranked at 6,055, which means we're the 6,055th most popular website in the world!

Alexa takes into account the entire Gamewikis.org network which includes the Oblivion Wiki (which seems to get some traffic as well) and the Blog. So it can't be an accurate measure for just the most popular Guild Wars fansite. It's the same as trying to find out numbers for gwvault.ign.com as you will only get returned the entire www.ign.com domain name. Sorry for the downer though I wouldn't doubt that even minus those numbers this is the most frequently viewed GW site. It is also quite the accomplishment to beat out other networks such as ogaming, stratics and warcry.

As pointed out here: GuildWiki talk:Community Portal#GuildWiki is now a "large" wiki, we apparently get more hits than any other MediaWiki site, including the individual languages of Wikipedia.

From Alexa:

Where do people go on gamewikis.org?   (what's this)

    * gw.gamewikis.org - 97%
    * oblivion.gamewikis.org - 3%

The OblivioWiki ups our ranking a little, but not considerably.

On another note, why was this moved from the community portal? I thought that's where stuff like this belonged. This is a valuable congratulatory piece of propaganda *cough Elite status cough.* —Tanaric 09:24, 7 August 2006 (CDT)

What's even more interresting is viewing this page, and its tabs. Especially Rank and even more so, Page Views. The wiki currently ranks about as high as guildwars.com, but it has way more page views per day. — Galil 14:26, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Aye. We have fewer unique viewers than GuildWars.com, but each of them views far more pages here than GuildWars.com viewers do. —Tanaric 21:12, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Profession-specific quests

I'm new to to this wiki, both as a reader and as a registered user, so apologies in advance if this is the wrong place to raise this idea. Does a Category already exist for profession-specific quests (eg, In Memory of Paulus which is available only to Monks)? This might be a helpful thing to have for those switching secondaries, and wanting to skip having to buy skills for the new profession by doing a few quests from farther back in the game. I'd go ahead and create this myself, but I haven't been around long enough to know if something already exists. Thoughts? --Rossio 23:04, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

Try looking at Quests (Prophecies) and Quests (Factions). Note the use of the key and icons. --Vortexsam 23:09, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

Perfect! That's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. Thanks for the quick response. --Rossio 14:01, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

New Techie Tool for Players

Found this post of Gaile Gray:

" We wanted to let you know that we now have a network and graphic diagnostic tool built into GW. If you press Shift-F10, it brings up a graph window, and TAB will cycle through the various graphs that are available to users. The network graph shows how much data is being sent over the wire, and the frame time graph shows how many milliseconds it takes to draw a frame.

That might be helpful for those of a technical nature as they do some diagnostics on their systems in the event of troubles.

Hope you guys find this of help! And we should have word on a new means of getting diagnostics from the game in the very near future. It'll make everyone's life easier. :)"

Here is the link to the post: http://vnboards.ign.com/guild_wars_general_board/b22740/98277717/p1/?5. --Phoenix 08:50, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

That link to the post should probably read: http://vnboards.ign.com/guild_wars_general_board/b22740/98277717/p1/?5 --Rossio 13:57, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Yes. I was distracted and i didn't noticed. I corected it.--Phoenix 02:33, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

uhm, and where will the article to this new thingy be? need to get home to test it :D HJT 09:45, 14 August 2006 (CDT)

Site Ads

The following Guild Wars gold selling site was linked to from the side "sponsors" ads down the left. I think an affort should be made NOT to have such advertisers. [Link removed] --71.240.89.123 21:08, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

Post info about the ads here or here. --Rainith 21:15, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

GWO Wiki

Just a heads up, but you guys have direct competition from http://www.gwonline.net/wiki/ now. 70.96.163.6 18:49, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Wow, they've expanded faster than I thought. Really great job and a nice looking site, but why the hell are we competing and not joining together? ;P (Crush those bastards!) -- (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Well, they are still a lot behind us. I only found one random assassin build. Compare that to our build section. We have all of the most popular and best builds. We also have more and better images of the armor sets. I couldn't do window shopping with the gwonline wiki images, but the gwiki images are just perfect for selecting my future armor sets. -- (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

Yeah, they have expanded very quickly. I say let them get on with it :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 19:25, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

They're finally growing, but have a lot of ground to cover. Site statistics for GWO Online shows ... there are 153 pages that are probably legitimate content pages. 1,626 files have been uploaded.

Glad to see they realized what we knew all along; a wiki is the best way to form a fansite. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:28, 18 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't see it as much as "expanding fast" as "converting html content into wiki format". Do their forums still have that alienating policy against linking to other fansites? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 02:30, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

Their forums do still have that horrid linking policy. Fortunately they've adopted a somewhat reasonable copyright policy for the wiki contributions: Copyright --Zampani 16:56, 19 August 2006 (CDT)

Are they allowed to use our icons?.. — Skuld 17:47, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

If you're talking about the skill icons, those look to be the ones from the FSKs. --Rainith 17:56, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

i think he's talking about some of the icons with our black border on them --Honorable Sarah 17:59, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

Yeh, they uploaded the FSK ones, then someone put black bordered ones on top. They might not be ours, look familiar though — Skuld 18:03, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

We didn't start the black border thing, ANet did. The prophecies FSKs have/had black borders. --Rainith 18:14, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

Even if they did copy ours, they would be free to do so provided they gave credit to the source (not sure if that means crediting GW, or the person that uploaded it, or both - need to look at the license closer). As of July 25th, they changed their license to be the newer version of the same license we use. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:18, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

A major LOL! This is a quote from one of their admins on the gwonline wiki forums: "Should the names of the elite skills on the elite skills locations pages link over to the skills description? I wasn't sure if this is a popular thing or not to want to see the skill description while using those pages or not." I suddenly lost all faith in the wiki. I also visited the special page which lists all of the pages of the wiki. That was a short one. It seems like they only document stuff like armor, green items, skills and some major stuff. Then there are some various minor articles with absolutely no links to them and ... Well, you get the point. -- (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Forgot one thing: There are a few nice pages, which actually win our wiki in usefulness. for example the green item listing with all stats on the same page was really nice and useful. There might be other great articles too, but I didn't spend mch time searching. -- (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't care for their gallery style layout; but I agree that their green items article is more user-friendly than ours green items article (and I really hate the color coding that is used on some, like the Mesmer list in our article to which I linked). But, I think there's room to improve on both theirs and ours. I'm thinking something like our skills listings but with the image on the left, then weapon name, type, boss, and stats, all organised by profession. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:06, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Their page might look nicer, but more user friendly? Try finding something on it (long!). But I agree that it would be nice to have both pages: A long one with pictures and full descriptions and a short one to compare stats like ours. --Xeeron 03:47, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

With all due respect, those guys are not a wiki. They are a stylized website using mediawiki for presentation. Their way of presenting content itself, is not reliant on hyperlinking, which is the haul-mark of wiki content. they do have a nice layout, and their color scheme as a lot nicer, but they are not really a wiki. --Karlos 21:17, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

A wiki on gwonline.net will never really prosper. The "free" nature of a wiki is against the restrictive spirit of gwonline.net. Read their GWO Wiki Copyright Guidelines It is typical that they allow reproduction only if you give them credits, and not at all for any content created by an admin. It fits with their forum policy of not allowing links to sites other than their own. And the fact that they never link to any other English speaking fansite from their news page. Pathetic protectionism. -- 03:12, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Keep reading further on the copyright restrictions. They adopted the Creative Commons copyright (a newer version of the same license we use) on 25th July 2006 - their exception says that you can't copy content created before the adoption of the new copyright policy, but you can copy content created after that date (provided credit is given). The exception is likely a required exception if they were unable to get approval from all prior admins/authors to release their works. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:19, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

See Image talk:Ranger Kurzick Female 15k(front).jpg, is that allowed? — Skuld 06:24, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

I have replied on that page. I certainly think this is important. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:06, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

I think this conversation is a bit crude. I'd like to take the high road with this one. Let's make an article entitled GW Online, let's note that they're using a wiki now... and let's also note that any contributions of value made there will be copied over here immediately, with proper accredation to GWOnline in the edit summary, of course. —Tanaric 03:38, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Technically GulidWIki and GWOwiki use different version of the CC licenses, so I'm not sure if we can use anything from them, or vice versa. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 08:18, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

There's a bit of confusion as far as I'm concerned when it comes to the licenses that GWOwiki use. For most content it seems to be by-nc-sa 2.5, and for older content they use by-nc-nd. We use by-nc-sa 2.0, so any content under their by-nc-sa I would say is ok to use. I'm not happy about the amount of acronyms I've just used but I can't be bothered to type any more. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:44, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Is by-nc-sa 2.5 and 2.0 backward/forward compatible, or just one direction only? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 12:46, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

The differences between the two licenses are extremely minor. If you load them both into a word processor and ask it to compare versions, you find only a handful of variances, otherwise they're nearly word-for-word identical. The difference between 2.0 and 2.5 is in a specific instance of copy protection. I would need to recompare them to verify the specific differences but don't have time at the moment. For the purposes of the wiki, I seem to recall that they were fully compatible with each other (I suggest that someone else also compare them to confirm). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:01, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

They're definitely forward compatible, but I'm not sure if they're backwards compatible. It's not really an issue. We can relicense everything we have to 2.5 if we want. --Fyren 13:05, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

CC by-nc-sa 2.0 vs 2.5

Loading the text of both versions into MS Word and doing a "Compare", here are the differences (not including formatting variances):

• Section 4(a):
  • replaced the text "reference to such Licensor or the Original Author"
  • with the text "credit as required by clause 4(d)".
• Section 4(b):
  • replace references to 2.0
  • to 2.5
• Section 4(d):
  • replace the text "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied"
  • with the text "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties"

That is the extent of the differences between the two licenses. Basically, the upgrade from 2.0 to 2.5 adds the requirement to not only credit the original author, but the original publishing entity as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Redirect from www.guildwiki.org

Worked so far, but now I am getting this:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <html xml:lang="en"> <head> <title>Hi. We Make Community-Editable Documentation for Video Games.</title> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <link href="/stylesheets/screen.css" media="screen" rel="Stylesheet" type="text/css" /> </head> <body> <p>Hi, we're Gamewikis. We want to be the central repository for video game knowledge. Choose your poison:</p> <div class="option"><h1><a href="http://gamewikis.org/blog/">The Blog</a></h1> <p>News, idle ramblings</p> </div> <div class="option"><h1><a href="http://gw.gamewikis.org">GuildWiki</a></h1> <p>The GuildWars wiki</p> </div> <div class="option"><h1><a href="http://oblivion.gamewikis.org">OblivioWiki</a></h1> <p>The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion wiki</p> </div> <div class="option"><h1><a href="http://nwn.gamewikis.org">NeverWiki</a></h1> <p>The Neverwinter Nights 2 wiki</p> </div> </body> </html>

Apart from the fact that the page is not working (it displayed that directly, not after I looked up the source code), I feel that it is very clear that users going to www.guildwiki.org want to go directly to guildwiki, so that page is an unneeded layer. --Xeeron 00:03, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

I just tried it, and it didn't show the source for me. Gravewit may be actively working the issue. Earlier today the gamewikis.org addresses were doing similar.

I can kind of understand the reason for the extra layer. I'm guessing here, but my assumption is that it is there to both push people to update their bookmarks to gw.gamewikis.org, as well as advertising the fact that gamewikis is trying to expand into other games. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:11, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm having the same issue. —Tanaric 12:54, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

I was going to email Phil about this directly but now that I've seen this, I'll put it here and hope he sees it. Because http://gw.gamewikis.org is blocked at work, for months I've used http://hi.gamewikis.org and it used to behave pretty much exactly the same and I could get around the content blocker at work. I've used Tor in the past, it's terribly slow. I often do bulk edits (e.g. clean out unneeded redirects, mass tidies etc.) which is impossible with Tor. If you could add a third level domain (other than gw) which could be used to access the GuildWiki...that'd be wild, untamed and awesome! I didn't make a single edit yesterday, can't go on like this! --Xasxas256 09:12, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Selling Nightfall

What'd be the best way to put links for users to pre-order Nightfall? Last time I stuck it in the sidebar (which is getting awfully crowded), and that raised some ires. I was thinking that this time we'd stick it somewhere, and use the $$$ to do a contest with you mods for a couple copies of the expansion. Thoughts? Gravewit 18:21, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

I personlly think that the main page is a good place, as long as the ad isn't too disturbing. -- (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

I agree that, as long as it was done tastefully, a box on the main page would suffice. Something along the lines of "Help support Gamewikis.org by buying Nightfall through us". Man, that's snappy. I should get a job in marketing :P <LordBiro>/<Talk> 18:43, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

I'd put it in the sidebar below the search but above the sponsor box. After all, the difference between what I assume is going to be an amazon deeplink and the Goooooooogle ads is miniscule at best. Personally, at least, I would have no more -- or less -- problems with it than I do the gbar. --  Bishop [rap|con] 18:44, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Not the sidebar please, even from the labels that shows its wiki navigation — Skuld 18:46, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't get the objection. If it is below the search bar, like the ads are now, what's the difference between that and the Google ads? --  Bishop [rap|con] 18:49, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Below? wha? Last time it was in navigation Oo — Skuld 18:52, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

I think the best would be to create a new graphic link for the side using the wording suggested by LordBiro. Above the google ad links, but below the navigation box. If I remember right, the complaint last time was that it was actually in the navigation box. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:38, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

I think it should be a two stepped approach. A colorful link in the sidebar (totally against the main page idea) and that link does not take you directly to Amazon, but instead to a page that explains that by doing so you would be supporting Gamewikis and then a clear big (preferably picture based) button that takes you to Amazon (or whatever). I would prefer if the page briefly explained how the help will be (i.e. 1% of the purchase will go to Gamewikis or 10% or wahtever).

I would place the buy burron atop the search box but not as a part of the navigation box. --Karlos 00:19, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

Right below the search bar seems to be the best place. Karlos idea of redirecting to a wiki page explaining the deal is great as well. Just one thing: I understand that you want to do something good for the moderators, but I am sure we will all be most happy if as much money is needed is spend on the server to make sure the (infrequent) times of slow access get ever more infrequent. --Xeeron 03:16, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

I agree with Xeeron. Perks for admins are uncalled for. Will create unneeded envy/favoritism. --Karlos 04:01, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

However people want the link to look is fine with me, unlike some, I'm not offended by capitalism.  ;) And I agree, any funds raised should go towards the wiki, or maybe they could be used to bribe ANet into inviting the Seattle area locals (Barek, Karlos and myself last time I checked) to any press things they do for Nightfall. :P --Rainith 06:24, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

That sounds good. Something for admins and still help the wiki. :) -- (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

I like Karlos idea. Link that goes to wikipage with a little chat. The main reason I want to do amazon is to get some little money set aside for a contest or giveaway. Gravewit 16:35, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

Giveaways are nice ... but server upgrades are nicer ;-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:54, 30 August 2006 (CDT)

If an admin-only/all-user contest is still being considered, I withdraw myself from the user pool. —Tanaric 03:25, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Quick access links in navigation box

The original conversation took place on Talk:Main_Page/editcopy

The conversation is now taking place at Talk:Quick_access_links

A page protection policy needs to be codified

Currently the following non-policy and low risk pages are protected for bogus reasons:

• GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Builds
• Cities of Ascalon
• Template:Untested-build
• Me/Mo 55hp Solo Mesmer forgot about that, sorry — Skuld 05:21, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
• Category:Build stubs

Page protection should be used to mitigate damage from vandalism, and then must only be a temporary measure. Erroneous good faith edits can be reverted easily, and always are. Please don't protect pages indefinitely for flimsy reasons. gr3g 21:31, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

I agree with every single one of those protections. They need to be reverted often if unprotected. Protection serves as a great tool there. Even if Wikipedia does something in one way, we can do it in another way. -- (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

I dont feel we need a policy, usually a discussion takes place on the page that is to be protected, which is all what is needed in my mind. --Xeeron 05:55, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

I agree with gr3g, at least as far as that those pages should be unprotected. One erroneous good faith edit per week is not grounds for permanent page protection. Our other permanently protected pages get hammered by vandals, but the ones listed here have not been. —Tanaric 03:22, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

More license violations

It appears that http://en.guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page is a rip off Main Page without attribution and without using an identical license. An admin from guildwiki should contact Wikia. 69.86.62.75 01:45, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

It's been taken care of. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:11, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Correction, it's been partially taken care of. We are trying to get it furthur taken care of. Specifically, textual stuff have been taken care of, but some of the images still haven't been. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 08:09, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Do we have Parser functions installed?

I'm just currious, Do we have the parser function extention installed? And if not, Why not? {http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/ParserFunctions Parser Functions} --Vulpes Foxnik 15:04, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

Yes, we do. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 18:35, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

Excellent. I'll get to rewriting the the templates to use them then. --Vulpes Foxnik 19:05, 8 September 2006 (CDT)

Which templates did you have in mind? Or are you mainly planning on phasing out Template:Case? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 04:50, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

The templates switch and case aren't really used anywhere except the item upgrade table thing for user pages. --Fyren 05:13, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

Well I Already rewrote the Armor Function and Art boxes. I'm also now working on rewriting the WeaponInfo to detect if it has a Icon, Allow Grouped information like flight time for bows, damage types, ranges ect. I will also add a Armor Stylising template for standardised Armor Art Galleries for males and females in order that we can monitor what armor still need artwork. This _should_ allow us to better monitor the progress of updating the pages. Pages that use the {{if-then-else}} are essentualy using a hack and adding additional strain on the server. I see no need for rewriting case, since we have a standardised capitolisation skeem. What we have here is a mainance problem and the best way to solve this by using efficient templates. For example, looking at many of the Item pages, there are calls for about 6 to 10 templates. This is unneeded. With the Parsing Functions, we can create an 'all in one' template that meets everyone's needs and helps us maintain our wiki. --Vulpes Foxnik 14:32, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

Now that I look at it, the skill box template could use a rewrite too. I think I'll start with that since it is the most standardised from what I can tell.--Vulpes Foxnik 14:39, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

No, don't mess with the skill box templates. --Fyren 15:55, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

To clarify a little, GuildWiki:Sandbox/Skill box is where I'm testing changes. I haven't touched it in a while since we recently rewrote skill box row into skill box qr. --Fyren 16:22, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

Oh so the current code I'm working with is out of date. I see.--Vulpes Foxnik 17:18, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

Sort of. Template:Skill box is what's currently used. But, I'd rather see if people want to make actual changes to functionality before editing the template, since editing any of the high-use skill templates causes the wiki to be very slow for about 10-20 minutes. So, one large change after we know what we want rather than small tweaks is best. --Fyren 17:23, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

I'll make sure when I impliment the other boxes to get it right the first time. I'd rather not slow the server down more than it already is... Anyhow, I'll double check my other codes. None of them have been uploaded except the armor, which I will most likely revise a little for error reporting. All it reports at the moment is gotIcons=| automaticly.--Vulpes Foxnik 17:28, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

Just like the original IF and other advanced templates, I advocate for minimal use of parserfunctions. They are probably much better in terms of server performance, but minimal usage is still recommended. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:27, 9 September 2006 (CDT)

Yes, I agree. Don't make the templates any more complicated than is necessary. There might be a time when unexperienced people need to tweak them. -- (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Yeah. I would rather have 10 simple templates working together than one large template that is difficult for newcomers to comprehend. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:05, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Thats what documentation / sudocode is for ;)--Vulpes Foxnik 10:19, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Well, I disagree there. If there is a clear need for using one template over using a number of templates then that's fine. If it's simply to save on the number of templates used and the result will be obfuscated code that only the author and a minority of contributors can fathom then I don't think having documentation or pseudocode will be as useful as sticking with the original multiple templates. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 11:41, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

I ment that as sarcasm. Unreadable code is unreadable code. Thats why I do most of my wiki coding in a programming editor (helps me keep track of the {}). If I can get the white space not to conflict with the readability, great. I'm still learning on what and what doesn't produce a newline. Right now I'm developing the code in my own user space. Pansola has taken over coding the armor box interm. I hope to merge codebases with him in a few days. a have more days of development and code checking ahead.--Vulpes Foxnik 12:26, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Icons for different chapters

I was working on an idea, and made these icons for different chapters. However, since there is no way known to me to use an image as a hyperlink in wikicode, I have no use for them. and -- Ifer

I like the idea, concept, and numbers. I would lose the circle and try to make the letters bolder. and go with a virsion with the numbers too. maybe add then as subtext at the same place on each. Foo 16:05, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Still, how can we use them? the logo's in the quick access links are more than adequate, and my plan to put them on the main page as "locations" won't work (at least not for me - I tried it in wikicode, which I'm not very good at, and I've tried it in plain old HTML, which worked even less good). -- Ifer

You can make the image page a redirect page. -- (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2006 (CDT)

Yes, but the redirect will always point to the same location, which isn't really helpful. What we'd like to have is an image linking for example to Locations in one place and to Quests in an other. Since that isn't possible with wiki code the campaigns icons won't be useful in many places. And for the few places where we actually link to the campaigns we can use the official logos, as done in the quick access links. -- 02:55, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

You could upload the image with a few different names. -- (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Unless you're familiar with the logos for each campaign then these icons don't really help too much. I think this is one of the grey areas where icons are concerned. Personally I haven't tried coming up with any campaign icons myself because I don't really see any obvious way of doing it. And icons should be as obvious as possible.

If there were some obvious symbols in-game for each campaign then I would advocate using icons for each campaign. If we're just using the starting letter for each campaign then I don't see the advantage over saying "Nightfall locations". <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:09, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

In the past I considered to use the different location map icons for campaigns:

• File:MissionIcon sml.gif <- Prophecies
• <- Factions (but with the spear and the two swords please)

Instead of the mission icons we might also use the town icons, which are also campaign-specific. -- 06:52, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm against the idea of reloading the same icon multiple times to link to different places. An icon should have one meaning, a multi-purpose icon can be confusing; better to use text in those cases. I also agree with Lord Biro that an icon should be self-evident as to what it means with no qualifying text needed next to it. Otherwise, why use an icon? On using the mission / town icons, they are campaign specific so far, but not really self evident to someone new to the game. Newer players may only have one campaign, and not immediately understand that each has a unique icon. My other concern with icons is that they would be a major style change for the Main Page (which is where these were originally suggested - see Talk:Main_Page/editcopy). When it was suggested to add tables to the main page, several people slammed the style mix - I'm not sure how much better icons would be on this. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:54, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Personally, I do not think these icons would work on the main page either.. The reason I started this little discussion is that there may be a use for them. Perhaps in skill listings - I do not know everything that's going on here on guildwiki, so I put up this little notice. I have found a use for them myself though: I now have these little fake-babel boxes on my userpage stating which chapters I have :) Ifer 10:03, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

Can GuildWiki provide downloadable builds?

From this page:

• With Save to Template, you can save a build of skills and attributes to your computer. Outside the game, you can decide whether (and how) you want to send of these files from your computer to another computer.
• After you have a saved file, you can use Load from Template to upload a build from your computer to the game.
• With Manage Templates, you can rename, delete, and move files.

Is it time to start thinking whether GuildWiki can provide build template downloads for the many builds it currently hosts? I can see arguments for and against it, but overall I think it would be great! 84.57.83.90 21:19, 21 September 2006 (CDT)

If you actually mean "can," yes. It's possible to allow the wiki to accept uploads of any type. If you mean "will," dunno. I guess we'll discuss it here, heh. Maybe only provide it for vetted builds. I'd assume the template files would be tiny, but we'll see. --Fyren 21:22, 21 September 2006 (CDT)

I'm for it. (T/C) 21:25, 21 September 2006 (CDT)

For vetted files it would be a fun idea. -- (talk) 02:44, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

Depends on the actual size of the templates. If they are easy to import and small, I dont see why not. --Xeeron 03:52, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

Nice idea. I'd also like an option for export to GWFreaks and GW Team Builder then. ~ Nilles (chat) 08:40, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

I think those programmes will standardise on the official GW build template format or at least accept it. I shall myself be reverse engineering this format for my guild's build repository - which also uses MediaWiki - to see if we can't have a MediaWiki plugin generate them automatically. Would surprise me if it weren't possible. 212.112.241.159 09:17, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

GWFreaks and GWTeamBuilder both use XML sheets with their own respective format. I think that XML sheets would be a good choice for GW's own template export tool. ~ Nilles (chat) 10:32, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

10000 Articles!

I just noticed that we've broken through the 10000 article barrier. I'd say a prominent note on the main page and a big Thank You to our contributors is in order for reaching this milestone?! -- 10:18, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

I've drafted a message at Main_Page/site_notice. I've also mocked up Main Page/editcopy to show how it would look. If that's what you had in mind, let me know and I can re-activate the site notice banner on the Main Page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:11, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

That looks very good. And ... err ... yay us! --Xeeron 11:30, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

I went ahead and added the notice to the Main Page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:37, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

Nice! (Unfortunately, there are at least 400 pages of junk in the wiki...) ~ Nilles (chat) 12:18, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

Does it count user name space stuff? Or only main name space? -- (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

I was simply referring to Untested builds and Unfavored builds - about 80% of then or so are junk that might work in game but actually are not meant for documentation. In fact, I'd simply delete and abandon these pages for the sake of simplicity. After all, new players who search for new builds are in search of new ideas and a grasp of uniqueness. We don't serve them by displaying builds like Me/Mo Faster Caster - builds, that any of those players could easily invent themselves. ~ Nilles (chat) 16:01, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

I would still like to know the answer to the question. :) -- (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki's Special:Statistics page doesn't specifically mention user pages. If that query is universally consistent across all MediaWiki installations, then user pages are not included per Wikipedia's Special:Statistics.

To be certain, we could always test it and delete the test-created user page afterwards (being certain to refresh the cache to ensure the numbers shown are correct). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:33, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

As far as I'm aware it only counts articles in the main name space that are not classed as short articles. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 19:09, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

Hooray for the wiki! This is a major milestone in its history - now let's shoot for 20 thousand, eh? ;) Ordin 20:45, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Based on the rate of article growth following the release of Factions, I suspect that we'll be well over 12,000 pages by November sometime  :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

As Biro said, it's articles in the main namespace. But they also have to contain a link to another article, so dead-end articles don't count. I think it might also have to meet a minimum length, but I'm unsure and too lazy to look at the code right now. --Fyren 20:50, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

State of the Wiki: Builds

 I argue that as an encyclopedic reference to Guild Wars not including popular builds would be very narrow-sighted.
 Now how this would be done is pretty tricky. Shandy 07:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That was one of the first answers I got when I started talking about builds on the wiki. And Shandy was right, including builds has worked out, but it is tricky indeed. So for all those who are not involved in the builds process (but often see lots of build related pages spamming recent changes), let me give you a quick overview what the build section currently does, why there was a lot of talk about it in the last months, what is not running smooth and why adding builds to the wiki is still a great thing.

History

The wiki was founded by a crowd of PvE lovers, so after the first months, there was decent coverage of most PvE aspects of the game, but the builds section was almost entirely consisting of the pre-builds, plus several weird concept builds. To sort out those of them worth keeping, a build vetting process was introduces. Later, when people started to post more new builds as well, that evolved into the voting, which is more or less in the same form still in use.

The new section drew some attention from those who possess superior (to mine) wiki skills, so soon we got nice templates, ordered categories and a beautiful builds portal. Unfortunatly, as the number of people working on the wiki to test builds grew, the number of new builds exploded. That lead to several attempts to streamline, change or speed up the process of build vetting, most of which did not have a big impact.

Right now, a refined version of the basic voting vetting is still in place, I tried to write that (and all other relevant stuff about builds) down here.

The basic problem with builds

The basic problem with builds (and reason behind 95% of all troubles related to builds) is the nature of builds as subjective articles. Unless almost all other aspects of the wiki, the quality of a build can not be objectively measured. That means, if there is to be any skale among builds, it will be a subjective one. That of course can give rise to many conflicts: Either if people disagree about builds, and, maybe even harder to solve, there is a conflict about the correct mechanism of how to take lots of subjective opinions and synthesize them into one wiki article. The later lead to long discussions about a build policy, without any consensus reached yet, meaning the wiki currently does not have any build policy.

Why are builds on the wiki still a great idea

Despite the frustration which can arise about all the conflicts related to builds, this should not distract from one fact: The users love them! The build portal currently gets around 15.000 views per day, making it the 5th most popular page of the wiki. The guildwiki has proven that builds do not only belong on forums, but that the wiki concept can be used to provide simple and easy access to build ideas to all users. The builds section has also helped to attract many new users to the wiki, especially from the previously hardly represented PvP part of the community.

Let me put in 2 maybe somewhat specific lessons that can drawn from the builds part of guildwiki:

• Templates and nice structure works, even for new users, as long as the user side is kept simple. There is possibly no template in the wiki which is more successful than Template:Skill bar. I have seen literally hundreds of new build articles, done by first time users, and more than 99% of them understood and correctly used the template (and the later attribute template as well) for their first build. As long as there is a page describing their use and the template keeps using plain text on the part the user sees, they do work, making articles much nicer to read.
• Users like portal pages. The builds portal consists to 80% of just a listing of Category:Builds, yet after it was introduced, the number of pageviews skyrocketed. New users unfamiliar with the workings of a wiki will have a hard time if they hit a link on the main page and are dumped in a category with a one line description. The best information is not good enough, if users cant find it. Some other parts have great portal articles as well (for example the green weapons lists), but there are still several links on the main page which lead to ugly categories. Some beautification of these links would maybe be one of the simplest ways to enhance user value in the wiki.

So in the end, builds on the wiki work, not without some problems and effortless, but the result proves that the effort is well invested. --Xeeron 10:46, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Discussion

It would be such a shame to break up the above with comments, so I'll put mine here instead :) This is a good summary for anyone unfamiliar with the Builds section of the wiki who is interested in learning about the recent discussions. Good work Xeeron! You've kept it pretty objective, so I don't have any problems with it.

It is certainly true that portals in general are generally well received, and for some time I've been an advocate of creating articles to compliment the current category setup that we have on the wiki.

Anyway, good work Xeeron! <- for you. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 11:34, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

I am continually amazed by you Builds people. :) ——Tanaric 02:17, 7 October 2006 (CDT)

Halloween skin

I have an idea, maybe we could do the site up in orange and black for halloween? :)

I'm thinking of a crossed flamberge over pumpkins for the logo, and replacing the white with black and blue with orange for the week leading up to halloween. Mad king background instead of books? :p Any thoughts? — Skuld 10:09, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

I am willing to do some work :) I'll make some drafts and throw down a link here :) -- Ifer (t/c) 10:27, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Sounds fun. Has there been any news about a Halloween event this year? I think it was announced last year about this time, iirc. — Gares 10:30, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Yeh, i'll try find the gaile log brb — Skuld 10:33, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10056831 — Skuld 10:51, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Thx. Can't see GWG from work, but I'll read about it when I get home. — Gares 11:01, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

If you make it the default skin/CSS, I will kill everyone involved. --Fyren 16:50, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

And I'll dismember and burn the remains. This sort of thing should be an optional skin - not changing the default ones. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

before we let your edit thru

As a protection against automated spam, you'll need to solve this equation before we let your edit thru:

Could someone PLEASE take care of that horrible english? -- Ifer (t/c) 10:34, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

I changed thru to through, do you want to message altering in any way? — Skuld 10:51, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Thanks a lot :) That has annoyed me since I started working on the wiki ;) -- Ifer (t/c) 11:05, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Skill box revamp

I've proposed a bunch of changes to the skill box template (and been posting about it for about ten days at the talk page linked above). This includes parameter name changes, auto-generation of progression tables, slight display tweaks, and factoring out all the CSS into MediaWiki:Common.css. Each topic has its own section at the linked talk page. I plan on making these changes soonish so they're live before Nightfall and allowing for at least a couple days for changes/fixes. Please comment at there. --Fyren 06:04, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

Functionality-wise I don't have any objections. It looks like you've planned well and the use of the new template is easy enough to grasp with examples at hand. The only thing left to do before implementation is probably writing a style sheet to adjust the looks of it, right? ~ Nilles (chat) 07:18, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

I did, but it's not site-wide (yet). The second paragraph in the CSS section describes how to apply it for yourself. --Fyren 07:40, 15 October 2006 (CDT)

As just an ordinary user, not a contributer, I myself find the current changes to the skill summary pages detrimental compared to the version that existed at the beginning of October. I rely on the skill summary pages to allow me to quickly see the textual descriptions of all the skills for a specific attribute or class as well as the cost/casting/reset information. I recognize it's a work in progress at the moment, but can the finished version please include the textual description of the skill's effect? --IzzionSona

Not sure what you're saying. The same descriptions are still there and in the same place. The same stats are still there and in the same place. The progression tables were moved up, but they still have the same data. Can you be more specific? --Fyren 00:28, 20 October 2006 (CDT)

If you meant the quick reference pages, I've fixed a (somewhat major) copy and paste error. --Fyren 01:03, 20 October 2006 (CDT)

My comment was the quick reference pages, thank you for the modification to them. And much thanks to all of you who put in the time and effort to make this wiki successful. It's a huge boon to my Guild Wars experience --IzzionSona

Ok, so I'm new.

I'm new here and I'm a little bit confused on how to post a build. Could someone fill me in, please?

Check the links near the bottom of builds. --Fyren 01:08, 20 October 2006 (CDT)

those links should help enough.. If it does not, you can ask me. One more thing: sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes, ~~~~, and it will result in this : Ifer (t/c) 03:11, 20 October 2006 (CDT)

Brainstorm: Give Builds their own namespace

There is a difference between Builds and all other types of GuildWiki articles on a fundamental level. The difference is sufficient that I think it can warrent its own namespace (PvE builds and PvP builds are all sharing the same namespace, so I'm not trying to do any sort of PvP segregation here). For example (picking the first build name I see from Recentchanges), "R/Rt Brutal Needler" would become "Build:R/Rt Brutal Needler". This would help the filtering of Recentchanges, Watchlist, and built-in search functions which categories cannot emulate. Of course, simply naming articles that way won't create the namespace (for the purposes of recent changes etc), we'll need Gravewit to fiddle with the mediawiki settings to get the namespace to work. I want to toss the idea out and see what ppl in general think before presenting it to Gravewit. So, care to comment? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 12:12, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

I like it - we should've done this from the very start. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:08, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

Great idea! Iäm all for it! \o/ -- (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

That's a very cool idea. ~ Nilles (chat) 13:45, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

This is exactly the situation that namespaces were designed for. We can discuss how we do this on our side further, but I'll make the technical request to Gravewit now, so we have the structure in place when we're ready. —Tanaric 15:07, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

I am sure I have seen this idea voiced before, no idea why it didnt get taken up back then. --Xeeron 17:10, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

Tetris suggested it. --Fyren 19:11, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

This will probably mean more incorrectly named builds :P That's ok there's always plenty of us happy to help out with that and the benefits definately outweight the small negative, I'm all for it. --Xasxas256 20:59, 22 October 2006 (CDT)

I'm not opposed to this idea but I'm fairly certain it was discussed previously. I wasn't very active at the time when builds were first introduced, so I'm not 100% sure where the information would be, but before anything is implemented I think it would be a good idea to find out why this wasn't implemented initially. Anyone have any suggestions as to where to look? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 04:39, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

I know what you're talking about, I think I recall something along the lines that it was too much work. I think we just failed to find concensus and it got lost in the discussion. Like "usual". ~ Nilles (chat) 05:55, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

Actually, Honorable Sarah seems to have first raised the idea: It is both here. Cant really see any reasons for not implementing it there, seems like all people who cared enough to do it didnt follow the discussion. --06:04, 23 October 2006 (CDT)