FANDOM


GuildWars Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 17/topnotes

"Mission" should be the default location page

Most of us play the game with some sort of goal in mind -- to get better items, to beat a mission, to find a specific crafter, etc. When a given mission location is looked up, I'll wager that most people want to find out about the mission there and aren't very interested in, e.g. that the name of the Fort Ranik merchant is Gram. Many location names include a redirect to the mission name (mission), which is good, but it means that whenever that mission is referenced, it must be referenced in the following formet: "[ [ mission name (mission) | mission name ] ] mission" in order to make it display cleanly. Additionally, it means that most every mission location page has a blank page consisting of nothing but a redirect link to the actual mission page. I propose that all mission location pages should be about the mission, with a disambiguation link at the top to the "mission name (location)" page. For instance, see Chahbek Village (Mission) moved to Chahbek Village, although the page that link to Chahbek Village (Mission) would need to be changed. [1] I would suggest a bot to do all of that. How does that work here? Do I have to put in a request in order to run a bot, like I would have to over at Wikipedia? Banaticus 00:08, 29 December 2006 (CST)

Remember that when linking to an article, you can also link to the redirect. You don't need to write [[Fort Ranik (Mission)|Fort Ranik]] as you can write [[Fort Ranik]]. There is no need to change the current system and it would need a lot of work to do so. The pages should be moved and many categories hould be changed from many many articles. (Monsters, bosses, NPCs, ...) --Gem-icon-sm (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2006 (CST)
Try this: Fort Ranik --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer-icon-small (msg Aberrant80) 06:39, 29 December 2006 (CST)
I'm not sure I quite get what you're trying to accomplish. Seriously, it's going over my head. So why should we move mission articles instead of simply having a redirect (like in the Chahbek Village example you gave)? Is there something wrong with the redirect? Are they not showing up "cleanly" when you link to that redirect (as in Gem's example)? Are you trying to reduce the article count? I don't mean to play twenty-questions, just trying to understand. BTW, I reverted the change you made on the Chahbek Village redirect... It'll do us no good to have two identical articles. It should be either moved or not; duplication will just cause someone headaches. :-) --Zampani 13:59, 29 December 2006 (CST)
I don't see a problem with reducing the number of pages, especially if it reduces confusion, makes things easier to find, eliminates . Why link to a redirect when we can simply have the "default page" be the mission page? Why continue to propagate a system that's unwieldy -- why would we want to create an empty redirect page for every mission location in the game? More chapters will come out and it makes it difficult to find things. Again, I'm not saying that someone should go in by hand and change every page. Who do I have to speak with to get permission to just run a bot on these pages? Unlike Wikipedia, there is no mention of GuildWiki bots in bot. Banaticus 19:06, 1 January 2007 (CST)
The thing is, even if you had a bot set up, community consensus seems to be against you. The most that I would agree with would be to change the pages from redirects into disambig pages, but I don't think that that is worth the trouble, and that the current system works well. --Rainith 19:19, 1 January 2007 (CST)
Until you describe what's unwieldy or confusing, don't change anything. --Fyren 19:21, 1 January 2007 (CST)
I don't see anything confusing or hard in the current system. The change would mean editing hundreds of pages linking to the old names. Changing to disambig pages would be stupid as 99% of the players want to find the mission article with the mission name. --Gem-icon-sm (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2007 (CST)
I really don't see what you're describing as confusing or unweildy. The current system works fine, and works well. If it's not broke, don't fix it. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:08, 1 January 2007 (CST)
Gem is correct -- 99% of users want to find the mission article. Why make them type extra text? That's the unwieldy part, that 1) we make every mission name approximately 1/3 to 1/2 longer than it needs to be, 2) that we created an extra redirect page for every mission in the game. I don't see the benefit of making the page a disambiguation page -- that would then be an extra click to get to the mission page and would be a further drain on GuildWiki's already thinly stretched resources. This is essentially doubling page views for all mission locations. Additionally, it's not wiki "clean". A bot can simply run through a list of pages and change them, so it really doesn't matter how long the list is from that standpoint. Banaticus 10:55, 2 January 2007 (CST)
They are currently reaching the mission article without keying the extra text. The claim that we make them type the extra text is erroneous and misleading. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 11:50, 2 January 2007 (CST)
Hi! I'm back and I agree, there is no reason to change the name of articles. At present no one has to type any extra. If you go to http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Fort_Ranik you get the mission. If you search for "Fort Ranik" you get the mission. If you link to [[Fort Ranik]] you get the mission.
There is no doubt that the mission pages are used more than the location pages, and there is also no doubt that the mission pages and location pages need to be separate articles, but I am yet to see a convincing argument why we should not use the system that we are using at present. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 12:40, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Policy on new content information

Hey all, I'm usually at OblivioWiki, though I was wondering how GuildWiki handles new news/content for upcoming expansion packs/games (i.e. how you guys handled Factions and Nightfall content prior to release). The first expansion pack for Oblivion is coming out in spring as mentioned and previewed in a magazine, so I would like to know how GuildWiki handled pre-release information from third-party sources (i.e. not the dev or publisher). Obviously, verbatim content is not allowed, but how about paraphrasing? Bullet points? Nothing at all except straight from the developer/publisher? Just mention that there is an expansion?

Much appreciated, thanks. --theSpectator talk 19:40, 29 December 2006 (CST)

We only list information either from the developer, publisher, or magazines. We never list information in the article if it originates from a fansite or a retailer's site (although those get discussed alot in the talk pages).
We usually list the information in bullet points, and include a list of external links at the bottom for the sources. See Campaign Four for an example of an upcoming release for Guild Wars. Eventually, it gets more detailed, and becomes a full article, such as at Guild Wars Nightfall for the recently released campaign 3. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:46, 29 December 2006 (CST)
Ahh, okay, thanks for the response. So listing some basic info about the expansion (based off the magazine article) is alright then?--theSpectator talk 20:22, 29 December 2006 (CST)
It is generally okay to paraphrase the salient points of the article. Posting the article verbatim or including scans of the pages is not allowed (on GuildWiki anyway). --Rainith 21:14, 29 December 2006 (CST)
Ahh, of course. Thanks for the replies everyone. --theSpectator talk 21:33, 29 December 2006 (CST)

Unique skins of greens

I want to make a category for skins that do not appear as drops. For example the new Domain of Anguish items, some of them use new skins while others use old skins (such as the Iridescent Aegis). -- ···» Life Infusion ··· 11:29, 30 December 2006 (CST)

I think that a category would make stuff complicated. Feel free to make a page with a list. Unique skin unique items or something. --Gem-icon-sm (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2006 (CST)
Really? I would think that a category would be easier to maintain than a list. But that's just me. Still, either way you do it, it strikes me as a pain to keep current - but if someone wants to try to put in the effort, I have no objections. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 11:46, 30 December 2006 (CST)
I wouldn't like to see each green having an extra category for this. Keeping categories simple is good. The page wouldn't need regular updating, just updating the new greens from major updates / new campaigns. We allready have a million quick reference pages which need to be manually updated os why not one more? A million quick references is better than a million categories on all of the item pages. Categories are often forgotten, removed accidentally and so on, compared to a quick reference where mistakes are more easily spotted. --Gem-icon-sm (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2006 (CST)
Even better, why not just add some sort of indicator to the current unique item lists? Put a star next to uniquely skinned items or something. One possible issue is that two lists will get out-of-sync (Unique items list (Prophecies) and Warrior unique items quick reference for example), but it would still probably be more useful merged into current pages than on its own page.—Aranth Mesmer-icon-small 06:49, 17 January 2007 (CST)

The time on the server seems to be out

I'm at +/- 00:00 UTC, and my computer clock synchronised with the time.windows.com server shows 55 minutes or so earlier than the server time. --Alert 11:34, 1 January 2007 (CST)

Small Suggestion Page?

Salut,

As Guildwars is far from beeing complete, there is always need for minor suggestions such as optimizing e.g. the interface. A suggestion page where everyone could lay out his suggestion including pros and cons would be quite interesting. This shouldn't end in a whine page where ppl want their class or race better to perform in general. This should only be a collection of _minor_ proposal changes for e.g. interface.

Why a wiki instead of simply submitting the proposal to the developers? It's quite interesting to see for yourself which other solutions there are for optimizing the same problem. The second reason would be perfecting the solution with many thoughts instead of delivering the developers every month another part towars a perfect solution. Another small reason is that it would the developers take one look at the wiki suggestion section to see what's demanded and what has been worked out.

As this is a suggestion, you're free to love it or blow it up, as you like.

yours sincerely, J. Stebens

I think you would be better posting this on one of the many fan forums. GW customer service reps check them frequently and I have seen many threads like this on a particular forum I visit. You are free to put stuff like that on your user page though. - BeXoR Bexor 10:14, 3 January 2007 (CST)
I agree, this sounds like what is already active on many fan site forums. Currently, the wiki here only lists abnormalities and possible glitches as recorded by the community (as the wiki isn't a forum per se). Personally, I submit the entire list every month to Anet and so far there have been about a dozen or so items removed from the list in the past 3 or so months but they aren't necessarily fixes that were done at a specifcic point but at least were noticed and finally removed from the anomaly list by users. If you think it merits value, I can go back through my previous e-mails and see what has been removed from the list and include that with my monthly update on the anomaly talk page.--VallenIconwhitesmall Vallen Frostweaver 10:22, 3 January 2007 (CST)
The problem would be that the developers don't frequent the wiki and the wiki policies don't quite support this. However, I am going to start this kind of project on my own user name space really soon, and I'll post here when it is ready for the public to use. I am planning on making a monthly suggestion post on the major fansites based on the stuff gathered on my project page. --Gem-icon-sm (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2007 (CST)
That sounds great. You submit to the forums and I'll submit to Anet. I'll see what I can dig up on changes that were made since each version that I submitted previously to Anet already.--VallenIconwhitesmall Vallen Frostweaver 10:25, 3 January 2007 (CST)
The project page is located at User:Gem/Guild Wars suggestions. I will post my suggestion list soon. Please don't do anything before that. And please discuss everything on the talk page, don't edit the project article yourself. I will add, remove or change stuff if necessary. --Gem-icon-sm (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2007 (CST)
I posted links to other similar pages on the talk page of the article linked by Gem. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 10:48, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Profession colors

At this point, we have multiple profession color codes in use on the site. For just a few examples, see:

There was once a conversation on standardizing; either on specific codes, or at least on color ranges. I'm trying to re-open the discussion at GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Profession Colors to see if we can try approaching a concensus on this. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:55, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Question

I want to search for this: http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=mending touch

No matter what I do (and I tried), it takes me to the skill page. I don't want to go to the skill page, I want to do a text search. How do I do that?

It works for this: http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=ballad of restoration

I'm not averse to screwing something up then putting it back. Does anyone know? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martialis (talk • contribs) 11:12, January 5, 2007 (CST).

Key your term in the search box on the left, then click "Search", which will take you to the results page at http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=mending+touch&fulltext=Search
Just hitting enter is the same as clicking "Go", which automatically takes you to an exact match if found, and shows results if exact matches are not found. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 11:19, 5 January 2007 (CST)
To add to what Barek said, since there is an exact match for Mending searching for "mending" will never take you anywhere but there. There is no article Ballad, therefore that takes you to the search. --Rainith 16:46, 5 January 2007 (CST)
He searched for Mending Touch and Ballad of Restoration. The links are just broken. --Gem-icon-sm (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2007 (CST)
The behind-the scenes difference (at least, as far as I understand it - Fyren knows much more on this and has poked around that part of the code some) is that hitting "enter" or clicking "Go" forms the search like this:
While clicking "Search" forms the search html script like this:
The "Search" button forces a text search result (note the extra html in the search string), while hitting "Go" or "Enter" will use internal heuristics (all caps, all lower case, and a few other variations) to find a likely match, then show text match results if no initial likely match could be found. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:30, 5 January 2007 (CST)
It's what Barek has said. Click search, don't press enter or click go. It doesn't search for phrases, so it's actually searcing for mending or touch. I don't know why you're trying to search like that, but looking at what links here for the mending touch article will probably be more useful. --Fyren 01:45, 6 January 2007 (CST)


Old Skin

I know this happened a while ago, but I just found this page like 5 minutes ago...and searched all the archives but couldn't find it. Anyhow, what happened to that skin we had up till mid November or so? I liked it, and now that we've changed to the current skin (Classic) it just seems like the quality down-graded imo. - Smoke Trap Entice789 (Talk | Contributions) 01:50, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Switch it to monobook in your preferences. --Fyren 02:39, 6 January 2007 (CST)
Ah, that wasn't there before o.o Thanks! - Smoke Trap Entice789 (Talk | Contributions) 03:57, 6 January 2007 (CST)
It's always been there. --Fyren 06:53, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Collectors weapons cleanup

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Collectors#Collector_weapons_pages

I think that the collectors weapons pages could benefit from a standardization, and have created a sample of my idea on my talk page. I didn't know for sure where to put any initial efforts at generating discussion for it (long-time lurker, new contributor), so I put it there. The main reason I'm trying to start dialog on this rather than just going and making edits is that what I would find to make sense and be beneficial is often not in line with what other people would find beneficial. -- IzzionSona 13:25, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I think you got a great idea going. As a pretty frequent user of thoes pages I would have to say it does seem a little disorganized due to the fact that there's no standard format for displaying the information. And it could use a better way of categorizing the items too. Kaya-Icon-Small13:39, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Question on editing other user's pages

What's the exact policy on user pages? Are we not allowed to edit other user's pages? I just went through some disambiguation links and noticed that quite a few of such links are located on user pages (and talk pages too). Can I just go in and edit away the ambiguous link? I suppose some users might consider something like that rude... --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer-icon-small (msg Aberrant80) 04:15, 17 January 2007 (CST)

When I've moved pages about in the past I've just gone in and altered the links on talk pages and user pages, and other people have done the same on mine. I think it's fine to change things in order that they keep their original meaning, what's a no-no is altering substantive content. Course, no idea what the policy is, that's just how I think things should be done. --NieA7 04:29, 17 January 2007 (CST)
There is no official policy, but that's exactly the way people act. --Gem-icon-sm (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2007 (CST)
It's also good form to leave a note on the user's talk page saying what/why you've edited. --Rainith 12:02, 17 January 2007 (CST)

Clean up

Am I the only one that finds this page incredibly confusing? Old completed tasks haven't been removed and the entire thing is very disorganised. I don't even bother to use the article, I just read the talk page. Time for a clean up/archive? - BeXoR Bexor 12:28, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Character selection screen

Is there something about it? Because i can't find an article referring to it. I have searched for it maybe i missed it? --Phoenix Phoenix Benu 04:33, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Doesn't look like it. The closest one is probably this: Login screen. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer-icon-small (msg Aberrant80) 04:46, 19 January 2007 (CST)
Weird when i think at login screen i think only at the part where i input my account name & password. After that should be another article about character selection screen or something similar. --Phoenix Phoenix Benu 05:07, 19 January 2007 (CST)
That makes sense. Feel free to sort that :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:51, 19 January 2007 (CST)
I modified both pages a bit. Now it's better. --Phoenix Phoenix Benu 10:04, 19 January 2007 (CST)

Orphaned Pages and other junk

Is there a way to see where template and stubby things are included in other pages? This guy, for example, is obviously included somewhere: Adhitok/Collector, but there's no way to see where, or in how many places. This guy is just a spelling mistake: Adhitoi/Collector

Has anyone tried cleaning these up and should there be a policy about including direct links with includes? Martialis 12:27, 22 January 2007 (CST)

You might be interested in this. — Jyro X Darkgrin 12:29, 22 January 2007 (CST)
Oh. So they should both be deleted?
Wait, what the hell? Why isn't this on the list, but this is?
This list is fucked up. :-/ Martialis
Because the first link you listed is the actual article itself; not something that links to it. — Jyro X Darkgrin 13:11, 22 January 2007 (CST)
I'm not too sure I follow this conversation but just to add, if you look on the left, just above the GW Specialty Fansite logo, you'll see the "What links here" and the "Special pages" link, which contains what you need. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer-icon-small (msg Aberrant80) 18:28, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Skill details box should keep history

Right now if a skill's "skill details box" is updated, it's changed for all historical versions that use that box. So the old versions are incorrect and history is lost.

It's not possible to do otherwise with MW unless we give every template a different name when major changes are made. That would make updating harder and confuse people. --Fyren 02:49, 23 January 2007 (CST)
History isn't lost. It's still there. You just need to crosscheck the histories of two pages (the skill and the template). --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer-icon-small (msg Aberrant80) 03:04, 23 January 2007 (CST)
His problem is that viewing the history of either doesn't work properly because it uses the current version of the template. The data is still there if you click edit, but you won't see it in the rendered article because of the parameter changes. --Fyren 03:17, 23 January 2007 (CST)

End of game greens: Collectors, uniques, or both?

On a some of the collectors pages, the end of game greens are listed (like Warrior collector weapons), while on others, they're not (like Ranger collector weapons). I'm assuming they're on all the unique item lists, though I haven't verified this... My question is, should we have them on the collectors lists too? Or should they just be on the uniques list? These items are the only "collectors" weapons with max stats that have any prefix/suffix mods, so removing them from the collectors items pages would clean up the page considerably, but do people visit the collectors page looking for the end-game items? -- IzzionSona 11:11, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Despite it being technically incorrect, my inclination would be to list them only in the Unique refs, not in the collector ones. --NieA7 12:05, 23 January 2007 (CST)
I agree. to support that, I'll add that they have the color of what we call "unique items", (isn't that just the name we gave 'green items'?), and that, just like unique items, they are fully upgraded. Foo 15:02, 23 January 2007 (CST)

MW upgrade

So, I'm using OblivoWiki as a guinea pig and upgraded them to 1.9.0. In a few days or a week, assuming Oblivio doesn't spontaneously combust by then, I'll be moving GWiki over, too. --Fyren 02:51, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Good idea. Btw 1.9.1 is the latest release. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Important_Release_Notes http://svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/tags/REL1_9_1/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES --Phoenix Phoenix Benu 06:32, 24 January 2007 (CST)
The amusing thing is 1.9.1 was released the morning after I upgraded Oblivio. --Fyren 23:50, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Going to do this Sunday night/Monday morning around 3 AM EST. Assuming it goes like Oblivio, it'll mean 15 minutes where the wiki is either inaccessible or read-only. --Fyren 19:18, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Sounds great and the time is a good one. --Gem-icon-sm (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2007 (CST)
Looking forward to it!
As both versions were mentioned ... I'm guessing you're still planning 1.9.0 as that was the test version - correct? Or are you planning 1.9.1? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:23, 26 January 2007 (CST)
Why not 1.91? --Gem-icon-sm (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2007 (CST)
1.9.1. --Fyren 20:14, 26 January 2007 (CST)
15 minutes when the wiki is read-only? Sounds like some wonderful dream... ;) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:19, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Setting the wiki to read-only in a few minutes. --Fyren 02:51, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Hit a small snag that caused the white pages, heh. Should be fine now. Here are the release notes for 1.8 (since we were at 1.7.1) and for 1.9. --Fyren 03:30, 29 January 2007 (CST)
I noticed the recent changes now display a (+number) after every edit. What does that mean? (I skimmed through the release notes, but that's all chinese to me O.o) --84-175 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2007 (CST)
If I may answer that myself: Seems to me this shows the number of characters added/removed from the article. Not sure what it is good for yet, but it's neat. :) --84-175 (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Armor funciton types - box completion

Can I suggest people (or a bot) try to go through all the articles in Category:Armor function types and add the relevant insignia for each type? At the moment the bonus is listed, but next to the insignia entry on some pages it just displays {{{insignia}}} Biscuits (talk Biscuit contribs) 09:47, 24 January 2007 (CST)

We're (Glynnis and I) changing the function pages style and formatting (User:Bexor/Armor Project) and the function box is going to be changed anyway. Don't worry about it cause the pages are going to be completely different soon and I wouldn't want anyone to spend a heap of time fixing something that's going to just end up deleted. - BeXoR Bexor 23:28, 24 January 2007 (CST)
As your armor discussion pages are very very very long and pretty intense, I was wondering, how are things progressing and are you guys close to completion?--VallenIconwhitesmall Vallen Frostweaver 07:34, 25 January 2007 (CST)
We have a few test pages up, and nearly everything is worked out, so soon it will just be a matter of implementing the changes. I'm estimating about a week. - BeXoR Bexor 07:36, 25 January 2007 (CST)
Excellent! Any word on if you guys will need image resizing to make the images fit into the thumbnail boxes? I saw many images were redone with /attention and they look and fit great but wasn't sure if that was going to be in the end product.--VallenIconwhitesmall Vallen Frostweaver 07:45, 25 January 2007 (CST)
Function pages wont have images on them anymore. The old system of having galleries was confusing and poorly implemented so we decided to get rid of it altogether. :) As for the thumbnails, there is an ongoing community project at GuildWiki:Armor galleries project to improve the quality of the art galleries following the new s&f. As you can see most of the Mesmer and Ele ones are done, with more on the way! :) - BeXoR Bexor 09:33, 25 January 2007 (CST)
OK, it looks like you've put a lot more thought into this than me! I'll leave you to the good work :) Biscuits (talk Biscuit contribs) 09:27, 25 January 2007 (CST)
He as long as we are on the subject of gallery. I did most of the female monk and then got stuck on the tatoos. So we are down to 2 choice: Monk Ascetic's (Dragon) Armor or Monk Ascetic's Dragon Armor. Anyone have comment on that. It may seem small but that got me completely stuck. Once that is done I will finish with the male pictures.—├ Aratak 10:11, 25 January 2007 (CST)
My personal preference is without any brackets. :) - BeXoR Bexor 10:27, 25 January 2007 (CST)
Same here. Biscuits (talk Biscuit contribs) 11:15, 25 January 2007 (CST)
It'll be easier to type and more intuitive without the parentheses. --Ab.Er.Rant Necromancer-icon-small (msg Aberrant80) 19:49, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Icon size, part 2

I brought this up before at GuildWiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 11#Icon size. Some of the icons I reverted were re-reverted to the larger ones. Don't do this. Yes, the ones I reverted to look worse but bandwidth is more of an issue than an icon looking ugly. Here's a more up-to-date list of icons which are using disproportionately large amounts of bandwidth:

Upload 2-3k versions but don't change them back to the versions with large file sizes. --Fyren 22:34, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA unless otherwise noted.