GuildWars Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 21

Template:GuildWiki talk:Community Portal/topnotes

New style for material pages

In case anyone's interested, I'm almost ready to overhaul our crafting material pages. Join the discussion if you have any opinions about it. —Dr Ishmael 02:15, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Me as miniature, and miniatures as me :o??? Bug

When I logged into Longeye's Ledge, I was confronted with a very funny bug, and took many screens from it... and I dunno if you know this or not, but I never have seen this standing anywere on the wiki, so I'll put it here:
Omg, I still am as miniature whenever I load into a town... Wtf is this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jorre22225 (contribs) .

I've never seen this exact bug, but I have seen the opposite where your character enlarges. Playing in the crystal desert some years back, my warrior continued to run off a ramp into the sky and kept getting larger as he ran. It was rather amusing and if I dug around, I probably have a screenshot somewhere of it where my character is standing on the heads of my smaller allies. :P -- Isk8 (T/C) 09:54, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

The verdict is in. April_Fools'_Day_2010 Its Anet's April Fools Day joke. Enjoy -- Isk8 (T/C) 10:11, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

You've been pranked. :P RoseOfKali 10:50, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Lynx

→ Moved to Talk:Lynx#Hostile

Wikia Poop

Hi,

In order to perform scheduled maintenance, all Wikia sites will be "read-only" for about 30 minutes starting at 10:00am UTC Wednesday April 14. (that's 3:00am Pacific, 6:00am Eastern). During this time editing will be disabled, but you will still be able to view the site.

Thank you for your patience, The Wikia Community and Technical Teams

00:02, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

RMT ad on the main page

I'm drawing a blank on where were supposed to report these, but this RMT ad was on the main page just now: http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-3255760518790512&output=html&h=90&slotname=6441124621&w=728&ea=0&flash=10.0.42&url=http%3A%2F%2Fguildwars.wikia.com%2F__varnish_athena%2Fathena%2Ftag%2F%3Ftag_id%3D365%26size%3D728x90%26slotname%3DHOME_TOP_LEADERBOARD&dt=1271789227173&shv=r20100331&correlator=1271789227176&frm=1&ga_vid=2041855950.1266119559&ga_sid=1271789068&ga_hid=1388825450&ga_fc=1&u_tz=180&u_his=2&u_java=1&u_h=900&u_w=1440&u_ah=900&u_aw=1440&u_cd=24&u_nplug=24&u_nmime=109&biw=-12245933&bih=-12245933&ifk=318734419&fu=0&ifi=1&dtd=10 Not to mention that I didn't think I was supposed to get ads at all, but anyway... RoseOfKali 18:51, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think those are all reported through Special:Contact now, just like all other Wikia issues. —Dr Ishmael 19:01, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. Related question: am I stupid, or did I use to not have an ad on the Main Page, but do now for some reason? I can't seem to remember having it there, right at the TOP of Main, between the header and the first content boxes, until today. O_o All I did differently was to add some buttons to my monaco.js. RoseOfKali 00:03, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I reported that using the Special:Contact link, but I'm still seeing various incarnations (including the one I reported) of the same RMT seller ads on the main page, EVERY STINKING DAY, it's like there are no other ads for anything ever. Grrr... >_< What's the point of Contacting them if nothing happens? RoseOfKali 20:10, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

New GW2 info coming soon

→ Moved to Forum:New GW2 info

Wikia Poop 2

We will soon be releasing a new 'followed pages' feature, which includes changes to your watchlist privacy settings. Please visit the help page to learn more.

Basically they're trying to make Wikia more "social" (yay buzzwords!) by letting you view other users' watchlists. All I have to say about this is... (disclaimer: not a rickroll). —Dr Ishmael 20:39, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

A quick reword/tl;dr: "You can now see other people's watchlist. Live @ May 5th." Ish's link is very appropriate. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 20:55, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

You can disable this in Special:Preferences - the preference is live right now (under watchlist, surprisingly) so if you don't want your watchlist to go public, change it today RandomTime 21:11, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

That's another big wikia fail - the default should be the setting that protects our privacy. --◄mendel► 06:07, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I could care less either way - my watchlist isn't exactly something I consider "personal information" - but I've added this to the sitenotice to make sure everyone knows about it. —Dr Ishmael 14:39, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

"I could care less either way" - surely you mean "I couldn't care less either way", otherwise you somehow mean that you care a lot, either way - bah language is confusing RandomTime 17:19, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

What annoys me more is the "You have new messages" box that doesn't go away no matter how many times I click on it. --Macros 16:03, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

That's odd. Did you dismiss the Wikia message? That should do it. Try force-refreshing your talk page, if yes. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 16:08, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

So now my "followed pages" link is hidden in the "MORE" menu, making me click twice to get to it, which is getting annoying. >_< Is there a way to make it display on my top bar (like the old watchlist link) without being hidden in that stupid menu? RoseOfKali 19:43, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

See here. —Dr Ishmael 20:24, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! RoseOfKali 20:44, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

My watchlist is approximately 5 pages. 02:42, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

28, but yeah. You're not even watching the admin noticeboard. What kind of bureaucrat are you? (The one that reads RC, I know.) When you leave here, you can't have your account deleted, and now we can see what users who have long since left have been watching. This is a privacy nightmare. --◄mendel► 21:18, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sucks for them, but why would they care if they left? :P But yeah, wikia should have made it private as the default. I also hate the layout of this thing. Worthless. <_< I like having my watchlist link back where it belongs via awesome nerd magic. :] Though, at this point, it's not too different from RC... *sigh* RoseOfKali 22:19, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Whoever did this has clearly never seen the new Answers skin. Dear God! A F K When Needed 16:01, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

The "new" answers skin is Monaco. --◄mendel► 16:14, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

And terribad unless you get rid of the list (I set pages to be on mine for 0 days) A F K When Needed 21:37, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

New unique/perfect items?

Are we missing the new unique/perfect items from the War in Kryta? Spot-checking the mesmer material, it seems that we are missing The Rapture from the Mesmer list. Is this a one-off? Or should we systematically list the various articles that need review (and start a project to review them)?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:10, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Most of them are absent, yes. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 13:48, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.

Okay, I'm happy to get things rolling here about what specific articles/types of articles probably need to get a review.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:47, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Minor formatting issue, need consensus

On weapon pages, where we have a list of related unique items, sometimes we have profession icons in front of the item's name to depict which profession that item is linked to (through its linked attribute) - see Platinum Scepter. But we also have a lot of weapon pages where we don't do that - see Spiked Axe. Our S&F for weapons doesn't say anything either way about this; likewise, I have no opinion either way, but we do need to get consistency on this. So what does everyone else think? —Dr Ishmael 14:45, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

It has its uses on one hand (no need to check every page just to find out there's no Mesmer wand with the Platinum skin), but it only tells you half the story in the first place, and not all "Necro" items are only useful for Necros (it only refers to the req attribute, not to item mods: 10%HCT/HSR is a general mod setup). Another example is the Broadsword. Rajazan's Fervor is a Warrior item technically, but only used by Casters. For almost any other W/P/R/A/D item, it's redundant anyways. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 15:11, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Re: last sentence, very true, and that's probably why the icons are more prevalent on caster items (from what I've seen). —Dr Ishmael 15:15, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Short story: I prefer no icons.

Longer story: I like a visual, but (As Viper says) they are misleading (or redundant). It's eye of the beholder whether an item is a "Warrior Axe" or just "an Axe." We shouldn't dictate how to use items or skills. (Else: we would have no Discordway etc.)

The visual does help break up the monotony of text on item pages (esp. in the replication sections), so perhaps we can find some better suited icon(s).  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:52, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

There exist icons like File:Axe Attack.png and File:Scythe Attack.png, which are the in-game icons for when you don't have the right weapon equipped for a weapon-specific attack skill. Unfortunately, there's no icon for wands or staves, as there are no Wand or Staff Attack skills. —Dr Ishmael 16:03, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea! For the non-martial weapons, we could create or borrow from an existing icon. (We only need Wand, Focus, and Staff.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:11, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

And shield - I completely forgot the two offhand items. —Dr Ishmael 16:41, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Lots of options for the forgotten shield! , , etc.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:11, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... Why would we need weapon-type icons for this? If you're looking at an axe, then all "Other items with this appearance" would also be axes, no? (Yes, there are exceptions to this rule e.g. Law and Order/Canthan Shortsword, but those exceptions are very rare.) And if you're looking at an unique item, then all "other uniques with same stats" would necessarily be the same weapon type, too (different types have different damage ranges, thus even if they have the same prefix/suffix/inscription, an axe and a sword can never have identical stats).

I think what we really need is a way to distinguish by attribute, but there's never been any kind of icon for attributes, so I guess there's not much that can be done there. —Dr Ishmael 18:21, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think we (or at least I) have been confusing some distinct issues for icons on the unique weapons pages:

1. Should we use an icon in the list of related unique items? Original question. If so,
   • Should we use a profession icon? Answer appears to be no
   • Should we use a matching weapon icon (e.g. File:Axe Attack.png)? Seems sensible; we are missing icons for caster weapons, though.
2. Should we use an icon in the counterpart section? newish question
   • Yes, as it would help break-up the text-only monotony, making it easier to read.
   • No, too much trouble and would it really be worth it? Mebbe easier ways to make easier to read.

My apologies for muddying the waters around the original question.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:50, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

My argument was meant to cover both of those, and I'm arguing no icons at all, because a) profession icons don't add anything useful (Viper's original argument) and b) every item in the list would have the exact same weapon icon (my last post right above here) which also wouldn't add anything usefl. —Dr Ishmael 19:04, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, now I am forced to agree (by the simple logic).

If that anyone feels moved to add icons (to break-up the monotony of text-only), one could use the icon of the related/matching weapon itself. e.g. .  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:09, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

The idea of the profession icons is to see which weapons I don't need to look at, given my current build. With physical weapons (axe, bow, ...), this is obvious, hence there's no need to indicate anything. With magical weapons, we have a choice of 5 professions. While the use of a profession icon means that some weapons I look at might still be unusable because they're using the primary attribute of my secondary profession, and it would be preferable to see the attribute itself to judge which item goes best with my build, attribute icons have the problem that we'd need to roll them out all over the wiki(s) for people to become familiar with them: a familiar icon that says little is better than an unfamiliar icon that would say more if people could decipher it. (We could use link text, so the name shows up on roll-over, but only a fraction of readers is going to notice that.)

My suggestion is to keep profession icons on wands and staffs, and to add them where that's sensible. --◄mendel► 06:48, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Or, you can just put the associated attribute (if different than the page's item) in brackets or parenthesis after the item name. Even less clicking and more infos. --JonTheMon 13:43, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else have an opinion on this? Or on the topic at all? --JonTheMon 16:08, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Keep the image, add the attribute in italics and parentheses. ;) --◄mendel► 16:23, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Editing pro tip: Thinking deeper

Often when we delete content that we feel is redundant or misplaced, there is a way to think more deeply, and fix what was bugging the original poster in a way that is compatible with GuildWiki.

Take, for example, this edit. The question that takes us deeper is: Was the editor aware that this is a Sunspear skill when they first read the page? The old version implies this because it uses the Sunspear Title attribute, but nowhere is it stated that this is, in fact, a sunspear skill: even though "sunspear skill" is a word El Nazgir is using in his edit summary, and we do have an article of that name. In retrospect, it seems strange that the sunspear skills are not linked to their article!

So I placed a link to Sunspear skill in a prominent place on the article, and on the other sunspear skills as well; and in Sunspear skill, I mentioned that the hero trainers have an extra section for these skills, as we're "documenting the game" anyway. This adds the info that original poster felt the wiki was lacking, in a way that makes the wiki better for everyone! --◄mendel► 06:26, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist link for Monaco

Since Wikia have removed the Special:Watchlist link from the personal links at the top of the page, should we add it back in? We could put it on the sidebar, or use JavaScript to insert it into the "MORE" dropdown button. What do you think?

Also, about the Create a new article and Upload a new image links, the latter duplicates a link right below, and do we really want people to use the former (and if so, should it be placed so conspicuously)? --◄mendel► 15:36, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

1. Special:Watchlist — add back in to sidebar (it's less convenient and less noticeable in the MORE plop-down)
2. I like the matching, "create" and "upload" with icons; no need for the repetitive, "upload image." In (TEF's) priority order: remove redundancy, match "create" and "upload," and where they are is least important.

Good idea to look at both these things.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:05, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I've already written a JS function, at Rose's request, to restore the watchlist link to the user's personal links.

function restoreWatchlistLink () {
  var userData     = document.getElementById('userData');
  var wlObj        = document.createElement('span');
  var wlLink       = document.createElement('a');
  wlLink.href      = '/wiki/Special:Watchlist';
  wlLink.title     = 'Your watchlist';
  wlLink.innerHTML = "My watchlist";
  wlObj.id         = 'header_mywatchlist';
  wlObj.appendChild(wlLink);
  userData.insertBefore(wlObj, document.getElementById('header_mytalk').nextSibling);
}
addOnloadHook(restoreWatchlistLink);

On the other issue, yes, the upload links are redundant, but I don't really have any preference on which one to keep. The "create new article" link has been annoying recently, as multiple users have used it to create articles using the "standard layout" (which can't be blanked, I've tried) without actually adding any content to the article. —Dr Ishmael 17:38, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Striped tables

Some people like striped tables.

I'd suggest making it easy, and also enforce a design more in keeping with our "monobook" style, i.e. light grey stripes.

If the following lines were added to our MediaWiki:common.css , a simple class="striped" at the start of the table would stripe it for browsers who support that CSS3 feature; others would simply see the old, plain style.

.striped tr:nth-of-type(2n+1) { background:#eee; } .striped .unstriped tr:nth-of-type(2n+1) { background:transparent; }

The second line insures that an inner table embedded into a striped table for formatting can be made unstriped with class="unstriped".

For more information how classes work with tables, see GuildWiki:CSS_classes#Table_formatting_and_alignment_classes.

What do you think? --◄mendel► 20:10, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Afterthought: If we want to allow any-colored stripes, we should alternate white and transparent stripes; then the table background color can be set to the stripe color. --◄mendel► 20:12, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

With afew more lines of .css, we could also do cross-striped, i.e. vertical and horizontal stripes. --◄mendel► 20:19, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, let's enable.

I'm one of those people who like stripes. However, sometimes in wiki tables they can be distracting. So, we might want to combine the availability of the css shortcuts with a policy or guideline. The most recent applications were:

• Fast Casting, b/c the table is big/boring with nothing to help guide the reader's eye to information that can be gleaned from the data. Some sort of coloration was needed; horiz stripes were easier.
• The quick reference guide for professions. Here, everything in the table looked like it rumbled together. As a prof guide, it seemed sensible to use the prof colors. However, while I think it looks good on its own page, it's much too busy on the QR page.

So, maybe the guideline is: "don't use stripes, unless you have a really good reason that can be shared on the talk page; be prepared for others to disagree (strongly)".  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:10, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the stripes above to be monobook-sidebar-light. Should hardly make anyone disagree strongly. ;) --◄mendel► 21:54, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

I dunno. Do the same thing at PvX or GWW, I'm sure someone will yell about it. ;-)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:03, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

I think that looks fine, but I agree that its use should be restricted to places where it's actually needed. Large tables with lots of plain numerical data would obviously benefit (like the FC and Expertise tables), but things like collector/armorsmith/weaponsmith tables don't really need it because the character of the data already makes the rows/columns distinct enough. —Dr Ishmael 23:33, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Hiding spoilers?

The DragonsAge sister site has a cool way of hiding spoilers. I like making it harder to accidentally learn something. OTOH, the two main GW wikis have lived long without worrying about such things. What do y'all think?

Incidentally, they use a different template for each campaign-equivalent in DA, using an appropriate icon and quote.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:23, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

We do have a spoiler tag, that just shows a red bar, in this way, content isn't inturupted - and players can easily recognise that the article contains spoilers, and act accordingly. As the wiki is a guide to the entirety of Guild Wars, reading it is probably going to spoil some areas -- RandomTime 11:12, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the dragonage template at all. The didn't install it in common.js so it only works on the custom monaco theme, and there's no way to unspoil it (i.e. take peek and then close the spoiler again), even if I reload the page. If we wanted a spoiler template, we could use w:c:unanswers:Template:cen, whihc, though not working there because the .css is not installed, makes text transparent unless you move your mouse over it - move it off and the spoiler hides again.

TEF, have a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Spoiler - if you want to replace that with really hidden spoiler notes, and use the campaign parameter to display the spoiler notice in a campaign-specific way, I can give you the tools to do it. --◄mendel► 17:21, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about it. GW isn't all that spoiler-rific in any case (ignoring the high usage of the template - people were a little zealous with it in the early days and probably half of those don't really need it), and like RT said, people should expect spoilers on an in-depth site like this. Why bother changing it now? —Dr Ishmael 17:42, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Why bother? (a) because the current system is flawed and (b) because it matters for WiK, other Beyond content (should we get it), and very much so for GW2. Also note: we have 224 articles tagged with spoiler warnings. At the very least, shouldn't we reduce that to closer to 20/25?

@Mendel: the DA template unhides/hides with a single click (which is what I like about it); not sure why it isn't working for you. Using transparent/hide is slick is an altogether different way and maybe suits this wiki better. If people agree that hiding is worthwhile (which, so far, they don't), then would we have two templates? {{spoiler warning}} and {{spoiler}}? Or modify the spoiler template to allow both the warning and the hidden text?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:52, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't see that it would hide with a click, mainly because the box changed shape drastically and also moved, so I didn't recognize it again. (I've uploaded screenshots there to illustrate.)

I suggest keeping the Template:Spoiler as is (don't we love "legacy" features?) and to create a new Template:Spoiler_text to display both a warning and hide the text. It should have two parameters, so we can specify how the spoiler will be announced - we should tell people what is being spoiled, or they'll have to look at it anyway to check. If you would make me a sample of how what you'd wish the spoiler to look like when hidden (i.e. the announcement) right on the new template page, I can (with the help of an admin) make sure that it works, and then you can employ it on 2 or 3 sample pages. Then we let the community decide whether we want to use this or delete it again. --◄mendel► 06:35, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Setting up an example seems sensible either way, so peeps know what is being discussed. (As I mentioned, though, whether the dialogue is invisible ink or hidden behind a message works for me; it's still hidden.) Let's see whether there's any support for that... or for reducing the number of spoiler messages we have.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:12, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

PvP henchbar descriptions

The current text reads, "[Hench X] was added in the October 29th, 2009, game update. Her skillbar and name were submitted by the [player X], one of the winners of the Henchman skillbar contest." It originally read, were developed...

I feel this reads awkwardly at the moment: submitted where/to whom/why? (I'm not sure what's wrong with developed; isn't that an accurate description of creating/testing/presenting-for-review? But, no matter.)

As a compromise, what about:

"[Hench X] was added in the October 29th, 2009, game update. [Player X] created the henchman's name and winning skillbar, which was selected as a winner in the henchman skill bar contest."

As this affects a score of articles, I thought it worth discussing before trying to make another mass change.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:09, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I think the editor didn't like "developed" because a lot of the builds were taken directly from PvX, and that wording would imply that they were the original creators of these builds. They'd probably think the same thing of "created". Of course, I wrote that originally, and I agree with you - I don't see what's so bad about it. —Dr Ishmael 02:22, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. In which case, I agree that my proposal won't help. (I'm not convinced, btw, that PvX was necessarily the source. Many builds were developed by lots of players in parallel. But, doesn't really matter since the perception isn't going to change any time soon.)

Well, I do find the current phrasing odd, but I'm not sure that I care enough about it to spend much more time on it.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:56, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'd meant to also mention that "submitted" works because the players submitted them as entries to the contest. —Dr Ishmael 12:50, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the IP is trying to imply that. I support his changes. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 13:57, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Imo, go for "xyz was a winning entry in pqr". If the reader wants to know who sumbitted/created/summoned/built/whatever'd the skillbar, they can complain on GWW that ANet should fix the contest page. It also avoids this whole issue, which really shouldn't be an issue. --Vipermagi 14:06, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

The smart editor realizes that this exact wording is used across a large number of artciles, and creates a notice template for that so that the wording can be changed centrally. --◄mendel► 19:29, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

<playful sarcasm>Careful, Grasshopper.</playful sarcasm> Two smart editors (TEF/Ish) discussed reviewed this language a lot during the new henchman project for this wiki. Neither of us thought that the phrasing was likely to change (controversial? naw) and so would have rejected a template as unnecessary overkill.

I'm still bothered by submit lacking an indirect object in this context. So, perhaps instead,

"[Hench X] was added in the October 29th, 2009, game update. [Player X] chose the name as part of the reward for winning the Henchman skill bar contest."

This sidesteps the created/developed controversy. Ppls interested just what winning entails can read about it in the link (including learning about the controversy). I think the important recognition is that they won, rather than with which skillbar, so I believe (hope?) that nothing critical is left from the above.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:59, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

This version does not really give credit to the player for creating the skill bar. Also, replace your "[Hench X]" with "{{PAGENAME}}" and "[Player X]" with "{{{Creator}}}" and you've got yourself a template. :) (I'm not saying you should have realized this when you created it, but it's become rather obvious now.) --◄mendel► 03:37, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Correct, it only gives the player credit for winning the contest, which is the point: it's inarguable and the contest page describes what they needed to do to win. (Do we not have our own page which describes the contest rules and would have room to describe the controversy?)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:15, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Wikia is planning a new abomi- I mean, skin

"Want to see the future of Wikia? Check out the staff blog for your first glimpse of our new look!"

18:21, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ugly, bloated, and minimizes the space for actual content. I've read through the comments there, and I agree with most of the negative ones:

1. The "Wikia navigation" bar at the top is too huge. The focus of the skin should be the current wiki.
2. The bottom-anchored toolbar will be annoying. (Facebook removed theirs a few months ago, why is Wikia even bothering with an already-failed idea?)
3. A fixed-width content section is a stupid idea because not everyone uses the same resolution. People with lower resolutions won't be be forced to scroll to see the whole thing, and people with larger resolutions will have a bunch of wasted space on the right.
4. The "last edited by" tag on articles and "submitted by" tag on images run counter to the idea of a wiki. A wiki is a community effort - calling that much attention to any individual's contributions is entirely out of place, not to mention the way it encourages users to run around making pointless edits just to make their name show up everywhere.
5. Too many things to distract from the content: top navbar, bottom toolbar, flashy modules in the sidebar, super-shiny buttons all over the place (what's wrong with plain text links?), user avatars in the last-edit/submitted-by tags...

Guh. The more I look at it, the more I hate it. —Dr Ishmael 18:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

I smell custom JS/CSS to get around some of these issues. Ugh. I'm hoping they still have monaco as an option for the default, and I'm certainly going to be sticking with monobook. Wikia's counter intuititive approach to user contributions baffles me. (Hey look, I have 1,000,000 mainspace edits, each adding a single letter, that means I can get lots of achievements). I didn't see they were going to have a fixed-width content space, but that screams bad research. Ugh, ugh, ugh.

The only quote that gives me hope is from 2007: "We always maintain monobook as an option for people that want to use it, if you don't like our new skins" source -- RandomTime 20:24, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

The navigation on the title bar looks interesting; if that is working well, it could replace navboxes with something better.

A fixed toolbar could be good if the right tools are on it.

Fixed-width content sections make it easier to edit for a certain layout; we've been overriding this on UnAnswers, but I've introduced this on another wiki because it makes short articles read better.

The "last edited" and "submitted" tags are currently used on the new answers skin to attach credit to questions and answers, and it makes sort of sense there; they can be removed by css on wikis that don't need it, but I've observed that Wikia is trying to merge the answers and the monaco skin as much as possible, so that's probably why they're doing it. (And yes, I've used css to remove the avatar pictures on UnAnswers.)

The crunch is, how does that skin look with ads? Will we go from "ugly" to "more ugly" or to "less ugly"?

And, RT, would it be so bad if I ported mendelbook to GuildWiki? ;)

FYI, I have not applied to participate in the beta, because I refuse to do unpaid work for Wikia. They're not treating me nicely enough for that. I have given Wikia detailed feedback on other features in the past and found the rewards to not be worth it. --◄mendel► 22:14, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

With a beta, it seems as if they're attempting to create the impression that they're listening to users' feedback, I have no clue if they are. Also - mendelbook is brilliant, enough said. If this does come to fruition, Wikia have stated that they will discontinue monaco. As most CSS is in common, I'd expect (but not put it past Wikia if this doesn't happen) that most of the CSS will work with the new skin, but perhaps it won't -- RandomTime 22:41, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, our common.css should only apply to how the actual articles are rendered, and we hope they won't change that (but we've been kinda lucky the image gallery changes didn't concern us).

I've not been very impressed by my impression of them listening to me. --◄mendel► 23:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

They don't have enough staff to listen. They don't have enough developers to incorporate any feedback that doesn't resemble what they expect to hear. Common problem with technology-dependent firms. (Reminds of Lee Iaoccoa taking the reigns at Chrysler and asking the engineers how they liked to drive the car that they were so keen on showing him, with all their nifty new features. They told him that they had never driven it. Apparently, it was reserved for management only as a prestige perk. And, not so surprisingly, turned out the car had great features but was annoying to drive, own, use.)

I think the staff that they do have really wants to listen and really wants for plans to evolve with reader/contributor feedback. But, it's not realistic unless you budget development and design time to drop/add/and change features. There's no indication that management has the resources to make good on those goals.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:00, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

/Agree, I've already ranted here about wikia, I'll let intelligence reign on this page -- RandomTime 01:05, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape Wiki: Defining Administrators

The project is not quite finished yet, but I enjoyed having a look at w:c:runescape:User:Azaz129/Defining administrators, and especially (old hands will recognize this as my pet issue) w:c:runescape:User:Azaz129/Defining administrators/Role of dispute resolution, which, as a bonus, is also funny. --◄mendel► 11:53, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

/agree. I liked the way the fundamental points were brought in (e.g. consensus != vote; most patient bladder shouldn't win; admins have trouble offering opinions w/o being/appearing biased; it's bad when dispute leads to one side quitting, which gives the illusion of resolution;etc).

I also checked out the related links on things like AGF, maintenance, etc. Also fun and useful. Thanks!  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:47, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

More new skin info

Wikia have given more info on why they're making the new skin. Apparently, people who know nothing about wikis don't know that they're written by users. To combat this, they're making it more visible. This includes attributing edits to the page on the page itself, and attributing who uploaded an image on the page. My stance: attribution is ok, I like it to be discrete in the history, but I get their reasoning. I don't like the fact that image uploads are there, it seems to me that attribution should be licensing - not who uploaded it. -- RandomTime 10:47, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

I have not applied for the skin beta, because I am not willing to sign a NDA for Wikia, and I'm not willing to do their work for them unpaid.

That said, if somebody on this wiki is part of the beta, please have a look at some of our wider drop rate research tables (do we have anything wider than Drop rate/Birthday Present?) to see how the new skin treats them, and submit feedback if it breaks them (i.e. the sidebar gets in their way).

I've been asked on irc, so I'll state it here: I'm going to do my best to turn oasis into monoasis once it goes live, i.e. make it look as much like monobook as possible. --◄mendel► 07:17, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Uploads, photos, and leaves

"Hello, From 12:00pm - 3:00pm UTC today photo uploading will be disabled on all of Wikia for system maintenance. Sorry for the inconvenience and please upload your photos after! Cheers, Nef " (emphases by TEF)

Apparently we will still be able to upload sketches, screenshots, and icons b/c only photos are affected. (Not to mention, it's a good thing that Eats, Shoots & Leaves author Lynne Truss isn't around to comment on the likes of today photo or the idea to link an apology and a work-around by conjunction.) (I also note that the original poster bears no relationship to me: neither I (nor my namesake have ever lived in Omaha; consequently, neither has ever been known as Nebraska Ernie Ford) —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:20, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a comma missing after "today". Monaco users have seen "Upload a new photo" on the sidebar for quite a while; of course, you can still upload files of all sorts. --◄mendel► 18:42, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Oh God, not our blogs!

For the next 48 hours, we will be conducting site maintenance on our commenting system. During this time, your wiki may experience an interruption in commenting on blogs. Once your wiki is upgraded, blog commenting will function as normal. Thank you for your patience as we work to improve Wikia. Sarah@Wikia (help forum | blog) 16:28, September 7, 2010 (UTC) [dismiss this message]This message will expire on 11:27, September 10, 2010.

The humanity. 16:30, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost -- RandomTime 16:32, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

alright, who screwed with the CSS?

For some reason our monobook.css common.css isn't loading this morning. Among other things, this means:

• The main page has no color.
• STDT tables have no border.
• Infoboxes have no float.

What did Wikia do to screw us up this time? —Dr Ishmael 14:18, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Are images loading? I know that a few weeks ago every site was borked for me, and it was because (along with images) the css' weren't loading properly. --JonTheMon 14:27, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I see the main page is colour, nothing seems weird to me.--El_Nazgir 14:32, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Images are loading fine, and so is my personal CSS, but none of our MediaWiki:*.css stylesheets are coming up on Monobook. Monaco seems to be unaffected. —Dr Ishmael 14:34, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Just @import the common.css into monobook.css for a quick fix, MediaWiki:monobook.css is coming up now. (I purged MediaWiki:common.css , I hoped it would help, but I think it didn't.) --◄mendel► 17:53, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Randomtime fixed our .css, but was afraid to restore the Watchlist link. Any admins who feel brave enough to revert Wikia? ;) --◄mendel► 19:57, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia's now fixed the CSS error on their end. I'm all in favour of bring the watchlist link back to how it was, but would like feedback first -- RandomTime 20:00, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Dungeon Rewards template - please opine

We've been thinking about introducing a template for dungeon rewards here. We aim to make it easier to compare dungeon rewards by having a standardized format for them, and by being able to harness this template to make a tabular overview. There've been different designs, and we couldn't decide.

Please have a look at the mockups, and then express support for one or more of these below; please add your thoughts, comments and criticism as you see fit.

Option A — old style

the way it was. Except there were many ways. Originals: Darkrime Delves, Frostmaw's Burrows

Option B — flexible columns

no lines; the columns rearrange to take advantage of available display width. Mockups: Darkrime Delves, Frostmaw's Burrows

Option C — blue-headed table

standard table with fixed columns. Mockups: Darkrime Delves, Frostmaw's Burrows

Thank you. --◄mendel► 09:30, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Opine is apparently a word. I like the blue one better by design, but I think it should be 100% of the page, as it looks squashed atm. -- RandomTime 12:36, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

My vote goes to C.--El_Nazgir 22:09, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm somewhat partial to B --JonTheMon 01:36, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

C, please.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I like B better because it fits better with the overall page design. I'd like to use table sonly where necessary, because I feel we are a wiki of text rather than tables. --◄mendel► 12:42, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the table on C so much as I do the color, none of which serves any actual purpose, and the yellow cell shouldn't be in the table at all because it's not a chest reward (you earn the points at the same time that the chest appears). It also doesn't mention that the reputation rewards are halved after the first completion.

My question to those who picked C would be: WHY? What specifically do you like better than B? If we could take those specific ideas and use them to make a hybrid between B and C, that would be the best solution. —Dr Ishmael 13:47, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I feel it has a better appeal, it just generally looks better. Also, it has everything in it and doesn't require additional notes (point rewards and 1 item/2 in HM). The colours could be changed imo, just not the formatting.--El_Nazgir 14:09, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I like the old style (A) best, but otherwise my vote goes to B. Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 14:44, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

@Naz: But I just pointed out that C doesn't "have everything in it" because it doesn't mention anything about points for repeating the dungeon. o_O —Dr Ishmael 14:49, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Erm, it's easy enough to add the repeat points — it's an accident that one of the designs has it and the other doesn't. (And, again, the reputation isn't really part of the chest contents.)

I prefer the lines and color because they help me separate out the template from the data: there's no pattern in (A), so it's almost impossible to get a sense of what's the same/different across dungeons. I don't like (B) because it's harder to compare than it needs to be. Although I prefer (c), I would like to see a narrower spectrum of colors (i.e. either all blue, all parchment, etc... but not parchment and yellow).  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:03, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I too prefer option C (probably a throwback to my DMing days when tables had all the good stuff organized for quick reference). It stands out from the rest of the text. Jink 18:50, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Rewards positioning

A tangential thought: Why do we list the rewards so far down on the dungeon page? On missions, we have them at the top right after the objectives. —Dr Ishmael 13:47, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

The dungeon chest is a more complex set of rewards. For the mission, it's usually just xp, gold, and some reputation (complicated only slightly by the nm/hm/repeat — something that could also use standardization). That is a good reason for having a separate dungeon chest contents page — people who just want the loot can visit a list of those. But for those interested more in the dungeon characteristics, the chest contents can be transcluded at the bottom of the page.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:03, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

"being able to harness this template to make a tabular overview" means "make a table of all dungeon rewards", which should be even better than a list of chests. I 'd like a chest's page to redirect to the rewards section of the dungeon it is in. --◄mendel► 21:21, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Plan to move forward

(Reset indent) This discussion appears to have been stalled. I'm keen to start converting chest contents into a standard format. Since the display of the data can be changed at any time (by editing the template), I plan to take the following steps (which I hope are non-controversial):

1. Rename the template to "Dungeon rewards" (since that could include just the chest contents, but also allows for including quest and title track benefits).
2. Update the template to Mendel's blue version with minor edits (why that one? b/c it will be better than no template)
3. Rename the relevant section on each dungeon's page to Dungeon rewards (see #1 above).
4. Re-point the redirects on the chest article pages to the relevant section.
5. Postpone discussion until after about whether the chest articles should contain the contents (which would then be transcluded into the dungeon articles). While I prefer distinct articles for the chests themselves, it's not the current standard. That change can be easily done should the community desire it.

One of the reasons I would like this data standardized is so that it can be collated and presented for topics/guides such as Dungeon rewards or Guide to farming dungeons etc. The first step is... starting to standardize our presentation. While there's no specific rush, I think everyone agrees that this wiki is due to overhaul how we display this data...and (near as I can tell) the only controversies are about the layout (color, rules, arrangement) and not generally about what data to display. (With the possible exception of: how to display faction rewards; I think people agree that it should be in the same section as the chest contents.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:16, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't stalled, it just waited for somebody to summarize that most editors seem to be in favor of the "blue table" version (nobody seems to have a strong enough opinion to argue much either way), and for me to have time to implement it (but I'm happy for you to do the work ;). Your plan of actions seems like common sense to me. --◄mendel► 09:00, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

There's one thing wrong with "mendel's blue version" - the reputation rewards should not be part of the table, because that makes it look like they are a chest reward, not a dungeon reward. Please separate the reputation reward into its own section/table; copying the table we use for EotN "missions" would make the most sense. —Dr Ishmael 13:35, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that rewards for completing the quest, rewards for completing the dungeon, and chest rewards are different. See #1 & #3 above. (i.e. in an effort to standardize, let's include them for now and figure out to present the non-chest rewards later). If that is not acceptable, then please suggest an alternative approach.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:00, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

... I thought I did suggest an alternative approach. >.> —Dr Ishmael 21:27, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Erm, if you did, I don't know what it is. I have 5 planned steps above; one more of them will have to be different for a different approach. Can you repeat your suggestion so that I am clear? (There's an awesome wall-of-text above; I apologize that I couldn't break it down enough to see what you mean.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:10, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

"separate the reputation reward into its own section/table; copying the table we use for EotN "missions" would make the most sense" —Dr Ishmael 23:55, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Who is Monaco Carbon and what has she done with my light-weight skin?

I apparently made the mistake of touching my preferences last night and now cannot return my vertical and horizontal to their previous admin-default skin. I hate wikia's new look (it's not as bad as all black, but I really don't like having a dark background). I could switch to Monobook, but then I lose my sidebar, which I use all the time. Any suggestions?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:42, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem; to me, Monaco custom appears fine; Wikia has disabled the other themes (such as carbon). Try reloading the wiki css; if that doesn't fix it, a screenshot of what you see might help. --◄mendel► 09:00, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

It got fixed sometime between that post and now. Not sure what happened, although, while things were borked... The admins for this wiki have chosen: Monaco Custom as the default skin. Click here to see the code, referred to Monaco Carbon, not custom. I no longer have the option to choose to use the admin's default skin (as an override for the other choices).  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:48, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't noticed that Isk8 had changed our default skin, which explains the Carbon. Your loss of theme choices is "part of the transition towards the new look", according to Wikia's Sannse. No, it doesn't make sense to me, either -- unless Oasis/"new Wikia" doesn't have themes any more, and they want users to get used to it. --◄mendel► 17:50, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Completely my fault, I hadn't realized at the time that those changes I was making were affecting the entire wiki. I just noticed today that it was admin adjusting the whole wiki. My apologies all around. My wiki editing skills are weak at this point it seems. -- Isk8 (T/C) 00:55, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oasis reskin endangered?

→ Moved to GuildWiki talk:Community Portal/Leaving Wikia

skin screw

I have no idea what's causing it (I guess wikia), but I have NO skin atm. Everything is blank and is put under each other. Tried in Firefox, but it's the same. This noon at school IE had no problems with it. Screenies: , --El_Nazgir 15:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

People have been complaining about that all day on Sannse's blog post. Seems like it only affects the Monaco skin in Firefox. —Dr Ishmael 15:51, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what skin I'm using, just the default (prolly monaco then I guess), I can't even find my preference button. I forgot to mention my default browser is opera (as seen on screenies), where it's the same. Same problem on UnAnswers and Starcraft wiki where I also go. So I guess it's a rather huge oopsie with the new skin from wikia or something?--El_Nazgir 15:55, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Monaco is the default. I don't recall anyone on the blog comments saying they had this bug in Opera, but I also don't recall anyone saying they didn't have it, either. I still use Monobook, so I haven't had this problem at all. —Dr Ishmael 16:24, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

What The Naz said. (Monaco, Firefox, no other recent changes, worked up until 10 min ago.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:35, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I was having problems in Chrome, but it seems to be better now. --JonTheMon 17:23, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Also better here now. (Not that this gives me great confidence in the new skin generally.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:30, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

What TEF said.--El_Nazgir 20:26, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Nah, they're making Monaco suck so you'll like Oasis more. :-P --◄mendel► 21:47, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

new wordmark

Wagnike's wordmark

The Wikia helper w:User:Wagnike2 has changed our old wiki logo into a new wordmark for the new skin. Its baseline doesn't line up with the rest of text in the navbar, and I resent the change, which as far as I know occurred unasked and with no message to us before or after (and it lacks proper copyright attribution). I'd revert it in a flash if I wasn't afraid of getting into an edit war with Wikia staff. What do you think? --◄mendel► 15:54, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the navbar is bottom aligned, and with our icons and text, they extend below the "line" so any text will seem like it's offset up. We either need a new wordmark or need to make one for us. Possibly referring to "GuildWars@Wikia" --JonTheMon 16:05, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Well, depends on whether we want it to be graphical. A text-only wordmark is easy to do, with a choice of several webfonts. --◄mendel► 16:09, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Our current logo looks great in a square layout, but simply moving the text to the side looks horrible (not only due to the mismatched sizes between the icon and the text, but also because whoever did that didn't notice that their magic wand selected the shield's shadow along with the 'Wiki' text). My first impression is that any sort of icon wouldn't work very well in the new "wordmark" space. —Dr Ishmael 16:18, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it back to text, choosing the "Fontin" font (there seems to be no way to get it to show Roman as in the screenshots). --◄mendel► 17:24, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

So I've been trying to switch to Oasis in order to see this wordmark in action, but for some reason the "New Wikia Look" seems to have been reverted to Monaco. (Seriously: I select NWL, save, then it shows me the Monaco skin, even though my radio button is still set on NWL.) Is anyone else seeing this? —Dr Ishmael 18:17, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Me! I've tried 3 different browsers across 2 computers (3 if you count repeated browsers) and i can't change my skin except to use ?useskin=oasis (yeah, I know it's supposed to be ?useskin=wikia, but that doesn't work for me). --JonTheMon 18:36, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. 18:43, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. So not only did Wikia bork up their old default skin yesterday, they have now borked up their new default skin today. That is quite an accomplishment. /applaud

So any bets on how long it'll be before they bork up Monobook? —Dr Ishmael 19:05, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I haev new skin again. --JonTheMon 20:26, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia have been borking their skins fairly regularly over the past month or two. Wasn't long since they last borked monobook. -- RandomTime 20:33, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah. —Dr Ishmael 20:48, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Borked Monaco site notice

Shouldn't the site notice read,

"Recent updates by our hosting service have broken the Monaco skin. As a work-around to make pages legible, use your preferences to choose Monobook or Wikia."

(1) The current notice reads ambiguously, as if we might have done something to harm the beloved/maligned Monaco. (2) There are really only two choices for skins (or, at least, I only have two). (3) In theory, this is supposed to be temporary, right?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:01, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

The issue's fixed now, anyway -- RandomTime 17:07, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean you only have two choices for skins? --JonTheMon 17:08, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

1. Monobook
2. Monobook

Duh -- RandomTime 17:19, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

My choices are: New Wikia; Monaco; MonoBook. Since Monaco is borked, that leaves MonoBook and Wikia. (Practically speaking, as RT suggests, that leaves only MonoBook, since Wikia is almost as illegible on GWiki as the borked Monaco.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:36, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

The preferences link with &useskin=monobook was necessary because monaco was so broken that preferences was inaccessible without hunting down the phantom search box and typing in "Special:Preferences," and even then it was virtually unusable. The wording wasn't super important to me. 18:07, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oasis skin and the NC license

1024x768, Firefox 3.6

To the right, you see a screenshot of a random wiki page, with functionally similar areas colored.

color	pixels	function
green	208439	content
red	200358	paid ads
orange	42502	unpaid ad (Wikia, facebook etc.)
white	192352	wiki interface
grey	141295	browser (most toolbars off)
not shown	207270	Wikia mouseover popup (unpaid ad)

Not shown: Facebook connect icon for logged out users

The green content is what we have full control over; the white interface allows some tweaks, but not much. Red and orange is ad space (Wikia self-promotion counts as unpaid ad). Note that the ad space outnumbers the content; if you count the annoying Wikia mouseover, adspace outnumbers content and wiki interface combined.

CC BY-NC-SA is our license. Do you feel that this is still non-commercial content displayed by a commercial wiki host? Or is it an ad page attracting viewers by including noncommercial content? In other words: Are we using Wikia for noncommercial purposes, or is Wikia using our content for commercial purposes? --◄mendel► 11:11, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia (ab)uses us for commercial purposes while we contribute to their commercial success without payment. Or something like it.--El_Nazgir 13:00, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you can really count the unpaid ads (especially the Facebook stuff) when questioning the commerciality; however, it's still scary that the paid adspace is 96% the size of the content space. I'd think that for a non-commercial site, you'd want your adspace to be no more than 25% of the content space, and that's probably a liberal estimate, even. Example: Runes of Magic wiki@Curse. The leaderboard banner is 728x90 pixels, or 65520 total. With Monobook at 1024x768, the content space totals 423300 pixels. The adspace is a mere 15.5% of the content space. —Dr Ishmael 13:31, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Borked by new skin

I've created {{Temporary display issue}} to post on pages that are adversely affected by changes to any skin (including and especially, the upcoming Oasis). The point is to make it easy for people to see that the community is aware of the issue and has plans to fix it (as opposed to leaving up something ugly without notification). I've set it up so that it should be generically useful.

(As usual, I've gotten lysdexic on which tags should go where, especially as I copied the template from {{Notice}}.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:22, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hot diggety damn

As Jink put it, anyway. My phrasing was more like, "Holy effing sh!tmonkeys," but anyway. We're finally going to get the ability to form all-hero parties.

http://www.arena.net/blog/what-does-it-all-mean-john-stumme-discusses-war-in-kryta-survey-results

Along with other spiffy info about the continuing Guild Wars Beyond content.

—Dr Ishmael 21:51, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Cue cries of "OMG GUILDWARS IS DEAD IT'S ALL SOLO NOW" - Troll -- RandomTime 22:02, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

"And most important: New Mad King jokes for halloween!" Yeah, whohooo. Also, the zaishen outpost seems like a good idea. And WiK would have been much easier with a full hero party. But now we get to run 2 mesmers, discord and a prot monk! Wohoo! Arnout aka The Emperors Angel 07:13, October 19, 2010 (UTC)