Talk:Main Page

Looking for an old conversation? In chronological order:

• Archives
• Archives 2
• Archives 3

Community Portal & Current Events

Should we combine these two (e.g. just get rid of one)? They sort of serve the same purpose on the face. Thoughts? Gravewit 15:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote for deleting Current Events and sticking with "Community Portal". --Rezyk 03:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Combining the 2 is a good idea. And something with "task" in it as a name would make it clearer to the uses what he will find inside. --Xeeron 14:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Rezyk. The Community Portal seems to be working fine as the task list..(yay! for ==Headings==)--William Blackstaff 01:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

1) Should we have a community portal? Links to other sites, etc? I think that, at the very least, we should have a good list of forums available to users (since we don't have our own, which is fine). 2) I'd really like a "Guild Wars front page" section that's updated with whatever's going on over at guildwars.com. That seems like a decent enough use for Current Events.. but I suppose it could also be folded into the Game Updates article somehow (I'm not interested in a complete log of everything ever posted on that front page, just the current month's posts, maybe). 3) Either way, getting the tasks list onto an appropriately-named article would make me all warm and fuzzy, so let's do that to start with, at least. --Nunix 11:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is some old discussion about having links to other sites at GuildWiki talk:Community Portal#This page really isn't serving as a community portal. Personally I think we should have such a list but just name it List of fansites or List of Guildwars websites. --Rezyk 13:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Civ 4

Well, I've been slacking off on it, but, civ4 people, go on over here http://civ4.gamewikis.org/ and we'll figure out what we might wanna do. I think if we put a little time into it over this week, we'll figure out if it's worth the effort or not : ) Gravewit 16:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I put a little time into it. Where's everyone else? :) —Tanaric 15:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't be unfortunatly, Civ4 won't load up for me becuase I have a DVD/CD+RW drive and Civ4 uses Safedisc4 which doesn't like me having rewriteable software. Last time I buy anything from Firaxis, which is a shame because I loved Alpha Centauri and Civ3. oh well c'est la vie --William Blackstaff 09:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm running it on a DVD/CD+RW drive right now. It didn't seem to matter. The only thing I had to do was disable Daemon Tools, which I usually leave running in the background. —Tanaric 14:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Tried that. Tried a lot of things actually, Spent about 14 hours on and off trying to get it to work before I came to the realisation that a game that will (probably) require massive changes to my system and is trying to dictate to me what I can and cannot have on my computer system is a complete waste of my time and effort. I understand and respect that they are trying to prevent game piracy and I wholeheartly support that, but their attempt at it means that someone who bought their product legally (and on faith) cannot play it without resorting to massive changes or downloading a pirated version really ticks me off. So much for faith, it'll be a while before I buy anything from Firaxis for a while.--William Blackstaff 16:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

William: I had the same kind of troubles. I ended up using an ISO (which you can rip from the DVD yourself, it's your goddamn software!) and using an application called AntiBlaxx, which emulates the SafeDisc protection. Works a charm for me! Would really like your help on the wiki : ) Gravewit 12:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Gripes, Admins and Improvements

So, we've passed our 6 month anniversary, with very little fanfare (purposefully, to be honest), and it's time for me to ask what bugs you about guildwiki, and mediawiki itself? What could be done better? I plan on starting to modify the engine a little, and contribute more code to the mediawiki project itself, so I might as well start with something close to home.

On the guildwiki side, I'm considering adding the pretty cool open source tool FCKeditor to the edit pages on the wiki. How do you guys feel about this? I've put up a demo here http://www.guildwiki.org/FCKeditor/_samples/default.html

How do you folks think we are in the admin section? Even thought we've got a pretty small ratio of admins:users, I think we're pretty good for now. I've only gotten to ban someone before I was beaten to it once this month. Gravewit 19:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm, are you sure it would produce pages fully compliant with the media wiki? In the sample, it doesn't produce [[...]] kind of links. Can we adjust that? --Karlos 16:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You can check out the talk page and such for it on the mediawiki metawiki, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:FCKeditor , I'll definately be testing it on my testbed before putting it live, I was just wondering what opinions on it might be. Gravewit 19:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote no on the FCKeditor. It encourages people to over-format wiki articles. The vast majority of articles on the GuildWiki are simple text with headings, with a handy infobox. I'd like to keep it that way; adding the FCKeditor would result in people rolling their own format, and that, in no uncertain terms, would be a Bad Thing. —Tanaric 19:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I spose that's a valid complaint. I was more interested in it for the WYSIWYG table formatting stuff, you know? I mean, we have a sort of standard way to present articles. We should put some more work into the style guide, I suppose. I'd planned on modifying it (FCK) to remove all the crap we simply don't need. Gravewit 13:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No way! What possible advantage could that give? Wiki code isn't exactly hard to learn.. — Skuld 13:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well ... ::cough::

Anyway, I prefer wiki code that does not what it is supposed to do because I made a syntax mistake to WYSIWYG that does not what is supposed to do because the programmer made a syntax error. --Xeeron 13:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Server Speed Issues

Looks like our speed issues are all taken care of. CPU load is right back down where it should be, since we blocked all the HTTP crawlers. Gravewit 12:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

For lack of a better word... sexy. :) —Tanaric 21:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Current loading issues and the occasional mySQL is still popping up; this is, apparently, purely down to hardware, and the sheer number of you people visiting. Crazy, crazy people! We're looking at the donations and ad revenue that's come in so far and seeing what we can do about upgrading the box (not only the switch, but how many months we could support that switch, et cetera). No promises yet; we're just too awesome for our own good. ;) --Nunix 20:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Muhr! I feel like i'm on 56k now. The server is bogging down big time. Also, the search box still isn't working properly at all? Can someone fix it pretty please?--The King Tarosian 21:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Main Page organisation still serving?

Noticed some talk over on the community portal that the Main Page might be due for an update. Can I get some opinions on this? I see that we've now got a whole Category:Lore ("now" being a relative term, mind) which is probably worth organising a bit more and linking off the main. What's up there that isn't needed? What -isn't- that's needed? Nunix 19:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll probably sound overly critical here, but since you asked..

1. The "Stubs" part, which currently points to Skill_stubs, Attribute_stubs and Location_stubs, would be better off pointing to Category:Stub and Category:Stubs instead, as that's more comprehensive. To take this farther, Category:Stub and Category:Stubs ought to be merged, too.
2. All the links under "Helping Out" could be folded into How to Help. Based on its relative traffic, this section doesn't deserve being spread so much out on the main page. Yeah, it's also there for encouraging helping out -- but it's still not that deserving of so much premium space.
3. To be honest, all of the headings "The Game", "General Information", and "Quick Links" have never helped me -- they don't tell me anything about those lists I don't already expect. "In-Depth Guides" is more descriptive but still somewhat general, when considering what links it covers. Personally I see those sections as one mass of 22 links to look through. Looking at those links now, I think some organization along these lines would be much more helpful: Items (5 links), Characters/Creatures (5 links), Adventuring (4 links), Guides (3 links), News (1 link) and something else for the remaining 4 links (Skills, Elite Skills, Conditions, Slang).

--Rezyk 22:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed very much with Rezyk, the headlines are not intuitive: Why is the armor list under "The Game", but the unique items list under "Quick links"?. Something else that I am missing on the front page is any PvP content. There are a few decent PvP articles in the wiki, but the front page is purely PvE. --Xeeron 05:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, well if two users are all that's going to pipe up, I'll take a look at this on Sunday and likely tidy it slightly; but unless there's a larger consensus, I'm going to assume it's working just fine. If you've got an opinion on this, speak! It is command-ed! Nunix 22:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I've always hated the main page. Also, it's protected.--Cloak of Letters 07:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Rezyk that it's unclear what's the different between the quick links an the not so quick links. It's not a major issue for me. It's very useful and enables people to get to good stuff fairly easily.

I would lobby for a new section, but only if there is someone to keep it up to date. Or perhaps a "Did you know" section that quotes a rarely known tidbit from one of the articles randomly. --Karlos 08:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100% that the structure of the main page rather "fuzzy". I don't get the major difference between "The Game", "In-Depth Guides" and "Quick Links". Most of the articles that are listed would fit into either of the 3 headings.

I would prefer if we'd switch to a structure simular to what ArenaNet did in the Online Manual. Some time ago I've started to create an alternative layout. I put it under User:Tetris L/Test. Please see this as a suggestion and inspiration for further discussion. --Tetris L 07:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That looks great. And a lot clearer. I'm for it. --Karlos 10:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed 100%! That is much better than the current main page. --Rainith 11:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As to why things are the way they are: the wiki's grown quite a lot since the initial organisation. ;) I've spent some time going through the wiki over the weekend, and yeah, I agree it needs a facelift. "Quick Links" - which I still like, and think I may try and find a place for somewhere in Tetris' setup - was for common links that new users might be looking for immediately without digging through a lot of menus or sub-menus or search results. I'm not totally keen on a lot of indented sub-links on the main page, but I think Tetris has a good setup there, so expect it to go in sometime this week. Nice work, T! Nunix 23:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, slotted in Tetris' setup with a couple minor tweaks. I'm still really not keen on indented links on the main page, and may play around with organisation a bit more, but we'll go with this for now. As always, dear users, please post a comment here if there's a link you used a lot but is missing, if you've got an opinion on the page design, or whatever. Nunix 15:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I copied the Main Page over to Main Page/editcopy, which anyone can edit directly. The idea is to make it more convenient for everyone to collaboratively work and experiment on this unprotected copy (and any admin can easily push its changes to the real Main Page as needed). --Rezyk 16:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Build

The way we handle builds is, atm, a total mess. Take a look at Category:Builds, or the Build Guide article. Descriptions of the premade builds, mixxed with description of primary/secondary profession combinations, mixxed with some detailed build (of detailed quality...), not very helpful. I suggest making a proper Build Guide article that explains how a build can be created, together with list of builds, where people can put down their own build ideas. OR if I cant convince the majority here that builds are something we would like to have in the wiki, do away with all of the builds and put up a note that we dont like them. --Xeeron 05:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that build designing is one of the main facets of PvP Guild Wars - which is what the game is all about for many people. A list which, while it would never be comprehensive, covers popular build types (I.E. one build for a Offering of Blood spike healer, as opposed to many slightly different builds) would be useful, as long as it could be kept under control. 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. I'd guess that two lists on possibly the Build Guide (or the Category:Builds) article, one of specific builds and one of general builds. Shandy 07:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'll be honest with you Xeeron, it's all your fault! :) You PvP people need to take matters into your own hands. Develop the PvP section into the glorious repository of wisdom it ought to be. That is what a wiki is about. I am no PvP guru and will probably never be. There is no thrill for me in constantly besting other players. The thrill is in questing, and adventure and plot-exposition. Seems Rainith and Tetris are also PvE people.

So, it's people like you and Fyren and anyone who is into PvP who will have to literally shape that section. Just as Rainith and Tetris are shaping the collectors info, they are the ones who care most about it. Just as PanSola is shaping the armor galleries, she cares about that, just as I am mercilessly editing the FoW and UW pages.. I care about those.

Go ahead! Make the sections as you see fit. Rewrite the Build Guide, re-sort the Builds Category, put life into your favorite section!!

This is not to say you are not doing a great job. Your work on the arenas and some of the PvP terms made us credible in that area, to say the least. But neither me, nor Rainith, nor Tetris will be doing a PvP section soon and if we did, chances are, it would be inferior to anything you do. Just my honest opinion. --Karlos 07:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Okok, I am on it. ;-)

There was some previous discussion about whether to include builds or not, so I didnt want to go ahead reworking it all, only to have everything deleted a bit later. But if we are ok with having builds (which always will be somewhat subjective) in the wiki then I'll try to start it. That being said, I do PvP, but I am not the god of PvP, all help is welcome. --Xeeron 07:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

But you are the prophet! Preach to us, my brother! :) --Karlos 08:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thou shall go out and look at the Build stubs category and test the builds and vouch for them.

Thou shall not put any new build in any other category but Build stubs.

Thou shall post PvP build, PvE build and team builds, there is a place for all.

Thou shall not label a Profession Combination as a build. --Xeeron 09:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Amen, brother Xeeron. :) --Karlos 10:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering, should we separate team builds from individual character builds (as in separate categories)? If not, at least make it obvious in the name of the article whether the build is a team build or an individual build. -PanSola 14:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There should be (as in I will make one as soon as the first build leaves stubs) one sub-category for Team builds, one for PvP builds and one for PvE builds, plus one for the premade builds. The builds in build stubs are not ordered, but it should be obvious from the description which is the purpose of the build (and if it is not, maybe the build does not deserve leaving stubs). --Xeeron 15:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to hold off until I had finished the skill lists but here's what I was thinking for Builds: User:Cloak of Letters. I got tired of working on it pretty fast.--Cloak of Letters 15:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Profession Combinations

While creating the category Profession Combinations I noticed the sorry state most of these articles are in. They are linked to directly from the main profession articles (e.g. Warrior), so maybe we can put something more helpful in there. --Xeeron 15:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

More Mods Needed

After the spate of vandalism this morning (see any edit by USER:66.144.41.232) I think we could use one or two more mods around here. Most likely things will start to heat up again as we have just recently been listed as an official fan site. And I think one or two more people who could ban IPs and revert changes with a single click of a mouse would be a good thing. I know in one of the old conversations from around the time when Karlos was made a Mod, someone (I think Tetris L) floated my name as an option. I would be willing to do that if people still think it is a good idea, but even if it isn't me I think we do need one or two more people to take care of stuff like this. --Rainith 13:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Rainith being mod = good idea --FireFox 13:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both the necessity of more mods (holy s*** at 66.144.41.232) and that Rainith would be great as a mod. - Lunarbunny 14:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Rainith is a good idea. I'd stick my hand up except people are throwing things at me =P (see Guildwiki:Community Portal)--William Blackstaff 15:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

*blush* Thanks for the boost to my self-esteem.  ;) I feel bad putting my own name forward, but that guy was really pissing me off. And when I'm at work I usually keep an eye on the wiki, unless I'm really busy, so I could keep an eye out for jokers like that. --Rainith 16:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Aren't your boss a lucky wo/man? d-: --PanSola 16:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The more I work, usually the more I write off, so by working less I'm actually saving my company money. :P --Rainith 17:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest at least both Rainith and Tetris L be promoted. I don't know if any of the other admins around used to watch all the edits by non-regulars, but it seems no one is doing it now (I used to). Perhaps start marking edits as patrolled, but I don't know, since I haven't been around. --Fyren 19:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with promoting them both, although I don't think there's much issue about watching edits more closely (Karlos and some non-admins seem pretty thorough). Rather, I think it's more about reducing the mean time until any admin is around, to limit the damage and hassle that can be caused by any one vandal. --Rezyk 20:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeh both Tetris and Rainith ^^ I thought Tetris already was! — Skuld 10:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

---

My two doubloons on this:

• We should not have a knee-jerk reaction to a vandal. Making people admins is a long a term decision. Not to discount any of the suggested names. I thought the regular users did a superb job standing up to those two vandals.
• We should develop a plan of coverage among the admins such that there is one of them eyeing the changes list at all times. Mostly to watch out for PanSola's edits, but also for vandals. :P
• In order to do this, we need to evaluate our current staff:
  • Fyren and I are usually around at the same times. I stay up really late at times, but we cover the evening time (US time) till early dawn.
  • Tanaric and Lord Biro and Nunix appear every few days (Biro has been the most inconsistent).
  • Gravewit, I believe, should not be expected to help out in this.
  • So, it is obivous we are undermanned and poorly ditributed. We need indeed at least two more people and preferably, two who are not on at the same time. The area hardest for me to cover is from Dawn till noon (4 AM - 12 PM west coast time). Then from afternoon till evening (3 PM - 10 PM). any help there would be most useful.
  • I believe a certain amount of technical aptitude is good for an admin.
• My choices would be Rainith, Tetris (especially because of the timezone shift) and the new guy.. User:Deldda_Kcarc.

Ok, so they were more like 20 doulboons. :) --Karlos 11:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

blah, you haven't told me what was wrong with archiving the unique item list talk yet, and so I'm not sure if you are going to revert the armor types talk too and just didn't notice it yet, or they are two different cases one was valid for archiving and the other not. -PanSola 18:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

---

66.144.41.232 for mod =P — Skuld 14:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Over my dead body =P --William Blackstaff 15:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes to William being dead. Err. Yes to 66.144.41.232 being dead. Errr wrong again. Yes to more mods. Ah right =) --Xeeron 16:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Buggering Besheba! I'm using Ward Against Xeeron! Nyah!--William Blackstaff 16:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

(Note:Moved from Section "Gripes, Admins and Improvements")

As for new admins, I think we could do with a few more. As you said, we have a pretty low admins/users ratio, and about half of our admins visit the site only occasionally or are completely inactive. Yesterdays events (excessive vandalism by 66.144.41.232 / 217.125.198.57 over several hours) showed that a bit closer monitoring wouldn't hurt. Especially because we will see more trolls paying GuildWiki a visit as we grow more and more popular.

If I may suggest a few names for new admins, I'd vote for Skuld, Rainith, Rezyk and Xeeron. In my book they have proven over several weeks to be valuable and reliable contributors and that they can be trusted. Also, the following are rather new, but seem to have some potential as possible future admins: PanSola, FireFox and William Blackstaff. My 2 cents. --Tetris L 10:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel flattered that some here suggested my name. But I'd rather not become an admin. One reason for this is my recent clashes with Karlos. Currently me and Karlos seem to get along, but in case the cease-fire comes to an end things would be even more complicated. There are other reasons on top of this, that have to do with real life. I'm spending far too much time with this wiki already, and I'm afraight it would increase even more if I feel obliged to monitor it. ;) --Tetris L 12:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Tetris and Rainith have both been on my "possible admins" list for a long time. Unless anyone can give me a reason why not, I'll make Rain an admin tonight. Tetris has apparently taken himself out of the running, which is unfortunate despite he and Karlos neigh-legendary feuding. Go ahead and debate the named peoples, here. I want to know what you guys have to say. Gravewit 16:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno if I should be speaking up, as I'm a nub to the 'wiki and don't know all personalities, but: one UP vote for PanSola, and one DOWN vote for Deldda Kcarc. — Deldda Kcarc 16:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, my "nomination" is only for "possible future admin", so your vote is wasted (cuz you'll get a new bollet in the future anyways, and this one won't count anymore) d-: -PanSola 18:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you already have my vote for Rainith so I'm going to chuck in another vote for (since we seem to be talking about more than one) Rezyk becuase Rez never seems to leave here...=D --William Blackstaff 19:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

HEY! I lost my bureaucrat title!! What's the big idea!! :)

I am sorry Tetris took out his name and I am sorry it was because of me. Congrats Rainith. --Karlos 20:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You know I only used you as my scapegoat. The real reason is that I'm scared of the responsibility and the fact that I'd have to restrain myself from my usual biased statements and smart-ass behaviour. ;) --Tetris L 06:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I can feel the power flowing through me now.... *MUHAHAHAHAHA....cough....hack....* Er... sorry something got caught in my throat.  ;) --Rainith 12:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Over Automation

I want to express my concern somewhere, so I will do it here. Better than viagra and porn site ads. Recently, I have seen a shift in the wiki towards more and more automation. Templates are created for lots of things as well as includes and so forth. I am greatly worried by this as I feel if the trend continues, Guildwiki will slowly shift from being an open encyclopedia contributed to by all into a closed website maintained by a technically skilled elite. As the pages use more and more complex templates/includes/gimmicks they become harder for the average user to just click "edit" and then edit which defies the purpose of a wiki.

There is great merit in doing a template like BeastInfo or a small short hand template for profession icons. There is a great hazard in turning the templates into forms where you invoke them with parameters and they render the page. I believe the page in general with it's sections and descriptions should be text and should not be some template.

Does nayone see this problem as well? Am I getting too attacked to my keyboard? :) What do people think? --Karlos 09:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit paranoid. Look at Wikipedia. Do you think Wikipedia is difficult to edit for the average user? Its absurd popularity would seem to hint otherwise, even though it has templates and gizmos oozing out of every nook and cranny. Humans are versatile creatures. (Also lazy creatures: hence, templates.) — Deldda Kcarc 09:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed laziness promote the use of templates. But laziness also prevents newcomers from learning to use templates. I only use the beastbox when I have the time to leasurely copy it from another boss and edit it, because I never bothered to remember its layout/fields. I think the thing to watch out for is the complexity of templates, no in terms of its internal structure, but in terms of "user interface". The less fields you have to fill out, the less number of sub-templates you have to remember about, the better. Personally I think all the "name" field in all type of boxes should be removed, considering {{PAGENAME}} at our disposal. Image filenames could be standardized by using pagename too, by only specifying the file extension, and get around internal errors by having an extended extension. But then the number of fields isn't reduced, so the net benefit (not having to specifying image name, only extension) isn't all that worth while. I'll start to pay attention to compound templates as I run across them and see if there are more ways to simplify them.-PanSola 09:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If images with apostrophes still cause the same problem as before, using the page name isn't an option. --Fyren 12:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about templates, they help people with established formatting and layouts (as well as those who have no idea about wiki coding) and I think they are worthwhile as long as they remain relativly simple and easy to use. Besides people who have no idea how to use them will either 1) learn to use them (Yay! for learning) or 2) not use them and wack the information on the page (in which case over-zelous regular users will mercilessly edit them accordingly..yay! for us!). of course it might help new users (and the not so technically minded) not get so bamboozled if the template creators places some helpful comments in the code using the old html <!-- Comment --> code. --William Blackstaff 10:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

On one hand I see Karlos' concerns. When I first came up with the idea of "modules" (included sub-articles), my first concern was: Will the average user figure out how to edit that section?

On the other hand, it can't be all that difficult if *I* managed to figure it out. I don't consider myself a computer expert by any means. I'm not working in IT and I'm not a programmer. I'm just a mechanical engineer, an average gamer and wiki user. And GuildWiki is my first Wiki. Before August 2005 I had no idea how a wiki works. Now I can handle it, including how to use and even write templates.

But then ... the text on my coffee mug says (in large, bold letters): RTFM And that's what I did. Read through a few help pages. I know the average user doesn't like to do that. --Tetris L 10:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary Deldda, it is because I use Wikipedia and edit there at times that I make this concern here. I'll give you several examples:

• Wikipedia:Cool (song)
• Wikipedia:pop
• Wikipedia:United States
• Wikipedia:Gwen Stefani
• Wikipedia:Dallas Austin

These are the first five links on the main page right now in Wikipedia, I deliberately chose the first five links so the sample is fair. As you can see, they all have clear definition articles. And even though templates are used for summary info, for categorization info, for whatever, the basic article itself is in plain simple text. That's what I mean. I have never faced the kind of "edit this section somewhere else" and "X is Y in Z but A and B is C" templates we are starting to develop here.

I believe it is KEY to the sucess of a wiki that the anonymous edit remains encouraged and facilitated. Others may disagree, but I see us gradually shifting away from that to a more restricted complicated form. --Karlos 10:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, in that case, I agree with you. No one should have to go hunting templates in order to simply edit the plainly visible text of the page, for corrections or whatever. I didn't fully grasp that you were pointing out that we had graduated from using templates for infoboxes to playing all kinds of elaborate transclusion games. *shakes finger at PanSolo* — Deldda Kcarc 11:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is something you run into in the programming world a lot, too. The point of making a template in wikipedia is like writing a framework in, say, C, or a class in PHP. You usually make a template/class/framework if you're going to be reusing the code a whole lot, and it will save a bunch of headaches if you have to change something on a widely and often used bit of code. It's often times much better in such a case to write a reusable bit of code, to save you tons of time and debugging. However- and this is very important- it's not always the case. Sometimes it's better to just hard code stuff. In programming, it's primarily for ease of use and ease of fixing for you, the writer/programmer, but in something like a large-scale wiki like this, it's also in the name of the average user who has something to contribute. There is no debate on whether or not infobox templates are useful, they are, immensely so, but normal plain vanilla text should never need a template. Maybe we need to work on our guidelines a bit more to get a better, more concrete, rule about stuff like this. Gravewit 12:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Also: there is nothing that prevents someone from adding information in whatever form they so desire, and then someone else coming along and fitting it into the standard. Honestly, that's my ideal; a lot of anonymous edits and additions, with the "usual crowd" keeping an eye on things to make sure they're easily read and accessed by readers. Now, if we've got something somewhere that says, "Write it this way, or don't write it at all!" please please please point it out to us and we'll give those sections an overhaul. I have no issues with someone plugging in "This skill doesn't work against Toughie McToughpants in the Mixing Bowl of Doom mission," wherever they feel like into an article, and someone else fitting that into whatever template may exist on that page for that information. Nunix 17:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem, Nunix, is if the user wanted to edit the Uber Axe article only to find this:

{{WeaponInfo|Uber|5-32|Denravi|Axe}}

As the sole content of the article. I am saying we should be careful not to get there. Some user might just stick his note somewhere and leave, another might get confused/frsutrated/fear messing up and simply leave. --Karlos 18:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Not being a huge fans of templates here either. As soon as editing an article becomes to complicated for an anonymous user willing to spend 5 minutes, we have a potential problem. So it should always be possible to edit the plain text of the articles without problems. A second problem (and maybe thats just me): I have no knowledge of all templates around when they are used, and for which purposed we have some. The nice link someone donated for my userpage stopped working somehow. What we need is a page listing all templates, together with a one line description of what they do. --Xeeron 17:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That week we were down I was poking around on some other game wikis and saw that on the WoW Wiki they have a page that lists all the templates used. This is not an automatically generated page but one that must be maintained as new templates are created. Something like that could be made, but the initial creation would be tough. --Rainith 18:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Props to Guildwiki

Since Rainith mentioned the WoW wiki, he reminded me to post a link to some praise one of their users was giving us. We've got fans! :)

• [ http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki_talk:Community_Portal#Inspiration]

--Karlos 18:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We are learning from them, they are learning from us. No need to invent the wheel over and over again, this is how it should be =) --Xeeron 08:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Profession Icons

Just wondering, why is it that we use different profession icons on this wiki than the official ones? Those for Warrior, Elem, Necro and Monk look almost the same, but Ranger and Mesmer are very different. Is there a historical reason? Has this been discussed before? --User:Tetris L/Sig 12:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't be hard to switch to the icons at the website, just resize them and upload. | Chuiu 15:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Those icons are low-quality, and look horrible when sized down to, say, 26 by 34. Lots of the uses of icons on the wiki are very small, they're just there as a quick reference, and the simpler the graphic is while still communicating what it's for, the better. We could use the official images for bigger uses, but then it would be inconsistant with the other ones we use on the wiki, which is bad for users. I really like the icons we use, actually. Gravewit

I figured whoever made the decision originally didn't like fingers and toes d-:

Don't get me wrong, I didn't ask for our icons to be an exact scaled-down copy of the official icons. , , and are perfectly okay, as they resemble the official icons, but look much better when used with 15px size. But IMO should be changed to a paw symbol and to a hand symbol. --User:Tetris L/Sig 19:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not even sure who originally made them. Probably Biro? Gravewit 13:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Im not the best at image editing (and it shows), but what about these? ... Bah they don't resize well ... | Chuiu 21:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

How about this set? It's taken directly from the game. | Chuiu 19:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think they look good, but is that their full size? --Karlos 20:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think they're a little large. We use the icons at the beginning of lines in some articles, so it'd be nice if they're not too much taller than a line of text. Dunno if they can be reduced without causing ugliness. Aesthetically, I prefer Biro's, but maybe that's because I've been seeing them for so long. --Fyren 20:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's their full size, they are almost exactly the same size as the current icons and im testing the resize right now...

They look decent at 15px. (monk looks tall because it resizes to width not height) | Chuiu 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

All you have to do is edit the picture to include white space on the monk icon so the dimensions are the same as the others.

I think I much prefer our icons, on a purely aescetic basis. Ours resize much better than the official ones, and are perfectly understandable. The Monk and Elementalist official icons are downright ugly ;), and all the icons are not of a consistant size. Shandy 05:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I (I as, I am new here, hello) understand, these icons are not as far fetched (I think that’s the word) as you make of them.

True, they are not the icons used in the game, but then do appear in the manual.

They are the symbols that appear above the pictures of every profession and I think the suit them quite well.

New main page minor things

Could Characters -- Skills & Gear have a single dash or — and

• "Green" Weapons & Items - Unique stuff dropped by some bosses.

"some bosses" changed to Sorrow's Furnace bosses. thanks — Skuld

Points to top of page. Main Page/editcopy should help alot to develop & discuss new ideas for the mainpage. --Xeeron 14:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Could we please use consistent capitalization on the main page? Currently some nouns (not just proper names) are lower case, some are upper case. That goes for headings as well as the text. And even some adjectives are uppercase, which makes little sense. --User:Tetris L/Sig 02:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll be looking at the editcopy page every Monday for at least the next couple of weeks, and fold in any changes that look good. If there's something that needs to be corrected, fix it there, and it'll get fixed on the main. --Nunix 11:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is green items part of Characters while collectors are part of PvE? Feels odd... Green items can only be obtained via PvE but can be used for PvP too, ditto for most collector stuff. -PanSola 19:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Armory/Weaponry. A quibble: I don't think they mean what you think they mean. An armory is a place where you keep weapons and sometimes armor. Weaponry isn't a place, but a term that denotes a bunch of weapons or weapons in general. They're not consistent, and a little cheesy anyway. I recommend they be changed to Armor and Weapons. --Qian Khan 08:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a pun. 68.74.135.190 14:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Fairly more sure it's just improper use of the word ;p But as always, use the /editcopy link to make changes, rather than just suggestions, and we'll fold stuff in as appropriate. --Nunix 22:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I can't modify the front-page :p (and I'd hesitate to do so anyway). --Qian Khan 17:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a copy you can edit: Main Page/editcopy - the edits you make then get incorporated in the main page. Shandy 10:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Item Descriptions

I've been going through item descriptions, primarily Category:Salvage_Items, and I was wondering what would be a consistent way to describe/subtitle each of them. Most of the older items have: Description, Sell Value (which varies), What/Who Drops It, and What It Salvages Into. The newer items involve: Description, Acquired From or Dropped By, and Salvaged Items. I was going to make it all the same across the board for consistency, though I'd like to know your guys' preferences on what kind of subtitles you'd prefer to see in the articles (or if it matters at all). --TheSpectator 03:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Builds link (in editcopy)

Not that I have anything against it, but linking straight to the category is probably not the best idea. Maybe make an overview page of some sort. --Fyren 20:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There was already an existing Build article which already had a link to the builds category page, so I changed the link here to go to that one instead. --Barek 20:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Great, so now we can add that to the main page when you guys want. This way the popular section will be easier to access. --DragonWR12LB 21:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not what I meant. The plain categories aren't good methods of browsing the contents. Build is about what a build is, not a list of the build articles and what they are. Maybe we need a page with a one-liner describing each build. I think the topic of descriptions for builds might have come up before. --Fyren 21:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that about the build article; but couldn't an additional section be added, such as "Common Builds" or something along those lines, which had a link and description of each? --Barek 21:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)