GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 6

Fansite Links
For improving our appearance of Guild Wars community involvement, can we make the link to the Fansite article more prominent (or, more specifically, the link to the list of fansites hosted on GuildWars.com, which can be reached via that article)? I think it just improves our image of community involvement to improve visibility to that link. I'm not sure the best place to put it; the name "Community portal" seems appropriate, but not in the way we currently utilize this article. Perhaps we can link it either from the Main Page or even create a "Fansite Links" entry for the toolbar on the left? --I am 161.88 13:33, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

and I thought GuildWiki had tons of database errors...
it's nothing compared to the Guru o_O""" - 18:49, 26 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Ironically, as I hit the edit button here, I receive a DB error. It took me over 30 minutes to reply to the Guru thread from all the DB errors. --Gares Redstorm 19:20, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki(MediaWiki) version
According to this Special:Version GuildWiki's version is 1.6.1 maybe upgrading to the latest 1.6.7 MediaWiki Important Release Notes Full Release Notes will solve some of the problems GuildWiki has been currently experiencing. --Phoenix 19:28, 26 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Give it a few months, it'll get updated eventually. LordKestrel 19:05, 31 May 2006 (CDT)
 * That will be nice. --Phoenix 01:40, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

stub?
So... what constitutes a skill stub / an item stub / quest stub / NPC stub / whatever? Is there a place I can find an authortative "these sections must be filled out" "missions need maps but quests/skillcaps dont" or something? Because I'm finding inconsistencies everywhere. For example Mursaat Token is a stub but I honestly can't think of other information to put in it, as is Claw Tallfeather (talk) (compare to other collectors, random example Gwynn) and Offering of Blood. This issue was my major roadblock when I tried to start clearing out stubs (emphasis tried) -- and might be an issue to other new contributors as well. There is no basis to simply compare, since some things that are equal have some stubbed and some not, such as Claw Tallfeather vs Gwynn (do neither deserve stubs? or do both?). It would be easy if all other collectors containing the same information, for a weak example, were unstubbed, but that's simply not the case. Seems half the issue might be that articles don't get stub cleared when they are filled out, but that might be because there isn't a source that defines this sort of thing. Another long, wordy, rambly, it's-hard-to-read-in-this-font paragraph from Tinny. Enjoy. :) --Tinarto 10:49, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Unfortunatly, no. Usually, for most new articles, if nothing is missing that an comparable older article (lets say for skills, items, creatures) has, it is not considered a stub anymore. But unstubbing has so far not been a priority here (which might be a bad thing). --Xeeron 12:40, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Skills: progression 1..16 and and aquisition filled in
 * Collectors: Collectors' info filled in, location
 * Bosses: SoC confirmed, image, location (map good but not a hold back)
 * My criteria, no official ones Skuld  13:52, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I think this task is too large allready and it's getting larger all the time. We would need someone with a lot of time to do a major cleanup. Or maby we could divide certain article types for different people? I could volunteer for something like quests and missions as there is a fairly limited amount of them. I will make a suggestion for some guidelines tomorrow if I remember. Note me on my talke pge if I forget. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 17:05, 27 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Sad but true: Stub tags on GuildWiki are utterly meaningless. :( Do it like me: Ignore them. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:04, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * We should do a cleanup-drive of the stub types and categories some time. All it takes is some work defining what a stub is -- and what it isn't -- and then some gnoming to iron out the articles already stubbed. I don't have the energy right now, but if noone else does it, I might pick up that torch some time. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:04, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, I forgot, but it might not be that important. I think I'll start the work on missions and quests soonish. (in a few days) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 11:47, 29 May 2006 (CDT)

Dezombified debate on new admins
So we are yet again under attack by a determined vandal during a time period when no sysop is online. This gives me a chance to nominate some new people for sysops. This time around, I present, in no particular order: Discuss. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 13:00, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * User:Barek (standard nomination I repeat every time) (contrib)
 * User:Draygo Korvan (contrib)
 * User:Evil Greven (contrib)
 * User:I am 161.88 (contrib)
 * User:Gares Redstorm (contrib)

I nominate: --Bishop (rap|con) 06:08, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
 * User:Skuld (contrib)


 * Took the liberty of adding contrib links to your nominations. Pondering them now. --Bishop (rap|con) 13:07, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * All of the mentioned are good suggestions. However, I'm going to second the nomation for Evil Greven for consistent behavior and edits. --Bishop (rap|con) 13:27, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Seconded for User:I am 161.88 and User:Gares Redstorm - Jack  13:04, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm all for this. I like all the users nominated.  I'll try to check the block candidates and clean them up in the next few minutes.  --Rainith 13:34, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Two additional candidates are User:Stabber and User:Tetris L. I seem to recall them both declining nominations in the past; but I still think they would make good admins. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:59, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * EDIT: I struck out Stabber solely because her user page makes it clear she has short term plans regarding being on GuildWiki. Although, I still think she would make a good admin. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 16:12, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would second both of those, was it not because I respect a decision to remain a non-admin. I'm sure we would know if either had a change of heart. --Bishop (rap|con) 14:02, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Tetris is already an admin &mdash; Skuld  04:02, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I thought that too, but not according to http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki?title=Special%3AListusers&group=sysop&username= --Bishop (rap|con) 05:56, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Speaking of which, I just noticed you're not on that list. I thought you were already an admin too. I shall attempt to remedy my oversight (see above). --Bishop (rap|con) 06:08, 3 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh! I knew there was a third name I had wanted to add to the list, it was Skuld! Sorry Skuld! --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 08:35, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd like to apologise for not being around the last few days... Although I think you all kind of expect it from me anyway :P I don't really know many of the people in the list, Stabber, so I'll have to remain silent I think.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:50, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I believe all three of us, Skuld, Tetris and myself, have said before that we don't want to be sysops. I, at least, don't desire the position, and given that I have been nominated for bans before, I don't believe I am sysop material anyhow. For the rest, I think it is about time we formalized an RfA process. I'll get the ball rolling now. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:07, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The ball, she rolls! Requests for adminship. Much of it is adapted from WP:RfA. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:54, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Looks good, Stabber. Nice work. --Bishop (rap|con) 16:19, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, I actually don't see a need for a new admin, though I don't mind if all these people became admins. The true question is, is any of them going to be on-line during that time of the day (usually 6 AM to 2 PM PST) when most other admins aren't. If the reason for the promotion is to fill in that void, should we not make sure they CAN fill that void? If they can't, they are still all worthy of being admins, but I want to stay on the ball here. --Karlos 19:40, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It seems Stabber would be the ideal choice for an admin, it's obvious from the way she makes the necessary edits. However, you can't force a position on someone. Shame. - Jack  15:14, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would actually be opposed to Stabber being an admin. I don't think an admin who threatens to leave the wiki every month is a good thing. On top of that, she's a highly opinionated contributor who contributes a lot. We're still trying to survive the last highly opinionated contributor who contributes a lot (me). :) And yes, I don't think I make that good of an admin, I get involved in too many things too deeply to be able to step back and exercise my role as admin. --Karlos 16:06, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree Karlos, you're a crap admin :P Hehe, only kidding. I think anyone who is active and passionate about the GuildWiki makes a good admin. Of course, they also have to be reasonable and realise that, even if they're certain they're right, decisions on the GuildWiki are made as a collective and not as an individual.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:54, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Bwahaha, that's why I love this wiki. Half a dozen people get nominated for adminship, and half of them turn it down on the spot! Evan The Cursed (Talk) 23:15, 4 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Personally, I would accept if officially asked; but, as Karlos pointed out above, this request for an additional admin is because there's a gap in coverage during the weekday. I think that my availability during that time is limited, so I doubt that I'm the best fit for this round of admin nominations.  Don't get me wrong, I would love to support the community further by being an admin; I just think that if only one additional admin is to be added, then the community would be better served by someone with more availability from 6am - 2pm PST. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 00:34, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The vandal was only an excuse to take this admin debate out of cryogenic freeze. I think the wiki just needs more admins period. Currently we have Rainith doing the majority of the gruntwork with Karlos and LordBiro (and sometimes 84.175) chiming in occasionally to keep up appearances. PanSola seems to mostly tend to his own projects, of which there are several underway. Given that we have a pretty large userbase at this point, I don't think the 3.5 admins or so is sufficient (Special:Statistics says the admin to user ratio is 0.16%, but it overcounts the registered users and undercounts IPs, so that's not reliable). This is even more relevant if the GuildWiki becomes official and our userbase grows even larger. My recommendation would be to add a bunch of admins (3-5) at once instead of just one. There are several very well qualified candidates who have already received a lot of supporting votes. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 00:55, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I have to agree with Stabber. Its not that there may be a down time between the usual hours of an admin, its that there is not enough admins around. I am on in that time period Karlos suggested (actually, always lurking around) and I have had times where I placed a ban on a vandal and had to play shadow reverting his vandalism because there was no admin around to ban him, so he/she just kept on rolling. It's not a time clock that you punch, where one admin punches out and another punches in. Admins have real life responsibilities as well and sometimes they will not be on for a period of time, thus lower the already low numbers of admins on GuildWiki. --Gares Redstorm 13:18, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I see your point. Maybe I'll modify my decline comment on the nomination list.  To me, the primary goal seemed to be to find an admin who had a higher likelihood of weekday availability.  If the goal is to improve over-all admin coverage at all hours, then I'm willing to become one if asked. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:29, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Policy and sigs. The Subst Crusade!
First is there any Policy difference between wikipedia and Guildwiki concerning sigs?  If that policy is followed sigs should I am aware of We are not Wikipedia, and if we are applying the sig rules we should probably port that article and start linking to it internally. Wikipidia itself makes several good arguements for following those rules:
 * Not use Images
 * custom sigs be only included once with subst: e.g.  
 * not use any templates themselves
 * 1) Many concerns have been raised over the use of images in signatures, and they are considered to serve no use to the encyclopedia project. Images in signatures should not be used for several reasons:
 * 2) They use unnecessary server resources, and could cause server slowdown.
 * 3) A new image can be uploaded in place of the one you chose, making your signature a target for possible vandalism and Denial-of-service attacks.
 * 4) They reduce searchability, making pages more difficult to read.
 * 5) They make it more difficult to copy text from a page,
 * 6) They are potentially distracting from the actual message.
 * 7) In most browsers images do not scale with the text, making lines with images higher than those without.
 * 8) They clutter up the file links list of the image every time you sign on a different talk page.
 * 9) Your signature should not blink, or otherwise be designed to annoy other editors. Avoid markup such as &lt;big&gt; tags (which produce big text), or line breaks, and be sparing with superscript or subscript
 * 10) Long signatures with lots of HTML/wiki markup can make page editing more difficult
 * 11) Avoid using page transclusion, templates, or parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as, for example). These are avoidable drains on server resources. Transcluded signatures require extra processing. Whenever you do change your signature source, all talk pages you've posted on must be re-cached. 
 * 12) *If you really must use a userpage as a source of boilerplate for your signature, at least substitute it so it is only transcluded once, for example  .

Now that I have opened this can of worms, discuss. --Draygo Korvan 12:07, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Is there much use of templates (page transclusions) as sigs in GuildWiki? I hadn't noticed many, but you may have noticed some during your updates this morning.  The use of templates is the only issue that, to me, we should specifically create a policy against.  The use of images doesn't seem to have been abused by the GuildWiki community (see Category:Templates/User signatures), so I see no problem allowing them.  Although we may want to set a policy of sig images can't be larger than some given size.  Not a problem thus far, but reasonable to prevent future issues.
 * If they are causing any significant contribution to server performance problems, then I could see adopting the full wikipedia policy; but I honestly don't see them as being major contributors to performance issues at this time. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:24, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * MediaWiki 1.6 doesn't allow you to make signature transclusions (unless you defeat it with a double transclusion, but no one does that... right?). The issue is mostly to do with legacy signatures. The server drain you are afraid of is not so huge because talk pages are naturally colder than article pages. The biggest problem is with the recaching penalty whenever a signature changes, but again, most pages using a signature will not be in the object cache anyhow so a recache penalty is moot. Furthermore, user signatures tend to be fairly static. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 14:05, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Personally I don't think it's much of an issue.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:28, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok lets say we have our own policy on it, and you want to allow images. Then we definatly need to create our own policy page on sigs that outlines the rules that we want to follow. And when I was going through the pages this morning cleaning up the unsigned template and giving it a proper subst, i often ran across the format for sigs instead of it being included with subst. Secondly, we have seen performance problems on the wiki, and I definatly dont think it would hurt anything if we put some guidelines in place.


 * The problem with images are more than just server performance, storage, search interference but also vandalism concerns. Lets say someone (this is only an example, not to pick on Gem) but someone changes the Gem to a picture of goatse. All the sudden almost every single talk page will be spammed with that picture. I think that is my main concern with the widespread use of an image. Most of the content images on the site are pretty much one or two pages only, so if some form of vandalism was done to those images, it would probably be picked up in Recent Changes much faster than any guest of the site actually viewing it.


 * The same applies to sigs not using subst. A vandal can edit that page to create all sorts of messes, and if were not watching recentchanges the user can mess up hundreds (in some user's cases, 500 pages or so actually) of pages. And the casual guildwiki user might not know where to actually go to fix it. (lets say someone takes PanSola's sig and makes it 5mb long filled with X's. Doing so would probably DESTROY the guildwiki server, considering that the server will go to the 250 or so pages pansola's sig is referenced in and make the caching changes. In addition to the 5mb will have to be sent any time a user visits one of the 250 or so talk pages Pan used the sig in.).


 * The vandalism and Denial-of-Service risk is way too high to allow that sort of linking. A smart vandal can probably bring the guildwiki server to its knees in a matter of seconds. While we can not prevent some forms of vandalism, we should take every reasonable action to make vandalism minimal. The server drain on valid and reasonable signatures now, is not high. But it easily can be and I think policy should be set forth to prevent that before we find ourselves in a real mess. --Draygo Korvan 14:38, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The transcluded sigs you encountered are all legacy signatures from when we used MediaWiki 1.5. Recaching on signatures is not active, like you fear, but lazy ("on demand"). The only active thing that happens when a transcluded page is changes is that all referring pages are invalidated in the object cache. They are not immediately re-rendered and injected into the cache. So, with PanSola's signature example, unless the signature terrorist immediately follows the signature hijack with a simultaneous load of all 250 pages that refer to it, there will be no performance penalty. As far as DOS goes, I don't think signatures are the most likely vector of attack. It is far more efficient to hijack a common template such as Template:Stub or Template:TOCright. Note also that most users watch their own signatures. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 14:47, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Even if its lazy, we do have several users browsing the site, it can at minimum cause the server pain. Templates you mention like TOCRight need to be protected anyway (because there is no reason to change them at all). Such vunerabilities do need to get plugged. I would recommend protecting any template page referenced at least 25 times. Any proposed changes would have to be done on an editcopy. --Draygo Korvan 14:57, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Given how few admins we have and how glacial the process of getting the attention of an admin tends to be (at least when Rainith is not around), I don't think protecting templates is a good idea. It is premature at any rate. The clueful vandal who knows how best to place his explosive charges is a rara avis. Most vandals we get limit their nuisance to blanking pages or spraying graffiti on them. While I certainly don't oppose your subst crusade (though there are more efficient ways of doing it than by hand; ask if you want to know), I think we can afford to have open policies until a more restrictive policy is forced upon us. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:09, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I support changing the leagacy signatures and replacing them with a subst version. I'll do that on my own signatures now. However removing images doesn't seem to serve a purpose. We could protect the signature images if you think it is necessary. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 15:17, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I implore you -- don't do it by hand. Special:Recentchanges doesn't need any more pollution. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:19, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Feel free to use a bot for it. I thought your bot was removed, but if it wasn't then go ahead. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 15:22, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It probably was. However, this is not such a pressing issue that it must be done right this instant. We can afford to be civilized about it. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:31, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I wasnt going to attempt to do the user sigs, changing them to subst by hand, there are well over 2,000 pages that would need changes definatly need to use a bot for that. There is a reason why I fixed up the unused template this morning instead of now.I see your reasoning why certain templates shouldnt be locked, but I do think we should lock the templates that will never or very rarely change that are used across many pages. For instance like the image and the template, I dont see this ever changing in the future, so it could be easily protected. Templates like TOCright probably shouldnt be locked till we decide how they should be (I'd advocate the use of the div instead of table). However, on the same issue, if we ever move to arenanet's servers you can bet your life that some really bad forms of vandalism might show up. But on the flip side we would have more admins floating around. And if skuld gets admin that would aleviate some of our administrative woes.


 * Bottom line is, the only reason I am bringing this up, is because we do not really have a policy on GuildWiki over sigs. I think we should. At first we can make it very liberal and just list the most obvious things (how to make and properly use custom signatures, use of the unsigned template, image size restrictions etc). This would be much better than having the unsigned template point to wikipedia which, obviously, does not share the same 'rules' as here.


 * And I agree, this is not a pressing issue, but a recent issue that is bothering me a little bit. --Draygo Korvan 15:38, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * There are only 2 reasons I use transclusion for my sig.


 * 1) The raw signature code is long and fancy and not important to other ppl, so they would've been simply making the talk page harder to follow in edit mode.
 * 2) My signature contain links that aren't directly to my user page or talk page.  If I ever change those links, old signatures without subst will become broken links (or at least broken Anchors), which means a crusade needs to be done over tons of pages for something as trivial as a change in my sig.
 * I'm not discussing whether I support Draygo Korvan's ideas or not. I am just explaining my original motivation for doing what I did. - 12:48, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm fine with that really. Even though I would prefer it not be done (I honestly think when you sign something, in real life or on wikipidea the signature should be unchangeable, a permanent mark). (You can use redirects to solve #2). However, because Guildwiki policy (obviously) isnt the same as wikipidea in respect to signatures, I think we need to create our own policy page on this issue. And to #1, I dont think your signature is too long in edit mode. In addition, if we were following wikipedia's policy, only links to your user page and talk pages would be allowed. --Draygo Korvan 13:01, 6 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not a big fan of transclusions for sigs. I would rather see a semi-permanent sig used that left an edit trail in the article/discussion page if it were ever changed.
 * As for other concerns about transclusions; the server load is relatively minor, although I could see where it could be a potential issue if it ever came into wide-scale usage. But even then, it's just on discussion pages which don't get nearly the traffic of articles, so it's not stressing me at all. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:21, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

noinclude?
Can someone tell me what the noinclude tag is for on each skill page? If we are moving all the skills into Template:Skill, why not just call that instead? Sincerely, Confused. - Jack  20:38, 6 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It's legacy code. If a skill article is already calling its same-named template, then you can get rid of the noinclude tag. - 22:17, 6 June 2006 (CDT)

Guru featured template
Would a template and category listing pages featured on guru be useful? &mdash; Skuld  09:38, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

running guides?
Can we make some running guides for all runs and mission runs?.. I know we have the W/any Sanctum Cay Runner and W/Mo Bold Forge Runner but i think we need some more.--WichmanN 03:31, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think we should add running guides for every possible area and outpost. We have the most important ones allready, Drok's and Sanctum. As a runner I can say: Guides don't help you much, it's experience that you need. You can find all maps from the wiki and the basic running builds. Now you just need to go out and try it out for yourself. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 03:57, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think Gem's being just a tiiinie bit protective of his income source. I can't see any problem with having more running guides. If you like, you could start adding some more guides and possibly an index page with red links. That will get the ball rolling for sure, but you'll likely need to be prepared to put some effort into it yourself. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 05:35, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * There are also running guides for all desert places in the Category:Guides. If you want some more, go ahead and create them =) --Xeeron 06:50, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Not overly protective. Cheap runners just aren't a threat to me as I have a well established and too rich customer base. I just don't think its wort it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 07:08, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'll gladly correct information on any running guides created, but I will not put my time to creating them. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 07:10, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Well then I will give it a try.--WichmanN 08:02, 14 June 2006 (CDT)