Talk:Main Page/editcopy/Archive 4

'''This talk page should be used to discuss thing directly relevant to the Main Page or the edit copy. For discussions regarding GuildWiki in general, please use GuildWiki Talk:Community Portal.''' If you have any questions that aren't relevant to a specific talk page, head over to User questions and add it.

Giving "Builds" an own heading
At this time, the "Builds" hub page has been accessed over 1 million times! That makes it third most accessed page in its category, right after Armor types and Elite skills list. I think it's time to take out the Builds link of the "Professions" heading and give it an own heading. This is my suggestion:


 * Builds – Character and team configurations.
 * Tested builds – The communitites' builds of choice.

Should I put it on the editcopy? ~ Nilles (chat) 11:58, 26 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Indifferent. In my mind, the builds page already serves as a good "portal" for builds, so there is less need for linkage on the main page, as long as that page is linked. --Xeeron 12:15, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the main page should only have a link to the Builds, as that page is really the main builds portal. But, I do agree that Builds should be a main level link (not a sub of Professions, etc).  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:18, 26 September 2006 (CDT)

Note: The way the "Builds" link is right now, it doesn't work. It is currently formatted as follows:


 * Builds...

while it should be,


 * Builds...

Just my two cents. It took me a little while to actually find the Builds page because of this. --- Jlschleigh 17:21, 2 November 2006 (CST)
 * Lets keep all this in one place. I've already replied to your duplicate post at Talk:Main_Page/editcopy. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:15, 3 November 2006 (CST)

Main page drafts
Out of boredom more than anything else, I've been playing with this some more lately. To be honest, the idea of adding quick access links has started to grow on me some, so I tried some modifications to make the mixed styles a little less jarring, as well as adding section headers similar to my user page (which were directly inspired by Wikipedia's main page). I'm not saying that either of these should be used; just tossing out a mix of different ideas for consideration - maybe some will stick, maybe they wont. But it can be used to start a discussion to see if anyone likes either the section header style changes, or the quick access links on the MP (which in an earlier version were not supported, so I'm not expecting a huge change on that - just tossing it out there). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * User:Barek/Main Page (rejected by most)
 * User:Barek/Main Page2 (rejected by most)
 * User:Barek/Main Page3 (added to show section header boxes without the QA)
 * I admit, they both do look nice. However, I'm not sure how the quick links should be handled and how we avoid that users miss them because they were too blind to scroll down. Good job though. We should pursue the idea. :) ~ Nilles (chat) 18:37, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I never actually use the main page... but I don't think it's possible to make those tables look good without a major overhaul. If something's got to be on the main page, I'd prefer a single, if prominent, link to the existing QA page.  Besides the QA stuff, I like the "boxed" headings but I really dislike the colors compared to the current main page.  --Fyren 18:48, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree on the colors, especially the green is too bright - but those can be tweaked. To be honest, my main motivation on these drafts was to discuss the change in section headers - the QA stuff was more of a tag-along.  I originally preferred them on their own page, and while the idea of them or something similar on the main page is seeming more reasonable to me now, it's not the main reason for the drafts.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:56, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * We have been trying to fit those in on the main page when we designed them, but gave up. I love the quick links, but a main page should not be bigger than one computer screen. I do however love the boxes around the titles of each section! -- Ifer (t/c) 19:01, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I like your second example, I seriously think it is much more functional than the current main page. This would bring the information I use more often one click away from the main page (one click closer to me). Me likes! --Theeth (talk)   19:28, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

I added draft 3 (above) - it also uses the section header boxes, but drops the quick access links, which should be treated as their own issue anyway. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 3 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I like it :) I think we can make this third edit the new main page. It's all new and stylish :) -- Ifer (t/c) 02:49, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I do prefer this design to the current design. I like draft 2, but I feel as though the QA links take up too much space. Is there any way we could cut this down to only the most popular information on the main page, and include a "more" link to take people to the QA article? Or perhaps even some JavaScript to hide certain columns unless you press a button (like Fyren's build javascript idea)?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:58, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

"a main page should not be bigger than one computer screen" 100% agreement here, the quick links mess up the main page, making it long and confusing. I could live with the section headers if the colors are doned down, but a definite no to proposals 1&2. --Xeeron 05:07, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * One computer screen is an unspecific measurement. Do you mean 1 screen at 800x600? Or higher?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:25, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I know we're not Wikipedia, but their main page is 4 pages long if one page is 1024x768. Our main page is currently 2.5 pages long at 1024x768.


 * I'm not opposed to the main page being longer than 1 page, provided the most important and most likely needed sections are linked to at the top of the page.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:28, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * One screen at the current standard. Someone posted that some months ago, but I remember 800x600 only being in use by very few percent of users, so the standard would be 1024 or 1280. And I dislike the long main page of english wikipedia. The wikipedia.org portal is much better. Or take a look at the page of the most successful internet company ever: http://www.google.com/
 * There is a reason it is so popular: Simple, non-confusing, small. --Xeeron 06:43, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree in principle, but I think our goal and Google's search engine's goal are different. When you go to google.com you are going for only one thing, to search. Google has a few links to subdomains etc. for it's other services. In our case we offer all our services on the main page, and we don't know what the user is going to want. I can appreciate the argument for a simpler main page, but I'm not sure I agree with it in practice. Equally though, I think the success of google has more to do with investing in search engine technology when its competitors were investing in portals than it does its user interface, although I don't doubt that it was a contributing factor :)


 * If we could get some usage statistics regarding the way in which people use the main page that might affect my opinion one way or the other.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:51, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, it could've easilly been me that said Main Pages should ideally be one page or less. I know that I said something along those lines near the start of the year, although it may have been someone else who said it more recently that you're thinking of here.  However, the Main Page again grew beyond one page even on a 1024x768 many months ago.  It's even slightly longer than one page on a 1280x1024, so I've given up on encouraging the smaller Main Page like I once did.  Also, just an FYI on the background: When the QAs on the main page were originally discussed, I had done a half-arsed job of doing a mock-up of them because I really wasn't in favor of them at the time.  Now that a more evolved version is also being rejected by most, I feel better that the idea died on its merits rather than due to a lack of effort on my part.
 * For those who do like them on the Main Page; the only two options I see would be to either create a Java option to expand them (still a click, but faster than a regular link); or convince the community to make the Main Page modular so that the content could be shared between more than one page - I believe a css setting could then be created to redirect those who want it to the alternate version. The downside of course is that modular content would require more effort to maintain with limited benefit to most users, so I wouldn't expect a lot of acceptance for that option unless other benefits could be seen.
 * That just leaves the section headers. Personally, I like them - although the colors used could benefit from some experimentation.  I like the darker borders, but the headers seem to much to me.  I'll experiment with some other color combinations later today, to see if any work better. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:01, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Java on the main page.. we could leave the top three and the bottom cells, make the fourth and fifth expandable, and add the quick access links as expandable cells.. I would like that- fitting everything on the main page while still keeping it within viewing size :) -- Ifer (t/c) 11:38, 4 October 2006 (CDT)

Spelling
'Speciality' is spelt wrong on the main page. Ben (Orison Lightfoot ingame)


 * Actually, specialty is the american spelling, and speciality is the british spelling. We use american english here on GuildWiki, because the game is in american english. Thanks for keeping an eye open though, and you're welcome to make the change yourself(We will correct it if you add something bad- that's wiki power!) -- Ifer (t/c) 11:55, 16 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Use either AFAIK, if one is one one way, it shouldn't be changed to the other &mdash; Skuld 11:58, 16 October 2006 (CDT)

Inscriptions
Ok I see the history move now (thought I didn't save or something) but traditional weapon modifiers and inscriptions seemed to be two different things and I didn't think it hurt to separate it out. However if it gets removed again I won't put it back! More to the point already split out are Weapon upgrades and modifiers – Innate powers of your weapon. Inscriptions are arguably more like Runes than either of these and not innate. Anyways whatever the crew decides, I could see users having a hard time finding it. --CKaz 16:54, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

Re-sync?
A re-sync is in order, as well as another one tomorrow, after the Halloween Event will end... PS: Anyone thought about Archiving this talk page? &mdash; Poki#3 09:53, 31 October 2006 (CST)
 * Feel free to archive some of the older sections - anyone is free to do so.
 * I re-synced most of the changes onto the Main Page. I didn't move everything:
 * The Halloween notice seemed a little silly to post at this point, as the event is nearly over (less than 12 hours left)
 * The Inscription article has an unresolved move request - so I decided to wait on that resolution before moving it over.
 * The revised section headers don't have any current comments on the talk page, so I left them for now.
 * If I missed any other changes, I appologise. re-propose them on the editcopy, and discuss on the talk page if you feel strongly one-way-or-the-other about them moving over. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:07, 31 October 2006 (CST)
 * I never, ever achieved a page, so I would prefer to leave important pages, such as this to the pros, and experiment on less important things, like my User page ^^;; Anyway thanks for moving some things over. Someone should really monitor this place more often... &mdash; Poki#3 [[Image:Poki.jpg|20px|My Talk Page :o]] 18:34, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Builds Revisited
I added a note to an earlier comment regarding Builds having its own category. I would make the edit on the Edit/Copy page, but there is not an editable section heading for the section where I would like to make the change. Clarifying what I put in my note earlier, the link to the Builds page is incorrect and results in a database error. The current code is,


 * Builds – Character and team configurations.

The code should be (at least the link that works for me is),


 * Builds – Character and team configurations.

I'm repeating this here because I'm new to this editing thing, and I didn't know if you ever re-read previous discussions. Jlschleigh 14:30, 3 November 2006 (CST)
 * The link to Build:Main Page via Builds is a correct working link that takes the user to the main page of the Builds portal. The Builds link will also work, but it is merely a redirect page that still takes the user to Build:Main Page.  It's easy to see that these are legitimate links in my post, as they show as blue links.  If the links were broken, they would be red. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:29, 3 November 2006 (CST)
 * Thank you for checking. I can't seem to repeat the error, now, but yesterday I tried about 4 or 5 times and got the same database access error.  I will certainly let you know what that error is if I come across it again. Jlschleigh 19:30, 3 November 2006 (CST)

Link to Mirror on main page?
I'd like to suggest linking to the read-only Mirror that ErkDog has set up in the 'site notice' at the top of the main page. Currently the site notice reads:

'''GuildWiki is experiencing a lot of slowness – The site is getting a lot of hits with the release of Nightfall. Bear with us!'''

I'd suggest changing it to:

'''GuildWiki is experiencing a lot of slowness – The site is getting a lot of hits with the release of Nightfall. A read-only mirror is available here (note that the mirror is incomplete, but is currently faster).'''

Now, I realize I could just change it, but as it may be a sensitive subject, and it would be on the main page, I'd like to get opinions first. Comments? --Rainith 19:38, 6 November 2006 (CST)

Insignia, not Insignias
Insignia is already plural (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insignia). So there's no need to call them Insignias on the Main Page (or anywhere else).


 * Dictionary.com says insignias is fine. I'm happy with either.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:22, 7 November 2006 (CST)
 * As "Insignia" is the plural of the latin root "insigne", which is rarely used in english writing, I tend to lean towards the use of Insignia (singular) / Insignias (plural) for english, as mentioned at Dictionary.com. I could accept either; but I prefer insignias for plural. --- [[User:Barek|Barek] (talk • contribs) - 11:52, 7 November 2006 (CST)
 * Guild Wars uses "Insignias" as the plural form. As both are correct, I would also recommend "Insignias".--Ender A 06:58, 16 November 2006 (CST)