GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting

/Archive

Icons
I am strongly in favor of expanding the use of icons throughout this wiki. Icons are the best way to display information at a glance. Like I said in some other talk: You can't overdose icons. This goes for profession icons as well as icons for items and skills.

To allow for easier use of icons I have done two things for the start:
 * 1) I suggest a very simple template that allows for very quick and easy insert of profession icons: will display as a warrior icon:
 * 2) I suggest a more general template for icons, that displays the icon of an article next to the link. will display as: . For this to work we would have to stick to a certain naming convention for icon files. See Template talk:Icon.

What do you think? --Tetris L 03:46, 15 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Icons are cool. The shortcuts for the profession icons would be a GREAT plus.. I suggest something intuitive though, like so that editing contributors can recognize what that is.


 * As I mentioned in the Template talk, I find no difference between the Template:Icon and the actual format used right now. I also think talking away the user's ability to SCALE the image (by placing it in the template) is a bad thing. --Karlos 08:43, 15 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * For the profession icons I would want the minimum amount of code. And I think the code is pretty intuitive if we use the official acronyms (W for Warrior, Mo for Monk, etc). If a contributor sees the code and sees the result he should get the idea very quickly.


 * The use of the icon template is questionable, indeed. My original idea was to simplify the code a lot, but that would only have worked if all icon files were following the name convention. But most of them don't. Plus, there is the problem about the apostroph. This "breaks" the code of the template. If we have to type the file name in the template too, then we might as well forget about the template and type the full code instead. It isn't much longer. And it allows to scale the icon. --Tetris L 19:00, 15 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I'm not going to argue over 4 letters. Suffice to say, I am the kind of programmer who prefers
 * FunctionThatDoesGreatThings(GreatIdea, GreatThingDesired, PointerToGreatObject)
 * over func(a,b,c). If you get my drift. --Karlos 20:24, 15 Oct 2005 (EST)

Should we have a unified ordering of attributes throughout the wiki?
Right now we have a unified ordering of Professions (W,R,Mo,N,Me,E). I'm wondering if we should also have a unified ordering for attributes? Currently for different pages that list the attributes, each page seems to adapt a different order.

I personally favor putting the primary attribute of the profession first, and list the others in alphabetical order. Because this is the order I prefer, the Unique Items Quick Reference article also adapts this order currently.

The Guild Wars official website online manual also puts the primary attribute first on the page that lists attributes: [], though the ordering of the rest of the attributes (as well as the ordering of professions) is rather arbitary. Currently the 6 professions articles also list their primary attribute first, though what comes after also seems arbitary (some alphabetical, some not, sometimes in same way as online manual).

I can think of two other alternatives for ordering. One is by full alphabetical order. The fact that the primary attribute for my character isn't at the top always frustrate me about the skills window and the hero window in the game though. I'm not sure how other people feel. Most lists dealing with skills currently use full alphabetical order, with one noticed exception of Elite Mesmer Skill Locations, which doesn't seem to follow a specific ordering.

The last way to order is how the Heros window order attribute. It seems to be rather arbiturary, but then the Profession ordering GuildWiki currently adapt from the ingame menu also is pretty arbitary.
 * Mesmer: Fast Casting, Illusion Magic, Domination Magic, Inspiration Magic
 * Necro: Blood Magic, Death Magic, Soul Reaping, Curses
 * Elementalis: Air Magic, Earth Magic, Fire Magic, Water Magic, Energy Storage
 * Monk: Healing Prayers, Smiting Prayers, Protection Prayers, Divine Favor
 * Warrior: Strength, Axe Mastery, Hammer Mastery, Swordmanship, Tatics
 * Ranger: Beast Mastery, Expertise, Wilderness Survival, Marksmanship

The reason I prefer Primary first followed by alphabetical, instead of full alphabetical, might be related to the fact that I have most experience playing a mesmer and a monk. For both of these professions, the primary attribute is mostly a passive ability with much fewer skills associated with them. Not to imply they are less important because of fewer skills. Conversly, the skills in the primary lines are often very utilitarian and flexible for different builds. Thus the primary attributes stand out even if they weren't marked as primary. I always kept points invested in them. Sometimes I do have some skills from the attributes, but they are for the most part, transcended above changes in my build. I might change my mesmer build from Domination to Illusion, or half-Dom half-Inspiration. I might change my monk from healer to protection or prot/smite. But Fast Casting and Divine Favor remain, even when I'm swap Divine Boon or Blessed Signet out.

Not sure if the above explained to you why I felt Primary attribute should be listed before the others, or merely convinced you that I'm a biased stubborn fool. Anyways, if we should standardize attribute ordering, I vote Primary first, followed by alphabetical order, and finally non-linked. Always group by profession. --PanSola 13:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please stop floating TOCs to the right!
Guys, I understand that, on some pages, on some browsers, a right-floated TOC looks nice. However, If somebody wants to float the TOC, they can do so on their user CSS page (I'm doing this now: User:Tanaric/monobook.css). Shoving stylistic information into our pages adds needless complication. Forcing the right-float mucks up things for some people. It's confusing to browse on pages and have to find the table of contents each time. Finally, whether the right-float is better or not is a personal opinion, and forcing it on everybody isn't the thing to do.

If the consensus is with me, I'll start reverting right-floated TOCs as I find them. &mdash;Tanaric 23:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If we're going to do this, then I request that each page starts with a section (for the text part at least). That way we don't get pages with a half dozen lines of text and then a TOC, then the rest of the article.  See Academy training quests for an example of what I'm talking about.  A Table of Contents should be at the top of the article.  Or we could just get rid of the altogether.  --Rainith 23:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I right float TOCs because I saw other ppl doing it, so just assumed it's the "right" thing to be doing. I agree with Rainith though.  Having the TOC buried at an unknown location vertically is worse than looking for it at the top of the page not knowing if it's gonna show up on the right or left. -PanSola 00:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As an addition, I don't care if we have them on the right or left or none at all. I've stated before that for things with a box on the right side (Bestiary entries, Items, Skills, etc...), a TOC looks bad on the right.  In those situations I don't like it on the right.  Other pages I have no problem with it being on the right.
 * If you can't find it when it's on the right... just how big is your monitor? Or how high do you have the resolution set at?  I run at 1280x1024 at home and have no problems finding the TOCs on the right or left.  --Rainith 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Marking Chapter Two Articles and Categories
How should we mark articles and categories that are related to Chapter Two (Guild Wars: Factions)? I think we need a standard suffix that we use throughout this wiki. Otherwise, with more and more info about Factions coming out over the next few weeks we will have a big mess very soon.

For example, the category that lists all chapter two monk skills?
 * Category:Monk Skills (Chapter Two)
 * Category:Monk Skills (Ch2)
 * Category:Monk Skills (Factions)
 * ... other?

Thoughts? --Fisherman's Friend 04:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just Category:Monk Skills Category:Chapter 2, use 2 cats.

-PanSola 04:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Am I alone in not wanting the wiki cluttered up with press releases and maybe-probably information? Chapter 2 is exciting, no lie, but we don't actually know anything about it yet; not til stuff has gone gold, is in the game, and has survived launch patching. =p I'd like someone to give me an idea about why it's necessary. The best rationale I can come up with so far is, "Users will add stuff in anyway, and then we'll just have to remove it, if it's not there first." Which.. has some merit, but is pretty weak, really. Be nice to hear someone else say it, make a case for it.
 * Assuming there's proper reason for it all.. Pan's idea sounds fine to me; it's how we usually divide up info anyhow. --Nunix 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also information the user wants. This is why we limit it to information, not forums and not speculation, just the information that is known about this aspect of the game. First of all, I think it is well within the definition of the wiki (all things GW), and it is something that the user will likely want to know about. It makes little sense for us to ignore the one thing that all GW players are talking about. I would actually rather the user got the clear info from us that force him to wade through dozens of threads that are filled with hearsay.
 * You do raise an important point. This is content that is NOT in-game, something that we should note, clearly, some how. --Karlos 04:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I think it makes sense that we start adding the Chapter Two stuff now. Even more, I think it is necesary. Our users seek for the information, and I don't see a problem with adding info that is officially confirmed by ANet. Very soon we'll have a BWE for Chapter Two (so that IS "in-game" info for me), and there will be tons of info to be added. So we might as well start laying out the basic structure of how we want to handle Chapter Two stuff now, to give us a head-start.
 * Separating Ch1 stuff from Ch2 stuff is best done by a suffix. We have to decide on the suffix. "Chapter Two" is fine for me, but we might as well use "Factions" or an abbreviation of either of the two.
 * More specifically, the problem with categories is that if we dump anything that is related to Chapter Two into Category:Chapter Two then we'll have a big mess. There would be no category listing the Chapter Two monk skills. Category:Chapter Two would list everything, not just Monk Skills. And Category:Monk Skills would list all the monk skills, with no separation between Chapter One and Two, which would lead to a lot of confusion. --Fisherman's Friend 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, I want to point out that the PvP weekend is more of a WPE, not a {[BWE]] (still, we should just call it what Anet calls it, the Global Free-for-all PvP Weekend (GFPW if you want to appreviate, or maybe just PvP Weekend for short).
 * I guess the point for sub-cats within Ch2 stuff is valid. I change my support to Category:Professions (Ch2).  For skills, IF players who didn't buy chapter 2 also gain access to the 25 new skills per profession, then those skills should NOT be marked Ch2.  They are just in an update that came out the same time as Chapter 2's release.  Only stuff that is exclusively available to players who purchased ch2 should be marked as such. -PanSola 05:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether the 25 new Ch2 skills will be available for Ch1 players we just don't know for sure yet. In this special case I doubt it, but it may be. In any case, it is more than likely that some things will turn out differently for the final release than we foresee them now. It is likely that we will have to shuffle the Ch2 stuff around quite a bit, rename, move or delete articles that were created premature or preliminary. But that shouldn't stop us from going ahead. We gotta start somewhere. --Fisherman's Friend 07:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as articles themselves go: in general, the titles should not indicate whether it refers to info only in chapter two or only in chapter one. It would result in too big of a separation of information.  For example, the Monk Skills Quick Reference should include both ch1 and ch2 skills, with skills exclusive to either chapter being mentioned within the article.


 * As far as categorization of skills goes, they should *all* have Category:Monk Skills on them, but the ones specific to chapter two could additionally have a Category:Monk skills (CH2 only) or some such. My point is, whichever way we go, please don't break our existing categorization schemes while doing so. :)


 * Gah, all those categories and articles need a good application of the case crusade. :( &mdash;Tanaric 14:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Check this out: http://forums.gwonline.net/showpost.php?p=3857797&postcount=59
 * In summary, there will be Core Monk skills, Ch1 only Monk skills, and (probably) Ch2 only Monk skills. Since the 25 new skills for each profession contain 15 elites each (mentioned elsewhere), it is a VERY good bet that the ch1 elites won't be available to ppl who only purchase Ch2.  When Ch2 is released and that is confirmed, I am inclined to break Category:Monk Skills into three sub-categories.  I agree that article titles themselves should not refer to ch1 or 2.  I don't care what is done with the Monk Skills Quick Reference. -PanSola 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So you're going to buy 2 copies of Factions and use one copy to solely see what skills ch2 characters don't get from ch1? :P  --Rainith 17:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was rather counting the manual to cover that ~_~""" -PanSola 17:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not break up the existing categories, as they continue to serve a purpose. All monk skills should be in Category:Monk Skills.  Skills restricted to Ch1 should also be in Category:Monk Skills (Ch1).  Skills restricted to Ch2 should also be in Category:Monk Skills (Ch2). &mdash;Tanaric 17:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Going back to marking Ch2 content. I am against marking it in the article name (i.e. Skills (Ch2)). It makes for uglier links. I do however believe that in an articles that references skills from both chapters, an asterisk or some other symbol should be used to point out skills that are NOT available in one or the other (most likely Ch2 skills in Ch1).
 * I believe we need not invest much effort into this. I am thinking that soon enough Ch2 content will become pretty mainstream.. Just like the SF update, we do not assume that someone out there has refused to reboot their game and still does not have Deldrimor War Camp on their game map. :) (This is different I know.) --Karlos 18:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * that difference is SO great I think effort *should* be invested... d-: -PanSola 18:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone EVER mentioned marking ch2 in article names like Skills (Ch2). So I'm quite confused when at least two people stand up to say they are against something that no one proposed in the first place (by the way, I'm also against, but its moot when no one proposed it). On the other hand, there are category names which are proposed to be marked ch2, such as Category:Monk Skills (Ch2). This is a different issue, and I wonder if people have anything intrinsically against it (aside from the fact that it changes our current category tree structure). -PanSola 18:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "I don't think anyone EVER mentioned marking ch2 in article names like Skills (Ch2)." <- I did. :p (Well, I may not have said it explicitely, but I had it in mind.) I agree with Karlos that it makes for uglier links, but I can see many articles that are already very long with only the Chapter One content (e.g. Locations), and Chapter Two will add roughly 50% on top of it. So I think it is perfectly justified to separate the articles for Chapter One and Two. In such case I think we should keep the Chapter One article with the old name (otherwise we'll have to move around countless articles) and add some kind of suffix to the Ch2 articles. And we should do this in such a way to allow people to use the short link syntax ( Fort Ranik (Location) being displayed as Fort Ranik. And the suffix should be short and standardized for easy use. --Fisherman's Friend 00:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We have to think about the future, there will be chapters 3,4 and 5 after chapter 2. So an asterisk will not do, we need something that can be extended to future chapters. My proposal is to keep all content in one article whenever possible. If that is not possible AND to distinguish inside of the article, we should use (example with weapons):
 * Long sword (Core) - for core items
 * Long sword (Ch1) - only in case there be any items that are in Ch1 and NOT in core items
 * Long sword (Ch2) - for factions
 * Long sword (Ch3) - for the next extension
 * and so on

Of course if Long sword only appears in one chapter, it does not need a suffix.

Where do I get core from? This Interview: "... The original 6 classes will now be referred to as "core" classes and will be present in Factions and all future retail releases. Each release will also sport two new professions only available to players who own those expansions ... " --Xeeron 08:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ii think for category the above system is fine. I don't think any article will get so large as to need to be broken down by chapter.  If/when we have articles that have grown overly huge due to each chapter adding different thing to that one article, it would probably be a special case exception and not be the rule.  And thus, as a rule, I think it sufficient to distinguish chapters/core using categories and not article namees.  When exceptions occure, we will deal with them individually on ther talk pages. -PanSola 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure we'll have articles that need the chapter suffix too. Storyline being a good example. -- 05:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand from reading, the suffix debate pertains more to categories than to articles themselves, with a few exceptions (i.e. as mentioned, Locations would probably need a suffix or some form of title identification as to which expansion; or Xeeron's Long Sword example, etc.). New content that is exclusive to Chapter 2 (or exclusive to any expansion) will not have a suffix. So for example, an exclusive Chapter 2 skill like Awesome Healing Power would not have a suffix, but within the article it would be mentioned that it's a Chapter 2-only skill. When it comes to categories, however, it is being proposed that exclusive content be categorized with a (Ch2) suffix, i.e. Category:Monk Skills (Ch2). If that is the case, it sounds fine with me. Please clarify and then I shall make a vote. --TheSpectator 06:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Only Chapter 2-exclusive skills would be categorized there. So Awesome Healing Power would be categorized under both Category:Monk Skills and Category:Monk Skills (Ch2).
 * If Orison of Healing were in both Chapter 1 and 2 (thus being a core skill), it'd just stay under Category:Monk Skills.
 * But if Heal Other were a Chapter 1-exclusive skill, we'd have to create a new (sub)category Category:Monk Skills (Ch1), as well as placing it the main Category:Monk Skills.

Vote for the suffix
In the discussion above, (Ch2) seems to be the preferred suffix for most of those who replied. But this is an important question that will have a big impact in future, so we should vote about it before we start using it throughout the wiki. -- 05:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote Results
 * (Ch2): Tetris L, PanSola, Barek, Lunarbunny, Rainith, Karlos, TheSpectator, Xeeron
 * (Chapter 2):
 * (Chapter Two):
 * (Factions):
 * other (specify): Cn (C1, C2, C... --Nunix)

I vote for (Ch2) myself. -- 05:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto (Ch2), short and to the point, and unless we start having channels with numbers, shouldn't get confused with anything. d-: -PanSola 06:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My preference would be title specific, so (GW), and (GW-Factions) so far. But, my second choice would be for the abbreviated Ch2, Ch3, etc.  --Barek 10:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * One advantage of numbered suffixes (Ch1, Ch2, ...) over title specific suffixes is automatic sorting in the correct order, for example in categories. -- 10:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Automatic sorting is enough to convince me. I change my vote, the (Ch2) suffix has moved up from my second choice to be my first choice.  --Barek 10:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote for Ch2. Simple, easy to use, clear enough, and what TL said. &mdash; Lunarbunny 10:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing to see here, move along, just putting people's votes where I believe they want them (but since I can't even read a bloody press release correctly, you might want to double check to make sure I read your comments correctly). --Rainith 11:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What the hell? Case one: tacking on suffix to every damned expansion article is being advocated, and so Nunix is blisteringly irate at ugly and unnecessary article naming, because it's why we use categories and subcategories, godsdammit. Case two: "be prepared" is the motto, for the RARE, CASE-BY-CASE BASIS where two or more articles with the same name have content so wildly divergent between chapters that they warrant seperation, and so Nunix thinks Cn is better since the only point for the suffix is so the database distinguishes. Which is it? =D --Nunix 04:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (hint: case two. humour him. no one seems to be able to make a point without three pages of text, and the thread gets lost)

Using the Suffix
While Ch2 seems well on its way to a resounding victory, I do agree with Nunix that we should use it carefully. Basically, if the Ch2 content is a continuation of Ch1 content, then we should have no suffix what so ever. For example, if Ch2 expands upon Ranger skills, we should not have Ranger and Ranger (Ch2), instead, the Ranger article should have a section about Ch2 specific content. On the other hand, if an item is redesigned/redefined in Ch2, then we should maintain separate articles like Item and Item (Ch2). Anyone disagreeing with that? --Karlos 19:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly can't think of a single case where such a suffix will be worthwhile. &mdash;Tanaric 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is 62 kilobytes long
That is worth breaking into TWO archives o_O"""

Can someone who is more familiar with Style and formatting do the archving? Moving any concluded decisions to the "project page"? -PanSola 18:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)