GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting

When to Link
I've noticed a lot of irregularity of when people are linking within articles to other articles and when they are not. The style suggested is the first reference only. It's not much of an issue, but is there a way to opt to auto-dereference non-first links? --Fyren 21:36, 30 Jun 2005 (EST)

I don't believe there's a preference for it, but I do believe a script could easily be written to go through the site and fix any articles not conforming with that style. &mdash;Tanaric 21:41, 1 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Second paragraph of Style and formatting. --Fyren 22:08, 1 Jul 2005 (EST)

Content Organization Meeting
I think we should find a time to all get together and spend an hour or so in TS going over our wiki structure. With the additional content and accompanying paradigm difference from the other wiki, I think it would be a good idea. I'd personally like to talk about developing standards and priorities. Adam
 * Yeah, this is a really good idea. TS would be fine by me, or IRC, or anything really :) would be good to sort things out! My Guild's IRC channel is #ltd-gw on irc.quakenet.org, #ltd-gw. My bouncer is always connected, but sometimes I'm not there. If my name is BAXTER then I'm offline, if it's baxter then I am online. If I'm offline the people in there are usually pleasant ;) LordBiro.
 * I'd love to participate as well. The earliest I can do so would be Sunday (international flights and the accompanying lack of sleep will keep me out until then).
 * &mdash;Tanaric 20:23, 20 May 2005 (EST)

This should be sorted out! Like, soon! I think the most important project right now, before this thing gets any bigger, is completing all the Style & Formatting sections, and making at least one article for each of those (preferrably more, if you're cleaning up old format). Nunix 16:22, 20 Jun 2005 (EST)

Plurality of Item Names
I noticed that the articles for items have pluralized names. Is there a reason behind it? I tend to use the singular form, because then I can type Stone Summit Badge or Stone Summit Badges and both work. The current form requires Stone Summit Badge to get the singular form, and I'm lazy. --Tanaric 20:56, 20 May 2005 (EST)
 * I think Tanaric has a good point. And I'd rather address the issue now (in the formative stages of the wiki, while we're still setting standards) rather than after much more content is added.  Any content pages we rename will have redirects created for them as well, so the migration should be fairly painless.  What's important, though, is that we're all on the same page. Adam
 * I don't know where but I'm sure someone spoke about using plural forms (it could well have been me, i really can't remember, lol :P). I think if we stick to plurals we can just use redirects on the singular pages. - LordBiro 02:33, 21 May 2005 (EST)
 * I've been thinking about this and had a bit of a u-turn, I think it will really be best to use exactly the same name as any singular item in the game. This means most things would be singular, but some things such as 'Bones', 'Scales' and 'Shells' would remain in plural form, because that's how the game refers to them... Does that make sense...? - LordBiro/Talk 22:09, 21 May 2005 (EST)
 * I agree, except for the Bones and Scales bit. If you manage to acquire only a single Bone or Scale, they are in fact referred to as singular.
 * &mdash;Tanaric 02:57, 22 May 2005 (EST)
 * I'm still not sure on this one. I'm still leaning towards singular. Mainly because this is how a proper encyclopedia or reference book would do it. Gravewit 03:07, 22 May 2005 (EST)
 * I don't mind either way with item names, I had been using plural, but that is no big deal, as long as plural redirects to singular or singular redirects to plural then they can both be used.
 * It looks like singular is winning. Are there any good arguments for plurality, or should singular become policy?
 * &mdash;Tanaric 05:17, 22 May 2005 (EST)

I've migrated all items in Category:Collector Items to be singular. Adam

Number Ranges
What should the format for number ranges be?

I've been using (#...#) for a single number that varies (for example, the minimum damage of a sword). I've been using #–# for a range. Thus, weapons' damage all look like this: (MinMinDamage...MaxMinDamage)–(MinMaxDamage...MaxMaxDamage). This fits with the in-game notation for skills with damage based on skills. Any thoughts? &mdash;Tanaric 23:01, 20 May 2005 (EST)
 * Tanaric, I'm not sure if the use of the notation "(1...3)-(8...12)" is very elegant... I see why you are doing it and it does make sense; we do use the notation (X-Y) to describe the amount of damage done by skills, but I dont think your suggestion is very intuitive. Perhaps a better way would be to simply say:


 * Min Damage: (1-3)
 * Max Damage: (12-17)


 * I would feel a lot more comfortable reading that anyway.


 * I'm not even sure if this information should be documented in this way. My reasoning behind this is best explained through an example. If someone sees that the best hammer they can possibly get in guild wars does 50 damage then they will want to get that hammer. More than anything they will want to know how to get that hammer, e.g. who drops it or who sells it. If the information is displayed in using either your notation or my notation then it is not very straightforward to point the user to a place where they can find that SPECIFIC hammer.


 * Perhaps a better way of documenting this is having an article for a specific hammer, say it is the "Hammer of Biro", and then saying who drops which specific instance of that hammer, e.g. we can say "Charr Ashen Claw drops 12-20" and "Lightning Drake drops 18-30 with +20 Health" or something.


 * Sorry about the ridiculously long post!
 * -LordBiro 09:06, 21 May 2005 (EST)
 * That format looks fine to me. I didn't mean to purport that mine was best, only that it provided information unambiguously (if unelegantly).  Can't very well maintain weapon pages without a defined format. :)


 * That said, weapon drops are fairly random. The stats are completely unlinked to the name; the stats on an item seem dependent upon only the level of the enemy dropping said weapon.  I don't think there's any meaningful way of corrolating monsters to specific drops.  It might be possible to corrolate monsters to general item types (I've never seen a Charr Axe Wielder drop a Fiery Dragon Sword), but the list on each monster would be cumbersome.


 * Might be better to move this discussion to the weapon template, if one exists.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 05:28, 22 May 2005 (EST)

I like #...# for a variable range that depends on an attribute (frex, "damage of 8...20" for a Blood Magic skill) and #-# for a static range (for a weapon, i.e. this sword does 1-5 damage). I think simple additional context description can help sort out any oddities; say, the maximum possible damage range for a sword is 6-22 and -identify- that range with that description. So, uh, part of this is just to mention that we get number ranges places besides weapons. ;)

We may want to add somewhere a page or section to one of the Formatting pages saying how certian types of numbers are to be used. E.G. the heated fractions discussion that was had, the decision to use xx...yy instead of xx-yy and so on. It may be illustrative to the newer members, which is who we should be the most helpful toward. Gravewit

Since people keep getting confused over the attribute level ranges used here being 0...12 (as opposed to 0...15), I suggest displaying this information with a template that can be easily inserted wherever applicable. For example, Template:Attribute range, which currently looks like this: "Note: For values that vary by attribute level, the given ranges are based on levels 0...12.". --Rezyk 10:51, 21 October 2005 (EST)

Terminology: Ascalon (pre-sear)/(pre-searing)/(Pre-Searing)

 * I dont know how to refer to the different Ascalons, any suggestions?
 * It's referenced as any one of those all over the place. I was thinking the same thing last night. I supposed it doesn't matter to much, so long as we make it consistant. Gravewit
 * ok, i'd like to use the terms (Pre-Searing) and (Post-Searing) in uppercase if thats ok with everyone? - LordBiro
 * Good with me. Anyone else have comments? Also, note: to auto-sign talk pages it's . Gravewit
 * Yeah, that's fine. I tend to like "pre-Sear" but have no qualms conforming to the masses. And I'm pretty sure the game uses Pre-Searing and Post-Searing anyway, doesn't it? I'd have to dig for reference, though.. Nunix
 * ah right, ok gravewit :) i'll bear that in mind! -LordBiro
 * I tend to use pre-Searing and post-Searing: only the Searing part is uppercase. It's proper, grammatically.  Check out Webster's usage for "post-Darwinism–pre-Freudism" . -Tanaric 20:32, 20 May 2005 (EST)
 * As for using post-Searing or Post-Searing, I'm fairly certain the game uses upper case Pre and Post which while incorrect (according to websters at least) I think we should reflect.
 * I cannot find any instance in game of the word "pre-Searing," regardless of capitalization. If the term is in-game, make sure that it's not the first word of the sentence, or the capitalization of that word should not bear on our decision.


 * If an in-game instance of "Pre-Searing" can be found in a case where it should, grammatically, be lowercase, we should use "Pre-Searing" in all cases. If not, the grammatically correct "pre-Searing" should be used.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 05:40, 22 May 2005 (EST)

Cleaning Up Talk Page
Hey, stop editing my speaking :P lol - LordBiro/Talk

I'm trying to make this slightly more readable. Is this better? &mdash;Tanaric

Yeah, it's ok, but I wish I hadn't started using lines, its starting to get a bit... weird :) And yeah, I think the discussion about proper weapon formatting should be under GuildWiki_talk:Style and formatting:Weapons, even though it doesn't exist yet. If anyone else agrees feel free to start moving things whenever :) - LordBiro/Talk

The trouble is that, without lines, many of our comments become indistinguishable&mdash;too many of us are longwinded, and take more than a single paragraph for a comment. If our comments are more than a paragraph, the traditional method of seperating comments by paragraphs doesn't quite work. :) &mdash;Tanaric 05:44, 22 May 2005 (EST)


 * Yeah, I have to agree with that :) hehe, I don't know how else we can format talk pages though! - LordBiro/Talk 05:58, 22 May 2005 (EST)

Recursive linking
I'm rolling back the changes Tanaric made to Style and formatting. He removed a reference discouraging recursive linking, or in other words, linking to the current article from the current article. This is a formatting rule of Wikipedia, and so I think it's a good idea to include it here as well.

This was not just an addition to the content, or a minor change in meaning, this was quite a significant change in meaning, and so it should have really been discussed first. If you disagree then please explain why! :) - LordBiro/Talk 03:45, 24 May 2005 (EST)
 * I saw no need to discuss the change, as if you disagreed, you'd roll it back. That is the nature of a collaborative work.  You did roll the change back, and so now a discussion is appropriate.  If this seems wrong to you, we can start another discussion about it. :)


 * Back on topic: the purpose of a link in a wiki is to reference something which really should have an article about it. This does not take into account whether the article exists or not, or whether in fact you're writing the article in question.  It's the classic argument for CSS styling instead of HTML styling: the text of an article is content, and how that content is displayed is seperate and irrelevant.  MediaWiki takes care of displaying recursive links properly: it bolds the name instead of linking it.  However, if you manually bold something in the text, that bold is merely for display purposes, and means nothing in-context.


 * Furthermore, if the text is moved somewhere, or if it's, the recursive link makes more sense.  With the recursive link, looking at the article on its own will show bold, and looking on it from the context of another page will show a link.  Again, this is proper behavior.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 02:19, 25 May 2005 (EST)
 * Hehe, sorry if I sounded hostile in that argument! Firstly, you are indeed right, I just really wanted to justify the roll back Tanaric :) I don't want people thinking I am doing things unreasonably.


 * Your point about recursive linking is a good one. I'm not sure if it has persuded me to agree entirely, but I do concede that, since the link is handled correctly by MediaWiki, and since it produces semantically rich content, the formatting section should be changed to allow such linking in articles. To please me, could we come up with a paragraph that summarises this discussion as a means of explanation to go on the formatting page? :) - LordBiro/Talk 03:35, 25 May 2005 (EST)

Capital letters for minor words in article title
We're running across instances of broken links because of character case. For example, Signet of Capture and Signet Of Capture link to different places. What should we use as a standard?

I think that minor words like: should be lowercase, as that is how we would write them in article content. Adam
 * a
 * the
 * of
 * and


 * Adam, I think we should stick to whatever Guild Wars uses. If Guild Wars says "Signet of Capture" then we should use lowercase 'o' in 'of' as well, equally if it's uppercase we should use uppercase. I know that might result in inconsistencies, but I think it makes the most sense. Feel free to disagree ;) hehe - LordBiro/Talk 03:59, 24 May 2005 (EST)


 * I think we should write them in grammatically proper ways. This means that Adam's method is correct, with the exception that the first and last word of a title are always capitalized.  It should be noted that this won't affect the debated pre-Searing/Pre-Searing articles, because the first word in MediaWiki is always capitalized in the link, whether you type it that way or not.  &mdash;Tanaric 02:21, 25 May 2005 (EST)


 * Well it seems I am outvoted ;) It doesn't really make too much difference if Guild Wars uses the incorrect capitalisation, provided we redirect from the incorrect spelling to the correct one :) Feel free to add this to the formatting page (provided no one disagrees). - LordBiro/Talk 03:38, 25 May 2005 (EST)


 * I think both of our arguments are the same, anyway. As far as I've seen within Guild Wars, all text is grammatically correct.  If it isn't, /bug is in order. :)  &mdash;Tanaric 02:58, 26 May 2005 (EST)


 * Aye, you're both right, in that we need to follow however the game displays this information. Copy editors are useful after all! Gravewit 03:05, 26 May 2005 (EST)

Since yesterday (July 14) User:Tanaric is on a "Case Crusade" to change ALL capital letters in article names (except the very first letter and names) into lower case letters. When has this been decided?? Actually I'm strongly against this. I feel that all NOUNS in article names should begin with an upper case letter. --Tetris L 18:19, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Oops, I didn't notice the section "Article Titles in Title Case ". See my note down there. --Tetris L 18:59, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Heh, I wouldn't cause *too* much trouble without getting Biro's blessing first. I appriciate your earnest defense of the wiki's integrity, but I wish it hadn't been at the expense of my own. :) &mdash;Tanaric 23:50, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)

Region listings
So, currently the convention is to list regions as (I'll use shorthand tho): Should we keep "East Kryta" and "South Kryta" or change East to North? Is there any game material that suggests Maguuma was at one time part of Kryta empire/nation? I started the East/South thing but lately it's been bugging me.. where's west? where's north? ;p I think I initially made the break there cos.. I hadn't progressed that far and was just looking at guild-hall map. =p I still like breaking them up to some extent because of the order in which you usually explore them. Nunix
 * Pre-
 * Post-
 * N. Shiver
 * East Kryta
 * Maguuma
 * South Kryta
 * Crystal Desert
 * S. Shiver


 * Personally I think we should use Kryta and Maguuma, and forget about East and South. They are important to an extent, because they are in different 'periods' of the game. But physically the locations aren't very different; they are still patrolled by the White Mantle and besotted by Undead. I agree with the differntiation of Northern and Southern Shiverpeak Mountains, because they are two very seperate locations (south of beacon's perch is considerably more difficult that north of beacon's perch!) Also, we need another location on that list, the Fire Islands, if that's the correct name! And there might possibly be a location after that. LordBiro/Talk 02:39, 7 Jun 2005 (EST)

NPC and Bestiary
Just to clarify, someone spoke about this before (not sure where). Should NPC's be included in the bestiary? After all, Prince Rurik is an Ascalon Human, just like Yerk Plopsquirt is a Krytan Mergoyle or something... I dunno, I don't mind either way, but I noticed Nunix added a new style section for NPCs and it got me thinking :) LordBiro/Talk 09:45, 9 Jun 2005 (EST)
 * I think we should have a separate main category for NPCs and a master list. I think most people wouldn't look under "Bestiary" when they seach for a collector, skill trainer, etc. --Tetris L 20:42, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)

Historical Context
Some articles (Infusion comes to mind) refer to the behavior of certain game mechanics in previous builds. This does not seem useful to the reader. I think it should be policy to only refer to the most current build in articles. Tanaric 18:44, 16 Jun 2005 (EST)

Yeah, I agree Tanaric. Perhaps information on previous versions should be kept in the discussion section of an article, if at all. 01:11, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)

I was thinking about this exact thing yesterday night. Perhaps a Infusion/History page? I would very much like to keep the old info, for the purpose of history. How do you feel about a /History page? Gravewit 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)

Hmm. A whole page probably isn't necessary; shall we just throw it under a ==History== section at the bottom of the existing page? Either way works for me. Tanaric 01:34, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)

I considered a history section, however, thinking fourth-dimensionally, that would tend to get longer and longer to the point of uselessness to the average user as time marched onward. Gravewit 02:15, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)

I would rather see a ==History== section than a page... but only just. Equally, I've changed my mind about putting this info on the talk page. It might be best just to omit the data. The wiki is an encyclopedia of the game as it exists, not as it used to exist. If someone is really interested in finding out how an article used to look (and how something behaved before an update) they could look at the history of a page. As long as we remember to put 'Update, 20050615' when we change an article due to an update then that should, in my opinion, suffice. 06:14, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)

I agree, Biro. Thanks for providing a good argument for the point I was trying to make. :) Tanaric 19:37, 20 Jun 2005 (EST)

Article Titles in Title Case
Is there a reason all the articles are in title case? This goes against typical style on MediaWiki-based wikis, and it's a pain for linking. Obviously, skill articles and other proper names should be in title case, and, since the games does it, item names should be as well, but pages like Mobile Object really shouldn't be. &mdash;Tanaric 17:20, 14 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * You're correct Tanaric, I do often add many of my new articles in Title Case, it's an automatic reaction from me! I presume other people do the same. As far as I'm concerned you are justified in renaming (moving) any obvious offenders, and I will try to move any such offenders in future as well. I would imagine any articles in Slang & Terminology that use title case fall into the list of obvious offenders. 07:48, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I'll start working on it right away. I'll leave redirects on pages I move, for now. If I fix links to point to the correctly-cased pages, should the redirects be removed? &mdash;Tanaric 15:45, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)

Since it is a Wiki requirement that the very first letter of an article name MUST be a capital letter it kinda feels natural to me to capitalize all nouns in article names. --Tetris L 18:53, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Okay, I stand corrected. According official Wikipedia policy all subesquent words except names shall be lowercase. --Tetris L 18:57, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Oh yeah? I didn't know that; it just seemed logical from the software platform (MediaWiki) running this site.  Having all-lowercase titles make linking much more natural. I, as always, fight against making Wikipedia policy our own without careful thought, but in this case, the policy is both well-considered and applicable to GuildWiki.  &mdash;Tanaric 23:52, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)

& -> and
Since I had to move this page anyway (due to Title Case), I changed the ampersand & to the word "and." This makes the URL look much better, and makes those users so inclined to type article names directly in their address bar able to do so with these pages and not have to remember the HTTP entity for the ampersand. &mdash;Tanaric 15:56, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * This is fine by me Tanaric. 19:28, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Out of interest, have you been altering links when moving pages or have you been relying on redirects? Also, I know we can can browse through double redirects on Special:DoubleRedirects, but is there any way to find pages that link to single redirects? 19:31, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I've been as complete as possible when altering links, but I'm sure I've missed some, and I'm sure I've done some preemptively. Unfortunately, I work on the wiki at work, with IE6, and my taskbar can only hold so many spawned windows, and this is inherently a recursive process.  When the dust settles, it will be a Good Thing, but in the middle, there might be some erroneously red links, or some redirect pages that are necessary. &mdash;Tanaric 23:46, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)

Plurality of Category Names
I'm puzzled if category names should generally be in plural or singular. Currently we use a mix of both, which leads to a lot of broken links. The Wikipedia Naming Conventions aren't 100% clear on the matter either: They say categories should be singular, except if it's for a list. But isn't it the purpose of ANY category to list items in the first place??. --Tetris L 20:38, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I've always preffered Categories to use a plural name, such as Category:Weapons and Category:Locations. I did disagree with the use of Category:Enchantment etc. since it uses a singular name, but no one really agreed with me :) 22:17, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I agree with you about Enchantment needing to be plural, but I have no answer for the inherent contradiction that results with the Skill(s) categories. I'm still thinking about it. &mdash;Tanaric 23:48, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I agree that all categories should be plural. Categories are also subject to my case crusade, but since they're the most painstaking to change over, I'm saving them for last (there are only a few offending categories anyway). &mdash;Tanaric 23:48, 15 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Just for the record: I prefer plural for categories too. --Tetris L 00:02, 16 Jul 2005 (EST)

Main Page Advertising
Under Helping Out/Getting Started the formatting guides are described as "For the nitty-gritty of aesthetically pleasing comformity". This doesn't sound like a lot of fun. I think it might be a good idea to change this in order to encourage new contributors to read the formatting guides. Maybe something like: "Everything you need to make a good looking article. Recommended reading."


 * Hey, thanks for getting involved :) This is a good suggestion. I'm going to change it to those exact words, thanks very much! 10:11, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

About case
People are capitalizing links a lot for no apparent reason. As in, Rune instead of rune or Monk instead of monk. Is there a way to go through and check for this without actually looking at every article? --Fyren 08:32, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I do this myself at times... sorry!!! I try not to, because I know Tanaric will try to kill me eventually. As far as I know there is no way to find out. Monk and monk link to the same place after all. 10:35, 5 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I love you, Fyren. &mdash;Tanaric 16:47, 5 Aug 2005 (EST)

Case and Formatting (final)
Setting: Talk:The Amnoon Oasis Summary: People finally get tired of inconsistant capitalization and grammar within Guild Wars, and the ever-present argument finally comes to a head!

We don't say "I went to The White House after visiting The Parliament Building and The Louvre." In English, necessary articles before a proper noun do not become part of that proper noun. I notice that Henge of Denravi is an article, and not The Henge of Denravi, even though the "the" must exist when using the location in a sentence (ignoring the improper delete tag on THAT page... *sigh*). &mdash;Tanaric 20:02, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Gah, my example is bad, but not because I'm wrong; even though everybody should use a "the" before "Henge of Denravi," it seems that nobody but me actually does. Still, I hope my point is clear.  &mdash;Tanaric 20:42, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * While your point isn't incorrect, the issue as most of us seem to see it, is that on the game map the "The" is there, so that's what the article should be called. Martin mentioned you can just do Amnoon Oasis, so I don't think there's a problem.  --Fyren 05:45, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * /sigh. I'll defer to the will of the majority, of course, but I don't like it. Be sure to link to the Amnoon Oasis in most cases, though, as that way proper case is preserved.  MediaWiki is case-insensitive to the first letter of an article title, so this is both appropriate and useful. &mdash;Tanaric 19:41, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Wait, before I do that, I want to argue the case more. In the game, the "the" is used because the Amnoon Oasis is only referred to in that context&mdash;as a subject or an object.  However, there are plenty of usages where even the game wouldn't use the "the."  For example: "An Amnoon Oasis–based Xunlai Storage Agent was found dead."  Just because that particular sentence structure isn't in the game does not mean that it's invalid.  Removing the "the" from the article title does not cause it to conflict with the game in the least. &mdash;Tanaric 19:47, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * It's much easier to say " There was someone in the Amnoon Oasis " than it is to say " An Amnoon Oasis–based Xunlai... ". I'm not saying I know which is correct, but I don't disagree with Tanaric here. 08:19, 7 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * A lot of the choices for capitalization are based solely on "the game has it that way." Death penalty is Death Penalty, as far as I know, only because when you ctrl-click on it, that's what it says.  This is the same.  On the map, it says "The Amnoon Oasis."  --Fyren 16:26, 7 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * This is where I come in! I think we have been doing it wrong all along. I believe we should:
 * Make the search engine case insensitive
 * Use proper Capitalization rules of the English Language and avoid this mess of "Morale boost" or "morale Boost" or "The Searing" vs "Searing" and "The Mamnoon Lagoon" vs "Mamnoon Lagoon"
 * The standard right now is wobbly. It's whatever the game does. Capitalization is obviously not done consistently in the game. Some skill descriptions use different style than other skills. We should just use the standard and avoid this entire controversy. --Karlos 17:30, 7 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Completely, wholeheartedly agreed! However, changing the title engine to be case-insensitive would require editing the source.  Not saying it's impossible, just saying it's work.  I believe that simply following typical English grammar would fix most of the problems.  Skills remain capitalized because they're all proper nouns.  Items could go either way.  Locations and names are obvious.  Everything else is lowercase. &mdash;Tanaric 09:39, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I absolutely disagree about skills being proper nouns. But, I would not mind breaking GW's case for things since I always type with "proper" English.  GW's cases irritate me to no end.  It's just that we've always gone with GW's cases for everything thus far.  --Fyren 10:16, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I am assuming there is simply a flag or switch to be turned on in the engine that will make it case-insensitive. I would expect that much from the software. Not sure who can check on this... LordBiro or who? I am also assuming that there is a capitalization champ who will run through all the articles (at his/her own pace) and make this change effective. If the engine is case insensitive, then he/she can take their time without breaking any searches. I am not a good candidate. English is not my native language and I tend to "over-capitalize." :) --Karlos 10:34, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Well, using what the game uses is the simple way :) It means we don't have to think. But of course when there are inconsistencies in the game that means we inherit them. I'm all for common sense changes in capitalisation, but I'm also for as little work as possible ;)
 * I don't really know very much about MediaWiki, Martin might be able to shed some light on how the MediaWiki searches via MySQL (he seems quite an expert on the subject). 10:45, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)

Too many colons. To my knowledge, the search box IS case insensitive. Searching for "meteor shower," "METEOR SHOWER," and "Meteor Shower" all take me to the page. About the simple way, it's harder to remember how the game capitalizes things, I think. --Fyren 11:10, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I'm sorry, by search I mean the references in the articles. If someone links to "Morale Boost" or "morale boost" they should get to "Morale Boost." Currently, the references are only insensitive to the first letter.. Examples: Meteor Shower meteor shower Meteor shower. The point is that it places a great burden upon authors to know exactly how the word is capitalized. So, a new contributor who is not very solid on capitalization rules, would submit an article and end up with 90% of the references red even though they exist. :) --Karlos 11:19, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * If we move to "normal" case as opposed to GW case, it should make sense how to capitalize. What's the difference, anyway, the way it is now?  It doesn't make sense to remember "Morale Boost" but "fire damage."  I would say normal case would be easier than game case, except we'd have to fix existing links.  --Fyren 12:03, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)

''Currently, all involved on that page agree on English grammar, with the exception of Biro, who didn't really choose either side. However, the proper place for such a discussion is here. Please, if you care at all about this, comment on it, so we can decide one way or the other.''

English grammar. Easier to maintain, easier for new players, and technically correct. And I'd be happy to do a lot of the work. &mdash;Tanaric 16:40, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I'd go through all the skills, since there's a lot of other things to be done on all of them (once they're all decided on, at least). But, one thing is title case for skills or not.  I say absolutely not, but Tanaric says so.  I try to use proper grammar at all times yet I would never type something like "I already captured Oath Shot."  While they are names, they are not proper names.  --Fyren 16:45, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Disagreed (obviously). Skill names are proper nouns, and should be capitalized as such.  There is no such thing as a "name but not a proper name."  You should be typing "I already captured Oath Shot," because "Oath Shot" is a specific, individual skill, not something generic.  That you can use the name without an article helps show that fact.  &mdash;Tanaric 17:06, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Agree with Tanaric. You say: "I am using Backfire" you do not say "I am backfiring" you say "I am using Irresistible Blow" not "I am using an irresistible blow" --Karlos 17:15, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Would be better to say "I am blowing irresistably" :D 22:44, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * ROFL &mdash;Tanaric 23:16, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I have no idea how Tanaric can think all "names" are proper nouns. "A rose by any another name would smell as sweet."  A name is just a designation for something.  The American Heritage Dictionary (through dictionary.com) says "proper noun" is "a noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events, or places."  Merriam-Webster says "a noun that designates a particular being or thing, does not take a limiting modifier, and is usually capitalized in English."  Sadly, I do not have access to the OED.


 * "Meteor shower" is not a particular, unique thing like Paris or your cat Fluffles are. If meteor shower were, you would not "have" the skill (unless maybe you were the only character in the game with it, and you took it away from the one character who had it before).


 * Not taking limiting modifiers means one could never say things like "did you bring a resurrection signet?" or "is that meteor shower ours or theirs?" You couldn't even say "get out of that meteor shower."


 * Algebra, hate, and table are all names. (There is, of course, a duality of "name" and "being" for each.  Algebra is what we call a certain branch of math/algebra is a certain branch of math).  Some things analagous to GW skills would be, say, the Heimlich maneuver or roundhouse kicks.  No one would write "Roundhouse Kick" all the time, unless they were writing in German, and "Heimlich maneuver" is actually in M-W as such.  Both are techniques referring to something specific, but they do not qualify as proper names.  Skills are no different.


 * I view the game's capitalization as the same random capitalization that's in "I have 15% Death Penalty!" If Tanaric in particular still disagrees, I'd like to hear why DP shouldn't be capitalized, since he himself moved it.  Just to note, I DO say "I am backfiring their monk."  My guild also does (but that's probably related to me saying it).  I have heard other people I've done tombs/arranged fours with say such things.  I wouldn't say "I'm using Irresistible Blow" but I would say it in lowercase.  Damn, that was long.


 * --Fyren 18:23, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * This thread needs it's own website! :)


 * I think you are looking at Skill names differently than how I look at them. I look at skill names like car brands. For example: I have a Protege, I don't like Range Rovers and I really wish I could buy a Lexus. These names do not uniquely identify a single object in the world. They refer to a class of objects. They are capitalized because (quite simply) that is how the manufacturer writes them. :) So, I would never imagine us changing "I Will Survive!" to "I will survive!" that's just not right. Next thing we'll be saying play station instead of PlayStation.


 * Wikipedia's article on Capitalization [] is a nice read. It does state that "Headings" can be capitalized per word. This is what we do in the magazine that I edit, we capitalize the first letter of every non-particle in the title of an article. Then when we refer to the article in another part of the magazine we mention the title capitalized, like "This issue is further discussed in the "My Children Hate Me" article on page 49." :) I think that is the rule that ArenaNet followed. i.e. each Skill was treated as an article and captialized in that manner and as such every reference to them is capitalized. --Karlos 19:50, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Fyren, while I see your point, I still disagree. Skills in Guild Wars are, as Karlos alluded to, very specific, singular entities.  While a meteor shower may occur in the sky, and an elementalist's skill might backfire, that same elementalist can cast Meteor Shower, and a mesmer can use Backfire on an opponent.  The capitalized version applies only to the skill itself&mdash;e.g., "The skill Meteor Shower summons a meteor shower on your opponents" is a completely correct sentence.


 * "Death penalty" shouldn't be capitalized precisely because it's not a singular, unique phenomenon. Skills are.  "I fear a death penalty" is valid.  "I fear meteor showers" is also valid.  "I fear Meteor Shower" refers to something completely different, though; the skill Meteor Shower.


 * I'm not sure I'm explaining how I feel about this properly, but I hope this is a step in the right direction. &mdash;Tanaric 23:16, 9 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I can see your point on skills (though I still disagree), but I don't see it as consistent with DP. DP is still a very specific, singular entity, then.  It's the negative effect inflicted upon your character when he dies.  Meteor Shower creates a meteor shower and the death penalty is Death Penalty.  --Fyren 03:27, 10 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * (Already back to seven colons) I can see the case for both. So, I will slip out of this discussion. :) --Karlos 15:39, 10 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * The difference is this: in your example sentence, "Meteor Shower" refers to a specific skill and "meteor shower" refers to a generic noun. However, both "death penalty" and "Death Penalty" refer to the same thing: just a noun. &mdash;Tanaric 18:40, 10 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I don't see the difference. The penalty for death is Death Penalty.  Death Penalty is what lowers your health and energy, not dying.  When you die, there's a penalty.  That's Death Penalty.  There's a spell that creates a meteor shower.  That's Meteor Shower.  --Fyren 23:12, 10 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Using the word "death" as a modifier for "penalty" (as in, "death penalty"), means, "a penalty involving death." It is as correct as defining a proper noun "Death Penalty" that means "The reduction in maximum health and energy that you receive after dying in Guild Wars."  The point it, since both phrases are correct and identical, there is no need for the proper noun&mdash;especially since they have name anyway!  I'll concede that it would be technically correct to capitalize "death penalty" in many cases (justification: if the penalty for death had a name, like "Hypospiritosis", we'd capitalize that), it would be equally correct in all cases to leave it lowercase (since "death penalty" acts as a pronoun for "Death Penalty", much like how, in the sentences "Excalibur?  I have that sword.", "sword" acts as a pronoun for "Excalibur.").  &mdash;Tanaric 23:55, 10 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Maybe I should stay out of this discussion completely as a non-native speaker, but to me it feels natural to capitalize all nouns (proper names as well as simple nouns) because that's how it is handeled in my mothertongue German. Anyway ... I don't care how the decission looks like as long as we have a 100% clear rule how to handle things. I'm really tired of broken links. Damn Wiki for making article names case sensitive!! *Shakes fist* --Tetris L 00:40, 13 Aug 2005 (EST)

Use of "you"
I don't think more familiar/less formal terms like "you" (as in, "when you use this skill...") should be used in articles. I've edited a couple pages I've seen use it, but I guess not everyone might agree. In most cases, something as simple as "a/the character using the skill" or such will work. Opinions? --Fyren 07:10, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I agree. But I also admit I have used it a bit because I am not native english speaker and it sometimes feels ahrd to think of a good way of saying things without 'you' without sounding.. stupid --Geeman 07:53, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I don't mind the use of "you" too much, but I see your point and I agree with it. With spells you can refer to the caster, which is useful. I don't know if there is a less specific term we could use? 09:40, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * "You" is something that shouldn't really ever be used in scholarly work (at least, by prescription). I don't think there's anything we can simply substitute for all cases.  On a side note, there's probably a lot of things in the various style and formatting talk pages that need to get moved into the actual pages.  --Fyren 11:28, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I'm with Geeman on this. :) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 11:53, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Agreed, but I don't think this should be a barrier to entry. If you cannot think of a more scholarly wording, use "you," and it will inevitably be cleaned up later by somebody better with English. &mdash;Tanaric 18:19, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I am not completely black and white on this. On any kind of mission guide/tips on usage kind of article, you is actually good. It's general writing style. If you write a manual, it is best to use the second person language "you should now click on x" than to use the third person "user must press on x." This is well-documented in technical wriiting, I can look up references if you like, but just press F1 on your browser and see how Microsoft does it. Microsoft might be the Great Satan to some people here, but there's not doubt they care about how they "look" to the user.
 * I would say that in articles listing factual information about a rune, a condition, a skill, a monster, ..., etc. These should be third person, but a guide, a mission walkthrough, usage tips in a skill, those could (and I believe should) be second person and more friendly. --Karlos 18:45, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I think I agree with you here Karlos. 21:10, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I agree too. My response was geared towards informational, scholarly articles, not instructions.  &mdash;Tanaric 22:05, 12 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I don't mind the use of "you". --Tetris L 00:32, 13 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Well it seems clear there should be 2 standards depending on the situation:
 * Information:Formal, passive use of English as in "scholarly" documents.
 * Guides:Less formal, active use of English as in manuals.
 * Does this seem reasonable? 02:05, 13 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Agreed. Now can we note that decision down somewhere to refer people to it later on? --Karlos 06:01, 13 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * True, no skill description uses "you", keeping it unpersonal. If "you" wont use the skill or listen to the guide, manual, who else would? So im with carlos latest statement. --Ollj 14:11, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)

Other Notes
Why are the Professions in this order: warrior, ranger, monk, necromancer, mesmer, elementalist? --Synapse001 22:00, 21 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * It's the order used for in game menus. Don't know if there's another reason.  --Fyren 13:33, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * you can always switch to aplphabetical order :) There is this theory that secondary classes only count ~1/6 as much as the primary class because of runes and primary attribute linkings, and another that only the primary class primary attribute, its weapon attributes and its armor(s) really count at all. they are the constant values of a character. It doesnt take a genious to find out that "energy storage" equals offenfive strategies, "strength" equals expansive strategies and "expertise" equals defensive tactics. the others are in betweens: "fast casting" is half offensive and half defensive". "Soul reaping" is half offensive and half expansive. "divine favour" is half defensive and half expansive." (expansice means expanding forward like to capture the hill or the orb)
 * Therefore: Warrior, Monk , Ranger , Mesmer , Elementalist , Necromancer (, Warrior) would be the "defeating chain".

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)

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
 * (Chapter 2):
 * (Chapter Two):
 * (Factions):
 * other (specify):

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)

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)