GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 17

GuildWiki... Disappointment surfing
I'll be short on this post... many people must know about this issue, GuildWiki servers need to be updated to be capable of maintaining all the ammount of people that surf its web pages.

If funding is the problem, they can at least set up a paypal account for us to make easy donations and they might get enough funding to buy a descent connection.

10000 Articles!
I just noticed that we've broken through the 10000 article barrier. I'd say a prominent note on the main page and a big Thank You to our contributors is in order for reaching this milestone?! -- 10:18, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I've drafted a message at Main_Page/site_notice. I've also mocked up Main Page/editcopy to show how it would look.  If that's what you had in mind, let me know and I can re-activate the site notice banner on the Main Page.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:11, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * That looks very good. And ... err ... yay us! --Xeeron 11:30, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I went ahead and added the notice to the Main Page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:37, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Nice! (Unfortunately, there are at least 400 pages of junk in the wiki...) ~ Nilles (chat) 12:18, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Does it count user name space stuff? Or only main name space? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I was simply referring to Untested builds and Unfavored builds - about 80% of then or so are junk that might work in game but actually are not meant for documentation. In fact, I'd simply delete and abandon these pages for the sake of simplicity. After all, new players who search for new builds are in search of new ideas and a grasp of uniqueness. We don't serve them by displaying builds like Me/Mo Faster Caster - builds, that any of those players could easily invent themselves. ~ Nilles (chat) 16:01, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I would still like to know the answer to the question. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * GuildWiki's Special:Statistics page doesn't specifically mention user pages. If that query is universally consistent across all MediaWiki installations, then user pages are not included per Wikipedia's Special:Statistics.
 * To be certain, we could always test it and delete the test-created user page afterwards (being certain to refresh the cache to ensure the numbers shown are correct). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:33, 25 September 2006 (CDT)


 * As far as I'm aware it only counts articles in the main name space that are not classed as short articles.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 19:09, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Hooray for the wiki! This is a major milestone in its history - now let's shoot for 20 thousand, eh? ;) [[image:ordinsig.gif]] Ordin 20:45, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Based on the rate of article growth following the release of Factions, I suspect that we'll be well over 12,000 pages by November sometime :-)  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 28 September 2006 (CDT)


 * As Biro said, it's articles in the main namespace. But they also have to contain a link to another article, so dead-end articles don't count.  I think it might also have to meet a minimum length, but I'm unsure and too lazy to look at the code right now.  --Fyren 20:50, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

State of the Wiki: Builds
I argue that as an encyclopedic reference to Guild Wars not including popular builds would be very narrow-sighted. Now how this would be done is pretty tricky. Shandy 07:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That was one of the first answers I got when I started talking about builds on the wiki. And Shandy was right, including builds has worked out, but it is tricky indeed. So for all those who are not involved in the builds process (but often see lots of build related pages spamming recent changes), let me give you a quick overview what the build section currently does, why there was a lot of talk about it in the last months, what is not running smooth and why adding builds to the wiki is still a great thing.

History
The wiki was founded by a crowd of PvE lovers, so after the first months, there was decent coverage of most PvE aspects of the game, but the builds section was almost entirely consisting of the pre-builds, plus several weird concept builds. To sort out those of them worth keeping, a build vetting process was introduces. Later, when people started to post more new builds as well, that evolved into the voting, which is more or less in the same form still in use.

The new section drew some attention from those who possess superior (to mine) wiki skills, so soon we got nice templates, ordered categories and a beautiful builds portal. Unfortunatly, as the number of people working on the wiki to test builds grew, the number of new builds exploded. That lead to several attempts to streamline, change or speed up the process of build vetting, most of which did not have a big impact.

Right now, a refined version of the basic voting vetting is still in place, I tried to write that (and all other relevant stuff about builds) down here.

The basic problem with builds
The basic problem with builds (and reason behind 95% of all troubles related to builds) is the nature of builds as subjective articles. Unless almost all other aspects of the wiki, the quality of a build can not be objectively measured. That means, if there is to be any skale among builds, it will be a subjective one. That of course can give rise to many conflicts: Either if people disagree about builds, and, maybe even harder to solve, there is a conflict about the correct mechanism of how to take lots of subjective opinions and synthesize them into one wiki article. The later lead to long discussions about a build policy, without any consensus reached yet, meaning the wiki currently does not have any build policy.

Why are builds on the wiki still a great idea
Despite the frustration which can arise about all the conflicts related to builds, this should not distract from one fact: The users love them! The build portal currently gets around 15.000 views per day, making it the 5th most popular page of the wiki. The guildwiki has proven that builds do not only belong on forums, but that the wiki concept can be used to provide simple and easy access to build ideas to all users. The builds section has also helped to attract many new users to the wiki, especially from the previously hardly represented PvP part of the community.

Let me put in 2 maybe somewhat specific lessons that can drawn from the builds part of guildwiki:
 * Templates and nice structure works, even for new users, as long as the user side is kept simple. There is possibly no template in the wiki which is more successful than Template:Skill bar. I have seen literally hundreds of new build articles, done by first time users, and more than 99% of them understood and correctly used the template (and the later attribute template as well) for their first build. As long as there is a page describing their use and the template keeps using plain text on the part the user sees, they do work, making articles much nicer to read.
 * Users like portal pages. The builds portal consists to 80% of just a listing of Category:Builds, yet after it was introduced, the number of pageviews skyrocketed. New users unfamiliar with the workings of a wiki will have a hard time if they hit a link on the main page and are dumped in a category with a one line description. The best information is not good enough, if users cant find it. Some other parts have great portal articles as well (for example the green weapons lists), but there are still several links on the main page which lead to ugly categories. Some beautification of these links would maybe be one of the simplest ways to enhance user value in the wiki.

So in the end, builds on the wiki work, not without some problems and effortless, but the result proves that the effort is well invested. --Xeeron 10:46, 6 October 2006 (CDT)

Discussion
It would be such a shame to break up the above with comments, so I'll put mine here instead :) This is a good summary for anyone unfamiliar with the Builds section of the wiki who is interested in learning about the recent discussions. Good work Xeeron! You've kept it pretty objective, so I don't have any problems with it.

It is certainly true that portals in general are generally well received, and for some time I've been an advocate of creating articles to compliment the current category setup that we have on the wiki.

Anyway, good work Xeeron! <- for you.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:34, 6 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I am continually amazed by you Builds people. :) &mdash;&mdash;Tanaric 02:17, 7 October 2006 (CDT)

Halloween skin
I have an idea, maybe we could do the site up in orange and black for halloween? :)

I'm thinking of a crossed flamberge over pumpkins for the logo, and replacing the white with black and blue with orange for the week leading up to halloween. Mad king background instead of books? :p Any thoughts? &mdash; Skuld 10:09, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I am willing to do some work :) I'll make some drafts and throw down a link here :) -- Ifer (t/c) 10:27, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Sounds fun. Has there been any news about a Halloween event this year? I think it was announced last year about this time, iirc. &mdash; Gares 10:30, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeh, i'll try find the gaile log brb &mdash; Skuld 10:33, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10056831 &mdash; Skuld 10:51, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Thx. Can't see GWG from work, but I'll read about it when I get home. &mdash; Gares 11:01, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * If you make it the default skin/CSS, I will kill everyone involved. --Fyren 16:50, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
 * And I'll dismember and burn the remains. This sort of thing should be an optional skin - not changing the default ones. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:07, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

before we let your edit thru
As a protection against automated spam, you'll need to solve this equation before we let your edit thru: 

Could someone PLEASE take care of that horrible english? -- Ifer (t/c) 10:34, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I changed thru to through, do you want to message altering in any way? &mdash; Skuld 10:51, 9 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks a lot :) That has annoyed me since I started working on the wiki ;) -- Ifer (t/c) 11:05, 9 October 2006 (CDT)

Skill box revamp
I've proposed a bunch of changes to the skill box template (and been posting about it for about ten days at the talk page linked above). This includes parameter name changes, auto-generation of progression tables, slight display tweaks, and factoring out all the CSS into MediaWiki:Common.css. Each topic has its own section at the linked talk page. I plan on making these changes soonish so they're live before Nightfall and allowing for at least a couple days for changes/fixes. Please comment at there. --Fyren 06:04, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Functionality-wise I don't have any objections. It looks like you've planned well and the use of the new template is easy enough to grasp with examples at hand. The only thing left to do before implementation is probably writing a style sheet to adjust the looks of it, right? ~ Nilles (chat) 07:18, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I did, but it's not site-wide (yet). The second paragraph in the CSS section describes how to apply it for yourself.  --Fyren 07:40, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * As just an ordinary user, not a contributer, I myself find the current changes to the skill summary pages detrimental compared to the version that existed at the beginning of October. I rely on the skill summary pages to allow me to quickly see the textual descriptions of all the skills for a specific attribute or class as well as the cost/casting/reset information.  I recognize it's a work in progress at the moment, but can the finished version please include the textual description of the skill's effect? --IzzionSona
 * Not sure what you're saying. The same descriptions are still there and in the same place.  The same stats are still there and in the same place.  The progression tables were moved up, but they still have the same data.  Can you be more specific?  --Fyren 00:28, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * If you meant the quick reference pages, I've fixed a (somewhat major) copy and paste error. --Fyren 01:03, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * My comment was the quick reference pages, thank you for the modification to them. And much thanks to all of you who put in the time and effort to make this wiki successful.  It's a huge boon to my Guild Wars experience --IzzionSona

Ok, so I'm new.
I'm new here and I'm a little bit confused on how to post a build. Could someone fill me in, please?
 * Check the links near the bottom of builds. --Fyren 01:08, 20 October 2006 (CDT)
 * those links should help enough.. If it does not, you can ask me. One more thing: sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes, ~, and it will result in this : Ifer (t/c) 03:11, 20 October 2006 (CDT)

Brainstorm: Give Builds their own namespace
There is a difference between Builds and all other types of GuildWiki articles on a fundamental level. The difference is sufficient that I think it can warrent its own namespace (PvE builds and PvP builds are all sharing the same namespace, so I'm not trying to do any sort of PvP segregation here). For example (picking the first build name I see from Recentchanges), "R/Rt Brutal Needler" would become "Build:R/Rt Brutal Needler". This would help the filtering of Recentchanges, Watchlist, and built-in search functions which categories cannot emulate. Of course, simply naming articles that way won't create the namespace (for the purposes of recent changes etc), we'll need Gravewit to fiddle with the mediawiki settings to get the namespace to work. I want to toss the idea out and see what ppl in general think before presenting it to Gravewit. So, care to comment? - 12:12, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I like it - we should've done this from the very start. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:08, 22 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Great idea! Iäm all for it! \o/ --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2006 (CDT)


 * That's a very cool idea. ~ Nilles (chat) 13:45, 22 October 2006 (CDT)


 * This is exactly the situation that namespaces were designed for. We can discuss how we do this on our side further, but I'll make the technical request to Gravewit now, so we have the structure in place when we're ready. &mdash;Tanaric 15:07, 22 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I am sure I have seen this idea voiced before, no idea why it didnt get taken up back then. --Xeeron 17:10, 22 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Tetris suggested it. --Fyren 19:11, 22 October 2006 (CDT)


 * This will probably mean more incorrectly named builds :P That's ok there's always plenty of us happy to help out with that and the benefits definately outweight the small negative, I'm all for it. --Xasxas256 20:59, 22 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not opposed to this idea but I'm fairly certain it was discussed previously. I wasn't very active at the time when builds were first introduced, so I'm not 100% sure where the information would be, but before anything is implemented I think it would be a good idea to find out why this wasn't implemented initially. Anyone have any suggestions as to where to look?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:39, 23 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I know what you're talking about, I think I recall something along the lines that it was too much work. I think we just failed to find concensus and it got lost in the discussion. Like "usual". ~ Nilles (chat) 05:55, 23 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, Honorable Sarah seems to have first raised the idea: It is both here. Cant really see any reasons for not implementing it there, seems like all people who cared enough to do it didnt follow the discussion. --06:04, 23 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Both Build: and Build talk: are up and running. Can we get a bot working on this? Build should stay where it is, but Builds should be moved to something like Build:Main Page. The redirect should stay more or less permanently, as other sites link directly to the builds portal. &mdash;Tanaric 09:55, 23 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I've moved Builds to Build:Main Page (note, the namespace is sigular form of Build). That seemed a better name than something like Build:Portal, but others can discuss.  Also confirmed that the new namespace is working.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:09, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

New "Build:" namespace - what are the next steps?
We have nearly 400 builds just in untested, plus all of the tested builds to migrate. I supposed the first question is, does anyone have a bot that could be used to move all builds to the Build namespace? After that, all the auto-generated redirects - do we keep them, or purge? If no one has a bot available for this task, anyone have a suggested method to break this down into workable sized pieces? It could go fast if a group hit it all at once. Last, but not least, we also need to review all of the build policies and guidelines to ensure they begin directing people to create builds with the "Build:" prefix so that they all land in the appropriate namespace. So ... how do we start this process, and what are our next steps? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:55, 24 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Fryen keeps a bot around - 15:53, 24 October 2006 (CDT)


 * On the subject of bots (although pretty much unrelated to the topic at hand) I've wanted to make a bot for a while now. Not because I would do anything different to what Fyren does with his bot, but simply because then I could name it "LordBiRobot".  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:56, 24 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm going to create a shoepuppet account just to squat on that name!!!!! d-: - 18:56, 24 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Why do you hate love? :(  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:16, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * What makes you think I hate love instead of loving hate? d-: - 11:36, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Well given that there are 500+ pages involved, this very much calls for a bot. Btw, it would be good to keep the old names around as redirects, unless someone is willing to update the links manually on all of them (or this can be done by a bot as well). --Xeeron 04:45, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

I can do it, but not immediately. After doing the skill stuff, it's pretty clear the Perl framework I use is gimpy, leaving only pywikipediabot as something that'll work for heavy lifting. --Fyren 11:55, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

Guild Wars Nightfall Bonus Music Key
How do I enter my bonus music key? It's only 15 slots long, whereas every other key is 25 slots long. How do I enter the key so it registers?
 * I don't have mine yet (I know it was shipped out yesterday, hopefully I'll have it tomorrow), but if it is like the other music keys, you don't enter it in the actual game. There should be a web address to go to (www.directsong.com/something), and you'll enter the code there.  You'll then have to download a file (or multiple files) and run them to get the music.  See the DirectSong article for more info.  --Rainith 19:54, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

Another milestone: 10.000.000 visits!
It must have happend about yesterday, but nevertheless: Main Page recieved its 10.000.000th page view. Grats, everyone. --MRA 15:51, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
 * And if you look at the List of Largest Wikis (actually largest MediaWikis), you'll see that GuildWiki has three times as many total pageviews as the English Wikipedia. How did that happen??  We're also 112th overall when measured by "good" page count, 29th by users, and 16th by images.
 * Something has always struck me as off on the page view tally - there's no way we're beyond the english Wikipedia on that. At least one of the sites (theirs or ours) must be counting those differently - or maybe Wikipedia resets theirs periodically.
 * On "good" pages - if Factions was any indication of article growth, we should accumulate another 3,000 or more new pages once Nightfall goes live, so we should scoot up that ranking pretty quickly over the next month or so. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:37, 26 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I think one of the reasons that we have more page views than we might expect is because we have a lot of very small articles. Every skill in the game is a seperate article, and I know it's not very difficult for people to link to the GuildWiki numerous times when they're talking about a build. How many times have you gone to a build page and opened up some or all of the skills in seperate tabs? I do that now and then when I'm trying to decide which build to use.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:22, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
 * True, but it's still an awesome figure. We rock! :) ~ Nilles (chat) 06:21, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

display party size more prominent?
Nightfall is out and several mission and quest descriptions are appearing in the wiki. What I personally miss most is the clear and obvious specification of the party size and the requirements of heroes for that mission or quest (to be honest I could puke each time I am in the game, form a party of human players of max party size and then can't enter the mission because I have to replace a human for a stupid hero again without being told about that requirement BEFOREHAND). My suggestion is to put a note somewhere on the very top of each mission and quest descriptions which says something like "8 player mission, hero Koss required". Maybe even at the mission and quest overview Mission overviews (Nightfall) there could be some small indication like "Venta Cemetery (8 players incl. Koss)". T.T.H. 02:47, 30 October 2006 (CST)
 * Not to sound like an ass, but it usually tells you in the game if a hero is needed for a mission before you try to enter it. That said I don't think that is any reason not for us to mention it too.  --Rainith 03:11, 30 October 2006 (CST)
 * Exactly, "before you try to enter it". At this point of time I usually have organized a full, balanced party based on the available slots in my party window. And then I have to kick somebody again because "before you try to enter" it tells me "nope, you need Koss, go kick somebody". This whole thing is about "comfort" the guild wiki could provide and users don't need to try starting the mission - which is actually quite tricky in NF because even missions are starting with questgivers and the very flexible amount of "yes"-"yeah"-"sure we are ready"-"goddammitgonow" you have to click through. I say the wiki could improve its service by providing that information - more clearly than the game itself does. T.T.H. 02:37, 31 October 2006 (CST)
 * Ofcourse the wiki will have thet information. Feel free to edit the articles to include the limitations/requirements. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:53, 31 October 2006 (CST)
 * Actually TTH, what I meant was that if you watch the cutscenes and read what people are saying around you, you will be given a good idea of who has to come. --Rainith 06:24, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Rainith, I find your comment both rude and illogical. Your argument is that this information should not be included on the Wiki because it is available in game. Guess what... almost ALL the information on the Wiki is available in game. With the exception of superfluous information such as mission walkthroughs and builds. Skills, Quests, Items, all of this information is available in game, and according to your logic should just be deleted. Your argument is laughable at best "If you watch cutscenes and read the info around you" Well if you look at the skill in game you also don't need the information on that skill posted online. TTH's suggestion is quite valid, and all possible information about everything should be included on every page of the Wiki. That's the POINT of the Wiki. The question remains, is TTH merely suggested this, or has he taken a proactive stance in updating this information on the various mission and quest pages as he comes across the information in game? ErkDog 12:19, 6 November 2006 (CST)
 * ErkDog, I think you need to read Rainith's post more carefully and owe him an apology. Rainith specifically agreed that such information should be added (see his very first response above). Rainith was just clarifying about being able to deduce that information before attempting to start the mission. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 04:36, 7 November 2006 (CST)


 * Actually, you are right, based on the way he phrased the first part of his sentence, due to the overall tone, "Not to sound like an ass..." I must have missed the double negative in the second part of his statement. "I don't think we should not include it."  I missed the second not.  Moral of the story, don't use double negatives, especially when you start your thoughts off in a negative manner, it's easy for people to assume the rest of your statement is negative.  Although in this case, the second part of his statement was in fact negative, dually negative, lol.  I stand corrected.  ErkDog 07:03, 7 November 2006 (CST)

Create "Skill:" namespace ?
I think we should create "Skill:" namespace. We do have a lot skill sections now outside regular skills, elite skills, monster we now have also title skills and ride skills for pve only. A reorganization under a form similar with what has been done with the builds sections will allow faster and easier access to them for everybody.--Phoenix 20:34, 1 November 2006 (CST)


 * I do not comprehend your vision of how creating the Skill: namespace would improve/change anything. - 21:20, 1 November 2006 (CST)


 * I think it would only add confusion, not make stuff easier. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2006 (CST)


 * I don't agree, a Skills namespace does not solve anything. By this logic we should have an item namespace, and a location namespace. The only reason for having builds in their own namespace is because they are fundamentally different to other kinds of article, i.e they deal predominantly with opinions rather than facts.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:47, 2 November 2006 (CST)

What about translation?
Don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what do you think about translating guildwiki in other languages? Me, and hopefully some other, could care about the italian version.

What do you think about this?
 * We don't want to host other languages here, but everything is CC 2.0 by-nc-sa so you can start up guildwiki.it based on our content if you want. --Fyren 05:44, 2 November 2006 (CST)

Server stuff
A couple days ago Gravewit gave me root access to the servers. I've poked around and made some changes but no amount of effort is going to solve the real problem: the machine running the web server simply lacks the CPU power to handle the amount of traffic we get. There's a new machine on the way but it'll be at least a week plus time for us to get things set up. In the short term, I'm going to try out some caching options which may or may not help (and the best case probably isn't even going to be a substantial improvement). This means in a few hours, I guess from 3-4 AM EST, the server will be going up and down as I do things. Do we want to put a message in MediaWiki:Sitenotice about it? I ask because saying "the wiki might be slow or not respond at all" is sort of the general state of affairs. --Fyren 22:13, 3 November 2006 (CST)


 * Yes, that is the courteous and responsible thing to do. To say nothing is to tell people to expect us to suck. --Karlos 22:31, 3 November 2006 (CST)
 * Thanks for the update. :)  I'll post this info on the GWG forum too.  --Rainith 22:49, 3 November 2006 (CST)
 * (Edit conflict)Not that everyone needs to comment on this but I agree with Karlos, as much prior notice as possible should be given. Also congrats Fyren, it's good news for all to have another person such as yourself working on the servers even if your first act is apparently to rip them down :P --Xasxas256 22:52, 3 November 2006 (CST)

Feel free to change the formatting of the notice if any (admin) cares. I'll be testing things out as much as I can before the mentioned timeframe. I don't expect anything I do will impact the server before I inflict my experiment on the wiki at large... but I tacked on the second sentence anyway. --Fyren 23:03, 3 November 2006 (CST)


 * I commented at MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice but I'll say it here instead. Couldn't we instead say
 * The GuildWiki will be down intermittently from 3-4 AM EST (8-9 AM GMT). We will be making some improvements to our servers during that time.
 * You could also include something about the new server although maybe not until we have firmer knowledge of when it'll arrive. --Xasxas256 23:12, 3 November 2006 (CST)
 * I don't want to sound optimistic about what I'm doing tonight since I'm not. It's something I've suggested to Gravewit all along but, as I mentioned, right now it can't help much in the best case.  From my perspective it's more to test things out so now it'll take less effort later when we do get the new machine.  --Fyren 23:23, 3 November 2006 (CST)
 * Well we appreciate it nevertheless. An admin couldn't change the notice though could they? I find the time thing particularly confusing. How about:
 * The GuildWiki will be down intermittently from 3-4 AM EST (8-9 AM GMT). We will be making some improvements to our servers during that time in preperation for a new server which should be up and running in the next fortnight.
 * It's pretty similar to my first suggestion but mentions the new server without giving a strict deadline on when it'll be up. I personally think the first message I suggested is fine, it doesn't make an real promises, it just says "improvements". The second one is better if we want it to be known to all that a new server is going in... --Xasxas256 23:33, 3 November 2006 (CST)
 * Actually timezone wise it'd be better to use CST and GMT (as that's our timezone on the server currently, look at sigs). Ie 2-3 AM CST (8-9 AM GMT) in the message. It's probably worth saying that it's happening on Saturday 4th of November too... --Xasxas256 23:50, 3 November 2006 (CST)


 * I made a slight change to the wording. Hopefully that helps - let me know if not. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:05, 4 November 2006 (CST)

Everything seems to be working as intended now. Does responsiveness seem any different? --Fyren 02:40, 4 November 2006 (CST)
 * Response time seems better, but that could just be because it is 1am - 4am in most of the US. --Rainith 02:59, 4 November 2006 (CST)

Seems somewhat better. I'm sure you guys know what you are doing, but there are literally dozens of things you could do to alleviate load. Based on the nature of httpd and mysql servers, I find it difficult to believe that the bottleneck is the httpd server. Especially with only 50 requests per second. (I think I saw that somewhere else on the wiki.) If it is actually the httpd server overloaded, then all you have to do is add another httpd server to the cluster and pop in another DNS record for load balancing. Which would take merely a few hours. I am unsure why you indicate that it takes days to setup a server. I've never spent more than a few hours setting up and configuring a server. Especially not a single purpose server such as one that will serve only httpd requests. ErkDog 21:27, 4 November 2006 (CST)
 * At peak a lot more than 50/s. That wouldn't even be much if we were serving static pages instead of pages generated by MW. MW is pretty slow (really slow compared to a normal CMS).  As for the new machine, I didn't say "days" for setup, I said "plus time for us to get things set up."  We don't have the hardware yet.  --Fyren 02:11, 5 November 2006 (CST)

Right I think you seem to have validated my point... MW is not inherently slow itself. Something somewhere is waiting on something. IE, MySQL. There are several things that could be done to the MySQL server to speed it up as well. Can the contents of the my.cnf file as well as the system specs be provided for comment and suggestion? Also, the database structure itself? The types of tables, etc... For example all tables should be MyISAM instead of InnoDB if you are using InnoDB. InnoDB incurs an approximate 400% overhead. CRAAAZY I know!! ErkDog 08:03, 5 November 2006 (CST)

Can you provide the output of iostat -x 10 5 on both the httpd and MySQL servers? Can you provide the output of uptime for both servers? --ErkDog 08:09, 5 November 2006 (CST)
 * MW is inherently slow itself. The hard drives are doing fine.  The DB machine CPU load is practically non-existent and the apache machine's load is high because of MW.  Normal page render times for MW can be hundreds of milliseconds real time for a decent CPU that's not already under heavy load.  MyISAM is not suited for large tables under heavy use and performs better than InnoDB for the opposite.  --Fyren 15:03, 5 November 2006 (CST)

Fyren, thank you for your response. For my edification would you mind pasting the output of uptime and iostat -x 10 5 on the DB server? As well as the httpd server?

I am also confused about your reply re: MyISAM versus InnoDB. You provide some theoretical information regarding which is best used when, but have not provided information as to which type of tables GameWikis is in fact using.

I assume this is because you believe the table type to be obviated by the fact that the MySQL server (as reported by yourself) is not under a significant load.

Can you please provide the uptime and iostat -x 10 5 outputs of the two servers in question? If you are uncomfortable posting this information on the Wiki itself, by all means please e-mail it to me erkdog *at* fiftypounds.com

I would very much like the opportunity to apply my server administration expertise to gamewikis in an effort to provide a more snappy services for all. Please do not think I am trying to undermine your efforts, or that I am questioning your ability to administer servers. But another pair of eyes never hurts.

I would also very much like the opportunity to analyze the structure of the database and provide insight on areas which may benefit from a different table type, or may benefit from use of an index or two.

Thanks ErkDog 12:11, 6 November 2006 (CST)

Guild Wars concept art
I found it on this site

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=74118

could it be added to the wiki in any way? and there's ALOT


 * Not without written approval from ANet. It looks like the person who posted that was from ANet's art dept and he had to get approval to post it also.  --Rainith 00:31, 4 November 2006 (CST)

Servers slower than a [slow thing]
Is it just me, or are servers obscenely slow or have been obscenely slow recently? It's downright rediculous. I know it's not me since a 70 meg Crysis trailer downloads in under half a minute for me. Anyone else noticing this too? --Mgrinshpon 17:46, 5 November 2006 (CST)


 * Lol. The server isn't the only thing that's slow. j/k. Look up two headings. &mdash; Gares 18:19, 5 November 2006 (CST)
 * I've noticed the same and so have other fan sites as well (I'm on a cable connection at 2 different locations and it's the same). I'm seeing people go to other sources now because it's so slow to load.  What gives?  Does anyone know how to fix this?  I barely visit these days too since it takes so darn long to load and 1/2 the time I get a 504 error timeout code page.  This is getting ridiculous.  HELP!--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:48, 10 November 2006 (CST)


 * GameWikis refuses to take advantage of numerous resources and opportunities to deliver their content to the community responsively. I have requested in multiple places information on system load to put another pair of eyes on their issues.  Additionally I have requested in multiple places to lias with someone regarding the automation or even manual creation of a mirror.  For example, the Wiki has basically been unavailable for almost a week now.  If, a week ago, my communications had not been dismissed there could be a 100% up to date complete mirror of GuildWiki for people to access.  Furthermore, if the information I requested was provided it's entirely plausible that a configuration change could be suggested which also resulted in more performance.  But GameWikis refuses to explore either of these possibilities.  Why?  Your guess is as good as mine.  ErkDog 09:42, 10 November 2006 (CST)
 * Any idea what I can do to help petition or inform others about this needing a fix? I don't know where to go to voice my concern over this beyond this spot for now.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  11:03, 10 November 2006 (CST)

As far as I know this is the most appropriate place to discuss it. You can see above that I requested information, which was vaguely responded to by the current GameWiki server admin, but then beyond his vague response has gone unanswered. You can also find discussion of a mirror system on this page, which also remains uncommented on by GameWiki staff. I remain perplexed as to why nobody on the GameWiki staff cares enough to comment on the issues, much less to actually proceed forward with them. Heaven forbid the community benefit from assistance in delivering content or from discussion of server administration practices. It defies my comprehension. ErkDog 12:52, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Skill Data / Progressions
Apparently a lot more skills need to be fixed. A comparison has been made and apparently here is a small list with the mistakes on GuildWiki: http://gwshack.us/forums/viewtopic.php?t=357. --Phoenix 06:24, 6 November 2006 (CST)

Mirror
Take a look at this and this. I think it is a great idea as a backup whenever th wiki is slow or down, but it would be great if it could somehow be institutionalised so that guy down not have to use a DL program to get the wiki pages. --Xeeron 06:41, 6 November 2006 (CST)


 * Yeah, I outlined what is required to provide an effective and complete mirror. Basically all I would need is access to a snapshot the PHP / images and an almost complete SQL dump.


 * Perhaps Fryen would be willing to provide this? If nothing else it would be a stopgap measure until new hardware was in place, and instantly provide a complete mirror. You could put a temporary link at the top of the page to indicate if people are going to be reading the Wiki only to my server.


 * However, I think it would behoove GuildWiki to strongly consider setting up the infrastructure required to provide permanent mirrors. Fryen, I would be happy to discuss this with you in detail as to what is required to keep a regularly updated Mirror online.  It can easily be done without creating significant load on the site's servers.  I guarantee you that my mirror software continuously crawling the site generates more resource use than providing a daily snapshot of the PHP / IMG and salient SQL tables.


 * The database dumps can be tailored to the point that they are not large. The main content of the articles would be the only thing necessary for a mirror.

History is not necessary. Incremental updates to the database can also be created via binlogs.


 * Not to mention the fact that after 4 days of crawling I still am nowhere near a complete mirror.


 * If nothing else, a complete DB Dump and PHP / IMG snapshot could be provided so I could create a complete mirror in the interim while you wait for new hardware.


 * If the information I requested above in the server section was provided I could also provide some insight into the slowness and make suggestions on configuration that would speed things up as well. ErkDog 11:53, 6 November 2006 (CST)