GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 17

Spoiler Warning
Seeing as the spoiler warning on the top of a page is so small, it does no good if someone accidentally glances down there without noticing it. I don't know if this is already in existence or if it is even possible using Wiki, but I suggest that there be a show/hide spoiler button. You know, one of those things where clicking it will show the text, and clicking it again will hide it. This would be useful for some pages which only partially contain spoilers. :) Sora267 21:58, 28 February 2007 (CST)


 * The show/hide boxes have been discussed before and we decided to keep them out of regular articles. Using them in user name space is allowed. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2007 (CST)


 * Good, because there's nothing worse than going to a user page and inadvertantly reading spoilers related to the plot of the Real Life campaign. ;) -- Peej 09:00, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 * Generally speaking I find spoiler tags on the wiki to be a waste. The most "spoiler-like" information is on the quest/mission pages... and if you're looking up info on a quest or mission, you can pretty much expect to find spoiler info. In fact, using using GuildWiki is pretty much a giant spoiler, giving away details a user may otherwise not know about the game yet. Limited use of the current tag is my preference, and definitely not an irritating show/hide box. --Zampani 09:23, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 * I fully disagree. There are a couple times the tags have kept me from reading things I didn't realize would be spoilery- for example, after NF was released but before I bought it, I was reading the page on Shiro, and ran into the Nightfall-spoiler tag. I am ambivilent about a show/hide box. &mdash;Aranth 11:36, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 * A show/hide box would just make the information harder to get to for 99,9% of the users. Strongly against them. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 * Oh, I forgot. People are too lazy to click. The tags DO work, but show/hide ones work better in my opinion. - -S ora267 [[Image:Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|19px]] 20:46, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The show/hide scripts never should have been forced onto people in the first place - it was added to MediaWiki:Monobook.js with no community discussion. I've been tempted many times to purge it.  Something like that should only exist in a user's js so that it's optional if they want to use it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:07, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm in support of the idea. Would it be possible to alter the preference pages so that users can choose whether they are open or closed by default?--IAmAI 07:12, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Updated price list?
I'm not sure if this is entirely plausible, but an updated 'price' list or some general idea of an item's price on an item's page might help avoid some scams I've seen (a fun example: one of my guild members bought a Miniature Pig for 100k, DURING the Canthan New Year, because he had no idea that they were free and the event had just started). The prices listed would just have to reflect within a ballpark how much soemone can expect to buy or sell an item for, so they don't end up getting ripped off. Jus' wondering. (NaminaeBlack)
 * GuildWarsGuru already provides a similar service, and just about everyone I know knows to go there. Maybe we should just link there from the scams page- I can't really see any way to link to such a page that'll give it any traffic, and maintanence would be a nightmare if we had our own. &mdash;Aranth 11:36, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 * Having our own list would just be asking for mass vandalism of the page, as sellers would constantly try posting higher prices and buyers would constantly try posting lower prices.
 * We once had links someplace on the site that had an offsite links section that pointed to semi-reliable trade values elsewhere, but I can't recall in which article and can't seem to locate it in hostories of pages that seem appropriate to the subject. I have no objection adding the links into the Trade article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:51, 1 March 2007 (CST)


 * I saw a conversation about having a price list for items on the wiki or somewhere, but i think it was the wiki, but maybe not, and the same thing came up about it being a target for vandalism. I think we should have the page of all items, that would have all the items classified by what type of weapon, inscription, prices for max and non-max, etc. though, but one of those protected pages like the main page that only admins can change. The general wiki community could give "updates" on the talk page in the way of the fluctuating prices and whether the values of things are going up or down. It would be a fairly large task in addition to the improvement project, but it would greatly help out the wiki, because I'm always buying and selling and it's good to know the prices of things. I know links to pages with prices, but they're all spread out with the addition of the new campaigns, and they're on forum pages and not wikis. It would be great to have one master page for the price of all items. Then you could possibly have a link to it somewhere on the main page. Nhnowell 18:57, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Disagree. You won't get alot of support to have protected pages here in this wiki. You're also essentially giving more work to admins, that they have to also monitor the talk page and verify all the new information. And talking about abuse, how does protecting the page make it immune? If you suggest that new prices be placed in the talk page, there's nothing stopping me from posting false information about prices, and how exactly are the admins going to 100% confirm whether a claim is true or not? Price checks belong on forums, where it makes things much easier to maintain and where there's a larger population of traders well-versed in the market prices to verify things. If you put it here, you'll soon have people clamoring for a trading page as well. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 19:44, 4 March 2007 (CST)
 * Aberrant is right on. As a rule of thumb, information that is well suited for a wiki is ojbective, fact based info. Prices are highly subjective, as value of an item is all in the eye of the beholder. --Zampani 20:17, 4 March 2007 (CST)

Who removed my Item Scams edit involving the price of Monastery Credits, Battle Commendations, etc. and why? I was simply posting the truth about them. Please do not remove my comment from there. Azinna Videl 10:15, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I did, see Talk:Common_scams, dont revert a revert, you have to bring it up in the talk page, see GW:1RV for that. -- Xeon 10:28, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

The icons and stuff
Hello guys i was planing to use little icons from classes and stuff in my user page or in my user name when i sign is there a "legend" i can follow with the code for those symbols i know the classes symbols but things liek weapon spell icon and such.... - Chrisworld 17:40, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 * Most skill icons are just image:skill name.jpg
 * For use in sigs, you should copy the current image, then resave it under a custom name so that a redirect can be done from it to your user page. Also, images in sigs cannot be taller than 19px, so you'll need to resize the images if you want to use them for that purpose (see: GW:SIGN for more info). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:48, 1 March 2007 (CST)
 * Those "legends" are called templates. We only have shortcut templates for the profession icons, not for skill icons. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 19:57, 1 March 2007 (CST)

You have new messages (last change).
This joke is becoming old. it was ok at the beginning, but now I'm seeing it on a daily basis, and it's becoming more of a sabotage. I would have liked to be able to customize the color of my message, but any other way to prevent this would be good too. Foo 06:25, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, I agree, but theres nothing we ca nreally do about it. We could disallow them in a policy, but I don't support restricting users too much with policies. You could ofcourse ask anyone using them to remove them from their user page/talk page. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Even if you could customize the color using styles, they could use the same class to mimic it. --Fyren 07:55, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * That's true.A bit off topic, but I got a nice idea and I would actually like to customize the message shown to me. Is it somehow possible currently? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2007 (CST)


 * I believe it would be possible. I'm not sure what the class of the "new messages" div is, but you could add something to your user stylesheet which overrides it. If the class was "newmessage" then you could add ".newmessage { background: pink !IMPORTANT; }" to change the background colour.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:57, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * If it's that easy, could someone find out what the class really is? Foo 11:01, 6 March 2007 (CST)

It is just a joke on userpages, don't make a fuss of it. --Sig mA  11:10, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, but unlike in real life, it's like you are telling it to me every time we meet. Foo 14:19, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * ...? --[[User:Sigm@|Sig mA.

]] 14:26, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Technically, I could see an argument that making a mock-message that is meant to trick users into thinking its a legitimate system message is a disruption of the normal operation of the wiki, and therefore a form of vandalism. I won't make that decision myself; but myself, I wouldn't debate such reasoning if another admin interpreted it in that way. I honestly do feel that the mock message should, if intended as a joke, have the image Image:Joke Alert.png (or a resized version of that image) displayed in some way on it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:39, 6 March 2007 (CST)

GuildWiki:Post No Builds
Post No Builds (talk). Just so everyone is aware of the discussion, and to keep the ball rolling. All opinions and arguments are welcome. --Dirigible 19:39, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * Not sure this is the place to promote a particular policy suggestion, Dirigible. For fairness' sake, here are other build-related policies currently under consideration:

— HarshLanguage 20:22, 6 March 2007 (CST)
 * No Original Builds (talk)
 * Build Split (talk)

Quick References
I find it hard to use many of the quick references effectively. There are a lot of them out there, and it is slow to actually type it in, let only knowing exactly the wording for what I wanted. I don't want to be typing in "quick reference" every time I want to look something up. I understand it is easy enough to use if you know what to type in, but I think there should be some way of organizing them into a list or something that will make it easier and faster for people to use them.--Relyk 03:23, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * Category:Quick references or any of its subcategories. --Fyren 04:17, 7 March 2007 (CST)
 * Oh, lol, thanks XD--Relyk 05:00, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

re: Poll: Does the build namespace cause more harm than good?
For those who hadn't seen the survey taking place (I almost missed it): GuildWiki_talk:Post_No_Builds Don't reply to the question here. Direct all comments to the section below the poll. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:56, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Skill type quick references Trigger On End
Is it necessary to make a new template for such a list? The syntax is quite hard without some experience. I found this note and so i'm asking. Nemren 08:43, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If the basic QR box that's used on the attribute-sorted lists will do, that's fine. You could ask me or Xeon for help with making a new one if you want one.  --Fyren 10:01, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Gah hardly come to this part of the wiki, i should drop in more, im writing a guide on how to create qr's. It is a work in progress and full of mistakes, User:Xeon/qrstandard. If you need help making/creating a complex quick reference, feel free to drop into our talk pages and ask. -- Xeon 10:07, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'll take a look, thx. Nemren 10:36, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

GW2 documentation
I brought it up briefly at Template talk:GW2 earlier: writing GW2 content here is not going to be a good idea. Having to mark things as referring to either GW or GW2 is really only going to lead to problems. Gordon just made Category:Playable races (Guild Wars 2). We'll end up with more and more articles with a GW2 disambig note in the article title. In the long run, if we (as in the GuilWiki community) to document GW2, it will end up on its own wiki. I can put up another wiki if we want but I'd rather wait till someone can actually play the game while not under an NDA. Another alternative to "putting up a wiki" and "not putting up a wiki" might be to put one up that's private or read only with a few people willing to seed info we do have... until people without an NDA can play. ANet will presumably have their own wiki set up at some point unless something goes horribly wrong with their current one(s). Any thoughts? --Fyren 21:36, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * My suggestion would be to just wait for the time being. There's still far too little information to be deserving of a new site, and it will be so for a whole while longer. The GW2 beta starts in 2008, which means probably a year or so from now. It won't be until a month or two before that time that the GW2 information influx will change from a trickle to a stream. Until that time all the information the wiki will have to deal with is going to be whatever little can be gleaned from the occassional magazine article that ANet releases to keep interest from dying, so it should be manageable. The most important thing is to keep everything properly labelled and categorized as belonging to GW2, in order to avoid overcomplicating the process of expelling that content from this wiki once a new place for GW2 info is found. And as you mentioned, the ANet wiki is something that must be taken into account as well. Having two wikis is already feeling slightly redundant... imagine four... The next few months will make or break the official wiki, which will in turn decide whether the community remains concentrated here, moves over there, or splits somehow between the two sides.
 * So, my first choice would be to just wait for now and simply treat GW2 content as if it were nothing but another future campaign. --Dirigible 22:15, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Makes sense. Might be a waste of effort trying to incorporate the non-existent GW2 (not yet anyway) stuff in our article and category structure. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 23:10, 25 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Personally I think that, even if a GW2 wiki is practically empty, it will make more sense than posting GW2 content here.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:44, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah, but what to call a new wki like that? GuildWiki2? Guild2Wiki? GuildWikiwiki? And will ANet start up an official version of that too or will they have both on their official one?  Hmm... I might ask that over there right now actually. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  16:05, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * With the official wiki, it would make much more sense to just have an official GW2 one from my point of view, and not bother with a fan-based one. Then we avoid the awkward situation we have now with two wikis (3 if you count GWOnline) for the same subject matter. Of course it all depends on whether an official GW2 one is set up in time to meet the demand for info. — Biscuits (talk [[Image:Biscuit.png]] contribs) 17:15, 26 March 2007 (CDT)


 * It is my understanding that ArenaNet will have a standalone official Guild Wars 2 wiki, separate from the current official Guild Wars wiki. Whether we should start GuildWiki2 is really up to you guys. I honestly don't see the point. &mdash;Tanaric 22:20, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree with Tanaric. There's no need to start a wiki yet; there's barely anything to begin documenting. We should wait until more information is released, as there will be little for anyone to record until the Beta starts a few years from now. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 22:26, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, I was unclear. What I meant was that, since ANet is starting a wiki for GW2, I don't see the point in us starting one ever. &mdash;Tanaric 20:17, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Resetting indent. There's hardly anything to document and we should really try not to fork on a GW2 wiki, so I would strongly oppose us ever setting up a GW2 wiki. Or, at least, until we find out exactly what's going on. Kessel 02:15, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 * the offical wiki is not acceptable, reguardless of how complete it gets, because at any time, an anrenanet/ncsoft staffer could walk in a delete/censor/hide any information they wanted. at least here they don't have license control and a big red kill button. i agree that GW2 is too far off to start gw2.gamewikis.org, but i think it certainly should be started, if only to keep arenanet/ncsoft honest. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:16, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Why should you trust Gravewit (or me) any more than ANet? --Fyren 11:58, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't subscribe to Sarah's argument, but I think it's easy to have more faith in an independent source than an official one. If there was a wiki about Gravewit then I wouldn't want it hosted by Gravewit, since he could just go in and alter anything he felt was unfair.


 * As I said, I don't really agree with this argument because ArenaNet have been very open and fair so far, but I can appreciate Sarah's concerns.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:41, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I trust ArenaNet more than I trust Gravewit. I haven't made my mind up about Fyren yet. :)


 * More seriously, unless you're the one holding the keys to the server, there's always somebody else with "a big red kill button." You gotta trust somebody somewhere, and, so far, ArenaNet has been more open than Gravewit has.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 20:45, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I think Sarah's giving ArenaNet a little too much doubt, given their track record so far. Of course, nothing will guarantee that won't change, but I think if there's something ArenaNet deems censorship-worthy, then there's probably some legal implications that they'd rather avoid. But this is off-topic. As for GW2, I think it'll be inappropriate and rather inelegant to add to this wiki. A separate wiki at a later date would be cleaner. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 20:46, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * ArenaNet has a vested, monetary interest in the game. Nothing in ANet's behevior so far sugguests that they'd go to that length, but so far, that interest has not been threatened.
 * Gravewit, however, is actually loosing money on this little venture, and is doing this because he wants complete documentation of that game. That interest is much harder to threaten to the point of using that kill button.
 * it's not that i don't trust Anet, or that gravewit has some holy exception from suspicion, but that his motivations are simply harder to dislodge. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 21:28, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Are you sure about the losing money thing? With Gravewit we don't even know, he's never been transparent about that kind of stuff. Here's a chatlog from IRC (I trust you know who Inde is):

Mar 30 10:17:43 	 AreanNet really did a poor job (and I think it was intentional) informing the community that Gravewit just seems to be losing hand over fist in money Mar 30 10:18:26 	 i talked to Gravewit and he said repeatedly that they aren't going anywhere Mar 30 10:20:04 	 what they failed to address was the fact that if you take away his guild wiki then he                                loses a large part of his traffic and help on the other sites that might possibly have made him money
 * Honestly, I don't even really know Gravewit, and so I don't want to go around speculating about what his interests on GuildWiki are. Just letting you know that rushing to conclusions based on hearsay is probably not the best way to tackle this. --Dirigible 23:09, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


 * When I used to converse with Gravewit, back when Fyren was added as a server administrator, he repeatedly told me that the GuildWiki was actually making a little money each month from ads, which was set aside for future work. Indeed, according to him, it was this ad money that paid for our third server. &mdash;Tanaric 00:36, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * i stand corrected, the system does work. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 01:58, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Nominations for sysops
As some of you may have noticed, I'm in the market for some sysops. Sadly, most of my nominees have declined the position. If you have anyone in mind, I'd really appreciate it if you could nominate them via GW:RFA. &mdash;Tanaric 20:52, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * You might want to list those that you've already petitioned for it. I'm only aware of one at the moment that declined so I probably missed something.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:40, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Requests for adminship/Archive. --Dirigible 11:00, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks. That'll do. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:08, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I had a person in mind to RFA, but that person refused too. :( --Dirigible 13:18, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Quick references/Weapons
I invite all of you to take part in a major discussion over at GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Quick references/Weapons. Topic to troll about include:
 * 1) Collapsible legend
 * 2) Sortable table
 * 3) Splitting caster weapon types into different tables
 * 4) -enhancing caster weapons
 * 5) Standardized row-format for all caster weapons & column-hiding
 * 6) Retiring use of colors to differentiate caster weapon types

It's nowhere near as major as the original introduction of weapon quick reference lists nor the use of templates to construct skill QR lists. However, the changes involved in the proposal aren't exactly trivial either.

Let the flames start burning! I dedicate the mirage resulting from the heat to Lyssa and Balthazar. -PanSola 01:32, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Ladies and gentlemen, guys and gals, if you don't comment, then you will have no right to complain after things are implemented (or not implemented due to other opposition). Does everyone give me and Barek implicit consent to run around as a dictating committee? d-: -PanSola 21:21, 15 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't use the pages in question, so I'll leave it to you and Barek to decide. --Rainith 21:25, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

Last call for comments before the dictator takes the throne! -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 16:45, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Hard Mode Documentation
Is there a specific project going on for documenting the changes in Hard Mode? Things like enemy counts per zone (for the vanquisher title), enemy differences for hard mode zones, stuff like that? ~Avatarian 86 02:42, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
 * My two cents regarding enemy counts: leave them out. They vary by spawn and the last thing we want to have happen is people getting upset because they kill a number they see on the wiki and it doesn't complete it for them. &mdash; [[Image:Fin_sig.gif|User:Kyrasantae]] kyrasantae   12:52, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I would like to include an approximate number of enemies in the area. I've allready screencapped a few areas that I cleared and I'll continue doing it so I can submit the information later.
 * What comes to how we should document the hard mode, I suggest adding the hard mode information in the same articles, just like some bosses have information split in the article if they show up as different level versions in different areas. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 20:48, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Let me know how to add them. I've alot of screenshots to go through as well :P -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 21:35, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Switching from Nightfall to Factions??
O.K, My first encounter with GW was GW Nightfall and i loved it but i noticed my Guild were all having GVG battles so naturaly i wanted to join in, so i bought factions but i have a problem.

I've now installed factions after finishing nightfall but how do i play factions i'm in Kamadan i just don't how to cross over to factions.

Please help

Az Lam.
 * Plague in Cantha. --Fyren 13:45, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Also, you can start a new character in Factions. 16:02, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

This is a minor edit
Do we have any sort of policy that defines what makes something a minor edit? &mdash;Aranth 21:43, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
 * There's no policy about it as far as I know - just use your better judgement. Talk page edits should generally be minor unless you are raising an issue and it needs discussion. Any edits to the user name space should be minor. Spelling, grammar or link corrections are minor. Rewriting a paragraph could be major or minor depending on how much you change. Many recent changes patrollers will look at major or minor edits, but others hide minor changes from the list. Now we have the number of characters changed to show up next to an item, so that anything huge marked as a minor edit would look suspicious. I'm making this a minor edit, because while it is long, it is just a talk page edit. - B e X or  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 03:03, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The problem with minor edits is that they work against peer review, they decrease the amount of traffic that the page will get. I know that many, myself included, completely abuse that feature, (when someone starts an article and marks that edit as minor, something is not quite right). If an edit is set as minor, less eyes will check it and there'll be a greater chance for something inaccurate or of dubious quality to remain unchallenged or uncorrected. I really need to use it less. =\ --Dirigible 03:48, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I started out more or less following WP's guideline on minor edits but now end up flagging all but article rewrites as minor. When I go through recentchanges I ignore whether an edit is minor or not.  --Fyren 04:07, 24 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I originally had my preference default to making all my edits as minor, and I hardly ever think about whether my edits are actually major or minor. I also completely ignore the minor status when going through recentchanges and watchlist (as in "I treat minor edits and non-minor edits equally").  After realizing the silliness and pointlessness of what I'm doing, I no longer default my edits to minor (but I still ignore the minor status when going through RC and WL).  Also, I seem to notice that edits on the MediaWiki: namespace might not always make MW's interface update, especially for minor edits.  Thus that's one more reason to not set it to minor by default. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 04:41, 24 April 2007 (CDT)
 * An edit being minor or not has absolutely no effect on MW (or your browser, or squid) caching or not. --Fyren 05:01, 24 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Personally, I mark all userpage edits as minor, along with any edits along the lines of simple reformatting, spellchecking, and link-fixing. If it's a bigger change, such as adding a section or note to a page (for example, something that could possibly be argued by someone), then I don't mark it.
 * I, Jioruji Derako, hereby acknowledge the fact that he is replying to a month-old discussion that has most likely ended already. --[[image:GEO-logo.png]] Jioruji Derako.> 04:42, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Normally i just mark them as minor and use the major as an indicator that they might be new and could be a vandal edit but in general i just ignore which one it is and look at the change, the undo button is seriously the best wiki tool ever. -- Xeon 21:22, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * late chime: i always use this rule of thumb: "if you think it might not be minor, it isn't". Minor is the default, anything big enough to cause you to think it's possibly not minor, is not minor. i also unflag edits i think need someone else to look at, like if i'm unsure of formatting or style. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 21:31, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Builds
i sorley miss the build section and was wondering where the page is that discusses the fututre of a build page. The wipe said that a build section might retrun in the future... is this going to happen??? --Echo Ftw (talk|contribs) 20:16, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Policy lists some proposals. This site is someone else's wiki moving forward with their own builds stuff, including copies of the builds which were once here.  --Fyren 22:31, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

skill redirects
Just to bring up this subject again ... I honestly don't understand why the redirects from Mo skills, Me skills, etc that pointed to the profession skill quick reference lists were deleted. Per GW:REDIRECT, redirects for abbreviations are permitted, and this did not fall into either of the only two listed reasons for when not to use redirects. The only discussion that I can find having taken place anywhere on these is on this now blanked user page.

To me, these are very useful shortcuts to have from the search box. So, I wanted to actually start a discussion on this. If no one comments, I'll just re-create the redirects. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:54, 19 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I used those too, put them back plz &mdash; Skuld 12:56, 19 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I have despaired on many occasions at the treatment of redirects on this wiki. Since August 2006 I (and a number of others) have been in favour of producing more redirects for the wiki, and reversing the trend of deleting redirects. One particularly frustrating example is the deletion of "armour" redirects. i.e. Assassin armour, Dervish armour, Elementalist armour, Mesmer armour, etc. I know many of my friends who do searches for things like "dervish armour" are frustrated that they aren't taken directly to the results. I even started explaining how to remedy this to some of them, but then I noticed that they had recently been deleted.


 * I don't think that we should delete redirects unless they are obviously misleading. I had hoped that the changes to GW:REDIRECT last year would prevent such deletions, but apparently not. We need to change this.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:08, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 * When I first arrived on the wiki, I agreed back at that time to minimize the use of redirects. But quite some time ago I was convinced by the arguments of others that there really was no justification for not supporting the use of more redirects.  To me, unless it's a type that's specifically disallowed under GW:REDIRECT, then it should be allowed as a redirect. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:56, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I actually thought this was resolved. I know originally we didn't want too many redirects particularly for incorrectly spelt things like Troll Ungent. But GW:Redirect was rewritten following a discussion where we decided that having more redirects was a good idea, it would reduce server load and make it easier to find things. I don't know if they were incorrectly deleted or if we need to add another line to GW:REDIRECT. Does Assassin armour &rarr; Assassin armor and Mo skills &rarr; Monk skills quick reference come under the category of an abbreviation or common misnomers or something else? Either way I see no reason not to restore them we just perhaps need to add a line to GW:REDIRECT. --Xasxas256 21:12, 19 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I restored all of the sorts of redirects I could find based on complaints in this thread, but I was nowhere near exhaustive. &mdash;Tanaric 00:59, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


 * No one complained about misspelled redirects like "ungent." Misspelled redirects should be rare lest people end up using them by accident and we end up patrolling what links here for them.  --Fyren 01:12, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Fair enough. &mdash;Tanaric 02:13, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't see the problem with people linking to misspelled redirects. That doesn't suggest a problem with the redirect, but rather the linking article. The redirect is there as a safety net. If someone searches for "troll ungent" now they will get 0 search results.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:43, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


 * BTW, thanks Tanaric. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:44, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


 * If someone links to troll ungent now, they get a red link. I'd rather they get feedback that something is wrong than a blue link due to a redirect.  --Fyren 06:04, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Why not just use google search instead of the mediawiki search to search through this website? It would simplify everything. Ex: Someone searches for illusionary weapon, but gets nothing. Google has a good enough algorithm so that things like all lowercase will still yeild search results of names with the first letters capitalized. Wikipedia does it too. --Mgrinshpon 06:47, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


 * That's a pretty poor example since searching for that will return IW as the first result. A search using MW will always search the current database and will never be out of date.  I could add searching through Google as an option if people want.  --Fyren 06:56, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Regarding Mgrinshpon's suggestion, searching for "troll ungent" on Google does not produce better results . I don't think we need Google as a search option, personally.


 * I understand your point, Fyren. Having a red link makes a contributor's job easier; they can spot the error if they preview their edit. But I think that this is at the expense of ease of use for readers -- we should cater to readers first and contributors second. The advantage a contributor gains from a red link is in my opinion less valuable than the advantage a reader gets from a redirect. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:35, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


 * @ Tanaric - thanks for restoring the redirects mentioned on this thread!
 * @Xas - I had thought this was resolved too; but the redirects I mentioned were deleted as recently as March of this year, some of them twice. To me, these fall under the abbreviation allowance.  But even if others see it differently, we shouldn't need to give examples of every situation where a redirect should be used, the list is long enough already.  On the other-hand, we only have two situations listed where not to use redirects - as long as those two situations are avoided, I have no problem with redirects (noting that nonsense redirects are already prevented as they would be vandalism).
 * @all - My comment to Xas is relevant to my opinion on Ungent vs. Unguent. But for those who don't follow the same opinion as me and who do want to see allowed situations specifically spelled out - the current policy already has a line specifically allowing for common misnomers using Silver vs Sliver as an example.  I believe that Ungent would be allowed under that same line.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:10, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Silver vs Sliver is not a redirect though. It uses a disambig page to highlight the fact that it is a common misspelling. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:16, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Fyren, is it possible for you to see what people search for? If so, we should be able to provide redirects for commonly-used misspellings based upon such a list. &mdash;Tanaric 18:44, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Probably. I'll look into it.  --Fyren 04:13, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Logging searches now. Do we care about any privacy-related aspect of making the search info public?  --Fyren 13:43, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
 * No other search tool seems to. &mdash;Tanaric 14:09, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, we're GuildWiki so people aren't going to be putting anything sensitive into the search box, I guess. If we were Google, listing all the searches made by one user would give quite a lot of info in some cases (remember the AOL search fiasco?).  --Fyren 14:12, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

What shall we do with the armor pages?
With the update allowing all campaigns to use insignia, what should we do with the armor pages? Currently there are three sections to each page. 1) Functions. 2) Art. 3) Pictures of Art. With this latest update I think 1) is redundant as all the info is available in the insignia article, 2) is redundant as now the art has been standardised all the information is show in part 3. I propose just removing the two tables and having a short description linking to the insignia article, followed by the gallery of each art type (current part 3). Biscuits 12:47, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * What was the "standardization" made to art that makes it unneeded now? -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 18:14, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * PanSola, art is divorced from attribute; any art can have any armour stats now.
 * Biscuits, I suggest we do the following:
 * Armor summary pages:
 * Before: Mesmer armour types
 * After: Monk armour types


 * Armor type pages:
 * Before: Lieutenant's armor
 * After: Survivor armor


 * I submitted a bot proposal to this effect, which can be found here. Also contains more details of this suggestion.
 * --BlueNovember 18:30, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I did something similar to Necromancer armor, but I edited the second table too. I really think both tables are just unneeded bloat now though because any armour can take any insignia - so there is no need to have tables describing the functionals (already in the insignia article), and no need to have a table mapping art to function, as all art can have all functions. Biscuits [[Image:Biscuit.png]] 19:54, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

While the armor stuff are getting reformatted anyways, how about changing the gallery layout to group all female armors together, and then group all male armors together, so they are in different sections? I'm personally interested in looking at only one of the two at a time, especially if I'm picking what armor art to craft for my already-created characters. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:26, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh nice idea. I could care less what male armor looks like but love to browse female armor. Not mention that for the most part the female galleries are more complete. Hmmm... I doubt that there are more male players... And I don't there are more male toons... anywho, just make sure all the armor pages are the same. Without this final divorce of form and function, all we really have now is documentation of insignia/runes and the armor art (& where to get it and how much it costs in usage and materials). Finally, what the heck do we really need to write in the description of the armor. If its only a look, don't the galleries do all the talking? I find the need for such a section rather confusing. &mdash; <font color=#7E6B99>JediRogue  [[Image:JediRogueSig.jpg]] 01:46, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * My thoughts exactly. :) Re: arranging by gender. The current gallery system seems pretty compact and clean to me as it is. Both genders are easily assessable without one getting in the way of another. The structure of that layout also easily identified all off the armor types available at a glance. It would be hard to change it without listing everything twice. If we did that, maybe it could be in two columns? It may get a bit messy. Biscuits [[Image:Biscuit.png]] 04:25, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Oh and I just found another place that talks about armor that needs to be fixed. Pages for specific damage types have a section on equipment that protects from it. EX: Fire damage references Drakescale and Pyromancer's. At the moment, these seem to redirect to insignia but I think they are going to need rewriting entirely. &mdash; <font color=#7E6B99>JediRogue 
 * for the most part, armor is fine. we have insignias to cover functions, and galeries to cover art. most of the function pages have been repalced with insigna redirects, and many of the art pages are being moved around to fit various conventions/policies. a male armor/female armor section might be useful, but it adds some pretty massive administrative overhead to operations like this. consider, perhaps, a QR linking to galleries? that would be a bit simpler then a seperate photo reference like the profession pages. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 03:35, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Here is what I propose the main armor pages should look like now: User:Biscuits/Necromancer armor. Biscuits 09:18, 31 May 2007 (CDT)