GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.




Adding a category level[]

Currently skills by type and by profession are mixed in this category. I suggest to add a category level in between to separate them:

  • Skills
    • Skills by type
      • Hexes
      • Shouts
      • ...
    • Skills by profession
      • Warrior skills
      • Monks skills
      • ...

Unless anybody objects by Monday 2006/01/16, I'll go for it. /me starts timer countdown. Oh, and I think we should use this principle for all categories, if applicable. --Tetris L 03:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

using the sort key trick, we can group things together the way we want, so I now propose we get rid of the "by Blah" categories, and instead add the Blah as a sort key instead. -PanSola 23:34, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
Sorry that I didn't notice this earlier. I hate it. I think the sort key method is MUCH more confusing than the "by blah" sub-categories. By rule of thumb, if you need half a page of text to explain what you're doing, it's too complicated. This is a big mess! We should get rid of this, as soon as possible, and switch back to the "by blah" subcategories! That method is much clearer, more intuitive, and well established in Wikipedia. (Yeah, I know we're not Wikipedia.) --Tetris L 03:19, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
I prefer "by type" categories also. I don't think sort keys should be used to overlay an additional organization scheme. -- 08:10, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
Blah, I personally hate the "Blah by bluh" categories. For things that have three or four levels of sub-cats, it really starts getting awkward when you think about how the tree is organized, and it inflates the 3~4 levels of sub-cats into 6~8 levels. But that could be just me. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 09:31, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
Has there ever been a decision (by vote or discussion) on this matter in Style & Formatting, or anywhere else? If yes, please point it out to me. If no, then I think we should discuss this and make a general decision to be used throughout this wiki. --Tetris L 09:49, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
If I recall correctly (and I could've been wrong), I tried to raise this issue a few times, but didn't get much participation in the discussion. Including Skills, I've done four major crusades that flooded recent changes at least 6 times (some crusades were just too big so I had to take breaks), so I presumed it didn't exactly go unnoticed, but people just didn't care enough. The ones currently using sort key for subcategorization are: Skills, Armor, Weapon, and Locations. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 10:06, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
I see those crusades happened in early April. Hmmm .... at that time I was away from wiki because of real life (moved to a new town and started a new job). Otherwise I would have noticed and commented, for sure. I'm very sorry that I have to raise the issue again, but I think that the sort key method is really awkward, and should be dumped asap. --Tetris L 10:31, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
I'm perfectly fine with you bringing up the discussion again, since it never got enough attention in the first place. But on the issue of the categorization scheme itself, I find the bearucratic categories such as "explorable areas by campaign" (which would be a grand-child subcategory of "locations by type" and "locations by campaign") etc much much more awkward and unwieldy.
I can think of a solution that would be ideal to me, but unfortunately Gravewit had trouble making the needed plug-in work in the past.
Anywyas, let's see if we can get more people who care about the issue to share their mind. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 13:09, 26 July 2006 (CDT)
I wish there was plug-in that allows you to search/sort categories with Boolean logic. For example: Show all entries that are in Category:Bosses AND Category:Necromancers AND Category:Perdition Rock. This is really something that MediaWiki should have as a standard feature, not as a plug-in. That would make browsing by category sooooooo much easier. --Tetris L 06:55, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

There is such a plugin, Gravewit tried installing one but it didn't work, and no other MediaWiki sites seemed to have the bug Gravewit ran into, so no one could help him. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 11:36, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

I won't let this slide! This matter is too important to decide it with only the two of us involved in the discussion. I think we should make this a topic in GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting, and maybe hold a vote about it. --Tetris L 03:17, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

Unlinked skills[]

There's an inconsistency in skills that are not linked to a specific attribute in that unlinked skills for all professions but mesmer are included in Category:profession skills by attribute. There are also certain special cases like snowfighting skills included in these categories. This doesn't make a lot of sense to me... should we make a category for each profession, such as Category:Warrior unlinked skills to cover these? (Unless someone has a better naming convention or better overall idea...) Nwash 15:16, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Going once, going twice... Nwash 12:15, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
The idea is ok (although the change is not strictly necessary); I would adhere more closely to the existing naming convention ( Axe Mastery skills, Hammer Mastery skills, Strength skills, Swordsmanship skills, Tactics skills ) which would call for "Unlinked Skills", and then distinguish by profession with a parenthesis: "Unlinked skills (Warrior)". Are these skils categorized automatically? Then we need to change the skill infobox template to reflect that. --◄mendel► 12:23, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
Ah, yep, indeed it is automatic. There were two reasons I wanted to do this: consistency, and to help with my quick and dirty substing solution for generating these (since the current arrangement has a few skills that shouldn't be included), but I guess the simple change to the template wouldn't necessarily fix that. Ah well, since I can't do that myself anyway, I'll leave that up to your own judgment. It's not a particularly big issue. Nwash 12:32, October 7, 2009 (UTC)