Talk: Community portal/Archive 17

Revision as of 07:56, 6 October 2007

GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 17/topnotes

Trivia

I would like to state my opinion which is allowed on the wiki and no one has to right to lynch me for saying so. I think that nearly all of the trivia on GuildWiki is a load of crap. The Notes on GuildWiki aren't perfect either. True "notes" are ones like how Holy Wrath splits energy penalty among the maintainers. Other notes (this is just a made up example) like the ones saying Lightning Hammer and Lightning Orb are good with Dual Attunes are not notes, they are advice. I wouldn't mind a seperate section on advice only to clarify this. While some of the advice on GuildWiki is unfounded, biased to one style of play, or simply does not work, most of it is viable, with some help from editors with proper game experience to weed out the bad advice.

Trivia is a different story. I removed the Trivia from "Shields Up!" which was promptly readded. Whether "Shields Up!" really is a common reference to Star Trek can be argued somewhere else. Looking at Talk:Ryoko awhile back and my continuous peeving with seeing unnecessary Trivia on skill pages added by fans of the respective trivia, I thought maybe the rest of the wiki has something to say about this. Maybe this has been brought up before, and if there is such precedent, please link to it and I will see where to go from there.

My main point is that there is no point to trivia. Notes are definetely needed and should be included. Most of the advice is very good and currently it is working. However, the trivia has been riddled with addings, removings, and their reverts. Apparently a lot of the paragon shouts are refering to Monty Python. Some people think only a few of them are. But besides the childish gratification of seeing their favorite piece of media connected to Guild Wars through this wiki's trivia system, what point is there? Sure there are some people that first visit an article and go, "Oh..that does make sense". I'll admit it's happened to me before. But just skimming through Shout's trivia section, I've never seen the said To the Limit video. If the wiki is trying to teach me popular culture, that's something disagreeable, but acceptable. I can choose if I want to listen to it or not. What really bothers me is that the trivia asserts itself as true or is clutter. There is trivia that says "this may be a reference to -insert media here-" which is stupid. Far-fetched trivia that requires a stretch is obviously unneeded, and pointless. The "their names do sound kinda similar" is not needed to be replicated every time someone visits an article. Other trivia asserts itself as true. Like Victory is Mine's trivia states "Stewie from Family Guy says "Victory is Mine" quite often, usually whilst trying to assassinate his mother, Lois." Some people, especially the ones that don't know what Family Guy is, don't think this is true. Who is GuildWiki to say that it is.

You can tell me "just ignore the trivia if you have such a big problem with it". Well I can add a joke about how funny Echo Menders are, but we don't have that. Sure, it is foolish, but who's to judge that it is more foolish then where to cap the skill? Common sense is usually the judge. While more people will benefit from where Mending's skill trainer is than how funny my joke is, I could argue that at least one person will laugh at my joke. I'm taking it to an extreme example to clearly illustrate how pointless Trivia is. While common sense and the general standard for the wiki is to not have mending jokes but to have skill trainer locations and trivia, how is the mending joke, in principal, different from trivia? Neither contribute to the gameplay of Guild Wars, unlike the skill trainer location.

My proposition: Remove all the trivia. All of it. I haven't looked through all of the Trivia in the wiki, but I'm pretty sure that some could be interpreted as a note rather than a pop culture reference (which is pretty much the vast majority of trivia) and could be added as such. Some trivia is so blindingly obvious, such as "Can't Touch This" is a reference to MC Hammer's song Cant Touch This. But, indeed, you really can't touch the shouter of that shout. If trivia really is blindingly obvious, then it is. The wiki doesn't need to say so; everyone will think of that song when they see this skill. If trivia is obscure, then it is as well. Fans of that skill, boss, or place will think of whatever it is supposedly referencing it to. When someone unlocks "I Will Survive!", they can think of the song if they want. They can think that they will survive in game if they want. It's their decision. It's not a sentence on a section of a skill page that decides for them. GuildWiki is not the place to exchange popular culture. Well. At least not in the mainspace. You can do whatever you please in userspace. Trivia was invented by fans. It's main contributers today still are fans of specific media. It clutters the wiki. It makes the wiki less authoritative.

Exception: Some trivia is genuine Guild Wars trivia and not connected to an outside, non-Guild Wars Source. Take example Jamei's Gaze is definitely referring to Jamei. "This does not effect Guild Wars gameplay, so you are contradicting yourself" you may say. Well then Lore doesn't effect Guild Wars gameplay. Hell, let's get rid of all the spoiler warnings then, eh? By keeping these types of trivia, I'm not being a purist to a Guild Wars based Guild Wiki.

Even though it would be a lie to say that I have no personal feelings against trivia and this is truly nothing more than an opinion, consider as one. I have only contributed to the wiki a small amount and I am just an anonymous user. I fully understand this is not my call to make. I just am trying to shed some light onto the situation. Biased? I did my best to present both sides of the argument but surely every singly written argument exceeding ~1000 words has some (maybe a lot if you can point it out, which if you can please do) bias in it. There maybe points I have missed, or some possibly fatal flaws in my argument, which I am willing to hear to if you choose to respond. Most importantly, if you disagree, there's no need to flame me. Remember, I'm not demanding anything at all, only proposing. This is just an opinion.

I forgot to sign, excuse me 67.162.10.70 22:52, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Guild Wars is full of obvious intentional pop culture references, and I think we should aknowledge that fact and include plausible trivia. When something implausible ends up in the trivia section, such as the dubious Ryoko trivia, it generally gets removed, generally leading to a discussion on the talk page, which usually reaches concensus soon after someone points out how implausible or tenuous the alledged trivia really is. Anyway, I think this discussion belongs on GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting. -- Gordon Ecker 23:33, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

I agree that a lot of the trivia in the wiki are very difficult to believe. You are entitled to your opinion, however biased or unbiased you may think it is. Here are some thoughts of mine after I read your comments:

What I would like to ask is why do you think that a trivia section equals "an exchange of popular culture"? How is one section with a header title that means "insignificant or something of little importance" affect GuildWiki's credibility? You mean you actually became distrustful of the contents of a skill page because someone added a crap trivia at the bottom? I'm not convinced of your "less authoritative" argument. I think you're just bugged by stupid trivia. If you think they're stupid, put a message in the respective talk page and garner support for their removal.

And on the side, yes, if you propose to get rid of all trivia, then Jamei's Gaze trivia goes too. Your argument applies here (I see Jamei's Gaze, I think of Jamei, no need to mention Jamei, people can make whatever connection they want). Another thing about the Echo Mender joke, if you look at Mending, you'll find it there. You can even provide links to any relevant forum posts if you want. The thing I find strange about the skill pages is why the trivia section is not right at the bottom. --Ab.Er.Rant

(msg Aberrant80) 03:09, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Personally, I support Wikipedia's stance on Trivia's section - but I've never proposed it here as I've seen such major support for the sections here. Basically, WP's stance is that trivia sections are useful when an article is first being built; but trivia sections over there do get tagged as non-encyclopedic. They view the trivia sections as a collection of facts that are either yet to be incorporated into the text of the article - or if they can't be incorporated, then they are too loosly related to the core subject to merit remaining and are purged from the article after a period of time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:34, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

GameWikis - FuryWiki and meta again

One new wiki and one not-so-new wiki: FuryWiki and the return of meta, the GameWikisWiki. As with the older wikis, account info is shared among Fury and meta, so you don't need to make a new account if you have one already (and of course, you can edit anonymously if you like).

Not much to say about FuryWiki; it's a wiki for Fury. If you're in the beta, head over and write some stuff up. It's essentially empty right now, but I'm adding my feeble knowledge to try to seed it. If you're not in the beta, the signup page is here. I have no clue how often they accept new testers.

Meta's actually even emptier, but I'm trying to address how to get new wikis going. There's a very barebones policy there for what to do if you want us to host a wiki for something (that policy being essentially "write some content for it"). --Fyren 04:43, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

A few questions...

How do you add sections to pages? I need to add sections to MY page. Please and thank you. :) -- MiniKold 15:13, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

See GuildWiki:Editing_guide. You add sections with ==, which is the same as hitting the "+" tab next to the Edit button.

(T/C) 15:16, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Bullseye.com ad...

Anyway to block the Bullseye.com ads? I don't even know what the ads are for exactly (tried going to bullseye.com and bulls-eye.com and found no sites) but there are a lot of scantily dressed ladies in the ads. Which is not the kind of ad I would like us to host. --Karlos 00:33, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

There's things that might be worse. I'm seeing ads for buying gold (the one I just saw for WoW). Gwiki shouldn't have anything to do with that kind of thing - it encourages players to do something that may cost them their account and undermines the site's reputation. SarielV 21:02, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

It is not that bad tbh. Just a gossip site if anything. You know, the stars, celebs, controversies, and all that jazz. Readem (talk*contribs) 00:36, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Seems to have something to do with games as well, which explains why it's even here. The site's called "BullzEye" btw, with a Z instead of an S. Makes it cooler! =P --

Jioruji Derako.> 00:38, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Fine and dandy but there may be young children around the computers (as was in my case). The last thing I want is to introduce my very young brother and very bewildered grandfather to the internet's scantly-clad ladies. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚^₮/_ḉ〛 00:43, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

They need to learn sometime!

...but on a more serious note, I do agree, it doesn't seem like the best ad for this site. --

Jioruji Derako.> 00:53, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

If you're running a version of Windows prior to Vista, you should be able to deny them by h4X0ring your hosts file. Though if the site gets revenue based on page loads, that might be you stealing money from the site. No!!!

DaveK 06:04, 10 July 2007 (GMT)

I often read Guild Wiki pages durring lunch at work, as a harmless passtime. I was recently given a warning by my supervisor as a result of the Bullz-eye content in the sponsors column. I tried to add www.adbrite.com to my blocked internet lists, but that didn't seem to stop the ads. Also - The sponsor column runs ads for buying gold for real world cash - which is a "terms and conditions" violation. The sponsors need to be reviewed more closely. - Lefick

Best way to block them is with Firefox and the AdBlock plugin. Adbrite is a particularly annoying one and not one I was ever able to fully block via the hosts file. --Rainith 12:26, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

It's Google Ads. The sponsors can't really be "reviewed" as they're just loaded based on keywords. What the wiki admin can do is to block them, so please do post the urls of offending ads. --Ab.Er.Rant

(msg Aberrant80) 19:33, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

It isn't just Google Ads (at least it wasn't a while back). Adbrite was added a while back (I don't know if they have since been removed as I block them) and they were not able to be blocked (in any way that I could figure out) using the hosts file "hack." Google Ads are easily blocked with the hosts file though. --Rainith 20:21, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

You can disable them in your css settings. You can copy mine as a template to block it on your account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:26, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

There's no reason why it wouldn't work on Vista. DeepSearch 10:06, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I've been relaying complaints over the last few days to Gravewit as people have been making them. --Fyren 21:44, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the css hack, Barek :)--Snograt

16:49, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

The only problem with the CSS solution is that it appears that the MediaWiki software still attempts to access the site, then just doesn't display it. The good news is that the visual distraction is eliminated. The bad news is that some security suites tag the site http://ads.adbrite.com/mb/te as spyware, and still pop-up warning messages everytime the site is accessed, even though the results are never displayed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:56, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Running Guild Wars Under an OS other than Windows

I propose, as someone who is very, very sick of his terribly slow windows install that there should be a comprehensive section of the wiki devoted to helping those who wish to run Guild Wars on a non-windows operating system. I apologise if this is an old concept or that I haven't looked hard enough for an existing page (I have looked fairly hard though), but there needs to be an easy to understand, stress free guide to installing Guild Wars on a non-windows OS; this just simply isn't provided immediately elsewhere and hence, as a source of all things Guild Wars, we should definitely provide it. I'm posting this here to see some thoughts on the topic; if there is enough interest I would certainly consider fronting a project to bring it into being.

Cheers, --Vagabond 05:05, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I know at least a couple people here run it under various *nixy OSes. I don't remember who, off the top of my head, besides Tanaric. --Fyren 05:28, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, given that you're only complaining about the install part, and since you only really need to install once (for each computer you're using), I don't see why a slow install would warrant a switch of the OS itself. But if you're interested, the official wiki has a page on it: [1]. I tried finding a similar page here, but I'm not sure if anybody did. --Ab.Er.Rant

(msg Aberrant80) 20:08, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Instructions on Linux:

Install current version of wine, not the outdated one in your distro's repository
Download gwsetup.exe from guildwars.com
run gwsetup via wine.
run Guild Wars via wine.

Runs pretty well, actually.

—Tanaric 19:13, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I had a look at the Official Wiki one. For a casual nerd who has just begun the arduous path to become a fully baptised member of the freakish society that is Linux 0(ie. me), the first glance of this page caused me to wet my pants and order an exorcism. Its a heap of terminal commands, command line switches and other horrors. I know that many would argue that a true Linux nerd revels in that sort of situation, however for someone like me, who is simply a casual "Oh I'll see what something that isn't windows is like, what a delightful trifle (guffaw)" after reading in their PC Magazine that Ubuntu is "Linux for the folks", and that it is really easy to use (what a larf), a huge jumble of code in a not very easy to read format is hardly appreciatable. I'm proposing a really dumbed down version, not patronising but easy to understand, that can help someone who just wants Linux because they don't want to pay for XP Profession 64x, or because they're cheap, to run their favourite game, and currently this simplicity is not on offer. Oh and what switches do you use Tanaric lol, mine keeps randomly closing :P Cheers. Oh and I didn't mean the installation process, I meant the installed version on Windows. Vagabond 05:12, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I just tried restructuring the "Guild Wars on Wine" article on the official wiki, hopefully making it less intimidating. Let us know how that looks. --Dirigible 12:57, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

That's brilliant well done. There is pretty much no way you can go wrong with that guide, however I use -dx8 instead of no-shaders these days. But this isn't the place to write that, so well done and problem solvered (you'll only get that joke if you're an Aussie but oh well, it made me chuckle).Vagabond 23:48, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

GW:EN Skills...

Not sure if anyone posted this elsewher, but peering into gw.dat, some people have seen the following skill names: read here Should we bother add them now? --Karlos 03:25, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Nvm. I found the discussion. Please ignore. --Karlos 03:46, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Why speculate about those skills, the description of what the skills do is in the gw.dat file as well, lol. -- Xeon 06:38, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Wiki.GW Has a full list of what I assume are "legal" PvP skills for each proffesion. Are we allowed to copy them? Only thing they don't say are which ones are elites —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.239.97 (contribs) .

None of them are elite, Izzy confirmed it. -- Gordon Ecker 18:01, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

PvP vs. PvE Skills

With the upcoming GW:EN campaign, a lot more PvE-only skills will be added to the game. I'd like to verify if I got the template system right:

Equippable skills for use in PvP and PvE get neither the "pveonly" nor the "nocats" flag
Equippable PvE-only skills carry the "pveonly", but not the "nocats" flag
Non-Equippable skills (festival arenas, skills granted during missions etc.) receive the "nocats" flag, but not the "pveonly" flag.

Q: Is this correct? - Xanon 15:10, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Skills players cannot see in their skill menu get nocats. Skills players can see in their skill menu but are PvE only get pveonly. --Fyren 01:30, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Hmm, i marked all skills that are pve only that people can use with the tag, junundu skills and mission skills (no event skills or monster specific skills). -- Xeon 04:32, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Probably doesn't really matter what's marked as pveonly. --Fyren 07:26, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the answers. Fyren, with your last reply you mean that it doesn't matter for the skills that have "nocats" already if they get tagged "pveonly" as well? - Xanon 16:13, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

The nocats parameter prevents automatic categorization of the skill article in order to keep the categories like Category:Enchantment spells clean and useful for players. People seeking a list of all skills of a type are probably concerned with making a build, so "special" or monster-only skills aren't helpful. The purpose of the pveonly parameter, which was only (relatively) recently introduced by Xeon, is so far just to add the text "PvE only" to QR boxes (like at the bottom of ranger skills quick reference). This ends up being possibly redundant for pages like celestial skill where all the listed skills are necessarily PvE skills. --Fyren 18:10, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Location article format standardization

While vanquishing today, I noticed that the location articles often had very different formats, particularly for shrine locations, number of enemies present, and miscellaneous vanquishing notes. They can be at the bottom, in a subtitle under Notes, spread across the article, inserted at the top, formatted inconsistently, or just missing altogether. These should be standardized so that information is easier to find, with a Shrines section and a Hard Mode section. The latter could be a subsection of Notes, or independent. New community task? Issa Dabir 19:49, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

See GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Explorable areas. The missing thing is hard mode, because nobody actually started any discussion for standardising hard mode information. --Ab.Er.Rant

(msg Aberrant80) 20:14, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

I know that's there, but it's not implemented. Even for bounty shrines, a feature predating hard mode, the formatting is all over the place. I'm posting here because it would be a good idea to make format standardization a community task, once the format is extended to hard mode data.

Issa Dabir 05:56, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Has the wiki dropped the "getting there" sections or is it just not happening on some of the locations?

Advertising

I don't know if anyone has noticed but Google Adds has placed an advertisement for a website which sells in game items and gold. This is against the GW rules and it's kinda offensive that a website which supports the game has the advertisement to a website which hurts it so much. I don't belive this is intentional however is it possible to remove the advertisement or replace it with another one which isn't offensive to the game?58.110.141.54 13:03, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Edit: Nevermind I saw the discussion above.

How can you not click on the USA Body Armor ad? -

Krowman (talk • contribs) 00:35, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Guild Wars Gold In Stock

They advertise in-game as well... they're surprisingly good at avoiding capture. I can only imagine accounts caught advertising in-game are marked and/or banned... they probably make enough money to buy new advertising accounts every so often. --

Jioruji Derako.> 05:44, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Re Sponsors

I see you have Alexa Toolbar as sponsor, Alexa is well-known spyware that most anti-spyware and anti malware tools will remove, maybe you could remove it too ? ;p

Alexa is not a spyware, its a world leading statistic company, trusted and used world wide in confirming real site traffic without have access to the real "hard" statistic. Its no different then google or any other toolbar. 80.89.53.119 17:15, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Anon is right. Those statistics you hear that say, "Wikipedia is the 9th most popular website in the world" comes from Alexa. It's about spyware as much as google toolbar is. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ〚₮/ḉ〛 17:50, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

But google toolbar is spywere, haven't you seen that video of "google's master plan" RT | Talk 19:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

gold add

you have a add on your pages that takes you to a page were you can buy gw gold "RUNtastic"

Sigh....Archive Time

92 kilobytes....Can't people just get top of the line computers and computer browsers? Amyways, apparently another archive time is coming up. Nhnowell 12:25, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Feel free to do it - there's no designated archiver, anyone can do it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:27, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Archiving is like taking out the trash... anyone can do it, it's just most people don't want to do it. *twiddles his thumbs while someone else archives the page* --

Jioruji Derako.> 14:28, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Done. -- Gordon Ecker 19:41, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Lol...I know anyone can do it, I just don't know HOW to do it, and the last thing I want is a big ugly mess to start off the week. Nhnowell 09:35, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Don't worry about messing something up. Everything's easy to revert if you don't do something perfectly. Better to do something imperfectly than to do nothing at all! —Tanaric 13:10, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Official Wiki

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page WTF... Did they jsut steal everything off this wiki? Its the gayest thing... this is the real wiki, the original. 71.243.16.15 13:56, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

The same general style is also from here and here, to say the least. It's just the general style most wikis use, not necessarily plagiarism. Also note that many of the admins on here are also admins on the official wiki... --

Jioruji Derako.> 14:46, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Keep in mind also that both wikis are documenting the exact same thing, and a lot of the editors that created the articles here are working there too. Because of this there are bound to be many similarities. - BeXor

00:24, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Everyone I know still refers to this as the good wiki—♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 07:43, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Because everything except for Gaile Talk and the EotN skills was copied from here in the first place (and poorly at that, lots of articles are still empty) --Gimmethegepgun 07:48, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Meh. I don't like comparing them. This wiki is much more useful overall (talk page discussion on skills is fascinating and teaches loads - by far, most official wiki skills don't even have talk pages). The official wiki has, however, some nice things - Izzy responding to comments on specific skill balance and map mechanics and the like. To get the most out of the game, one has to use both wikis. -Auron 07:49, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Doesn't even have an Error page... how pathetic. ANet won't document their own error messages --Gimmethegepgun 07:56, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Anet isn't documenting anything. They aren't responsible for the articles, the editors are. All they are there to do is host the place and solve tech problems. :P And not everything was copied. Information is going to look the same because 1. it's the same editors or 2. it's from the same game and data doesn't change... I think the official wiki is doing very well considering the time frame it has been up, compared to this one. - BeXor

08:16, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

I wish you some of you guys would actually go and read the FAQ before spouting off accusations. --Ab.Er.Rant

(msg Aberrant80) 20:12, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Unsuitable Adverts?

I just noticed the following advert on the banner at the bottom of the page ...

GW Guild wars gold/platin - Buy cheap guild wars gold fast
7/24 fast delivery and top service www.colorpub.net

As buying GW money with real money is against the rules, is this really a suitable advert for the wiki to be displaying?

Bonsai nine 03:05, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Those show up randomly; as fast as the admins block the ads, the advertisers change sites. Just copy the URL whenever you spot on of those, so an admin can block it. --

Jioruji Derako.> 04:30, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

http://www.peons4hire.com too. Foo 23:07, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Bioshock

lol i know this has nothing to do with GW and its so off topic kittens will die but... after going on many forums and asking "Why is Bioshock good? What are the new gameplay aspects?" i get NOTHING but douchebag responses. I went on to comment about how incompitent they were and how ppl on wikis pwn and help others. Soooooo i know this violates GW:blahblahblah but i am hoping that anyone who owns Bioshcok could tell me what is so great about it (lol is is very strage huh...) --Echo Ftw (talk|contribs) 00:25, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, I don't own the game (yet), but from what I know, the AI is on a totally different level from other games so far. Rather then simple patrolling foes, they will actually explore on their own; just because a guard walks past in one direction, doesn't mean he'll ever do it again. Also, the original game was a cult favorite. And yes, this probably isn't the best place to post this. :D --

Jioruji Derako.> 02:16, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Two new issues coming up with Gw:en

We have 4 products, Prophecies, Factions, NF, and gw:en, but we still don't have 4 'areas'. we have three continents, but when listing a location for something, "Tyria" would just not do. the areas of prophecies and gw:en should have two distinct names. I'd suggest 'inner Tyria' and 'outer tyria' or something of the sort of 'pre-quake Tyria' and 'post-quake Tyria'. (this makes me think, is "pre-searing" a term coined by anet or by the comunity?).
The {{c4}} box was just changed from saying "ch4" to saying "Guild Wars Eye of the North expansion". this perception is bound to cause trouble in many places. I know gw:en is not a standalone product, but isn't it the next "chapter" in our heroes' story? isn't it a new "campaign", a cumulative effort in achieving a goal? My point being, that the fact that gw:en is not a standalone product barely affects the content of the wiki, (hell, it barely affects the gameplay), and that gw:en should be acknowledged as "chapter 4" or "the fourth campaign". (personally thinking that the word 'chapter', which indicates continuity and order, best describes it).

Foo 18:45, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't see where the issue comes up. As far as the organization of information goes, this wiki does not use the area names to organize data related to the products. We were not supposed to use "Tyria" to imply something is tied to Prophecies campaign, or to use "Cantha" to imply something is tied to the Factions campaign. The Far Shiverpeaks and the Tarnished Coast are just new regions available for players to visit on the Tyrian continent.
It's not a "campaign", as Anet is specifically using that term for stand-alone products. While I don't mind continuing referring to it as C4 for the time being, I am against explicitly calling it a campaign. If you want to use the "a cumulative effort in achieving a goal" definition, then heck, Sorrow's Furnace would be its own mini-campaign too. No opinion on "chapter", except that's a term Anet pointedly avoided at the time of Factions. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:14, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

In Maps you have a Prophecies section which includes Tyrian maps which are only of "small" Tyria. articles like Eggnog and Spider Web are relating to origins of items as 'Tyrian' and 'Canthan'. Chaos in Kryta says "This quest allows Canthan characters to travel to Tyria for the first time", which could be misleading now. Guild Wars Eye of the North Sneak Peek Weekend includes a section called "Getting to the Far Shiverpeaks", even though getting to the Far Shiverpeaks is not the point, getting to the gw:en territory is. I believe that the best way to solve all of those little diversions is to have different names for the prophecies-tyria and the gw:en territory.
So if we anyway "disobeyed" anet on this, I see no reason not to keep calling gw:en 'chapter 4'. Foo 23:49, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

(PanSola, an addition to your #1: "The Far Shiverpeaks, the Tarnished Coast, and the Charr homelands". I believe that using all those extra sub-areas' names will make things unclear and crowded. Foo).

(Another note, by looking at the Denravi Sword article, which also uses the names of the places, I'm understanding that the thing that leads me here, is that using names of places is romantic and fantasy-like, in opposed to using the products' names, which is more cold and technical. Foo)

(Beh, they just keep coming. another problem is that the name of the newest product, is also a name of an outpost, which could be repeatedly very enoying. Foo)

I've fixed the Denravi Sword article. Feel free to report others or fix them yourself. -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 10:17, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

If no one objects, I'll fix Template:Armor_art_box, Template:QuestItem and so on... Foo 07:46, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Object, at least for the two templates you explicitly pointed out. Those two only refer to campaigns and not continents in their code and documentation, so I see absolutely nothing to "fix", whereas editing those templates can use quite a bit of server resources that may hinder site performance for a period of time. Please explain how exactly you plan to "fix" those templates first. -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 09:38, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Those templates ask to name a campagin, while Crown and future gw:en quest items, does not belong to a campaign, hence the word should be changed, in my opinion, to "chapter", so that the entry of "Eye of the North" in Crown would be valid. Foo 13:40, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

The use of the word "Chapter" was originally used by Arena-net, and they intentionally converted to the use of "Campaign" ... the word "chapter" implies they should be played in a specific sequence, which is not the case. Why not just convert the text in that box to a more generic "Where found", "Package" or "Game package"? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:49, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

ah I see now. ~~"game" is my current fav pick,~~ but I think the whole thing might need more discussion from more ppl.-User:PanSola (talk to the

) 15:05, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

'Game' is pretty good! XD I also expected more people. could someone open the door for them? Foo 19:28, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Actually I changed my mind. We have existing practices to "use what the game use" and "be consistent". We should take a look at how the skill list menu sorting option word things (currently it has a sort by "campaign" option), use it for skills, and consistently use it across the wiki for other stuff. My bet is while Anet doesn't consider GW:EN a campaign, the skill sorting option is gonna remain as sort by "campaign", in which case that's what we'll do to. If Anet actually changes the wording, then we will change too. -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 19:37, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Core isn't a campaign either, but it's still used in the campaign entry. -- Gordon Ecker 21:15, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

User CSS question

From what I've heard before, it's possible for a user to modify the site CSS on their own end, such as changing the look of their "new messages" box and whatnot. Does anyone know what coding to put where that would allow a user to hide the Gamewikis projects at the top of the site? I don't play any of those games, so the links are of no use to me, and they clutter up my view when I'm working. I was hoping there's a simple way to just remove those on my end. -- Jioruji Derako.> 03:08, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

User:Jioruji Derako/monobook.css is where it's at. if you are having trouble with the code, just copy someone elses... Foo 08:07, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the point in the right direction. Just need to figure out the coding now. :D I guess I can just type in User:username/monobook.css to view someone's coding? --

Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 09:33, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Ya, mine is User:Xeon/monobook.css. -- Xeon 09:36, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Is there a golden rule to CSS editing that I should knw or something? o far, I've figured out that #navbar is what I want to remove, but it only seems to work in preview. (you guys can move this discussion to my talk page if you like, in case it starts cluttering up the portal here.) --

Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 09:55, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

At second glance, turns out I need #navbar. (horay Alt+Shift+e.) I think I've nearly got the hang of this, though; I don't understand how it works, but trial and error is working well. I can figure out the "how" part later. --

Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 10:23, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

"In other wikis"

When using Wikipedia, I find the "In other languages" box very useful. for anyone who doesn't know, it's a feature that lets you easily find the same article in other languages' wikipedias. it is good for looking for extra info, and for other viewpoints. for example, in the code for this article in the english wikipedia, you can find the line "[[de:Hühnerei]]", which adds a line in a box on the left to the Deutsch article on the same subject.

I think that this kind of synergy between the official wiki and the unofficial one, could have a great benefit for the wikis and for the community, and I would be happy if the people in charge would seriously consider this cooperation. this suggestion is being posted simultaneously in the other wiki. Foo 14:08, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't know if it would be of great benefit fot the wikis, but I would love it! I'm always switching back and forth between these things by editing the address bar! -- 208.97.167.26 00:08, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

this is a neat solution I was given in the other wiki. Foo 05:01, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Nice find there, Foo; where exactly did you find it? I've got it up and running now on both wikis, and it's a real boon. --

Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 16:36, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

[2] --Ab.Er.Rant

(msg Aberrant80) 03:33, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

GW deepthroat o.O?

GuildWiki:Sandbox Read and comment!!!PvEreanor 22:55, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Didn't belong in the sandbox, so I removed it. If anyone want to keep a copy of it, feel free to do so under your user space. -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 23:20, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

The Truth: Part 1 Done.

PvEreanor 23:26, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

A copy here isn't really needed. It was a straight cut-and-paste from http://gw-truth.blogspot.com/ .

So far, the author hasn't produced any evidence to substantiate any of the claims, so for now I support not having the content in articles. If the author later produces some evidence that can substantiate some or all of his claims, then those parts could be worked into the appropriate wiki articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:58, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Let's delete the thing then. How do you do that?

PvEreanor 17:09, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

The sandbox can just be erased and reset with the single template at the top. For other pages, you can request deletion of a page by inserting the following at the very top:

That will insert the page to the "candidates for deletion" page, which admins review periodically. Only admins can actually perform a deletion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:30, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Thank you.

PvEreanor 19:46, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Candidates needed?

I asked on the talk page to GuildWiki:Requests for adminship, but many people may have missed that, so I'll repost here.

Most of the original batch of admins appear to have reduced their activity on this wiki. Looking at recently banned users and recently deleted articles, I see a large percentage having been done by me. If I were more active on the wiki, this wouldn't be a big deal to me; but my on-line time is dropping - I've recently resigned my GWW sysop status, and will have much less time for helping either wiki going forward.

So ... to my mind, we desperately need some fresh blood in the admin pool on this wiki. Unfortunately, I haven't been paying close attention to who are currently the more helpful, experienced, even-tempered, and trusted community members now. So, it's up to the community to start nominating potential candidates. Users who have a track record, who know the site policies, who can keep calm in discussions/debates ... in short, we need concensus builders who are trusted and respected by other contributors.

The GW:RFA policy explains how to nominate candidates ... I only hope some begin getting nominated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:49, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Another thing I think we could use is an admin noticeboard. -- Gordon Ecker 00:08, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Community changes

I gather that 84.175, Barek, and Tanaric have (or are about to) resign and/or leave the wiki. Any other high level defections? BftP 18:02, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Me. I might decide to be on the wiki more than I have been in the past. Consider I have been highly inactive in the past few months, I consider that a high level defection. -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 16:49, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Temporary sysops

Writing this here per User:LordBiro's request (he was in a rush and unable to post this himself); he has temporarily sysopped User:Stylva and User:Dirigible to help cleaning up the mess from the last vandalism spree. This is only temporary, and these rights will be removed from us very soon. --Dirigible 12:01, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Admin noticeboard and requests for comment

Does anyone object to creating an admin noticeboard or requests for comments page? I don't see any downside. -- Gordon Ecker 22:05, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

I would like something like that. GW:RFA and GW:ADMIN aren't updated and maintained on the up-to-date level that I would like; there is at least one sysop out there, who isn't even mentioned in the archives of RFA or anywhere in ADMIN, and it confused the hell out of me. This should also help new users and anons from falling back on the excuse "SOZ I didn't know ur Admin" or whatever. Finally, keeping watch over purely administrative actions (as opposed to simple things like Talkpage commentary) is slightly difficult with the includes-all Watchlist capabilities we currently have.

(T/C) 00:38, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

An Admin Noticeboard works wonders on GWW as well, a lot easier then searching for an Admin and posting to their talk page. Just need a quick way for people to find the noticeboard, as well. --

Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 15:13, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

The admin noticeboeard is up. -- Gordon Ecker 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this redundant to Category:GuildWiki:Administrative reviews? I have no objection to switching, but we should eliminate the existing system at the same time a second one is created. As it is now, we have two different destinations that must be monitored by admins here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Category has never ever been used (to my knowledge)...I see people add Delete and Ban and Merge and other tags to stuff, but never a Category:Admin Review cat tag, nor add directly to that category. In any case, I would support changing it to the Noticeboard, since it is more accessible to users and trackable than a category.

(T/C) 00:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Will the admin notice board replace the existing tagging+category system? That'd take some getting used to. -User:PanSola (talk to the

) 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No. The noticeboard is to request undeletion, protection, and unprotection. And perhaps other special cases. Regular occurances like deletion and banning will still use the tag system, since that is so much more efficient. Admin notice board is for the "special" requests that you don't see very often, and for which no tag currently really exists anyways. :) (Am I right, Gordon?)

(T/C) 00:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was a Template:Admin review tag that was used pretty extensively at one time. One of projects I worked at back when I became an admin was to cleanup everything that had been in it, along with some other admins. I admit, it hasn't been used a lot, mainly due to poor publicity - but us old timers remember the tag, which is why I wanted to understand if this new page was replacing the old tag. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It was intended primarily as a faster alternative to categories for alerting the admins of vandalism. It's not as fast as PMing an active admin who happens to be online, but it's more reliable. -- Gordon Ecker 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's no faster - in both cases, an active admin must go to either the notice board or the category. Same amount of time either way.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support using an admin notice board over using categories - but mainly for the reason that a "ban" tag causes more harm than good (the ban tag can cause anger issues on the part of the vandal, resulting in more aggressive vandalism while they try to go out in a rage of destruction) ... but I view having both as being redundant - doubling the number of pages that must be checked by admins.

If we're going to use the admin notice board, then I say we should go all out, not some kludgey half-arsed solution. Use the admin notice board and eliminate the ban tag and eliminate the admin review tag. Notices can be created within both of the tags pages pointing people towards the new page (place the notice inside "noinclude" tags, so that the info pointing to the new page is not inserted if the tag is used erroneously going forward). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But edits to the admin noticeboard show up in people's watchlists immediately, while additions to categories can only be observed by specifically looking at the categories. I'm not sure about other admins, but while I was more active, I checked my watchlist far more frequently than the categories. -- Gordon Ecker 07:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Upload Image Page?

What's up with the upload image page? It's giving me an error saying that the page isn't writable by the webserver. Thanks. User:LikaiKailla

I think the Wikia Server Move broke it. Hmm...I'll go poke Fyren.

(T/C) 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Special:BrokenRedirects

Under this category is Grinch's image, . When I go to that, I get redirected, but it still says that it's broken. I don't know if special pages have a talk page, so I'm posting it here. The Paintballer (T/C) 16:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That particular redirect works just fine, or at least that is what the user told me the last time I deleted it. It's a strange one because it seems to use a non-MediaWiki redirect path, which I guess is why it shows up as broken.

(T/C) 16:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Pop ups

The new ads on the bottom are getting the the point of ridiculous. about 3 seconds after you move to a new page, thse stupidly annoying flash pop ups will pop up from the bottom taking up half your screen, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE (main page, pops up. search for soj, it pops up. click a link, it pops up AGAIN, hit the back button OMG THERE IT IS!!!). Clicking the close button or clicking anywhere beside the ad closes it, but nothing prevents them from popping up every single damn time. So far I've seen these from Circut City and American Express...can we PLEASE ditch the invasive ads?71.159.139.53 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

O_o I haven't ever seen a single popup on 'Wiki. Neither a warning that Mozilla stopped a popup. --

-- (s)talkpage 05:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Lolol, and Wikia says they would reduce our ads. Iirc, Barek had this nifty piece of .css code you could add to your Wiki profile which blocks 99% of the ads. Although I'm too lazy to use it :P

(T/C) 06:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You could use adblock plus, i'm not because i want to support the wiki, although i now may reconsider if they get annoying RT | Talk 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

@@ Line 327: / Line 327: @@
 ::::::::::Don't get me wrong, I fully support using an admin notice board over using categories - but mainly for the reason that a "ban" tag causes more harm than good (the ban tag can cause anger issues on the part of the vandal, resulting in more aggressive vandalism while they try to go out in a rage of destruction) ... but I view having both as being redundant - doubling the number of pages that must be checked by admins.
 ::::::::::If we're going to use the admin notice board, then I say we should go all out, not some kludgey half-arsed solution.  Use the admin notice board and eliminate the [[:template:ban|ban tag]] and eliminate the [[:template:admin review|admin review tag]].  Notices can be created within both of the tags pages pointing people towards the new page (place the notice inside "noinclude" tags, so that the info pointing to the new page is not inserted if the tag is used erroneously going forward). --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 14:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
+:::::::::::But edits to the admin noticeboard show up in people's watchlists immediately, while additions to categories can only be observed by specifically looking at the categories. I'm not sure about other admins, but while I was more active, I checked my watchlist far more frequently than the categories. -- [[User:Gordon Ecker|Gordon Ecker]] 07:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 == Upload Image Page? ==