Talk: Community portal/Archive 17

GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 17/topnotes

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. -- (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. —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. -- (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. - -Sora267 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)

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. —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#revert_to_revert_of_Monastery_Credits_and_Battle_Commendation_comment, 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. -- (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? -- (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. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 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. --SigmA 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)

...? --SigmA.

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

GuildWiki: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:

• GuildWiki:No Original Builds (talk)
• GuildWiki:Build Split (talk)

— HarshLanguage 20:22, 6 March 2007 (CST)

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#Poll:_Does_the_build_namespace_cause_more_harm_than_good? 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)

In-game typos

← moved to GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Quotes#In-game typos

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. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 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. -- 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 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. —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. - 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. —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)

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. —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.-- Vallen Frostweaver 07:40, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

GuildWiki:Requests for adminship/Archive. --Dirigible 11:00, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. That'll do. -- 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. <Attribute>-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)

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. — 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. -- (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? —Aranth 21:43, 23 April 2007 (CDT)