GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22

This talk page should be used for discussions regarding GuildWiki in general. For anything directly relevant to the Main Page or the edit copy, please use Talk:Main Page/editcopy. If you have any questions that aren't relevant to a specific talk page, head over to GuildWiki:Request assistance and add it.

Edit Window Bar take 2

Take 1 is here, and we wanted to have the new "floating" edit bar for Monaco (with the shorter summary box) turned off. Now that Wikia updated it, do we still not want it? Please post your opinions if you have them! --◄mendel► 20:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What does the new one look like? And where's Archive #17? RoseOfKali 20:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Set your skin to monaco and edit something. Or click this. --◄mendel► 20:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind the new one now, just would have to get used to the buttons being in a different place. The Editing tips are useful for new users, and the blue bar makes the buttons stand out. As long as it stays blue, and not red like last time... :S RoseOfKali 22:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Press Ctrl-F5 to shrink the poll if it looks wider than high! Thank you for the feedback. --◄mendel► 23:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Poll bug

Hahaha! What did you do this time? RoseOfKali 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ctrl+F5 fixed it, but that was still rather bizarre. :P RoseOfKali 01:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does everything break for you?--Łô√ë îğá†ħŕášħ 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It broke for me too, briefly.Entrea [Talk] 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It broke for me also, but like Rose did, <cod>Ctrl+F5 fixed it. — Balistic

Urmmm...

What happened to RC? I can't click the "Show new changes starting from {{{PAGERELOADTIME}}}" button RandomTime 07:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

After much fiddling, it's back - thanks to uberfuzzy from wikia IRC for helping me out RandomTime 07:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Remote Area

Named places inside explorables get treated as landmark or "Point of Interest"; there is no fixed format for those yet, and many don't yet have their own page. There's work to do! ;-) --◄mendel► 11:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I do think they all should have their own page, and link to the explorable area they're in. I don't know if there's enough uniformity to make a template, unless it's really basic, like "Located in explorable area so-and-so" and "Trivia" or "related information" or something like that. Some of them have nothing special about them, they're just there. Others are quest locations. Others are mentioned in lore. That kind of thing. RoseOfKali 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Presumable Template:location box can be used to hold an image, campaign info, type=landmark, and "Part of" would give the explorable it is in. Sometimes a map comes in handy as well. You'd want to list what quests it is involved in , and soemtimes there are NPCs gathering there, so basically it could be a cut-down version of a regular location article. --◄mendel► 22:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have a prominent link to the official wiki?

→ Moved to MediaWiki talk:Monaco-related-communities

New Bullet Points

← moved to GuildWiki:Wikia staff noticeboard#IE bullet point bug

New Video namespace (moved)

← Moved from Video talk:Bananaphone

→ Moved to Help talk:Video Embed Tool

moving conversations

The alternative to moving conversations is to leave them in place and to add a link to them from places where they're relevant (e.g. here). --◄mendel► 06:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Link from here to places where they are relevant means less things are buried under generic archives. This place was originally meant to be about generic community stuff anyways. That intention can partially be glimpsed from the wording "If you have any questions that aren't relevant to a specific talk page...". The moves are usually done with sectional edits that have a edit summary to hopefully alert anyone watching the topic that something happened in the thread, so when they come check it out they can follow the link to the new discussion. There is a flaw where people who only use the Watchlist to keep track and had too many thing watched so the move get flushed away may not noticed the moved discussion that might be continuing. So that is indeed a factor to be weighted upon. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Previously in...

Is there a policy about how to handle references to previous updates of the game? (couldn't find one in GuildWiki:Policy or Category:Policy_proposals) As a newbie, I find it distracting to read in the main text about quests, monsters, bosses, or loot that was available in 2007 or before Factions was released. Instead, I prefer to read about the game's current features.

For example, the Lion's Arch article lists three NPCs found in LA "prior to release of Factions," a Getting there item which is listed as "removed ...2007," and an exit "added in 2006." Given the current length of the article, these entries make it harder rather than easier to find one's way around.

On the other hand, I suspect if I were a long time veteran, I might want to readily see things that had changed (esp. if I had been away for a time).

An easy compromise might be to add to any article, where relevant, a Previously in Guild Wars subsection to the Notes that would include changes that occurred more than 6 months prior. For example, the various references in Lion's Arch would be replaced with the following:

--begin example--

Notes

lorem ipsum

Previously in Guild Wars

• Prior to the release of Factions, these NPCs were also found in Lion's Arch: x, y, z
• Before May 25, 2007, you could also reach Lion's Arch via the Canthan Ferry Captain.
• The east exit to Lion's Gate was added October 25, 2006.

--end example--

What do people think? I don't think this an urgent issue. At the same time, I am motivated (as I progress through the game) to re-arrange such references.--Tennessee Ernie Ford 08:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I do think it's a good idea to put things removed from the present game (and not likely to come back again) in a separate section away from the main contents of the article. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 08:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time now to look it up, but I've seen the issue discussed and the gist of it was, we document the game as it is, which confirms your view, T.E.F. We do have a nice Template:historical, which can be used thus:

{{historical|That's how it used to be}}

Historical note: That's how it used to be

Feel free to use it on articles where historic notes detract you; you can then easily skip the outdated stuff when looking for current info. --◄mendel► 10:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks great! Assuming no one objects, I'll move >6 mo entries to Notes; leave newer entries where they are; and use the Historical template in both cases. Thanks for the help, support. --Tennessee Ernie Ford 21:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You're a pleasure to support! :-)

A second advantage of the template is that players coming back after an absence can quickly find out what has changed, as well. --◄mendel► 03:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents; maybe a header for it, so skill pages with several bugs/anomalies don't get huge clusterfucks of those templates. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible for long articles - check out Lion's Arch and let me know if you like the way that was handled.--Tennessee Ernie Ford 17:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Would you like to have the ability to place it all in a box (e.g. medium solid gray) with a simple |box or something on the template call? --◄mendel► 20:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible and elegant. I can imagine two use-cases: 1-2 entries (where the current solution seems fine) and 3+ entries (where a box makes more sense). I think whether the community needs one or both solutions is mostly a matter of taste. --Tennessee Ernie Ford 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Classification of GW Places and Locations

→ Moved to GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Locations

Tip of the Day

→ moved from right above

I think all we really need is some kind of general guide to the game itself that includes all the common terminology, such as clarifying the differences between the types of cities, how map travel works, etc. I met a guy in DoA once who, after visiting the Guild Hall, mapped to Kamadan, then into the Vortex, and then back to DoA, and I was like... you could've just used the "Leave Guild Hall" button... and he was like "The what button?" He got to DoA not knowing about it... And I don't think it is mentioned anywhere on this wiki. RoseOfKali 02:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't know when that guy joined the guild. If he's unable to notice that button on that dialog, he's not going to be able to make effective use of this wiki either. But maybe we can collect tips like that and run them in the sidebar or somewhere, as "tip of the day". --◄mendel► 03:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's rather hard to reach DoA without being in a guild much of the time. And the guy actually taught me how to heroway farm DoA, so he's not an idiot, it's just one of those things that nobody ever talks about and you won't know if you don't discover it yourself. And a tip of the day thing is kind of a cool idea, because there are a lot of random little things that are great to know, but don't really fit into an article very well. There should be an actual article with those tips than anyone can access, and one of the entries will be selected to go into the tip of the day. RoseOfKali 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gogo GuildWiki:Tip of the day. In other words, let's collect them and then see ho wwe can work them into some display. --◄mendel► 04:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I also like the idea of highlighting tips.

There's a Bug template. Can we add a Hot Tip template (using an "!" or light bulb)? (and, referring to the above conversation, maybe also Newbie Tip and/or Veteran Tip using same symbol, different color)

Bug! (example) wiki doesn't have a Hot Tip template...yet

I dunno if we need a "hot tip" template, it would be more of an application kind of deal, like java or something, which I know nothing about, and will happily leave that to Ishy or mendel or Viper, whoever knows how to code those. But before that is done, we would need to create an actual page of tips, as mender suggested above, and provided a link for it. I guess I'll get it started. RoseOfKali 20:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tips placement

See Main Page/editcopy for an example. The tip of the day box will change once in a while, but not every time you reload the page. Due to the fact that Wikia development resources is focused on the Monaco skin, this widget which is powered by Wikia technology will not work on Monobook skin. I propose we put this box on the Main Page and in the anonnotice (using CSS to hide it so Monobook users do not see an empty box), until people with free time developes a solution that would work with Monobook users also.

Also, if anyone can change the color of that box to better match the ingame tip box colors, that'd be MUCH appreciated. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Test

← moved to GuildWiki talk:Tip of the day#Tips widget

Infobox change to accomodate ads

Currently, our infoboxes get pushed down by ads. There is a proposal at Template talk:BeastInfo2 that would make them get pushed to the left instead (but not changed to the proposed layout on that template). See Cootle Sizzlehorn/Test version2 for a demo. This change mainly affects logged-out users, which are most of our readers, I suspect. To be affected and logged in, set ads to show in your skin preferences. Please voice your opinion here or there if you have one. --◄mendel► 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox change follow up

I had gone ahead and implemented the change. But now with long infoboxes, things can look really weird. Hence I am exploring the possibility of a "2-part" infobox system. You can see the difference in GuildWiki:Sandbox. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 08:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Would the "bottom section" be the one with the maps? Or is other content affected as well? --◄mendel► 09:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just a general exploration of whether the idea of splitting infobox in general is something possibly acceptable to look at, or completely crazy. With specific infoboxes, which counts as "bottom" should be dealt with on a case by case basis, though generally I'd argue the image and the first batch of text info should be top, with the other stuff ok to go to bottom. So for the location box2 currently being experimented with on Vabbi-related articles, that means Neighbors and Services and Map might go to the bottom, while Part of is on the top. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 09:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That sucks badly. Neighbors needs to be where I look first because that's what I sometimes use to navigate to a place whose name I don't remember. Keeping unneeded info out of the box would also be a good option: services duplicates the list of NPCs that we hgave on the article anyway, and I thought the purpose of SMW was that we could just tag teh NPCs where the article mentions them and SMW would then know wbout them. If I see "collector" in the services list and it links not to the collector's page but to a definition, this is worse than having to go to the NPC list in the first place. --◄mendel► 10:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"the purpose of SMW was that we could just tag teh NPCs where the article mentions them and SMW would then know wbout them" <- completely true and I wasn't thinking straight when I did that. On the other hand, having a quick summary of the services offered at a location without scrolling down to find the list of NPCs than go through the tags after the name, IMO, has its value. Different people utilizes the page differently. You find the "neighbors" info useful to be prominent in the infobox despite it being redundant information in the article, whereas I see a similar value in having the redundant information of service offered in the infobox (though I personally don't care if it gets cut into the "bottom"). Besides, you are missing the main point. The main point is whether presentationally it is ok to cut the infobox into two pieces when there's a box ad (if there isn't a box ad the two pieces would join together). Which stuff going into the cutted part is not a concern at this point and IMO distracts from the core topic. That is a topic to be discussed infobox-by-infobox if the overall community decides the split-infobox style is an acceptable presentational layout to be adopted on a case-by-case basis (there may be infoboxes where nothing would be appropriate to be splitted off, even if "infobox-splitting" itself is overall an ok thing to do). -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 10:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Presentationally I see no problem with that if the information split off is sufficiently distinct, like maps. I would not want to split the tabular info. --◄mendel► 11:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think that small QR type things (like neighbors and services) should stay in the top, but maps and secondary images can go in the bottom. Either way, the ginormous square ad is still fugly, I wanna slap the person that came up with it... Many many times. What happened to simple banners? The new hotmail has a vertical banner on the right side instead of on top, but it's still the size of a banner, not f*ing half the window. I would almost say to push down the whole article and keep it together, or even move the infobox to the left and have the article below it for unregistered users... Also, the Alternate part of the current sandbox is really f*ed up if you have a wide window. Would a "clear" template fix that? RoseOfKali 16:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there some code thrown around that would cause a banner ad instead of a corner ad? Would that be better? --JonTheMon 16:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hells yeah I says. All ads are obstructive and annoying, but banner ads don't interfere with the layout of the page the way those square ones do. RoseOfKali 18:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Banners don't mess with layout, but they push everything down. Square ads provide more revenue than banner ads, and I for one would rather Wikia make more revenue on square ads than having to place more ads to compensate. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would still rather have to scroll down 2 clicks than have to figure out what's an ad and what's an infobox. But when revenue comes into play, then there's nothing that can be done, really, it's gonna look ugly no matter what. RoseOfKali 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Location types

We've been trying to settle on a standard way to call some location types (see Location for a suggestion) over at GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Missions, of all pages. I'd call it a wall of text if sea of text wasn't actually more apt (41 kB = 21 printed pages right now), so I suggest reading down from the "Poll" heading and maybe reading backwards from that as far as you can bear to get up to speed. Whatever we settle on is what we're going to use on all articles here on the wiki. --◄mendel► 11:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Mission map notes

I would like to get opinions about adding notes to the maps for missions, quests or dungeons that have various alpha-numeric codes placed on them. This would allow the persons using the map to know what each code meant without having to scroll through the wiki page while doing the mission. Some discussion of this has already been done at Template_talk:Screenshot#Suggested_Useability_Change and an example is on my talk page User:Separ#Map Notes for Missions, Quests and Dungeons. I am soliciting comments for this suggestions usefulness or for any changes recommended. Separ 04:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of making it easier to follow the maps. Why not add the legend to the map page instead of to the main article? Currently, I think the mission articles are well structured to offer full details rather than brief overviews. --Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing tips box bug

The editing tips box seems to be directly over the text I want to edit. Is there a way to have it appear to the left of the text being edited? Or move it with the mouse? Separ 04:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm, I broke that, sorry. Thanks for reporting this. It should be fixed now. --◄mendel► 11:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Using Firefox 3.0, I am still unable to move the editing tips box (which is blocking the left most portion of text). When the editing box is visible the Guildwiki Logo and navigation/news/support/search panel is missing, when I hide editing tips, the Guildwiki panel returns. Separ 04:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When editing tips are displayed, the sidebar/logo is supposed to disappear. Wikia designed it that way, I personally think it's weird. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 05:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it never could be moved. (You can't move the widgets, either.) Since the preview can be above the edit box, Wikia need to place the tips in article space to ensure they'll be at the same height as the article, and so the sidebar gets bulldozed. Feel free to rant about the Wikia interface team, I've done it often enough. It shouldn't be blocking the text any more though; try Ctrl-F5 or check to see if the change I made to MediaWiki:common.css is visible in the .css that Firefox loads — if you have the web developer plugin installed, you probably know how to do it, if not, the problem will probably go away once the caches update.

Now if somebody could tell me why the tips are invisible in IE7... I want my own server with a skin I can modify ... --◄mendel► 11:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do farming notes belong? Explorable, Beast, Drop, or Farmable?

Where do people think the notes on farming for a particular item belong?

The article on Iridescent Griffon Wings has notes on farming for the wings, which of course means farming for Desert Griffons. And the IGW article suggests Vulture Drifts as the place to go, so arguably that ought to include the same remark. And, of course, feathers are selling at a premium, so perhaps that article ought to suggest the beasties as a prime source. And, if the notes belong in more than one place, is there a smooth way to keep them synched? Do they all get the same level of details?   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if suggestions like these should propagate into everything possibly related to it. Farming is a very volatile subject both due to economy and demand for certain things, which varies, and the skills used to farm, which are also subject to changes, so I don't think we need to document any more than a simple note "Hey, go here if you want some." Other than that, there's Category:Contains feather if feather is what you're after. The reason the comment might have been put there in the first place is because most desert drops are also collectable for max armor or weapons, which used to be a good alternative to crafting before you get to Drok's. RoseOfKali 20:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If the farming note is concerned with killing the beasts, I'd like it to be on the beast's page. The Griffon Wing page needs no note as the Desert Griffon is the only source; if it wasn't, there could be a note that mentions which source is profitable to farm (but put the details on the beast page). Same with feathers, suggest the Griffons as a good source, but don't go into details how to farm them. That way, we don't have to synch anything.

As it stands, I suggest merging the note on the wings page into the one on the griffon page.

I wouldn't put anything up on the explorable at all (or maybe "This location is good for farming ABC from XY" and state where the easily accessible mobs are). If there is a farming guide page, then that page can be linked from all the articles you mention to give it prominence. But we don't have many of these. --◄mendel► 01:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So, the idea is → The thing being farmed gets the details; other pages can reference it, as warranted. In this case

• The D-Griffs get the note; the wings get bupkus.
• feathers get a "D-Griffs are good source;" the Drifts get "lots of D-Griffs here"

I like this better than detailed notes popping everywhere. Thanks for the speedy replies. I'll mend the wings/feathers.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: there's no info on farming in feathers, so I left it alone. Two explorables were referenced in the D-Griff article, so I consolidated the lot. There's not specific farming notes in the explorable articles, although the list of beasties includes vague location info; I left them alone.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Help me template

Wikipedia.org has a {{help me}} template, which sounds like a neat idea. What do you think? RoseOfKali 07:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have irc notification. I don't know whether anyone would check the category. I would suggest the "Ask a question" link on the sidebar might be a quicker way to get an answer, is the template better than that in some way? --◄mendel► 01:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, never used it, just saw it in their welcome template and though it was neat. The Ask a Question link sounds equally good, I guess I just never noticed it before. RoseOfKali 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot tag on concept art

Hey, do we have a copyright policy on concept art - I don't think the screenshot licence covers it in this instance. If we don't, here are my proposals:

• Any art used as a loading screen may be used on the wiki (fair use)
• Any other art is copyrighted by it's original artist, and therefore shouldn't be allowed on the wiki

Anyone else have any views? RandomTime 18:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, loading screens can be taken as screenshots, so there's no problem there. But I didn't think we had any concept art here, usually I just saw links to the official wiki where the art was hosted, but never actually uploaded here. I think it should stay that way to be safe. RoseOfKali 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:Gandara (Lady Saradomin).jpg RandomTime 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That should be removed. Plus, nothing links there. RoseOfKali 19:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fansite kit license ftw. That has lots of concept art, and it comes closest in the art has been released by ANet and the uploader had no hand in it (whereas a screenshot is probably jointly copyrighted). --◄mendel► 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Category:Concept art. --◄mendel► 02:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Video namespace

What's with all these random youtube videos in the video: namespace they keep appearing - youtube videos can be uploaded with the youtube tags. I've also had a look at Special:SpecialPages and can't seem to find an upload tool for the video namespace, if it's just for youtube videos, we can just use the tag. So, proposal:

• Clean out all Video: namespace with the junk, only allow non youtube videos which are related to GW to be uploaded
• Users wishing to post a youtube video on their page can use a youtube tag.

Otherwise, we've got a junk namespace filled with junk. RandomTime 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Imo, kill the video namespace, then stabs its dead body a few times, after which we shall pour Liquid Flame over it. — Warw/Wick 18:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)