GuildWiki talk:Community portal/Archive 2

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Collaborative Efforts[edit source]

You guys ever thought about mimicking wikipedia and setting up a weekly (or however long) period where all the motivated wiki-users can focus their efforts on a particular article or category to complete it, before moving on to something else? Everything here just seems so unfocused. Banding together, with a clear goal, I'm sure you guys could accomplish much more. Two heads are better than one. 05:37, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Sure thing! Make an account, start a [Guildwiki:Collaborative drive] article and start something magnificent. :) --Karlos 21:02, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Usage of this page[edit source]

Given the prominent link to this page, it is a shame for guildwiki. It is a (bad & smallish) collection of links, without serving its "community portal" function in any way. We should completely rewrite the page (and come up with a working concept of what is supposed to be on it) or remove the link from the navigation bar. --Xeeron 00:17, 9 March 2006 (CST)

Nerf it, we're too spread out as it is, main page, task list, you name it :p I think [GuildWiki:Task List] should get a link in the sidebar, or be moved to here — Skuld 00:34, 9 March 2006 (CST)
This page should be a "Welcome to GuildWiki" page, imo. There's a Pre-Searing guide for people new to GuildWars, but there should be a Pre-Wiki guide for people new to GuildWiki. ;) "Community Portal" is probably a poor name for the page, though. As it is, the Main Page is really a Table of Contents for the wiki (which is certainly needed and useful), but there should be a fairly in-your-face page for people coming to this site for the first time. I'm thinking typical project things, like, "GuildWiki FAQ", "Introduction to GuildWiki", etc. Lots of things that we already have for GuildWars itself, but not the wiki.
As an aside, the Task List would be a fine enough thing to put on the side. Quite possibly most people would ignore it, but it's a reasonable and subtle advertisement for people to pitch in.
--JoDiamonds 02:02, 9 March 2006 (CST)
Check out GuildWiki:How to help, it actually even begins with the words "Welcome to Guildwiki". But that kind of shows the problem: We got so many (rare to never used, badly named) community pages that even contributers dont know them. --Xeeron 08:03, 9 March 2006 (CST)
I agree that GuildWiki:Community Portal should be revamped to become what it should be: The hub for all community related stuff. Currently the community discussion is spread out over far too many pages. This hinders us. --Tetris L 00:07, 15 March 2006 (CST)

First Featured Article[edit source]

We're going to be testing the waters on our partnership with GWG. What I need from you fine people is some suggestions for what to have as a 'Featured GuildWiki Article' on Guild Wars Guru. Nominate! Gravewit 16:00, 12 February 2006 (CST)

Damage. We got original GuildWiki research done on that, beyond SonOfRah's famous results. It's a pity to see so many ppl still using SonOfRah's results (some of which aren't exactly correct) as the ultimate treatise on Damage in GuildWars. -PanSola 16:06, 12 February 2006 (CST)
Grawl is also a good article. Animal companion too. --Rainith 16:09, 12 February 2006 (CST)
Damage is a good article, but not the one I would suggest to first time readers. Animal companion is a better example of standart guildwiki articles (but if we go with that, stick a picture in it and update it to include the spider). Some other articles to think about:
  • Guild Wars: Factions - being changed a lot, but very good information.
  • Unique items list - well 1 million viewers cant be wrong.
  • One of our mission articles. Usually very well done and helpful. --Xeeron 05:55, 13 February 2006 (CST)
I like Damage but it's a bit arcane. I'd probably vote for Animal companion as it contains lots of interesting information that many people aren't aware of, I think. It may need to be protected shortly after it goes gets featured, however. Shandy 18:45, 13 February 2006 (CST)
Scams is a good one. --FireFox 23:53, 13 February 2006 (CST)
I'm going to be sending off a list of the next few Featured Articles, so keep the suggestions coming. Gravewit 06:04, 17 February 2006 (CST)
Unique Items Quick Reference? I find it more useful than the Unique items list. -PanSola 06:06, 19 February 2006 (CST)
[Build:Team - Barrage/Pet] is a quite recent and very well done article in the builds section. --Xeeron 20:00, 21 February 2006 (CST)
Although I am very happy that you see something I wrote as a "well done" article, I personally would be against adding this sort of farming-intensive builds as featured articles. (Yes, I have come around to your side with regard to whether this build is a farming build or not.) The argument is simply that these sort of builds promote some of the worst practices in the game -- absurdly inflexible teams that spread like kudzu and essentially force out all players not belonging to a strict role. Before the wiki promotes such articles to featured status, it has to ask if it is OK with the mentality that team farming builds promote. — Stabber 10:55, 27 February 2006 (CST)

My recommendations (more to come):

— Stabber

The disappearence of special pages[edit source]

So.. I go to check the category and page link pages, but special pages seems to have been wiped: Special:Specialpages. Erk. — Skuld 03:43, 13 February 2006 (CST)

Yes, where did the Special:Specialpages list go? This is really a handy list. -- James Sumners 00:29, 10 March 2006 (CST)
You know, I've noticed that off and on every now and then. I don't know why it happens, but it happened to me at least once a long time ago. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 05:46, 11 March 2006 (CST)
And now it seems to be back? Evan The Cursed (Talk) 15:19, 11 March 2006 (CST)
It's sort-of back. It seems to come up about 1/3 of the time that I try the link. The other 2/3 of the time I get a blank page. --Barek 00:45, 12 March 2006 (CST)

Use [GuildWiki:Specialpages] in the mean time. It was a manually created list of links I can figure out that are in the special page. -PanSola 07:56, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Uploading Files[edit source]

I tried to upload a file (a correct file name version of Enfeebling Blood) and I got the following 'internal error': Could not copy file "/var/tmp/phpKEmZWj" to "/home/guildwiki/public_html/images/0/0c/Enfeebling_Blood.png".

Any ideas? Shandy 23:25, 13 February 2006 (CST)

Still having this problem. Shandy 21:00, 15 February 2006 (CST)
Still still having this problem. GUYS?! Shandy 22:12, 21 February 2006 (CST)
Go post on gravewits page or something, how should we lesser mortals know :p — Skuld 23:08, 21 February 2006 (CST)

Question[edit source]

Is there any way to do a good search around the site when you don't know the name of the article??? --Tizzy 00:59, 15 February 2006 (CST)

Special:Search. What are you looking for? :p — Skuld 01:02, 15 February 2006 (CST)
Originally came looking for a list of the ascalon quests, then accidentally started looking for you :p --Tizzy 10:19, 15 February 2006 (CST)

"GuildWiki search is disabled. You can search via Google in the meantime. Note that their indexes of GuildWiki content may be out of date." Thats the wonderful results of my search =p It sucks, this could have all the information in the world yet it woul dbe impossible to acess to it due to no search engine... --Tizzy 10:20, 15 February 2006 (CST)

Actually, now that we have this super-sweet server, can we re-enable the mediawiki search engine? 20:58, 15 February 2006 (CST)
I did this on the 7th. We're back on the MW search. It seems to not be impacting the load too much, so we should be on it for good. Gravewit 02:06, 10 March 2006 (CST)

Foreign language wikis[edit source]

Could wikis in foreign lanuages be added to this (e.g. a german wiki) or would the german fans have to make an own wiki?

You can take all the info and translate it I think, or do you mean like pansola did some translations for things in chinese, im not sure though 19:07, 15 February 2006 (CST)
No I mean like at Wikipedia with links to the article in other languages on the left and an own wiki for each language, not just a translation.
So in other words something like right? -PanSola 05:20, 17 February 2006 (CST)
Concerning foreign language guildwiki you may want to check this thread at guildwarsguru. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 08:18, 19 February 2006 (CST)

User Interface Category[edit source]

Would contain articals such as Hero Window, Weapon Set, etc... Yes? No? Thoughts? --FireFox 06:03, 16 February 2006 (CST)

I think there was talk about that at some point. For the life of me I can't remember where or when it was though. It seems like an ok idea to me tho. --Rainith 05:23, 17 February 2006 (CST)
It does exist: Category:User_Interface. --Karlos 07:33, 19 February 2006 (CST)

Placement of Guilds[edit source]

For me, this belongs very much under game basics. It is something that every player will be confronted with early on, the article is adressing "newbie problems" like "how to get a cape". Furthermore, I fail to see how a guild is directly related to characters. --Xeeron 07:45, 1 March 2006 (CST)

I guess that I can see both arguments on this one. To me though, game basics are more related to terminology, interface questions, and intro guides. I could argue that both "Guilds" and "Game Mechanics" should belong under other blocks as they are beyond 'how to play' category.
On the other hand, if guild is under game basics, then maybe professions should also be moved to that block? That's a fundamental question that new players will face long before they even consider joining and/or creating a guild. For that matter, nearly everything under "Character Skills & Gear" and "Gameplay Types" hit fundamental questions that could go under "Game Basics". By this method, we only need two blocks; one for game basics and one for what's new (and maybe a third for PvP - which is arguably the only category that requires knowledge beyond 'basics'). -- 08:30, 1 March 2006 (CST)
It doesn't really matter to me that much. I really don't see a guild as being a newbie issue; you can do both PvE and PvP without ever joining a guild; although being in a guild certainly makes it easier to progress in both. I agree that the section titled Characters – Skills & Gear doesn't really include guilds, but that section could easilly be retitled to something like Characters – Guilds, Skills & Gear. I'm not stongly opinioned in it being in either section. Just thought I would throw it out there was why I qualified my original edit with the note in the Summary field. --Barek 23:31, 1 March 2006 (CST)

Search engine case sensitive[edit source]

Is there any way to totally disable case sensitivity for the (go button) search engine? The case sensitivity has annoyed me to no end many times and looking at the guru forum thread, I dont seem to be the only one. --Xeeron 23:52, 1 March 2006 (CST)

The search engine (what go defaults to if it doesn't find anything) should be case insensitive. However if you mean go straight to article lookup, I believe that's just how the wiki software works. In other words, it uppercases the first letter of every article, and then looking up article names is case sensitive following the first character. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 15:19, 11 March 2006 (CST)
I take that as an "no it cant be disabled" =) --Xeeron 00:32, 12 March 2006 (CST)
If you're referring to the go article lookup function then yes, but if you really meant "search" then it SHOULD already be case insensitive and if it isn't it's a bug. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 05:21, 12 March 2006 (CST)
This is weird: I type in "henge of denravi" and press ENTER and it just sends me to the search page. But I type in "fissure armor" and it sends me to the "Fissure Armor" page. At first I thought this was because "Fissure armor" was a redirect to "Fissure Armor" but it isn't; it doesn't even exist. Kidburla 05:41, 12 March 2006 (CST)
That is.... indeed, very weird. I tried it with all different kinds of misspellings and "fissure aRMOr" and the like worked. That is... very weird. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 05:49, 12 March 2006 (CST)
I just tested with a few pages. Many pages seem not to be case sensitive now. Could it be that one or two word pages aren't case sensitive, but 3 worded pages are? User:Gem/Sig 22:17, 12 March 2006 (CST)

Tech problem[edit source]

I can't seem to figure a good place to put wiki tech issues, so I'll just put it here (please move to a better location if there is one):

For some reason, I cannot upload a new version of ConjurePhantasm.png called Conjure_Phantasm.png to replace the old, incorrectly named, one. I get the following error message:

Internal error
Could not copy file "/var/tmp/phpz6YEG2" to "/home/guildwiki/public_html/images/0/0d/Conjure_Phantasm.png".

-- Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 21:11, 12 March 2006 (CST)

Did you try the Report A Bug link to the left? Or just check here: GuildWiki:Software & Technical Issues/Bugs#Upload Bug for the current status of this. Ok, actually not so current as nothing has happened with it, but this is about as current as we're going to get on this it seems. --Rainith 21:18, 12 March 2006 (CST)

New admins needed to combat vandalism[edit source]

There seems to be a huge increase in vandalism in the wiki recently. Rainith and others do a great job when they're online, but they still, unfortunately, have to have a life that doesn't revolve around GuildWiki. Also, it seems that some old sysops such as LordBiro and Tanaric are not so active any more. I think it's time we thought seriously about tapping into the pool of regulars for some new sysops to keep an eye on the vandals and such. I nominate the following users for sysop status as they have shown themselves to be very on-the-ball with respect to vandal watching and general Wiki Gnome tasks.

If there is a more formal process for nominating users for sysop status, please direct me to it (TIA). — Stabber 09:25, 13 March 2006 (CST)

Aww, but I'm having fun with this last guy, [User:|]. Though yes, I agree with your nominations. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 09:27, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Ooh, I should have nominated you also. — Stabber 09:56, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Of the three, Barek is the one who I feel I "know" the most, but I think they are all good candidates. --Rainith 10:28, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Err, yeah. I'm still kinda new around here so I'd definitely feel better with Barek or Adeyke, preferably both. But particularly Barek, I've never seen him act out of line or anything. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 11:00, 13 March 2006 (CST)
I'm still very much a newbie when it comes to working on a wiki, so I'm really not a suitable candidate. I appreciate the thought, though. --adeyke 13:33, 13 March 2006 (CST)
I would also nominate Stabber (if you're interesting, that is). --130.58 13:41, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Oh, I'm very interesting. However, I'm not interested in adminning. It's a job best left to level-headed folk (i.e., not me). — Stabber 13:42, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Gah. Can't type. Well, you are the fastest at reverting all this spam (much to my occasional consternation). Your devotion deserves a nomination, even if you consider yourself too much of a firebrand to actually be an admin. --130.58 13:53, 13 March 2006 (CST)
I don't see we have that glaring need of admins. Admins are not the answer to vandalism, active user participation is, which is what has been going on, Even when admins have not been around, regular users can easily revert acts of vandalism. I would like to see more admins with actual responsibilities (as opposed to bums, like me). For example, I would love to see someone become an admin and be in charge of the Community Portal (since obviously none of us existing ones give an Abnormal Seed about it). While we are throwing names out there, I would like to bring up the nomination of Tetris. He's always been deserving, and he's online time usually starts around the time mine ends, so it's good for overlap too. --Karlos 17:01, 13 March 2006 (CST)
The problem is that regular users are no good at preventing a persistent vandal of the kind we saw one or two examples of today. For them, the proper order is ban then revert. The opposite order just leads to polluted histories and zillions of re-reverts everywhere. I do think that we have a shortage of sysops here, as there are only 3.5 active ones as far as I can tell. Ideally, we should have all hours in the day under surveillance by a sysop. That's the criteria they used at hrwiki, which is about comparable in size as this one (though a lot bigger target for vandalism). IIRC Tetris did not want to become a sysop, or I'd have nominated him eons ago. — Stabber 17:22, 13 March 2006 (CST)
Tetris (if he wants to be) and Barek would definitly get my recommendations. Btw, I know you have only started posting 15+ comments a day right after I point out the community portal is useless to mock me. Evil people =P --Xeeron 23:21, 13 March 2006 (CST)
My first choice would be for Tetris L. If he is not interrested, then I would be willing to admin. Of course, all this depends on Gravewit and/or Nunix agreeing on the idea of an additional admin. I believe that they are the only two who have access to promote users to that level. --Barek 23:41, 13 March 2006 (CST)
I was all set to make Tetris L an admin not long ago- but he didn't seem to want it. If that's changed, I'd still be happy to make him one. Gravewit 00:38, 14 March 2006 (CST)
I responded this morning based on just the names I saw, without thinking before heading out the door. While I would be willing to admin, I must admit that my recommendations would be Tetris L, Xeeron, Skuld, PanSola, and/or FireFox. I would also suggest Stabber; but she mentioned not long ago planning to not purchase Factions. Still, with her dedication, I would suggest making her an admin for the Oblivion wiki if one is needed for that site, as it appeared last I looked that she was looking more towards that game as her next step. --Barek 09:41, 14 March 2006 (CST)
But that's just it. When it comes to "being in charge" of pages or things like the Community Portal -- that is something truly "any" user can do, if they take up the mantle and everyone's okay with it. What your average everyday user can't do is ban a vandal when he really gets out of control. I still think we need one additional sysop, I lean towards Barek and Pan Sola, personally. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 04:37, 14 March 2006 (CST)
Like Karlos I do not feel an urgent need for more admins. We can handle most situations. But on the other hand one or two more moderators won't hurt, considering more than half of our 11 SysOps are inactive / MIA or visit GuildWiki only once in a while.
I want to throw a few other names into the bowl. Don't get me wrong, the names that Stabber suggested seem okay to me, but they were not the ones I'd have listed first. Here are a few names that spring to my mind when I think of users that have proven over longer time to be "admin material" (mostly dedicated, mature, reasonable), ... in no particular order:
As for myself, thanks everybody who suggested my name, I feel flattered, but I have to decline once again. This time it's not my dispute with K. We seem to get along lately. :) No, this time it's real life (tm). Up to now I was browsing GuildWiki mostly in the office, during "work". I don't care much because I quit this job a while ago, and because my boss is the biggest $%&§#§&?ö@ you can imagine. But in 2 weeks I start a new job, for a new company, so I gotta behave. Browsing gaming websites during work will be a no-no, at least for the first few weeks or months. This means you'll all see me a lot less often than in the past. Not exactly the dedicated and reliable admin that is needed here. --Tetris L 00:46, 14 March 2006 (CST)
Tetris, thank you for naming me. I am really honored -- but must respectfully decline any such nomination. My reasoning: As I'm generally discontent about certain practices and the expected admin roles here, I would not be effective in enforcing such. At this point, it is questionable whether I am really compatible with this Wiki as a normal contributor, much less as an admin.
For me, some names that stand out are:
  • I've noticed PanSola's tendency/ability to exercise an impressive level of painstaking prudence. This is something I favor seeing more of at the admin level (and actually, in some ways, less of at the user level).
  • For a long time, Xeeron has consistently been a model example in positively driving the community forward.
--Rezyk 08:43, 14 March 2006 (CST)
Wait, what is the "expected admin roles" here? I thought all admins do is just banning vandler and spambots, and they get to do easy revers with their mouse (as opposed to users who have to put in slightly more effort to revert), and they get to delete pages that shouldn't exist. Is there anything else to being an admin? BTW, I don't think I've seen Nunix since January... I hope he's alive and well, just overly occupied with other stuff to tend to guildwiki. -PanSola 21:25, 14 March 2006 (CST)
Nunix lurks (from work and he never remembers his password, so he'll tag it later) and keeps an eye on things, but everything's been going pretty smooth lately; not much need for the great and terrible, et cetera. ;p About to move to overseas and have been crazy-busy past couple of months. Honestly, the wiki seems to be ticking along pretty self-sufficiently though (which is the whole point!) so hopefully my absence hasn't caused trouble. ;) and Gravewit's been on top of things to, so should be set there. --Nunix 07:29, 20 March 2006 (CST)
If that question is directed at me, I'll opt to deflect it toward the appropriate people. =) What are all the expected admin roles here? --Rezyk 07:00, 16 March 2006 (CST)
Indeed it was directed at you, because I haven't noticed any roles expected from admins, except what is expected from any other user/contributer on GuildWiki, and thus your reason for declining the nomination seems invalid to me. If you are discontent with the expected admin roles here, that means you know, or at least have a good idea, of what it is right? -PanSola 07:20, 16 March 2006 (CST)
Well, I can only comment on what I perceive to be expectations that some others have (what I originally meant), and it's better for people to speak for themselves. (As for a definitive site-wide spelled-out list of admin roles, I am not aware that any exists.) I'll give one example: I think there have been some expectations (not necessarily mine) that regular admins have the role of deciding which user offenses are bannable offenses through creating on-the-spot precedent. For me, this is too much of an admin determining his own power, and I'd rather see this judgement be generally left to the community. Then again, I should acknowledge that my perceptions here may be flawed and nobody actually has this expectation -- but that just leaves me more confused and thus less suitable for the job. --Rezyk 02:01, 17 March 2006 (CST)
You're being extraordinarily cryptic. Do you mean that you disagree with the "banning" process here? If so, can you be more specific about your disagreement? I assume you are well aware that most so-called bans here are only temporary blocks, and that in nearly all cases the blocks are imposed for obvious cases of vandalism or spamming? Do you think that a more democratic blocking process would be worth the time and effort, or even likely to work? Do you simply disagree with blocking users, and if so, how do you propose to deal with vandals and spammers? As far as the nomination for admin goes, you have the right to simply decline it; others, like Tetris above, have, and we honor that choice. However, when you say that you think that you are incompatible as a regular user with this wiki, I think it is reasonable to ask for a fuller explanation. You are phrasing it self-effacingly, but buried in your comment above is a severe indictment of the wiki and its participants. You may indeed have noticed some serious defect that is eluding the rest of us. If so, it is best to have it out in the open. — Stabber 02:24, 17 March 2006 (CST)
You have my apologies for being cryptic. To be frank, it is a result of my trying hard to balance the need to be honest and responsive with that of avoiding undue controversy. As this has become somewhat personal and I don't want to derail this thread further, I have responded to this more fully on my talk page. --Rezyk 03:48, 17 March 2006 (CST)
In this case, I recommend Zeeron. I also recommend Gravewit promote a few people at once. Xeeron and Skuld are my favorites for old times sake, Stabber, Shandy and PanSola are my favorites beyond that. --Karlos 05:01, 14 March 2006 (CST)
I don't care who is given access, just please give someone else the ability to ban. It may be due to how busy everyone was over the weekend; but I noticed two patterns starting Friday: (1) the ban log has grown with few bans given, and (2) dummy pages created by spammers (the worst type of vandalism) are being deleted, eliminating the evidence, but the spammer is not always being banned at the same time. In one case, I've seen the same dummy page created, deleted, and then created again by the same spam IP address. -- 02:01, 28 March 2006 (CST)
Another option, we seem to be the target of an army of zombie PCs acting as spambots. Does mediawiki give the option to scan and block posts containing specific text, or more specifically to block posts containing specific URLs? I noticed that the spambot posts, regardless of the source IP address, is almost always to the same block of target URLs. The ability to block this in the edit screen would save a lot of headaches. -- 07:07, 28 March 2006 (CST)

Archive?[edit source]

This page seems to have finally found a usage in replacing the main page talk page as the sort of "discuss general wiki problems" page. If you look closely, you will find 2 topics about payment for the server, 2 topics about translating the wiki into foreign languages, 2 topics about this page not being a community portal and fully 3 topics about the search engine, hehe. The earliest date back to last August ... seems some problems never get solved, only forgotten =P

Anyway, should we start using this place as the main talk page instead of the vandal ridden main page talk and move over the main page archives (which mainly contain community discussion) to this page? --Xeeron 00:01, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Most of this stuff was on the main page, I moved it over. Yeh the archives for the main page should be here but.. i'm not doing it =[ — Skuld 00:23, 14 March 2006 (CST)
Just adopted the Talk:Main Page schema for this talk page. — Stabber 09:34, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Skill box format voting ending soon[edit source]

Just want to bring it up again over here, in case ppl haven't noticed. It's supposed to end in less than 24 hours. I am not averse to extending the voting period, but I'm not going to take the inititive to extend it (nor can I really think of how long to extend it for). So go vote now, or scream for an extension if you haven't made up your mind or think one of the proposals still need more time to get into a finished state, or hold your peace when the crusade arrives.

I am also accepting suggestions for minor modifications to my proposal. One being contemplated is changing "chapter" to "campaign", and use "C" instead of "Ch" (since there's no H in campaign). -PanSola 22:13, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Btw, the vote is here: GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills
For the C/Ch decision, I guess no matter who wins, we should stick with the convention, which is currently discussed here: GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting --Xeeron 22:59, 14 March 2006 (CST)
I think that's a different war, between using numbers or using names. d-: But yeah it looks like it'll be campaign, instead of chapter. -PanSola 00:03, 15 March 2006 (CST)
Meh. That page is so convoluted and confusion I wouldn't even know what I was voting for. I figure I'll just wait till everybody implements the changes and then complain about them. Heh.... heh? >_> Evan The Cursed (Talk) 12:55, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Campaign suffix vote[edit source]

Please note the far reaching vote on naming the campaigns in the wiki here: GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting --Xeeron 02:30, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Banning, Vandalism, and Admins[edit source]

Was reading the New Admins discussion and it finally urged me to comment on banning and vandalism. I have been an admin/sysop for different sites for as long as I can remember. Do the admins here have a set standard to which they adhere to when it comes to punishing vandals? I have noticed that spambots get infinite bans, but user bans range from 1 day to say 1 year. I find that if someone has the audacity to change information for things like porn sites and obscene language and get banned for 1 month or so, they might and I'm sure they do come back and the vandalism/revert/ban process begins all over again.

Perhaps I am too harsh, but I think if someone vandalizes something, giving them a second chance to do it again is just asking for trouble and more work for not only admins, but for the users that also revert the vandalism and request the bans. As I hope to be around for a long time doing what I can to help others, I also feel the need to protect others' work too on the Wiki. I'd love to hear the admins' and users' thoughts on this. --Gares Redstorm 04:31, 17 March 2006 (CST)

A quick clarification: Existing policy is: No policy. Up to individual admins. A certain amount of trust and cooperation is basically assumed. If I see most admins banning bots for 1 year or infinite, then I do that too. Makes sense and keeps us all in sync. If I see a childish user make a silly edit, that's a minor offense (to me) and we are talking about days. If I see a user try to "challenge us" or "repeatedly erase/distort info" then we are taking about months, not days. --Karlos 05:11, 17 March 2006 (CST)
Usually real live vandals get bored when they're banned for a month. I doubt most of them even return -- and if they are that motivated, they probably just switch IPs (which nullifies the whole argument). Spambots come back, because they're automated. And don't forget, every once and a while (though very very rare) it is entirely possible a legitimate user using a non-static IP can roll an IP that is perma-banned on the site. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 05:20, 17 March 2006 (CST)
No, there currently is no such thing as a "guideline on banning". It's totally up to whoever performs the ban. The closest thing we have (that I know of) it the policy to always assume good faith. I tend to go with that policy, although it doesn't actually directly concern banning. I would like to agree with you and say, "just get rid of those people", unfortunately it isn't that easy. The problem is: Who are "those people"? For example, I would rather not ban a vandal, or ban him only for a short time, than acidentally perma-ban a wiki-newbie who just made a mistake that looks like vandalism. Of course things like blatant advertising are an easy case, but often the intentions of a vandal aren't that obvious.
Also, there is another problem with bans: IP based bans are neither very effective nor safe. Internet connections are availible at every corner, there's anonymizer services and on top of that many providers use dynamic IPs. Someone who really wants to will always be able to get themselves another IP and it is also possible (although unlikely) that someone who has never done anything bad to the wiki finds himself banned, just because he had the bad luck to have a banned IP assigned on connection.
Of course I don't say that we shouldn't ban. By any means, we should. If nothing else, it is a good way to show the opportunity-vandals that they won't go unchecked. We should just keep in mind that the system isn't perfect anyway and will never be. And I doubt that longer bans would help much with that. :)
PS: Meh, now I wrote a lengthy sermon again, just to find two other ppl said basically the same with fewer words by now. Happens to me all the time... *rolls eyes*--84-175 (talk) 05:25, 17 March 2006 (CST)
Agreed that dynamic IPs are an easy thing to accomplish. And if someone does get banned for a month and comes back and does it again is a really sad and pathetic person who needs a hobby, like playing Guild Wars :D.
I also agree that being a wiki newbie, mistakes will happen. Thats why level-headed admins and users are there to notice what is Vandalism and what is an honest mistake, corrects it and informs the user of their mistake. Thus a friendly learning experience for the new wiki user. But those that deletes massive parts of articles and those that add vulgar sentences about how big their body parts are(obviously overcompensating for how little they really are :P), cuss words, etc, etc. This people I find absolutely childish. These are the ones I am mainly concerned about. I believe those people should be perma-banned, which would in turn, deter any that may follow suit, hopefully. I know, dynamic IPs, and I don't even want to try and calculate the vass number of IP addresses there can be. I honestly think the number of offenses of that nature would go down tremendously.
Most spambots on the other hand, seem to follow keywords. Fur Squares, Beast Mastery, Leather Squares. This can be easily combatted by protecting the pages. I still think the admins here are doing a great job. I'm just curious and also believe this Wiki helps a lot of players and thats why I'm here to do what I can. --Gares Redstorm 05:59, 17 March 2006 (CST)
I agree that people who try to defame pages (especially those who go "ha ha I messed up your wiki") are the ugliest. Bots are more annoying but there is little that can be done about them (except perhaps write our own bot that scans new edits to specific pages or edits that follow a certain pattern). The innocent mistake of a user blanking a section or page is punishable only because if one does not know what to do, one should not do something utterly stupid such as erasing data. That gets a few days or weeks on my scale. The worst is the one who places cuss words and racist slurs or the one who edits a page to mock someone or the wiki itself.. This shows malicious intent and disregard for the value of this wiki to other users. --Karlos 06:50, 17 March 2006 (CST)
All admins appear to be roughly on the same page as far as ban issues, but there are discrepancies. Is it possible to write up an official policy on this? One thing that I've seen in the past is that one admin will ban someone, but not delete the ban request on the user page; another admin comes on later that day and bans the same user for a different amount of time. For that, and the sake of consistency and fairness, I think that guidelines should be set that a certain types of behavior results in a ban for x number of days/weeks/months.
I also feel that the perma-ban should just be abandoned. Between IP-spoofing and dynamic IPs, it doesn't result in a true permanent ban. For any offense, a 1-year ban should be adequate considering the limitations. That way any legitimate users who may end up with that IP at a later time still can contribute (EDIT: while typing this, I see that Stabber created a link to a draft version - hooray!) -- 07:10, 17 March 2006 (CST)

I think a penal code for vandals and spammers is well worth writing up and adhering to. Here's my [GuildWiki:Penalties for abuse|attempt]. — Stabber 07:07, 17 March 2006 (CST)

While I don't feel a real need for formalized policy -- since the ad-hoc admining currently is working fine as best I can tell -- if I did have to vote for something, it would be very close to your suggestions, in terms and in spirit, Stabber. -- Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 04:56, 20 March 2006 (CST)

They're spamming faster than I can revert.. I come to here to complain, too late, this is spammed too :@ — Skuld 23:05, 27 March 2006 (CST)

GuildWiki causes displeasure![edit source]

Seen on this gwguru thread -- apparently people are dissatisfied with the state of minion mastery articles in the wiki. Some are even casting aspersions on the wiki, claiming that we are spreading lies and fomenting unrest among the masses. Just a heads up. — Stabber 23:43, 17 March 2006 (CST)

I can't access that site (annoying firewall issues) so I'll look at it from another PC later. But my first thought is: are those complaining contributing to the articles? If not, has anyone posted that suggestion to them in that forum? If they have issues with an article, they can edit it, and/or post their disagreements in the discussion threads here. -- 01:17, 18 March 2006 (CST)
I'm with him, I can't access it till I get home. Stupid SonicWall. I've noticed one thing in online forums and such. A lot of people try to discourage and flame you and/or your work, yet they rarely offer any suggestions to make it better or even discuss why they think so harshly on a subject. Sometimes people just "speak" to hear themselves "speak".
I'm no minion master, in fact I kinda hate being one, but I know some excellent ones in-game. They do not frequent Wiki nor are registered, but I will ask them to see what they think on the current builds in place. I do not want to see GuildWiki's reputation tarnished. --Gares Redstorm 01:42, 18 March 2006 (CST)
Well, I do agree that certain debates on Guildwiki can cause heartburn, :) but the premise of that thread has little to do with the wiki. The one who started it said that they edited the article and the one responding agreed that N/Mo is better than N/R, which is what the discussion is really about. The original poster is basically saying "Boo to Guildwiki" for allowing different opinions to exist. I am glad we are booed for that. Being a positive open forum is more important than building "street cred" with certain people. --Karlos 03:59, 18 March 2006 (CST)
That article looks like a simple missunderstanding: The author thought we do only encourage N/R and N/E builds because no N/Mo was mentioned. But that section is very new and just under construction (like most of our MM articles). --Xeeron 04:59, 18 March 2006 (CST)

Clarification of policy on build stubs?[edit source]

← Moved from [Template talk:Build-stub]
I think the current ad hoc policy of introducing all new build articles under the banner of "build stub" before they can be voted off the sandbox and into the real world needs a good bit of tweaking and reconsideration. Some recent build articles (eg. [Team - 5 Man Farming (Tomb Ruins)]) have been contributed in a very substantially completed form, and it sems insulting to require the authors to call their articles "stubs". This is in direct contrast with throwaway contributions such as Hamstorm that truly deserve the "stub" label because the author put no effort into them. Another important failing, I think, is that the build-stub template is currently thought to override other suitable categories.

I think the proper procedure should be:

  • The author submits a properly categorized substantial build article, but the build is labelled as an "unvouched" build. That is, the build article notes that it has the sole backing of the author when contributed. Perhaps a banner such as:

This build is currently under discussion (← link to talk page).

If you have experience with this build, please add your insights to the discussion, and vote for this build if you think that it is solid.

  • There begins a 7 day (or however long) vouching period, similar to the current voting scheme, where the build is discussed in its talk page.
  • After the build has been "vouched for", the warning is removed.

Comments? — Stabber 11:20, 27 February 2006 (CST)

Still waiting for the deafening chorus of responses that you are all no doubt waiting for the right moment to make. — Stabber 03:45, 7 March 2006 (CST)
I find it difficult to keep track of many of the goings on of this wiki these days, it's so large and has so many edits happening. There seems to continually people going on crusades, renaming images, recategorizing, adding this, removing that, I used to be able go to Recent Changes and read a lot of the talk pages and new articles, not that many would slip through but I find it hard now. Anyway it's good to see so many new users and edits I think, so getting back on topic, there's a number of build articles I've helped cleanup and hone, but it's hard to know when to unstub an article as there's nothing official. When I moved [R/E Tainted Flames] into [:Category:PvP Builds] (on Feb 22nd 2006) there were only 3 other builds there! There's currently 7 builds there now but it would be nice to have some proper policy and a proper path that build stubs follow to get to being unstubbed so your idea sounds good Stabber although that yellow box looks horrid (and the text could be improved a little)! --Xasxas256 06:20, 7 March 2006 (CST)

Here's my new suggestion:

Comments? — Stabber 20:21, 18 March 2006 (CST)

I am opposed to that idea. First off, it would be up to the author themself to decide whether their own article is stub or completed, which is not the best idea. Then I dont think it is offensive to label the build as stub, even if it is a very good article. If your article is truely good (and your not the only one thinking so), people will comment positively fast and the stub label will be removed. But I can name 4 authors who thought their article was good (when in fact it got ripped apart by others soon after) for every 1 author who really submitted a build that turned out to be perfect right from the start.
As it is now, build-stub is used for articles that have not yet convinced enough people of their quality, while clean-up is used for articles that lack proper format/language/layout. The problem is not having build-stub or your box on the article, the problem is not enough people taking the time to read new (and old) builds and positively comment on them. --Xeeron 23:19, 18 March 2006 (CST)
Your argument is very unconvincing to me. On what basis do you claim that an article such as [Build:Team - 55/SS FoW] is a stub? It isn't a stub by any stretch of the imagination. It is an insult, and a grave one. I am saddened that you don't see it. — Stabber 00:46, 19 March 2006 (CST)
I stand here with Stabber. There should be a box of some kind to clarify that the build still isn't guaranteed to be useful as it hasn't been approved by enough people. The stub tag should only be used if the build page really is a stub. User:Gem/Sig 01:23, 19 March 2006 (CST)
My thoughts:
  • I agree with Stabber that stubness = incompleteness while vouching = correctness. I never thought about it before, but actually using the stub label to mark an article as "unvouched for" is breaking the standard set in the rest of the wiki. In any other section, an aricle marked as "stub" means it is incomplete and needs further information.
  • On the flip side, there are builds that have been "vouched for" yet do not contain half as much information as other articles. I think there should be a higher standard in terms of certain builds. Farming builds should always include descriptions of scenarios that the farmer (or farming team) will encounter. Just making an article with Attributes and Skills should mark that article as a stub, even if 100 people vouch for it.
  • As for vouching, I think a [:Category:Unverified Builds] or Category:Builds needing verification would be best.
--Karlos 01:28, 19 March 2006 (CST)
Wow I would have never guessed that people could be insulted by having a stub on their article, let alone gravely insulted. But in the end the name of the category is irrelevant, if you dislike stub because of what it usually implies, lets just rename build stubs to Unverified Builds like Karlos suggested. I am still opposed to puting unvouched and vouched builds in the same category. --Xeeron 01:55, 19 March 2006 (CST)
I am not sure whom you are referring to as being insulted by the stub status. I hope it's not me as I actually do not care much for the Builds category structure altogether. :) I always stub any new article I make even if it's complete simply to have people check it. So, I don't mind the build being stubbed, stubbed and categorized, categorized and bannered, or even categorized, bannered AND stubbed. :) The main point though is, do you not agree that the meaning of stub in your neck of the woods (Builds) is different than the rest of the wiki? --Karlos 02:24, 19 March 2006 (CST)

Progression bar[edit source]

Is it just me, or did something break the progression-bar? It used to play nicely with the skill-template, but it no longer adjusts to it, instead filling a completely new line below. A horrible example: Reversal of Fortune. btw, I think all templates are evil -- Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 04:17, 20 March 2006 (CST)

It looks horrible and really needs to be fixed. :/ User:Gem/Sig 05:14, 20 March 2006 (CST)
You realize that the skill template used to overlap the progression template, right? That looked quite horrid. PanSola modified it on the 15th of March, it appears, to remove that issue. - Greven 05:24, 20 March 2006 (CST)
This is worse, if you ask me. But obviously, neither is any good. I'm not much of a wiki hacker, or I would mess around with it myself; but all these templates is making it hell to figure out what affects what. -- Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 05:32, 20 March 2006 (CST)

If the new skill box uses Landscape v4/5 or Hybrid 6, then this issue is pretty much moot. And I disagree this being worse. At least this is always readable. Overlapping is UNREADABLE at certain screen resolutions for certain skills. -SolaPan 05:46, 20 March 2006 (CST)

BTW, this "Progression Bar vs Skill box overlapping issue" is the 50% of the reason we are having the GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills#Deciding the new skill box format vote. Every single proposal I made were attempts to nicely resolve the problem (some proposals resolves this issue much better than others, of course). -SolaPan 05:52, 20 March 2006 (CST)

Two votes ending soon![edit source]

First off, the skill icon format will end in around 20 hours. GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills#Skill_Icons_-_the_ballot.

Second, the skill box format, whose original deadline has passed and was kinda extended indefinitely, well, I as the superme dictator of half of my brain had decided that the votes will end March 22 evening PST, so it will be decided before the preview event. GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills#Deciding the new skill box format. If you wish to complain about not enough time to vote, you better be one of the people who have commented on the proposals previously, or in the next 20 hours. We can't just invent proposals out of thin air that satisify you, we need your feedback to create a proposal you like. -SolaPan 16:25, 20 March 2006 (CST)

This is re-extended indefinitely.

Sandbox?[edit source]

Saw stabbie's comment to kaspie, and decided to do a check.

Yeah, thought so. I use my user namespace to test edits. Sould we link sandbox from the main page? -SolaPan 01:50, 21 March 2006 (CST)

I've wondered why there wasn't one. I think any wiki should have a sandbox, for newbies and advanced users alike. -- Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 02:23, 21 March 2006 (CST)
Does anyone know if there is a way to get a message to be automatically placed on a user's talk page as soon as they register the account? I was thinking that there could be a little welcome message posted there with helpful links (sandbox, style and formatting, etc...). If it were to go on the talk page then they would get the message pop up saying they have new messages and they then might look at that and find some useful info. --Rainith 02:28, 21 March 2006 (CST)
I don't think it's possible as such, however many wiki's have a {{welcome}}template that people can insert into new users' pages with various helpful hints and links. Maybe we should have one, too? -- Bishop icon2.png Bishop [rap|con] 02:43, 21 March 2006 (CST)
Hmmm, the Sandbox used to be in the "toolbox" to the left. I just noticed it's gone. :) No clue when this happened. --Karlos 02:35, 21 March 2006 (CST)
Requires some PHP hacking, but it can be done. Most of the framework is there already. You just need write a function $welcome_new_user and add it as $wgHooks['AddNewUser'][] = $welcome_new_user. — Stabber 02:39, 21 March 2006 (CST)
Alternatively, play with MediaWiki:Welcomecreation. — Stabber 02:43, 21 March 2006 (CST)

Object to the phrasing "has a duplicate in"[edit source]

Why not use "is a duplicate of"? Why this sudden desire to write in E-prime? — Stabber 00:45, 28 March 2006 (CST)

No reason, other than seeing a few skills listed that way. Of the several (3+?) ways that had been used thus far it seemed the most concise and least laden with ANet propaganda. Feel free to swap it around. I object somewhat to the phrasing "This spell is exactly the same as the spell Inspired Enchantment from the Prophecies Campaign. It is one of the duplicate skills introduced in Factions. The reasoning- according to Anet- is to add strategic depth to the game by allowing double-use." as it seems overly long, and brings up the questionable reasoning in every article. Personally, I think that it might be best as This skill is a (insert campaign) only duplicate of the (insert campaign) skill (Skill name). or something, as it gets the point across that it is from one campaign, and a copy of a skill from another campaign. --Epinephrine 00:57, 28 March 2006 (CST)
I like that way of stating it. — Stabber 01:01, 28 March 2006 (CST)
Seconded, I like Epinephrine's way of stating it. --Rainith 01:04, 28 March 2006 (CST)
Yay! Epinephrines short but informative message suits me well. User:Gem/Sig 01:09, 28 March 2006 (CST)