Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting

Links
Lately I have seen two sides of linkings, and I am told consistency. I haven't seen it, but I have seen something like this. Asurans and Asurans. well that's an example, but I'm hoping to give the idea. Which way should it be? and which way is preferred? If we're going to do "consistency", then we're going to need one to go by. I'm tired of seeing both ways on words and I do like the Asurans better myself as there's no code in between words and to me, gives less confusion to editors. Kaisha  22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Both produce the same result, and  is preferred as it's shorter and can be easier read. But that of course doesn't work with all plural forms. poke | talk 23:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. I usually use the  jsut because is shorter. I think the only bad think would be using a combination of both (even that in the end is the same result) like   &larr; this looks bad.--SharkinuUser Sharkinu sig.png 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed  looks bad, that's why I'm asking if we should do them all one way aka Ectos or another way Ectos . After all, consistency would be the best.  Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 23:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As the difference is invisible to users, I don't think it should make any difference, and I see no reason to enforce one way over the other. One way doesn't obstruct or get in the way of someone who likes the other way. Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the Ecto example, that's a completely different case because the plural cannot just simply be added onto the end without having the rename of the link (whether you do Ectos or Globs of Ectoplasm ). When the plural version of the link cannot be added to the end (i.e., is not just simply adding an s or an es), then the plural should be in a renaming ( Dwarves - prime example), but when the plural version is just the addition of s or when the possessive form is the addition of an en or what-have-you at the end of the word then the addition should be added to the end ( Asurans ). It may not seem consistent due to some plurals/possessives being a rename and others being additions, but really it is because there are two different kinds of plurals and possessives. So it is consistency for two different things. Personally, I say do it the shortest way you can, and when it is a case of having to rename the link in order to prevent a redirect, then just use the neatest looking case, as Ectos and Ectos don't really matter there, as they produce the same length, so might as well use the neatest looking one (the later). -- Konig / talk 23:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a very good example, since if you're remapping a link (using the |), there's no point in using the inclusion feature (how wiki adds whatever characters are next to the closing bracket to the link's display text). I think if you can use a link without remapping, you should, but you also shouldn't go around changing them from one to the other since it's a waste of time, as the others have pointed out, the result displayed to the end user is the same. -- FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 00:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world it would all be Asura ns for the sake of fewer redirect pages actually existing. However, since we can't realistically correct every last link to it (especially as some words don't have the real page title embedded perfectly), we have to have redirects existing anyway; in which case I don't think it matters, except if you prefer to avoid having to go through these existing redirects. | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 02:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning redirects, GWW:GENFORM currently states "Direct links are preferred over links through redirects", which is why I use blocked instead of blocked . --Silver Edge 02:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, does it really matter if something looks nice while editing an article?
 * Oh, and personally I didn't even know you could write Iron Ingots instead of Iron Ingots until recently. I prefer Iron Ingots though, because it's easier to read. - Mini Me   talk  17:07, 4 March 2010
 * Silver Edge and 72, that's not really the issue here, to use SE's word, it would be the difference between blocked and blocked, neither of which uses a redirect. -- FreedomBound [[Image:User_Freedom_Bound_Sig.png|19px]] 17:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right. Carelessness on my part. In that case I think it doesn't matter whatsoever. I think block ed is significantly easier to read, but that may just be my preference (personally it takes me a second longer to remember which one displays). At any rate, wiki coders thought there was a reason for adding this (more specialized) functionality. | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 17:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, which-ever is easier? I kind of prefer a "consistency". That's why I brought it up. Just not too keen in seeing both ways used that obviously links to the same thing. Kaisha  User Kaisha Sig.png 11:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even matter tbh. Just use whichever you prefer. - Mini Me   talk  12:49, 6 March 2010
 * I'd say an easy rule of thumb is that if you don't need to use a |, then don't. Of course you'd use a | when doing a redirect, capitalization change, or a complex word. --JonTheMon 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason this capability exists is so that people can use something like "To capture a boss' skill..." That way, there doesn't need to be a redirect from a page named "capture". 69.182.188.118 13:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Read again -- that's not the capability we're discussing :P We mean the one where blocked, blocked & blocked come out the same: blocked, blocked & blocked (press "Edit") . And therefore, whether the standard should be blocked or blocked. (It wouldn't be blocked because we would need a ton of redirect pages...) Up to speed now? | 7  2   User_72_Truly_Random.jpg | 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for Merge/Split?
Due to several recent discussions, I've been looking through the guidelines for any references to merging and splitting articles, and haven't found anything. Could someone either direct me to what I'm missing, or, if none exists, perhaps we should create a guideline concerning when it is helpful to the wiki to merge/split an article and when it is detrimental? --Janwen 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no guideline, and I don't believe there needs to be. It's done when there is a good reason to do it. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for Disambig.
Okay, I came across this whole disambig thing, so check this out. If you type in RoF, it takes you to that page, right? Well, most people would related RoF to Reversal of Fortune. So is there any policy where I can just put a template on the top of the skill page that says, "RoF redirects here, if you want to look for other uses, look here."? →← 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if most people would always relate RoF to Reversal of Fortune over the others, but in principle, yes, I agree this should exist | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I disagree, it makes the most sense to give them all the options available on the first page they come to. Then they only have to load the one additional page that is the one they want. You can never make assumptions on what users are looking for when they enter a term in search. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  04:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured. But what about skills such as Savanah Heat, cause everyone relates SH to it, but there is also Sheilding Hands. →[ » Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png  (talk)« ]← 14:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * exhibit A: a fellow who plays ele more than monk | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On your first example, the RoF article exists exactly to solve what you mention: prevent the acronym to be given preference based on personal bias. As for SH, if an user thinks there are other instances where it could be used also (instead of only savanna heat), he just has to change it from a redirect to a disambiguation article. That way, there is no need to offer backtracking links for people who only looks for the acronym instead of the whole name.--Fighterdoken 18:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) FWIW, I tend to prefer the "organic" disambig style to the separate page. When the landing point guess is right, it saves a click.  When it is wrong, the click count is no worse than the separate page.  --DryHumour 18:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with that i think is that we have no way to incorporate a template on the page only when it was redirected from somewhere. Having "see also" disambiguation templates for alternate spellings may be more confusing for random users than helpful, and the users that benefit from it are those who already know what they are looking for, but are too lazy to type it.--Fighterdoken 05:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)