Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal

From Guild Wars Wiki

[edit] rfa

Do we need to have the number of RfAs listed in the news section? If people want to be kept updated on when new RfAs start (or end), they can watch GWW:RFA - I think the most the community portal should say is that there are currently RfAs in process, but not the amount (so it wouldn't need updating every time, and the grammar needn't be fixed in a following edit). -- pling 13:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't anything else to put on here. It's not like this page can't handle some volume. NuVII 13:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pling. It reduces edits made on community portal radically, since the most of them are related to RfAs.

And if people want to keep on track for new requests, they should add Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship on their watchlist. - J.P.Talk 14:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't even be an issue except we have had a LOT of RfAs recently. We could just neutralise the wording next time the number changes. Misery 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with a simple toggle? {{rfa|open}} presents, There are currently open RfAs. (If the toggle is closed, then nothing displays.) If the toggle is placed on the main RfA page, this would allow the community portal to show when there are opening without requiring an edit to this one.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And that would remove the point of the CP. People won't notice changes on this page, if there was no edit... Writing simply "There are currently open RfAs" here when one opens and removing it, when there is no longer any RfA open, is fine enough. No need to keep it updated with the number etc. poke | talk 07:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Having the RFA notice listed in multiple places allow more people to be made aware of them, instead of it looking like you don't want people to know about them. I don't think that you need to have the edits done in multiple places, when you could use the same method used in the game for information like that. Have the info page a part of the RFA section, a subpage, and transclude that page to wherever you want that info to show. That way, the edits are done in one place, and can show up wherever it is wanted by a transclusion template. 42 - talk 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New template design

I am working on a template I designed for use on some of the NPC dialogue sections that are very sparse with information. This template would allow the editor, one, to enter the text (and if repeated) have it show up in the multiple places it appears when talking to that NPC in-game, and two, if in place, would let the prospective editor know that information is missing.

There is verification of text and order of dialogue that would help in the formatting and making sure that the order and any repeated text occurrence is correct. I have a list of what I am looking for on my talk page. 42 - talk 04:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are some srs bsns walls of text. Can you do a mock up or something? NuVII 16:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nvm, I found em. Eh, I'm with Wynthyst on this one. Too much detail bro. NuVII 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the same concept as an infobox. There is "too much detail" there as well, but it saves the person from having to build one every single time. How much time do you think would be spent "building" an infobox on each page one was needed? Given how many of the pages this would be used on, would save untold hours of work building a new onedialogue section for every page. 42 - talk 17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that there is nothing to save because all the dialogue is already in place. NuVII 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not on the pages this template is intended for Nuke. Only two out of I don't know how many have anything close to complete dialog. Go check the Norn NPC pages. 42 - talk 06:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The other benefit is this will automatically format the text for the editor, and even if it isn't all there, it would let people know exactly what was missing. Since I forgot to post the links before for people to find them, here they are again. 42 - talk 06:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Prospective Norn init dialogue version 2
• Prospective Norn bounty dialogue version 2

[edit] NO TOC tags in infoboxes

I propose adjusting the NPC and location infoboxes so that the __NOTOC__ tag is automatically passed to the pages it is used on. This would benefit the wiki by automatically removing it on pages that do not need one, and would save having to add this to the remaining pages that don't already have them.

I have no idea how many don't, but I know a lot already have them put in by hand. 42 - talk 06:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But what about pages that should have the TOC? --JonTheMon 06:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, imo, it's easier to have the TOC and say "hey, it's short, let's remove it" than to do "hey, there are a lot of sections, let's add the TOC". --JonTheMon 06:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jon. Besides, i don't think page formatting belongs into infoboxes.

In any case, instead of automating it on infoboxes it would be easier to run a bot and stamp a NOTOC on every npc and location article, if i understand right what you intend to do. That way, we can still easily put TOCs back for those pages that require it.--Fighterdoken 07:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be "in" the infobox. It would be added (if it is even possible) like the categories are added to pages that use certain userboxes. I have yet to see an NPC or location page that "needs" the TOC from being that long. 42 - talk 07:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How about Devona? Misery 07:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

After going through some of the "what links here" pages, it seems that the NPC pages don't use the TOC quite as much, but many of the locations do. And I had made my opinion (don't need NOTOC in the infobox) after taking that into consideration. --JonTheMon 07:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) "I propose adjusting the NPC and location infoboxes" This is what you wrote, and that means that "it's IN the infobox", even if it's not displayed as such (ie, like the categories).

By the way, i still find the TOC useful even for short pages since i hate to scroll. Then again, i still run my monitor at 800x600.--Fighterdoken 07:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be against adding this as there are quite a number of npcs/locations where the toc is useful. For example most henchmen as Mis linked above. --Kakarot 17:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that means that it is in the template page, not "in" the infobox. In the infobox says that it would be visible on the pages the infoboxes are used.

But enough people have come up with logical and reasonable reasons why this wouldn't work. So no go. 42 - talk 07:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually by placing the __NOTOC__ in the infobox, would cause the TOC to not display on the pages, especially those pages that need it. I do not know what says what shows up in template page won't show up in pages... but it is actually wrong. I know this with the _NOEDIT_ one as I had to create some pages to exclude that. I agree with others above, this would not be and is not a good idea to do. -- riyen ♥ 11:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is right. It does not show up in the physical infobox in use on the page. It is in the template, and would affect how that page is viewed. From the pages I have viewed,I didn't think that any of the pages with infoboxes needed a TOC, so the reasoning for putting it as a part of the templates. People have come up with valid reasons for not doing that. 42 - talk 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It does. You're just not holding your breath right. Secondly, TOC is needed for those who don't want to 'scroll' to find what they need. You like scrolling, don't you? Absolutely, is bugging to many that don't like to just scroll to find like say a boss, notes, or walk through. -- riyen ♥ 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen, it was a thought, people have come up with valid reasons why it shouldn't be. I have accepted that. My point since then was that the NOTOC tag doesn't show up inside the confines of the infobox, that is it. You do not see it inside the infobox, it would coded outside of the physical coding of the infobox. Either way, this line of discussion is done. It has already been proven doing this would not work, and would be better to be done on a page by page basis. 42 - talk 17:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)