Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Archive 1

From Guild Wars Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.

Contents

Old S&F

Are we allowed to use the same style and formatting of gwiki's articles? I've seen a few done in that style. I can't really think of a different way to do it that would be any better. - - BeXoR 01:31, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Basic stuff such as the order of headings etc can be done in the exactly same way ofcourse, but more complex stuff like the monster boxes and such might be a different thing. --Gem (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I figured as such. I guess we'll have to redo the code for the info boxes yes? - - BeXoR 02:26, 8 February 2007 (PST)
If you present content or information in a certain way just because GuildWiki did it that way, it's a problem. If someone had never seen GuildWiki but knew everything there was about every unique item, they won't end up with a set of articles identical to GuildWiki's. Of course, some things are logical like having a section for stats or saying where you can get the item (boss name/location) or displaying the more important info first. --Fyren 02:36, 8 February 2007 (PST)

As far as Skill boxes go, their appearance has not change since they were introduced by me [1]. While functionally they are very different, someone could produce the Skill Box as it was when first introduced and build from there. If no one beats me to it, I will do that later on. LordBiro 09:43, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Names of pages

Especially referring to skill names and collectable items, I suggest having calling the pages differently from what they actually appear in game. I would like to find "Watch yourself!" under Watch yourself and Granite Stone Slabs at Granite stone slabs as well! The system as it is on gwg is not really accessible and usually makes you take a three-click-detour via main page. We really don't need that. ~ D.L. (msg) 14:46, 8 February 2007 (PST)

This can be achieved with redirects, so I would recommend that we use the accurate names, but redirect Watch yourself to "Watch yourself!". LordBiro 15:20, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Yes, for pity's sake let's make more use of redirects than Guild Wiki - I find the policy of not including redirects for pretty much anything really irritating (especially the lower case thing). --NieA7 03:29, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Topic is also discussed here. ~ D.L. 03:31, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Thanks for the pointer :) --NieA7 03:42, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Name...

I would rather this be called "Formatting" not "Style" if I have a choice. Everyone has their own style, but articles should adhere to a certain "format"... si? --Karlos 15:24, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Hmm.. I see what you mean. I initially thought style because I thought it was a more encompassing word. Now I'm not so certain :)
I do still feel that "style" sounds a little better. I think it's fairly obvious that something under Style/ will be to do with the layout/appearance/design of the article. Does anyone else have any opinions on the name? LordBiro 16:00, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Style sounds better but I agree with Karlos - style is personal, formatting is something that is just done as per templates, which is kinda what we're after. --NieA7 16:07, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Agreed with Karlos and NieA7. While I like they way Style sounds, Format more accurately describes what we're looking for. --Zampani 18:16, 8 February 2007 (PST)
"Formatting" does sound more accurate to me as well. --Dirigible 18:19, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I vote "Formatting". - - BeXoR 18:32, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Is there a Style guide...uh, Format guide that we should be using? --Vladtheemailer 18:53, 8 February 2007 (PST)
"Format" instead of "Formatting." But either is preferable to "Style"- Evil Greven 23:44, 8 February 2007 (PST)
To paraphrase, format is the layout of a document, formatting is the style of the document's layout. As these guides tell us how the articles are meant to look, I say formatting should be used. We use the formatting guides to provide the desired format. - - BeXoR 23:53, 8 February 2007 (PST)
As you guys know, I prefer "style", and I am OK with "formatting", but I don't think "format" is very good! LordBiro 03:42, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I think "formatting" sounds best (of the above choices). --Rainith 18:44, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I prefer "Formatting" or even the wordier "Formatting guideline"(s). --Barek 08:32, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Nothing that needs two words and a space please. --Xeeron 08:43, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Format is what I'd call it. -- Ifer 08:54, 10 February 2007 (PST)
The old "Style and formatting" is actually more accurate. "Formatting": The material form or layout of a publication., "Style": A customary manner of presenting printed material, including usage, punctuation, spelling, typography, and arrangement. But since most of these articles are about what information goes to which section, "Formatting" seems the more accurate of the two. As for "Format".... well, I think the sentence "Look at the formatting guidelines" sounds (is?) more natural than "Look at the format guidelines". --ab.er.rant 17:59, 13 February 2007 (PST)
That might be true, but that's not the point. It's about accessibility. A one-word policy page is a lot easier to find than one with more words. For "Style and formatting" you're usually forced to go through the links to dig up the page. ~ D.L. 21:46, 13 February 2007 (PST)

(reset indent) formatting encompasses style as well.[2] - BeXoR 22:38, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Well I see what you mean by all of this but why would they make a new guildwars so early? Like people dont like props. ,because of how it is but why would u do hard mode? It dosent make any since they should just make a new map or something.I would like a new profession to.:) --user:mage

Huge list

I get the impression this list was copied over from the GuildWiki. I don't think there are any license implications there, but I do think that it's a bad idea to copy over the style and formatting list.

My concern is that we will start filling in the red links, rather than just building our own list. LordBiro 11:26, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Won't the resulting list be the same, since it's not really something decided arbitrarily; these are simply the main types of pages that we'll have on the wiki to document the different types of items/creatures/places that there are in the game (Creatures, skills, locations, etc). Dunno, maybe I'm missing something. Feel free to remove it if it's inappropriate though. :) --Dirigible 11:35, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Well, if the list is there to begin with, I feel as though it will be a self fulfilling prophecy, if you know what I mean ;)
Our list will probably end up very similar, but that's different to it starting out as identical! LordBiro 13:21, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Gone! :) --Dirigible 13:38, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I've re-written the list, and I did not look at the GuildWiki list while doing so. Still I ended up with essentially the same result. Not really a surprise, is it? We know what we need. Now I see this as a "to do list" that we should get out of the way asasp to start filling in skills, creatures, locations, etc. --Tetris L 00:34, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I was really suggesting that we don't produce formatting sections until we have the need to produce it... LordBiro 10:30, 14 February 2007 (PST)

General formatting conventions first

Actually, I think that's a bad idea to have all the red links there. We shouldn't have individual formatting article links before establishing some site-wide guidelines first. Each separate formatting discussion could reach different conclusions on shared aspects.

Let's start by establishing what should be standardized site-wide.

  1. Naming conventions. Should we go "Chahbek Village (Mission)" or "Chahbek Village (mission)"? Should we do "Outposts (Factions)" or "Factions outposts"? Do we want "Warrior skills" or "Skills (Warrior)"? And general guidelines on how to handle disambiguations are needed.
  2. Categories. Do we want to keep the old "Something by some type" style of top-level categories? Do we want a root category? Do we enforce plural for all categories? Do we redirect singular categories to plural categories? Are we agreed that categories go at the bottom of the page?
  3. What's our stand on speculative or unknown information? Do we remove all unfounded rumors and unproven statements? Should then enforce that all empty sections (except notes and trivia I suppose) be kept and have a "None" specifically stated?
  4. We shouldn't have the "use in-game capitalisation" rule. It's better to use English capitalisation rules. If it's a specifically named object, capital. Generic name, small letters. I really hate the capital "The" or "A" in the middle of sentences.
  5. The "use lower case" rule. Are we keeping that? I've always preferred that all the words used in headers should have their first letter capitalised but if we retain this, it needs to confirmed.
  6. Are we retaining the profession ordering used in GuildWiki?
  7. Introductory text. Some on GuildWiki are opposed to the idea that a section header starts of each page. Do we require introductory text before the first header (barring special reference-type pages of course)?
  8. Stub template locations. At the top or at the bottom? I've noticed both.

--ab.er.rant 02:30, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I agree 100% that we should instate some overall rules with first priority. Actually, I'm writing a draft for Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Article names as we speak, which will cover some of the questions. I also intend to add Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Articles|a guide about general article layout, structure and format to the list, and write a first draft. I also intend to write a first draft for the category guide later today. With these three basic guides drafted we can have a discussion on the respective talk pages.
Having said that, I don't see a reason to remove red links from the list or even blank the list. Just treat the first three general guides with first priority. --Tetris L 02:50, 14 February 2007 (PST)
My 2p:
  1. "Chahbek Village (Mission)" and "Outposts (Factions)"
  2. Not sure about all of it, but categories should be plural and I don't see the point of a singular redirect. They look best at the bottom of the page as they were laid out on GuildWiki, but perhaps there's scope to include categories in info boxes?
  3. Remove it, we document the game as is and archive how it was, we don't guess how it will be. Only exception would be pages for campaigns not yet released but for which some facts are known (so before Nightfall we would've kept the Nightfall article, with a mention of Heroes in it, but deleted the Heroes article).
  4. I think we should use in game capatilisation for all the articles, but put in redirects for common variants (such as title case or lower case).
  5. If it's not in game we should use title case for article titles. The clue's in the name.
  6. I prefer alphabetical order, either of all professions or all professions within a campaign (e.g. Elementalist, Mesmer, Monk, Necromancer, Ranger, Warrior, Assassin, Ritualist, Dervish, Paragon).
  7. Don't see why we need a guideline on that, just do whatever is most appropriate for the article in question.
  8. Stub at the top, it's a warning as much as anything else.
--NieA7 03:04, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Arr, Edit conflict :p A quick answer on Ab.er.rant's list (personal preference):
  1. Mission instead of mission. Outposts (Factions) and Skills (Warrior), 'cause those are your main categories.
  2. Create root category, plural, @ bottom of page.
  3. I think rumors and unknown info shouldn't be placed in the article. Omit the section and place a stub tag or add it to the 'needs confirmation/research' category (IF we're gonna have that). Or simply discuss it on the talk page. Keeping empty sections depends on the situation. Suppose if a craeture/boss has no skills at all, you should keep the skills-section and place "None" in it so other users will know it's not simply missing.
  4. I say keep the in-game capitalisation 'cause I don't know the exact English capitalisation rules...(unless "The" and "A" are the only exceptions).
  5. Always capitalize first letters.
  6. Profession ordering as in-game, keep it (same as on GuildWiki).
  7. Intro text not always needed. It's the same with TOC I think. Kinda looks silly on articles that only have a few lines of text f.i.
  8. Stubs on bottom of the page.
--Erszebet 03:25, 14 February 2007 (PST)
  1. Big M instead of small m
  2. No root category/plural/redirects/bottom
  3. This should not be part of formatting, but a general wiki policy
  4. I dont care. Let the native speakers quarrel about this hehe
  5. see above
  6. Agreed with NieA
  7. no
  8. top. --Xeeron 06:45, 14 February 2007 (PST)
  1. Chahbek Village (mission), Factions outposts, Warrior skills (avoid brackets if possible, they are annoying)
  2. I never liked those "Thing by type" categories. I remember one was "Armor by prestige". "Prestige armor" is preferable to that. Plural, idk, you'd have to give examples. No redirect categories. Categories, I don't mind if they are at bottom or top, I usually put them at the bottom.
  3. idk
  4. If we switch to English language rules, allow redirects for in game capitalisation
  5. ULC unless it's a noun, capitals mid-heading serve no purpose
  6. Use profession ordering as it is when you unlock skills at the balth guy (same as log in screen I recall)
  7. Fyren always told me it was bad to start an article with a heading. I don't remember why.
  8. stub - at the top for newb users - BeXoR 07:12, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Stub tags on bottom please. Or give a convincing argument for why they must be featured prominently in a page. "Because GuildWiki does it so" is not convincing. S 06:49, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Because it's a warning to casual readers that the information presented on the page, while correct, should not be regarded as complete. --NieA7 07:03, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Image:Stop Hand.png
I'm sorry to interrupt, but can we please stop the discussion here? There are far too many controversial questions in one place. Let's split it up into
Sorry again. Do you want me to slice'n'dice the discussion and split/move it, or do you prefer to do it yourself? --Tetris L 07:50, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I've split Ab.er.rant's original post and moved it to the talk pages listed above. I could split and move all the replies as well, but I'd rather not touch other people's statements unless necessary. I'm feeling bad enough for cutting Ab.er.rant's. Could everybody please have a look at the new pages and comment again or move his own comment? Thanks! --Tetris L 08:53, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Hmm, while I see the advantage of splitting this, having a unified page of short questions will broaden the amount of answers you get. I fear that only the usual 3-4 people will be motivated enough to go to all subpages and basically make up the rules among themselves. At least ab.er.rant's list got many responses quickly. --Xeeron 08:36, 14 February 2007 (PST)
People seem to have plenty of motivation to comment on gimmick features of the wiki, like guilds, builds and user pages, in all length and detail, over days and weeks, but they are not willing to take a few minutes to comment on the things that really matter?? I'm starting to get really pissed off by this. >:[ Ab.er.rant did a great job at listing all the essential questions. The questions that form the very basic foundation of the editorial content of this wiki. These questions simply deserve not to be rushed, but to be treated detailed, separate and at length. I refuse to throw them all into one big cauldron and cook 'em like fast food. --Tetris L 08:53, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Maybe different people just have different perceptions of what is important. Believe it or not, I wont lose my good sleep if it turns out to be Chahbek Village (mission) instead of Chahbek Village (Mission). You cant force people to find stuff important. --Xeeron 08:57, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I remember many crusades on GuildWiki that required hundreds of page edits because the original layout was drafted hasty and without proper agreement beforehand. I'd rather not repeat that. The things that we decide here affect thousands of pages. Let's get it right from the start this time, and lets discuss things thoroughly, okay? It's better to spend a few more days on this now than to spend weeks to fix it later. --Tetris L 09:04, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Maybe you are right. After all, those who wont bother going to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Article names wont be the ones who would start crusades later anyway. Might be more important to get those people who care enough to agree. --Xeeron 09:09, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Or perhaps some people feel that what is going to be on the wiki is more important than how its presented. Some people just prioritize differently and as Xeeron said, you can't force people to find stuff important. That being said I did/have read/kept up with the formatting discussions as I think they are important also. Lojiin 09:13, 14 February 2007 (PST)
To be honest, formatting is more important to me than builds or guilds, however I also have a real-life job to do, so I cannot respond as quickly as others might. Don't think there aren't people that care about formatting, just other things get in the way. If I won the lottery, I'd be commenting and changing things all day long :P — Gares 09:19, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Hahaha, if I won the lottery I'd be doing the same but I'd probably be doing it from a beach somewhere tropical. Lojiin 09:29, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Formatting is darn important to me too. For some reason, it just irks me if just an article breaches the conventions adopted and I just have to fix it. :P --ab.er.rant 18:09, 14 February 2007 (PST)
While I appreciate that you feel this is important stuff Tetris, I don't particularly appreciate being told to stop discussing something where it's being discussed and instead cut everything I've said into various little bits due to your own whims as to what is important. Appreciate that people are discussing it at all, don't make it harder than it needs to be no matter how the Guilds discussion bothers you. --NieA7 13:43, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I don't mind the splitting at all. In fact, I should've done that from the start. :) Makes keeping track of discussions easier instead having consecutive paragraphs talking about different stuff. --ab.er.rant 18:09, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I've no problem with the discussion being in several places, what I don't like is how it was in one place before being arbitrarily stopped and cut up, potentially losing 4 people's responses (the questions were copied, not the replies). --NieA7 02:00, 15 February 2007 (PST)
Mmmyeah, it was necessary to split up, don't mind that. I had this page in my watchlist, which is a good habit anyway ^-^ --Erszebet 04:13, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Linking this on the Side navigation?

Seems like having the Formatting page on the side-navi would possibly benefit the adoptions of the standard styles, especially as this wiki is currently in development rather than open to the general public looking for a game guide. any thoughts? --Jamie (Talk Page) 10:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

perhaps in the toolbox, don't know about the navigation -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 11:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)
I can see how my text was misleading but generally a panel of links is called a navigation or navi. --Jamie (Talk Page) 13:09, 10 March 2007 (EST)

...-FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 13:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)
lol, well said FireFox :P I don't think a link to the formatting section in the sidebar is particularly beneficial. It would just be taking up extra space IMO. LordBiro 13:58, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Formal guideline system

I've started a draft for a more formalized guideline system that could cover the process for accepting/changing these formatting guidelines. Please refer to Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines. --Rezyk 17:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Glossary

I want to get some clear definitions up for Category:Glossary. That category explains that words in the Glossary are terms used in the game. But that is not true. Some of the terms, especially the acronyms and slangs, are definitely not in-game terms. I would like to reorganise as follows:

  • Terminology - the parent category of the following three categories:
    • Game terms - terms officially used in the game. (rename Category:Game mechanics as well? Hmm...)
    • Abbreviations - for all the acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, etc. Some of these would seem to overlap with the next one though; but we can always specify both categories.
    • Slangs - for terms that are... well... slangs; coined terms like leetspeak, noob, pwn, imba, etc. Basically any term that's been adopted by the GW player community. We can call this "Community terms", "Player terms", or maybe "Glossary".
    • Wiki terms - not sure about this, but this is meant for terms and definitions coined by the wiki community to describe certain elements in the game that wasn't explicitly defined by ArenaNet.

Discuss. -- ab.er.rant sig 02:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go with "official terms" rather than "game terms" and "player jargon" or "unofficial terms" to cover both slang and wiki terms. -- Gordon Ecker 02:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I think I'd go for "In Game Terms" for "Game Terms". Abbreviations is fine, "Player Jargon" is a good alternative for "Slangs" (which isn't a word? Never heard a plural of slang before). I don't think we should have a "Wiki terms" category - we're documenting the game, not ourselves, we shouldn't be using anything that's not present in the game (officially or from players) anyway. --NieA7 06:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I like the sound of "In game terms" and "Abbreviations". I don't know how I feel about "slang" but "slangs" is not a word. LordBiro 06:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
There are also official terms not used in game (patch notes, game manuals and other official documentation). - BeXoR 07:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
"Slangs" is a word, it's (I checked) just not a noun, it's a verb. :P So "Category:Abbreviations" seems to have no opposition, so that should be settled. It's now "Category:Official terms" + "Category:Unofficial terms" versus "Category:Game terms" + "Category:Player jargon".
I think "Game terms" is better than official terms as it will also cover terms used in manuals and official websites but do not actually have an official definition for it. -- ab.er.rant sig 21:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I think Official terms and Unofficial terms sound much better. Game terms makes you think the term came from in the game, and we know many words arent ever mentioned in game. - BeXoR 00:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, as it stands:

  • Terminology - redirects to Glossary:
  • Glossary - articles categorized here should be switch to at least one of the following three categories:
    • Abbreviations - acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, etc.
    • Game mechanics - things about how the game works
    • Official terms - terms used in the game or in official lore and resources; include Category:Game mechanics as a subcategory? Hmm... or treat it as a separate category?
    • Unofficial terms - terms coined by the community (playerbase or wiki users) that has become generally understood and accepted

These are not mutually exclusive, except maybe between "Official terms" and "Unofficial terms". -- ab.er.rant sig 01:44, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Hard Mode and Guild Wars 2

These are going to have significant impacts on article formatting. Creature, NPC, Mission, Quest and explorable area articles can all potentially contain information that varies between Normal Mode and Hard Mode (type and level of monsters, skill sets, strategies etc.). I'm in favor of adding subheadings to any sections which information which varies by mode. We'll also eventually have to decide whether GW1 and GW2 info should be divided into separate categories (i.e. category:creasures (Guild Wars) and category:creatures (Guild Wars 2)), separate namespaces (i.e. GW1:Charr and GW2:Charr) or separate wikis (i.e. wiki.guildwars2.com), but that's at least a year away, and categorisation should be able to be handled largely by wiki bots, and the decision will likely be ANet's. -- Gordon Ecker 02:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

A hard mode section works for me. That is better than going for whole new articles in each case, particularly when there will still be a lot of shared information.
As to whether Guild Wars 2 information should go... I can see that much of the lore is going to be the same so a new wiki doesn't particularly make sense. But who knows, if they integrate it into the game perhaps they'd like a clean chop like that? --Aspectacle 05:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Sections for hard mode sounds good, providing it doesn't make the articles too unwieldy. I think that even though there'll be a lot of links between the two we'd probably be better off with separate wiki's for GW1 and 2 with a lot of cross-referencing, but ultimately it'll be up to ANet I guess (their toys after all). --NieA7 06:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Separate wikis for GW1 and GW2 might be a better idea. As for hard mode, it's just another section in the mission guide, similar to a bonus section. -- ab.er.rant sig 21:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Separate wikis would be a bad idea imo -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 17:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Yet another thing

⇒ Moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Article names#Yet another thing

Not as subpage?

Since most of the accepted policy articles are not actually subpages of Guild Wars Wiki:Policy, should we move all the sub formatting pages out of Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting? -- ab.er.rant sig 01:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

New design of this page

Centre aligned paragraphs look really unprofessional. Can we please not use this on the formatting and other recently redesigned pages? I'm not sure if this was decided anywhere... LordBiro 08:20, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree. - BeXoR 08:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree for the Formatting and Projects pages, but disagree on the other three. I just justified those two, they look a bit better now I think. The other three I think should remain center aligned. --Dirigible 19:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
That's fine, the other text is more like a sub-heading than it is a paragraph, so I can live with just chaning these 2, but I don't think justified is right, sorry. It just doesn't look very professional either (although it is better than being centred!)
I won't change it, and I'll see if people agree, but I do think left aligned looks better than justified. LordBiro 20:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
What exactly is "unprofessional" about avoiding jagged line ends? Comparison picture. --Dirigible 20:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
The spacing between words is increased. Hyphenation is used in printed media to keep the number of characters on a line fairly similar from one line to the next, so even when full justification is used the gap between words is never increased beyond a certain amount. This is impossible with current web technology, meaning the line is stretched as much as is needed. If there is a considerable gap at the end of the line then the words are just dragged out as necessary.
For an extreme example, without justification;

The longest word in the English language is commonly considered to be Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

With justification:

The longest word in the English language is commonly considered to be Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

In print the long word would be hyphenated so that it wouldn't look so ridiculous. That's why I think the use of justify is unprofessional. LordBiro 10:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
For that extreme example (as you correctly labeled it) I'd agree with you, but when looking at the concrete examples of the Formatting and Projects pages I don't think that applies; this wiki hasn't started documenting lung diseases yet, the words in those paragraphs are small enough to not present that problem. Here's Projects aligned to the left and justified, is there really any noticeable difference in the spacing? On the other hand, look at the Formatting page when it was aligned to the left, notice how everything there is in straight lines with the exception of the right side of those paragraphs, their jagged line-ends? Maybe it's just me, but that's visually distracting (bothersome). --Dirigible 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it was an extreme example, but even in your example above you can see that the other lines must have been stretched by the same width as the word "article". Perhaps I am in the minority but I can see that the gap between words on your justified examples differs from line to line, and I consider that more distracting than a raggy right margin, which is commonplace everywhere on the web, including Wikipedia (this is me playing the Wikipedia card, as you might say).
As I said from the beginning this is not a big deal. I think that both left justify and fully justify are better than centring paragraph text, but I personally think that, aside from certain situations, left justify is better than fully justify, and I think it's true in this case. LordBiro 17:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
You can't say you're in the minority, because there's been exactly as many people supporting left-aligned as there's been people supporting justified, one person on each side. So if you're in the minority, then I'm in the minority too, which leads to the question who exactly is in the majority? :P Come on, next person to read this, voice your opinion, left or justify. --Dirigible 17:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Lol, what I should have said was that I can't really imagine many people are as fussed about the gaps between words as I am ;) LordBiro 18:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry Dirigible. I'm gonna have to go with left aligned. Consistency ftw! - BeX 00:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Biro on this one. I find justified text with variable spacing between words to be MUCH more distracting than a ragged right edge. I strongly support left aligned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, so now I'm in the minority around here. So be it. Help, I'm being oppressed! --Dirigible 01:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm a Mesmer, it's my specialty. :P - BeX 01:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
(Offtopic) Great Monthy Python stuff! And Bex, are you implying that King Arthur, son of Urthur Pendragon from the Castle of Camelot, King of the Britons, Defeater of the Saxons, Sovereign of all England was a Mesmer too? ;) -- File:Corrran.png (CoRrRan / talk) 06:18, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I think he was a Me/W (I can't believe I forgot to post this!) - BeX 18:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Material formatting

... is included in Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Items, so there is no need for extra subpage for that. - MSorglos 04:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then it should be removed instead of a strikeout and Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Materials flagged for deletion. Done :) -- ab.er.rant sig 04:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Cool thing: sortable tables!

I'm not sure what the best place for this is, so I'm just putting it on the main formatting talk page for now. Check out Wikipedia:Human Poverty Index. Go to the table and click on the little dingbats next to the category names -- it's a sortable table! Cool, huh? All you need to do is add class="sortable wikitable" to any existing table that you made with the usual bracket-pipe/pipe-dash notation.

Unfortunately, a lot of tables people have been making use colspan and rowspan a lot, and this can mess things up (at the moment, there's an example of it sucking in User:130.58/sandbox). Still, it's a really cool thing that already built into Mediawiki, and I'd definitely consider using something like this for the longer, more complex tables -- being able to sort by different categories definitely improves usability for me. — 130.58 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've seen this used here already in the unique weapon and max weapon quick references :) It's a great feature. - Anja Anja Astor (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
This would be perfect for skill lists. They will never have rowspans, and this would allow sorting by energy, recharge, etc. MithranArkanere 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

I just created some new layouts for our Maintenance templates so the design looks more consistent. Please see User:Poke/sandbox and leave comments :) poke | talk 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I like 'em... some of the old ones were just plain fugly. --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Had to make all divs to tables to align text in the middle of the image (in single and multiline text) :( But now it looks better xD poke | talk 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I like them generally, but I would like to have some kind of visible difference between the normal delete template and the redbetter template, mainly because I do a lot of deletions and that would make the process a bit faster. The copyvio template has the extra large thing under it so that's nota problem, it's just the redbetter template. -- Gem (gem / talk) 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
They look great - you must have too much time :-) Hope I find more time to be in wiki more often now that my diploma is presented and I got it. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 20:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem, I actual have not so much time xD - I changed the icon for redbetter-deletions, so the difference should be more clear :) I'll wait up to tomorrow and if nobody is averse to these template designs I will install them. poke | talk 21:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
*happy* -- Gem (gem / talk) 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Great work! - BeX 04:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Woohoo! Nice work. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The icons are really nice. However, don't you think some background color would be good? Given that almost every article will be in white, I'm thinking some background color helps with making it stand out more. -- ab.er.rant sig 08:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I like it alot, but I agree with Aberrant. Some background, even a faint grey one, would be an improvement imo. To make them stand out a bit more. They are there to be noticed, anyway :) - anja talk (contribs) 10:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
First year design class: want someone to think you do good work? Paint it red. What is meant by that is that if the subtle message isn't getting through and you need to resort to garrish details, something is wrong with the fundamental design. Let's focus on that, then. I like the design. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand what you try to say xD poke | talk 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I'm trying to say that they look fine as they are IMO. If they aren't attracting enough attention, something's wrong with the message, not the delivery. I like 'em. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
For me, no special background color symbolises something that belongs to the article. And I don't mind if I fail at design, but I prefer a subtle change in background color over big bold letters :P Any other suggestion you have to make them stand out more, Thulsey? - anja talk (contribs) 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah, ok - thanks xD Anyway I added three alternative colorations for background and border. In my opinion a red background is too bright. poke | talk 16:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, red is too bright, but I love the grey. - anja talk (contribs) 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just added grey background with red border. My choose would be grey background + grey border or white background + red border. poke | talk 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I added a lightred background option which I prefer myself. A second option would be gray with a red border. -- Gem (gem / talk) 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
@Anja Astor: your user page is blissful. You don't fail at design. :P.
@Gem gray with the lightred border? Maybe? I like the red border as it's a more subtle 'standout' option, just thinking that white seems pre-dominant here so it's a suitable background, and pink is less 'alert' and more 'pay attention.' I'm being picky.
@poke: the cleanup one is particularly clever. Me likey. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, who wants to decide? ^^ poke | talk 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I can just decide it so we don't need to bother with this anymore. :P Seriously, I think we can get to an agreement quickly. -- Gem (gem / talk) 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I prefer full grey or full red (light red background) - anja talk (contribs) 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone against the lightred background with the red border? -- Gem (gem / talk) 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, changed it and going to implement ;) poke | talk 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ugh ... to me, red means either critical or an error. PLEASE make changes some other color. The revision to Template:Move is just plain obnoxious in-your-face ugly - I can think of no other way to describe it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, barely 24 hours along now - to me, that's far too short to allow for adequate community input on this - I wouldn't be surprised if most people hadn't even been aware of this discussion yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could keep white or grey for move, split and such templates. And templates that are more alarming, like delete, copyvio and redbetter could be red? - anja talk (contribs) 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion a wiki-wide identical style for template like this is much better. And even delete is not a "alarming" message. I think it's just a notification. So when red is not a good color, we should really better use grey. poke | talk 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, just a comment, as I said at User talk:Poke, I strongly support the idea of creating a consistent design - but I also have a strong aversion to using red for notices that aren't meant to be red-alert alarming in nature. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think a change with this high of visibility should be mentioned at Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_comment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's ok, I understand you ;) And as you can see it was not my own idea to use red (:P)
btw. "Also, the prior version was shorter (stole less of the screen space). The icon that was added is an okay addition, but seems too big for this purpose." (from Template talk:Move) - old size (on my screen) 1044x33, new size: 879x48. I don't think 15px more in height is such a big problem as the move box is not used that frequently (I would not speak here of "stealing"). I added the icons because split and merge used icons before and they were very useful but not really nice. So I created new ones and because of the constand-design idea I needed icons for the other templates as well :) And in my opinion it fits to the design we use in this wiki.
I will add this on Request for comments.. poke | talk 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The height is a much lesser concern to me than the color. I would prefer no taller than the original height, but I won't make a fuss if it's only a dozen or so taller - no idea if others might, but I won't :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
A deletion tag isn't alarming in nature? -- Gem (gem / talk) 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Better explanation: A deletion tag is the #1 thing someone should notice on a page that they visit. It's true that the red might not suit the other templates though, so why not have the others gray and delete tags red? -- Gem (gem / talk) 20:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict again) In my opinion a deletion tag is just a notice. If you visit a page marked for deletion there is no need to get alarmed, because it will just deleted. The only reason to get a kind of alarmed is when you are the author of this page but for any visitor it is just a notice that this page will be deleted. Also please keep in mind that the actual deletion template is not really alarming.. poke | talk 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The delete tag, to me, could be viewed as one of the few that could be in red - but templates such as move, split, merge, cleanup, etc should not be red. I'm indifferent on if all the templates have the same color or not, although I do like the consistent styling of other elements of the notices. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Poke's opinion makes sense to me, I agree based on that reasoning that the delete tag has no more reason to be red than any other of these templates. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Good :) So what do you think of the grey version (first here)? poke | talk 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My preference would be either gray, or a brown (such as what's on the current move template) - both look good to me. A white background has the opposite problem than red - while red is too much in your face, white is too easilly overlooked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the red examples and added a brown/orange one. poke | talk 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, of gray and brown I prefer brown. -- Gem (gem / talk) 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Both look good to me, either would be fine. But, I suggest waiting a couple more days for further input from the community. Someone else may have an aversion to one of these colors and could suggest another option that all may like. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Pink? Baby blue? ;P - anja talk (contribs) 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Pastel colors FTW! :) I like the gray version as it's probably different enough in value to set itself off from the rest of the white page, and the icons for the big alerts are already red, which is eye-grabbing enough in my opinion. That being said, the brown seems to me very similar to a system message rather than a tag on the page that an editor or viewer would need to pay attention to. I vote gray. :) I still think they all look quite nice. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 06:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Grey is fine for me, as it doesn't stand out too much (although personally, I wouldn't mind a slightly lighter grey). And to nitpick, I think the icons are a little too big. They don't go well with the font size. (And the delete icon needs some top margin :P) -- ab.er.rant sig 23:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I will make the delete icon a bit smaller so that there is a bit more padding ;) But I don't think the icons are too big. Most templates do have 2 lines of text besides the icon and that fits well. But I don't think it will look good if the icon has just the height of one text row (or 1.5).
- I just tried it with 35px height instead of 40px. It really fits better to two lines ;) I will change the icons tomorrow :) poke | talk 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I changed the icons and added a lighter grey. poke | talk 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I really like the latest light gray :) -- ab.er.rant sig 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Any other comments? poke | talk 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So as nobody says anything I assume that I am allowed to change the existing templates to the light-grey version...? poke | talk 17:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I say go for it... I love them :). Ale_Jrb (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, everything was replaced :) I hope everything works correctly. poke | talk 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice job, Poke. I love the new templates =] Indochine 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The new templates hurt the eyes of the fox >.> -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 01:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Skill trainers

Can't find anywhere that shows the official formatting for skill trainers. Anyways, my suggestion is to make all Skill Trainers pages look like Zhao Di's page. I think it looks alot better than Firstwatch Sergio for example because the skills aren't all cluttered and overlapping in Zhao Di but they are overlapping in Sergio.--§ Eloc § 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The NPC Formatting article doesn't really specify how they should look, just what should be included. By overlapping, I assume you mean that they are all on the same line separated by commas, where Zhao Di's page has them all on a separate line? Personally I agree with you and I prefer that each skill gets its own line, but whoa are those profession headers big. They've become visually more important than the skills. I think it can be made to look a little better. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 03:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well ya, I could just use the small icons by using {{Profession here}} then lower down the font size.--<font color="#000000">§</font> <font color="#ff0000">Eloc</font> §</font> 03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, or just remove the 130% bold font. :P Another consideration: try {{profession|small}} and see how it looks. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 04:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it. It looks like it was me that made the original page, although I don't remember it. I dunno what I was thinking making the headings so huge.. - BeX 04:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but could we make all skill trainers have a box like that?--§ Eloc § 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as there is no example I'd say go ahead. I was thinking of making the formatting a little more similar to the armorer articles but my kb is filled with water and the on screen keyboard sucks. - BeX 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ya, an on screen keyboard would be slow to type with...extremely slow.--§ Eloc § 18:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Like, it-took-me-three-days-to-reply slow. :P BeX, how were you thinking of changing the format? Anything I can help with? - Thulsey Zheng - talk 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Noooo! Make the Skill Trainers like Zhao Di, not liek Armorers.--§ Eloc § 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That is how I would like them to look now (go see) except that you are forced to use table formatting to do it. :( I'll try make a line break template that doesn't make it look retarded. - BeX 04:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok.--§ Eloc § 06:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've filled out the table for list of Factions skill trainers, all four trainer list articles are complete, which should anyone working on the individual trainer pages. -- Gordon Ecker 07:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Weapon Mods

Where is the Format guide for weapon mods?--§ Eloc § 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess weapon mods are items just like runes, inscriptions and insignias, and should be treated like those :) - anja talk 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Now where are those?--§ Eloc § 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we do not have a special formatting for runes/inscriptions/insignias/mods. Perhaps we should create one based on the actual existing articles?- MSorglos (talk|contrib) 17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that would be a good idea.--§ Eloc § 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Should be added to GWW:ITEMS. - BeX iawtc 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, they use the item infobox... poke | talk 08:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Enhancements

Are we going to use that formatting guideline that Eloc has added, or do they still fall under GWW:ITEMS? -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Eloc can try to merge his guidelines into the items formatting? The current trend appears to be to keep the guidelines in one page (see GWW:NPCS), unless they're really different enough to warrant a sub-guidelines. -- ab.er.rant sig 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
we talked about this on the Template talk:Rune infobox page. indecision made a sandbox that incorporated runes, but i don't think he got around to weapons, weapon mods, inscriptions or the like. once the box starts incorporating everything, it just gets to be a headache to deal with. --VVong|BA 18:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Landmarks

Any formating decided for these? Backsword 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

None yet. Feel free to propose something and add it to Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Locations though. -- ab.er.rant sig 16:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
And here I was hoping I could get you to do it for me. Backsword
I plan on getting around to it... some day... :P -- ab.er.rant sig 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Brought it up since there are landmark articles that have cleanup notices on them. Backsword 10:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick reference lists

I would like to have a few more people chime in on the quick reference list formatting. I've got 2 examples up and running and I want to know which of these two is preferred before I'm going to implement them in the main namespace:

  1. Example 1 with sortable headers
  2. Example 2, GuildWiki style

Currently I have some CSS code being called throughout the DPL calls and I also would like to know whether someone with more CSS experience than me can help me create a CSS setup that might eventually be included into MediaWiki:Common.css. I'm not familiar at all with setting up CSS for an entire table. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 17:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer #2, since I want the icons for energy and recharge etc. Having long lists makes it easy to forget which column is energy or recharge, and that makes it irritating imo. I don't know too much about CSS, so I'll leave that to someone else :P - anja talk 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not too hard to add a tiny E just after the Energy or a R just after the recharge... -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 17:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
But I still love the icons. :P Would it be possible to make it sortable if we had just letters? Otherwise it's no point in the imo. - anja talk 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Anja Astor, I like the second kind of list more for the same reasons (although I don't know how it would look like with the added icon for sacrifice, the adrenaline based skills, and so on). Erasculio 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I like #1 more because of sortable energy/recharge/activation.. But I really dislike the layout of the list. I think we should use styles that we use here more often.. Wait, I will make an example layout.. poke | talk 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you'd better, because I don't really understand what you mean by the lay-out? AFAIK, there haven't been any similar skill lists before on the wiki? You'd better get your fingers moving Poke! -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 18:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean the layout should look more like other things on this wiki.. Here you can see what I mean. poke | talk 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What I forgot to say: I would like to have a sortable skill type row. poke | talk 18:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Added your formatting to both examples. Not too sure on the skill type yet, since we then have redundancy, and I hate redundancy. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 18:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Would be cool if you could sort by elite status... LordBiro 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be enough to sort by description? They always start with the word Elite for elite skills. Backsword 10:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm, is it possible to sort rows which are not displayed (via css)? Then it could be possible to sort by many things which are not even displayed in an own row.. poke | talk 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That goes way beyond my capabilities. Would be neat though. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is - even if it works - that we cannot perform the sort because we cannot create a link to a javascript method via mediawiki.. At least <a href="javascript:doSomething()">click</a> and <a onclick="doSomething()">click</a> do not work.. And [javascript:doSomething() click] probably doesn't work either.. poke | talk 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I mostly like the #2 list as it is now, but the warrior list doesn't have enough contrast between cells which makes it easy to confuse rows as you look back and forth. Also the spaces between the energy/cast/recharge make it look a bit choppy. You might want to set the cell spacing to 0 for that bit. --Valshia 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Like #2 - Mesmer? (I've changed it to show with the padding settings like you suggested.) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I mean the white spacing between the cells, not the padding, which was fine. --Valshia 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Valshia wants you to put energy, recharge and activation into one cell to remove the cellspacing between them. poke | talk 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, yeah. I was thinking that the cellspacing could be adjusted for individual cells, but after looking it up it isn't. It's global for the entire table. So putting them in one cell (or a table-within-a-table if that works with DPL) would be the way you'd have to do what I'm thinking of. --Valshia 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer option No 1, much more useful when you browse skill lists. --Xeeron 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

While I like the better visual appeal of #2, I'll go with #1 for its usefulness. Being able to sort makes it much more useful. How about center-aligning the E, C, R, and campaign? To sort by elite status, should be fine to add a column that says "Yes" or "No" to elite status. If you wanna make space, rename "Campaign" to "C" instead. Could help. -- ab.er.rant sig 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason we can't include the energy/adren/cast/recharge icons next to the values in the cells? It seems like all you'd have to do is edit the templates ({{skill infobox.mesmer}} et cetera) to move the images into the other half of the if-TITLE conditional. Edit: In fact, it seems this has already been done - just not on {{skill infobox.test}}. I tweaked .test so that it includes the icons as well - aside from some alignment issues (which can be dealt with), I think it's fairly decent. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I like #1 the best. More sorting options = best. :) - BeX iawtc 03:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Very cool work. I love #1. ~ dragon legacy 07:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As the options have changed since I last commented, I'm now all for sortability, #1. Isn't it possible to sort skills by type if you allow sortability in the description? The description almost always start with a type statement. - anja talk 08:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, that's pretty smart. o.0 This is shaping up very nicely people. Which means I have to pick a nit. =P Can anyone think of a way to make the energy/cast/recharge icons at the top remain sortable but still line up nicely with the icons in the column below? Currently they don't and that bothers me a wii bit. Even stacking vertically would be better looking than the way it is now. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 08:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't move that sort icon, unless you tweak the code behind the sortable table (just guessing here). But as a workaround, mebe added some right padding to the recharge column to push things a little more to the left? -- ab.er.rant sig 11:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Skill type is second to elite status though, so you would sort elite and nonelites of the same skilltype in seperate places. Backsword 10:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Gold background for elites seems to be something copied from guildwiki. Seems to me as it reduces readability without providing information, as it is fully redundant, being flanked on both sides by other indicators of elite status. (Icon and description). Backsword 10:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... I actually find those gold backgrounds to highlight elite skills nicely. -- ab.er.rant sig 11:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought about my idea from some lines above again and tried to implement this. The result can be seen here. poke | talk 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Damn, you're a genuine css-wiz. Never thought that you could remove the content from tables outside the table. Clever. The only "problem" of course would be the hard-coding of the margins for all tables. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, as mentioned before: If we could add javascript links into wikitext, we could do this a lot better.. But as it's not possible we have to use a workaround like this.. ;) poke | talk 01:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC).
This is not working quite as beautifully in IE6&7 for me. I will try and see what might make it a little nicer. In FF it's quite nice. CSS workarounds for display purposes are what CSS is for, after all... - Thulsey Zheng - talk 06:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Default TH styling for IE gives it a border-style:inset property. Yuck. Perhaps adding border: none; to the inline css? - Thulsey Zheng - talk 06:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote on the sandbox page: It is not looking good, I know. It was just to show you that there are methods for doing this. Before anything like this can be implemented it has to be reworked. poke | talk 12:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

(Reset indent) Consensus: I think the general feeling of this thread is a consensus for #1. Either with or without poke's suggestion, but that can also later be included. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Name of lists

Are we going to use

I prefer the one currently in existence ("List of mesmer skills"). Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't feel there is a need to change policy on this one. Would be needless extra work to rename all those articles already in existance. Backsword 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Policy change? -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, formating. GWW:NAMING. Backsword
As the existing list does not give many information -> replace it. poke | talk 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Warrior colors for quick reference list

Unfortunately, the warrior colors don't lend themselves well for a nice table (see here.) Does anyone have suggestions? (Bex?) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly don't see what the problem is. Looks no worse than the others for me. How does it display for you? Backsword 23:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
For me the yellow makes it really hard to distinguish between the inner borders of the table. IMO warriors shouldn't use such a soft color either. :) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 23:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Even if it's very bright you can identify the different cells because of the alignment. So no need to change it. poke | talk 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or is there a problem with the page? -- ab.er.rant sig 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I think he's working with customized css? In my opinion regarding the warrior colours: the dark and light colours don't really match up (the dark is too warm compared to the lighter shades) but I don't know if that is what you mean. I can't really give an opinion cause the page looks crazy. - BeX iawtc 03:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely not displaying correctly. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 05:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are talking about the link I've provided, that link uses a template that has been changed recently. Due to this, the page is scrambled. However, the "issue" I wanted to raise is similar on this page: List of warrior skills. Personally, I still don't fancy the color-set for the warrior-page. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 07:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I only see a problem with the border colour which looks to reddish. Other than that it seems fine to me. - BeX iawtc 08:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Same here. Only the border looks a little funny being reddish. As for your "hard to distinguish between the inner borders of the table", I'm not sure what you are referring to. There are no inner borders that I can see, just cell spacings. -- ab.er.rant sig 10:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, that's what I mean. The spaces between the cells are barely visible to me (even @ work). Btw, it's funny that that border seems to reddish, it is the right profession color... -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 11:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see the lines okay but it may just be my monitor. - BeX iawtc 11:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see the lines, too. I don't think the page looks bad, but I think it would look a bit better if the color wasn't so, well, bright. The List of monk skills, for example, is much more easier to read, at least to me. Erasculio 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

{{dialogue needed}}

Are there any objections to incorporating this into the NPC, Quest and Mission formatting in order to categorize articles with missing dialogue? -- Gordon Ecker 07:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not from me. Just make sure that it's clear to new users what the template is for from the page source, as opposed to the actual page. --Santax (talk · contribs) 07:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This was a must, there are a lot of missing dialogues many of us can't check for not having characters with those quests available. MithranArkanere 04:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mini-missions and Eye of the North mission / quest / mini-mission sequences

I'm in favor of using mission formatting. I believe the main advantage would be that we wouldn't need to split information into separate articles like Curse of the Nornbear (quest) and Curse of the Nornbear (explorable area). -- Gordon Ecker 09:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like it because technically, it's not a mission; it's very specifically a quest and an explorable area. I would define it as a mini-mission hybrid. -- ab.er.rant sig 01:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
That brings up another issue. How should we handle mini-missions? -- Gordon Ecker 08:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Lol, sucks that ArenaNet won't design the game to make it easier for us eh? ;)
Maybe redefine a mini-mission as a quest-dependent or quest-prefixed mission? Make it a subtype of mission, then we can apply the mission formatting as you suggested and treat the mission explorable as a subtype of explorable... hmm... -- ab.er.rant sig 08:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
NF already introduced mini-missions, and I remember this topic being discussed somewhere before. --Xeeron 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't count these as mini-missions, either: you can rez and gain DP over and over until you finish your goal. These are primary quests that happen to (usually, from what I've seen) involve a dungeon explorable area. I feel we should still format them like quests, maybe categorize them differently if you really think it's necessary. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
But I didn't really respond to Gordon's suggestion, did I? I think Curse of the Nornbear (quest) and Curse of the Nornbear (explorable area) are actually the direction we should be going to remove any confusion on the part of some players who don't understand that it's both. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem Gordon was highlighting is that we're unnecessarily splitting information regarding one single thing into 2 or more pages. So instead of keeping all the creatures that I may have to fight on the quest page (since they're obviously specific to that quest), I'd have to click on a separate link. I'm thinking a better way would be to try to come up with a term to define this special quest + \mission hybrid. It's both a quest with an exclusive explorable area, and a mission with rez shrines and DP. The latter appears supported by that shield thingy that appears when you complete it (and that smiley on the map). -- ab.er.rant sig 02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Smily on the map? :o - BeX iawtc 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Eh? You didn't notice? :D Before completing one of these special quests, you'll see a brown "T" symbol somewhere on the quest map. For Curse of the Nornbear, I remember it's at the Shrine of the Wolf spirit. Once you complete that quest for the first time, that "T" symbol changes into a smiley hanging from the "T". Or something like that. -- ab.er.rant sig 02:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, you mean the banner with the eye on it? The "T" is kind of like a stand for the banner to be hung on once you complete it. It's a miniature version of the logo you see when you complete the quest. I don't think it looks like a smiley lol. >_> - BeX iawtc 02:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean it's not a smiley? I feel bad admitting it, but that's exactly what I thought it was, too - and until right this very minute it didn't bother me a bit. Now I'm very relieved to hear it's not a smiley and, like many a skill icon, I have to change my mental image of it or it will haunt me every time I look at it.
Back on topic - maybe I misunderstand the problem because it doesn't seem like a problem to me. I'm going to poke around and see if I can understand it better and then leave some comments here. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
LOL, I keep thinking of it as a smiley :D -- ab.er.rant sig 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[resetting indent]So... I don't see the problem at all. Curse of the Nornbear=Quest. Attack of the Nornbear=Quest. The explorable area for both of these is Drakkar Lake. Why is there duplicate information needed/being added? Sorry if I seem dense... - Thulsey Zheng - talk 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But they're separate zones with separate names. It doesn't say mission "Mission Map (Drakkar Lake)" or "Currently in Drakkar Lake", it says "Mission Map (Curse of the Nornbear)" and "Currently in Curse of the Nornbear", just like it does for mini-missions (and regular missions). If we incorporated it into the exlorable area articles, we'd need to split the creatures into subsections due to the separate spawns. -- Gordon Ecker 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying to incorporate it. Seeing how it's being done, I have to say I think the info should be split. So an article for "Curse of the Nornbear" (I'm open to calling it a mission if it's called that in game) with all the relevant information, NPC's, Allies and Foes, no need for a "Curse of the Nornbear (explorable area)" because there isn't one, you can only access this zone when doing this quest. The explorable area is still Drakkar Lake. I can't tell if we're in agreement or not. :( - Thulsey Zheng - talk 03:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope, it seems that everyone is in agreement that NPCs should be incorporated into the mini-mission's quest article, and that there is no need for a separate zone article. -- Gordon Ecker 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
no need for a "Curse of the Nornbear (explorable area)" because there isn't one Actually, that isn't correct. You know how the name of the location shows up smack in the middle when you first load into an area? The one for that quest specifically says "Curse of the Nornbear (explorable area)", not Drakkar Lake, and you get auto-teleported back to the outpost once you finish, can't linger around. So yea, it's an explorable area that's only accessible via a quest trigger with mission area behavior. Why don't we just call these mini-missions as well? And redefine a mini-mission by enlarging its scope to include these GWEN quest/mission hybrids? -- ab.er.rant sig 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm ok with your suggestion of combining these into the scope of our current mini-missions category. Looking at it from the in-game point of view of the Hero's Handbook, where they are specifically referenced as primary quests, I still feel that's how they should be classified, even though you get a specific spawned instance for your party. Then again, The Beginning of the End is indeed very similar to mini-missions since you fail if you die and get sent back to the city of origin (at least in the preview event, not sure if that's changed). Gah! :) - Thulsey Zheng - talk 06:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yea, "Gah!" indeed! :D Like I said earlier on, with the existence of this wiki, you would've thought the developers would kinda bear our wiki structure in mind when they make their stuff so that it'll go easy on us when it comes out. Sigh. We could save ourselves the headache if we just do what Gordon suggests - just slap the mission formatting on it and be done it. Call these... "Quest missions"!!! or maybe "Primary mission" lol -- ab.er.rant sig 07:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
According to Gaile the official term is Primary Repeatable Quests. -- Gordon Ecker 07:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll suggest changes to Quest formating to allow the NPCs in. Should be enough to handle this and has some other uses. Backsword 13:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Archive_1"