Feedback talk:Getting started

Warning: This page is not intended for posting or discussing about specific suggestions. It is for discussion of the Getting started section of the Feedback portal in general. Posting a suggestion here means that the ArenaNet staff will not see it. Please read the getting started page for more information about how to properly post suggestions.

Improperly posted suggestions may be deleted by an administrator at any time without warning.

Elementalist Djinn form and Djinn companion for Guild Wars 2.

A Dervish can change into a god avatar so why can't an Elementalist have a Djinn form via the elemental attunement skill bar? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.247.107 (talk • contribs) at 12:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

Color

(I'm not sure where else to put this at the moment.) I like that the feedback portal is green. It's a good indication of the change in license and just to let you know it's okay to post feedback on this page. Could we make it a little less subtle, though? A good portion of the page is still completely white. --136.142.214.19 17:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Help!!!

I cant see the rest of the creating the page box! Help please! Necro Shea Mo 03:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Step 2 contains a text box, which you must scroll through to reach the point where you can enter your name. Most browsers should give you a scroll-bar on the side of it. Which browser are you using? G R E E N E R 05:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

He never answered for himself, but I will since I have the same problem: There is no way to get to any page that is referred to by the rest of these steps. If you type your name into the box, as you stated, one of two things happens. If you already have a feedback page, it will tell you so. But, it will NOT connect you to it.

If you do not, it apparently creates one. Somewhere. But, it does not take you to the page, nor provide any mechanism to get to it. There needs to be a sub step right under "Step four: Create a suggestion" that tells you what to click on to "create" a page (or, modify the existing one).

Without this step, nobody can ever create their initial suggestion page without asking a senior community member for help. No wonder so few people post here! Daddicus 03:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused by your confusion, but I would like to learn more so that I can help prevent this from happening to someone else.

I typed in a userID. I pressed, I accept. I was taken to that user's home page for suggestions, where big bold letters instructed me to press save. I did. On that page is a large box that says, "Create a suggestion". Where did you get lost in that process? — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Your description does not match what I see. I get a page that says

"Sorry, 'Feedback:User/Daddicus' already exists.

You cannot create this page, but you can edit it, read it, or choose to create a different page using the box below.

If I click "edit it" (which is a link), I get to a page that could be what you are talking about. However, it's a text/typing window (like the one I'm typing in now). Nothing is boldfaced except the header ("Feedback:User/Daddicus") and the "Save page" button below (which is the normal save button). The text in the typing window says "This is the personal suggestion homepage for ...".

If I click "the button below", it brings me back to the same page.

Finally, if I click the "read it" link, I get to a page that looks something like what you describe. This one could be the right page, but I like to make sure. On this page, to the right, there is a callout box titled "Create a suggestion". This could be what you are referring to, but there's no "save" on this page.

I suspect the reason for the difference is that I followed the steps precisely, but I'm betting they got rearranged at some point. Logically, step three should occur before step two, and vice-versa (if someone is going to check out other posters' ideas, it would be best to not be in the middle of creating their own page when they branch off to other posters' pages). It is possible that I was on the page you refer to when I FIRST clicked the "I agree" button, but I went to read and comment on other suggestions, and so no longer had that page on my screen. Daddicus 18:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm, no... you now have Feedback:User/Daddicus. That's where you start from now on. I followed the steps in order. (However, I agree that the whole thing is so long-winded that it's easy to lose sight of the critical steps to complete first. I'm still thinking about what to do about it, tho.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I think one thing will help others: switch the "step two" and "step three" on the main instruction page. This will prevent someone from hopping off of their suggestion page to check out other posts (as instructed), and then not knowing how to get back. I didn't think of it at the time, or I would have left that window open. That might have saved me some grief. Alternately, you could tell people how to get directly to their feedback suggestion page. However, you have to do it without a link, since they'll be going to a personal page, not a general one.

I think I'm in the right spot now. I'm on a page that starts with the title ("Feedback:User/Daddicus/MyTitleText"). Just below that is a line "Before creating your own suggestion ..." (the ellipsis is in the text, not my addition). Is this right?

If so, then all you need is to change the order (see first paragraph of this post) and possibly add maybe instructions for getting to the page after leaving it.

Also, what would be the right mechanism to get to the discussion page for the template that page uses. As long as I'm there, I might as well apply some of my documentation-reviewing skills to it (I've done professional technical documentation for over a quarter-century :)). The page I see is

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Feedback:User/Daddicus/Make_WoC_able_to_be_abandoned&action=edit&prefix=Feedback:User/Daddicus/&preload=Feedback:SuggestionPreload&editintro=Feedback:SuggestionEditintro&section=

but any comments I would make would be on the discussion page that one is created from, not on my personal copy (I think). Daddicus 19:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that you've actually created a page. Go back to your start page, type in a title (in the suggestion-creation box) and press enter. Fill out the form (it's vaguely annoying, but I hope it doesn't present any trouble for you) and press save. You should end up with Feedback:User/Daddicus/Make WoC able to be abandoned. After that, you'll have a talk page like any other article on the wiki (the tab marked discussion).

By the way, there's no such thing on the wiki as a personal copy — every page is editable by any contributor (including anons); wiki policy protects your feedback and user pages (and even talk pages) from vandalism... but everything posted here is covered by GFDL 1.2 or later. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't created it at that point. It's up now, though. I'm hoping you can find it through the normal means, but if you can't, it's at http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Feedback:User/Daddicus/Make_WoC_able_to_be_abandoned

Regarding format, I only found one nit-pick. But, I want to put the suggested wording on the template for that page, since that's where it belongs. However, while I know how to get to MY page now, that's not the same as the template. However, if that page isn't available to mortals, the change would be

• The line “game = pick-a-game” would be better worded as “game = pick-a-game, ‘gw’ or ‘gw2’”.

Case-sensitive

Even though the Step two: Create your userpage section specifically states "Enter your username (case-sensitive) below and click the "I agree" button", users still usually enter their username without capitalizing the first letter of their username (which is always capitalized when originally registering their username). This means someone will have to move that page to the proper capitalized page name and an admin has to delete the lowercase Feedback user page. Couldn't the code be adjusted so it will automatically capitalize the first letter of the username "if" the username begins with a letter (e.g. if I enter "username" it will automatically create "Feedback:User/Username" instead of Feedback:User/username); however, if I enter "1username" it won't automatically capitalize it and create "Feedback:User/1Username" since the username is actually "1username"). --Silver Edge 18:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

+1. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

+1. I told this to Alex through game chat a few days ago but he doesn't know how to fix that. Do we know anybody who can? Yoshida Keiji talk 04:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a closer look — this appears to be a backend script that triggers when people press "I agree." I don't see anything wiki-editable that we can easily adjust. If I'm right, that means not only does someone have to fix the script, but then ANet has to upload the change.

User:Wynthyst was intimately involved in the design and creation of the feedback space and she's good about answering questions, so you can email her and ask if she knows offhand (or can check it out). She might also remember if there was a reason why they didn't enforce upper case for the first letter. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling we could somehow use Help:Parser_function#UCFIRST since we have parser functions now.. idk how that would copy with numbers preceding usernames though. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 11:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a script, it's an extension that allows us to make the input box and have it create the page given. The extension would have to be changed or javascript specifically for this page would have to automatically up the case for the first letter. Another possibility is having an Abusefilter setup to disallow the lower case pages. --JonTheMon 16:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

An AbuseFilter setting seems like a good stop-gap measure (and perhaps even a good long-term solution, since it doesn't require ANet's help), especially if the message can be phrased politely and effectively. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to think of a polite message? --JonTheMon 19:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You're actually better at that than I, imo. What about, "Our apologies: please try again, ensuring that you Capitalize the first letter of your userID (e.g. "My name" rather than "my name"). Unfortunately, this is important due to how the wiki handles internet addresses. Thanks for your patience." – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fiiiiine :P Here's the message page. It does come across a little too formal and terse, so it might need a little more friendliness. --JonTheMon 20:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody wanted to comment on the message? --JonTheMon 19:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"This action has been automatically identified as being against the policies of this wiki" is scary. The second part is enough imo. pling 19:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Jon — I completely missed your post. I agree w/Pling that the second bit is enough.

However, if it's easy, I'd replace the the first bit with, "Our apologies; please try again." We should be sensitive to the fact that ANet has forced players to use the wiki to submit suggestions and that the internet is case-sensitive. It might be easy for frequent contributors to figure this out, but it's not for the casual or newbie poster. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed it a bit. --JonTheMon 21:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Super. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks good to go. --Silver Edge 20:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

edits limit per hour?

Creating a subsection in case the script could be updated. I know that forums have some sort of system that temporaly blocks a user after repeated edits in a short period of time. If this could be implemented, we would certainly see less Recent Changes spamming...as these lame people usually don't give a shit on messages posted to their talk pages. Yoshida Keiji talk 07:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with someone editing 5 or 10 times in an hour? Yes, they should learn to use the preview button. Yes, they should pay attention to polite requests posted on their talk page. But: the wiki isn't exactly harmed if they don't and it only makes policing the wiki slightly more difficult. Plus, this is usually a one-time issue (by which I mean it tends to happen only during the first 3-24 hrs of contributions by new users, after which they tend to learn to make different mistakes).

As with any such issue, try to work with the person first. If that doesn't improve the situation, ask one of the sysops to intervene. Most of the time, it shouldn't get to that stage.

Mind you, I'm more sympathetic than I sound above: I really don't understand why people find it hard to preview their edits (or even review them for obvious errors) and it's very frustrating to repeat the same (seemingly obvious advice) to people every month. However, that's the price we pay for being familiar with how things work and being frequent contributors. Sanitation Engineers shouldn't get into the business if they hate the smell of garbage; meat packers should either be vegetarians or not care what they eat; and, alas, wiki veterans are stuck with being patient beyond reason. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The case of this guy extended to 5 days Special:Contributions/Kuby8388 - Special:Contributions/24.86.243.131. Yoshida Keiji talk 10:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If the number of people tend to do something wrong in the same way, the reason may be not only in their intelligence, but also in lack of clearness of the rules which define what is wrong and what isn't. In our case I mean the contradiction in editing UI. Current look:

[ Save page ] [ Show preview ] [ Show changes ] ...

but what if we fix the buttons in such way:

[ Save page ] [ Show preview ] [ Show changes ] ...

I hope you have caught an idea. --Slavic 10:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 5 pages and 128 edits in 5-6 days does seem excessive. Then again, only about a dozen were made after Alex's note on the his talk page. Also, nothing in the last 48 hrs. So, that reads to me as nothing more than a blip in RC (SilverEdge, Konig, or I have easily made in excess of 100s of edits over less time). I don't think the issue is RC as much as it seems these edits are unnecessary noise to filter out.

I don't like it either, but I don't think anyone's made a solid case that this is inherently bad for the wiki. Neither is it good for the wiki, but given that ANet forces people to come here to make a formal suggestion, I'm inclined to cut folks a lot of slack about minor issues on their Feedback pages. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree w/Slavic's idea. The show preview button ought to be first and a tad larger than the save button. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I remember when I was a noob wikier I went to "my preferences" and in the "editing" tab I checked up "Show preview on first edit", maybe new accounts could start with that set-up until they grow as contributors. Yoshida Keiji talk 17:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a sensible default, assuming it's easy to set up. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Step one

"First, create a Guild Wars Wiki account if you don't have one already (suggestions by unregistered users will be deleted)..."

If users are to register to start feedbacks. Aren't they also to continue further editions by logging in only? Yoshida Keiji talk 08:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "continue further editions by logging in only," unless you're asking whether you have to logon to edit your suggestion? No, that's not required. It doesn't matter at all if the changes are minor (syntax or typos). If they are substantial, then as long as the registered user does something later while logged in, it's clear that they control the content.

However, I took your question as an opportunity to make the overall instructions simpler, kinder, and gentler (there was a lot of "do this or you will be DOOMed" sort of language and a lot of repetition). There have been any number of requests to make the feedback instructions easier to follow, but not much support for changing them (send me an email and I will be happy to gossip about the background with you). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There are IPs that create suggestions using the name of a user that has already created a feedback user page (e.g. [1]). What's preventing an IP from creating feedback pages using the name of any user that is no longer active and has created a feedback user page? And what if we were to ask IPs to sign in to verify that they are that user, but they have excuses, such as they forgot their wiki password and never entered an e-mail address in "my preferences" or they can no longer access that e-mail address that they entered to reset their wiki password? --Silver Edge 20:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

If ANet wants us to get in the business of proving people's identities, they can ask and we can tighten the rules. For now, I think we have a system that works (between what we have already published and how we enforce it). As usual, I have a point-by-point analysis, but the short version is: let's revert obvious cases of anons masquerading as registered users and continue to generally protect Feedback as we always have done.

If we start saying that no one can ever change an article in Feedback:User without being logged in, we are going to have to spend a lot more energy undoing changes and arguing with people who don't understand the issue, don't want to understand it, and (arguably) shouldn't have to understand it. We'd have to go back and sort out past edits and we'd have to undo every anon edit in Feedback. Each time we did that, we'd have to explain to each anon why it's not OK...and those discussions rarely end up making anyone happy.

A frequent question would be: why are you making me submit something twice? And we'd say because some lawyers we never met told us we had to enforce their rules, even though we don't get paid to do so. That doesn't seem fitting with the spirit of "please, join our community, discuss, create suggestions, contribute to the knowledge base."

Our existing system works: I've rarely seen anyone complain when we move an IP edit to their talk page and ask them to create an account. We already protect existing suggestions by undoing well-intentioned anonymous edits (and even some changes from registered users).

With regards to people who have forgotten their password: we don't offer special considerations for this outside the Feedback space (e.g. when someone wants to merge their old account with a new one); I don't really see this as different. If people can't prove their the account owner by logging in or resetting the password via email, then they can offer suggestions through a new account. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)