Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for comment

Suggestion

I suggest that when adding a new bullet point, ~~~~~ is used to date the request. That way it is easier to get rid of old requests which currently make this page a bit long. --Xeeron 09:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem with old topics is that they are actually not closed yet.. poke | talk 11:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just cleaned it up, but I think the thing that most contibute to making the list too long for usefulness is the fact that it's dominated by policies. I feel any suggested policy change is an RFC in iteself, so the policy page already serves that purpose. Only listing other issues here would make it a more useful page. Backsword 21:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Can a request for comment be removed? The no Sarcasm one should probably be taken down, it's actually been rejected now. I would do it but I don't know what the procedure is. Dancing Gnome 15:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this page like other pages in the wiki. If there is a point up that you feel no longer needs comments, take it down. --Xeeron 15:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone feels a request for comment someone else placed up here is no longer needed, can they remove it? I ask this because Gem has removed some requests for comment which had discussions which were no more inactive than some of the ones which remained. This looks like someone enforcing their own agenda without the consent of the original request. Anon --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:58.110.140.18 .

I don't see any problems with their removal. Feel free to put them back if you want to comment on those topics and are interested in seeing more people comment on those topics. And also feel free to stop stalking Gem's edits. -- ab.er.rant 12:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

When you take down a RFC here, I suppose it's just good judgement on whether or not the discussion is over with or if it's not. — ク Eloc 貢 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry if I removed something that wasn't sorted out or unnecessary. I did check all of those pages pretty quickly. -- (gem / talk) 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

being banned for purchaceing gold for guildwars

← moved to Help:Ask a game question

Am I able...

To request for comment on things that are non-wiki related, but still on the wiki? So far everything on the list relates to a project, or a proposal. I just want something of mine commented on.- Vanguard 16:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but don't feel disappointed, when nobody is interested in ;) poke | talk 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll just add it and after a month without comment I'll remove it. Or maybe just a couple of weeks, or something.- Vanguard 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Map RfC

Why did the RfC GMCs wanted get removed? There was still discussion going on. I didn't put it up, but I need someone to help me finish up the project. Could that please be returned? Why would an RfC get removed when the discussion had a comment from that day that ended with a request? Mohnzh say what? 15:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It was probably removed because someone thought everyone interested had already seen it. A lot of old RFCs were recently trimmed. -- Gordon Ecker 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Split

I would like this split into one page for policy RfCs, and one page for content RfCs. There is significant seperation in the groups interested, and even in when induviduals are interested in one or the other. Also, it'd make both pages easier to read. Backsword 08:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just split it into multiple sections? Or better yet, leave out policy and guidelines stuff from here. Those are probably more appropriate on GWW:POLICY. -- ab.er.rant 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please only use new sections; multiple pages will not have the same effect. poke | talk 11:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I'd also prefer new sections over pages. While I do agree that policy/guideline stuff is more appropriate on GWW:POLICY, there are times it needs to be here; in cases where there is a major change or one is about to be implemented. Having it in it's own section would help make this page more useful both for those that are and also those that aren't interested in policy discussion. --Kakarot 13:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have multiple sections, it isn't that cluttered mostly. Just having one page to check is convenient. - anja 14:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There should be only one page to keep everything centralised. If the page gets to cluttered, we should cut down on the not so important RfCs. --Xeeron 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine how it is right now actually. We don't get a lot of people putting up things for RFC and the list doesn't really get really cluttered. And when it does, someone goes through and removes the inactive discussions. — ク Eloc 貢 00:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This

If anything, move it to GWW:RFR imho... — Why 23:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RFR is more for in game research, isn't it? -- Wandering Traveler 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But it's a research project, whether it relates to the usual wiki business or not. It could also be left here, I don't really care. :P — Why 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be removed, it doesn't really have anything to do with wiki business. Otherwise we could end up having RfCs for user contests and the like, which would detract from the real purpose of the RfC page. --Freedom Bound 15:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you really want, you could use the community news section of the Community portal.. poke | talk 15:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines are NOT Policies

I think it needs to be remembered by many (who seem to think otherwise by their comments) that Guidelines are NOT Policies. They are meant to be there to help people, not to restrict them (as they have been used to do) when they propose something that is not specifically listed in the guideline, but does follow the stated intent of the point in question. 42 - talk 05:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the difference between "restrict a small change" and "restrict massive change across multiple pages made without an attempt to reach consensus." Guidelines are perfectly fine to quote when restricting the latter. -Auron 05:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not missing anything, Auron, as many others are. The "change," in the case of the templates I created for use, is not a change. It follows the stated NPC formatting guideline. Read it here.

Also, read the formatting page, the header brown section. "If it doesn't fit the purpose, you are free to modify it". What is in use on the pages these templates are intended for is not even close to being anywhere near a standard. These would help that by aiding the editors to fill them in more completely

That being said, I am not modifying anything, I am following the guideline others try to throw back in my face and claim I am "changing" it. People are arguing against the guideline by arguing against something that follows the guideline.

It gets to a point of ridiculousness. I have had someone tell me that because my template wasn't specifically listed in the example area, then it was a "change." 42 - talk 05:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Then that person is crazy, and you should ignore him. Some people quote guidelines and try to follow them like they're law. Those people are wrong. If you have specific cases where people tried to wikilawyer with guidelines, link me to them and I will tell those people to learn how to wiki.

Many people have disagreed with you on various points across various pages and projects, and they've sometimes formed consensus against your changes in several areas. That doesn't mean they're quoting guidelines, that just means they don't think what you're doing is a big enough improvement to warrant the work involved. I honestly think most of your heartburn with "guidelines vs policy" stems from your refusal to work with people, and not with their perception of any formatting guidelines or policies. -Auron 06:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

^^ I have stated repeatedly that I feel your dialogue templates add a level of complexity that is totally unnecessary for the little benefit it provides. If we wish the wiki to be edited by the community (registered users and non registered users alike) we really need to keep it simple. Basic text editing (indents, bold and italic) are very simple concepts that pretty much ANY user can grasp. The use of templates however (especially those with non instinctive variables like yours) are actually very difficult for new/inexperienced editors to use, and would simply lead them to not edit, which is something I personally think we should avoid. If someone doesn't do the formatting right, but does add the dialogue, it's very simple for another editor to go in and fix it the way it is now. If, as you say, the pages you are looking at do NOT have the dialogue, which I actually find rather hard to believe, there still would not be enough of a benefit, imo to add this level of complexity. And I would have to totally disagree with whoever told you that going from formatted text to the use of a template does not constitute a change. If I were you, and you have perfected your template, feel free to subst it while you add the dialogue to all these pages you say are missing it. The subst would eliminate any need for the template to become any part of a guideline anywhere, and could simply be used by you as a tool. I personally think your time would have been better spent just adding the missing dialogue but that's my opinion. -- Wyn talk 06:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's the difference between changing font size, position, font, and bold/ital/etc for every header in a book versus hitting a style called "Header" and one called "Body". I mean, come on-- =main=, ==sub==, ===subsub===? Get with it! <Font size>, '''bold''', etc are stuff every user grasps, why on earth should we regularize the model? | 72 (U|T|C) 14:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In the main, I agree that keeping as much as possible inline is a good idea. That said, however, good templates do have their place. When it is clear to the user that they need only "fill in the blanks", the level of utility is quite high. Also, on a more pragmatic, labour saving note, it does make changing the format (e.g. when a new {{ask}} icon is added ) much less tedious. Once things stabilize, one can always go back and use "What links here" or a wikibot to subst as desired. --DryHumour 15:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Templates have their place, I agree, I just don't feel this is one of them. -- Wyn talk 18:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) My "heartburn" is from me suggesting ideas that are constantly being opposed and/or nitpicked for various unsupportable reasons.

"If, as you say, the pages you are looking at do NOT have the dialogue, which I actually find rather hard to believe, ". Go check Ragnvald and Tjorvi Throstson and then look at the rest of the explorable area res shrine Norn, and tell me how much dialogue is missing.

Wyn, if you have a problem with the names used, feel free to suggest improvements. Read the Formatting/NPCs guideline on dialoge (both the example and the specific section later), and point out specifically how the use of my template violates that guideline.

Since there is no form listed, how can I be changing the form? All it says is to list the dialogue. This template is intended to do just that. If I do add it to the pages that need it, then you tell me I shouldn't have until it was finished. If I wait until it is useless, I get told the information is already there, and this is not needed.

72, the area this template is intended for, there are many indents, and in this case, in-game icons in use as well. The line of dialogue is the exact same in the cases this would be used on. The only difference, and the reason for any variables, is the specific text by each Norn is different. 42 - talk 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A careful reading of my post will yield significant sarcasm crop. | 72 (U|T|C) 04:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Wyn's suggestion of keeping it as a subst is the best idea so far. Tun it into that, and we'll post it on the formatting guideline. This way, your hard work isn't wasted, your tool is made available to the public, and new editors wouldn't have to deal with templates they may or may not understand. A subst will also be less susceptible to vandalism, so everybody wins.

Unless, of course, if you are hellbent on a template. I don't see why you would do that, but whatever. NuVII 09:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The same exact text is repeated multiple (at least two) times, some of it (depending on the Norn) takes up multiple lines in edit. I do not see the "savings" in forcing the editor to have to type it (or even cut and paste) repeatedly when they need to enter it once in the template that is for that.

I am not dead set against it being anything but a regular template, but how much does your way save when a template puts the text (and repeats it) where it belongs for the editor? 42 - talk 04:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that using a subst while applying your template leaves behind straight wiki code that any editor can edit without having to be familiar with the template should that become necessary. The only benefit of having the template actually used on each page is for ease of future adjustments, which in the case of the bounty giver dialog is unlikely to happen. other than adding subst: at the beginning of your initial template call it requires no other work. "I do not see the "savings" in forcing the editor to have to type it (or even cut and paste) repeatedly when they need to enter it once in the template that is for that." your dialog template does NOT do this in the first place, as they have to type/copy the dialog text for each page it's used on anyway. -- Wyn talk 04:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Then we can have this whole argument again (Oh Joy!) when all the pages already have the substituted template, when the template (without being substituted) allows the editor to enter the text ONCE that repeats in the finished product. The proposed template, even the bigger version, takes up a lot less edit space than would be needed for a fully functional subst template like you suggest. Check Ragnvald for an example.

The infoboxes are used as actual templates, as are many others, not as substitutes. Why is this such an issue for one of my ideas? Instead of just seeing of ways that you can come up with to not use it as it was designed and intended, what is so hard about suggesting improvements? I am not against using it as a substitute template, but have a good reason. My reason for using it as a non-subst template is as good if not better a reason than yours for using it your way.

Oh, Wyn, despite your comment in my talk page about opposing it when it comes up for discussion, check the GWW:RFC page (again, as I have asked twice). The idea already is up for discussion. 42 - talk 05:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean you enter the text once, since each dialogue is different, you have to enter the dialogue on each page. You won't be placing the dialogue into the template. -- Wyn talk 06:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the most appropriate place to be talking about this Wyn, but since you asked here, I will respond.

You don't enter the page specific information used in each infobox into the template either, you do that by using the parameters available for the template, as you would here.

On each page, there is text that appears (when fully filled in) on the NPC page in more than one location in the dialogue section. Enter once with the template used as intended, or have to enter it more than once with your suggested use. 42 - talk 07:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "your dialog template does NOT do this in the first place, as they have to type/copy the dialog text for each page it's used on anyway."

Actually Wyn, it does save "in the first place" as the repeated text is typed once, as you would see if you bothered to take a closer look at the template (the parameter names are left in in the example to show this), and even more so on the updated template proposal. There are multiple text repeats. This saves that time and effort of having to repost that text. 42 - talk 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if you have to copy the whole text, or a template call that contains the text, so a template doesn't really make sense for this. poke | talk 13:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Every argument Wyn has tried against this could apply to any template already in use, even, sorry, especially infoboxes. A template used with parameters means you pass the text needed one time by way of the parameter. Some of that text shows up in the finished product in more than one location.

The main reasons for the template, one, the majority of the Norn NPCs are missing huge amounts of dialogue, and two, the text being entered with the parameters shows up in more than one place.

There is also another reason that needs to be posted here for using the template as intended. It lets people know that there is dialogue missing. If Wyn wants to use the argument that it isn't needed, then she should be arguing against every {{stub}} template being used as well. 42 - talk 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Missed this last time, sorry.

Poke, the whole reason to use the infobox templates is that they are there for formatting. The contents are possibly different on each page they are used on. This is the same concept. The formatting (the specific situations certain text would be seen) is the same on all of these NPC pages this template is intended for. Go look at Ragnvald and Tjorvi Throstson. Those are the two that have the most complete dialogue, and I believe that there is still dialogue missing.

This template is intended to address that issue (mostly). There is text that appears in more than one spot on the finished product. Remember some things when you look at the template listed in this paragraph. It is not finished, and still needs work before it would be brought into use. 42 - talk 18:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that the infobox templates are frequently used for generating DPL tables, a facility which would be severely impaired were they substituted. --DryHumour 18:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it was the best example I could bring to mind quickly. There are others that this follows as well, but it is one of many reasons for leaving this as an actual parameter'd template. 42 - talk 18:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

important stuff

This page is intended to draw the attention of as many GWW editors to a project/discussion as possible. For example, the most recent one right now was a minor detail with a scope of one page, which was neglected for less than two days (and probably with good reason). This is not, I believe, a billboard to publicize the trivial. | 72 | 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This page is meant for every topic that needs attention from other users. It doesn't matter how important that topic, or if it affects multiple pages. This is basically the only way to get attention from other users on uninteresting pages, so it was used correctly. poke | talk 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maps

Didn't know where to add this but i have noticed one of the moderators has been changing all the maps for missions and the like. Now updating them i don't mind but when they are left cluttered and also show completely wrong routes it is rather annoying. Things like showing paths that pass through walls that just aren't possible, i mean who can scale a mountain just to finish a mission quicker???

You need to sign your comments, also, which missions and which Moderator is doing this?--Neithan Diniem 22:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Celestia is the mods name and it seems so far all the maps i have looked at. This was first brought to my attention by one of my guildiees saying that they have changed the route for the GoP mission(which confused him greatly and ended up him getting lost several times and giving up). 86.30.127.226 22:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone depends on the maps that greatly? Wow, talk about being unable to do things by himself... -- Konig/talk 00:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Konig, that comment would only make sense if GWW didn't think it was necessary to host the maps.. | 72 | 01:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Few things. First, Konig, that was definitely not a contructive comment. Second, Celestia isn't a mod, just a regular user. Third, after looking at that map (GoP), it looks like that version has been up for a while, and it, imo, looks better than the original map, since that one just had colored dots for important points. It is a little less complete since it doesn't have the back part of the path to complete the loop, but it seems fine. --JonTheMon 01:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes or No?

I wondered why there never was a page that showed every character without armor. So i started one in my sandbox. User:Rhonin Soren/Sandbox but before I start to make the image template, upload the images and write the text and make it a real page linked from armor, I thought asking here yes or no? and to the obvious argument that it doesn't really contributes to anything, it's still a part of the game and we document the game. and you could say the same of 90% of the user pages, user talk pages, guild pages and game suggestions. I thought it whould be a nice article like ambient animals on the other wiki. --RhoninSoren 11:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't warrant its own article, but maybe an image off to the side of each profession article. --ஸ Kyoshi 14:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a "Gallery of body types" or something to that effect would be fine. It would consist of twenty pictures and could be organized by profession and sex. I wouldn't take the time to get a front/back/left/right image for each, but, if someone does, they should be condensed as much as possible and in a single image. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 00:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the profession pages would need such an image. They tend to be quite succinct and focused on directing the reader to appropriate articles. Perhaps in the general armour galleries, like Warrior armor? *shrug* I'm not even sure they'd fit in there... Also, "user pages, user talk pages, guild pages and game suggestions" is where we're not necessarily documenting the game, though I understand your point. G R E E N E R 00:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

They'd fit in there if a new category for "Undergarments" or the like was made.--Neithan Diniem 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:List of proposed moves, splits and merges

Guild Wars wiki has proposals listed that date back many years, with only three proposals from the current year. I am aware of the low amount of active editors that remain, though I strongly feel the contributors we have around could sort the remainder of these proposals out within a week or two. - Infinite - talk 00:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)