Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting

Archive

---

• 2007 Feb - Jun
• 2007 Jul - Dec
• 2008 - 2009

Links

Lately I have seen two sides of linkings, and I am told consistency. I haven't seen it, but I have seen something like this. [[Asura|Asurans]] and [[Asura]]ns. well that's an example, but I'm hoping to give the idea. Which way should it be? and which way is preferred? If we're going to do "consistency", then we're going to need one to go by. I'm tired of seeing both ways on words and I do like the [[Asura|Asurans]] better myself as there's no code in between words and to me, gives less confusion to editors. Kaisha 22:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Both produce the same result, and [[Asura]]ns is preferred as it's shorter and can be easier read. But that of course doesn't work with all plural forms. poke | talk 23:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I usually use the [[Asura]]ns jsut because is shorter. I think the only bad think would be using a combination of both (even that in the end is the same result) like [[Glob of Ectoplasm|Ecto]]s ← this looks bad.--Sharkinu 23:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed [[Glob of Ectoplasm|Ecto]]s looks bad, that's why I'm asking if we should do them all one way aka [[Glob of Ectoplasm|Ecto]]s or another way [[Glob of Ectoplasm|Ectos]]. After all, consistency would be the best. Kaisha 23:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As the difference is invisible to users, I don't think it should make any difference, and I see no reason to enforce one way over the other. One way doesn't obstruct or get in the way of someone who likes the other way. Manifold 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

For the Ecto example, that's a completely different case because the plural cannot just simply be added onto the end without having the rename of the link (whether you do [[Glob of Ectoplasm|Ectos]] or [[Glob of Ectoplasm|Globs of Ectoplasm]]). When the plural version of the link cannot be added to the end (i.e., is not just simply adding an s or an es), then the plural should be in a renaming ([[Dwarf|Dwarves]] - prime example), but when the plural version is just the addition of s or when the possessive form is the addition of an en or what-have-you at the end of the word then the addition should be added to the end ([[Asura]]ns). It may not seem consistent due to some plurals/possessives being a rename and others being additions, but really it is because there are two different kinds of plurals and possessives. So it is consistency for two different things. Personally, I say do it the shortest way you can, and when it is a case of having to rename the link in order to prevent a redirect, then just use the neatest looking case, as [[Glob of Ectoplasm|Ecto]]s and [[Glob of Ectoplasm|Ectos]] don't really matter there, as they produce the same length, so might as well use the neatest looking one (the later). -- Konig/talk 23:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's not a very good example, since if you're remapping a link (using the |), there's no point in using the inclusion feature (how wiki adds whatever characters are next to the closing bracket to the link's display text). I think if you can use a link without remapping, you should, but you also shouldn't go around changing them from one to the other since it's a waste of time, as the others have pointed out, the result displayed to the end user is the same. -- FreedomBound 00:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In a perfect world it would all be [[Asura]]ns for the sake of fewer redirect pages actually existing. However, since we can't realistically correct every last link to it (especially as some words don't have the real page title embedded perfectly), we have to have redirects existing anyway; in which case I don't think it matters, except if you prefer to avoid having to go through these existing redirects. | 72 (UTC) 02:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning redirects, GWW:GENFORM#Wiki links currently states "Direct links are preferred over links through redirects", which is why I use [[block]]ed instead of [[blocked]]. --Silver Edge 02:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, does it really matter if something looks nice while editing an article?

Oh, and personally I didn't even know you could write [[Iron Ingot]]s instead of [[Iron Ingot|Iron Ingots]] until recently. I prefer [[Iron Ingot]]s though, because it's easier to read. - Mini Me talk 17:07, 4 March 2010

Silver Edge and 72, that's not really the issue here, to use SE's word, it would be the difference between [[block]]ed and [[block|blocked]], neither of which uses a redirect. -- FreedomBound 17:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. Carelessness on my part. In that case I think it doesn't matter whatsoever. I think [[block]]ed is significantly easier to read, but that may just be my preference (personally it takes me a second longer to remember which one displays). At any rate, wiki coders thought there was a reason for adding this (more specialized) functionality. | 72 (UTC) 17:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So, which-ever is easier? I kind of prefer a "consistency". That's why I brought it up. Just not too keen in seeing both ways used that obviously links to the same thing. Kaisha 11:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter tbh. Just use whichever you prefer. - Mini Me talk 12:49, 6 March 2010

I'd say an easy rule of thumb is that if you don't need to use a |, then don't. Of course you'd use a | when doing a redirect, capitalization change, or a complex word. --JonTheMon 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The reason this capability exists is so that people can use something like "To [[Signet of Capture|capture]] a boss' skill..." That way, there doesn't need to be a redirect from a page named "capture". 69.182.188.118 13:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Read again -- that's not the capability we're discussing :P We mean the one where [[block]]ed, [[block|blocked]] & [[blocked]] come out the same: blocked, blocked & blocked (press "Edit"). And therefore, whether the standard should be [[block]]ed or [[block|blocked]]. (It wouldn't be [[blocked]] because we would need a ton of redirect pages...) Up to speed now? | 72 | 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for Merge/Split?

Due to several recent discussions, I've been looking through the guidelines for any references to merging and splitting articles, and haven't found anything. Could someone either direct me to what I'm missing, or, if none exists, perhaps we should create a guideline concerning when it is helpful to the wiki to merge/split an article and when it is detrimental? --Janwen 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no guideline, and I don't believe there needs to be. It's done when there is a good reason to do it. -- Wyn talk 03:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines for Disambig.

Okay, I came across this whole disambig thing, so check this out.
If you type in RoF, it takes you to that page, right? Well, most people would related RoF to Reversal of Fortune. So is there any policy where I can just put a template on the top of the skill page that says, "RoF redirects here, if you want to look for other uses, look here."? →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if most people would always relate RoF to Reversal of Fortune over the others, but in principle, yes, I agree this should exist | 72 (UTC) 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, it makes the most sense to give them all the options available on the first page they come to. Then they only have to load the one additional page that is the one they want. You can never make assumptions on what users are looking for when they enter a term in search. -- Wyn talk 04:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured. But what about skills such as Savanah Heat, cause everyone relates SH to it, but there is also Sheilding Hands. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 14:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

exhibit A: a fellow who plays ele more than monk | 72 (UTC) 17:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

On your first example, the RoF article exists exactly to solve what you mention: prevent the acronym to be given preference based on personal bias. As for SH, if an user thinks there are other instances where it could be used also (instead of only savanna heat), he just has to change it from a redirect to a disambiguation article. That way, there is no need to offer backtracking links for people who only looks for the acronym instead of the whole name.--Fighterdoken 18:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) FWIW, I tend to prefer the "organic" disambig style to the separate page. When the landing point guess is right, it saves a click. When it is wrong, the click count is no worse than the separate page. --DryHumour 18:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that i think is that we have no way to incorporate a template on the page only when it was redirected from somewhere. Having "see also" disambiguation templates for alternate spellings may be more confusing for random users than helpful, and the users that benefit from it are those who already know what they are looking for, but are too lazy to type it.--Fighterdoken 05:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Guideline Changes

According to this:

This page is an accepted formatting guideline on the Guild Wars Wiki. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all contributors should follow. Before editing this page, it is suggested to gather consensus on the talk page first.

and this: "Please note that these are guidelines to help editors — they are recommendations rather than rules restricting creativity. In situations in which the standardized formatting doesn't fit the purpose, you are free to modify it. Also, if you think that a formatting is generally lacking in any respect, question it! You are always invited and encouraged to suggest improvements on the respective talk page. "

I am "free to modify it". But the question is... how much time do I have to wait "to gather consensus" before I change the Missions guideline? I already know noboby else is taking care of the Mission Project except maybe for Chieftain Alex. I just dont want the Changes be reverted later... while nobody replied prior my actions... Yoshida Keiji talk 15:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It really depends on the circumstances. In the case of missions, if I were proposing anything other than a very minor change, I'd wait until I got buy-in from several of the frequent contributors around here; if none responded to the request on the talk page, I'd leave a note for them asking their opinion. I'd rather take 6 months to get consensus than to go forward too quickly and create unnecessary tension, especially if the changes aren't urgent.

Keep in mind that no reply is not the same as gaining consensus; often, people aren't aware that the question has been asked. Similarly, projects and guidelines can be out-of-synch for various reasons (sometimes, people working on the project forget to look at the original guideline and update it...sometimes, they haven't gotten consensus before making changes, and this sometimes results in unproductive drama).

The free to modify bit means that you can (and should) go outside the guideline for a specific article if necessary to provide the most useful version; the community recognizes it's not worthwhile to try to specify every conceivable application. However, since the guideline represents the best efforts of the community to produce a consistent and useful wiki that's helpful for the most people the greatest amount of time... it makes sense to follow it unless there's a compelling reason not to.

As to how much time you should wait, that depends on the type of articles involved. Guidelines that affect heavily trafficked pages should be given lots of time...months or longer even, e.g. I think we took over a year to agree on whether to capitalize proper nouns in unofficial terms. Similarly, we took several months to decide on how to properly disambiguate location articles (after ANet introduced so many duplicate names with ZM/ZB/WiK/WoC) (part of that was finding a good technical solution).

There are other types of guidelines that can be updated more quickly: the style for {{skill history}} articles evolved quickly based primarily on the viewpoint of the individual doing the greatest amount of updating at the time (there were 3-4 different people who each helped bring it to its current and imo better standard). Those articles are of great interest to a smaller group of individuals...and most of them do not even exist yet, so updating the guidelines/formatting doesn't affect the stability of the wiki.

In short, be patient when trying to evolve a guideline. Although longevity doesn't make it better, it does indicate the reasons for its acceptance should be clearly addressed before implementing something else. In the particular case of mission articles, I'm not exactly sure what you have proposed. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Shortcut list

Is there any? Would it be convenient to make one? Yoshida Keiji talk 22:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Shortcut list to what? – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:List of shortcuts or GWW: --JonTheMon 14:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Haaaaa thank you Jon. Yoshida Keiji talk 15:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

3 Guideline updates at once to uniform style

These are:

Main Page	Talk references
Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Dungeons	Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Dungeons#Section_Titles
Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Missions#Skill_recommendations	Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Missions#Listing_sequence Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Missions#Videos
Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Quests	Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Quests#Interactive_objects Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Quests#Skill_recommendations

It starts here: Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting#Guideline_Changes after literally 5 months. I will be performing minor changes. Each talk page has as much interaction with the community as I could get. "The lack of responses is primarily because the people who've most contributed to the guidelines and who were most active in applying the guidelines are also mostly inactive now, User:Ab.er.rant"

Updating aspects are:

• Skill recommendations to be moved below Hard mode (for missions). Players should be encouraged to engage missions and in Hard mode without specific skills unless clueless.
• Interactive objects section will be added to Mission and Quest. Dungeon already has one but below NPCs section. The update will place it over them to reduce scroll down for objects that are not linked in the Walkthrough as NPCs are. And NPCs listing is important but not as useful as Interactive objects that might be refered to in the Walkthrough.
• Videos guideline for when necessary.

Note:

• Landmarks is not addressed with this update, pending status.

Yoshida Keiji talk 12:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Finished update, check for Ingrish, specially in:

====Videos====
Since videos cannot be improved by other wikians without creating a new video, such files must be approved in the talk page first. They should cover three main aspects: 

# High quality, (A lot of videos make it difficult to see anything, including important landmarks/orientation; flags; teams used). 
# To-the-point, (Should be as short as possible: No show-offs of titles, cute characters, inventory funds, presentation (start from loading screen straight away)), 
# Viewer friendly, (No soundtracks but ingame music, no distorted/funny voice comments, readable text as in clear fonts that won't disappear in a second and allow to finish reading). 

Please gather concensus, uncontested videos will be instantly removed. 

Taking a break and shall go fix all these changes on the affected main articles. Yoshida Keiji talk 14:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Skill Suggestions

→ moved from Talk:Explorable area

The Mission pages have skill suggestions, but neither the Explorable Areas nor the Dungeons have a section for skill suggestions. I would think this would be helpful for hard mode. Lord Flynt 04:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Some Dungeons do have skill suggestions, let's make a list:

Yes	No
Veiled Threat	Kathandrax's Crusher
Temple of the Damned	The Hunting of the Charr
Watch it Jiggle	The Misanthropic Jotun Principle
Cold Vengeance	Anything You Can Do
The Anvil of Dragrimmar	Defending the Breach
Lost Souls	Shadows in the Night
Little Workshop of Horrors	Dredging the Depths
Scrambled Reinforcements	Giriff's War
Kilroy Stonekin's Punch-Out Extravaganza!	Tekks's War
	Crystal Method
	The Arrow's Point
	The Blade's Essence
	The Last Hierophant
	Lost Treasure of King Hundar
	Heart of the Shiverpeaks (quest)

There never was a Dungeon Projects so far Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Projects#Dungeons_Project.

The explorable area Formatting Guideline has no reference either, Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Locations. There have been skill suggestions in explorable area talkpages but never reached the main space "formaly". People had shared interest to officially include a Vanquish section to explorable area pages. But nobody had gone far enough to apply such change so far. Yoshida Keiji (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to point out that the Dungeon articles themselves do not have recommendations, only the dungeon quests do. I wouldn't support adding hard mode notes to each explorable since most of the difficult areas already have minor notes under the vanquisher headings. 192.168.103.52 11:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)