Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

When to link to GW2W[edit]

It's been common practice to link to articles on GW2W using {{{gw2w}}, even if the two articles have nothing in common except the name. I propose that we end this practice and only link when there's some reason for visiting the other article, besides the coincidence of names.

Generally speaking, Lore and Location articles are usually good ones to link, e.g. to compare Lion's Arch with Lion's Arch or Glint to Glint. In contrast, skills in GW2 usually are completely different from those in GW1 (and often the names are simply typical RPG/MMO-style names, e.g. it's misleading to link Wild Strike to Wild Strike). (And yes, I think we should do the same thing at GW2W.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any case where "the two articles have nothing in common except the name" and they're linked, please point to one?
Regarding the question, I would go the same route GW2W uses for linking to GWW - same topic, regardless of name change, except in the case of pure mechanical things such as skills which, if a need to link is required (some people would say yes due to the reference and legacy of GW1 to GW2, however I do not think that GWW needs to link to GW2W), can go to trivia instead of a box that mostly gets in the way of articles formatted like skills are. Konig/talk 17:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I linked above: Wild Strike has nothing in common with Wild Strike except the name, which is probably used by dozens of RPGs/MMOs. It's as meaningless as saying Mhenlo shares a name with Mhenlo Park, CA. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well in that particular situation, Silver Edge is wrong - it's shared topic, not shared name (e.g., Ventari's sanctuary and gw2:The Grove). See original comment. Konig/talk 02:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess I phrased my suggestion poorly. I am saying that, on both wikis, we should only link articles when there is a meaningful connection. Normally, the coincidence of having the same name doesn't meet even our minimal requirements for trivia, so it is both unnecessary and misleading (in my opinion) to link the two Wild Strikes (or any other skills for that matter). This would be a change to current practice for both GWW and GW2W.
I agree that we should link articles with dissimilar names, but similar topics (V's sanctuary and the Grove, in Konig's example). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Finished with Event NPC's[edit]

Atlast!, done ^_^, Wayfarer's Reverie NPC's should be fully completed. -- talk pageThon Ghul|Talk 18:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What to do with skills that were removed from the game?[edit]

As in September 13, 2012's Lightning Orb (PvP)? User Yoshida Keiji Signature.jpg Yoshida Keiji (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say slap the removed/historical content tag on them and note in the trivia with the skill revision history that there used to be a PvP version. I'm pretty sure this isn't the first PvP split skill removed from the game so there's probably a precedent to follow though. Toraen 18:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
{{historical content}}, and update {{historical content nav}}. If anything else needs to be done, just look at the history of the already removed PvP skills. Konig/talk 18:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, skill articles are not my specialized field and while helping the Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Skill history, I found no guidance. I thought there were precedents but couldn't recall one to track down. Does the wiki keep a record of all removed skills? Will check these two templates now to see what is tagged by it. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.jpg Yoshida Keiji (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
List of removed skills. Konig/talk 04:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Lore articles and GW2[edit]

So something I've been curious about is how we want to treat articles about historical lore gleaned from GW2 that is new or contradicting to GW1 lore that's relevant to the articles - e.g., in GW2 we learn that the Bloodstones weren't made by the Gods of Tyria but instead the seers, leading to Magic, Bloodstone, Gods of Tyria, Lore, and Abaddon (if not more) presenting information now known to be "false". Should the new information from GW2 be added to make sure folks don't get confused when comparing the GW1 and GW2 wikis' contents, or should be keep them separate to show "this is what's presented in GW1" (which is something we can show via contents of the article itself anyways)? Personally I'd rather update it since its all the same lore - and of course only the topics brought up already in GW1, rather than going into new topics (for example, I wouldn't update jotun with lore gleaned from GW2 unless relevant to the contents already on that article, which to my knowledge would only be the basics like "their an ancient now-fallen race"). But what are others' thoughts? Konig/talk 06:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

While its nice to be able to update the trivia, I don't really see the information from gw2 as being the same lore - so I don't think the information from gw2 should overwrite the gw1 lore.
However, provided that we denote something similar to "based upon happenings in gw2 it turns out ... " etc I think that would be fine. (e.g. based on all our gw1 sources we think the bloodstones were created by the gods of tyria - but in gw2 it is revealed that .. ). I'd hope that it would be possible to look up an article on some-lore-related-stuff and find both bits of lore. --Chieftain Alex 10:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I see this as classic case of The World is Flat, every moron knows that! vs. The World is a Globe, its scientific indisputable reality! type situation. So I'd say address such discrepancies as you would in real life. ^_^ --Falconeye 08:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this wiki should foremost document GW1 and not worry at all about what GW2 says. Even within GW1, there are contradictions between what two groups say -- we usually learn the "complete truth," but not always; sometimes there is no independent confirmation. Who's to say that people in GW2 really know the truth? There seem to be cases where GW2 NPCs have forgotten things that they would know if they read GWW.
Perhaps more importantly there is the practical matter that we shouldn't require that those editing GWW be familiar with GW2/GW2W. In effect, my opinion is that GW2 does not provide "canon" for GW1, even though it is clearly canon for the "true" history of Tyria. (I think that's the same as what Alex is suggesting above.)
So, my suggestion is that we modify the {{gw2w}} and it's corresponding GW2W template to offer a different phrase (and perhaps slightly different image) when information is in conflict. For example, something like:
"GW2W has an article about this with a conflicting view."
"In GW2, we learn that there is more to this topic than can be found in Guild Wars -- see the relevant GW2W article." (and this one could even point to a different article, if the names weren't identical)
In other words, if GW2 tells us more or something new, let people read GW2W to learn about it. 00:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not even sure we should go that far - GW2 is simply a different product, and shouldn't be documented (at all) here on this wiki. GW2-specific lore and discoveries will be documented on GW2W, and that's really the only place it belongs. Trying to run back to GWW to fix up a page or link to a new page every time some tidbit comes out that retcons something GW1 had is just going to lead to headaches. If we put in a template change, we're basically expecting people to stick around updating the links on gw1 until gw2 dies. -Auron 05:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
What I was trying to say above was, a) add a gw2w template to the lore page in question. b) denote it with text if you think its significant. --Chieftain Alex 10:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
"GW2 is simply a different product" It is a different product, true, but it is the same story, same lore. Regardless of the game the lore comes from, it affects both's stories. Looking at all the comments, I think a simple bullet point note on specific articles that I'm referring to (those which would (seemingly) conflict with the lore presented on GWW's pages) would be best (since all such pages - conflicting lore or not - would have the {{gw2w}} tag anyways). Konig/talk 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback portal[edit]

The Feedback portal was originally created so there would be a place from which ArenaNet could take fan ideas and implement them in their games. Now, however, ArenaNet has stopped implementing any new content to the original Guild Wars, and ideas for Guild Wars 2 are being given at the Suggestions section of the GW2 forum. Considering how the Feedback space was never an optimal solution to the problem it was trying to solve, and how it has been now made something between useless and redundant, I think it's time we shut it down.
I suggest deleting the Feedback portal. It would be closed right now, so no new entries would be added there, and it would have a sign telling contributors that in one month all content will be removed. The users who want to do so can actually move their content to their userspace, since licencing doesn't really matter anymore. Erasculio 03:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

moved from Feedback talk:Main#Time to prevent new articles

The GW2 suggestion links should already point the GW2 official forums. Bug fixes for gW1 are supposed to be posted on the forum. And now, we know that anet has no plans to do more than fix bugs, unless they can sneak something in. Even though the Feedback space is rarely used these days, shouldn't we prevent people from accidentally creating new articles in it? No reason anyone should assign ANet the rights to their ideas if ANet is already saying GW1 won't use those ideas. 09:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To some degree I understand your point, but there are some flaws in the logic. First any wiki is pretty much an open system and with the exception to a few pages (such as the Main), there are no "lock outs" that would prevent or omit people from voicing their ideas to improve Guild Wars. Especially if they used their namespace. The second flaw is assuming ANet is going to do anything they say or plan to do. Never say never is my personal idiom on this point. John said one thing and did another, countless times before. To my understanding, people are returning to the original Guild Wars and others are buying new accounts to experience it for the first time. This could lead to a demand for more content, so those cancelled plans might be revived for the need to make more revenue from these players. Lastly the notion that any idea posted on a wiki or in a public forum has "rights" one way or the other. It is out there for anyone to snatch up for their online game regardless of the intended use. --Wendy Black 11:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah but Wendy the previous feedback space, ArenaNet:Skill feedback, got moved to a namespace which regular users cannot edit so this isn't without precedence.
However, they might have to think about the consequences of locking the feedback namespace because they use it to put the game updates in (e.g. Feedback:Game updates/20130516). (we could start putting these back in the main namespace and then it wouldn't be a problem tbh), then they can lock the namespace via Manual:$wgNamespaceProtection. -Chieftain Alex 12:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
(I've moved these conversations to the community portal so we don't have the same conversation going on in multiple places) -Chieftain Alex 13:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I don’t think we need to lock the namespace; after all, each user’s personal feedback space still belongs to that user and should be always changeable by them—even if there is no longer any real purpose. I’d just suggest to put a big notice on the feedback portal pages so people creating new things know that there is probably no point. poke | talk 14:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Consider that there are many excellent/thoughtful feedback articles worth keeping (even if only for references), and that would cause me to "cringe" should they be deleted. There is no guarantee that the contributors of these articles are currently aware of this setback by Anet, nor be able to archive/move them within given timeframe (such as "90-days", or until GW2-anniversary) should a deletion-route be taken. These folk's passion for the game and desire to improve upon it and to discuss their opinion should not be "swept-under" lightly. --Falconeye (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
There isn't much of a point in keeping a Feedback area in which no feedback is taken. Keeping it under the idea that it does no harm to have something pointless is more or less the same as saying we could have articles that don't have anything to do with GW1, since they would be harmless. We should just delete the Feedback area; comments that someone wants to archive can be archived in the userspace of those involved, although I doubt they care if they have left this wiki. Erasculio 23:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
My two cents: While ArenaNet has stated that they hold no current intentions to expand Guild Wars, in the future this may change. It's unlikely, but possible. Along with this, ArenaNet's exact wording is "we'll no longer be releasing any new content for the live game except in support of automation" - this means no new quests and the like, but not necessarily things like altering how henchmen work (as one simple example), as this isn't new content but rather changes to existing content (same goes for skill balances and the like). This means that only a degree of the feedback space is useless to ArenaNet. Furthermore, the feedback space gives users an outlet for their ideas on how to improve Guild Wars - while ArenaNet says there will be no content, that doesn't mean players will stop trying to convince for new content. Besides, if the feedback space is removed, you'll still have folks making their suggestions in the user space.
So why put more work for those maintaining the wiki in removing something that would still be used, as well as remove the opportunity for ArenaNet to use players' ideas (both old and new) which isn't "new content"? There's little to no benefit in the end, since all you're doing is redirecting where the suggestions go. Konig 01:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Alex, I am still a noob at how the wiki functions in certain areas. I too have made my contributions to the suggestion pool. Do I think they will be implemented? No, I didn't even believe it would get read the day I suggested it. But it is out there, just in case some wise developer wants to be a sport and make a bold move. I have also placed my personal thoughts and ideas on my user space, such as the many nameless places in Guild Wars. However I have no delusions that John or anyone else will implement them. --Wendy Black 02:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Erasculio, you've said your point already. Why repeat it, dear sir?

Repeating what Sir Poke said, "put a big notice on the portal pages". Locking won't help prevent creation of said pages any where else. It's best to leave things, until ArenaNet wishes otherwise. - Rodan 02:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No Lockout nor Deletion is my opinion... MystiLefemEle (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't support deleting a single page, no matter how bad the idea. I do support locking it down so that people cannot create new pages. The Feedback space was created to organize suggestions and to give ANet legal ownership of the ideas. ANet now says they have no intention of doing anything with these ideas. Do we want to make it easy for people to lose their rights so easily? If ANet changes its views in the future, we can reverse whatever is done now.
However, hardly anyone uses the space. Four editors in the last month, no new articles, and very little on the talk pages. Perhaps the best approach is making things easier on those who maintain the wiki. Nothing fancy, just a pop-up reminding people of the official GW2 forums and that current plans for GW1 do not include content changes. 19:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like putting a notice on the main Feedback page (Feedback:Main), on a few of the subpage lists (e.g. Feedback:Guild Wars suggestions) and perhaps a note on the suggestion creation box on user's feedback pages (i.e. {{Feedback user createsuggestion}} ) would be enough to warn users that their feedback will not be looked at. (summary: no locking, no deleting, just a warning) -Chieftain Alex 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
A notice is all that's needed and would be the best way for "making things easier on those who maintain the wiki", imo. Konig 20:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. poke | talk 13:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) reckon we should remove the link from the sidebar (on the left) to the "Feedback portal"? Chieftain Alex 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. I mean, we should have some means of getting there without search function, and it isn't like it'd go unused. Just removing it from the main page or (not and) the navigation bar would suffice, I believe. Konig 06:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I would remove it from the sidebar/navigation bar and change some wordings to past tense. I took the liberty to change a sentence or two to reflect of what it was. --Rodan (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I removed it from the sidebar as it is not really something that needs to be drawn attention on from every page. We can keep a link on the main page (“archived feedback” or something) to keep it somewhat visible. poke | talk 00:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


The logo we use on GWW has always been very effective. However, there are glaring issues with it in terms of design. The drop shadows applied to it lost their touch when the icon was cropped back to 135x135px, leaving a clear cut-off effect behind. This becomes exceptionally visible when using Vector.
I suggest replacing the current logo with the same logo but with the drop shadow fading out faster on the sides and near the top. I have taken the liberty to do these minor changes myself: File:User Infinite wiki logo.png - Infinite - talk 15:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe its that my eyes are getting old and tired, but I really don't see what you're talking about. Not saying there isn't a potential issue here, just that it isn't something that I'm seeing. I see that you've apparently reduced the shadows on your version, but that is about all I can see. If others have a problem with the current version or prefer your version, I'm good with changing it.  :) --Rainith (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
the only difference that I can see is the glow that forms part of the shadow on the G at the start of guildwars has been removed... really I don't see any significant cosmetic difference. (I am a vector user) -Chieftain Alex 17:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The only thing I can think of is that you cannot see this issue on a monitor that is too bright. The issue is there, though. :) - Infinite - talk 17:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
doubt it, eco saving LED. -Chieftain Alex 18:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
File:User Infinite current logo closeup.png - Infinite - talk 18:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I upped the contrast to show how the shadows abruptly end on all three exposed directions. The same cut-off happens on the original contrast. - Infinite - talk 18:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright. Seen and understood at last. I'd kind of prefer if the shadow was extended to complete the round bit rather than erased, but I can't find where the original file is... I'm sure there must have been a local copy once upon a time?.. -Chieftain Alex 19:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea, but as the logo is 135x135 as it is scaled now, the logo would look smaller in favour for the shadow (whereas my updated version leaves it at the original size). - Infinite - talk 19:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
derp. vector wider than the icon. k got it. now for the bad news; the icon is on the ANet side and we can't update it :P -Chieftain Alex 20:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of this, haha. (I sort of am the designer of the GW2W logo, for clarification.) - Infinite - talk 22:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Is it not high time we removed Category:References_to_popular_culture and all categories of similar nature? References are one thing, there's a point in those. Categories for references may have prevented edit warring in the past (though I doubt it), but at this point in time we should be better off without them. What does keeping them around accomplish, other than one extra category at the bottom of certain pages? - Infinite - talk 10:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I may be misinterpreting you here, but the category doesn't really have anything to do with references in that sense. It's for in-game elements of Guild Wars which reference popular culture (e.g. Jayne Forestlight's hammer Vera being a reference to Firefly). - 11:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Category:References to Firefly-Serenity is a sub-category of that category and would therefore also be removed. The trivia notes on the actual references would remain untouched, this is merely concerning the categories themselves. So yes, exactly because the categories have nothing to do with the references (which is why I'd remove the categories (they add nothing) but retain the notes). - Infinite - talk 13:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I more or less agree, I don't really see why anyone would want to browse a list of all the pop-culture references in Guild Wars. - 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
objection; i like a way to link all related trivia entries together. Some people have spent a great deal of time identifying such things. -Chieftain Alex 17:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Alex. For example, at least a dozen things spread throughout multiple campaigns and Eye of the North reference Monty Python, and Category:References to Monty Python helps categorize them all together. --Silver Edge 21:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case I wonder if The Princess Bride should get a subcategory. I've noticed a lot of things referencing it, from Bonetti to Sinni... - 23:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If consensus results in those categories not being deleted, then I would say yes, since there are at least a dozen pages that mention The Princess Bride as a reference. --Silver Edge 07:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Weekly activities[edit]

Would it be unreasonable to request a Weekly activities page like Daily activities which shows the current and future PvE weekly bonus, PvP weekly bonus, Nicholas items and area? It's rather tedious looking at weekly bonus and trying to compare which bonuses line up to each other, or to Nick's cycle. 07:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The most I can offer is that {{Cycle}} may be able to take on a new input or two for any ambitious coder. There would only be 18 possible outcomes for the normal and PvP weeklies, and that may make it easier. G R E E N E R 08:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Or simply make an excel with easy-to-accomplish zaishen quests (such as Zen Daijun Vanquish, Bukdek Byway vanquish, Augury Rock, ATfH), easy-to-accomplish nicks item (pre and post), interesting weekly bonuses and events : that way you know which day you should log in or not.--Ruine User Ruine Eternelle Ruine Eternelle.jpg Eternelle 08:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've started working on Weekly activities. I'll finish it later (I need to figure out a way of generating only mondays), but let me know how many weeks you would like. -Chieftain Alex 10:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Since there are 9 PvE bonuses (and only 6 PvP and far too many Nick itamz) I suggest 9 weeks. Steve1 (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice job, Alex. Would it be possible to add a link to the main page similar to the daily activities?
Speaking of which, how much work would it be to make the weekly table as exact as the daily one, where Nick's items are displayed correctly? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve1 (talk) at 16:32, 6 October 2015‎ (UTC).
OP here. Thanks Alex! That's almost exactly as I imagined it. I think the number of weeks shown is perfect. Only things I'd change is linking Extra Luck to Luck and Unlucky and change the Nick item format from <item> (nx) to n <item> (similar to as seen on Nicholas the Traveler/Cycle). Shame we don't have an article for Promotion ranks that the Elonian Bonus could link to or something for the Pantheon bonus to link to. And like above, could this be added to the main page like Daily activities? 12:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Switched the quantity to the start of the line as requested.
Link to the weeklies page added on Main Page/activities.
The links to the different weekends are a bit odd already - none of the linked articles actually explain what the "weekly bonus" is (probably could have a "Weekly bonus" section?). Having said that, the links can be changed here (line 30+, "pve/pvp event linked"). -Chieftain Alex 17:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I recreated the "Promotion rank"; what should Pantheon bonus link to? Ideally, everything should link to an article, especially if its an official term used ingame. --Falconeye (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe a new page. I don't think FotG is the right page to link to. Even the original version of Favour wasn't quite the same.
Maybe to the weekly bonuses page, where the boni are actually explained?! At the moment the links don't tell you what each bonus does. Steve1 (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Monthly activities[edit]

Since we're on topic, should the samething be done with Monthly? --Falconeye (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Only monthly event is Flux, right? In that case I don't really see a point in it, since it's already being linked to.
For Greener ;) : Steve1 (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Main page[edit]

Instead of linking to the explorable area, link to the map. That's the one thing I actually need each week. The area is irrelevant imo. Opinions? Steve1 (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean you'd rather have the link on the main page take the user to File:Nicholas the Traveler Raisu Palace (explorable area) map.jpg instead of Raisu Palace (explorable area)? If so, then it would be:
The only thing I see is that the map is already displayed on Nicholas' page. If others think that it's useful, then so be it. G R E E N E R 03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
It's already displayed on Nick's page, true. But why is it necessary to go to Nick's page, scroll down and then click on the map if you could access it directly? What use is the general area article anyway? I haven't used that one at all. Ever. Steve1 (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Cool. I haven't been a user of those links in eons, so the useful pathway to information isn't something I'm familiar with, here. Anyone else have thoughts on it before we change the links?
Put an example of how you'd like the links to appear on the main page, and I'll see about changing it up (I haven't even looked to see if it's protected, but I'm assuming it is). G R E E N E R 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Your example above was spot on.
Thanks, Alex! Steve1 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


Just a heads up, with an upcoming mediawiki upgrade to 1.27 Extension:CreateBox is being replaced with Extension:InputBox. We don't really lose any functionality with this change, but any pages using the <createbox> tags need to be updated. I think I've eradicated all of the required pages so no action should be required apart from updating Template:Feedback user createsuggestion when the update hits. -Chieftain Alex 19:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, thanks Alex. I did find a usage of createbox on a talk page or two. I can eliminate them or replace them with InputBox when it comes around. G R E E N E R 18:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Almost every quest or mission page has an outdated walkthrough, often featuring subjective or plain bad advice. These aren't 100% useless (some of them are truly helpful guides), but they could be dramatically improved. It would also be nice to document what actually triggers certain events - mostly quest/mission objectives, but also things like "If you pull aggro to the Gate Guard and he dies, the gate will automatically open", which are currently relegated to the miscellaneous section AKA Notes. I've started gathering information on my SC wiki page, until we have a consensus about how or whether this should be added. Mist Y (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a lot of work and looks good. I would argue the word "you" shouldn't be included in any part of the main space, personally favouring a complete lack of addressing anyone (you/he/she/they and so on, when addressing a player, usually looks rather sloppy). Rewriting is best in these cases, per example:
*Talk to him again when all four pieces of his armor have been retrieved.

The pieces can be turned in individually, and different players can turn in each piece separately. The bonus is completed when Kilnn has received all four pieces. The pieces can be stored in inventory for future runs, and each piece is stackable with copies of itself. Be aware that talking to Kilnn Testibrie will remove ALL pieces of the armor from the inventory, including stacks.
I turned the digits into words, as the value there is smaller than a hundred. This could be because I'm used to academic writing when it comes to numbers (anything above one hundred is written as a word, instead of with digits).
Other than those two remarks, I'm pretty down with all of this to replace the old and dated walkthrough sections. - Infinite - talk 15:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
"anything above one hundred is written as a word, instead of with digits" you meant BELOW 100, right? I'm sure that's a valid style for some things, and in this case it seems fine, but surely not all e.g. Nick is currently collecting 1 Phantom Residue. I'll try to choose the best form, and I'll see if I can re-phrase objectives in the imperative form, so there should be no "you"... not sure that's always possible though.
I don't think we should necessarily delete the walkthroughs; some of them are fine, and others just need to be re-written. Mist Y (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, wow, that is an awkward typo. You are right on the differentiation between general text and certain amounts of items, it would look silly to write "Nick is collecting one Phantom Residue per gift." If you need any assistance rewriting some sentences, I can absolutely do that. - Infinite - talk 02:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, that's what I was hoping for. I'll carry on as I am, and you can take that information and insert it into the wiki appropriately.
By the way, is there somewhere to talk about research? So far I've encountered a couple of things I just don't know, and I've marked them in red. Some sort of wiki project to collaborate research efforts would be handy... Mist Y (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Change the default thumbnail sites for anonymous users and new accounts[edit]

The default thumbmail size is 200px. I've noticed this has led to people changing the thumbnail width of individual images to be 300px as 200px is too small for modern screens (the default hasn't been changed since the Wiki started in 2007 AFAIK). My suggestion would be to change the default thumbnail width to 300px. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Collector list[edit]

Is there a list of collectors who are selling valuable weapons? I'm particularly interested in those with 20/20 weapons. --MostDefinitelyNotHanz (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)