Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 14

rfa

Do we need to have the number of RfAs listed in the news section? If people want to be kept updated on when new RfAs start (or end), they can watch GWW:RFA - I think the most the community portal should say is that there are currently RfAs in process, but not the amount (so it wouldn't need updating every time, and the grammar needn't be fixed in a following edit). -- pling 13:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't anything else to put on here. It's not like this page can't handle some volume. NuVII 13:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pling. It reduces edits made on community portal radically, since the most of them are related to RfAs.

And if people want to keep on track for new requests, they should add Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship on their watchlist. - J.P.Talk 14:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't even be an issue except we have had a LOT of RfAs recently. We could just neutralise the wording next time the number changes. Misery 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with a simple toggle? {{rfa|open}} presents, There are currently open RfAs. (If the toggle is closed, then nothing displays.) If the toggle is placed on the main RfA page, this would allow the community portal to show when there are opening without requiring an edit to this one.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And that would remove the point of the CP. People won't notice changes on this page, if there was no edit... Writing simply "There are currently open RfAs" here when one opens and removing it, when there is no longer any RfA open, is fine enough. No need to keep it updated with the number etc. poke | talk 07:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Having the RFA notice listed in multiple places allow more people to be made aware of them, instead of it looking like you don't want people to know about them. I don't think that you need to have the edits done in multiple places, when you could use the same method used in the game for information like that. Have the info page a part of the RFA section, a subpage, and transclude that page to wherever you want that info to show. That way, the edits are done in one place, and can show up wherever it is wanted by a transclusion template. 42 - talk 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

New template design

I am working on a template I designed for use on some of the NPC dialogue sections that are very sparse with information. This template would allow the editor, one, to enter the text (and if repeated) have it show up in the multiple places it appears when talking to that NPC in-game, and two, if in place, would let the prospective editor know that information is missing.

There is verification of text and order of dialogue that would help in the formatting and making sure that the order and any repeated text occurrence is correct. I have a list of what I am looking for on my talk page. 42 - talk 04:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are some srs bsns walls of text. Can you do a mock up or something? NuVII 16:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nvm, I found em. Eh, I'm with Wynthyst on this one. Too much detail bro. NuVII 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the same concept as an infobox. There is "too much detail" there as well, but it saves the person from having to build one every single time. How much time do you think would be spent "building" an infobox on each page one was needed? Given how many of the pages this would be used on, would save untold hours of work building a new onedialogue section for every page. 42 - talk 17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that there is nothing to save because all the dialogue is already in place. NuVII 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not on the pages this template is intended for Nuke. Only two out of I don't know how many have anything close to complete dialog. Go check the Norn NPC pages. 42 - talk 06:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The other benefit is this will automatically format the text for the editor, and even if it isn't all there, it would let people know exactly what was missing. Since I forgot to post the links before for people to find them, here they are again. 42 - talk 06:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Prospective Norn init dialogue version 2
• Prospective Norn bounty dialogue version 2

NO TOC tags in infoboxes

I propose adjusting the NPC and location infoboxes so that the __NOTOC__ tag is automatically passed to the pages it is used on. This would benefit the wiki by automatically removing it on pages that do not need one, and would save having to add this to the remaining pages that don't already have them.

I have no idea how many don't, but I know a lot already have them put in by hand. 42 - talk 06:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But what about pages that should have the TOC? --JonTheMon 06:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, imo, it's easier to have the TOC and say "hey, it's short, let's remove it" than to do "hey, there are a lot of sections, let's add the TOC". --JonTheMon 06:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jon. Besides, i don't think page formatting belongs into infoboxes.

In any case, instead of automating it on infoboxes it would be easier to run a bot and stamp a NOTOC on every npc and location article, if i understand right what you intend to do. That way, we can still easily put TOCs back for those pages that require it.--Fighterdoken 07:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be "in" the infobox. It would be added (if it is even possible) like the categories are added to pages that use certain userboxes. I have yet to see an NPC or location page that "needs" the TOC from being that long. 42 - talk 07:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How about Devona? Misery 07:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

After going through some of the "what links here" pages, it seems that the NPC pages don't use the TOC quite as much, but many of the locations do. And I had made my opinion (don't need NOTOC in the infobox) after taking that into consideration. --JonTheMon 07:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) "I propose adjusting the NPC and location infoboxes" This is what you wrote, and that means that "it's IN the infobox", even if it's not displayed as such (ie, like the categories).

By the way, i still find the TOC useful even for short pages since i hate to scroll. Then again, i still run my monitor at 800x600.--Fighterdoken 07:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be against adding this as there are quite a number of npcs/locations where the toc is useful. For example most henchmen as Mis linked above. --Kakarot 17:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that means that it is in the template page, not "in" the infobox. In the infobox says that it would be visible on the pages the infoboxes are used.

But enough people have come up with logical and reasonable reasons why this wouldn't work. So no go. 42 - talk 07:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually by placing the __NOTOC__ in the infobox, would cause the TOC to not display on the pages, especially those pages that need it. I do not know what says what shows up in template page won't show up in pages... but it is actually wrong. I know this with the _NOEDIT_ one as I had to create some pages to exclude that. I agree with others above, this would not be and is not a good idea to do. -- riyen ♥ 11:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is right. It does not show up in the physical infobox in use on the page. It is in the template, and would affect how that page is viewed. From the pages I have viewed,I didn't think that any of the pages with infoboxes needed a TOC, so the reasoning for putting it as a part of the templates. People have come up with valid reasons for not doing that. 42 - talk 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It does. You're just not holding your breath right. Secondly, TOC is needed for those who don't want to 'scroll' to find what they need. You like scrolling, don't you? Absolutely, is bugging to many that don't like to just scroll to find like say a boss, notes, or walk through. -- riyen ♥ 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen, it was a thought, people have come up with valid reasons why it shouldn't be. I have accepted that. My point since then was that the NOTOC tag doesn't show up inside the confines of the infobox, that is it. You do not see it inside the infobox, it was coded outside of the physical coding of the infobox. Either way, this line of discussion is done. It has already been proven doing this would not work, and would be better to be done on a page by page basis. 42 - talk 17:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm curious why this conversation is here rather than on the Infobox talk page.... -- Wyn talk 04:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

42 brought it up here. --68.163.236.166 04:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Should it be moved to the infobox talk page? -- riyen ♥ 04:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It was actually placed both here and on the location infobox Wyn, it just got more attention here than there originally. --Kakarot 04:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the discussion

Thanks so much for the discussion Ariyen. I get told left and right to discuss changes (especially disputed ones). Having the TOC tag someplace is obviously in dispute. So thanks for reverting without discussion on this. 42 - talk 00:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He is only lucky he reverted it before I did. Poke reverted you so leave the toc out. Drogo Boffin 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On certain pages like this. It shouldn't be used. If it was meant to be used here? It would have been here a long time back, 42. -- riyen ♥ 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On most things, it doesn't matter who reverted. Unless it is to fix vandalism or something major, a Sysop has no more pull on something than any regular user. This is a talk page, talk pages usually have TOCs, unless someone accidentally takes it out by not using the nowiki tags like they are supposed to. 42 - talk 01:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"Talk pages usually have TOCs" only because talk pages usually have enough sections that one automatically shows up. Most talk pages do not force a TOC visible. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Most talk pages don't have to have one forced because people know how to mark out wiki code using the proper nowiki tags. 42 - talk 01:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

wth? You forced a TOC on at the top, when Poke undid you. Then you reverted him. and now you're saying this? Seriously, I have not seen anyone adding a TOC at the top of a talk page, except you. If you looked at long talk pages, you'd see an automated one. It's not needed, leave it alone, 42. -- riyen ♥ 01:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it but I agree with Ariyen. Damn you for making me agree. /shakefist Drogo Boffin 01:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen, if you tagged the NOTOC in your comment like you should have, this would have never happened. I only reverted Poke because the TOC wasn't showing up (from what you did) so I forced it. Don't try blaming me for trying to be helpful and quietly fix something you caused. I am saying this to you now mostly because it was you who caused this problem originally. 42 - talk 02:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It shows up. You're just wanting to point the finger at me for nothing. And by the way, It had the nowiki on it before you did that. So, try to make up another excuse. -- riyen ♥ 02:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Check the edit history of this page, paying close attention to revisions made by me putting in the nowiki tag on one of your posts in the section above. Finger is pointed right where it belongs. 42 - talk 02:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's just being a whiner, who couldn't be nice just to add in the nowiki and leave it alone> you forced the NO TocTOC, even after the nowiki was placed. Sounds like you're pointing the finger at yourself. Now stop being childish. -- riyen ♥ 02:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Specifically the edit revision marked 17:42 28 November 2009. You were right, they are there. I put them in. 42 - talk 02:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeesh. People, you need to realize when it's time to move on as opposed to just bickering about small things and thus making mountains out of molehills. Stop trying to play the blame game just so you can feel good about yourselves. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fighting is bad for the heart and soul. Please stop. -- Lacky 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time I saw it, I fixed it quietly and said nothing. I forced the TOC (not the NOTOC) because it still wasn't showing up. I am bringing it up to Ariyen now because you are trying to blame this all on me when it was not my error that caused it in the first place.

I am not fighting, I just don't appreciate being blamed for this by the person who caused it when I was trying to quietly fix that problem. 42 - talk 03:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The TOC does not show up until the page is long enough to warrant it. When it is long enough its automatically added. For talk pages you can just scroll. --Dominator Matrix 03:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The TOC shows up automatically if the page is long enough, unless someone, in a post, forgets to tag out a __NOTOC__ tag they used. 42 - talk 03:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Did the page actually get long enough for a toc? Drogo Boffin 03:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As for 42. You added the TOC at top After you nowiki my notoc, which I thank you for. But There was no reason to put a Toc at the top of the page. Of which you want to deny and that you did after my notoc and toc, etc. was nowikied. The TOC appears now at the top, because of the length and the fact there's now 4 topics. This one of which was created for no reason, really. -- riyen ♥ 03:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify; a page must have at least 4 section headers on it before it will automatically show a TOC. Pages with 3 or fewer sections do not have a TOC unless it is forced. Most talk pages tend to have more than3 section headers and thus get auto-TOCs. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen, it not showing up before or after the NOTOC was tagged or not isn't the point. I put TOC there because the TOC still wasn't showing up, one would presume a hang over from your NOTOC tag. I did not deny putting a TOC in, you claim I put a NOTOC at the top of the page. THAT is what I am denying. 42 - talk 03:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for going back after the fact and trying to make it look like I am venting about you saying I put a TOC tag in.

"you forced the NO TocTOC (Showing what was actually posted)," 42 - talk 04:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, seriously, this bickering has gone on long enough. Both of you, let it go. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I had already tried dropping it once Aiiane. 42 - talk 04:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you still responding to this conversation? (Note: That is a rhetorical question, please do not respond to it.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

LoL Aiiane. I loled hard at this --> "(Note: That is a rhetorical question, please do not respond to it.)". Drogo Boffin 05:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The sheer level of ungrateful whiny bitches on this wiki

Whenever I see and a new update to this game, it makes me feel better that Anet still cares about their player-base. Yet instead of gratitude for Anets continued commitment to a game with NO MONTHLY FEE, I see a bunch of ungrateful assholes whining "WTH is our SF nerf?", or "I WANT A (DECENT) SKILL UPDATE!".

What you assholes fail to understand is that, since EoTN was the last game, running the Guild Wars servers is now one big liability for Anet, leaving only the in-game store as the sole income for ANET. Of course they're gonna add shit to the store, they need money to pay they're staff and working on some skill balance gives Anet nothing. There is no such thing as a free lunch, not in life, not in Guild Wars, stop bitching and accept this. The Harbinger 22:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you were so concerned with said level that you decided to increase it by 1. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

3/10, only because this site is so easy to troll. NuVII 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Cool story bro PimpStronghand 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sole income? Don't they have more than one game out?-- anguard 02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

@the harbinger U mad bro?- Zesbeer 03:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)