Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 16

Share possibility's for gww & gww2?

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

Would be awesome promo? --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 13:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What? -- pling 15:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

^agreed, not understanding the topic at all.--Neithan Diniem 15:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Share with Facebook, myspace, twitter etc? --Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 21:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that such an option even available for wikis? I've never encountered one. If someone wants to share a page or something, they need only to link the page address in a comment.--Neithan Diniem 23:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikia uses it on every page of every wiki (at least for Facebook). I however am against this idea. Sites that are tied to facebook get (in my experience) really buggy when loading and dependent on the facebook servers. -- Wyn talk 01:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I double the Wyn's experience. - J.P.Talk 02:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, you learn new things every day... I however still see no point in having a share function. My above post works to the same exact goal, only you actually have to Ctrl+Cut/Paste the URL.--Neithan Diniem 04:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do not let Facebook creep onto this wiki, thankyou Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please god no. WoW is trying to facespace-ize some of their shit, too.-- anguard 16:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to facebook game/site messages, I hide all of them because they flood the wall, thus destroying its purpose. I would probably do the same thing with wiki stuff. If I wanted to keep an eye on something, Id watch it, not check facebook every 5 minutes for a link to pop up.--Neithan Diniem 18:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would just like to see one piece of the internet that isn't corrupted by corporate social engineering bullshit. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 23:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Facebook is like the borg... resistance is futile, lol. I used to use facebook all the time but I think it has gotten too much, and now it's taking over everthing; there is no privacy at all! "Just say no to Facebook" --Lania23:33, 25 Jul 2010 (UTC)

Ness Hrin like this.

...I mean... Uhh... --- NessHrin | 23:55, 25 Jul 2010 (UTC)

Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will they realize that they cannot eat facebook. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 01:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What to do with Lion's Arch (explorable area)

There are now 2 areas with this name. One occurs during the quest Sunspears in Kryta and the other during the quest The Battle for Lion's Arch. How should we distinguish the 2? --Musha 18:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that has been dealt with with Lion's Arch (explorable area) and Lion's Arch (War in Kryta), which is different than Lion's Arch Keep. -- Wyn talk 18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are 3 Lion's Arch explorables - Sunspears in Kryta, The Battle for Lion's Arch, and post-battle. Lion's Arch (explorable area) takes care of the first, and Lion's Arch (War in Kryta) takes care of the last. However, the one for the battle itself can easily be shared with the quest. But, it wouldn't be consistent (take The Underworld (Don't Fear the Reapers) for instance). So, what I suggest, is moving Lion's Arch (explorable area) to Lion's Arch (Sunspears in Kryta) and make a Lion's Arch (The Battle for Lion's Arch) to be for the explorable during the quest. Nevermind to the before statement, as The Underworld (Don't Fear the Reapers) is just a redirect. So go with the first bit said and ignore the now crossed out. -- Konig/talk 21:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Konig is right, Lion's Arch (War in Kryta) is for post-battle (like the epilogue for EotN, or drok's explorable after proph). So combine the 2 quest verions's of LA into Lion's Arch (explorable area)? --Musha 17:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Id combine them like you said, just specify what npcs and what quests are in what instance of the area.--Neithan Diniem 21:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No... that's messy. The Sunspears in Kryta version happens WAYYY before the GWB/WiK stuff. Putting that content together is just wrong imo. -- Wyn talk 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

At a glance, it would seem that Lion's Arch (explorable area) is no longer accurate enough. Simply change its name to Lion's Arch (Sunspears in Kryta), and you have simple, easy to understand differentiation. G R E E N E R 23:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Everything to note of the instance which The Battle for Lion's Arch takes place in is already noted in the quest page. There's no reason to make a new page for the instance. We could make a Lion's Arch (Sunspears in Kryta) but only as a redirect to Lion's Arch (explorable area) imo. -- Konig/talk 23:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I just entered the explorable and it is called "The Battle for Lion's Arch" not "Lion's Arch" - so if a new page is made for the instance it should be The Battle for Lion's Arch (explorable area). And we should make the Battle for Lion's Arch into a disambig page and move that to The Battle for Lion's Arch (quest). However, I see no need to make a page for the instance since everything of the instance is noted in the quest article. -- Konig/talk 23:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. So there are 4 times you can see Lion's arch. Once as the town, Lion's Arch, twice as a quest Lion's Arch (explorable area) and during The Battle for Lion's Arch labelled as "The Battle for Lion's Arch", and once as an endgame area Lion's Arch (War in Kryta). Did I miss anything? Personally, with that said, "Lion's Arch (explorable area)" still seems outdated and lacking in information. G R E E N E R 23:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL Don't forget about Lion's Arch Keep. And I would agree to Lion's Arch (Sunspears in Kryta) for clarity. -- Wyn talk 23:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

*Throws hands in the air* I give up! It's no wonder they sunk the city. G R E E N E R 00:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with The Battle for Lion's Arch (explorable area) and The Battle for Lion's Arch (quest) as long as the former was also linked to the Lion's Arch (disambiguation) page. --Musha 16:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Created The Battle for Lion's Arch (explorable area). Moved Lion's Arch (explorable area) to Lion's Arch (Sunspears in Kryta). Changed links of NPC's as best as I could. Not sure how to create proper NPC location categories. Unsure about the link on Guild Wars Wiki:Game integration/Explorables for The Battle for Lion's Arch (explorable area). G R E E N E R 23:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also create a War in Kryta location page? Guild Wars Beyond is only on half of the pages while the rest say Kryta. Guild Wars Beyond also isn't a location. The Emmisary 23:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Annnnnnd.... that conversation is over here: Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs. Took me a while to find again :( G R E E N E R 23:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Main Page

Now that it appears that the bulk of the War in Kryta content is over, are we going to revert to the standard main page? --Riddle 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I would wait a couple more weeks to see what's going to happen. The last dialog that was updated last week might lead to a story arc about finding Lt Thackeray. Is there any official statement saying that nothing new will occur anymore? --Lania 18:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I figured there might be content in regards to finding Thackeray. But it looks like the War in Kryta has reached its peak with the Battle for LA and the ascension of Salma to the throne. --Riddle 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the War in Kryta is over, but Guild Wars Beyond is not. In fact, Guild Wars Beyond STARTED with the WiK. The WiK chapter of GWB has ended, but get ready for a new chapter! :D --Musha 18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it in the editcopy, but is there any intent to make the main page themed again? I like how it turned out with the WiK stuff and I'd hate to see it end. Maybe Ebon Vanguard themed now or something? --- NessHrin | 18:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ebon vanguard themed sounds nice! --Bold Baby Undies 19:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) IN THE MEANTIME, are we going to ever revert the main page back to pre-WiK? --Riddle 20:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's reverted in the editcopy, so I would assume yes, in the near future. --- NessHrin | 20:58, 20 Jul 2010 (UTC)

Why not wait until this Thursday (just seems like all GW beyond updates happens on thursday...) to see if anything new updates in the game for a new chapter, then we can make it a different theme, like ebon-vangard theme like Ness said, or if there is no update, then revert it back to normal. --Lania 22:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thursday has come and gone, and we have no update. --Riddle 18:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Then it's time for a revert :-). everyone agree? --Lania18:34, 23 Jul 2010 (UTC)

I agree, time to change it back to normal. Shadow Runner 18:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be copying over the current content of the editcopy page somewhere tomorrow, unless someone has a strong counterargument. — Why 00:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or did the recent switch to the original main page (or a previous edit) fix the "new messages" box? Before it would run into the recent updates box and be a minor pain, now it has a separate box around it, like as a div or something.--Neithan Diniem 21:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The overused tag.

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guidelines#Guideline against spoiler tags...

Skill trainers, and delving into the dat

I know that GW servers tend to hold and run much of the data in the game, but I was wondering if any of those who are familiar with digging through the dat files could help. I don't know why I have a pet-peeve when it comes to incorrect "skills offered", but do any of you know if original skill trainer data can be found on our side of the game? Yes, this is a true shot in the dark. G R E E N E R 05:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a project I've been working on in my spare time. I have a list of all skills available at Prophecies trainers here. I'm working on gathering the data for Factions and Nightfall trainers. This list is confirmed with a fresh character, no unlocked skills.-- Pyron Sy 12:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Boxes

Why don't we make use of more of them, for example putting information in bulk into them like for the locations for this Eve page. Or perhaps put all the spoilers into the boxes, that way there is no chance of someone accidentally glossing over them. They would have to click the button to see any information they need.

Stuff

Boxes are cool.

--The Emmisary 20:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Id support it, mainly cause in a minor note Im trying to get boxes like that integrated into two widely used templates in particular, and second it reduces visual clutter, allows players to see what they want to see (and not what they dont), and permits pages to be relatively shorter in load-up.--Neithan Diniem 21:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"perhaps put all the spoilers into the boxes" - Yay, put the whole wiki in a huge box! No seriously, I don't have a problem with collapsing things where it is appropriate and well visible that something was hidden. For example on Eve's page it might not be that obvious that a lot information is hidden there because the [show] is not really that visible. poke | talk 22:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it saves some space on a page, but i don't see it necessary on almost any page. Like Eve's for example... - J.P.Talk 22:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think with Eve's page, hiding redundant information helps keep the overall "length" of the page as it loads shorter. Plus it's annoying to scroll through all the locations of a single NPC to get to the "meat" of the article. --Lania 22:13, 3 Aug 2010 (UTC)

I used the show/hide option on Wynn and I have added them to the archive boxes on pages like Help:Ask a wiki question but just to dispel the misconception that it "loads quicker" it doesn't, as it will load in show mode and then close. You simply don't see that on Eve's page because of the length of the dialogue at the top, as well as the TOC. -- Wyn talk 23:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You're presuming people aren't going to NPC pages for location info. It would be annoying to have to click a "show" box each time you get onto a page because someone else decided that section wasn't important enough to be visible. Putting something into a show/hide box does not help loading times as the content within the box still has to be loaded regardless of whether it's shown or hidden. I really don't see a purpose for this proposal. -- pling 23:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We know people are going to use NPC pages for locations but incredible long ones should be boxed. I highly doubt that someone would want to know every single location Eve is in and even if they did is clicking a button all that much a hassle versus scrolling endlessly to find something else on the page? No offense pling but dont assume for me. --The Emmisary 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what TOC is for. - J.P.Talk 00:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The table is limited in its categorization. Tell me if I wanted to know which outposts Eve was located in Nightfall, it would be simpler to just have those box sections there and hit the nightfall section rather than hit locations and then scroll all the way down to it. Apparently I've given the notion that I insist we use this all over the place and shut everything into boxes. No. My only aim is to make things a bit less cluttered-looking and to hide spoilers. Boxing things should still be done sparingly and if it is questionable, start a discussion about it first.--The Emmisary 00:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't say Eve's page is so cluttered to require this, for example.

Plus, the whole wiki is a spoiler, so it's useless to hide anything like that. - J.P.Talk 02:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll find a use in the future. Thank you for the comments they were greatly helpful, I will no longer pursue my proposal.--The Emmisary 02:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like

ArenaNet is actually considering full hero parties, it was one of the questions of their WiK survey :D –alistic 06:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

what

→ moved from Talk:News

"How would you feel about having a party to fill with heroes"

Why don't they just make a single-player console game or something? I'm not even trying to be mean, that would be cool and then they can put all of their player/hero ideas into there and focus on multiplayer in this one. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 20:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Harder to power creep console games. 63.232.208.113 20:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they have to make Gw1 "Legacy Ready" for when Gw2 takes all its players but still requires some of those players to return to Gw1 to max more titles they never should have had to grind in the first place. And one of the most effective ways of allowing that is to give players complete control over the build bars of all 8 party members so they can keep running team gimmicks to grind these titles almost as quickly. In perspective, it's actually LESS abusive than running 8 human players on Ventrillo speed-clearing /w up to 3 PvE-only Skills on their bars.--ilr 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the question appeared in a WiK survey and since many people (including some on this very wiki) have complained that some of the quests were very difficult to do in NM w/lower-level hench, it might be that ANet is considering making it easier to h/h just the next round of GW Beyond.

Myself, I like the fact that The Battle for Lion's Arch is challenging in NM or HM, as it encourages people to team up and plan. (Too many mission/bounty PUGs tend to have team composition, strategy, and tactics decided before anyone joins.) TBfLA is just hard enough that it requires a healthy percentage of Legendary Title holders to turn off the auto-pilot and really figure out how to kill them some White Mantle hordes.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

pve is hard? i just brought a paragon and went afk. (seriously). -Auron 19:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether any 10 (or 100) of us find it too easy is not the issue. The fact is that a lot of players found most of the WiK quests (and bounties) to be difficult. (If your implied point is that player who excel at PvP are more likely to do well at PvE than vice-versa, I agree. Again, though, that's not really relevant to the peeps that got their but kicked by the new quests.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

About the only one that could be considered "hard" would be the last quest. Still beat it the first time we tried it. But, I can see that it can be really hard if you don't have a paragon, and you have to use 2 level 10 henchies. Also, most of the henchmen bars are retarded. --Lania 00:07, 04 October 2010 (UTC)

The only time I ever found anything in WiK to be hard is because there was a sea of random-member mobs suddenly on top of my party. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 01:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Anet officially announces single player version of Guild Wars

"You can look forward to filling out your party with Heroes as another feature of the free update build that will include Embark Beach."

I Love it, I love it so much. This is simply hilarious.

"We're going to improve the player's ability to form parties with other people, we're not messing around, we're making a new outpost, man! There will now be a centralized location for people to party with each other instead of having to sprawl all over the map."

"Not that it matters because now you can have 7 heroes haha!"

I can't wait for embark beach to turn into another GTOB where all the cool kids stand and dance around the fucking statue ALL DAY. Standing there, dancing, talking about things in all chat as if they don't know what instant messengers or chat rooms are.

Also all of the missions have been out for years now and it doesn't solve the issue of finding a party for the new cluster-fuck randomized mob fest that Beyond is. Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 02:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

coolstorybro.jpg -Auron 02:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 68.193.122.145 03:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Guild Wars Educational Research Project

← moved to User:Levonda

New project. Voice actors

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Voice Actors

General categories and non-mainspace pages

Firstly, by general categories, I mean things like Category:Spoilers, affiliation/group/race categories, and so forth - essentially, things that was created for the purpose of main-space articles. Non-mainspace pages are mostly including userpages, but can also include feedback, ArenaNet, and Guild (perhaps others that I forget). The purpose of this topic is for one thing: should non-main space pages be in categories that were intended for main space articles? For example, the previously linked Spoilers category is filled with user pages thanks to the use of few popular templates (and copy/modified versions of them), and also has a few pages from other -spaces (such as the old "ArenaNet talk:Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Playable Races (Collective Suggestions)" page). Category:Spoilers isn't the only one, due to people utilizing NPC-infoboxes for "fan-fict pages" or other stuff (such as [1] which appears in Category:Creature types).
Essentially, I'm asking: Do you (whoever responds) feel that we should have these pages removed when they're unnecessary or not supposed to be in it? I suppose this ties greatly in with the seemingly forgotten project to clean the wanted pages list... -- Konig/talk 00:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so. It seems like the sensible thing to do. — Why 00:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. - Lucian Shadowborn 00:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems convient to me, and more importantly, less of a hassle for a less experienced wiki-user--Bold Baby Undies 01:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad coding in the first case, intentional transclusion of mainspace content in the second. Backsword 02:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is still monitoring that wanted pages project, Id ask a few q's about it. As for the categories, I think they should be removed. Categories should only link to the page types they were intended for.--Neithan Diniem 02:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Users that use templates designed for mainspace use end up inadvertently adding their pages to these categories through the templates. That's easily fixed by creating a User version of those templates that do not categorize. I have to add that there was a single guild page in Category:Spoilers that had the category hard coded on it, and that was an easy fix. -- Wyn talk 03:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost every one of these cases - if not every one - is due to templates (both user-space templates and main-space templates). I do find it odd how User:Konig Des Todes/Mad King Thorn doesn't put in categories though. For the Spoiler category, I'd assume that merely removing the spoiler template would suffice? Or would that be against editing rules (altering others' comments)? -- Konig/talk 03:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance edits to other's user pages are perfectly allowed. Consensus seems that the mainspace spoiler template should not be used on user pages. I'd call removing it a maintenance edit. Replacing it with a user version of the template might be nicer though. Or we could even alter the template to not include pages in the User: namespace to the spoilers category. That might be a less time-consuming fix. — Why 04:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I see the Category:Spoilers is not a problem anymore, but the same thing I said about altering the template not to include category tags to certain namespaces can be said about the NPC infobox and similar templates too. — Why 04:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at how Backsword edited the template, perhaps we should add those to other templates which cause issues with this (e.g., the NPC infobox being one). Would be easier than Wyn's suggestion of making userpage versions. It'll take a while to find all the cases where this is an issue though. -- Konig/talk 04:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The single page that was in the spoiler category didn't actually utilize the template, they had copy/pasted the code. so the very first line on the page was [[Category:Spoilers]]. These are not fixes that need huge discussions, if you see something that is miscategorized, just fix it. I am against removing auto categorization from mainspace templates as the misuses are few and far between. -- Wyn talk 06:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Perhaps go about removing them directly, but if a pattern is found, fix the source.--Neithan Diniem 07:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

@Wyn: No one has said to remove auto-categorizing from mainspace pages. If you followed the link and looked at the articles in the spoiler category, you'll note that Backsword's change keeps the auto-categorizing, but only for the mainspace. -- Konig/talk 07:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did follow the link and I did see Backsword's fix. And I don't have a problem with it, was just stating my broader opinion. -- Wyn talk 07:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And if you wish to tie it to a project, a better one would be Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Category cleanup. While the initial purpose of that project was focused on making large categories (like user images) more usable, this is another component of the same ideals. -- Wyn talk 07:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)