Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Archive 2

Weapon Mods

Where is the Format guide for weapon mods?--§ Eloc § 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess weapon mods are items just like runes, inscriptions and insignias, and should be treated like those :) - anja 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Now where are those?--§ Eloc § 17:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we do not have a special formatting for runes/inscriptions/insignias/mods. Perhaps we should create one based on the actual existing articles?- MSorglos (talk|contrib) 17:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that would be a good idea.--§ Eloc § 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Should be added to GWW:ITEMS. - BeX 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they use the item infobox... poke | talk 08:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Enhancements

Are we going to use that formatting guideline that Eloc has added, or do they still fall under GWW:ITEMS? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 20:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Eloc can try to merge his guidelines into the items formatting? The current trend appears to be to keep the guidelines in one page (see GWW:NPCS), unless they're really different enough to warrant a sub-guidelines. -- ab.er.rant 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

we talked about this on the Template talk:Rune infobox page. indecision made a sandbox that incorporated runes, but i don't think he got around to weapons, weapon mods, inscriptions or the like. once the box starts incorporating everything, it just gets to be a headache to deal with. --VVong|BA 18:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Landmarks

Any formating decided for these? Backsword 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

None yet. Feel free to propose something and add it to Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Locations though. -- ab.er.rant 16:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And here I was hoping I could get you to do it for me. Backsword

I plan on getting around to it... some day... :P -- ab.er.rant 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Brought it up since there are landmark articles that have cleanup notices on them. Backsword 10:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick reference lists

I would like to have a few more people chime in on the quick reference list formatting. I've got 2 examples up and running and I want to know which of these two is preferred before I'm going to implement them in the main namespace:

1. Example 1 with sortable headers
2. Example 2, GuildWiki style

Currently I have some CSS code being called throughout the DPL calls and I also would like to know whether someone with more CSS experience than me can help me create a CSS setup that might eventually be included into MediaWiki:Common.css. I'm not familiar at all with setting up CSS for an entire table. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer #2, since I want the icons for energy and recharge etc. Having long lists makes it easy to forget which column is energy or recharge, and that makes it irritating imo. I don't know too much about CSS, so I'll leave that to someone else :P - anja 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not too hard to add a tiny E just after the Energy or a R just after the recharge... --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But I still love the icons. :P Would it be possible to make it sortable if we had just letters? Otherwise it's no point in the imo. - anja 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anja Astor, I like the second kind of list more for the same reasons (although I don't know how it would look like with the added icon for sacrifice, the adrenaline based skills, and so on). Erasculio 17:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I like #1 more because of sortable energy/recharge/activation.. But I really dislike the layout of the list. I think we should use styles that we use here more often.. Wait, I will make an example layout.. poke | talk 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd better, because I don't really understand what you mean by the lay-out? AFAIK, there haven't been any similar skill lists before on the wiki? You'd better get your fingers moving Poke! --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean the layout should look more like other things on this wiki.. Here you can see what I mean. poke | talk 18:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What I forgot to say: I would like to have a sortable skill type row. poke | talk 18:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Added your formatting to both examples. Not too sure on the skill type yet, since we then have redundancy, and I hate redundancy. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Would be cool if you could sort by elite status... LordBiro 18:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be enough to sort by description? They always start with the word Elite for elite skills. Backsword 10:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm, is it possible to sort rows which are not displayed (via css)? Then it could be possible to sort by many things which are not even displayed in an own row.. poke | talk 18:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That goes way beyond my capabilities. Would be neat though. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is - even if it works - that we cannot perform the sort because we cannot create a link to a javascript method via mediawiki.. At least <a href="javascript:doSomething()">click</a> and <a onclick="doSomething()">click</a> do not work.. And [javascript:doSomething() click] probably doesn't work either.. poke | talk 18:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I mostly like the #2 list as it is now, but the warrior list doesn't have enough contrast between cells which makes it easy to confuse rows as you look back and forth. Also the spaces between the energy/cast/recharge make it look a bit choppy. You might want to set the cell spacing to 0 for that bit. --Valshia 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Like #2 - Mesmer? (I've changed it to show with the padding settings like you suggested.) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 18:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean the white spacing between the cells, not the padding, which was fine. --Valshia 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Valshia wants you to put energy, recharge and activation into one cell to remove the cellspacing between them. poke | talk 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, yeah. I was thinking that the cellspacing could be adjusted for individual cells, but after looking it up it isn't. It's global for the entire table. So putting them in one cell (or a table-within-a-table if that works with DPL) would be the way you'd have to do what I'm thinking of. --Valshia 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer option No 1, much more useful when you browse skill lists. --Xeeron 19:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

While I like the better visual appeal of #2, I'll go with #1 for its usefulness. Being able to sort makes it much more useful. How about center-aligning the E, C, R, and campaign? To sort by elite status, should be fine to add a column that says "Yes" or "No" to elite status. If you wanna make space, rename "Campaign" to "C" instead. Could help. -- ab.er.rant 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason we can't include the energy/adren/cast/recharge icons next to the values in the cells? It seems like all you'd have to do is edit the templates ({{skill infobox.mesmer}} et cetera) to move the images into the other half of the if-TITLE conditional. Edit: In fact, it seems this has already been done - just not on {{skill infobox.test}}. I tweaked .test so that it includes the icons as well - aside from some alignment issues (which can be dealt with), I think it's fairly decent. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I like #1 the best. More sorting options = best. :) - BeX 03:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Very cool work. I love #1. ~ dragon legacy 07:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As the options have changed since I last commented, I'm now all for sortability, #1. Isn't it possible to sort skills by type if you allow sortability in the description? The description almost always start with a type statement. - anja 08:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty smart. o.0 This is shaping up very nicely people. Which means I have to pick a nit. =P Can anyone think of a way to make the energy/cast/recharge icons at the top remain sortable but still line up nicely with the icons in the column below? Currently they don't and that bothers me a wii bit. Even stacking vertically would be better looking than the way it is now. - Thulsey - talk 08:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't move that sort icon, unless you tweak the code behind the sortable table (just guessing here). But as a workaround, mebe added some right padding to the recharge column to push things a little more to the left? -- ab.er.rant 11:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Skill type is second to elite status though, so you would sort elite and nonelites of the same skilltype in seperate places. Backsword 10:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Gold background for elites seems to be something copied from guildwiki. Seems to me as it reduces readability without providing information, as it is fully redundant, being flanked on both sides by other indicators of elite status. (Icon and description). Backsword 10:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I actually find those gold backgrounds to highlight elite skills nicely. -- ab.er.rant 11:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought about my idea from some lines above again and tried to implement this. The result can be seen here. poke | talk 22:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Damn, you're a genuine css-wiz. Never thought that you could remove the content from tables outside the table. Clever. The only "problem" of course would be the hard-coding of the margins for all tables. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as mentioned before: If we could add javascript links into wikitext, we could do this a lot better.. But as it's not possible we have to use a workaround like this.. ;) poke | talk 01:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

This is not working quite as beautifully in IE6&7 for me. I will try and see what might make it a little nicer. In FF it's quite nice. CSS workarounds for display purposes are what CSS is for, after all... - Thulsey - talk 06:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Default TH styling for IE gives it a border-style:inset property. Yuck. Perhaps adding border: none; to the inline css? - Thulsey - talk 06:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote on the sandbox page: It is not looking good, I know. It was just to show you that there are methods for doing this. Before anything like this can be implemented it has to be reworked. poke | talk 12:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

(Reset indent) Consensus: I think the general feeling of this thread is a consensus for #1. Either with or without poke's suggestion, but that can also later be included. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Name of lists

Are we going to use

• Quick reference lists mesmer
• List of mesmer skills
• Mesmer quick reference skill list
• Something else... --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the one currently in existence ("List of mesmer skills"). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel there is a need to change policy on this one. Would be needless extra work to rename all those articles already in existance. Backsword 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy change? --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, formating. GWW:NAMING. Backsword

As the existing list does not give many information -> replace it. poke | talk 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Warrior colors for quick reference list

Unfortunately, the warrior colors don't lend themselves well for a nice table (see here.) Does anyone have suggestions? (Bex?) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly don't see what the problem is. Looks no worse than the others for me. How does it display for you? Backsword 23:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For me the yellow makes it really hard to distinguish between the inner borders of the table. IMO warriors shouldn't use such a soft color either. :) --  (CoRrRan / talk) 23:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's very bright you can identify the different cells because of the alignment. So no need to change it. poke | talk 23:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is there a problem with the page? -- ab.er.rant 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think he's working with customized css? In my opinion regarding the warrior colours: the dark and light colours don't really match up (the dark is too warm compared to the lighter shades) but I don't know if that is what you mean. I can't really give an opinion cause the page looks crazy. - BeX 03:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not displaying correctly. - Thulsey - talk 05:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about the link I've provided, that link uses a template that has been changed recently. Due to this, the page is scrambled. However, the "issue" I wanted to raise is similar on this page: List of warrior skills. Personally, I still don't fancy the color-set for the warrior-page. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 07:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I only see a problem with the border colour which looks to reddish. Other than that it seems fine to me. - BeX 08:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Only the border looks a little funny being reddish. As for your "hard to distinguish between the inner borders of the table", I'm not sure what you are referring to. There are no inner borders that I can see, just cell spacings. -- ab.er.rant 10:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that's what I mean. The spaces between the cells are barely visible to me (even @ work). Btw, it's funny that that border seems to reddish, it is the right profession color... --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see the lines okay but it may just be my monitor. - BeX 11:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see the lines, too. I don't think the page looks bad, but I think it would look a bit better if the color wasn't so, well, bright. The List of monk skills, for example, is much more easier to read, at least to me. Erasculio 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

{{dialogue needed}}

Are there any objections to incorporating this into the NPC, Quest and Mission formatting in order to categorize articles with missing dialogue? -- Gordon Ecker 07:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not from me. Just make sure that it's clear to new users what the template is for from the page source, as opposed to the actual page. --Santax (talk · contribs) 07:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This was a must, there are a lot of missing dialogues many of us can't check for not having characters with those quests available. MithranArkanere 04:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mini-missions and Eye of the North mission / quest / mini-mission sequences

I'm in favor of using mission formatting. I believe the main advantage would be that we wouldn't need to split information into separate articles like Curse of the Nornbear (quest) and Curse of the Nornbear (explorable area). -- Gordon Ecker 09:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like it because technically, it's not a mission; it's very specifically a quest and an explorable area. I would define it as a mini-mission hybrid. -- ab.er.rant 01:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That brings up another issue. How should we handle mini-missions? -- Gordon Ecker 08:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, sucks that ArenaNet won't design the game to make it easier for us eh? ;)

Maybe redefine a mini-mission as a quest-dependent or quest-prefixed mission? Make it a subtype of mission, then we can apply the mission formatting as you suggested and treat the mission explorable as a subtype of explorable... hmm... -- ab.er.rant 08:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

NF already introduced mini-missions, and I remember this topic being discussed somewhere before. --Xeeron 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't count these as mini-missions, either: you can rez and gain DP over and over until you finish your goal. These are primary quests that happen to (usually, from what I've seen) involve a dungeon explorable area. I feel we should still format them like quests, maybe categorize them differently if you really think it's necessary. - Thulsey - talk 01:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But I didn't really respond to Gordon's suggestion, did I? I think Curse of the Nornbear (quest) and Curse of the Nornbear (explorable area) are actually the direction we should be going to remove any confusion on the part of some players who don't understand that it's both. - Thulsey - talk 01:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem Gordon was highlighting is that we're unnecessarily splitting information regarding one single thing into 2 or more pages. So instead of keeping all the creatures that I may have to fight on the quest page (since they're obviously specific to that quest), I'd have to click on a separate link. I'm thinking a better way would be to try to come up with a term to define this special quest + \mission hybrid. It's both a quest with an exclusive explorable area, and a mission with rez shrines and DP. The latter appears supported by that shield thingy that appears when you complete it (and that smiley on the map). -- ab.er.rant 02:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Smily on the map? :o - BeX 02:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? You didn't notice? :D Before completing one of these special quests, you'll see a brown "T" symbol somewhere on the quest map. For Curse of the Nornbear, I remember it's at the Shrine of the Wolf spirit. Once you complete that quest for the first time, that "T" symbol changes into a smiley hanging from the "T". Or something like that. -- ab.er.rant 02:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, you mean the banner with the eye on it? The "T" is kind of like a stand for the banner to be hung on once you complete it. It's a miniature version of the logo you see when you complete the quest. I don't think it looks like a smiley lol. >_> - BeX 02:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean it's not a smiley? I feel bad admitting it, but that's exactly what I thought it was, too - and until right this very minute it didn't bother me a bit. Now I'm very relieved to hear it's not a smiley and, like many a skill icon, I have to change my mental image of it or it will haunt me every time I look at it.

Back on topic - maybe I misunderstand the problem because it doesn't seem like a problem to me. I'm going to poke around and see if I can understand it better and then leave some comments here. - Thulsey - talk 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I keep thinking of it as a smiley :D -- ab.er.rant 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[resetting indent]So... I don't see the problem at all. Curse of the Nornbear=Quest. Attack of the Nornbear=Quest. The explorable area for both of these is Drakkar Lake. Why is there duplicate information needed/being added? Sorry if I seem dense... - Thulsey - talk 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But they're separate zones with separate names. It doesn't say mission "Mission Map (Drakkar Lake)" or "Currently in Drakkar Lake", it says "Mission Map (Curse of the Nornbear)" and "Currently in Curse of the Nornbear", just like it does for mini-missions (and regular missions). If we incorporated it into the exlorable area articles, we'd need to split the creatures into subsections due to the separate spawns. -- Gordon Ecker 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying to incorporate it. Seeing how it's being done, I have to say I think the info should be split. So an article for "Curse of the Nornbear" (I'm open to calling it a mission if it's called that in game) with all the relevant information, NPC's, Allies and Foes, no need for a "Curse of the Nornbear (explorable area)" because there isn't one, you can only access this zone when doing this quest. The explorable area is still Drakkar Lake. I can't tell if we're in agreement or not. :( - Thulsey - talk 03:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it seems that everyone is in agreement that NPCs should be incorporated into the mini-mission's quest article, and that there is no need for a separate zone article. -- Gordon Ecker 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

no need for a "Curse of the Nornbear (explorable area)" because there isn't one Actually, that isn't correct. You know how the name of the location shows up smack in the middle when you first load into an area? The one for that quest specifically says "Curse of the Nornbear (explorable area)", not Drakkar Lake, and you get auto-teleported back to the outpost once you finish, can't linger around. So yea, it's an explorable area that's only accessible via a quest trigger with mission area behavior. Why don't we just call these mini-missions as well? And redefine a mini-mission by enlarging its scope to include these GWEN quest/mission hybrids? -- ab.er.rant 04:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with your suggestion of combining these into the scope of our current mini-missions category. Looking at it from the in-game point of view of the Hero's Handbook, where they are specifically referenced as primary quests, I still feel that's how they should be classified, even though you get a specific spawned instance for your party. Then again, The Beginning of the End is indeed very similar to mini-missions since you fail if you die and get sent back to the city of origin (at least in the preview event, not sure if that's changed). Gah! :) - Thulsey - talk 06:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, "Gah!" indeed! :D Like I said earlier on, with the existence of this wiki, you would've thought the developers would kinda bear our wiki structure in mind when they make their stuff so that it'll go easy on us when it comes out. Sigh. We could save ourselves the headache if we just do what Gordon suggests - just slap the mission formatting on it and be done it. Call these... "Quest missions"!!! or maybe "Primary mission" lol -- ab.er.rant 07:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Gaile the official term is Primary Repeatable Quests. -- Gordon Ecker 07:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll suggest changes to Quest formating to allow the NPCs in. Should be enough to handle this and has some other uses. Backsword 13:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cutscenes

...Once again...GW:EN opens up an ugly situation. All the cutscenes are named...which means that there should be seperate articles for cutscenes now. I took about 20 screenies of "Into the North" (The cutscene where you first enter the Far Shiverpeaks after escaping the Destroyers). I'd be more than willing to take the dialogue and make it into an article, but there is no formatting guide for cutscenes...so how do we document this? Obviously:

Name: yada yada yada

Name2: yada yada

Name3: yada yada yada yada

is a start...but do we put in cropped pics? How do we explain the setting? Do we have a synopsis section? A "What happened before/after this cutscene"? What's everyone else's opinion on how we go about this? Calor - talk 16:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

All of them are actually part of a quest, so whether they have a name or not should not affect the way we document them. As for explaining the setting, you can try expanding Storyline of Eye of the North instead. -- ab.er.rant 09:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to document them by name, since they're listed by name rather than by quest in the Scrying Pool. -- Gordon Ecker 09:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too, Gordon, because not all of them are in quests, just about 90% of them. I've screenied 2 cutscenes, and documented one in My sandbox Calor - talk 18:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Holiday Events

I haven't noticed or seen any formal,informal or really much in the way of coherent organization for the Holiday events, in particular the older ones such as Wintersday and Halloween 2005. I really only notice much since I've been trying to clean up/neaten and fill out more of these sections with the (probably) imminent coming of Halloween and Wintersday not being to far off. Among the formatting concerns would be page naming and organization. Several pages, such as Wintersday comment on having a generic holiday page as well as separate pages for each specific years event. Also these festival events have relevant information in location of the event, quests, npcs (especially collectors), items, mini-games, and so forth. Yukiko 23:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to agree that we keep all events separated for each year. So Wintersday should only be a disambiguation for Wintersday (2005) and Wintersday (2006). poke | talk 13:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer keeping the events seperated by year with relevant information to that year's event on it, as well as keeping a page for the more generic or unchanging information for that holiday (Such as Wintersday is a competition between Dwayna and Grenth or that the Dragon Festival was started after the assassination of the Emperor of Cantha by Shiro.) to cut down on the amount of duplication most of the event pages will/do have. Yukiko 08:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the events should have their own page, as they are not identical in content. But the general page should be more than disambiguation; it is also the place to mention any lore. Backsword 09:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of proper characters

Is there any proposed or accepted guideline or policy regarding the correct use of punctuation characters, such as using “quotation marks” instead of "this" or 5–20 (en dash) instead of 5-20 (hyphen)? If not, would it make any sense in this project? For more information on this, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation. --80.145.184.106 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No policy on it, and I guess it's because those "correct" characters are alot harder to type. The incorrect ones are common on most keyboards, so it's just easier to use them. I don't think making a policy to use those would be that great, simply because they are harder for the common user to type. We don't claim to make academic texts, so I don't think it matters too much if we use "incorrect" punctuation :) - anja 21:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say it won't make any sense. Using dash or hyphen makes no difference to the information we're trying to present. A policy on punctuation rules is just going to be ignored. As a guideline? I'll probably ignore it too ;) -- ab.er.rant 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, such a guideline would be ignored by most users for many reasons. But, however, correcting those “typos” is merely an automated process that can be handled by a bot, so I see the need to agree on some formatting rules as a guideline for someone who feels able and willing to create a bot for it (or use any existing one) – and for authors who wish to write “correctly”. Also, I noticed some sort of a special character reference tab below the edit boxes on Wikipedia (like on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punctuation&action=edit, right below the “Save Page” button). With or without a guideline, this bar might help authors who have trouble with special characters. --132.176.151.122 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the linked Wikipedia article uses the non-oriented double quote mark " as found on standard keyboards, not the angled pair “”, for most of its text?

Also, at least with the default font on Firefox, the two render exactly the same (both appear non-oriented). They only render differently in the edit box. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

We have one non-formatting guideline, Guild Wars Wiki:Assume good faith, and we could have more in the future, however the guidelines link points here. I think that a non-formatting guidelines section should be added to the bottom of this page, Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines should be moved to Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines policy and this page should be moved to Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines. -- Gordon Ecker 07:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... why not make the guidelines link point to Category:Guidelines and be done with it? (Or a suitable summary page?) Why should this page, which is specifically about formatting, be named something about guidelines in general? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought the whole idea was to expand the list to include all our guidelines, not just formatting ones? - anja 08:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this page works well to simply sum up formatting on the wiki. It'd be better to leave this page as is and have a separate page that sums up the various overall guidelines - formatting as a whole being somewhat of a "collective guideline" with many sub elements. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep them together and split off formatting guidelines if the main guideline page gets cluttered in the future. -- Gordon Ecker 11:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be ok to have a Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines which lists all Guidelines, but I would like to keep this page as it is. If you look at Guild Wars Wiki:Policy you see that the page is rather cluttered and I don't want to have a formatting guide list in the same way :/ poke | talk 11:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the moves. You can simply add another H2 for non-formatting guidelines below the current one. --Xeeron 15:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be moved to Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting guidelines instead? -- ab.er.rant 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if formatting and non-formatting guidelines are separate. -- Gordon Ecker 04:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason it'd need to be moved to Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting guidelines? After all, it's not like we're moving Guild Wars Wiki:Assume good faith to Guild Wars Wiki:Assume good faith guideline. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. This is more of a merge proposal rather than a move proposal? I don't see why this needs a move. Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines is a place to list all the guidelines. This page lists all formatting-related guidelines. -- ab.er.rant 09:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What about keeping this page and Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines where they are and creating a full list of guidelines at list of guidelines with this page transcluded to prevent desynching? -- Gordon Ecker 09:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me - or just linking to this page from the list of guidelines without transclusion - the formatting guidelines are somewhat of a large guideline with multiple sub-elements. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that it matters what I think, but I feel the need to put my $0.02 (U.S.) in. In this case, I think that amounts to about, well, nothing. Personally, I think a main page, titled, say GWW Guidelines (spelled out properly if you prefer) with sub sections titled formatting, etc. and links to appropriate sub-pages would work the best. Or in the format used in HTML pages, and in the wiki TOC, clicking that "link" could jump to that particular part of the sub page or that specific page, and then a link back to the TOC at the end of that particular section. Either way, the sub-pages should all have a link back to the main or page specific TOC page or area, at the end of each text section.

For example TOC entry Capitalisation Guidelines and Standards, and then at the end of that particular text section (if a subpage) returns to the main page's TOC, or if the section is big enough, to the TOC of that page, then a link on that pages TOC to the main article's TOC. And so on. It is late here, otherwise I would make a more detailed example showing how exactly I mean, but I think that people can get enough of a grasp of it from my description.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 03:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to creating a general list at Guild Wars Wiki:List of guidelines. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Player Name, player name, Character Name, character name.

Looking through the different articles such as the quest articles, and the mission articles there are many ways in the dialogue that show that the players character is the one talking. For example I have seen Player Name, and also Character Name. I am not sure if this wiki has a general formatting rule for this. If we don't I think we should decide on one so that all articles are consistant. --Sktbrd341 15:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I should've raised this earlier too. I, for one, always change it into either "(character name)" or "<character name>". I always used "character" because that's exactly what/who is speaking - my character. "<player name>" implies that I am speaking. -- ab.er.rant 04:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I usually use <Player Name> because that is what I first saw on this wiki and just started using it. I think it would be good if we can just choose one and incorperate into one of the formatting policies somehow. I think it makes sense to use character name. I think we should do "<character name>" , not really sure if it should be capitalized or not. --Sktbrd341 15:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have also seen some pages have the "tag" being used as "<party leader>" (in varying stages of capitalisation. I personally have no preference, and think that any of the uses listed above would be acceptable. I think the only thing we really need that hard and fast standards on are the proper use of the English language, unless the in-game text specifically is being repeated, and it is different than that standard. Since the in-game text in this case is different, depending on who is playing (each player would see their own "version" of events) I think that there should be a little leeway on this.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... Guy Fawkes 05:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The standard is <Party leader>, following the general formatting rule of first letter capitalization. -- Wyn talk 06:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Article names