Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Archive 3

Mission Rewards

I have created Mission Exp and Gold reward template boxes (if you start on the first Factions mission Minister Cho's Estate you'll see it in use. I stopped because someone said I should bring it up on here first. Discussion Here. What do you think? here is what they look like.

Experience	Normal Mode	Hard mode
Standard	add	add
Expert	add	add
Master	add	add

Gold	Normal Mode	Hard mode
Standard	add	add
Expert	add	add
Master	add	add

I feel like the exp and gold rewards should be noted on all missions. I also feel that the time requirements template should be changed so that: Where is says "Reward", should say "Time Taken (Minutes)" and where it says "Time Taken (Minutes)" it should say "Normal Mode" View the Template here Mission Reward Template I can change it, I know how. I also know that it will take some effort to fix all of the missions it appears on, but I'm wiling to take care of it, if everyone agrees. -- RavenJWolfe 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to not use templates/boxes for this, only normal text (in order to follow the same displaying format as the rest of the page). Or, in case using a box is decided, to merge all the info into just one. Using separated boxes for rewards would just make prophecies mission pages innecesarily large. Ignore that, just checked the mission formatting guideline and my concerns are already solved there. In any case, i think it would be better to just use two box instead of three (normal and hard mode), and merge the info into them.--Fighterdoken 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

True, merging boxes would be nice, but theres really no way to do that unless there was Let me rephrase-- The only way to do that is to create a double box with NM on top, and HM underneath. Somewhat like they do on the unofficial Wiki, but nicer. [(See here)]

I will work on such a box, and upload link to template when I'm finished. -- RavenJWolfe 17:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here we are. :) It's Done. Here is an example with info from Minister Cho's Estate added:

No campaign parameter specified. Try entering the name of the campaign first.
Your options are:
•Prophecies
•Factions
•Nightfall

What do you think of it??? I updated the Minister Cho's Estate page with my new template, that I originally changed. That is the only mission so far that has Rewards displayed in this way. I will not change any others until it is decided so. I would be willing to update all Missions this way. For Tyrian Missions I can create a different template to deal with bonus instead of standard/expert/masters, etc. -- RavenJWolfe 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks better i think. I would still prefer to have the "rewards" (exp+faction+gold) merged in only one box, but unless someone can actually find a way to fit it without looking too unorganized, i guess this could work.--Fighterdoken 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the box was the same colour as the quest/mission infoboxes - seeing too many bright colours on one page is a bit much, I think :P. Also, the padding or font on the boxes could be taken down a little, the box shouldn't take up too much space on the page. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed padding. The reason I used those colors is because Hard mode is red, and Normal mode is gold. (Icons above your party list/ and on your maps) I'm not sure what Fighterdoken means by merged into only one box. In a table arrangement, you have to have a group of variables on top, (Time, Exp, Gold) and a group of variables on the side, (Standard, Expert, Master.) Yet we have three groups of variables. (Time, Exp, Gold) - (Standard, Expert, Master) - (Normal Mode, Hard Mode). There is no other way to display this, but this way. As for the colors I felt it coordinated well, because when you think of Hard Mode you think red, and when you think Normal, you think gold. Right? Look at your Maps people!! If the colors end up being contested by everyone then they can be changed, otherwise I really think this works well. It is not too bright in my opinion. Thanks for everyones input on this subject. I felt that the rewards section on our Missions should be a bit more informative and I'm trying to make that happen. Thanks! -- RavenJWolfe 20:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, How are the colors now... ? Well I made them lighter and still gold and red, but no one likes that so...blue I guess. Even though it doesn't look good to me.

These were the original colors, just in-case people want to know.

Normal Mode
Hard Mode

-- RavenJWolfe 21:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fighterdoken, what "mission formatting guideline" I can't find anything if the sort. Link?? -- RavenJWolfe 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

GWW:MISSIONS. Calor 21:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! -- RavenJWolfe 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this on a mission formatting page where my watchlists can pick it up. It was originally decided not to list the XP, gold and skill point rewards for the missions because they were identical across all (or almost all the exception is Chahbek Village) of the missions of a campaign. I don't especially see the point of listing that information when it is identical for every mission - especially in the Prophecies missions where the bonus isn't timed and there are only two tiers of reward and no gold given.

I'm not going to stop you if you're dead keen to make the change. The box definitely should be the mission info box colour. If you're listing the rewards, please extend the box to include the skill point reward (do you get a skill point in Hard mode?). Does the box work for Prophecies missions? - currently none of them sport any reward box and if you're including the rewards on each page it will need to be included on prophecies missions too. --Aspectacle 22:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive input, I didn't realize that. I'll probably leave it the way it is, but If I work out a good system for displaying it all, including Prophecies, then I'll let you know again. Thanks! I'm going to leave my template on wiki so I can modify it later. -- RavenJWolfe 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NPCs & Foes pages

Some NPCs & Foes pages has attributes listed, but at the moment it looks kinda messy in my opinion. Can we have a policy about the formating of attributes for those pages? --MageMontu 19:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/NPCs#Skills. -- ab.er.rant 10:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean I have to suggest it there? --MageMontu 10:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he means it's already there. Look closer. Calor 15:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

PvP Arenas

None of the pvp arenas fall under any other location category. Should there be a separate formatting guideline for them? Most of the pvp maps right now all have a layout section and a "map mechanics" or "Objectives" section. ~Shard (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

well, technically, they are missions and 'ought' to follow that formating. But noone has really bothered with them, and mission formatring is not adjusted to suit them. They're pretty much in the state they were first set up when the wiki was new, so if someone would take upon themself to straighten them out, that'd be great. Backsword 13:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never written a formatting guide before and would appreciate help if I decided to do it. Maybe I'll just cut+paste from mission formatting guideline and change what pvp arenas need/don't need. ~Shard (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Or you can work on some of the pages first and then build a template that's based on how you did the pages and go from there. -- ab.er.rant 01:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Imo formatting guidelines might as well come after the fact. I have started to slowly rework the guild hall pages, but I need some advice here to decide which of the already existing formats is best to follow. If someone wants to write up a guideline based on whatever is decided feel free. Misery 10:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Anomaly Tag

Can we remove the anomaly tag or enforce some kind of moderation on its use? On Linsey's page when a couple NPC skill bars were effected by skill rebalancing and brought to her attention, she expressed a desire to deal with all the affected bars at once rather than sporadically when they are reported to her, (this is the link: User_talk:Linsey_Murdock/Questions13#Luxon_Assassins_and_Ilidus_of_the_Empty_Palm. I then decided to look at all NPC anomaly tagged pages to find other skill bars that fell victim to skill rebalancing. Most of the pages I viewed had garbage anomoly tags such as Rox Ashreign using Galrath Slash before the rise of the white mantle creating an time paradox perceived as an anomaly. This kind of use is pointless and convolutes the constructive use of this tag.

I assume the purpose of this tag was to help Arena Net fix said anomalies but I don't believe the current use of it is helpful. I have a couple of proposals.

1. We get rid of the anomaly tag altogether or move it to the talk page. NPCs with skills bars which have been disrupted by skill balancing can have their own category tag such as "NPCs with Broken Skill Bars". Another category can be made for Text issues such as gender confusion with an NPC skin and text such as Quufu. The anomoly on pages such as Scorch Emberspire should be removed completely or presented to Linsey in a low priority category such as "nitpicking anomalies" seeing as in most cases I believe they are intentional and just nitpicking. Gull Hookbeak is another example of this, his level decreases between the Tengu Accords and his appearence in factions. Reasonable people would see this as a gameplay based change intended to keep the encounters in the Tengu Accords balanced thus not deserving the anomaly tag. Nitpicking anomalies should be returned to a bullet point in the notes section.

OR

2. We keep the anomaly tag but only use it when a change should be made. Basically anything which would fall under nitpicking anomalies no longer gets the tag.

Once a month someone can go through the anomaly categories and create a page similar to List of skill anomalies for NPC skill bars and text issues respectively. This page can then be linked to on Linsey's talk page for her to review and refer to when she has time to fix these errors. As they are fixed, they should be removed from the categories and the summary pages. The current anomaly tag is ugly, distracting and often unhelpful. It is often misused and is not effectively targeted at fixing possible problems in the game. 122.105.155.6 10:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I see the anomaly tag as displaying anomalies to viewers and players, not for ArenaNet's maintenance or QA department. They might use the category to fix anomalies, but I'm not sure that that's its reason for being. I don't think "skill bars disrupted by skill balancing" are important or necessary enough to be integrated into articles. If Linsey/QA want to fix anomalies based on the category, they can, but I don't think we need to compose a mainspace list just for that purpose. The QA stuff belongs on the relevant ArenaNet namespace pages. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Anomaly just means something that doesn't match the general pattern. It's not a bug reporting tool. Use the Anet portal page links for that. Backsword 18:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For game mechanics, the purpose of the anomaly tag is, IMO, to inform the reader of any potentially counterintuitive behaviour. For example Lightbringer's Gaze doesn't work against Prophecies titans or any of the demons in Tomb of the Primeval Kings, Blacktide Den, Pogahn Passage, Rilohn Refuge or Moddok Crevice, and Rebel Yell and the GW:EN anti-Charr skills don't work against Prophecies Charr. This behaviour is probably intentional, however it probably isn't obvious, which, IMO, warrents a note. If someone from QA wants to use the category in order to clarify descriptions, that's great, but I don't think that should be the primary purpose of the tag. In some cases, the tag is used specifically to mark issues which were reported to ArenaNet as bugs but have been confirmed to be working as intended (IMO in these cases, the notice should generally state this fact in order to discourage people from reporting the issue again). I don't have much of on opinion on the use of the tag for anomalies unrelated to game mechanics. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with those above; the anomaly tag was never meant to be a QA tool, but rather an informational item for players. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the anomaly tags are good as is. It flags something that a user might not otherwise be aware of. I do think that there might be some that are currently used as an anomaly, and should properly be tagged as bugs, and vice-versa, but I think Aiiane is right, it is information for the players. If she put one in because it was something that she wasn't aware of, and tagged it as an anomaly when it could have been a note, even if it was because of in-game time difference, it is a minor thing. Would you rather she not put any of that information in there because she wasn't sure how it was supposed to be put in there? Then, that particular point of information could have been useful to you, and you didn't get to read it because she didn't put it in. It seems to me 6 and 1/2 in one, Baker's half-dozen in the other.

~

Template for item info

It might be interesting to use Template:Item info to replace many of the information fields for consumables, unique weapons and items in general. See the talk page for more. -- Karasu (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I generally don't like the idea of forcing wiki users to use fixed background colors, especially not such dark colors when the wiki is a bright site all over. Also the normal text format looks a lot better and is a lot easier to use. And item pages that quote in-game text should use {{quotation}} anyway. poke | talk 14:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with poke, I don't think the design fits with anything we have done on GWW. While it matches the in game graphics, and would be a cool template for users to use in their userspace, I don't think it belongs in mainspace. -- Wyn 11:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking it could be used together with the text we have on the pages already. We let the text stay, and add this template floating right or something, as an additional feature, not replacement. - anja 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The black background is just jarring and very inconsistent with everything else on GWW. I think it's a cool template for users who wish to do a "for sale" page and show what items they have for sale or as part of character pages, but I don't think it belongs in mainspace. -- Wyn 11:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it might be cool in the infoboxes, since that's where most of the colours on a page are anyway. It wouldn't get in the way of the main content on the page, it's a sort of quick-reference that suits the purpose of the infobox. I find it much easier and quicker to know or recognise what a Guild Wars item does when I see it in the same format as I would in the game, and I'm assuming this goes for other people too.

I don't think the background colour should pose such a problem, seeing as it's just a replica of something in-game and it's our job to replicate the stuff in-game. If the black background is a problem, I'm sure there's some css jiggery-pokery that could be done so people can define the background colour for themselves.

Speaking of pokery, the template code (and parameter names, etc) could probably be improved. Hint hint. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple color clashes shouldn't stop us from presenting content in an informative way. Content over presentation, always. The question here is if it's easier or less easy to read than what we already have. And I also agree with Pling, should this be used on all weapon pages, it really needs code clean up and parameter standardisation. - anja 15:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, okay if you really want it to appear on articles then I'll think about it (actually I already have an idea). But we will only use it on weapon pages, right? I would not like it to replace in-game descriptions on item pages such as Cottontail Tonic. poke | talk 16:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be just as useful on those types of pages. If it means there'd be a problem with the template, we could have two different ones (e.g. one for weapons, one for items). Or we could have the code directly in the infoboxes, if that's where we want them. By the way, I don't want these template to replace anything we already have either, but only to have them as an extra (seeing as it might be hard to get links in the template and such). -- Brains12 \ talk 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Then especially on those page (Tonics and such) I see a space problem. Those pages are already quite short (and the navboxes are heigher than the rest of the page :S) and the infobox is not that wide. When we additionally put such a box on those pages then where? Below the infobox to make the infobox even higher, or on the notes section? In my opinion it will look a bit off anway. poke | talk 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't help just thinking "..so?" :P -- Brains12 \ talk 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

@Anja, I don't see this as any kind of informational improvement, looking at the examples Karasu placed, it is simply a presentational change, and I stand by my opinion that it doesn't fit with the style of anything else on GWW. I do think this conversation should be consolidated with the one that is linked from the RfC at Template_talk:Item_info#Replacing_item_info_with_templates for consistency, and to make sure everyone is seeing everything that is being said. -- Wyn 04:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent - Guy Fawkes)

That argument makes no sense at all. If we had wanted to mimic the iname look, we would simply have used screenshots. Backsword 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is what happens on some occasions (although those occasions are not the point of discussion here) but the template looks a lot better (cleaner) than screenshots. Screenshots contain background noise and are often garbled due to JPEG compression. And storing the data as text in a template makes it searchable and accessible to DPL. // HeavenMonkey 16:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

HeavenMonkey is correct here. You should've seen the difference between the original 20/20 picture and what we use now. The picture is deleted now, but there's a big difference in quality. -- Karasu (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Using it as an example on something like the 20/20 page or the other very few places where a screenshot is used is one thing, and perfectly fine since it's actually not altering the page in any way. Placing it on thousands of weapon and item pages to replace the wikified stats as yo have on your 4 example pages is a totally different thing. I have no problem with using to replace an otherwise substandard screenshot. -- Wyn 22:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Concise, Links & Lists

Taken from here.

Hey, if in a section a word is already linked, it doesn't need to be linked again. So, if a skill has links in the full description, you don't need to link again in the concise.

...nearly all of the -List of <type> skills- use concised wording yet many dont have any convenient matching links. Ive been editing these for months now before this issue was brought forward by JonTheMon... am I wrong to continue doing so?--Falconeye 07:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the one link thing is intended to avoid reptition in running text. Seperet things that is displayed in various locations are not part of that. Backsword 12:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the usual format to post the concise description first, and then post the detailed one? So actually, it would be a repeat if it was linked in the detailed area as well. As far as a skill list on an NPC, I think that if the skill name being listed were already linked previously, then re-linking it in the list would be ok or not, depending on the person who was looking at it at the moment. However, if that skill (or other item) was linked again after the skill list, then the link after the list should be removed, and placed in the article as regular text.

Another "standard" that seems to have been done (and if I am reading the wiki guidelines correctly) is that some people are using the page title in the first sentence, and linking it (with the square braces), which only makes it show up bolded in the viewable text. Is there a reason for this? It would seem to make more sense, and to follow the guidelines, to just bold the text using the 3 single quotes formatting.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... Guy Fawkes 06:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No, detailed skill descriptions first as they provide the most information, concise second, I believe that was determined the day the concise descriptions were added to the game Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Skills#Bad......Bad.....Update. As for the link bolding, it achieves the same affect so I don't believe it actually matters. If you wish to go through the 17,000+ articles and make them all one way, go for it. -- Wyn talk 06:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we've gotten off the point. Concise descriptions come after full descriptions, so they aren't supposed to be linked. However, those concise descriptions are used for the skill lists, so the lists won't have any links. If, for skill lists, we're fine with no links, then it solves itself. --JonTheMon 13:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Not saying good bad or indifferent here, but it seems to me to make more sense to have the concise descriptions first. Sort of like a promo or blurb (that is a technical term I believe :P ) for the main article, then if the person decides to, they can read further about that particular subject. Kind of like the liner text you see on a new hardcover book. It seems to me that having the detailed description first is bass ackwards.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 02:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The full descriptions were present long before the concise descriptions, so putting the concise ones first would mean linking the keywords in the concise descriptions and removing the links from the full ones. A lot more work. elix Omni 02:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal (June 2009)

The guidelines policy allows non-formatting guidelines, however there is currently no place to list them. I propose that this page be moved to Guild Wars Wiki:List of guidelines, with a "non-formatting guidelines" or "other guidelines" section added to the bottom, listing proposed non-formatting guidelines the same way that proposed formatting guidelines are currently listed. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This page, especially its talk page, is a common place to discuss general formatting issues that don't fit anywhere else. By moving this page to "List of guidelines", the name would no longer make this possible. Also this page is dedicated to Formatting only anyway, so we should rather make a new place for all guidelines, if the category is not enough. poke | talk 10:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The formatting guideline list could be transcluded from here. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some do, but they shouldn't. There is a gen format page for that. Backsword 12:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

↑ erm, we are on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting right now, aren't we? Which page are you referring to? — Why 12:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Poke. I really don't believe in a move. I think this page is where it should say. It's self explanatory and has helped me out a bit. ♥ Ariyen ♀ 07:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying we could create a page at "list of guidelines", and translclude the "formatting guides" section from Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting to the "list of guidelines" page. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Having a help page with the guidelines category information transcluded to a menu type page, and have links to the guidelines pages for each type would be more useful. Having the entire guidelines for everything on one page, even with a TOC would be possible, I guess. Not sure if that would be any better. 42 - talk 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Weapon Dye Charts

I'm not really sure where to put this, so I'll put it here. I'm starting a project (see Dye charts project) which deals with creating and updating the dye charts. I put together some guidelines that I thought would be helpful for the project but wasn't sure if I had to submit them here first or anything. Anyway I wrote it up in my Sandbox(write up removed) if you want to take a look. If this is the wrong place can someone please move it? Mystical Celestia 08:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks really nice what you have started there! I don't think you need to wait for others to give their comments, just begin with it and set up your guidelines on the project page :) poke | talk 08:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot Poke! Once I get everything sorted up (guidelines, maybe even a tutorial, etc.) I'll place it on the curent projects list. Thanks. Any opinion on how the dye charts should look? Or shall I just surprise you all? Mystical Celestia 09:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The two examples you have in your sandbox already look great, but if you have something even better, just surprise us :D poke | talk 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Keeping a TOC page of sorts

I am not sure even if this idea has already been suggested elsewhere by someone else or not, but I see on the notice that once the guidelines are "agreed" on, that the link is being removed from the formatting page (the one I looked at did anyway). Is there already a clear list of the guidelines? I keep trying to look something like that up in the search box, and every time, there are 20 different pages all having the words somewhere in the text of the page, but nothing comes up clearly what I am looking for. I know that this wiki is a work in progress, but having something like that on the main wiki page would be VERY helpful, and believe me, I did look there already.

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The link for the guidelines list is in your talk page. --Fighterdoken 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

"Remember, remember the 5th of November... "- Guy Fawkes 03:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations and references

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration/Cite or Cite.php

Since the style guides don't have any rules against using citations, I've decided to be bold and test it out in the Druid article (permalink). -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, would it look to hard to read putting the citations in small font (example) same as wikipedia does?. I think it looks better that way, but Gordon's example is more consistent with the site too.--Fighterdoken 05:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference at the end in small font, too? And from a brief look at that, editing is gonna be a bitch. Would throwing in some comment tags to split the reference from the rest of the article help? --RIDDLE 05:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Gordon, wouldn't it have been better to test in a sandbox first? -- riyen ♥ 05:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Poke made another example of using them on the middle of the page. It works fine that way too i think.--Fighterdoken 05:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it'd look better with a small font as well. I also think the references should go before the external links.-- Shew 05:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a proposal to tast it out in the Dhuum article at Talk:Dhuum#Cite.php. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a proposal to rewrite the magic article and incorporate citations into it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: sandbox vs. live articles: I think it's okay to start trial/error on 2-3 live articles; I think it would be a mistake to open it up generally...at least for a little while. The disadvantage of using a sandbox is that the only peeps giving opinions will be those really interested in using cites; those that are just interested in reading articles are unlikely to read the talk, follow links to the sandbox, and compare the two versions. Later on, when we have a good idea of how articles benefit (or fail to benefit) from formal citations, we can go to the sandbox to formalize usage, conventions, templates, etc.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 11:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we please keep the trials in a sandbox until we come up with a formalized method? I'm not opposed to the extension itself, but jumping to live testing right away is not okay. I've already reverted the Druid article (use history if you want) and I'd rather we talk about it before making any other drastic reversions anywhere else. NuVII 11:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

While the actual section at the top of the Druid article looks okay, the references section does not. Quoting the whole texts is very bad and takes up far too much room. Instead it should be just the references, not the content, as we usually should have that content somewhere on the wiki. For example like this. I have also changed the font size there, I think it looks less intrusive; and if people like that, I'll also make that size default.

On the Skill article, Fighterdoken, I didn't use the cite system there because it is simply not possible to make multiple ¹ without having one back link for each of those entries at the bottom. I have used a different approach there, which is inspired by the cite extension though. poke | talk 15:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Better example is better, though I am still opposed to citing in game sources or the manuscripts (seems pretty redundant).

This is the style we should go with (or a derivative thereof) if we keep the extension. EDIT: Also, it is pretty silly to have foot notes when the entire page can fit in a regular browser. A mockup of this would be better.NuVII 17:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we should only cite external sources and statements made by ANet employees that can't be found in the Guild Wars news.-- Shew 18:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I say once again how much I totally HATE this? It makes the articles unsightly ugly. -- Wyn talk 22:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you not be fine with a minimal use?-- Shew 22:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want it installed to begin with, I don't see the necessity of it on a small game wiki like this. It's one reason I rarely even use Wikipedia, it interupts the flow of reading text. On GWW and GW2W it's really just over the top. It's not like we are documenting something with unlimited sources. To have citations back to pages here is just silly, as simple links work just fine and are non intrusive. To expect editors to add yet this additional degree of complexity to things is just ridiculous in my opinion. Of course, I'm just one voice, but I really think it's way overkill. -- Wyn talk 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We could use it for three things: notes, trivia, and unreleased campaigns/expansions. Notes and trivia aren't the main focus of an article, so I don't think it'd be too big of a deal there. Once GW2 comes out, we could remove the citations from the articles that have them, and when another expansion is announced, we could use them for news about that expansion until its released. An exception to not using them in the main article (about a GW1 subject) could be if people continue to question a statement's accuracy.-- Shew 23:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, continue here please; this is about the actual usage in terms of formatting, not if the extension should stay here or not. poke | talk 23:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, poke, let's not separate the discussion. Formatting and whether we should keep it or not depends quite a bit on each other. NuVII 17:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Game updates: Update #2, Update #1

As far as I can tell, there are only four places that the Game updates subpages (individual updates) typically appear: The most recent update appears on News, the five most recent updates appear on the main Game updates page, every month has its own updates history page (such as Game_updates:November_2009), and the contents of the subpages can also be accessed directly (such as Game_updates/20091119).

Occassionally, two updates occur on one day. The way we currently format this is by listing the second update before the first, which can seem a little backward at times. For instance:

• Game updates/20080925: "Fixed a bug that prevented conditions from lasting their full durations on the Guild Lord in Guild Battles." is listed before the announcement of the removal of the reduced durations.
• Game_updates/20080910: "Fixed functionality of the skill Order of Undeath to reflect the values listed in the update notes." is listed before the note that Order of Undeath has been changed.
• Game_updates/20080424: "Fixed a bug that prevented players from gaining access to the original Guild Wars end run (following the Hell’s Precipice mission)." is listed before the announcement of Droknar's Forge (explorable area).
• Game updates/20080529: "Fixed the alignment of the "Test My Computer" option on the login screen." is listed before the announcement of the "Test My Computer" option.

I would like to suggest that we move the "Update #2" section of future update pages to the bottom of the update, below the "Guild Wars Wiki notes" section of the first update. Of the four places listed above, the two affected by this change would be the main Game updates page and the monthly pages, as both of these are listed in reverse chronological order. It seems counter-intuitive to have the month history pages in reverse chronological order, and, as the second update usually only adjusts or corrects the first update, I don't believe that this proposed alteration would have a detrimental effect on the main Game updates page. -- Dashface 01:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Given that updates are actually listed in chronological order, newest to oldest, I don't understand what you wish changed. When people go to a game update, they want to see what the most recent update was. Since all 4 of the examples you provided are bug fixes for the original update on that date, I think the current system is correct. They all indicate that the original update on that date did X and that the second update on that date fixed a bug in the original update and imo this reads correctly. -- Wyn talk 01:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's good the way it is now. poke | talk 01:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's reverse chronological order, which makes sense when listing the five most recent updates, but not elsewhere. The four examples are all of addenda, afterthoughts, as is every Update #2. We're kinda putting the cart before the horse at the moment, listing changes to things that are invented further down the paragraph. If Update #2 was on a new update page (e.g. "20091119b", which I don't think is such a great idea), it wouldn't be making it look so back-to-front when looking at the entries individually. With a big update, we always have our own Guild Wars Wiki notes to add footnotes to the changes. An Update #2 is a close cousin of that footnote. -- Dashface 08:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)