Help talk:Contents

those icons...

scary... just scary... --Jamie 17:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

D= I like those icons T_T MisterPepe talk 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I hate them. Something less freaky and more GWish plz — Skuld 08:53, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've been messing around with some of the Gwen-chan and Dr. Boar images (guildwars.jp), and I kind of like some of them, but I'm not sure if I can come up with enough different ones to fill out a page like this. I still like the Nuvola icon set that I've been using, but if there's enough people that want something more GWish, I'll see how far I can get with making a chibi GW icon set =) There is one tiny flaw in the image (I've got a fixed version, I just didn't want to reupload), but it's got transparency and all that good stuff.

Anyway, unless there's enough people that want something more along these lines (there are also smaller ones, and a few different versions - I even have one of the frog that I'm messing around with), I'll probably leave it alone, as it's a fair bit of work to make these and figure out how to reformat all of the pages to fit them =P Anyway, let me know what you think - if enough people want them, I'll finish making the set. MisterPepe talk 18:21, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the idea of using Gwen-chan and Dr. Boar images is awesome and hilarious, personally. ~ Kailianna Firesoul 18:30, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's a picture of the frog, also from that same section of the website. MisterPepe talk 18:51, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we're getting there. These are a lot better than non-descript, no-Guild Wars icons, good work :) just do it tastefully. --Jamie 04:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you draw those yourself MisterPepe? They are really cool! LordBiro 04:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT) just saw the link to guildwars.jp ¬_¬ ... nm! LordBiro 04:33, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd also prefer icons that are at least somewhat related to GW. Even if they aren't all chibi. -- ab.er.rant 02:23, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

(RI) I've been fiddling with it - take a look: User:MisterPepe/Sandbox (bottom of the page). Honestly, that's probably the best I can do - I phail@HTML and wikicode =P Formatting suggestions are welcome, though - I probably know enough to fix that ;) I'm usually pretty good at fixing something once I know what it should look like, I'm just really, really bad at formatting in general =P MisterPepe talk 10:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Nice design, Pepe :) I changed the code to clean it up and removed the round borders because we don't use them anywhere else (and it's not valid css btw.) poke | talk 13:28, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Help! Image overload!
No, but seriously, I think there is too many images compared to the amount of text on this page :) Maybe just use the big Gwens here? - anja (contribs) 13:43, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I tried it with bullets and a few other options - this one looked the best by far. MisterPepe talk 13:44, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Help pages needed.

Going to list them here as they pop up. If anyone wants to do them before I get around to it, you're more than welcome to. :)

Help:Reverting → how to revert, how to undo, differences between the two, and of course something in big bold blinking letters telling people to not start revert wars. w:Help:Reverting and meta:Help:Reverting should be useful.

--Dirigible 17:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll see if I can whip something up. MisterPepe talk 20:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

MMk. Take a look. MisterPepe talk 23:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Woo, looks great! Thanks. :) Do we link it from the Help:Contents page? --Dirigible 03:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

A while ago we discussed the ideal location for the redirects article. Since we encourage pretty much every kind of redirect on this wiki it was felt that it shouldn't go into policy, and while help was the obvious choice the help namespace at the time was empty. Since the help namespace seems to actually be taking off, I've moved the article to Help:Redirect :) LordBiro 04:20, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I only just noticed this and I'm actually in disagreement. To me, a help on redirect is just the first section of Help:Redirect and above. A how-to for redirects is what fits into help. What tags it should be used and in what situation they apply should be left in the formatting guidelines, so yes, I'm suggesting splitting it. The top part easily fits into any help article on editing. The formatting article should focus on explaining what tags to use and what situation they apply.

This is, of course, assuming we even need those Wikipedia-style redirect categories. What are the pros of categorising redirects? If we do categorise them, obviously I think they need to be plural and every type of redirect would need their own template and category as well, for consistency. -- ab.er.rant 02:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Maybe we just can add the "How To" to Help:Editing. I want to restyle Help:Editing to fit the other help pages, so I could just add the redirect-"how to" there.

We also need a link to Help:Reverting. There is no help page that links to it. Should I put a link in the navbar? poke | talk 04:11, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Possibly as a second row on the navbar? I also changed #REDIRECT to #redirect. I figure since we're using #if and #switch (lowercase) everywhere, don't see any reason why redirect has to be in all uppercase. -- ab.er.rant 05:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent) I don't think a link on the navbar is neccessary as it is not that big subject. I would prefer a new section here with helpful links. poke | talk 05:53, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Help:Redirect needs some attention too. LordBiro 05:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

No comment on my comment regarding it above? -- ab.er.rant 06:07, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, sorry Aberrant ;) Well... I don't really care. I don't think there's enough information to justify a formatting article myself. I don't particularly support categorisation of redirects, I don't particularly oppose it either :)

All I think is that there needs to be a help article for redirects, because we should be encouraging users to make redirects whenever possible. LordBiro 08:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Hm, ok. Then I will restyle the page. And then I make a nice list on this page for Help information like this :) poke | talk 08:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm currently working on a new version of Help:Contents that uses the icons mentioned a little higher on the page =) While I love this one as-is, the new version is a little cooler ;) Anyway, look forward to it in the next couple of days. Much joy. MisterPepe talk 10:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

(edit conflict - ah xD) Ok, I restyled the page. But I need to revise the content. I also added links to Help:Contents. poke | talk 10:18, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, Biro, the way you phrased it (and I would hope you didn't mean it this way) implies that you want users to make redirects simply for the sake of making redirects. I think a better way to phrase it would be "we should be encouraging users to make redirects whenever necessary". 42 - talk 04:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are a very cheap alternative to search; so if you need to search for something, that takes up more resources than a good redirect. So if we have common misspellings or other common words, we should always create redirects. poke | talk 06:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"if help is going to be included in the template then the template should be here"

Disagree! :) It looks confusing with two bars like that. I just slightly changed both the navbars with a → at the end, so it's implied that you are moving from one section ("Community") to the next ("Help"), which is in my opinion a good excuse for Help Center to not have both navbars, but only the help one. What do you think? --Dirigible 06:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I noticed the arrow, and I was going to ask what it was meant to imply! I don't think it implies that you are leaving this section, but anyway, I'll explain my reasoning :)

I was checking that the size of the GWW header was correct since I'd altered it, and so I started clicking through each page in the header. When I clicked on "Help" the template disappeared. This was a bit confusing. Of course, I can click the back button, but when you have a navigation template like this you expect it to be included on every page it links to.

I think that we should either keep the two navigation templates on Help:Contents or we should remove the link to help from the GWW header. LordBiro 06:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

To be honest I'm actually favouring removing help from the template all together; the purpose of GWW navbar is to navigate through the various sections of the GWW namespace. Help is not part of this namespace so it shouldn't be there. We wouldn't put "Policy" in the Help navbar, would we? LordBiro 06:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I had missed your edit to the help navbar... and apparently we would. lol.

Needless to say I disagree with that as well :P LordBiro 06:27, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Not sure, I kinda like the idea of connecting the two sections together, like one of those old style fansite webrings. :) --Dirigible 06:42, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I like the idea of linking with the template with those arrows. Double navigation templates on help page did not look good. - MSorglos 07:09, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

To be honest, I dislike the idea of linking these two templates. I feel it is confusing to the average user, and could be better remedied by providing a help link on the sidebar. I feel that the two feel with fundamentally different topics: that one deals with average users looking for help on how to accomplish things, and the other deals with a bunch of different topics that either need help (RFC, projects, etc...) or should be compulsory reading (Formatting/Policy - for both experienced and new editors). To summarise, for me: GWW navbar header = what can I help with? and Help navbar header = How the hell do I do that? :) Just my 2c... --Indecision 07:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I agree with Indecision. Help probably should be in the navigation sidebar (I had delayed adding this because I wanted to see how much attention it got first) and the help and GWW headers should be mutually exclusive. LordBiro 07:46, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

That "Help in nav sitebar" is even better than linking the templates. Linking I thought would be good for "here are some more pages which could help/where to help". With help besides community portal in navigation these two do not need inter-linking any more. - MSorglos 09:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Le sigh. Once again outnumbered. But you haven't heard the last of me, I will be back! :P Separating the navbars now. --Dirigible 18:39, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused about something... why are we making it difficult to get to the Help:Contents page? My first edit that probably triggered this was meant for people to reach here. If you're going to set up a "Help" page at least put a link that easily seen and easily reached. Right now, casual readers won't even know of the existence of this page... so if I clicked on the community portal, since it says "community", I don't expect to only find "things to do". I also expect to find things that has to do with a community, like getting help from the community... -- ab.er.rant 21:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Biro's going to place the help center in the sidebar, methinks. --Dirigible 01:42, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Suggestions for changes to the Help Center

I would like to suggest the Help Center be redesigned/reorganized. While the anime graphics are technically GW related, most users have no idea where they came from, I would like to propose removing at least some of them as they give the page a very cluttered feel. I would like to see the links more prominently placed, so people don't have to go through all the text to find the link to the type of help they are looking for. Something more like this.-- Wynthyst 21:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Full support from my side :) poke | talk 21:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Same for me although it just needs the Help navbar header added :) --Kakarot 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks great :) - anja 21:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. -- Inspired to ____ 22:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it as well, Support from me :o) --Shadowphoenix 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and copy it over. People don't usually object to de-cluttering :) -- ab.er.rant 07:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards to Wyn's comment (although I did it before reading this page), I added a link to the metawiki's table page. I thought it was appropriate to a table of contents of sorts of help pages. 42 - talk 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That page is linked on the Editing help page. -- Wyn talk 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but putting the link on the main help page makes it easier for people to find that information. There seems to be almost a plan to make it harder for people to be able to find the information they need by burying it in links on other pages that are linked from other pages. I am not disputing that the link is there, that is how I found it to put it on the main help page like that. But for someone to find a lot of these links, they need to go digging through page after page of (in some instances) useless information for what they are looking for. (If they don't need it at right that moment, at that moment it is useless.) The harder it is for people to find information (good example, policies and editing help specific to making tables), the less likely they are going to make use of that information, and the more likely they are to do things improperly. 42 - talk 03:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I put the link to the table back into the main help page. It makes no sense to have a "help" page that isn't very hellpful. It is useful tool (the table editing page) to have access to on the main page. It took me a long time looking for it to find a link to how to make/edit a table. Much time has been wasted looking for that link. Had that link been on the main help page, where it would be useful, much time would have been saved. It is also in the same vein as the other links to other helpful information. 42 - talk 03:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Having the information elsewhere, if it cannot be easily found is as useful as not even having the information. It was my impression that the purpose of this wiki was to be a useful resource for the people who make use of it. "I would like to see the links more prominently placed, so people don't have to go through all the text to find the link to the type of help they are looking for." 42 - talk 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does the useful link to editing tables keep being removed (I suspect by Wyn), when it has been proven to be a useful link, and (if it is removed by her) a link that Wyn herself indirectly suggested being put on the page? 42 - talk 03:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your link is in the editing help section of which I posted. It does not need to be at two locations. Please remove, you are in violation of 1RR and I hope an Admin will take care of that issue. -- riyen ♥ 03:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not in violation, as there was only one revert done (in effect). If that is the case, then whoever removed it again is also in violation as they reverted it more than one time back as well. And as I also said, if the information is hard to find, then no matter how many places it is, it is useless. The purpose (am I right or wrong on this) of this wiki is to be useful to the people who make use of it? 42 - talk 03:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it once, since it's an off wiki link, that is already linked on the Editing help page. If you want to see who is removing it, look at the page history before you start accusing. If you want to create a GWW help page on tables, go for it, and that can happily be linked here, otherwise it should stay where it was originally (on the editing page). Also, you are now in violation of our 1 revert policy Until this gets resolved in discussion I would suggest you stop replacing it if it gets removed, or you will face a suspension of your editing privileges. -- Wyn talk 03:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-read my post, I didn't accuse, I said I suspected. Despite what you are implying, there is a difference. And I did look at the history. Why is it that an addition that someone else removes more than once isn't a violation of that same exact policy? And also, why was the removal of a useful link not discussed before being done? 42 - talk 04:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it (my one revert), you replaced it (your one revert), Ari removed it(Ari's one revert), you replaced it(your 2nd revert in violation of the policy), someone else could come and remove it(their one revert). This is so things that people dont' agree on get discussed to find consensus, rather than a senseless revert war. At this point it is in discussion, so let's decide whether it should be there, and see what other people think. -- Wyn talk 04:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts (if not already clear) have already been posted. I don't know any better way to explain my reasoning on why I think it belongs on the main GWW help page. (And I am working on a table help page for the GWW as well. Do not want to violate any licensing by just copying the information word for word, unless I find out that is allowed if credit for the source is given.) 42 - talk 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a resource for this?

I am wondering, is there a resource page with all of the icons, and their respective tags listed somewhere? For specific example, on the "discussion" template, there is a way to put a green check mark or a red "do not enter" type of circle. I know some pages, such as the "profession" page, has a list of all of the profession icons, but is there a central location where all of the small icons in use in the wiki (specific to the GWW portion) are listed and exampled? 42 - talk 01:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you want the templates, or the images? Category:Special images Category:Tango icons Category:Profession icons Category:Image templates. -- Wyn talk 02:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for a table of sorts that had the icons in a visual representation, and the tags or text needed to be used in the wiki editing to make that icon appear in the page at that point. Will check out those references, thanks Wyn. 42 - talk 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

We dont' have a "table of contents" for our templates. If you want to know what is available, the easiest thing to do is post on the Help:Ask a wiki question page. You will most likely get an answer in under a minute. -- Wyn talk 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't looking for a TOC of the templates, I was looking for, I guess for lack of a better term, a cribsheet of icons available for use on the wiki pages. 42 - talk 04:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing; and we constantly get new ones, for completely different usages, so maintaining a list is impossible. poke | talk 08:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess if I want one, I will have to make one for myself then. What I was looking for is a list of the basics that are used constantly, it doesn't have to always include every single one updated to the second. I will have to work on that for myself I guess. Thanks for the pointers and responses on this all. 42 - talk 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I added a table help page to the main list of help. It is a link to a page on the GWW space, and is legal according to the terms of use provided on the wiki, and referenced on the table help page. 42 - talk 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Korean, Japanese and Chinese letters.

← moved to User talk:J.P.#Korean, Japanese and Chinese letters.

Variables page

Just wondering why a help section for variables (parser functions, mostly, as well as #var and #vardefine) hasn't been made. this would let new editors learn the ropes for advanced editing functions without having to dig through metawiki and the like (if they even go there). Simply placing the general parsers along with the ones unique(?) to this particular wiki. I would have definitely liked to have such a help page when I really got going on here, but perhaps at least I can help others through suggesting this page's creation.--Neithan Diniem 20:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)