Template talk:Gw2w

improvements

I definitely prefer this to the other one. There are few improvements to be made but I am not messing with that code. The main icon needs to be more spaced from the text in my opinion, and also I think it would be nice if it was aligned in the middle vertically too. Also you could use the interwiki links instead of a URL with plainlinks code. --Lemming 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Location Location Location

Shouldn't this tag appear on the articles that use it at the top of the articles, and not as an afterthought? I have asked this on the pages I notice too, but there are too many of them to get them all. 69.183.26.189 20:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's often used as a kind of trivia note (which are at the bottom of pages) as it has a similar level of relevance. The most important info is the GW1 stuff, and then GW2 is a follow-on "if you're interested in more, see this" kind of thing. pling 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be, but I still think it is something important enough to be higher on the page. 69.183.26.189 21:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The {{gw2w}} must go at the Trivia section, just like historical notes that have no current presence ingame. Yoshida Keiji (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2012 (PDT)

Usage cleanup

I've just removed about 95 pages with unrelated gw2w pages - sharing the title alone isn't really noteworthy. Also historical gw2 skills aren't really worth noting :/ A good example of a related skill would be Blinding Flash and Blinding Flash --Chieftain Alex 15:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a template similar to gw2:Template:Guild Wars skill (e.g. Template:gw2 page) be created and placed in the Trivia sections of articles that share the same name as a GW2 article, such as some skills that share the same name but function differently. --Silver Edge 22:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

also

I removed the "also" as a default. There are quite a few articles on gw2w which don't share the exact name and thus we'd need 3= as an option which is bothersome. Even if the articles on both wikis are the same, the missing also isn't a problem. Steve1 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Usage on meta-articles

Articles like character and knock down - should these be linked? IMO no, given how there's not really a direct correlation between the games, as on articles like Gwen. horrible | contribs 13:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with you there. --Rainith (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I concur. There should only be a link if the gw2 article adds some further info to the gw1 info, which isn't the case in your first examples. Steve1 (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) What about other pages that aren't necessarily lore related, but are still things that appear in-game? Such as skills, items, not-directly-related festival events (ie, April Fools' Day)? horrible | contribs 19:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I am personally in favour of removing the template anywhere other than lore-relevant articles. A really concise way of putting it; if you would want to know more lore about this and that information exists on GW2W, slap the template on it. - Infinite - talk 23:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that shared skill names are fun trivia that are worthwhile enough to keep the template

But stuff that's just common terminology like, looking through WhatLinksHere at a glance: Skill, Title, Player versus Player, Salvage Kit, Interrupt, Area of effect, Critical hit, and likely a bunch more really have no need of it - Tanetris (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I did a recent pass on locations, and this template discussion was brought to my attention on my talk page. This is just my opinion of course but I feel if both locations across games share a part of a name, they should be linked as in my mind, it shows either a connection or a progression cross-game. Hence why during my pass all locations that only had their exact placement on the map (barring no link as far as lore/naming go) I simply dropped a trivia note giving some historical context. 24.200.63.204 18:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I would say yes to:

• Lore articles, like locations, characters, events, artifacts, etc.
• General terms like professions, weapons, and skill families.
• Wardrobe articles, or anything connecting weapon and armor skins between both wikis.

I would say no to:

• Game mechanics, they might share the name, but they work completely different, so there's just no point.
• Individual skills, unless they're really, really similar.
• Trivia, like references to names, icons, etc.

A normal link would be enough for the "no" cases, as long as it qualifies as trivia and goes beyond a mere name coincidence.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Initial cleanup done. Things I've removed:

• Skills that share names
• Skills that don't share names (lol what)
• Meta-articles
• REALLY Generic NPCs (eg, Black Bear)
• Game Mechanics
• Unrelated items
• Miscellaneous other articles that only share a name

Things I've left as-is:

• Named NPCs
• Locations
• Species & some specific Exact-Same-Name generic NPC articles
• All user pages
• ArenaNet Staff

Naturally, being human, I may have made a mistake or two. feel free to correct if you see any, or if you feel I missed anything. horrible | contribs 21:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree on the removal from weapons, those are interesting, mostly due to the galleries.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

So now you have actively, knowingly, removed accurate information from the wiki that is interesting for the readers and didn't even wait for anyone else to join to discussion, just decided it yourself. For no actual reason (probably because you just hate gw2w and the game). Interesting. Sime (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

There has already been a bit of discussion above and horrible made an excellent start here. Can we stop this witch hunt as if their only purpose on this wiki is to disrupt everything on it?

That said, I think that perhaps weapon and armour skins might still benefit from the template in light of "can make a Guild Wars 2 character look like my Guild Wars character." Though as the art direction for each game is fundamentally different enough, we might consider if most readers would even care about this. I reckon it's a very tiny demographic in 2020. It is why I omitted it when making my initial point. - Infinite - talk 09:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

"Witch hunt?" Are you being serious right now? I joined one (1) conversation (not counting the adminship issues) with horrible in it in the past few months on this wiki. And yes, horrible made a start, but that's it, start, and decided everything although some people (like lon-ami) were in opposition to some choices. What I said is not a witch hunt in any way, just stating facts. Also horrible has said several times on gw2w discord they dislike the game (and some of their statements included gw2w as well), so there is no "assuming good faith" in this needed when their standing on the matter is known. Sime (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't see this "witch hunt". That said, Fiery Dragon Sword and the festivals should definitely have the template that got removed, and I don't see why deletion of non-harmful should be a focus anyways. Even for mechanics - people who are coming from one game, enjoying it, and wanting to look up the other game's gameplay mechanics will come to the wiki first, and having a direct link between them for similar but different mechanics is very helpful, both for navigation and for seeing those differences. Players shouldn't need to make their own John Nash-level connection charting to figure out if a game is worth getting. Less important going from gw1->gw2 because base game is free, but gw1 isn't free so worth learning from, and navigating back and forth would be beneficial. 66.115.181.147 09:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems like you both missed the last line of my comment on the clean-up. This template is specifically for "articles that pertain to subjects that exist in Guild Wars" - how exactly does knowing that a skin or skill was referenced in gw2 pertain to GW? - As brought up above, a note in the trivia section is more appropriate in a lot of cases. Feel free to actually add those, if you want to improve the wiki. Not sure why you seems to think insulting me on talk pages is productive, but that's not going to get anything done by itself. horrible | contribs 13:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed that comment. However, from a reader standpoint (since I have like 20 edits in main space here), I still do not see any point of (most) these removals and think they are completely unnecessary. Are they taking space from something else? Are they clogging the page (really, it is a small link and icon) or making the page take longer to load? I agree with the IP that having direct link between the wikis is good for the readers. I found out about this by actually researching something about Wintersday in GW, noticing the link to gw2w have seemingly vanished and was curious about the case. Imho nothing wrong with having links for the festivals, and as the IP said, exactly the same weapons (seriously, the Fiery Dragon Sword is one of the most iconic weapons for me as both GW and GW2 player.) Sime (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sohothin and Magdaer have both retained their links. The template has a specific purpose, and my understanding is that it was being used improperly on the pages I removed it from. I have no opposition to interwiki links or mentions in trivia sections regarding shared designs or names, but that's not the purpose of this template. horrible | contribs 14:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, fair enough if trivia mentions are ok. It is not (and wasn't in the first place) my intention to go and try bashing my head against the consensus (and the purpose of the template as well, which I misunderstood I guess). Sime (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

usage on "relevant" lore and location articles

Hey, I'd like to loop back on this. I've had the displeasure of looking at gw2:Maguuma Jungle and gw2:Tarnished Coast recently, and it was starkly apparent to me that there is no information on either page that bears any relevance to the gw1 articles. While I do agree that there are plenty of articles that do have relevance, I do not think a simple connection is enough to merit the link. Why are we linking to articles that do not provide any additional information, let alone information of any relevance? horrible | contribs 17:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that type of interwiki linking adds nothing. Of course me feeling this way should come to no surprise to anyone here. - Infinite - talk 17:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. They are of the same exact topic. That's adding everything. At this point Horrible, you might as well just come clean and say you want to remove all references to GW2. 173.188.206.52 21:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused; both GW2W articles add zero lore and zero information that doesn't already exist on GWW as far as I can tell, how are these links adding anything? Take per example Destiny's Gorge, which also has the GW2W template. On the GW2 wiki page it becomes immediately apparent how that area progresses throughout time (and lore). That is (in my opinion) a useful interwiki link. Horrible's examples do not add anything of the likes. I would imagine a trivia note on the two examples discussed mentioning that these locations still exist (but have no additional lore development in GW2) would suffice, whereas my example largely benefits from the interwiki link (and should keep the template as a result). I also propose we change the text on the template to "The Guild Wars 2 Wiki has additional information/lore on <subject>." to make the purpose of the template more clear. - Infinite - talk 23:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"I've had the displeasure of looking at gw2:Maguuma Jungle and gw2:Tarnished Coast recently," oh come on, can you be any more obvious about your intent?

"I'm confused; both GW2W articles add zero lore and zero information that doesn't already exist on GWW as far as I can tell," I forgot that in GW we can visit the Grove and Caledon Forest for example, my bad. Trivia acknowledging something exists in GW2 have been also added previously, but surprise, Horrible removed them as well. You both should just come clear and say that you want the references to gw2w gone, with this you are harming not only the wiki but normal users as well. 85.71.41.28 23:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

My intent is exactly what I said. I have no issues where there's actual information on both articles - particularly information that may be of relevance to gw1. There's a lot of those. The ones I linked above do not fulfill that simple requirement. Please see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Gw2w. And if I wanted to just remove all of the links to gw2w, I'd have done so. And as I've said before, trivia links are fine, but that's not the purpose of this template. horrible | contribs 00:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Alkar's Alchemical Acid

I added this template to the Alkar's Alchemical Acid article, and it was reverted. Even after reading the discussion above, I'm not quite clear on where the line is drawn or why a connection between two obviously-related articles was severed. I feel that the wiki would benefit from having too many of these connections over having too few. -- Dashface 14:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not the purpose of this template though, as discussed above. The gw2 article bears no relevance to - and offers no insight on - the gw1 skill. If you think they should be linked, a line in the trivia section stating that the skill is referenced in gw2 is the best way to do so. horrible | contribs 15:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This definition is far too narrow, and I don't feel that it's implied that pages that use this template should be contingent on lore insights. The template states "The Guild Wars 2 Wiki has an article on PAGENAME." Why? Because it's interesting to see how GW2 intentionally paid tribute to GW1, even in small ways. You started this clean-up with good examples: character and knock down. There's no specific connection between those two topics in GW1 and GW2. But your subsequent dot point list went well beyond that. In the discussion above, there was no support for you removing this template from weapons like Fiery Dragon Sword. What would the trivia note look like here? "The Guild Wars 2 Wiki has an article on Fiery Dragon Swords"? We have a template for that. -- Dashface 20:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Your example of FDS doesn't need a link because the GW2W article on FDS has no relevance on GW1's FDS weapon. None of the information on the GW2W article is of any use to anyone who doesn't play GW2. In order for it to be linked to this wiki through that template, it needs to offer some sort of information or insight relevant to the content of the article in the context of GW1.

"What would the trivia note look like here?" I imagine it would be something along the lines of:

• [[gw2:{{PAGENAME}}|This skin]] was referenced in ''[[Guild Wars 2]]''.
• A version of [[gw2:{{PAGENAME}}|This skin]] is obtainable in ''[[Guild Wars 2]]'' through the ''[[Hall of Monuments]]''.
• [[gw2:{{PAGENAME}}|This skin]] is available for purchase in ''[[Guild Wars 2]]'' via the Black Lion Trading Post.
• [[gw2:{{PAGENAME}}|This skin]] was added to ''[[Guild Wars 2]]'' with the Heart of Thorns expansion.
• [[gw2:{{PAGENAME}}|This skin]] is used by [[gw2:Livia|]]in ''[[Guild Wars 2]]''.

etc. horrible | contribs 14:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)