User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive05

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Drama.gif
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Purple bulb.jpg
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Periodic Blocks.jpg
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Microphone (green).png
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Tool box (red).png
Encyclopedia GaileGrayica
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Leather bound book.png
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Guide dog.png
User Tennessee Ernie Ford Farm icon.png
Price checks
Rare Material Trader icon.png
User Tennessee Ernie Ford projects.jpg

Substantial or substantially[edit]

(Original header was, "Extra Damage".

moved to Talk:Earth Magic#Substantial or substantially
PS to Raine: ty for fixing the moved-to link. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Great Tools![edit]

...And your builds/projects/etc are aguably better then tbeir pubic-counterparts; do you plan on implimenting them? --Falconeye 00:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to say so.
In most cases, I've added relevant info/data already. A lot of times, however, people seem to prefer the original style. I'd just as soon work on overhauling an article that really needs it instead of trying to convince someone to see that an existing article isn't up-to-snuff yet. (In fact, that's how some of those guides got started: they were drafts of unapproved proposals for updating existing articles.) But that's fine: the advice is still available to anyone who wants to look. When people are ready for a change, they will still be here.
One important case-in-point is the Augury Rock/Dopple article: I really think we should have a much shorter article, but most people seem to want to keep adding more and more. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

oy (WTB: Drop rate tables and templates for strongboxes)[edit]

How does one go about making the tables for drop rate pages? Someone should probably get on that for the strongboxes at some point. Might get a little tricky though, since the quantity of zcoins, keys, etc appears to vary (i.e. you can get 2-5 silver zcoins, it's not a fixed # of coins that drops)--TahiriVeila 15:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I've been waiting to see a confirmed list. I am 100% sure that there is only one mini and two EL tonics per box, but our current lists suggest otherwise. That makes me wonder if the rest of the lists are correct. That said, if you can provide me with your understanding of the true possibles for each (or any box), I would be glad to help you create the tables and templates.
The Royal Gift/Drop rate page handles the variable amounts by listing the item once. (I guess we assume, without evidence that each number is equally likely, although I suspect, also without evidence, that there's some sort of bell curve, e.g. if the range is 1-10, five or six is more common than one or ten.)
BTW: The quality of the data so far is... suspect. It would appear that a few people are posting their data on the wrong box's page. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
As far as tonics go, I'm under the impression that each strongbox has a unique mini + 2 unique tonics and that all of the minis/tonics have simply not been determined yet.
Does the royal gift page account for variable amounts of consumables? I was under the impression that the number of consumables which opened from a gift was constant for each type and that wiki simply listed them as a single item on the drop rate page to simplify things. Also I'm not entirely sure that the amount of consumables dropped is truly variable. Take flasks of firewater for example. On the strategists box page, the number of items dropped is listed as 3-10, but data on the talk page seems to suggest that either 3 items drop or 10 items drop. So it may be that there's simply a large quantity drop and a small quantity drop and not truly a range.
Lastly i agree that the quality of data is sketchy at best. I sent Regina an IM asking if she could provide us with a list of the possible drops for each strongbox. Hopefully she'll get back to me. Perhaps we could ask John/Martin as well? I know neither of them are posting here on wiki lately, but they've both been helpful in the past.--TahiriVeila 16:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It can't hurt to ask Stumme (Martin hasn't posted in eons). I don't think it's going to affect our overall data collection efforts if we wait a week. In fact, it might improve things if we don't put up the tables until we have four, fully-confirmed lists and we post links on each of the drop rate pages, so that people are less likely to post Champion data on the Gladiator table.
For RGs: you can find 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 Lokum; the RG drop rate table has only one column (not five). Similarly, The Thack's junk bags can contain 1-15 of an item.
For the strongboxes, we are seeing too little data (relative to the likely rates), that I am not drawing any conclusions from what has been posted so far. Personally, I doubt that we're going to see e.g. three or ten flasks drop, but that's speculation on my part; your guess (that it's the min or max) has at least some data to support it. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Works for me--TahiriVeila 16:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions Page edit[edit]

Thanks! Thanks for implementing the temporary fix and then undoing it when the problem was resolved. --MushaUser Musha Sigc.png 18:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. (Thank User:JonTheMon for the actual fix. ANet still hasn't resolved the underlying issue.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)



S'all I'm sayin. --BriarUser Briar Sig 3.jpgThe Spider 01:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I actually didn't notice that I (or the IP) had previously tried to restore what we each thought was the more appropriate phrasing. (Had I realized that, I would have posted a note on the item's talk page, which is what I have always done in the past.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


You broke it! -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 04:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to change it to Emergency. Tef beat me to it. ^.^ Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 07:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Joe wants to ... attempt to fix ...turtle mechanics[edit]

re: [1]

I forget, is there some sort of project/feedback page where we record the (known to be) planned future updates?--TahiriVeila 19:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Upcoming changes and features? — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW: this sounds a bit thin to add. Joe wants to do this, but it doesn't sound as if it's on the schedule. Knowing Joe, if there's any wiggle room, he'll find a way to make it happen. Even so, he doesn't seem confident that they will be able to address this soon.
On other other hand, it's good for people to know what the devs are thinking about... so maybe a note in Notes that suggests it's something that the devs would like to do, but also they haven't scheduled time to work on it, let alone release it. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Hi thar. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Traveler (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Do eeeet. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 23:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the honor of the nomination (and secondment); I'm reviewing the situation. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Please consider this stuff as well. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 00:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
After I stop blushing, I shall (consider stuff). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
You're so cute. User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 00:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, sheet, now I have to start over. (I don't think, however, that cute is one of the solid criteria for choosing b'crats...but I've been wrong before.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to third the nomination for you. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 00:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope your circumstances/reasons change in the future. I think you'd make a fine sysop/bcrat. Thanks for all the hard work as a contributor in the mean time. Sardaukar User Sardaukar sig.png 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the support. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Recent update to Storybook article[edit]

re: this edit to Storybook

I hope you realize that you just made the Main Page/featured article text longer than the actual article's. I'd have to say that purely because of length of text, you just removed the feature quality of the article because you took 3 paragraphs and turned it into one and a unneededly short list... Sometimes, concise-ing (imo, what guildwiki, not the official wiki, should do - except in bullet lists) isn't a good thing. Konig/talk 17:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I half-agree with Konig here. In particular, I favor the short paragraphs of the original introduction over the extra heading with a bulleted list. That said, the original article was 60% bulleted list anyway so it's hard to judge in this case. —Tanaric 17:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

No, I didn't realize; I forgot that Storybook was the current feature. I wouldn't have made the change had I noticed. (That said, I stand by the current version as easier-to-read. Yes, sometimes shorter is worse; it depends on the context.)
I think that the primary goal is to have the most useful and most readable articles; good writing should be welcome on any knowledge-base wiki. Whether my changes achieved that is, of course, debatable. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Um, I liked the other way better. :-S It's also possibly why people voted for it to be viewed as it was, not as it is... Just a thought. No offense. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 18:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the GWW should be focused on explicit-y, rather than concise-ity. That is, be as detailed as possible, giving as much information to the readers. Likewise, I'd say that GuildWiki should be concise - providing only the most important info in the quickest, purest, simplest way possible. Exception to the rule would be where bullet lists are expected on GWW (notes and trivia sections) in which I concur with the changes you tend to make to those sections - like grouping, no flavor-text to the notes. That's just my opinion though, and I'd say that your edit half achieved, and half failed on that with the Storybook edit. I don't mind the outcome of your changes, so long as you denominate it from the featured article list (this is actually the very reason why I made such a section - though I hoped it wouldn't happen while the article was being featured >.>). Konig/talk 22:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Sandford[edit]

Totally random talk page note here, but I was looking through rc and saw the bug note you removed from Nick's page and went and tested it (trading some gifts from my alt account to my main), and I was able to get my gifts on my main without issue. Thought I'd save you a bit of trouble, though not sure what to do about the bug note; it sounds like an isolated incident. Elysea User Elysea ElyseaSignatureImage.jpg 04:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that will save me some trouble; thanks!
Bug reports suggesting isolated incidents pop up all the time and they almost always turn out to be unrelated to the game mechanic that is thought to be borked. Sometimes it's user error, sometimes it's an unrelated bug, sometimes it's a combination. My personal feeling is we shouldn't add things to the main article unless we can replicate them (by following the same steps) or there are loads of people reporting the same thing. Until then, people can report their experiences on the talk page and/or the new tech forum, but we should hold off, erm, alarming people unless there's something to be alarmed about. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I really need to remember when I post on people's talk pages. XD I'm glad I could help, and I agree with you. One isolated issue shouldn't cause a frenzied panic if it can't be replicated (can you imagine if someone posted that you couldn't get ectos in UW anymore? Mass hysteria!), that's why I thought I'd check with you. XD Elysea User Elysea ElyseaSignatureImage.jpg 18:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, from time to time, people do post that ectos aren't dropping (or: are dropping more frequently) in UW.
Sometimes, isolated incidents are Harbingers of bugs-to-come. Alas, all too often, they are Songbirds of User Error.
Thanks once again for posting. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My question is[edit]

Why aren't you sysop? →[ »Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png (talk ]← 04:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably because no one has talked me into it.
I think I'm able to contribute more substantially to the wiki by editing articles, discussing how we can best serve the players, and (I hope) being cordial in working with those whose ideas differ from mine. We have some good/great sysops already and I notice that most of their contributions are technical clean-up and dispute resolution rather than substantive writing; it appears to me that a good sysop lacks enough time to do some of the things that I enjoy doing.
Felix actually got me to consider standing for bureaucrat, but I declined after seeing that there are at least 2-3 candidates I would support. Thanks for the (implied) compliment. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I was going to say that in my opinion, he's better as a great user contributor than a sysop. Easier, in my opinion, to do a lot of the good things that this guy does. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 05:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
"I notice that most of their contributions are technical clean-up and dispute resolution rather than substantive writing..." Yep, I noticed that happened almost right away. The focus does change, for better and for worse. Give a person a hammer and they start seeing everything as a nail. The RC at 500 edit-viewing takes a good chunk of my free time. I don't begrudge it, but it ultimately is a shift in contributions.
Still a bureaucrat is not a sysop in terms of their focus, and personally I feel it is a step that you could have taken. G R E E N E R 05:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Greener is the case in point. Greener's sysophood has been very good for the wiki (imo) and (from all accounts) he seems to be enjoying it, too. I'm sure I'd still feel useful; it's just that I think I prefer to be useful as a writer/content-editor. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Community portal[edit]

moved to Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Community_portal#Time stamps vs manual time notes

a little help please[edit]

Hey, I was wondering could you help me with (or inform someone who can) the Glad. strongbox table? I have fixed it up somewhat, copying stuff from the table for Nick. However if you look at my line in the user section you'll see there are problems, e.g. the total at the left for me is a dash when it should be "1". You may also want to see the /line subpage for the template data. PalkiaX50 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alex has done a quick pass. I'll give it another look later on (when I have more time and the temp has gone down). However, I'm still concerned that we don't know what exactly is in each of the four boxes. I've suggested that we might consider using one table to collect drop data on all four boxes; this means we don't have to validate the contents exactly and we can start collecting sooner. (However, I can think of several reasons why we shouldn't). Could you take a look and offer your opinion? thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be best to have separate tables for the boxes but I do share your concerns about things not all being confirmed yet and in fact, that is why (as I said in my edit summary of the table) that I was temporarily removing the tonics from the table. There doesn't really seem to be much dispute about the other possible things to get really so I left everything else. In addition I added a "hidden" notice to it to tell people not to work out percentages until everything's confirmed. PalkiaX50
The thing is: putting an incomplete table up influences what people do when they post their data; that draws into question the overall results. That's why I've resisted trying to start any data collection until we have a better sense of what drops from which box. I understand people wanting to post results now (it's new and shiny stuff), but ANet sorta screwed us (on data) by creating four boxes with very similar names, similar sources, and seemingly identical drops.
I've done a lot of work on the data collection side of things and my experience is, that even when all the conditions are perfect, people record bad data with good intentions. When conditions are imperfect, it gets worse quickly.
So, my ranting aside, I will take a look at how things are setup and do my best to help your efforts. I think we should still wait...but, if we aren't, we should do the best job possible. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I get what you mean. Perhaps if you think it will be a major problem, add cautionary notes to the pages telling people to make sure they are adding to the right table. PalkiaX50 00:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I wish it were that simple; when it comes to data collection, cautionary notes are ignored more quickly than No Smoking signs at the annual prime rib dinner for the Kentucky Tobacco Farmers Association. I think it's going to be a problem; with luck (and some clever work) we can (I hope) minimize its impact so that it won't matter in the long run. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Map Rotations[edit]

So the historical AT map rotations are still missing a load of months from 2009 + 2008 + 2007. I'm planning on going in and adding them all based off the records from GW Memorial, but I wante dto know what you think of the setup on that page first. Simply listing all the months using bullets doesn't seem like a great way to store the data. I'm not great with creating tables or anything on wiki, but it seems like there should be a clever way to store those historical rotations. Or at least something that's less clumsy than the current setup.--Four Year Strong 18:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, would it be possible to add a link to the current map rotation on the main page under the same header where the monthly flux is listed? It seems appropriate as it seems comparable to weekend events/daily quests in that it cycles on a regular timeline.--Four Year Strong 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for the belated response: I just noticed this note today.
First, I think the historical data should be included on a subpage; it's mostly not relevant to people playing now (except, perhaps, the most recent few months).
Second: for display, what about one row per rotation (i.e. per month) and then listing the order on each row. You have several choices for the rows:
  • One column for each (great if the number of rounds is always the same/close to same), but slightly more trouble to create.
  • A single column, using one of these formats:
    • Apple → Banana → Coconut → Durian → Elderberry
    • (1) Apple → (2) Banana → (3) Coconut
    • Apple (1) → Banana (2) → Coconut (3)
See below. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Seems like a good way to do it. I've had two thoughts on how to display the data but I'm not sure which would be best. The first way would be to list every month from the past 4 years in a single table but have the table on display the last 5 or so months. The second way would simply be to have separate, 12-entry tables for each year separated by headers. I'm inclined towards the latter method but I'd like to hear your opinion.--Four Year Strong 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
One table per year sound sensible (again, using a subpage, to avoid cluttering the main article). I'm not sure if the main article needs to include anything except the current month (and perhaps the last); that would be easy to handle manually.
If you wanted to set up something more automatic, you would create two subpages: one would be just the data (which month/year, which rotation) and then use some sneaky wikicode to use that to create the one table/year (for the history page) and the last 5 rotations (for the main article). I think that's probably more effort than is needed. However, if you're keen to go this route, I'm confident that we can make it happen. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
As of now, only the current rotation is displayed on the Automated Tournament page while the historical rotations are on the /Maps subpage. For now I'd like to keep it that way. I agree that automating a table is much more work than is necessary, it should be simple to just created tables for the current year and the previous seasons. Thanks for the input.--Four Year Strong 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Cool. (I somehow don't feel that I have been of much help to you, so I hope you have enough ideas/coding examples to move forward.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


Month Rotation
May 2009 Apple → Banana → Coconut → Durian → Elderberry
April 2009 (1) Apple → (2) Banana → (3) Coconut
Mar 2009 Apple (1) → Banana (2) → Coconut (3)

Lightbringer bug note[edit]

Since no one reacted to my post here, you started the section months ago and we already came in contact during several other game mechanic and calculation questions, I thought I could try to refer it to you personally :) –User ARTy sig.png 04:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I missed your note on the talk page. I'm reviewed the note you left for the QA team and I've posted a reply at LB talk. (By the way, you did a pretty good job of explaining, I think.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Any last comments?[edit]

moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild pages#Any last comments?

Orr and light[edit]

moved to Talk:Orr#Orr and lightTennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Official forum suggestions[edit]

I had an idea to incorporate the feedback suggestions into the official Guild Wars forum. As you and a a small group of others love to suggest things, and the feedback space pretty much dead, it would be a better place to get our ideas visible and a better fit than the wiki. I posted a a topic here, and if I could get your support, thanks! I think the idea will go nowhere but if enough agree maybe their stance will change or they can humor us! What do we have to lose!? Previously Unsigned 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You make a couple of assumptions in suggesting that the Feedback space be moved:
  1. Assumption: The Feedback space is dead.
       →Actually, people are adding suggestions there all the time. And many of those ideas are incorporated into the game.
  2. Assumption: ANet doesn't read the suggestions
       → According to Gaile, John Stumme, and Stephane Lo Presti, ANet staff do read them. Frequently. (Apparently, they read even my suggestions.)
  3. Assumption: ANet wants to respond to suggestions.
       →According to the same staff, ANet does not want to comment. Ever. They want to be able to kick around ideas internally and then offer features, items, skills, whatever as they see fit. (The word, Feedback is perhaps misleading: what they want are one-way suggestions, not a back and forth dialogue.)
As it happens, I believe that ANet has made the right choices here. If they comment on any ideas, ever, they are asking for trouble. People are going to start judging ideas based on ANet's response or lack thereof. People will start predicting game features based on such responses. Also: responding is going to set people's expectations inappropriately (we can already see what happens when John Stumme makes a casual comment about features or releases — people go crazy when that exact idea is not released on this exact date).
Also, as it happens, I'm happy with the current system. I have no plans at the moment to logon to the forums (because it forces me to use my gaming credentials rather than the distinct identity I've created for being an RPG commentator).
That said, I think it's great that you are going about trying to drum up support for the idea. Either ANet will change their mind (bad for me, good for a lot of other folk, though)...or they will do a better job of communicating why they have separated suggestions from all other types of Feedback (e.g. bug reports, account questions, etc) that are allowed on the forums. Also: I hope that your campaign will get ANet to clarify what is okay to post on the forums and what they want restricted to the wiki. Even though I support ANet's decision here, I think they haven't explained themselves well...and that's bad for players/fans and ANet alike.
Good luck. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I have made assumptions but I believe they are true. I incorporated some into the link. Thanks for reading at least and representing both sides.
About commenting/not commenting: I believe this is the #1 sin. I just like official confirmation. People can complain, bitch moan, guess, etc... that is THEIR problem. I personally feel that not wanting provide feedback to the users suggesting is the root cause. It is the difference between "Am I talking to a brick wall?" and "Hey, they actually DID read my suggestion!" What is more likely to encourage users to post feedback? I have got a "we have read it" response out of 2 developers on the official forum and historically, going back, this kind of response is EXACTLY what we'd see here on the wiki with "acknowledged/not a bug" in bug reports before they stopped doing it. I know they read them but giving 0 indication unless you dig into old talks is not a good thing, hence it is "dead" to me. I also believe they incorporated my idea for Shady Luxon/Kurzick after reading update notes where I suggested it.
I think confirmation that you are being heard will elevate the entire system, even if they have a differing opinion. There could be different "threat" levels, like "reported/working on/upcoming/etc". People can get carried away all they want, but that is their lack of reality and not understanding how "no guarantees" work, so I guess I am not concerned with that at all. If they cannot learn to take things with a grain of salt, then their opinions should not be considered after complaining.
I personally feel the place is botched when you bring into the mix that suggestions + wiki doestn' really go together and the forum is more visible and it just is a sensible place to start. I'm not sure how they could incorporate it, but anything would be useful. I really fucking wish I was on the Live Team (do you mind swearing, I'm not gratuitous). I don't know if they do anything, but I do know there are dead accounts and if so, they shouldn't belong in it. I think we deserve a place in instead. Previously Unsigned 01:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course people prefer to get a response — that's a valid reason for ANet doing something different, but it fails to take into account ANet's interests:
  • They do not want to respond to any suggestion because they fear it will setup false expectations on all other suggestions.
  • They don't have enough time (mostly, staff read the suggestions on their own time, not while paid by ANet).
  • There are complex ideas of which ANet will only be able to implement parts. How do they respond to those?
  • Some ideas are truly horrible. How does ANet respond to those in any sort of meaningful way?
  • Again, notice that people already start to draw incorrect conclusions from anything that any ANet staffer has ever said. ANet really, really, really doesn't want (or need) that type of thing). (Heck, there are people who still believe that ANet has promised to release skill updates every month based on a hope posted years ago.)
I agree with you that, if ANet started responding, it would transform the entire feedback system. I think, however, that they do not want that transformation to take place.
Less importantly, I won't be logging on to the I won't be able to offer my voice in support (even if I agreed with it). Still, as mentioned above, I am glad that you are raising the issue visibly: ANet needs to realize that they haven't made it as clear as they can as to why Bugs belong on the Forums, but Suggestions do not. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Can't cover everything but I can offer some. Complex ideas - this. Horrible ideas - explain why, make a case WHY. Maybe an example or 2... if something is really so bad then it is probably not thought out, and by thinking it out you can provide an example of why. Previously Unsigned 02:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Rather than restating already said things on my own talk page, I'll merely mention here. For the most part, I'm in agreement with TEF's first post - there are both reasons for and against both the feedback space and using official forums for such, and as I see it the benefits for the feedback and cons of the official forums outway the benefits of the official forums and cons of the feedback space. At least from the perspective of ArenaNet. I do not oppose the official forums, but for me it is easier to use the feedback space. My issue with the feedback space is that there's not enough constructive criticism by other wiki'ers. Konig/talk 02:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So basically they still don't want to reply to anything. I must just stop using it then. It's only for idealism. Previously Unsigned 05:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Erm, I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. ANet has always said that they don't want to respond to specifics (for the reasons outlined above) and nothing has happened to give them reason to change their approach. It's clear that ideas posted in Feedback are catalyzing the Live's team work, so those who want to influence the game should continue posting ideas.
Finally, I don't see any reason for ANet to respond directly except to make us feel better. And, perhaps they should want to do that, since we are providing them with valuable ideas for free. But I can also see why that might be too costly for them to manage (remember that most staff are reading the wiki on their own time, not while being paid). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your summary conflicted with your edit[edit]

[2] - Your summary states that the confirmed fact is that the sister survived, and the rumor is that she might not be dead (lol?); but the article (which is correct) states that rumors says she survived because (the confirmed fact is that) her body was never found. I almost "corrected" you before realizing you contradicted yourself (on accident, I'm assuming). Konig/talk 03:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for confusing things. The summary is missing a noun. The confirmed fact is that the brother (Ashu) survived (I think the rest makes sense after that). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Reset indent[edit]

You do realize there's a template for that - {{ri}}. - Reanimated X 17:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I substitute the template, using {{subst:ri}} so that the wiki doesn't have to call up the template just to display reset indent. (I've been told to substitute whenever it's likely that the text doesn't need to mirror the most recent template. In other cases, it's better not to leave the template, e.g. for {{unsigned2}}.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
The irony is {{tl}} is almost never going to be changed. Or {{clear}}, {{pipe}}, {{gr}}... -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 00:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
{{Pipe}} partially exists for situation in which the actual | won't work. Although {{gr}} itself won't change, it makes it much easier to compare skills and change the text after an update; we have (in the past) also decided to use a different pattern for various reasons. For {{clear}}...hmmn. Maybe that should be subst'd also.
Besides those reasons, some templates make it easier to read the wikicode. That covers all the templates we use for GWW discussions, e.g. {{vandal}}, those used for admin/b'crat selection, etc. (I suppose an argument could be made for doing the same with {{ri}} and {{ec}}, but in those cases, I think it actually makes it easier to edit by calling attention to the indentation or conflict.)
So perhaps, the correct phrasing of the rule of thumb is: always subst: the template...except when you shouldn't. (Yah, not very useful rule.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer to protect all the templates that have no reason to be changed ever. PvX once crashed because someone mistakenly removed a ">" in a template that was used on half the builds we stored; after that, I went a little crazy and protected everything. -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png 05:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with you on protecting templates... or at least making them harder to edit. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
templates make for prettier code than stubst-ing generally does, too. 16:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Skill hunter problem[edit]

re: Talk:Skill_Hunter#PROBLEM! D: (This was the original title, moved in keeping with my policy of maintaining contextual headers on my talk page.)

Could you please check out the question I posted there? I hope you can help. PalkiaX50 00:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a response, which I hope will be of some use (but it probably won't lead to a quick resolution). I'll keep an eye out for changes to that talk page until you can get it sorted out (or, in worst case, we can help you confirm to ANet that it's a bug or account issue that they need to assist you with). Good luck. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I have posted some more, could you check again? PalkiaX50 20:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
PS don't forget to blank out your toon's name in all the panels (not just the party panel); it will also appear in most of the skills- and title-related windows. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

bug or not a bug[edit]

moved to Feedback_talk:Game_updates/20110505#bug or not a bug

Armor / Collectors[edit]

I noticed something...
On the actual armor - it has location, Armor Rating, collector, gold amount (even plat.), and materials. Just not in that order...

On collector it just has location, armor rating, and items to get your armor. However, no collector name on the items like Glacial Gauntlets, Ranger, etc.

I'm thinking on a change to the table. It'd mean more templates for the images of the items like the dust, etc. However, I feel it'd be worth it in the end, even for collectors (as well as nick). I just wonder what your thoughts are on this. 21:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There is definitely room for improvement with how the wiki has documented armor. However, I'm not sure I understand the issue that you would like to see resolved, so I have trouble commenting on a potential solution. Could you give a couple of specific examples?
Whenever some proposes a change to a frequently-used template or to long-standing practices, I think it's important to invite more opinions (often, there are important historical reasons for the status quo, which might still apply). It's also helpful to sandbox how things would look. If you are convinced that the tables need a change and you don't want to create a login, I can create a sandbox page (or three) for you to work with. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll do what I'm thinking of, once I finish my armor on my sandbox. :-) Going backwards this time as Mesmer was giving me a headache to do. I know the new collector pages would be more similar to what I'm doing now. 22:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Let me know when you have something ready to propose :-) (Or pop me an email.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Check the following pages from here and tell me what you think. I don't really know exactly where to propose this as templates would have to be created for it to work. I think it'd help with other items like when Nick collected for the superb charr carvings. I'd like to see what he collects changed into images. I think changing what the collector collects into images, might help reduce the table sizes, etc. More so the other items like Skale Fins, etc. We already have templates for the materials and rare materials. 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sent an email. 05:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When does a cycle begin?[edit]

re: this edit to Zaishen Vanquish/Cycles → (The header was changed to better reflect the topic.)

Sorry, I was under the impression that listed the date that the current...ermm..."loop" (for lack of a better word") started as opposed to the current pattern. 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's (ahem) clearly ambiguous, whether cycle means beginning of the loop or pattern. The reason for mentioning the pattern start date is (a) it never has to be changed and (more importantly) (b) that's the baseline against which we predict every successive loop. The date that the loop begins is of keen interest to those studying Milo Rimbaldi or Douglas Adams, but doesn't offer any new predictive power.
It wouldn't be crazy to list both (the current pattern began on ___, and the most recently repeat began its cycle on ____), but then someone would have to remember to update it (or, I suppose, there's some sort of wikicode that would automate the process). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

are you ever[edit]

not around? o.o 18:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, recently... not as much as I would like. (Insert rant about the economy.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I sadface for you. you should get an easy job with computers at work. I'm being paid right now to f5-spam rc because there's nothing else to do. 18:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
When the money runs out... yeah, I'll grind RL title points for RL cash. :-/ — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
why wait? customers are so fun! 18:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)