Talk: Style and formatting/Archive 3

This page is 62 kilobytes long

That is worth breaking into TWO archives o_O"""

Can someone who is more familiar with Style and formatting do the archving? Moving any concluded decisions to the "project page"? -PanSola 18:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Stabber 22:16, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I was expecting you to arcive this too d-: -PanSola 22:17, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Categories: General Discussion

I put the boss category crusade on hold for a bit because I realized that I opened a can of worms. Before I continue, I'd like to have a general, basic discussion about the use of categories on GuildWiki.

So far, the way we handle categories requires relatively low maintainance: For example an NPC goes into Category:NPCs, if its a Warrior it goes into Category:Warriors, if it's a human it goes into Category:Humans, and so on. That's very simple, easy and quick, but this way we end up with categories that contain hundreds of entries. And these categories will grow rapidly as new campaigns are released. What is a plain alphabetic list of several hundred bosses good for? IMVHO: NOTHING!!! It helps nobody, with nothing.

All the lists on GuildWiki that are really useful have to be maintained manually. I'd rather see us put a little more work into categories to change them in such a way that they actually become USEFUL.

I'm thinking ahead here, towards Factions and further. Guild Wars Nightfall is already on the horizon, and due for release by the end of this year. A lot of work coming towards us. I think if we'd use categories a littel smarter they could be very helpful to compile lists. This way we can be faster and better than any other GW fansite out there.

Think about it yourself for a bit: What are the lists that most people are looking for on GuildWiki, and how would we have to modify categories in order to help us with these lists?

If a majority of people agrees that our current categories are not very helpful, I'll make a few suggestions how to improve them. I've got plenty of ideas. And I'm willing to do work, i.e. to do category crusades. But I'd rather do it right the first time. -- 00:28, 11 March 2006 (CST)

I do not agree. I find our category system very helpful. If I am browsing monsters in an area, the category system works fine for me. It's just the nature of the information that some of it isnot as highly coveted as other information. For example, if I meet a tough Mursaat ele boss, and I have trouble beating him, I will come to the wiki to see what his skills are and also look for helpful needs. I will most likely type in his name, or go to the area page and find his name in the bosses section. Now, I have never (to date) ever click to see: "Pray tell, what other elementalists are out there." That categorization, though logical, is not one I have ever found useful. I have found use for grouping the bosses. And subdividing it into species was a good thing.

Now, I would ask that you first propose the changes you want to make. You have held back Stabber from categorizing skills, but have not put in the alternative. Likewise, here, you say: If you're not pleased with the present category say: "Aye" but what are we saying Aye to? --Karlos 02:53, 14 March 2006 (CST)

My $0.02 - I've actually been contacted in game by a lot of people with comments/questions/complaints about the wiki. I don't mind it at all as long as they're civil (and all but one has been, that one person simply went on my ignore list when they refused to calm down). More than a few complaints have been about the categories, but surprisingly people seem to complain when we change them so that they have to delve further into the tree. For example, I got one complaint over the weekend about the new bosses stuff, this person preferred the main boss category and didn't like having to figure out what species they were and then clicking on that category. I've also recieved complaints about the splitting up of the Collectable Drops into the different types of drops, seems some people don't like that either (this happened a while ago I know, but it is a similar situation). So from my experience, people want less categories with more stuff in them.

My personal thought is that if a category has less than 200 things in it (which seems to be when the category splits to multiple pages), then there is no reason to split that category. --Rainith 03:15, 14 March 2006 (CST)

My proposal is to have all core skills in Category:Core skills, all Prophecies Campaign skills in Category:Prophecies Campaign skills, and all Factions skills in Category:Factions Campaign skills. At least Rainith has indicated support for this scheme (or, at least, lack of opposition). Do you have any objections to it, and if so, can you lay out a more perspicuous category tree? If not, I will proceed with this categorization. TIA. — Stabber 18:59, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Personally I think categories with several hundred entries are pretty much to useless. I especially hate the fact that, if there are more than 200 entries in a category, MediaWiki will not only split the category entries, but also the subcategories. This means you can not see all subcategories on page 1, which is most confusing and missleading. However, if there are people who find such categories useful, there is an easy workaround: Add a sub-category [[:Category:All <categoryname>]]. For example, have a look at what I've done with Category:Add Weapon Upgrades. I sorted the subcategories by various criteria, but I also created a subcategory Category:Weapon Upgrades. This is where I dumped ALL weapon upgrades into, regardless of their type. Basically, this subcategory has the state of the original category before I started sorting it.

To sum up with few words what I have in mind on the whole matter of categories is not easy. I have plenty of ideas for creatures, items, quests, skills, etc. Most of the ideas involve the use of templates to automate categories.

To give you an idea what I'd consider intelligent use of categories in such a way that it will help us to maintain lists I've created a test template (Template:Skills). Have a look at it and comment.

There are only two things I'm not sure about:

1. This test template alone, if used throughout the wiki, would create thousands of new categories! Is MediaWiki able to cope with this?
2. I have not found a good workaround of the "plural problem". Since we have agreed that all category names shall be in plural templates would have to be able to automatically generate the plural of a PAGENAME or a template variable. That isn't possible right now.

I'll start writing down all my thoughts and plans for categories and will dump them into User:Tetris L/Categories. -- 19:28, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I'm sorry to say this, but if every skill page is going to become an instantiated template, then guildwiki will have taken a sharp turn in the direction of the arcane. Template soup is something I wish we had less of — it runs completely counter to the Zen of Wiki. I will wait to read your full proposal before expanding on this comment. In the interim, Category:Core skills is incomplete. If the design of GuildWiki Categories 2.0 is going to take a while longer, it might simply be better to uncategorize things from Category:Core skills and nuke the category. — Stabber 19:51, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I can not deny that it's true that the use of templates makes GuildWiki a lot more complicated, and less newbie-friendly. Some time ago Karlos warned about the dangers of this development here, and off course has had a strong point. But: I think it is possible to created templates in such an intuitive way that even a newbie will be able to grasp quickly how to use them. How do most people learn wiki markup? They look at other articles, copy code and modify it. And for newbies who have difficulties, there's always the experienced contributors to step in and fix the code, just like we wikify raw articles now.

Using templates makes life more difficult for beginners, but a lot easier for the experienced people. And ... face it ... 90% of the work on this wiki is done by the latter group. I'm afraight if we do not expand the use of templates on this wiki, sooner or later we will loose overview. With every campaign released categories and lists will grow, and sooner or later most of them will break through the 200 entry barrier.

I think GuildWiki should make the move now, before Factions comes out. Right now we have only one campaign to fix, and if we make the right decisions now, life will be much easier for Factions and all future campaigns.

As for Category:Core skills, I would only suggest to split it into subcategories by profession, e.g. Orison of Healing should not be in Category:Core skills, but instead be in Category:Monk Core skills, which would be a subcategory of Category:Core skills by profession and Category:Monk skills by campaign. -- 20:17, 14 March 2006 (CST)

All right. I am fine with your suggested categorization. I will categorize the remaining skills in this fashion presently. — Stabber 20:23, 14 March 2006 (CST)

As you have no doubt noticed already, I have done this for ranger and monk core skills. Any objections regarding this categorization must be brought up now. I will hold off on the rest until there has been some time for discussion. — Stabber 21:44, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I am horrified, mortified even, petrified by what I am reading! The little Molenin in me is about to squeal! :) I'll wait and let you formulate a proposition first. I feel we're once again re-opening issues (as if we're done with the gazillion things we want to do), instead of building on what we agreed upon, we are re-hashing things over and over. I feel this will be the biggest detriment to our ability to get ready for Ch2. When it comes out and people re-propose a new skill-box and a re-propose a mission layout and so forth. The OCD freak in me is screaming in agony. I fell most of these re-hashes are by people who simply did not attend the first discussion and thus we keep re-discussing the wheel. But, no more whining. Prehaps your propostion will bring about our salvation.. The Molenin in me hopes you are Molachev, not Krak Flamewhip! :)

For now, consider this: In the template you proposed, you are using Categories instead of hyper links which I believe is a poor use of a wiki. To say "See Category:Skill X Quests" instead of "See quest 1, 2 and 3" is to basically drop the [[braket format]]. You are practically writing a script to generate the page. Something I am quantitatively and qualitatively against. Molenin be damned! :( --Karlos 20:48, 14 March 2006 (CST)

For each case you feel we are rediscussing things, if you can point us to the previous discussion, that would help a lot. Sometimes it's not that we didn't attend the first discussion, but we weren't even onboard yet when the first discussion took place. Subtle difference.-PanSola 21:06, 14 March 2006 (CST)

And I see it much less of "generating a page" as opposed to "generating a list". Of course you can still be quantitatively and qualitatively against that, but it's a slightly different issue. -PanSola 21:06, 14 March 2006 (CST)

My thoughts:

1. If a category does NOT have any subcats, then I don't care if it has over 200 articles. HOWEVER, if it has at least one single sub-category, then due to the way MediaWiki displays things, I believe the parent category needs to be broken down so either the number of articles + subcats are <= 200, or everything goes into a subcategory (there might be over 200 subcategories, that's ok), and no stray articles.
2. Some templates are hard to learn, some templates are less hard to learn. But learning how to format a table in various nice and pretty ways is, IMHO, HARDER THAN ANY TEMPLATE I have seen on GuildWiki. Once you need to use a table that isn't the plain borderless, background-color-less, default width table, the whole Zen of Wiki goes out of the window, because specifying formatting for a MediaWiki table is right on the level of HTML/CSS formatting.
3. No opinon on Template:Skills, although personally I think the categories it generate would be nice. I just don't have an opinion as to whether we should type the "code" in manually for each article, or use a template for it. -PanSola 21:00, 14 March 2006 (CST)
4. One more thing, I hate it when a category says "A list of all the blah blah blah", because, in fact, most of the time the category isn't complete yet. Even if it is intended to be complete eventually, or is complete now, I find the "all" still overly presumptuous. I prefer using the wording "A list of blah blah blah", stripping the "all" part. It's not like we are going to intentially include only a partial set of them and hide that fact. We just make no gaurentees that it is complete, or is still complete when a user visits it right after a game update. -PanSola 21:11, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Karlos: I hear you! I, too, see the risks. There seems to be a misunderstanding about my intentions. I do not want categories to replace lists in bracket format (except for some few cases). As you no doubt remember, in the past I've often spoken strongly in favor of properly formated lists in articles instead of simple alphabetic categories. I want categories to help us with maintaining manual lists, not replace them. Below the manual list, we can add a note, possibly even in small font, saying "For a simple alphabetic list, see also: [[:Category:<CategoryName>]]". This way you can check the category to see if any items are missing in the manual list and add them.

I totally disagree that this is the "biggest detriment to our ability to get ready for Ch2" though. Quite the opposite!! As I've explained, I think we need a change in policy in order to get ready for future chapters, especially for templates and categories. Most of our templates and categories were made with only ONE chapter in mind. They worked okay for Prophecies, but they are not suited for future campaigns.

I think we all agree about at least one thing: This is a crucial, very basic decision that will shake the foundations of this wiki. A decision needs to be made, through a vote, quickly, before Factions comes out. Before the Factions Preview Event even. The longer we wait, the more articles are created, the more painful it will become to change something. -- 23:04, 14 March 2006 (CST)

New issue with more categories: We don't currently use the ones we have consistantly. The most glaring example of this is Category:Ascalonians, Category:Krytans, Category:Maguumans, etc...

To start with we used to have Ascalons and Krytans as categories and we got rid of them (see Category talk:Ascalons because 1) they weren't being used much and 2) it was rather arbitrary how it was decided where NPCs went.

Now they are back in, and both the old objections seem to still be here. 1) Not all NPCs have these categories set for them, not even all NPCs from Pre-Searing have them set, and that seems to me like it would be the easiest, all are from Ascalon with the one exception being Namar (who looking at him has both Krytans and Ascalonians in his categories - WTF?!?). 2) What about the characters in the Souther Shiverpeaks that are wearing the uniforms of the Ascalon military? Or the Krtyan garbed collectors there? How do we catagorize them?

If we are going to add more catagories to things, we need to document very throughly how they are to be applied. This is something that has not been done in the past, and in part is why many of the categories are such a mess now. (Note: I'm not blaming anyone here, I'm just as guilty of adding categories and not noting how they are supposed to be used. I'm just saying that while we're discussing this, let's do it right this time.) --Rainith 02:26, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Clearing the air

I get the feeling that the above discussion has become too dense to make any further progress. I've tried to distill the essence of the various choices we face in this article:

User:Stabber/Skill categorization proposal

I think we are facing a tight deadline to come to a resolution on this matter. If March 24 rolls around and we haven't decided anything, then I am afraid this whole matter will be dropped as people will have better things to do than worry about some internal guildwiki detail. — Stabber 01:55, 17 March 2006 (CST)

I feel the above discussion has nothing to do with how to categorize skills whatsoever. It's about what to name the categories in general (not even specific to skills), not about what skill categories should exist or how skill categories will be connected. So you are kinda in the wrong place, IMHO. -PanSola 05:36, 17 March 2006 (CST)

You are right. I added the subhead to the wrong section. Moving two sections up. — Stabber 05:44, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Yet another deadlock

This project is currently in deadlock as the principal participants haven't been seen on GuildWiki in forever. I get the impression that no one (besides PanSola) really cares about any of these style and formatting debates. I say kill this project and let anarchy reign. Withdrawing all my proposals. — Stabber 18:41, 21 March 2006 (CST)

Vote on suffix

See GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Archive_2 for the old vote/arguements given. Discuss below.

Voting format: instant run-off (remember to specify your second/third/fourth preferences if applicable!)

• Alphabetical suffix: Skills (Core), Skills (Factions), Skills (Prophecies)

1. Xeeron
2. Stabber (Like Tetris below, I'd prefer a prefix instead of a suffix)
3. Evil_Greven
4. JoDiamonds (I'm fairly ambivalent about prefixes vs. suffixes, and think that should maybe be a future vote/discussion)
5. Karlos
6. (I'd make it a prefix though, not a suffix, i.e. "Core Skills", not "Skills (Core)"
7. Barek
8. Pan Sola (For article names only, and when it's article name, I don't htink it shoudl be suffix unless it's for disambiguation purposes)
9. Evan The Cursed (Talk) (prefer w/ suffix; second choice: Excluding core, then including core)
10. (vote here)

• Numerical suffix
  • Including core: Skills (C0), Skills (C1), Skills (C2)

1. Pan Sola (second choice: excluding core), and this vote choice is only for sub-categories, not for any article names whatsoever.
2. (vote here)

• • Excluding core: Skills (Core), Skills (C1), Skills (C2)

1. (vote here)

• Other (you better have a really really great idea to vote for "other")

1. (vote here)

Exhortation

People who cared enough to vote on the suffix issue previously but haven't voted this time yet

• Lunarbunny,
• Rainith,
• TheSpectator,
• Nunix

Question/Discussion about what the vote means

Are we voting on a suffix that will be applied to articles and categories alike, or are we just tagging categories? When I voted, I was just thinking category separation. I am completely against adding suffixs to skill articles, UNLESS there are two different skills with the same name for different campagins, in which case the suffix is for disambiguation. But for skills that only appear in one campaign (or a core skill), I disagree with any suffix/tagging in the article title.

If this vote was supposed to also about article tagging, can we restructure the vote to separate the issues? -PanSola 09:11, 15 March 2006 (CST)

As always, the suffixs applies to articles only if there are 2 similar names in different campaigns. If the name (without suffix) is enough to identify the article, no suffix. --Xeeron 18:11, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Well, I think there is a difference between distinguishing the Storyline of Prophecies vs Factions, and between distinguishing two different items named FooBar, one appearing in prophecies the other appearing in Factions. In this case I think former should use a Prefix and the latter should use a suffix. More difference scenarios might occure... -PanSola 05:41, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Suffixes revisited

Apart from all the discussion above, I noticed that all the articles mentioned above use the format "Campaign Skill", instead of the "Skill (Campaign), that was previously discussed on GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Archive_2. Did sentiments change here? I feel we should discuss this beforehand, since it will affect a huge range of article names. --Xeeron 22:33, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Hehe, see section below -PanSola 22:37, 14 March 2006 (CST)

some text below was moved here from Category talk:Monk Core skills

see discussion at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting#Marking Chapter Two Articles and Categories, with vote results under it at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting#Vote Results. -PanSola 22:07, 14 March 2006 (CST)

That vote is obsolete. The "chapter" to "campaign" switchover in all official Anet paraphernalia is more recent than the votes. Incidentally, that style and formatting page is impossible to read. — Stabber 22:10, 14 March 2006 (CST)

The obsoleteness only pertains to the specific word "Chapter" vs "Campaign". A numeric system (2 vs Two) with short character cues (Ch vs Chapter can be transferred to C vs Campaign) for ease of sorting vs texual system is the main outcome of that vote, with an assumed suffix system that nobody challenged. I don't mind if it goes "Monk skills (C0)" or "Monk skills (Core)", but I prefer the suffix system. -PanSola 22:26, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I don't particularly care either way if it's Category:Monk Core skills or Category:Monk skills (Core). It just means that I have to unleash my trusty little battery powered GuildWikian one more time. However, I do object to "C0", as it is not used in-game. — Stabber 22:29, 14 March 2006 (CST)

So Category:Monk skills (Core) is something we will both accept, but core is a special case. How about Category:Monk skills (C1) for skills exclusive to the Prophecies compaign, do you also object to "C1" because it is not used in-game? We might have to bring this back to GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting for another discussion/vote. -PanSola 22:31, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Yes, I think further brainstorming, and possibly another vote is warranted, as the last vote was won by the "ch"ers. Moving this entire convo there now. — Stabber 22:34, 14 March 2006 (CST)

Summary of my thoughts:

1. I still support a numeric system, for sorting purposes. When Anet release Campaign 10823 "Gwen's Counter Attack", people might not remember which campaign 10372 refers to anymore, or which number was "Attack of the Frog", but at least those info are readily available on the wiki, and the category's own page can/should mention the official title of the compaign anyways.
2. I still support a short-hand (originally "Ch" vs "Chapter"). Since there is no H in Campaign, I propose to just use "C" (which was also a proposed shorthand for "Chapter" in the previous vote but got defeated by "Ch"). Let's keep things concise and to the point. Prophacies would be C1, Factions would be C2, Gwen's Counter Attack would be C10823 (at which point we might want to pad Prophecies to C00001 for sorting purposes, but now we got a stabbing bot to do all the tedious crusades!)
3. Using "C0" to refer to core is a possiblity, definitely helps sorting (usually letters get sorted after numbers, which might not be desirable). However I do not have strong opinion on this issue, and wouldn't mind Core being used instead of C0. For the purpose of skill box templates though, I would like to display core skills as "C0", even if for everything else we use "Core". "C0" will auto-link to Chapter 0 which is currently a reirect to Core. Doing it differently makes my skill box template more convoluted.
4. I like using suffix system, "Monk skills (C1)", instead of "Monk C1 skills" or "Monk Campaign 1 skills".

-PanSola 22:47, 14 March 2006 (CST)

There is one, admittedly convoluted, objection to a purely numerical treatment to the champtaigners -- we assume that their progression will be linear. However, what if after c4 we have a fork in the story, with c4.1 and c4.2 being in alternate universes? Would our elaborately constructed schema just fall to bits then? — Stabber 23:05, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I thought that was the ENTIRE POINT of Anet's change from using "Chapter" to using "Campaign", so they are no longer perceived as one following the other, so that players don't think they are barging into the middle of something if they didn't get the original Guild Wars. So unless they release two campaigns at the same time, or unless an alternate universe actually happens in the real world and this GuildWiki actually crosses the boundry and exists (and remained synced) in both universes, I don't see a problem with the number system. -PanSola 23:13, 14 March 2006 (CST)

To clarify, the campaign released after Campain 4, would be campaign 5. The campaign released after comapign 5, would be campaign 6. It doesn't matter if 5 and 6 are forks of 4 and exist in conflicting alternate universe, or that the one released after 6 is set 1000 years before Prophecies. Unless, of course, Anet decides to call them Campaign 4.1, 4.2, and -10 respectively. -PanSola 23:13, 14 March 2006 (CST)

The problem, in a nutshell, is this: Anet doesn't call them C1, C2, etc., so the question of how they will number the 1000 year prehistorical campaign simply doesn't arise. They, perhaps wisely, give them textual names, so the difficult to number prequel campaigns might just be called "The Charr Menace" or "Attack of the Crones" or whatever. In the past you have been very keen on sticking to the terminology Anet themselves use, so I am a bit surprised that you are willing to chart new waters in this case. — Stabber 23:18, 14 March 2006 (CST)

ANet do identify them by numbers, at least as long as the official name hasn't been decided or anounced. See Chapter Three. But: Since all campaigns are independent, the order not irrelevant, or at least not crucial. Me might as well sort alphabetically. -- 23:34, 14 March 2006 (CST)

First of all, I don't think there is going to be a question about numbering campaigns. You had one, and my answer is I don't think there is going to be one. It is of my opinion, that they changed from "Chapter" to "Campaign" to remove suggestions of in-game timeline/order correlation between their releases. Thus, my opinion leads to the conclusion that, campaigns will be numbered in the order they are released. In my opnion, it is not a problem at all to number a prequal as campaign 7. It is the 7th campain released for GuildWars, it might not be Chapter 7 in the story. In my opinion.

I agree that "the question of how they will number the 1000 year prehistorical campaign" simply doesn't arise, in the exact same manner that "the question of how they will number campaigns that create a fork in the story" does not arise. I believe they are all non-issues. I believe they will all be integers sequential in the order they were released. But since you think one case might be of issue, I brought up the other one and illustrated how I think they would all be non-issues. AND if I am wrong and they DO use weird numbers like 4.1 and/or -10 for their campaign numbers, I would unconditionally go with their number system.

And if they do something weird in another way, numbering some campaigns and not numbering some other campaigns, then my positions is this: I judge it so extremely unlikely, that I am willing to assume it will not happen, and if the votes I favor prevailed, but I am proven wrong in the end, we will flesh out a new labeling system.

Because I believe the scenario is so unlikely, and the expedience of ignoring this scenario so great, that I am willing to take the big risk of having a major restructure of campaign tagging system for campaigns if somewhere down the line there is a campaign that suddenly doesn't get a number.

I remain keen on stiking with in-game terms. I am not advocating that information about "Gwen's Counter Attack" campaign be in the article "C10823". I am advocating that "C10823" be used as a shorthand and sorting mechanism for categories related to the "Gwen's Counter Attack" campaign. -PanSola 23:42, 14 March 2006 (CST)

The big, and potentially huge, problem with non-numerical sorting is the fact that all of our article names get very long:

• Monk Skills (C7) and
• Monk Skills (Attack of the Crones)

are two altogether different breeds, if you need to type them repeatedly. I once made the mistake of creating a category called Category:Tomb of the Primeval Kings maps and I hated myself ever after when I needed to type it.

Additionally, numerical ordering automatically orders the campaigns chronologically, so we do not have to manually edit every page to make sure Prophecies comes before Factions.

We need to weight the additional work against the potential benefit of having the real names there.--Xeeron 23:57, 14 March 2006 (CST)

I'm against making up and prominently displaying to Guild Wars players nomenclature that we are essentially making up, in the form of c1, c2, c3, etc. Sure, it happens sometimes, but when it's relatively easy to avoid I think we should. The game is called (ok, sort of subtitled) "Factions". As far as I'm can tell, the actual order of release date is not extremely relevant to ArenaNet. I see no reason to arbitrarily list things in release-date order (for instance, people don't list Star Wars in 4,5,6,1,2,3 order, generally, and usually talk about each film by name).

We can obviously have a page that discusses the release order, but it doesn't seem so inherently important that we should have every single skill, mission, explorable area, and NPC labeled with a number. That might be an extreme conclusion, but at least the areas should say what game they are part of! (Amusingly, the Battle Isles are the only location in Core, I presume.)

As far as actually suffixing, I'm happy enough to see "Monk Skills (Factions)" or "Monk Skill (Core)". But I'm clearly opposed to using C1, C2, etc. Those things will not mean anything to the average Guild Wars player, especially if we hit a point where there are half a dozen different standalone games that ArenaNet refers to by name. The needs of the players outweigh the needs of the GuildWiki authors. (In general, anyway. Not to be taken to extremes.)

--JoDiamonds 02:04, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Ok, from all I heard here, the trend seems to go towards suffix. If you disagree and want a vote, shout now. However, there is also the issue of what kind of suffix and the huge majority that existed for Ch2 does not seem to be there for C2. Therefore I would like to reopen the vote for the suffix that is to be used from now on. --Xeeron 02:27, 15 March 2006 (CST)

My reasoning for changing my vote as compared to the old vote: As JoDiamonds has argued very well above, C2 will mean nothing for GW players. This used to be different when we all thought the new campaign would be refered to as Chapter 2 mainly. For me, Ch2 seemed to be reasonably close to Chapter 2 to have a first time wiki user immediatly understand what Ch2 means. Now that the new campaign is refered to as Factions by ANet and the appropriate abbriviation is C2, I dont feel that the user would be able to make the connection C2->Factions that easy anymore. Therefore, while it definitly will mean more work for us, I have changed my opinion about this matter. From the discussion above I get it that others are feeling this way as well, therefore I reopened the vote.

Please do not vote for other if you feel that the numercial suffix should be Ch2 or Cn2 or something else, vote for C2 instead. The same goes for Campaign:Factions vs GW:Factions or whatever alphabetical version we come up with. This should be the decision between numerical and alphabetical only. --Xeeron 02:40, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Currently, if we create a new PvE character, we see from left to right (English reading order) the Prophecies Campaign first, then the Factions Campaign. Open the skill menu and sort skills by campaign, we see Core Skills ordered before Prophecies Campaign. While the rest is speculation, I speculate that on 3/24 when we sort skills by campaign we will see Factions Campaign appear under, not above, Prophecies Campaign. I also speculate that when the third campaign comes now, no matter what its name is, when you want to create a campaign 3 PvE character, the choice will be ordered after both Prophecies campaign and Factions campaign. Thus, to players who purchase multiple campaigns, the order among the campaigns will have meaning. Thus C2, C7, C193, and C10824 WILL have some meaning for GW players. It might be that the some meaning does not have sufficient significance or utility to justify using the number as category tags, and the community shall make its judgement by the votes casted here, but some meaning exist. That, is my speculation. -PanSola 05:50, 15 March 2006 (CST)

BTW, if the general feeling is that campaign number/order has no meaning to GW players (contary to my opinion/speculation), then for skills by campaign and armor set listings we should sort the campaigns alphabetically too. -PanSola

Wow! Where was I when all this transpired? That was a lot of text to read! Some very nice arguments too. I would like us all to take a moment to honor PanSola and Stabber with the community award for Imaginative Crativity! "Attack of the Frog," "The charr Menace" and "Attack of the Crones"! Mmmm, good stuff! :) The creativity and intellect in this wiki never ceases to amaze me.

Ok, now to wade into this issue:

• Campaign Order does make a difference and will always make sense. Imagine yourself playing "Revenge of the Dredge" 15 years from now and you meet a newbiw who is telling people in the outpost that the Assassin was always there. So, you tactfully point out that it was introduced in "Factions." The young crowd ask you "What's that?" In response, you can only say: "It was the second chapter/campaign/champaign released of the game."
• Placing chapter names in the title does spare us the need to place a disclaimer in the article that it only applies to chapter X. If we place a mysterious "C2" next to each skill name, we will likely need to place a sentence in each skill that says "This skill is only available in the Factions campaign." But if the skill is called "Bla Bla (Factions)" then that is pretty self-explanatory.
• Any way you cut it, it seems skill lists will look nasty. I am trying to envision Category:Monk skills, which I assume will have sub-categories "Monk skills by attribute" and "Monk skills by campaign." Still, it should have an "All Monk skill" or "General Listing" (if we are to avoid the word "all"). That "All" listing will have brackets with "C1" and "C2" or "Factions" and "Prophecies" and will look ugly.
• For Core skills, I suggest we add no suffix what so ever. Why should, say, Orison of Healing be called "Orison of Healing (Core)" when it's available for all chapters. All users will know it as simply Orison of Healing. Same thing for Battle Isles or Axe or Sword. Why should they be given a tag that makes them look confusing? Simply include them in all categories of all chapters. This way also, they will appear at the top of any listing of things with similar names.

Overall, I think adding the chapter name as suffix seems the most appropriate thing to do. I hate it as a programmer who likes shorthand, but it seems like the more readable thing for users. --Karlos 07:59, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Well, good points, though I think the discussion here is mostly about category tagging. I personally am against tagging ANY skill articles with campaign names, whatever format. I am against renaming Healing Hands to Healing Hands (Prophecies) or Healing Hands (C1).-PanSola 09:06, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I certainly agree with PanSola on this count. I'd like the skill pages to remain simply the name of the page. Assuming we have useful categories at all, the category will be a perfectly useful indicator of what campaign it's from (because it will be in category "Prophecies Skills" or "Monk Skills (Core)" or whatever we do, in fact, call the categories). I think that's a reasonable way for players to see what campaign a skill is from, though I could see an argument that it is too subtle. --JoDiamonds 12:23, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Ok, so that nightmare is not gonna happen. That's cool. --Karlos 12:35, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Screen Resolution supported

Do we care? The GW client at full screen mode supports as low as 800x600, but in windowed mode can be made even smaller. Do we want to at least cater to the 800x600 crowd and make an effort to see that all pages render nicely (on mainstream non-pure-text web browsers) at the 800x600 resolution? Do we care about teh 640x480 population? (I just noticed that neither of my Windows XP computer can choose to go to 640x480 resolution anymore, 800x600 is as low as I can get to).

While I personally run my computer at 1600x1200, I am inclined to cater towards the needs of the 800x600 crowd.

There are some pages that don't exactly look good at 800x600 resolution, with float-right info boxes colliding with tables within the article. One of the more extreme examples I can find is Necromancer's Armor. -PanSola 06:17, 15 March 2006 (CST)

The truth is, I dont care. Unless the wiki becomes outright unusable at low resolutions, I dont see me checking different screen resolutions to alter the perfect look of a page. If we stick to the basic "dont overload pages with grafic" rule, this should not be a huge problem anyway.

PS: The computers I use run at 1024 and 1280 respectively and I never had a problem with any page here. --Xeeron 06:38, 15 March 2006 (CST)

We should definitely support 1024x768. I'm slightly more ambivalent about 800x600, and think that as long as we are reasonable things won't break too much. We should make sure most pages are viewable at 800x600, I think, but let's not be too strenous. Main page, skill and quest pages, that kind of thing. Any page that we have fifty copies of. =) Individual pages can be checked on a more ad hoc basis (and if someone complains, we'll fix it, or they will). --JoDiamonds 06:53, 15 March 2006 (CST)

This is one of those "we'll cross that bridge when we get to it" kind of issues. If there is a need by our users for us to cater to 800x600 I am sure we will hear about it. We get all kinds of complaints about how the site should be in-game and here on the talk pages. On the flip side, taking on a campaign to ensure the entire site is 800x600 friendly is a vast undertaking. So, in conclusion, if enough people complain about it, then we'll deal with it. --Karlos 07:08, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I think it's a good idea. I'm just not sure how we're going to do it. Or at least ensure it... not easy to check each page (as others have said). Is there a simple solution, if we keep in mind while formatting? It might be good to lay down guidelines now before we create new pages for Factions. But I'm not really aware of what we can do since I'm almost always on 1280. And having other tables float left just kind of screws it up even more. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 14:28, 16 March 2006 (CST)

I'm just saying doing this as a best-effort thing. If a page is noticed to not be 800x600 viewable, we fix it. If we are creating new tables/infoboxes, then as we are creating them we check how they work on 800x600. Instead of making tables float left, you can add "clear:right" in the style, that will prevent any floating table to take up the same Y coordinates as the current table (even if they weren't going to overlap on the x-axis). -PanSola 15:07, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Dammit! I want every page made so that it looks good at 2560x1024 when I have it stretched across my monitors. :P --Rainith 16:05, 16 March 2006 (CST)

To address Evan's question: The easiest way to test if a page looks reasonable on lower resolutions is simply to shrink your browser window. De-maximize it, and make it only take up 3/4 or half the screen instead of all of it (vertically and horizontally). If your monitor is 1024x768, cutting it down to about 75% in each direction is a loose approximation of 800x600. Adjust for whatever resolution you are actually using -- Rainith will have to shrink things down a lot! =) This obviously isn't perfect, but it goes a long way with minimum fuss. --JoDiamonds 01:40, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Really? Because I tried that before, and it never really caused a collision. With any tables I've used that on so far - usually it just shrinks it down to near-nothingness. When do the tables stop scaling and start colliding with eachother? Evan The Cursed (Talk) 03:14, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Originally, Aura of Restoration's progression and skill box collide at 800x600, but I've edited the progression templates (1~3) so they will never ever collide with skill boxes anymore. I think some of the armor pages had armor box and crafting/trading info colliding too, but I have edited the old armor info template (added a depreciation note which also forces it to be thin).

It may be a browser dependent thing on how things won't fit is handled. Basically, at 800x600, Aura of Restoration's progression takes up all the horizontal space available, wrapping every white space it can use to try to be thinner. Thus without the "clear:right" stype specification in the progression template (you can temporarily edit it out just to see the effects), it will collide with the info box. -PanSola 04:50, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Categorization links at bottom of page, why?

First of all, this is a GuildWiki rule that I personally never follow. By the time I noticed this rule, I have been seeing way too many articles with categorization links on the top of the page to take this rule seriously. So, what is the rational for this? - PanSola = SolaPan

a LOT of pages are missing the Ch2 template...

Factions has not been released yet. A lot of articles created during this FPE weekend don't have the proper ch2 tempate on... Not sure if there's an easy way for a bot to just add the Ch2 template tag to every single new page created during the FPE, and let us manually remove false-positives (if there are any...) -SolaPan 01:37, 27 March 2006 (CST)

I think that template should be scrapped. It has served its purpose. Many things about the game are clear enough now that the standard Wiki disclaimer should be sufficient. — Stabber 02:59, 27 March 2006 (CST)

Hmm more or less agreed. We need not to delete the template now, but I dont feel we need to stage a hunt for untagged articles either. --Xeeron 08:14, 1 April 2006 (CST)