GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Talk:GWBBCode

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Um, content? — Skuld 03:17, 21 October 2006 (CDT)

For more content, the next step is to transfer the tutorial to this article.

Extension[edit source]

Discusion about this page and about the extension if annyone is interested: http://gwshack.us/forums_small/viewtopic.php?t=310 .--Phoenix Phoenix Benu.png 17:49, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

About deleting[edit source]

I am against it. You are wright that is for forums, websites, but it's verry used almost the entire comunity usses it including GuildWars.com uses a similar version. Also an extension for MW exists as well. An thats way there is this category. And this is about the game in the end like GWFreaks, The Edge, GW Team Builder, GW Manager --Phoenix Phoenix Benu.png 02:49, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

The end product is not something you use in the game, it's something you use to make your site look better. --Karlos 03:52, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
Wrong! the end product you use in game. After the build maker makes the build it postes it on the forum for the next gvg battle, or TA, or wathever then the memmbers can specify if they can play it or not and what position as well make modification. So you see it is used.--Phoenix Phoenix Benu.png 04:52, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
Ummm, this is not a build maker, is it? As I understand, it's just code to allow you to display skill info on a web page, no? --Karlos 05:06, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
Yes it's a build maker as a code to be displayed on a forum. Take a look on http://gwshack.us/ at the build library section.--Phoenix Phoenix Benu.png 06:49, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
I'm not sure yet whether I should agree or disagree with a delete. It is right, we do have articles about 3rd party software, but this is not a 3rd party software used with the game, but rather a 3rd party software for fansites about the game. It was agreed that we do not want articles about fansites on the wiki. However, from a different point of view: Does it hurt in any way, to keep this article? It may not be directly connected to the game, but it is closely related. --84-175 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
I have made a Mediawiki extension to support gwBBCode on wiki, so I think this page has a place in the wiki (see here). Even if the extension is not used by Guild Wiki, it is a software which has a relationship with Guild Wars.--Ouroboros 07:13, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
If this articles claim that ANet uses this on their homepage is true, that is a good argument against deletion. --Xeeron 09:23, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
If you view the source code, then it's obvious that GuildWars.com is using a Java markup that's entirely different than the markup used by the french wiki site. From that, I believe that the guildwars.com code is not based on gwBBcode.
As for deletion, I support it. We do not document mediawiki, php, mySQL, or the hardware on which the fansite runs. We are not an encyclopedia, we document the game. If we documented individual fansites or software used by fansites, then I could see keeping this. But, we do neither.
I believe that gwBBCode deserves a topic of discussion in the talk page for the Community Portal, to discuss its use on this site. But, I do not believe that it merits its own article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 09:41, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
I am completely against deleting, This is not a fansite article (the article is about GwBBcode not Gwshack), it is a tool just like Gwfreaks (which you have an article). It is not only for sites to look "pretty", it also helps incredible to party formation (see pickup function on tutorial). While you are ingame, I use gwBBcode more than gwfreaks actually looking for the posted builds that have neat information. I even beleave wiki should install it, having to open 5 windows to understand an uncommon posted build is annoying, which would be great if you have all the skill info in a little pop-up window. --Coran Ironclaw.

this tool, is not intended primarly to make sites look better, is intended to provide an understendable way to look at builds, or build discussion in a forum, also GW official page have now something similar, you can see it here http://www.gwshack.us/forums/viewtopic.php?t=322 , althoug its not directly related to the game, its related the same way as Gw freaks or any other third party software, its only the channel on which you use it what changed, in this case PHPbb forums (and various others) Apoguita 09:58, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

As I said above, the official site does not appear to be using gwBBCode, they are using their own Java code. We do not have articles for any of the software used by this site: mediawiki, php, mySQL, nor any of the other add-ins used such as ParserFunctions, ceSetup and wfSetupParserFunctions. Even if added to GuildWiki (which I agree that we should seriously consider, as I like the tool), I still see no reason to document it in its own article. We do not document fansites, we do not document software used by fansites, and we are not an encyclopedia. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 10:17, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
Agree w/deletion for much the same reasons that Barek lists. Next thing we'll need a page for The Internet (3rd party network that the game is played on). --Rainith 11:06, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
I disagree on treating GWBBcode as a Fansite discussion /article, this article is NOT about http://www.gwshack.us the SITE but GWbbcode THE TOOL, and i stand my ground on saying that its a TOOL such as GWFreaks, The Edge, GW Team Builder, GW Manager or others third party programs that you have articles on wiki, its just that the media on wich is distributed differs on popular third party programs in this case its in PHPbb forums and not stand alone applications.Apoguita 12:40, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
The arguments I gave above for deletion was based on the tool, not the site. Please re-read it. It is fundamentally different than GWFreaks or any other third party tool currently documented on this site, so not a parallel of those examples. The tool is much more closely related to tools such as the ParserFunction extensions which is currently in use on the skill articles within this site, but that tool also does not get its own article.
I agree that we should seriously consider implementing the tool for this site. But, it does not deserve its own article. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 12:54, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
I think the comparison on gwbbcode with php, mysql or mediawiki is completely wrong. Because the other softwares are Generic ones, and (as you claim) can be found on a Generic Encyclopedia or wikipedia. But if we want to look for gwbbcode on wikipedia, guess what? We can't find it!, why? Because it is Exclusively for Guild Wars, then it shouldn't be documented on a Generic Encyclopedia or wikipedia but on a Guild Wars Wiki-pedia. -Coran Ironclaw
The argument for it being in Wikipedia or not are 100% irrellevant and unrelated to if it belongs in GuildWiki. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 13:09, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
The argument being a tool exclusively for Guild Wars is relevant. -Coran Ironclaw
It's a tool for fansites. We do not document fansites, their site tools, or their site software. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 13:44, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
If a tool for fansites is exclusively for Guild Wars sites, you should start considering document them. Furthermore, if Guild Wiki in a near future decide to apply this code to thier pages, you will need an article explaining how to use it, since it is not part of mediawiki. -Coran Ironclaw
There is no reason to document tools for fansites unless we also documented fansites - which is something that was debated previously and decided against.
As for documenting its use, we have instructions in our style and formatting articles on how to do many mediawiki formatting tasks, yet we have no mediawiki article. If we implement this tool, I see no reason to change the precedent of just documenting use of the tools in a style and formatting article. I also suspect that to simplify its use, we would embed much of the function by modifying existing site templates. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 13:58, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
"There is no reason to document tools for fansites unless we also documented fansites" <- I disagree with this particular rational, without taking a side in the issue yet. The tool isn't just used by particular fansites, but is a general fansite tool. Thus the issue of documentation of this general tool should not be related to the decisions of whether to document specific fansites. Additionally, we do have a general article on fansite. Thus the quoted argument against a general fansite tool, in my opinion, is flawed reasoning. On the other hand, I agree that whether GuildWiki uses this tool or not (either in its original form or a modified form) has no bearing on whether we should document it or not. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 14:54, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
(resetting margin)
There are two arguments being presented for why we should keep this article:
  1. It is a useful tool used on Guild Wars sites to help make builds more readable.
  2. It is a tool "exclusive" to Guild Wars sites unlike mySQL.
The first argument is irrelevant. We honestly do not care to document anything about sites and how they work, including Guildwars.com.
The second argument is misleading because the author customized existing JavaScript code (or something else) to help with the specific task of displaying skill icons with info overlayed on it. This is not really exclusive to GW. Someone else can write a similar module for their site (as ANet did for theirs and as Fyren did for us). So, to say that the CONCEPT is used on many sites is a reason to document a SPECIFIC instance is misleading. --Karlos 14:36, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
If the specific instance happens to be the (or one of the) most prominent implementation of abovementioned concept for GuildWars fansites (I do not know whether that is true or not, just throwing the IFs around for consideration), would you consider that to be of sufficient merit for documentation? I'm still reading the various arguments and weighing them before taking a stance on this issue. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 14:49, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
No, as I said in the first point, it's really irrelevant how GW sites choose to document the game and I do not think we should go about recording that. Another point to consider is that this is a tool used by site admins/webmasters to make the information presentation better. the average user could not possibly care any less about how that cute little hovering feature is implemented. We do not have ANY content here on the wiki that is just for site admins/curious programmers/and so forth. Anything we document is something that users (all users) would be intersted in. why would the average user care how something behind the scenes is implemented? All those other tools are things the user can pick up and use himself while he is playing. If I pick up this tool tomorrow, what can I do with it while playing the game? --Karlos 15:01, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
Your argument is completely false and it is the main argument to be documented. This tool is not used only by admins/webmasters to put information on their sites. But It is used by Any Forum User which wants to put a build or talk about a skill on any forum with this code implemented. By instance, look at this site, and how every user uses the code to make their points extremely more readable than without it. -Coran Ironclaw. http://gwshack.us/forums/viewtopic.php?t=36 and if you want a link outside the official site here is an example http://foro.cronicasderiddick.com/viewtopic.php?t=262&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 and i have many more examples (sorry for the spanish on last one)
You just made Karlos' point for him. By your own admission: "any forum with this code implemented". It MUST be implemented by site admins/webmasters to even be relevant. If we do implement it here, that would still not automatically mean than an article should exist on it. As I pointed out, the style and formatting articles cover all code instruction for us now, and should continue to do so with or without this code. It is merely an extra add-on/extension to the site code base. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:25, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
Ironclaw, You are missing the point. The users on that thread (by the way, none of the icons showed anything for me, but I assume it works) posted their builds. I don't see the code they used, but I am assuming they just put minimal code arround the skill name to have it displayed in that manner (kinda like Fyren is doing with the whole toggle thingie). The user should not "program" to get this to work (and if this is how it works now, then it sucks), so as far as the user is concerned, they do something like we do here (e.g. {{skill icon|Sprint}}, and then some backend renders that into a pretty icon with a cool hover. am I correct in this assumption or does it require them to write actual code?
So, assuming that this is how it works, it's still not "used" by the average user, it benefits the average user. Do you follow? --Karlos 15:33, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

how Gwfreaks differs from gwBBcode? or for this matters, any third program Gw software differs from this?, BBcode is an utility to post builds in a public channel, gw freaks is for making builds in a privete channel, but to me is still the same, both are aids for players to manage thing from the game outside the game.Apoguita 15:43, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

A user can download GWFreaks, and they have a tool that they can use immediately. A user who downloads gwBBcode does not unless they also happen to have a forum or wiki on which to install it. gwBBCode is only relevant if a site admin downloads and installs the code. It's an add-on the forum or wiki software. We don't document any other wiki or forum add-on, this should not be treated any differently than other add-ons. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:53, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
gwfreaks can only be used with framework 1.1 installed we can make an analogy of framework and a forum though its obviously not the same, but to prove the point that you need another application in order to run it. presonally, i dont use gwfreaks because of the framework wich i dont have.

There are several arguments for why gamewikis should delete this article:

  1. gwBBcode is only relevant for site admins.
  2. it's irrelevant how GW fan sites choose to document the game.
  3. you can't use it while playing the game.
  4. gamewikis isn't an encyclopedia thus it shouldn't include third party tools.

The first argument is (obviously) wrong, every user that visits a site with gwbbcode can use it. About the second and fourth argument: why? GW fansites are related to Guild Wars thus "every" third party tool exclusively by those sites is related to Guild Wars (IMHO). The main question is: does it hurt to document third party tools that are related to Guild Wars? About the third argument: nor can you use GWfreaks while using the game. Last argument: I'll give an example: I don't see why the way how people communicate in any game (I'm talking about Voice chat ) is more relevant than this tool. If I forgot an argument, it's because it was answered before or similar to one of those four arguments.

gwBBCode is only relevant if site admins decide to implement it. A user can use all the gwBBcode they want, but if it's not on a site configured to use it, it's irrellevent. It is trully irrellevent to playing the game as to how a site documents it, and what tools those fansites choose to implement. If the site uses gwBBcode, that site should document it on its own. We don't document any other add-in to MediaWiki, no valid argument has been presented that shows why gwBBcode should be treated any differently. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 12:24, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
Note: I've also realized that the majority of users arguing to keep this article have few if any posts outside of this topic, and have likely only come here as a result of a post of gwshack's forum for gwBBcode. While this in itself shouldn't determine the decision, it is worth noting that we're seeing little support from regular contributors of this site so far, who should be the determining group (anyone else having Photics flashbacks at this point?). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 12:48, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
Focus on arguments, not from where they come from. A user can't use gwbbcode if the site admin have not decided to implement it, true, but you have not evaluated how much this tool has been spread, gwBBcode has been installed in more than 500 forums, including Official fansites like Gwlatino. And it is clear than the use of this tool will still increasing. Why this tool should be irrelevant to guildwiki if so many people can use it? even if some other users can't. What we are trying to build here is the information every gwbbcode User would be interested in, the content on this tutorial Tutorial. You said "If the site uses gwBBcode, that site should document it on its own" but earlier you said "The argument for it being in Wikipedia or not are 100% irrellevant and unrelated to if it belongs in GuildWiki", so you stated earlier that it is 100% irrellevant to guildwiki if an article content is documented or not on other sites. Furthermore, we know many forums don't document well thier tools or they hide them very well where no one can find it, so many people will come guildwiki looking for a possible info about it. You said " We don't document any other add-in to MediaWiki" are any other add-in exclusive for guildwars? do any other add-in have been spread so much on fansites? I really don't know the answers of this questions because i don't know what add-ins are you talking about, but if the answer is yes to both you really should consider to document them also.- Coran Ironclaw
As I stated above, the source of the arguments should not be the basis of the decision, but it is worth noting that many are coming from users with no vested history in the wiki or its welfare and a clear and singular objective, and comments should be weighted accordingly.
How far the tool has spread on fansites is not relevant to a wiki that documents the game (not fansites) - let each fansite that uses it train their own users in how to post with it. You state "what we are trying to build here is the information every gwbbcode User would be interested in" - we are NOT a vehicle for your software's advertising, promotion, or training. Use your own bandwidth, or the sites that use it. Based on these types of statements, which you make others along these lines further in your post, I was nearly ready to make an immediate delete of the article.
Also, you bring up my statements "If the site uses gwBBcode, that site should document it on its own" and "The argument for it being in Wikipedia or not are 100% irrellevant and unrelated to if it belongs in GuildWiki." I still stand by these statements. We don't care if wikipedia documents it or not - not our issue. If another site uses the tool, let them document its use - as will we in a style and formatting article IF we implement it (which, from statements in your forum on CPU and bandwidth uses of the current release, I see as unlikely at least until v2.0).
As for the tool being exclusive to GW, I see that as more of a problem of shortsightedness on the tool design rather than a reason for us to include it here. There's no reason that the tool couldn't be ported to support any MMORPG - in fact, the non-competitive elements of other MMORPGs would seem to make it easier to work for other games. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:15, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
"gwBBCode is only relevant if site admins decide to implement it. A user can use all the gwBBcode they want, but if it's not on a site configured to use it, it's irrellevent. " I have to agree, but: does this mean that this article should be deleted (if so, why isn't that stated in GuildWiki:Criteria_for_deletion? "Note: I've also realized that the majority of users arguing to keep this article have few if any posts outside of this topic, and have likely only come here as a result of a post of gwshack's forum for gwBBcode. While this in itself shouldn't determine the decision, it is worth noting that we're seeing little support from regular contributors of this site so far, who should be the determining group (anyone else having Photics flashbacks at this point?)." If this is true, we need to change this page: GuildWiki:You_are_valuable. Correct me if I'm worng, but you argument goes like this: "because we don't document fansites, we shouldn't document third party tools that help Guild Wars players visiting one of those fansites (with this add-on). " I wonder: why? "We don't document any other add-in to MediaWiki, no valid argument has been presented that shows why gwBBcode should be treated any differently." What about the argument "gwBBCode isn't only used by mediawiki". BTW: which criteria - listed at GuildWiki:Criteria_for_deletion - says that this page should be deleted?
As I've stated repeatedly, and you even quoted, "While this in itself shouldn't determine the decision, it is worth noting."
I have deleted the article, per above discussion reasons and per GuildWiki:Article_retention#External_websites_and_applications. Per that policy, we do not document fansites, this tool is one that would be installed on fansites, and is covered by that policy. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 12:14, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

I was really happy to learn gwBBCode had an article on GuildWiki, and deeply saddened to see that it was deleted. It won't change the fact that I love GuildWiki. The next major feature of gwBBCode will be the ability to write [[something]] in a forum and have it turned to a link to GuildWiki! Gravewit (big boss), Tanaric (admin) and I have been working on it for a month now (based on a suggestion by CoRrRan) and it's nearly done. Maybe will it then be rehabilitated, maybe not... Overall there is too much to do for the community to fight over this stillborn article ^^ Liu Pi 12:43, 27 October 2006 (CDT)