Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Community portal

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Community Portal

Lost in a sea of projects, formats, and debates? Look no further! These are the current hot topics, and you can find previous topics here.
Shortcut:
GW2W:CP

To begin a new topic on this page, use the "+" button at the top of the page.

If logged in, you can also add this page to your watchlist to track any changes and stay on top of things!

Newsletter of the week[edit]

This newsletter is maintained on User:Relyk/Wiki Newsletter and might not objectively reflect what happened on the wiki.

  • Doodle le sys.

Event Rewards Templates[edit]

While I was adding rewards for defeating bosses in the Nightmare Fractal challenge mode, it came up that the rewards do not come from the bosses themselves, but rather are given out as event rewards (from completing the event objectives). Documenting the rewards for these events required updating both the fractal page in addition to the individual item's acquisition section. This pattern extends to many of the event rewards in HoT maps, where the drop itself may list the events that reward it, but the event itself does not mention the drop (even if it is guaranteed). This seems like a gap in the wiki templates/properties and I'd like the community's thoughts on my proposal.

Proposal
Create 2 new templates for event rewards/bouncy chests that you don't gain from rummaging around in the still-warm corpses of your enemies
  • rewards to specify what items are rewarded by an event(see Template:Drops):
    "This event rewards this item."
    • {{rewards|Chunk of the Solid Ocean}}
    • {{rewards|Chunk of the Solid Ocean}} (1-2)
    "This event objective rewards this item."
    • {{rewards|Chunk of the Solid Ocean|Defeat Siax the Corrupted}}
    • {{rewards|item=Chunk of the Solid Ocean|objective=Defeat Siax the Corrupted|name=Chunk}}
    Possible example:
  • rewarded by to list what events reward this item (see Template:Dropped by):
    "This is the list of events that reward this item."
    • {{rewarded by}}
    Possible example. I'm not sure what the best format would be, though:
Examples of Usage
  • rewards
    • Personal story rewards, e.g., Roots of Terror
    • Event rewards, e.g., Against the Chak Gerent meta-event, various other HoT events with guaranteed (or randomized) rewards
    • Event Objective rewards, e.g.,
      • The bosses in the Nightmare Fractal challenge mode do not drop loot directly, instead you get bouncy chests as "Event rewards" for completing the objective associated with the boss.
      • Spirit Woods (where such chests are omitted entirely).
  • rewarded by

--Floodbars (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

We don't have a template for bonus chests yet, but those gives a random item. The map meta reward is based on tier. The meta event progression rewards are more tied to the dynamic event being part of the meta event, rather than the event itself. The Story Journal stuff is covered by {{reward}} (old, bad name). The problem there is the reward is sometimes dependent on profession and the "pick-one" variation in the reward.
I'd hold off on lookup templates until we have a clear format for how the rewards are presented and where to put them. Seems more likely that we'll create a template for each reward type and at least store the reward item and reward type for presentation.--Relyk ~ talk < 07:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent change to effect-based templates[edit]

I don't know hat has happened for sure, templates such as Crippled 40px.png Crippled, Bleeding 40px.png Bleeding, etc. used to support an optional parameter to change the wording while keeping the icon (i.e. {{crippled|cripples}} would say cripples). There are examples of previous use of this convention like here. As a result, I must use {{effect icon|crippled}}[[crippled|cripples]] for editing combat abilities sections of NPCs, which is extremely long. However, I know now that it was not a result of changes to the specific templates, but something that affects the wiki as a whole. I'm unsure as to what it could be, so, if possible, please offer some insight as to why this is happening. Sythe 02:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't be using the templates anywhere in prose.--Relyk ~ talk < 05:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Could you elaborate please? Sythe 15:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe Relyk means that when it's used, it should solely be in cases where you'd use the word "crippled" rather than "cripples" - e.g., "this applies crippled" rather than "this cripples" - or in list of conditions. Basically, there should be no need to ever type {{crippled|cripples}}. If I'm understanding Relyk right. Konig (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, when there is text like “Using this skill causes a bleeding, just use normal links like that to keep up the reading flow. Those templates are mostly meant for things outside of text like a list of effects a skill could have. poke | talk 17:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I was attempting to follow previous conventions used on the wiki as examples, i.e. Jungle Tendril#Combat abilities under abilities. From now on I'll follow your recommendations, thanks! Sythe 17:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You can largely thank User:Louise for doing that to the ability section of many NPCs (and many others followed suit), but as you can see... the templates aren't meant to be used in such a fashion. I fixed that particular article since I noticed other things wrong with it, as it is now is how I, personally at least, think articles should be for that template use. Konig (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Story Instance Map[edit]

Was pondering the idea of including the map of the instances for stories/story instances. Couldn't hurt to have I was thinking, and I have at least one HoT story map(The Jungle Provides) that indicates where certain achievements start/the start is found I think. - Doodleplex 01:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Coordinates on the wiki[edit]

Hello guys. {{Infobox map}} has been up for a few weeks now, and so far I'm pretty pleased with how it's turned out. I'm now thinking about adding coordinates to the following:

  1. Locations: I'm thinking about adding the coordinates from the API to Cities, Zones (not areas at the moment), Heart NPCs (they're in the api already) and probably Points of Interest. This will be "easy".
  2. Hero challenges (related to the above): There isn't currently a neat way to pick up all of the hero challenges pages (where context = Events, NPCs, and Objects) with one semantic query, which I think should be possible. I've composed a manual list of the pages here: User:Chieftain_Alex/sandbox2&oldid=1350395. I'm not sure which direction to go. Option A: We could just stick a manual category at the bottom of the page, such as "category:hero challenges", and then move the current content of that category to "Category:Hero challenge events" (since that's what they are). Option B: Alternatively we could add a parameter to all three infoboxes along the lines of "hero challenge = y" (and only use that for challenges with map markers). I'm open to other suggestions.

Side note: there's also the complication that multiple hero challenges share one page, e.g. Statue of Melandru (hero challenge) has four on one page.

(And yeah, eventually I want to be able to give two [x,y] pairs to a query, and it'll tell me exactly what's inside the bounds.) -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 21:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Round two:
  • I split all the shared hero challenge pages to be one page each. This simplifies maps and dialogue. I've updated all links too afaik.
  • I chose to move "Category:Hero challenge NPCs" and "Category:Hero challenge objects" to Category:Hero challenges since the initiators for the challenge encompass everything (i.e. the total of that category should in theory be the same as the ingame total for Tyria+The Mists = roughly 253). Events are now to be found in Category:Hero challenge events. I've added the coordinates to all hero challenge NPCs and objects, but let it default to jpeg maps if available and left coordinate maps as a fallback.
Hearts and points of interest are next on my list. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 19:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Was wondering why the hero challenge pages got split... Konig (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Should I add event coordinates to the wiki too? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. - Doodleplex 22:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Events are weird - I know how to convert the "center": [ -45685.2, -13819.6, -1113 ] to coordinates = [x,y], but I have no idea what we want to do with the sphere/cylinder/poly types + their radius. I'm thinking I should still add the X/Y if there's a direct page match. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 23:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay 1900 events now have coordinates added to their infoboxes. There are about 2000 historical events in the event_details API (e.g. Mordrem invasion, Scarlet, and a further 900 events which either aren't documented or have duplicate names (e.g. rift events, an event for each rally point in verdant brink, etc) - too many to manually sort out.
The tango icons look kind of cruddy. We could do with the ingame icons from the dat. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 13:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Noticed two things so far: First, it appears if a .jpg map was uploaded already, like for Help U.N.I.T. find and destroy the Inquest, the coordinates do not show up. Second, the coordinates a great for events that are stationary in one place but are absolutely terrible an escort type event where they go from A to B, as I have no idea if that circle is the starting point, the end point, etc. (edit) Also coordinates don't show up at all for meta events. - Doodleplex 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No Periods. Period?[edit]

I tried asking this before, but I think it got missed. Similar to how we don't use period in event names, can we do the same for items and effects that have periods in them such as "Ponder the Cobiah Marriner Statue." and "You can not use this skill right now." as it's much more readable without the period. - Doodleplex 22:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I think we should leave those as is. The difference is that events with periods are much more common than items are. It's in the api, it's in the game, and it should be listed on the wiki with a period as well. Of course, an argument could be made that we should also put periods on events to reflect their in-game nature, but that's a discussion for another day. —Ventriloquist 09:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
If keeping them does no harm (i.e. doesn't affect look-ups), then there's no need to go and remove the ones with periods. G R E E N E R 06:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I just think it looks a bit weird but if that's what seems to be accepted then I'll not poke it. - Doodleplex 06:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather remove the periods, the main reason being we don't quote wikilinks and it looks bad at the end of a sentence. The other reason being that having to add the period when searching is unnatural for people. It's much easier to add the period in the alt text if needed, which is moreso easier for less common pages like Vent noted.--Relyk ~ talk < 15:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
To be fair most people don't type things out that far to get to the period, but I do like the above idea to just add it as alt text. - Doodleplex 19:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for Adminship: Doodleplex[edit]

RFA page has been created at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Requests for adminship/Doodleplex. G R E E N E R 22:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

External links from item infoboxes[edit]

I think we should consider reviewing the links we provide at the moment. Example: Elonian Leather Square provides links to the following sites:

  • GW2BLTC
  • GW2Shinies
  • GW2Spidy
  • GW2TP

Also, are there any better options? (as example, anything with a recipe to make it could instead link to gw2efficiency) -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 21:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing it appear under "Chat link" in the {{recipe}} template, if possible. G R E E N E R 22:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The ampersand symbol[edit]

I was pondering the other day, since the ampersand or "&" symbol is currently not working right, I was wondering if for the pages that currently have them should be redirected to pages that don't have it in the name so that everybody, not just the few of us with bots, can edit/create them. Or basically, redirect anything with "PR&T" and "R&D" to "PRT" and "RD" respectively and stick the tag for technical restrictions on top. The only trick I don't know though would be how to create redirects for the pages that haven't been made yet (which is pretty much just the NPCs in Jeztar Fall), would creating a page and then moving it to the correct name (with the redirect already on the page to avoid trying to edit after moving it issues) work? I don't want to break anything hence why I haven't tried that idea myself. - Doodleplex 22:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Issues with ampersand and a few other symbols were supposed to be fixed around January with the update to the wiki backend. Got any examples?--Relyk ~ talk < 23:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Examples of it not working? Yeah, tried to make "PR&T Mini Ooze Projection" and got the "PR" page which Alex deleted. - Doodleplex 23:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If we can make a more robust version of
// Encode wiki links that might break, e.g. ampersands.
function encodeWikiElements(selector, attribute) {
  $(selector).each(function (i, element){
    var m = $(this).attr(attribute).match(/^(\/index\.php\?title=)(.*?)(&curid=.*|&action=.*)$/);
    if ((m) && ( $(this).attr(attribute).search('%') === -1) ) { $(this).attr(attribute, m[1] + encodeURIComponent(m[2]) + m[3]); }
  });
}
encodeWikiElements('a[href]','href');
encodeWikiElements('form[action]','action');
we could stick it in the common.js -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 00:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
breaks on rollback links at the moment. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 00:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

SAB request[edit]

I'm posting this here because I don't know if there is a more appropriate place to make requests. One thing currently lacking in each of the SAB level articles is a clear organization of things by category, by which I mean the locations of locked chests and destructible furniture counts, things which are relevant to daily and other achievements, but which are not terribly accessible as such when scattered throughout the text of a full walkthrough. If someone could please design an organizational structure to highlight this information - as a starting point you could consider something similar to what is already done for digging spots. Thanks. 76.253.2.43 17:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You may find this helpful in the interim. SarielV 20 x 20px 18:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I created the above linked page to be a general guide for what you need to do for the dailies, since the walkthroughs on the Zone page are intended to guide players to obtain all of the bauble/hidden shop achievements as well as guide them to the end of the zone. The digging spots are a separate section on the zone page since they aren't required for either zone completion or any of the previous achievements before the dailies came around, but were relevant to the zone. - Doodleplex 23:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, guide page works fine here.--Relyk ~ talk < 16:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

On the Community, Administrators, and Reconfirmations[edit]

moved from Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Doodleplex#On the Community, Administrators, and Reconfirmations
Since we're now conducting human experiments, are we going to have reconfirmations for all current administrators as well? Might be a good chance to gather some feedback concerning what the community thinks of and expects from administrators, thus aid in fixing possible issues — all the while establishing some contemporary groundwork in terms of adminship which might ease the processes of possible future RFAs and clarify the actual role of an administrator further. It would also help in identifying whether the lacking activity of this and the past RFA was user-related or the result of general wiki lethargy. I am actually only sharing this suggestion since, based on my evaluations, none of the current active administrators are likely to lose their adminship over a reconfirmation. Thoughts? User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 19:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, having a reconfirmation for Doodle already may not necessarily be the most useful thing in the world without specific reason, but if you (the general you, whoever) wanted to call for reconfirmations on the other admins (me included), that's certainly a thing you're allowed to do. Actually I don't think we have a particular process for calling for reconfirmations, considering the only reconfirmations we've had were the initial round of em back in 2012, but I'm sure we could stumble our way through something. That being said, I think if your main goal is clarification of the admin role without any particular doubts in the current admin team, perhaps a discussion on Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for adminship or Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Practices and processes would be more in order, either first or instead. - Tanetris (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You are right, having a reconfirmation for Doodle so soon would make little to no sense, particularly since she already received her, although possibly a bit lacking, feedback. That should suffice for the next few years.
When I suggested reconfirmations I meant ones for the already existent administrators. I am still more inclined to have reconfirmations for all the long-standing administrators instead of just clarifying the role of an administrator, since it would be a valuable experience for all participants.
This is mostly because:

The position as an administrator should not be a secure one, let alone a "title for life". Since most people, particularly new or less committed individuals or even mere passers-by, might not know about the possibility to instigate a reconfirmation, it makes more sense to routinely reconfirm all administrators once in a while (I am aware of the suspended policy proposal that never made it through).

As for the reasons why, there are several, though I shall present the three major ones.

The community as a whole is in constant movement. People come, people go. The ones who voted for you (here and in the following as "general" you; not addressing anyone specifically) when you were first nominated are most likely no longer present. A reconfirmation will show you how you stand with the community in its current state. You will be able to collect (ideally constructive and meaningful) feedback. Positive as well as negative. The former covering the need for praise and appreciation, both invaluable for increasing and/or ensuring productivity and enthusiasm. Personally speaking for a moment; I find acknowledgement and praise are certainly good means to encourage me to try to improve myself further. I would like to believe this applies to most humans, however, I am not claiming that it does. Concerning the good of negative feedback, it should help pointing out areas where some kind of improvement of your admin-self and/or the way you operate is necessary. Lacks and needs may make themselves present, demanding some kind of action — acknowledging that there are lacks would certainly be a step in the right direction already.

Further, reconfirmations serve the purpose of engaging the community. Transparency is ensured. Not only this, it represents the belief that every single member of the wiki community has a say in wiki-related matters. Regardless of what kind of user you are. This is good for the community and should help it grow (closer). In addition, it helps coming to a consensus regarding how adminship should be through the collective of different opinions and persons. Likewise, awareness is raised. There are individuals who are not aware of how this wiki is run (the general belief is still that the information mysteriously appears out of thin air or that ArenaNet or some other single person manages it; i.e., at one time one person asked me to my horror whether I ran the wiki on my own), or that there are administrators, and even if they know that there are, they do not know who actually is one. Yes, we have the list of currently (in-)active administrators. Its usefulness is debatable. How should these people then know they can help administering the administrators? I was sceptical of having a site notice for RFAs at first, but it seemed to have helped. However, it would further aid if we had some sort of guideline that helps (less) experienced editors and the target audience to make the most of their right to vote.

Lastly, reconfirmations help us weeding out the inactive administrators. Some might even come to the realisation on their own that it might be a better idea to step down if they lack the time or commitment they had when they just started out, instead of being a "ghost" admin. Some might need the input of the current community to come to this realisation or be confronted with the reality. Along the way the red names might turn into blue ones, and the list of administrators might grow, particularly since, ideally, the benefits of having reconfirmations come into play and pay off.

I do not wish to call for reconfirmations without prior communication and consent. This is an attempt to turn a new leaf, not to stir up drama and offend individuals. If we are going for reconfirmations, we should keep in mind to try to cater to all kinds of participants. This means that the candidate statements should be a bit more elaborate than: "Hey, I've been doing this for x years, ya'll cool and stuff, let me at it again" but instead briefly state who you are, what you did, for how long you did it, what your domains of expertise are, what you might have noticed about yourself that you want to improve, and what you are going to do or continue to do for the community if they decide to keep you. During the reconfirmations the candidates should try to engage with the ones voting; that means try to answer questions or resolve possible issues and thus show their commitment and interest in this.

This covers what I wanted to convey to a degree. Are there further thoughts, comments, concerns, questions, what have you? User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 12:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you brought up some good points worth discussing. Not an overhaul, but simply a reconfirming of where we are and what the community would like. Could we move the above to a more appropriate page? G R E E N E R 15:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Community portal or Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for adminship? User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 15:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm interested to see what the response is, so I'm inclined to have your above post copied over to the Community Portal. G R E E N E R 15:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
By all means carry out reconfirmations for everyone. I'm sure the majority of contributors expect some level of continuous validation for sysop users. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 17:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
"The position as an administrator should not be a secure one, let alone a "title for life". ... it makes more sense to routinely reconfirm all administrators once in a while"
You're going to give some of the really old hands flashbacks to the GW1W bcrat elections, which were kind of a nightmare. For reference, there were 3 bcrat seats, each with a 6-month term, staggered, and elections took a month, which meant 1-month election, 1 month off, 1-month election, 1 month off, repeat for all eternity (except not for all eternity, as the community eventually got sick of it).
That being said, it's been 5 years since most of the admin team has had reconfirmations (3 years since the RFAs for Alex and Vent), so a round of reconfirmations every 5 years in addition to 'as needed' is probably not too onerous.
Opinions are probably always going to be mixed on whether an inactive admin should remain an admin. The age-old argument goes that if we trusted someone with the admin tools then, there's no reason they aren't still trustworthy with the admin tools, and we lose nothing by letting them keep it in case they happen to come back and see something that needs adminning. By the same token, Infinite for example quit the wiki 4 years ago, so there is probably not a great deal of value keeping him on the sysop list. And now I'm worried about Gares realizing I haven't heard from him since an e-mail a year ago... Gonna be looking into that. But that aside.
The point I was trying to go for was that I personally don't mind going up for reconfirmation, but let's not go crazy with required reconfirmations for no reason every couple months or anything like that. - Tanetris (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
My hiatus from the GW1W admin team lasted a few years, so there's some support for the age-old argument. And please, not that 6-month cycle again...
I don't want to see anything which results in a "Keep this admin!" vs. "Kick them out!" mentality, either. Perhaps a softer, "Hi, my name is ______. Here's my role on the wiki. How do you feel about this role, or my performance in it so far? Is there anything you'd like to see changed or improved on my part?" I.e. a means of gathering feedback. I believe that if the feedback were somehow overwhelmingly negative, then we could talk about shifting some people out of their current role. G R E E N E R 00:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I can understand having breaks from, or hiatus from the wiki, but at some point it gets too long imo. There are some admins that I don't recall ever seeing active (even in editing) since I have been here. To me it seems odd that such people would still be considered Admins. To me if there is no trace of editing or admin-ing for a lengthy time, the title should be revoked. Now possibly those people who were once admin could always do a fast-track RFA to get it back if they wanted to, but having an admin list which only has 3-4 of 9 admins appearing in some sort of regular fashion seems strange to me.
I get that one trusted with admin will be trusted as admin for a long time but after a while it seems like the name is just there to collect dust and the title 'admin' becomes just an empty statement associated with them (at least for me who has never even seen them at work).
I personally don't know of anywhere else that holds things like this, any group I've seen with a long inactive admin/mod has eventually had the rights stripped (possibly to be re-given later if needed). It doesn't do any harm mind you, just seems... odd. -Darqam 01:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree with Darqam concerning the question of meaningfulness of retaining sysop rights after prolonged absence and/or inactivity. Sure, an inactive administrator has been elected at one point, and their trustworthiness is out of question (although if I remember correctly I think I did stumble upon some discussions about someone who, after coming back after a longer hiatus, acted a little wilfully if not out of line), but it shines a bad light on the wiki if we are wishy-washy when it comes to removing people that no longer make an effective use of the rights they earned because of their initial qualifications. Think of it along the lines of "Do, ut des" (I give that you may give). If you cannot or will not make use of the privileges granted, you should not have them — or rather, you do not need them. Period. A bit of strictness, but more importantly consistency (both achieved through regular reconfirmations, and the related consequence that sysop rights will be revoked if you are inactive for an ungodly amount of time), will enhance the position as an administrator and render it somewhat more "important" and "relevant" — not just an empty title or "statement" as Darqam points out. It enforces your position if you have to "prove" yourself occasionally. People will respect you a lot more.
Regarding the recurrence of reconfirmations, I concur that having them every six months is insane, even every two years (as the failed policy proposal proposed) is too often. Every five years might be too infrequent though. A lot can change in five years, and people are most likely to forget along the way. I would suggest reconfirmations every three years, since it seems like a fair amount of time to gather enough feedback and if we assume that the average core editor might be invested for three years before moving on, we have a good mix of old and new community members to feedback the administrator adequately. A bout should not last longer than two weeks with an additional week if no consensus can be reached. A month seems awfully long. Short bouts can only work if we advertise enough though. Apart from a site notice, threads on reddit and the forums and info posts via the official social media channels might be in order. These advertisements would need to cover the meaning of reconfirmations, the rights of editors and target audience, and the general schedule though. As Greener said, reconfirmations should not end up in a 'Yay'-or-'Nay'-Battle, candidates and participants need to be briefed accordingly to ensure the purpose of gathering feedback (and introducing the administrator at the same time to people less familiar with the wiki) is fulfilled. User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 12:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with what's been said. This could definitely serve as a way of gathering feedback on what we, as sysops, are doing - how it's perceived, how we can improve and such. I wholeheartedly support the idea. —Ventriloquist 13:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Temporary, Historical, etc[edit]

I'd like to make how we mark where something came from and it's status a lot simpler and cleaner. Currently NPC/object/event that were part of past releases currently can only be shown as such by having a {{temporary|Release name}} on top. Of those that use that and aren't reoccurring seasonal content, a good portion of those infobox status were never edited to mark they were historical. However, if in NPC/object/event was marked as historical, such as Champion Toxic Wurm Queen, they have two banners on the top and are categorized twice on the bottom as being both Historical and Temporary content, which can be confusing and redundant. Now that we have Template:Infobox release, I think we should use that to mark which past release the page's content came from and have the release template categorize if something is historical or not. Additionally, I'd suggest making a template just for release banners so that that Infobox release template could pull from there and not Template:Temporary, so basically the Temporary template can really just be a banner/notice template for seasonal stuff. That way simply sticking the release in the infobox means the status will always be correct, no need to write it in the infobox, it gets put into one category(or so I hope), and the nice banners for past releases still get to be used, ie no double boxes at the top, since the box saying "This content was only available during X Release" is essentially just a prettier historical notice tag. Any thoughts? - Doodleplex 03:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

To me temporary implies that the feature will return and historic implies that it’s not coming back. If we can agree on that definition then we can start labeling things properly. Reoccurring events like wintersday and SAB will be temporary and living world season 1 will become historic. J.Tesla (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)