User talk:Pling

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki

Contents 1 Redirects in search 2 IP account redirects 3 Your monobook.css 4 !!! 5 Signature 6 Main Page 7 Random Skill Related Question 8 Scripts 9 Leaked videos asked by Regina to be removed 10 Exactly what is... 11 Hypothetical Question

Archives: 2007—2009 • January—July 2010

[edit] Redirects in search

Would it be possible to make it so redirects don't show up in the search, or at least ones that are created as a misspell? Or do they automatically phase out as time goes on and they don't get many visits? I'm asking because it seems a little messy and unprofessional, not having them but have them show up in the search bar.--Corsair@Yarrr 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe by default they don't? if they are for you though, when you do a search, make sure that "List redirects" is unchecked, then do the search again =). ~ PheNaxKian talk 10:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are like normal articles, so I don't think it's possible to keep them off the search tools without using the advanced options. There's a discussion at gw1:GWWT:RFTA about improving the search features, which would lessen the need for some of the silly redirects. pling 14:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] IP account redirects

Hey Pling, had a quick question for you. I noticed that Ariyen redirected this IPs talk page to her own and claimed it on the user page. I thought I recalled that there was a discussion on GWW about that not generally being allowed because no one can "claim" an IP as they can change from time to time. So, should this be allowed? --hnzdvn 04:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a stagnant Ip that's assigned by Att - has not been changed in over 3 years. Don't see a problem, unless changed then I can see a deletion. Ariyen 04:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of redirecting the talk page to User talk:Ariyen and having the notice on the userpage, it would be better put the notice on User talk:72.148.31.114 - it's harder to get to IP userpages (links generally lead to contribs instead), so people are unlikely to see the notice on the userpage. If that's done, it should be fine; that's what the template was made for on GWW. pling 14:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Your monobook.css

What does it change? --Naoroji 17:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added annotations on the page, do they help? pling 17:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't necessary ;). But thanks. Was just curious if there was something in there I'd want to use :). --Naoroji 17:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if you hadn't told us, i wouldn't have noticed, but it does make sense. lol --Xerelin 18:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] !!!

Guild Wars 2 Manifesto Trailer! They haven't announced it yet, but I dunno if you browse GW2G or not so I didn't know if you'd gotten a notification yet.-- Shew 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I follow you on twitter, so I've already seen (and been absolutely blown away) by it. I love it :D. (Shame about the French website though...) pling 16:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The dragon at about the 5min mark, looks awesome Venom20 17:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I kinda lost my self-control at that point, and starting giggling and semi-applauding. pling 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Giggled? Nice. Just watched it. Let something like that get near my Charr. I'll make it my mount. — Gares 18:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Hi Pling, I recently updated my signature, but people say animations are not allowed because it makes the page load slower, I can totally agree with that. But its just that one other user here has a non animated signature which is more than triple of my signature in kB. Can I keep oit or not? --AdventurerPotatoe - 13:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The size is in my opinion completely fine, but the thing which is a bit annoying is the animation itself :/ poke | talk 13:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just imagine half of your talkpage sporting that animation, AP... -- Arduin 15:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think animations causes any more problems than anything else that occurs. I was planning an anime on mine. Imo, as long as it's below the 2mb - It should be fine. Pling, what's your opinion on animated sigs? Ariyen 16:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Likely something which resembles GW2W:SIGN#Images, but we shall see. A F K When Needed 17:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's inactive, so are two more proposals. So, not beneficial when not in use. Ariyen 17:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Inactive also means there's a lack of opposition to them. The majority of policy proposals which are "inactive" are effectively copy / pasted from GWW, where the same band of users exist. Even if not set in stone, you can look at most proposals and get an idea of what is and is not acceptable. A F K When Needed 18:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worried about that particular signature's file-size, just how distracting it is on a talk page. That's a more fundamental reason to remove it. pling 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll upload a non-animation of it, but imo, it isnt more disturbing then animated avatars. --AdventurerPotatoe - 21:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I find that when reading through a wiki page (such as this one) the animations distract and annoy me. Also, they make it seem a lot less "professional", and more "wikia" :D ShadowRunner 21:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

AP the two do not compare. On any one talk page you're likely to find over 50 signatures if it's actively discussed on. 50 blinking images irritating you when you're attempting to marshal your thoughts isn't my idea of constructive.

Apologies for the banner, Pling. A F K When Needed 21:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Banner? pling 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

<span style="one month late">Yes, the You Have New Messages banner.</span> A F K When Needed 18:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

Could you add Necromancer to the profession list please? Reaper of Scythes** 17:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. pling 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Random Skill Related Question

Maybe I didn't read all of it, but I was wondering if you would have any problems with starting to add the skill infobox to skill pages? Just wondering :) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 23:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not even sure if the infobox is completed. pling 00:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone took it down from the "Current Discussions" section of Community Portal... So, if it works, would it be okay? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was taken down, due to lack of agreement, etc. and that it stalled out... Ariyen 00:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh...okay...just noting that it works nicely (at least in my brief preview tests) and we have the info for some skills... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Scripts

Hello Pling, you seem to be quite knowledgable in regards to what can run on this wiki. I was wondering if this wiki has the scripts to run the collapable box codes like this:

<div class="NavFrame collapsed">
<div class="NavHead">
[... Title of hidden content(1) ...]
</div>
<div class="NavContent">
[... This content(1) is initially hidden ...]
</div>
</div>

Reason I ask is that I can get it to run correctly on other wikis, but here it does not collapse. Venom20 20:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't have that weird "NavX" scheme.. Look at GWW's collapsible navigation boxes or at MediaWiki talk:CollapsibleTables.js to see how it works. poke | talk 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that's kind of a relief, but not really. I was working on it yesterday for hours trying to get it to work. Now I'll have to find a new method, heh. Thanks Poke Venom20 21:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Leaked videos asked by Regina to be removed

Aliceandsven has been spamming leaked necromancer videos from the intended reveal on the necromancer after Regina requested for them to be removed (she posted this on Guru2 and the thread they were in was deleted - including her post, so I cannot link). Knighthonor has uploaded images from these videos as well (he uploaded others, but I only saw one video, so idk if they're from the leaked ones or high quality Gamescom videos, I'm thinking leaked). I request that they are deleted asap until the necromancer reveal - stated by Regina to be on Wednesday. -- Konig/talk 07:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

another leaked image, and another link. -- Konig/talk 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Heil Regina

Thank you for the images btw leaker, stop leaking Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 08:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet another. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 08:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh god don't you understand, regina doesn't want Pling or anyone to see the leaks, stop leaking!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 08:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The licensing details that editors agree to when saving edits says that, in addition to GFDL content, we can only post "copyrighted material that ArenaNet has made available to the general public, to the site." Therefore, images/animations taken from the leaked videos should be deleted; discussion about it doesn't need to be. pling 18:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Exactly what is...

consensus? How long should we have for people to agree or disagree with the main page edit copy befpre the sysops choose to upload it or not? (Of all the comments on the mainpage editcopy talk page, currently no one is against loading the new main page.) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 13:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A consensus is when an agreement is made between users and admins, if nobody opposes then it is a consensus. Time is dependant on the discretion of the sysop. If you're thinking of the mainpage; If a sysop agrees that a consensus has been reached then he/she will implement it. --Naut 13:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thnx Naut, I was referring to what a consensus would be in "wiki." (That entire mini paragraph was to ask how long asusming there are no negative responses would it be before it was implemented?) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"If a sysop agrees that a consensus has been reached" - Wrong. If the whole community decides that a consensus is reached, anybody may enforce that consensus. There is no sysop involved at all, although sysops are of course welcome to participate in the discussion as a user of the community. poke | talk 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot ever reach consensus on an OPEN wiki, people can roll over here and object as they please. Consensus feels like a bad idea to solve issues. - Infinite - talk 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, it's just a bit more complicated that majority decision-making. There can be those that disagree with a certain subject, yet a consensus can still be reached. If that wasn't the case, then yes, a discussion requiring consensus would no doubt last forever. The complicated, time-consuming part comes in that the minority's views doesn't get pushed to the side in favor of a quick resolution. You have to recognize the opposition's views and try to incorporate them in a way that the opposition is satisfied. — Gares 18:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We've seen in many cases where both/multiple parties simply cannot reach consensus (think Elder Dragon). I'd vouch for a majority vote at such critical moments in a discussion. Surely not unreasonable? - Infinite - talk 18:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You would basically be changing the rules of the entire process. Instead of trying to appease the minority opposition and to come to a compromise all can agree upon, you would then be stating that the minority's voices no longer count. — Gares 18:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to, I dunno, the WORLD. - Infinite - talk 18:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

lol. Welcome to Guild Wars 2 Wiki. Unlike any place in real life. :P — Gares 18:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what you wish. In a Utopia, everyone could come to a consensus, but humans are not perfect and opinions will always be different. Consensus is a bad idea if there's freedom of opinion. Sometimes, majority rule is something minority will need to learn to live with, I'm sorry, that's how things work. - Infinite - talk 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true in real life, but the wiki is not real life. This is a consensus-based community. Majority rulings for discussions will be overturned or not acknowledged at all. I tried to read the "short novel" that is Talk:Elder Dragon and quite a few of those involved got very emotional in the discussion. It is not something to get upset to the point of loosing one's cool. Believe me when I say some things just aren't worth it. — Gares 19:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"That is true in real life, but the wiki is not real life. This is a consensus-based community." You just disproved your own statement. "Not real life" and "community" are mutually exclusive. A community IS real life. - Infinite - talk 19:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Let's take Family Guy for example. Their main cast on Spooner St. would be labeled as a community. Real life though? No. Still unclear why the sudden emotion, but I will continue to converse. — Gares 19:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no emotion in my reasoning, there is avoiding the general point in your last comment, though. Politics is something inherit to a community and politics are voted on, NOT something everyone can reach consensus on. The sooner this wiki realizes that, the better. GWW screwed up massively already, let's not have another Wiki perish based on the same faults. - Infinite - talk 19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I do enjoy how users consider most of the things they do not like as GWW devil spawn. The fact is that this basis for discussion has been around since GWiki.

You would not be the first to propose this idea, nor the last. Even I have played with it a little. The problem still remains that consensus and majority processes do not work together. You can fight for changing all consensus-based decision-making to majority, but you cannot have both. They are different animals. Consensus being a cooperative effort and majority being "whoever is ahead". — Gares 19:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly did I mention you need to start out with a majority vote? On the contrary, majority vote should be kicked in not anytime sooner than after a long, heated discussion in attempt to reach consensus. The only trouble is, though; you will see that someone needs to resolve a consesnsus that cannot be reached. I refuse to have this position handed to a sysop/bureaucrat, because they can be biased toward the issue and thus majority vote (by the community) will be more fair. Coalitions in proper political countries are also based around this system; discuss and try to get an agreement first, vote later. After vote their will be opposition, but that's how things will ALWAYS be. (Also, RFA on GWW were voted on, popularity contests, without any form of consensus. Basically, your entire argument is voided.) - Infinite - talk 19:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get another post in before I leave for my commute, but I wanted to at least point out your mistake you just made. You said "RFA on GWW were voted on, popularity contests, without any form of consensus. Basically, your entire argument is voided." Perhaps you failed to read my statement, "You can fight for changing all consensus-based decision-making to majority". A RfA is not a consensus-based decision. Please read carefully before trying to dismiss another user's rebuttal and allowing it to backfire on you. — Gares 19:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't backfire. Basically this little discussion here proved my point. Consensus will not be reached here. So basically anyone could be a jackass and disagree with anything at random and consensus cannot be reached. You NEED votes in ANY form of community. You just need to allow community to find a medium (a.k.a: consensus) before calling in the majority vote to decide. Simple, stop taking this out of context. - Infinite - talk 19:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone is being a jackass to disrupt (or "hijack") a discussion specifically to prevent consensus being reached, they would be blocked by an administrator. (As an aside, I'd much prefer a group of dictators (oligarchs?) than a democracy.) pling 20:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I just want to point out that I don't think Pling's talk page is the place for this type of discussion (that has been heard time and again). " refuse to have this position handed to a sysop/bureaucrat, because they can be biased toward the issue" This is what is wrong with your current thoughts. Sysops are administrated for many reasons but one is to show a non-bias attitude. We, as a wiki community, need to have faith that personal disagreements will not sway a sysop to do whatever they please. @infinite, you talk as though the wiki should be run like a democracy, but your very statement demonstrates that you think it is under authoritarian rule. If I had to pick a governemntal form, I'd say it should be more like isocracy (everybody has equal power). Do not attempt to twist words here, when I say equal power, I mean that everyone's voice is the same. Admins are still needed for various tasks, but they're "say" does not count for more. For some reason you have started a rush to implement policies. I had started the same, I even went to far as to set a deadline of sept 1, but this was wrong of me as well. As long as an active discussion is active, then there should be no deadline. Venom20 20:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, a vote is much easier to hijack. pling 20:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Err, my ideal version of how to run things would basically be much like your views. A handful of users the community puts forward in general consensus (or when that can't be fully reached, majority) would be able to carry out administrator issues. For the rest of it, we should all have equal vote. Try to reach consensus first, but never abandon the moment where consensus cannot be reached. If majority votes for something, any admin is required to follow that majority (again, after serious attempts to reach consensus). This includes abandoning their own minority view, if need be. In favour of documenting things properly and as soon and good as possible, consensus discussions should be limited if points start to repeat and overruled by a majority vote if applicable. Not setting time limits means waiting and waiting doesn't accomplish anything whilst documenting. Does it now? Also, @pling: Hijacked as in multiple accounts? Aren't accounts tied to IPs? Hijacking can easily be countered with admin powers. - Infinite - talk 20:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Accounts can be made through proxies, so it wouldn't be the same IP.--ne shot. 20:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Then have the system pling keeps mentioning, that's the only fail-proof way to do things, apparently. - Infinite - talk 20:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Hypothetical Question

Am I allowed to remove a link to a leaked video from my talk page? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound very hypothetical :P. Also while you are at it, could you ask if we can remove the links from the user's userpage as well? Venom20 17:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Its hypothetical in the hypothetical sense Venom :P. But yeah...might as well? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the links have been removed by now; I suspect due to the trolling nature of the posts as well. pling 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)