Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 1

Archive

---

• 2007 - 2008
• 2009
• 2010
• 2011
• 2012 Jan - Jun
• 2012 Jul - Aug
• 2012 Sep - Mar 2013
• 2013 Feb - 2013 Jun
• 2013 Jun - 2014 Feb
• 2014 Mar - 2014 Dec
• 2015
• 2016
• Dec 2016 - Jul 2017
• Jul 2017 - Aug 2017
• Sep 2017 - Jun 2018
• Jul 2018 - Oct 2018
• Nov 2018 - Apr 2019
• May 2019 - Aug 2019
• Sept 2019 - Dec 2019
• Jan 2020 - June 2020
• Aug 2020 - Dec 2020
• May 2021 - Jun 2022

Parser functions?

Hmm ... it looks like parser functions aren't here yet. Oh well ... the template that I setup will work once it's available ... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you, Barek. :)

I could use some help with Project:Starting out, a non-confrontational, non-prescriptive set of guidelines to ease people in. Your input especially would be helpful.

—Tanaric 04:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

hi --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:69.208.146.50 .

Hi. — ク Eloc 貢 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to GWW

I don't know what support GWW has for this, but I personly know that there is a tag in a link on guildwiki called wikipedia: for external links to wikipedia articles. Would it be possible to have a link that goes something like [[GW1:Charr]] to link to wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/charr? RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 08:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

They're on the way. —Tanaric 08:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion's over on User talk:Emily Diehl#Interwiki linking request - Tanetris 08:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki name space

Is there any real reason to not use Guild Wars Wiki: instead of Guild Wars 2 Wiki:? I think the extra characters are not helpful and only make things more complicated. The wikis don't share the same database or anything so there really isn't a technical reason. -- (gem / talk) 22:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that there was a mention of linking the two together. I'd prefer to make "Guild Wars 2 Wiki" mirrored to GW2W -elviondale (tahlk) 23:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a problem as the "Guild Wars 2 Wiki" cames from the project name which is "Guild Wars 2 Wiki". You could also use Project:Any page which would be the same than Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Any page. poke | talk 23:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We should definitely use Guild Wars 2 Wiki, using something else will cause trouble with standard mediawiki settings I guess. (Like Project linking..) - anja 23:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought that I found some way to easily rename the name space without breaking anything when playing around with my test wiki. I guess I remember incorrectly then. -- (gem / talk) 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The best laid plans of mice and men... Frankly, we should avoid confusion at the price of an extra character to type. And GW2W vs. GWW makes inter-wiki linking easier, as stated above. Calor (t) 17:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for import

I noticed that a lot pages are simply copied from GWW without mentioning editors (which would be a violation of GFDL). So what about using the export/import functions to copy all revisions from GWW to this wiki? So this section is used for exactly that. So feel free to request an import :) poke | talk 20:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, first things that come to mind are HELP:GAME and HELP:ACCOUNT. Things like the Editing Guides and FAQ, also. -- br12 • (talk) • 20:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no violations of GFDL as GWW and GW2W are owned by the same account and have the same users in the system. — ク Eloc 貢

But you have to list authors of articles and if you look at some of the ported pages: The history is empty and there is no pointer to the source. poke | talk 21:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we also import the notice templates (disambig, notes, warnings, stubs, etc etc)? -- br12 • (talk) • 22:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be okay as long as the source article is pointed to in the edit history or talk page and the source article is not deleted. -- Gordon Ecker 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As we can use the import/export methods, it's easier this way. I'll add a list to the bottom where you can put the article name in. poke | talk 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Poke, "You may also post content obtained from Guild Wars, its web sites, manuals and guides, concept art and renderings, press and fansite kits, and other such copyrighted material that ArenaNet has made available to the general public", meaning that all information on GWW is property of ArenaNet or NCsoft, which they own the site, so we don't need to list any authors. — ク Eloc 貢 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. The license is GFDL and it is clearly said what GFDL means. ANet does not own the content and cannot give the rights to copy it. Each editor owns his own part of the content and released it under GFDL, and as long as you follow this license, you are allowed to copy it (with giving attribution to the authors). poke | talk 01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, poke is absolutely correct here. —Tanaric 07:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then just add a link to the top of the page showing the contributors or just import the history like buildwiki did when guildwiki got rid of their builds. — † Eloc † 08:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Import list

• gw1:Help:Ask a game question
• gw1:Help:Ask an account question
• gw1:Category:Notice templates (all included templates except gw1:User:Hawk Skeer/Talk) -- br12 • (talk) • 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy new year, everyone

I'd like to wish you all a happy and prosperous new year in your lives, as well as a relaxing and fun time here on the wiki.

This should be a fun year around here. As we get closer to the GW2 release date, this place will fire up with activity, more so than any of the past wikis ever were, and hopefully more than even the largest GW communities, such as GWO or GWG. So a toast to that.

Cheers, all. --Dirigible 23:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Dir, and cheers to you too. Time for some wikichampagne, no? -- Brains12 • Talk • 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye. If only I knew how to ascii... Armond 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's just hope there's champagne in GW2. :) Lord Belar 23:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

in game Voice Chat

i noticed that Area Net are looking for a Text/Voice/Video Chat Engineer [[1]], so i guess they might be introducing Voice/Video Chat to Guild Wars 2.....maybe. 24.79.131.199 07:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope they are more successful with that than with pathing. I remember ANet looking for a pathing expert way back (must have been around the time of GWP beta). From the horrible pathing that still plagues GW1 today, I gather they didn't find the right guy ... --Xeeron 11:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they'll implement a TeamSpeak client into GuildWars2, as TS3 will introduce a SDK. poke | talk 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Policies

When the wiki began, we were all eager to get to work and fill up the wiki. Well, we've got all the content we can for the time being, but the structure and policies still have not been decided upon. I know it is still around four months until beta testing (by my estimation), but Emily has already asked if we would like the wiki to be made more public, suggesting Anet is ready to go down the "GW2 is on the front burner" road. Our policy discussion has come to a standstill, and we've had more no u's, wtf chains, and games of mafia than posts about policy in the past six weeks or so. I suspect Anet really wants to make GW2 a public thing soon, which means the wiki will be more prominent. I would prefer to have policies instead of anarchy when the wiki starts garnering more readers and contributors. So, the point I'm trying to make is that we should revive policy discussions and get everything agreed upon in the next few weeks. Even if things are done policy-wise before more contributors come and Anet releases more GW2 info, I would like to not procrastinate and get things done. Better sooner than later. So I leave you all with those thoughts, and encourage you to put in your two cents (perhaps again) on policy pages, and try to tie up the discussions and implement this wiki's agreed upon policies. Calor 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And my opinion is that we should do the exact same opposite. Instead of rushing to get policies approved before the site's active population increases, we should hold on until after that has happened. Over the past two GW wikis we've all seen how difficult it is to get policies replaced/modified, and I don't think it's fair to those who currently don't visit the wiki to be faced with such a barrier. This wiki doesn't have an actual community yet (a handful of people isn't one), so I don't think any such decision should be made until that time. Plus, there is no need for most policies currently, as there is practically no activity yet. Once activity starts up, the necessity for this or that policy or guideline will become apparent naturally, and the relevant community feedback will be available as well, to tune those policies to this wiki's needs (and of course, using the experience we've gained on GW/GWW/PvX to judge what's feasible and what isn't). Until that time, I think we should keep doing what we're doing now: fervently wish for ANet to release some new trickle of info about GW2 and wait patiently. --Dirigible 08:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I perfectly see where you are coming from Dirigible and I agree with a lot, but to be fair, one should mention the downside of that approach: If (an easy prediction) it takes a long while to get policies agreed on once GW2 is out if we do not start thinking about it earlier, it comes close to total sysop and especially bureaucrat discretion. --Xeeron 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see problems with both aspects to be honest. As of now, there aren't even many people online to see this message, let alone decide on policy. The only way I can see to get the mass of activity we had during the wiki's early times, short of pestering everyone on the other wikis, is to wait until we get more Guild Wars 2 content. I don't see that happening in the near future - maybe another two months or so when we might get some important lore or details on the beta. So, that means that now isn't a very good time to revive policy discussion. I'm not on a particular side - I don't mind if we start doing it now or in a few months' time - but I think the level of information we have at the moment limits us to doing in a few months. -- pling | ggggg 23:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

When I originally voiced my opinion, I had figured that most of the core "policymakers" from GWW/GW check this wiki relatively often, and that nearly all those people would be able to put in their two cents on policies. Dir, you brought up a good point in that policies rarely undergo drastic changes, and that it would be a bit of a barrier, for lack of a better term, for newer users. You may be right, but Xeeron brought up my main worry if this wiki grows close to the size of GWW with no policies. I trust the admins, but I don't like the idea of them potentially having full control of the wiki. Calor 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for the "It worked perfectly fine at GuildWiki", I can see it coming ;) - anja 19:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But it worked perfectly fine at GuildWiki! Lord Belar 20:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Until Gravewit took the money and ran, pretty much. Calor 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

*screams "off-topic"* -- pling | ggggg 20:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Idea: Port over any needed policies from GWW, and just put them in pages prefixed with Guild Wars Wiki: as a kind of temporary policy set. Then, once the userbase begins to get larger and more active, write up new ones, potentially (but not necessarily) using the GWW versions as groundwork. This sets some rules now, but leaves a good amount of room for change later, as the rules would be established on the understanding that they are temporary and subject to change. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777 (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on that idea, to be honest. I'm not sure how it worked for PvX, knowing that, originally, the wiki had many of GuildWiki's policies in place; however, I'm sure that many of them have carried over into the current PvX policies or they are still being used as intermittent policies. I would like this wiki to be a brand new creation, if possible, creating everything from scratch. The merged community here may have some negative opinions about GuildWiki, GWW and PvX's policy systems so it's important they are ironed out on this wiki. If many of them turn out similar to any existing policy, that doesn't matter as long as it's effective. I can't see that happening if we port the GWW policies and make them "compulsory" or to be followed. -- pling | ggggg 08:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point, and in response will throw more ideas at it. We could potentially set up some really barebones policies instead of porting over GWW's. Leave out as much detail as possible - just get the general idea across. For example, look at GWW's NPA policy. You could just take the opening paragraph (or even just parts of it) and copy it into the NPA policy page here, perhaps with some sort of template labeling it an "incomplete policy" or something. That would be enough for new users to get a decent idea of how things work, would lay down basic rules and still basically let you start from scratch. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777 (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm inclined to advocate waiting before we start creating policies primarily because of the hardship involved in changing policy after the fact. Furthermore, I don't see a good reason to import any kind of policy to begin with. Anything that everyone can agree upon, NPA for instance, is something that the Administrators are well-equipped to deal with sans policy, and I honestly have a hard time believing that the current Admin crop would, even if given the chance, go out of their way to act beyond what GWW already grants them. They might be more inclined to use discretion, but I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.

As I see it, the only purpose that policy would serve would be to inform new users of our basic expectations eg. NPA (since we're purporting that these are policies people can generally agree to), but I don't see that as an overriding reason to create policy prematurely, particularly when GW2W is likely to see a lot of users from GuildWiki, PvX, and GWW, which means a lot of potential for the cultures to clash, which also means that we may find out to our surprise that some policies that seemed obvious really aren't so clear cut. NPA is a poor example I suppose, since I think we can all agree that personal attacks are a bad thing; but beyond that simple statement of "fact" and a few other similar policies, I would avoid creating anything that we label as policy.

As to the overarching notion of revisiting policy, I'm a firm believer in the views espoused in this essay, which I think pretty much speaks for itself. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, I especially liked Whenever the result of process does not correspond with policy, it means that the policy is outdated, we should keep that in mind sometimes. Now, back to topic, I'd go for waiting with a warning about Formatting guidelines, not about "discretion power creep", because I don't think that'll be a problem. When this thing blows up, we'll get a lot of content input to deal with, and formatting pages might become the main focus of discussion for the community. Policies about articles (editing, deletion, vandalism, etc), as well as the most essential civil policies like NPA, are the only ones I think should be ready before those discussions start (like the wikipedia essay says, policies for the product).reanor 18:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

http://guildwars2.wikia.com - content is pretty much completely duped from here - in some cases without attribution. Just in case you're interested in the competition. ;) --Aspectacle 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

gosh, that wiki looks ugly like hell! they gonna create another sandbox for little children? - Y0_ich_halt 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the GuildWiki folk seem to want to come here; that wiki was apparently set up by a certain person as a "backup" in-case GW2W became too much like GWW...

-- pling | ggggg 19:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a tragedy! Let's go play in the sandbox! Calor 19:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:GWW

A little while ago (recent in terms of how active this place is), {{gww}} was created from gw1:Template:Gw2w. I created it to use as a link back to the Guild Wars Wiki on subjects which feature heavily in the original Guild Wars series and in Guild Wars 2 - the three pages where it can be seen in use are Asura, Charr and Hall of Monuments. I didn't think they should be used on articles which only have a little relation to Guild Wars (for example, Drakkar or Ancient dragons).

I'm not really sure whether they should be used only on articles that have a heavy relation and significance to both series, or if any relative articles should need them too (like Orr, which only has a significant place on Guild Wars 2). Do we even need it at all? -- pling | ggggg 16:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In short, no. Calor 18:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO an article should link to its' counterpart on the other wiki if that counterpart has additional information. For example I don't think our Blazeridge Mountains article would warrent a link to the other wiki's article because the only information on the mountains relevant to GW1 is that they're a mountain range between Ascalon and the Crystal Desert and connected to the Shiverpeak Mountains, all of which is also in this wiki's article. On the other hand, the other wiki's Orr article is focused on GW1 era and pre-GW1 era Orr, while I believe that this wiki's article should focus on post-GW1 era Orr (however I think that any information on GW1 era Orr revealed in Guild Wars 2 or sources related to GW2, such as articles, should be included in both wikis). -- Gordon Ecker 09:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Index.php

Index.php is a popular spam target, it's been deleted half a dozen times this year. I think we should salt it, since the wiki's software doesn't allow the prevention of page creation, I think we should turn it into a fully protected redirect to the main page. -- Gordon Ecker 05:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this even need to be asked? It was just recreated again... -- pling | ggggg 13:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does index.php do? — ク Eloc 貢 16:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. It's currently a redirect to the main page with indefinite duration full protection. -- Gordon Ecker 05:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it, since this wiki allows title protection. -- Gordon Ecker 02:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Embedding Videos

Is that alright to do? (They are GW2 related) Oh and Plingggggg I figured out I wasn't signing the comments because I kept hitting escape instead of the "~"Shew 12:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

<youtube height=250 width=300>3AdFA6WWJ7E</youtube>

As you might notice with that, there's no support for Youtube videos.. --- -- talkpage 12:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ahh...:(...Shew 15:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Semantic Media Wiki

Is it possible to add the Semantic Media Wiki extension? It would allow tables and summary pages to be created without the dual information entry that currently is done in GWW. Example: Could create a boss page for the boss Foo. In that page you would have something like [[Drops Green::Foo's Bar]]. Someone who wants to create a page listing all green weapons would just need to create a table calling the "Drops Green" property. They could even trace back to the original boss page. If a new mission is added to Guild Wars 2 with a new boss "Fred" with [[Drops Green::Fred's club]], it would automatically show up on the green weapons table. Thoughts? Tsafran 18:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the link. Vertical bars aren't used for external links. It seems like a good idea unless the overhead is prohibitive. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing anything it can do that can't be done just as well with DPL. To use the green weapons list example, my understanding is that DPL could go through the boss categories and, as long as it's delineated somehow, can grab the unique drop from each page. Or, conversely, DPL could go through the unique weapons categories and pull their acquisition info. Granted, DPL can be complicated for the uninitiated, but generally we have our more knowedgeable users make templates to simplify it all. Of course, if there are ways this goes beyond DPL, feel free to correct me.

On a sidenote, we do have Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration for this sort of thing. Or, if you feel that wouldn't draw enough attention, there's always the GWW equivalent since I'd imagine at some point when GW2W gets more active, it'll get a sync of extensions and such. I hope, anyway. - Tanetris 11:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. The extensions sounds not bad but in my opinion it makes it a bit too complicated. We would need to specify what semantics we would allow (like your Drops Green), so we would need multiple guides what to use and when to use it. Also we would still need to list those entries (in your example we would need to list the drop anyway, to provide a link to it) and we still would need to add categories, as that is not done by that extension. Also when generating the lists, we can only have that data, that was specified in the tag, right? So for your example we would only be able to get the title of the page, that had the tag on it (=Foo) and what value was given for Drops Green (=Foo's Bar). However we would have no idea, for example where the boss is located or what is required to make it appear, or what stats the item has (on GWW it wouldn't be enough to just list the drops by boss name, that is not interesting - we want to see what items are available, i.e. what attribute do they require or what sort of item are they?). But such information wouldn't be accessible from that extension.

On the other hand we have made very good experiences with DPL; we can simply put the pages into categories (which we do anyway) and receive any information with a little help from data in the infoboxes (which are there anyway) and can build up much more complex lists than just who and what. poke | talk 13:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that DPL is very useful. At my work we use Semantic Web and DPL in combination. As Tanetris mentioned, if something is "delineated somehow" then it could be picked up by DPL. Poke says we can use the infoboxes which is great as long as the info is in the infobox. I am suggesting using the Semantic property tags as ways to do the delineations and call outs. These could then be pulled into DPL and into the infoboxes.

You can follow properties back to the page they are tagged on. You can pull a report of all bosses that have a Drops Green property then vacuum up other information in the rest of the article. That will allow you to find where a boss is located.Tsafran 02:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, could you give some examples on what data you would put in those tags? I can't think of something really that won't be in the infobox or given by the categories. And do you have some link to a wiki that actually uses that extension? I would like to see it live and the official extension's homepage doesn't seem to use it either. poke | talk 13:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, GuildWiki has it. Not sure to what extent they use it, though. -- Pling \ talk 14:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

...we do? o_O Vili 19:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember Mendel jabbering on about it and some Wikia guy (Sensei? something like that, I dunno) saying it was installed. *shrug* -- Pling \ talk 21:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)