Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 17

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.
The current version of this page can be found at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Community portal.

Wiki popups

Hi all, Darqam has suggested something really interesting over on Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration - might be worth discussing if we want to get behind this idea and make it happen. -Chieftain Alex 18:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I love this new (to me) feature in the regular Wikipedia. My vote is a resounding 'Yes!'. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, this even occurred me a few times about bringing up this suggestion here but I only saw this here now. I thought it cool when I saw it on Wikipedia. I would want to see it here as well. Not sure if it's possible but if it would show info similarly as in-game tooltip does (more than just a description) it could be interesting. --Txonä Atan - (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Updating the runes and sigils

Hey there, I had a silly idea after looking at some wiki pages after the sigil and rune change. I didn't realize every recipe was entered manually. While updating the stats should be fairly simple, though time consuming, I feel like updating the recipes will be way more complicated, even though I imagine most of them will be standardized. Especially when you consider they are split between the different crafting professions and some have to be discovered, etc. Anyway, all that to say I played with the API a bit and made what is hopefully a more or less practical list of every recipe that's been changed with this update.

Being unsure where to put all that info, I made a project page for it: Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Sigils_and_Runes_update. If you're willing to help update everything, this might help a bit, you just need to search on the page the name of the rune/sigil and then copy/paste the recipes. It's not perfect, but I hope it's helpful. Sk8er Of Bodom (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's absolutely wonderful! Thank you so much for pulling that giant list of recipes from the API. G R E E N E R 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Acquisition of the Orrian temple marks for the LS4E3 collection

Hey all, I've come across some oddities when obtaining Orrian temple marks for The Tyrian Service Medal collection. In the last week, I got two of these marks when completing a defense event (Lyssa & Grenth), one of these when failing the defense event (Balthazar) and two when completing some pre-events (Dwayna & Melandru). I also failed to get one after completing a pre-event (Grenth).

I went ahead, assumed it could drop from any event in the chain and edited the mark pages accordingly, but it does seem like a very bold claim that can hardly be justified (item descriptions only talk about capture completion, game updates only talk about completing defense events for precursor collections and I didn't think of taking any screenshot). Any thoughts about what should appear on the pages? Aikan (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure I've received a mark during a pre event for Dwayna too.

My personal preference would be only to state which events have positively dropped it, and add them individually to the pages, rather than assume all events and verify later. -Chieftain Alex

12:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll modify the pages along these lines.

I'll also mention this as an anomaly. That way, people who need the mark and see the page won't necessarily wait for the capture event while others may work. Aikan (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Release v Requires

To quote from the discord "I'm getting so confused about release, I don't want to touch them anymore x.x" — JP and "I'm actually not sure I understand when we would or wouldn't use it now." — Adeira Tasharo, I think it may be better if we change the "release" parameter to "requires" instead. Less of a "when was it released", which can be confusing when things are released later on instead of with the initial big bang, and more of "in some way, this thing requires X to be obtained". - Do_odleplex 01:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a similar mindset. Knowing when something came out is quaint, like trivia, but rarely pertinent to the reader. Knowing if a release is necessary for the content is useful information, like the notes section. G R E E N E R 02:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree, especially for newer editors having the parameter/template named "release" can and most likely will be confusing., which could be avoided by changing the its name to clarify it's purpose. Information about when something was released, is of little value for the average user and can easily be done by mentioning it in the Trivia or Notes section. Almdudler (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

If no one objects before Thursday, I'll start the change with J.A.R.V.I.S. (it's a holiday in the US and I have the day off). - Do_odleplex 01:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

~~I agree, but the only issue I have is with content introduced in festival releases. Having requires = Halloween seems... odd.~~ Nevermind, I forgot we stopped using those. Anyway, sounds good to me. —Ventriloquist 19:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

We may be able to remove it from many of the templates altogether by using other available information. An NPC or event that takes place in an expansion zone would require that expansion. If an item is non-tradable and it’s only method of acquisition is via an NPC/event/achievement in an expansion zone then it too will require that expansion. If an item is acquired during an expansion but is tradable, can it be traded to players without that expansion? If so then it does not require that expansion and does not need to be labelled. The only things that truly need to be labelled are specializations and masteries. J.Tesla (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This is true, and to an experienced editor or player, that would be easy to figure out, however to those who aren't that savy, it would cause more questions I think. Additionally, the parameter is also used to categorize if something is HoT or Pof or whatever content and indicates on the page itself that it's from <x> thing. So I don't think removing it completely is a good idea. - Do_odleplex 00:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I only wrote down half my idea. I meant that instead of writing it into the infobox we would query the existing information such as location and acquisition and use that to determine and categorise its requirement. The end result with the little icon in the top right and content category would be the same as it is now without needing the “release” parameter itself anymore. J.Tesla (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

That sounds out of my technical knowledge completely so I have no idea if that's possible or not; it also sounds a lot more complicated than the current set up. I'm not opposed to the idea, I'd need to see how it would work, and have other people who are more code savy than myself give it the thumbs up. In the meanwhile I'd still do the switch, just in case the idea doesn't work so that everything would still be categorized correctly, as long as you don't object. - Do_odleplex 02:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

So basically doodle you're volunteering to edit every single page with an infobox with the "release" parameter as well as all of the infoboxes and templates that set what the parameters called? I think we should for the time being set the infobox to use {{{requires|{{{release|}}}}}} rather than a straight swap, otherwise we might make data display incorrectly inbetween changing the template + the page. -Chieftain Alex

18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yeah, that sounds like a better idea, making it accept requires, swap it all out, and then remove release. You do the code, I'll do he bot stuff. - Do_odleplex 21:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

That was the collective "we", I'm not editing anything before the weekend, burning out at work. -Chieftain Alex

22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Then what you pasted above is all I need to do then? Just to make sure I don't break anything. - Do_odleplex 22:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay plopped in what you said, and everthing seems good. Running J.A.R.V.I.S now to switch from release to requires. If anything starts getting loopy just talk on it' talk page and it'll stop. I except the switch to take pretty much all day so I'll be checking it here and there but otherwise it should be a good boy. - Do_odleplex 16:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Name convention for bounty pages?

Hey all, I'd like to add the locations of the new LS4 episodes bounties. Is there a naming convention for the bounty pages? I see some of them include the rank (Legendary Seneb the Desecrated or Champion Vebis the Inquisitor/locations) while others don't (Starcaller, Vebis the Inquisitor). Aikan (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of the bounties have Champion/Legendary rank as part of their names, some of they don't (differs from map to map). Though I think Seneb shoud not have the rank (as Sandswept Isles bounties are all without it), need to check it ingame. EDIT: Yes, he doesn't have Legendary in name. Also some of the events also have lowercase champion whereas other uppercase ingame, it is a random mess basically.~Sime Talk 20:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If there's one thing we can thank Anet for, it's naming inconsistency.--Rain Spell (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Unimplemented content on the wiki

A couple of points should preclude all others in this discussion:

This wiki is hosted by ArenaNet. While ArenaNet takes a hands-off approach to how the wiki's built and maintained, the community does not have complete free rein in what appears here.
Accessing game assets from files like the .dat is against the Terms of Service, as brought up by our liaison, Stephane.

Now for the meat of the discussion. We have documented on this wiki a fair amount of unimplemented content; we also have the penchant for adding more. Some items that we have document the beta. Some content describes ideas which were dropped from development. Other items [[Mini Corrupted Troll|appeared temporarily in the API]]. And yes, some items were pulled from the game's .dat file.

I would like to hear the community's thoughts on how we should handle current and future documentation of unimplemented content. G R E E N E R 17:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

To me "Unimplemented" means "it was in the game during some beta state, but didn't make it to the final game", ie beta content that players saw but it didn't stay around. I've never been a fan of "unimplemented" tags on "things we found while dumpster diving into the game's files" since in a way, that is speculation: there's no way of knowing what something found in the files true purpose is/was if it isn't in the game and was found because somebody was snooping around. The exception to that would be the paper bag hats since it was stated to do be the result of an ArenaNet staff member goofing around, we know it exists because somebody was being goofy. The only other exception is Marjory's Everliving Blade, that item I would like to see what's what with Stephane. The rest? Honestly if it's just something somebody found while poking the game files, I honestly feel that it should go cause it's documenting stuff we weren't supposed to know/have/whatever. There is one more thing to that should probably be brought up now: some things that have been found and have pages aren't meant for players outside of China. So they exist, but we'll never see them. I sort of feel that those should either be documented as sort of a trivia thing on a page somewhere, but I don't think we should have pages for them either. - Do_odleplex 21:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Of the existing unimplemented content, there's certain articles that I'd delete, and that's mainly stuff that was clearly never meant for players to view (NPC weapons, 'large bundle' articles) and items that have nothing about them aside from a single ID (plenty of mini articles, such as [[Mini Coyote]]). The others are, in my opinion, worth keeping because it's interesting to see how the game developed, and what exactly was planned to be implemented (Party Animal, adventures for the HoT expansion); they provide a historical value when compared to other articles. I think it mostly comes down to how much informational value an article holds, for players and the wiki users alike. —Ventriloquist 21:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What if perhaps the "unimplemented content" had other sources other than the game files? I feel like if there were at least one other source, there'd be less issues. Either that or some of it would probably fit nicely as trivia on appropriate pages. - Do_odleplex 21:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The fundamental reason the wiki exists is to document the game. Personally, I feel that unless anet explicitly says to not document something, it could negatively impact the well-being of someone, or there is a pressing reason on a case-by-case basis to leave some things undocumented, we should document it. The more we restrict our content, the less likely people will be to depend on the wiki for information. Thrain | contribs 21:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should document unimplemented changes. We did so on GWW with zero causality; this list of unimplemented skills can solely from the gw.dat, and there was next to no complaint about them. Obviously GW2 is a much larger game and has been getting new content far longer, so obviously there's quite a bit more in the gw.dat. Ultimately, I would document unimplemented content if it falls under three categories: 1) items or ideas from development that were dropped (e.g., Bowl of Cabbage Sautee); 2) it was discussed in a blog post but never made it into the game (e.g., Bar Brawl); or 3) it has an active (or has been active for a lengthy duration before being removed) chat link ID therefore people can link and, therefore, /wiki the item in-game. This is especially true for the last, as some people who have the codes may link them causing confusion if nothing shows up when folks search for the item.

If, however, it was something only showed up for a short time and has no real search value - e.g., [[White Mantle Sunderer (large bundle)]] (which, actually, is probably the bundle that you get from Counter Magic (skill) while fighting the Legendary Bandit Executioner) - or is something in-game but cannot be linked to (e.g., the Krait Spear skin that seems to have started this discussion), I see no real reason to keep. Removal of things would be a rather case-by-case basis in the end, but I do not think that we should remove all unimplemented content, or even most of it, that we know about. Some people find this trivia entertaining to go through (I know I do). Konig (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that needing another source is a good criteria. For one, most implemented in-game stuff doesn't have another source . For two, sources tend to disappear; two of my best resources for researching gw2 went under a few years ago, and even the main forum archive is a black hole you were lucky if google could penetrate. The two nonstandard Quip weapons/skins were confirmed by one of the devs to be Scarlet's weapons from her first appearance, but I doubt I could find that page any more to cite it :/ SarielV

07:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I echo Konig’s opinion here. And as part of his third suggested criterion, I propose to add that anything with a screenshot of a unique appearance is worth preserving. Some of these are not “unimplemented”, because use by an NPC is itself an implementation. It seems totally illogical to me to be removing interesting articles where the research has already been done. I’m not sure how I’d explain to someone why the wiki once had in-game screenshots of the School Uniform town clothes, for example, but someone campaigned to have them removed. — Dashface

07:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Previous discussions here and here for reference.

First of all, the semantics. I think we need three separate categories:

Discontinued (Could be unlocked in the past, no longer available)
Removed (Could be unlocked in the past, but was removed later)
Unimplemented (Could never be unlocked).

Unimplemented refers to player/wardrobe availability, not game implementation. Skins not present in the game files are considered concept art, be them artwork or renders.

As for my project: Every skin has a chat link which you can preview ingame (including the aforementioned [[User:Lon-ami/Skins/Krait Spear (skin)|Krait Spear]] ). Also, I didn't find them by meddling with the game's files, if you think that's an issue. I just checked codes one by one, inputting them myself ingame. Did a first round for 8600 entries, then did a second round with a whitelist, using the API as a filter, reducing the entries to 3125. And yes, it was a pain. The way the game works, every skin used ingame, either by players or NPCs, has a wardrobe entry. If it doesn't, then it's part of another model (Which seem to be the case with the Monkey King and his staff), or it no longer exists.

I am however planning to browse the game's text files, just to see if I can find any item strings associated with these skins, since most of them have no names. The method above isn't viable for items, since there's more than 300,000, and many of them can't be linked ingame. I won't find any new skins using this method, only potential item names associated to the ones I already found.

Finally, my primary goal with this project isn't "documentation of unobtainable skins" on itself, but bug reporting for polearm/spear misplacements. The wardrobe is a huge mess, where they recycled polearm/rifle/staff skins for harpoon/speargun/trident skins, but then someone also made unique skins for those, but they forgot to upgrade the items and the wardrobe, or sometimes there's an unique spear skin, but they still pushed the polearm skin, forgetting the spear skin actually exists. It's a disaster, and half the time it doesn't make any sense. I mean, look at this thing, does it ring any bell?

I still insist my additions are no different from the ones already in the wiki, like [[Fargate Opener (skin)|Fargate Opener]] and [[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]], so if mine are to be excluded, then the rest should follow through. Obviously, I'd rather see them all in the main space, but the rules should be the same for every skin.

@SarielV What? Scarlet and Quip? Now that's interesting.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sariel, you could probably ask Stephane to get that information for you and add it as trivia on Quips page or something. - Do_odleplex 03:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"Unimplemented refers to player/wardrobe availability, not game implementation. Skins not present in the game files are considered concept art, be them artwork or renders." Gonna disagree greatly here, Lon-ami, but unimplemented content is - simply put - content that was never put into the game's content. For sake of simplicity, I'm ignoring chat links (chat links existing != exists in wardrobe btw; wardrobe is specifically and solely what we see from the bank) since while accessible in-game, they're not available from any content thus unimplemented. Things that are in the game but unavailable to players are simply in the game but unavailable to players and don't have a specific categorization.

To use an example: Marjory's Everliving Blade is not unimplemented content. It is implemented, but it is unavailable to players as it is an NPC-only weapon. Same would technically go for Sohothin prior to Path of Fire if it didn't use the FDS skin at the time (it does now, but it is also a limited-time bundle for players now like Caladbolg). The Krait Spear in question above is not unimplemented content, it is merely an NPC-only weapon. IMO there is no need to split Marjory's Everliving Blade from [[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]] because they are, effectively, the same thing. One is the NPC-only skin for the NPC-only weapon. I believe we have them separated only because

Regarding "many of them can't be linked ingame", these things have little need to document since they do not exist in a form viewable by any means to players in the game, especially if they overlap with "most of them have no names", which are nigh impossible to document due to the lack of a name to document them under. If - and it's a needless if IMO - we were to document these, then it should be on a singular "list of unimplemented skins" (not to be confused with List of unobtainable wardrobe unlocks, which is about historical/discontinued skins).

Lastly, I want to point out that there is no, and never was, such thing as polearms. Some weapon sets have two skins for spears, yes (though Wolfborn is not one), but polearms never existed. Harpoonguns or Tridents having duplicate skins is a thing that exist too, and they should be documented IIF they can be linked to/have a name associated with the chat link.

ADDENDUM: Do we know when a skin chat link is for an unimplemented weapon or for a bundle? E.g., [[White Mantle Sunderer (large bundle)]]; how do we know it's a bundle, exactly? If it is, it's likely just the one-skill bundle players get from using Counter Magic on Sword of Vengeance while fighting the Legendary Bandit Executioner. Such a thing would be both implemented and able to be further fleshed out. Konig (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's where you're mistaking the "model" with the "skin". Weapon models are obviously implemented, since they're in the game, but weapon skins aren't, since you can't get them. That's one of the big reasons why I added the " (skin)" suffix to the pages when I created them, even when most of them didn't need it. Model=Implemented, Skin=Unimplemented, Item=Unimplemented/Doesn't exist.

Again, the wardrobe is full of hidden skins, so you can't take that as a point of reference. You could use the API to see what's available or not, but then Fargate and friends have to go.

I find the term "unavailable" confusing, since it could imply it was available at some point, but it isn't now (discontinued, not available at the moment). "Unreleased" could work, but then again, it implies it could be released some day (coming soon, to be released later). "Unimplemented" leaves no room for confusion, since it's obviously something that isn't obtainable, since it never existed in the first place (as an obtainable skin).

Also, I think it's pretty bold for you to question the polearm issue, when there's multiple concept art, the weapon type is still used internally to this day (, , , , , ), and the Wolfborn Harpoon I linked above is an obvious greataxe. Here's a full list of potential polearm skins for your pleasure.

Finally, I don't think bundle skins are worth documenting. Most of them have no names and no icons, and they will never be obtainable, since you can't apply skins to bundles. They use the wardrobe system, but they are obviously not intended for player usage in any way whatsoever. Taking screenshots of the preview panel is an entirely different thing though.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that guessing chatlinks is equivalent to scraping the dat. If we didn't ping it from something we actually have, it isn't something intended for us. -Chieftain Alex

18:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I second that, and Stephane agrees with this as well(can screenshot from discord if needed). Also if you're going to debate over the polearm, do that on it's talk page instead of here, more appropriate. That being said, I think we're in agreement about the "White Mantle Sunderer (large bundle)"/bundle skins being deleted. I also do like Konig's list, providing you include things like reddit comments as well, since we've gotten confirmation on a a few things that way as well. - Do_odleplex 01:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lon-Ami: There is no distinction between "model" and "skin", they're the same thing ultimately. The "hidden skins" in the wardrobe are almost exclusively gemstore skins (or some other super hard to get skin); anything else is intentionally hidden because they've never been implemented, so yes, it is viable. The term "unavailable" in no way implies something was ever available, that's just not how English works. And that article you linked is 100% player stipulation, those are all spears; "polearms" is a term created by players (called such because some look like halberds rather than spears), even in the earliest rendition of that page, and is ultimately just "land spears"; they were eventually scrapped as a weapon but then returned as an aquatic-only weapon. Further disagreement on that, however, can be brought to my talk page. I will agree bundle skins are not worth documenting.

@Alex: I would disagree since it's something available in-game. To me, dat diving is external. Either way, I don't see dat diving to be harmful for documentation purposes; as said, GWW did this extensively without qualm.

@Doodle: For "my list", blog posts could be supplemented for "developer comments" ultimately. Blog was just an "official" outlet I was thinking of. Konig (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

How is there no distinction between model and skin? There's multiple models with no skin (present in the game's files, but not ingame), and models used in multiple skins too (rifles and staves recycled as harpoon guns and tridents). There's also many weapon models which are part of another model, meaning they have no skin id either, even if they're present ingame. Speaking of "implementation", many models implemented as skins are not implemented as items in any way whatsoever. To leave things clear:

Model: 3D files with textures, multiple attachment points, and multiple dye channels.
Skin: Wardrobe entry with a selected attachment point, designated materials for the dye channels (cloth, leather, or metal), skin type (sword, boots, etc), class (for armor weight), and default character animations (how you hold it). Has skin id.
Item: They can contain skins. Has item id.

This is basic technical knowledge. A skin is not a model, and a model is not a skin. I know there are multiple unused models in the game's files, but I'm not covering those in this project.

And again (I'm really tired of repeating this) every weapon skin used ingame, by players or NPCs, has a wardrobe entry. No exceptions. Gem Store skins aren't the only hidden thing in the wardrobe.

As for polearms: Just preview the codes I provided you, ingame, and check their weapon type.

The likes of Fargate Opener, [[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]], School Uniform, and Paper-Bag Helm 4-Pack were found using datamining (by finding the item first, the skin second). If they stay in the public space, so should mine, right?--Lon-ami (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

You're talking about source material, I am not. For all intents and purposes, for the purpose of the wiki, there is no difference between the model and a skin, even if it's a duplicated skin. Do you have any source telling us that "every weapon skin used ingame, by players or NPCs, has a wardrobe entry"? Because I'm 99.999 with a lot more 9s % sure that you're making this up off of your own conclusion. Wardrobe entries likely have to be coded into the wardrobe itself - after all, the wardrobe didn't always exist in the game, while many of these "hidden skins" have.

And as for "what remains in public space", it seems you're under the impression everyone here is saying all that should remain in your user space? Because that's not what's been said. That said, while I would need to go through what got moved into your userspace, I think it should be rather self-explanatory which fall under my three points (which it seems Doodle and Dash, at the very least, agree with). Konig (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we're getting slightly off topic. However as a result of getting off topic, it does actually further the idea to me that if we have unimplemented content, that we need information from somewhere other than poking things with a stick(that we should or shouldn't be poking) so we know the why/what/etc so we don't have debates like the one above about the polearm/pole weapon. - Do_odleplex 23:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It's basic technical knowledge. What source do you need? You're asking me to prove the Earth isn't flat. First you tell me I made up polearms, when in the previous reply I linked you not one, but six items containing the polearm weapon type, which you didn't even bother checking. I don't know, learn database basics? Base64 encoding/decoding? Datamine yourself until you understand how the game is built? Or do you want me to ask ArenaNet for a full disclosure signed by every member of the company?

I think the problem here is trust. Again and again I've been doubted, and again and again I've proved my points were correct, with concept art, screenshots, and chat links. What else do you need? All I see are cries of "you don't have proof", yet I keep on giving, while you give nothing in exchange.

Back to the topic: Prove my entries are different from the ones already in the main space. If you can't, then mine deserve to be moved back. If you can, or if you vote to remove "unimplemented content" from the main space, then move the remaining pages to my user space so I can keep documenting them in a single location, instead of two.

And quit with the double standards.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Talk:Polearm (weapon type). Polearm/pole weapon discussion there, not here. - Do_odleplex 19:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"Prove my entries are different from the ones already in the main space." For starters, the fact that User:Lon-ami/Skins/Krait Harpoon (skin) comes up with no name when you plug in the chat link in-game. Red flag #1. No name, no way to properly document it as an individual weapon, and it is clearly not something meant for players to ever utilize. So no need nor point in making it an article. It's clearly an NPC weapon or bundle, and the latter doesn't get skin pages while the former doesn't need pages at all.

Second example, the historical appearance of Flamekissed - there is zero need to create a separate page when merely an image and trivia note will do. A separate page will do absolutely nothing but bloat up searches. Konig (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the majority of the pages in the Unimplemented content category are, as far as I can tell, content from the betas that didn't make it into the final version of the game, hence the category's description and why it was made in the first place. So an "everything or nothing" result is unlikely because of that. - Do_odleplex 19:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

After reading the above, I believe there's general agreement that we can go beyond our mandate of just documenting the game. If ArenaNet has released information about a topic publicly, be it on a blog, through another website, during a beta, on Guild Chat, etc., then the content is fair game to document on the wiki.

Skipping over all of the grey area, we come to what may end up in the black for documentation. ArenaNet is company with its own intellectual property. They own their IP as well as this wiki. It is their right to decide when and how their IP gets released to the public, which is one of the reasons why digging through the .dat is against the EULA: they own what's in the .dat.

I am going to reach out to Stephane to see if ArenaNet would like to comment on this issue. They may choose to overlook the topic much like they did for the gw1 wiki, but as pointed out, gw2 is a different beast. If they do choose to comment, then we should also be aware that it's year-end, and the marketing team is quite busy with the roller beetle races and who knows what else. It may take some time before we hear from them, if at all.

Thank you all for commenting on this topic so far, please feel free to continue the discussion. G R E E N E R 00:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Greener you asked me once if I would be able to ban you. Right now, I can't, you can un-ban yourself, but you are wrong here. Guild Wars 2 Wiki:About states the wiki is hosted by Arenanet, but it doesn't say "owns", because the wiki isn't owned by anybody, it's a volunteer group effort. We should be able to figure out the best course of action on our own without having to ask ArenaNet what to do, because we're the ones running this thing, not them. Additionally, the official stuff you're looking for I think is on the wiki already, albeit in a place nobody ever looks: Guild Wars 2 Wiki:General disclaimer. "...it should be clearly understood that information that has not been officially released by ArenaNet pertaining to the game should not be posted to this website....Any information in violation of this policy is subject to immediate deletion." If you were looking for an official stance, we already had one it appears. - Do_odleplex 03:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Doodle for that important distinction. I was quite wrong about the owning vs. hosting. Thank you also for finding the link to the general disclaimer, and pointing out that the important part is the community coming to its own consensus. G R E E N E R 06:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyway so upon finding the disclaimer, I think we really do need to be careful about our "grey" content. As of now, I think if it was found in ways that does not include the API(since anybody can check that), and if it hasn't been referred to by an ArenaNet staffer, past or present, in some way, that it either be deleted completely, and if the content is relevant/appropriate as being a line of trivia, that can be added elsewhere. I believe this should apply to both userspace and main space, since while users can use their space to do with as they like more or less, they shouldn't be using it to do things that would be tagged for deletion in mainspace articles, that does strike me as being a bit of a double standard that we shouldn't be doing. As for stuff found only in the API, I'm not sure. I kinda feel like if we can't find anything about something found via the API in over a year that it should be reviewed to see if it's actually in game, or exists only in the API and therefore probably shouldn't have a page. - Do_odleplex 01:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If I setup a project page to review the unimplemented content we already have, then we can figure out the context for how we found it. It'll help if we know what the common groupings are. -Chieftain Alex

19:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a little late but I wanted to add my $0.02 about the line from the general disclaimer that it is generic enough (as "pertaining to the game" can be lawyerspeaked into meaning "is part of the game") that it can be attributed to any and all future content as well thus subjugating Category:Future content and Upcoming changes and features and similar pages to the same controversy. Since "officially released" would dis-include things like employee twitter or reddit accounts, too, as I'm not sure they're technically considered official. This would also pretty much include almost all concept art images as they're drawn primarily from third party sites the artists have uploaded images to. I'm pretty sure no one, including ArenaNet, would like to see such a widescale wiping. So I suggest sticking to the simple notation of "can players run across it (e.g., via blog, forum, chat links that provide item name, api, or Anet comments on third party sites) and does it have enough information to merit its own page". Konig (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

After taking a looking into that category, the only thing I find questionable is Tigris Opal, the majority is pretty much birthday presents. Otherwise, I like Alex's idea. - Do_odleplex 04:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay I'd now like to invite other users to see which pages they disagree with the proposal for on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Unimplemented content/list. -Chieftain Alex

21:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with most of it. If it appeared in the API and was removed later, then it's an obvious mistake.

However, I don't like the "it's popular" as an excuse to keep things. Anyone can go to reddit now, post about something, and make it popular. The only skins I would save are the paper bag helms, and only because they were directly acknowledged by an ArenaNet employee. The rest should be gone, which includes:

Fargate Opener - Never made publicly available. Redirect to Warpblade.
[[Fargate Opener (skin)]] - Never made publicly available. Keep image as trivia inside Warpblade (skin). Move page to [[User:Lon-ami/Skins/Fargate Opener (skin)]] without redirect.
[[Fargate Opener (staff)]] - Obvious test item, the game is full of these. Delete.
Marjory's Everliving Blade - The item no longer exists, and was never made publicly available. Redirect to Belinda's Greatsword.
[[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]] - Never made publicly available. Keep image as trivia inside Belinda's Greatsword. Move to [[User:Lon-ami/Skins/Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]] without redirect.
School Uniform - Never made publicly available. Images can be kept inside Town clothing or in some concept art gallery for historical reasons. Delete.
[[School Uniform Boots]] / [[School Uniform Coat]] / [[School Uniform Leggings]] - Never made publicly available, and no longer works without an outfit item as the parent. Delete.

An alternative is to allow everything that has a wardrobe chat link (no items, only the skins). For those arriving late to the party, here's a few of them. I'm documenting them as a personal project, but I'd be willing to adapt them for the main space if they're deemed worth of it.

Also, I think historical skins deserve their own separate pages (most have different icons, and their chat links still work). While that's being discussed, I'd like to have these two pages restored+moved to my user space:

[[Godskull Harpoon Gun (historical)]] to User:Lon-ami/Skins/Godskull Harpoon (skin).
[[Grimward (historical)]] to [[User:Lon-ami/Skins/Grimward (historical)]].

If people agree, they can be moved back to the main space (together with my other historical pages). If not, I'll keep them as part of my personal project.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Historical like a sub page that the skill pages do you mean? Eh, nah I don't think that's needed the few pages where that applies it fits better as trivia, so I vote no. Also if most of those user pages is made up of content you found via chat code scraping, those should be flagged for deletion. Reason being, since if those sort of pages aren't allowed in the mainspace due to not being intended to be found by players/not officially released, they shouldn't be allowed in userspace either, double standard. Otherwise, I'd suggest you just make/remake the pages you want instead of waiting for people to figure out what to do with them, it's faster and easier for your project that way. - Do_odleplex 00:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The advantage of historical pages is they have their own category, making them easier to be found.

As for those deleted pages, I'd rather recover what I already had than remake them. Less work for me, and less wasted space for the wiki itself, so stop removing the red links until it's done. And anyway, if pages with datamined icons and chat codes are fine, I don't see why mine aren't. All of them are present in the game in one way or another, I'm not dealing with unreleased weapon models.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've delinked pages that Alex deleted today. Additionally, if the pages you requested to be moved are restored ans moved, the original links would need to be delinked anyway afterwards, all there is to it. As per your request, I've left your proposed user page links alone for the time being. That being said, if there's a decent number of skins that were drastically changed(excluding icons since those change fairly often over all items), then perhaps a sub page, but only if there's a fairly decent number. And that info should probably be put elsewhere as not to de-rail this conversation.

In regards to this conversation, excluding the half a dozen items still up for debate(three of which are likely to be deleted), it looks like 99% of the pages that still exists that are flagged as Unimplemented is content encountered during a beta or things ArenaNet staffers have provided information from. Everything that got deleted was content that was found in the .dat/data-mined that had basically no information, or what little information did exist was moved as trivia elsewhere if deemed appropriate/suitable. I feel and think that based on that, moving forward if content is found via methods that are less than official it either needs confirmation from an ArenaNet employee in some way or be added simply as trivia on a more appropriate page. Otherwise, it simply isn't appropriate to be on the wiki, in either main or user space. - Do_odleplex 01:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I suggested deleting the pages, but keeping the images as trivia concept art inside related pages. As long as the weapon model is physically visible ingame, as NPC gear or terrain props, we aren't really "leaking" something, just showing a better picture of something that is already there.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "no user space", screenshots should be fine, right? As long as they appear in the game in one way or another. The only sensible information is the chat code, which I don't care about removing (half of my entries don't even have one anyway, since they're historical skins).--Lon-ami (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Depends on how you got the screenshot. If we wouldn't be able to use in main space articles because of how it was obtained, then I'd have to say no. So use your judgement based on that. - Do_odleplex 15:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

As long as it's already present ingame, how the screenshots are obtained is kinda irrelevant. Now, if it only exists at the .dat (chat code or render), then yeah, it shouldn't be around. None of the screenshots I uploaded so far qualify for that though. That said, I sanitized my pages a bit, removing chat codes, item references, and other bits of data, so they shouldn't be a problem anymore. Now it's just a screenshot plus notes on where it appears ingame.

I would like to see both [[Fargate Opener (skin)]] and [[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]] moved to my userspace, where I will remove the sensible data as well.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Providing the screenshots are not from a chat link obtained via dat diving/data mining/chat code scraping, they're fine yes. However if they are from one of those, please replace them, they aren't to be on the wiki. This seems to be the general consensus based on project Alex started, and because of that, no, those pages shouldn't be restored and moved to your userspace, they were obtained via poking things that shouldn't have been poked, hence why there were deleted. They don't belong on the wiki anywhere peroid. Done. - Do_odleplex 04:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So you're telling me to wait for the NPC wielding them to stand in a good pose for a screenshot? The result will always be considerably worse, not to speak about the waste of time it's going to be for whoever wants to take those screenshots. I assume this file [[:File:Fargate Opener.jpg]] is to be deleted then? Good luck taking an ingame screenshot to replace it.

As long as the chat codes and other sensible information are removed, preview screenshots should be fine. You are not showing anything that isn't already available ingame, for everyone to see.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh well, I guess you should delete this one too: File:Fargate Opener vs Warpblade.jpg, since it's from the preview chat code as well.

Anyway, I'd wait for more people's opinions before going on a delete spree. Your (in my opinion ridiculous) anti-preview stance is going to mean the death of multiple main space files.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, all weapon images that are previews should be replaced by wielded images, and I know a few editors work on that. Preview images are only useful for when things are new / hard to get, so that we have something. And it isn't an "anti-preview" but an "anti-can't-obtain" to be fair. Konig (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing Living World Season 1-4

So I'd like to change the Living World Season 1, 2, 3, and 4 so that, like the page for Heart of Thorns and Path of Fire, they are overview pages of the content for that particular season. I'd move the story synopsis to it's own separate page, which is already done for HoT and PoF. I feel players would be better served this way, to have a page dedicated to telling them the maps, currencies, achievements, chapters, etc instead of kind of clicking around and guessing. I'd like to know what other people think though, before going forward, especially because since I wasn't around for LWS1, I would need a decent amount of help with that. - Do_odleplex 02:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

PvP Runes on the Wiki

The names of PvP runes on the wiki are inaccurate. For example, if you paste the item code for Rune of Strength ingame, the actual name is Rune of Strength (PvP). I think every PvP rune article on the wiki should have (PvP) added to the end. It would be consistent with the game, and as an added bonus, reduce confusion for people who search for Rune of Strength on the wiki expecting to find the PvE runes. Then the disambig article could be moved to Rune of Strength, where I think it will be more useful.

Also, the bindings of PvP runes should be noted as account bound. PvP runes are unlocked for every character on your account. - BuffsEverywhere (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So... no objections to me moving the PvP rune articles ;)? -BuffsEverywhere (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe the runes had the (PvP) suffix here in the past. Don't know why this was changed. - J.P. 23:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be the discussion which led to moving the pvp rune pages. --Tolkyria (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit: The templates {{Rune and sigil nav}}, {{Rune table}} and {{Upgrade component table}} and the page PvP Build use inline queries and not {{#ifexists: Rune of <suffix> (PvP)||}} (or something similar) anymore, which used to break templates easily. ~~So that's nothing we would have to worry about on moving pvp rune pages.~~ Well, infobox might need some adjustments. --Tolkyria (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, Tolkyria! I'll remember to edit the infobox if it breaks. -BuffsEverywhere (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check and fix PvP Build and Default Builds afterwards. --Tolkyria (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

"So today I learnt the {{Upgrade component infobox}} actually has a css class set... <div class="infobox upgrade component">- we don't have that class set in common.css so it appears gray"— User:Chieftain Alex on Discord (January 22, 2019).

This might be a little bit offtopic but nevertheless worth discussing. Basically every table affected with runes or sigils uses the item color scheme, see Rune, {{rune table}}, Sigil, {{sigil table}}.

Only {{Upgrade component infobox}}, {{Rune and sigil nav}} (actually using an even darker gray) and {{Cosmetic upgrade component nav}} are using the default gray scheme. I think it might be worth changing it to the standard item color scheme.

Edit: Thanks!

@BuffsEverywhere, great work so far! Can you move the PvP sigils (only 27) too? --Tolkyria (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that BuffsEverywhere moved all the wretched sigil pages manually. 27 is still way too many to do by hand.

I've bot-moved all of the pvp sigils. Where there were existing disambiguation articles I've converted the 8 redirects to point at them. -Chieftain Alex

14:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, thanks again to both of you. BuffsEverywhere's idea was to get rid of the (disambiguation) suffix, since there's now a clear distinction with the (PvP) suffix for pvp runes/sigils. See Category:Rune overviews and Category:Sigil overviews. Maybe we should be consistent and remove the (disambiguation) suffix everywhere. --Tolkyria (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Scouts Appearing on the Interactive Maps

→ moved from Talk:Main Page#Scouts Appearing on the Interactive Maps

I've just noticed that scouts - the telescope symbol - don't appear on the Interactive Map section of Zone pages, whereas they do on the in-game map. The only way to know a scout is there is to go the page of the Area they are in and look under services, which is really only useful if you already know the scout is there. Putting it at least under Area Objectives column of the Locations section/chart would help immensely. I did not put this concern on a specific zone's talk page, because this an issue concerning all zone pages. Thanks. ~~ TiffanySmith.8216 (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't find the scouts that useful, especially since the maps already have the hearts on them. At the moment most of the info shown on those maps is from the API (hearts, POI, vistas, WP) - some info is however added from a manual list maintained on [[Widget:World map/data.js]]. If we did decide that we wanted to show scouts on the map, we'd firstly need their coordinates - based on this automated list there are 212 scouts, only 70 have coordinates at the moment. Basically someone would have to go ingame and record each scout's location first. -Chieftain Alex

00:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I tend to think they're not really needed. However, there is one exception: for renown hearts that only show up when you get close, the scout is sometimes the only way to find them. There are maybe a half dozen of these, mostly in the new-players areas. It's probably not useful to list them, but maybe? Daddicus (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've been through ingame and captured coordinates for all the scouts except the ones in Verdant Brink which I'll do later. We at least now have the option of adding them if we want to. -Chieftain Alex

20:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Am I allowed to add a template in personal purpose?

Hello, I'm currently writing a guide for Korean newbies - I made one: ways to get ascended gears. I guess I'll write several pages more, but I want to make a template to link them like navigation template does(ex. Effects nav template) I can make a not-really template to every page, but It might make a lot of effort when a page added every time. so, Am I allowed to add a navigation template to my personal pages. thanks. --Targal (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep, just add it to Category:User templates and you're good to go. =) - Do_odleplex 06:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! --Targal (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd probably prefer a user page used as a template, e.g. [[User:Targal/effects nav]] can be included on any other page by doing {{User:Targal/effects nav}} just like any mainspace template. -Chieftain Alex

18:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I also wonder if I can create a page [[가이드]] to redirect my guide in my user page. my intention is, when a newbie comes to a guild, to let him chat /wiki 가이드 --Targal (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We avoid having main space articles redirect to the user space. Players would be able to use /wiki User:Targa/가이드 instead, if Korean can be put into the chat bar. G R E E N E R 21:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer! --Targal (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Resonance

Trying to complete Resonance, can't get the South one, oil disappears by the time I reach the flame... Any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.191.101.194 (talk) at 22:50, 6 February 2019‎ (UTC).

All of them are doable with 5 spots of oil. Start at the debris end. Place the one nearest the fire spitter further away and spread them out further. -Chieftain Alex

00:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong redirections when looking for chat links

Hi all,

when looking for [&AgEeCgEA][&AgEMLwEA] (the rewards for the t1 and t2 recommended fractals), the wiki correctly reads the item IDs (68126 and 77580). However, while these items have their own pages, it redirects to a generic page where they are said to be historical. How are these redirects defined, is it the first page found in the database with the correct ID? Aikan (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ahai,

looks like the item was renamed instead of creating a new one (the same ID). It should be fixed now. That's a good catch, thanks! ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Release Pages And Names

I am looking for the quest pages for Living World Season 1 content so I can look at the dialogue - specifically the Flame and Frost ones. However, it just brings me to the release page - it tells me about the release and its features and etc. I have no idea how to get to the storyline page that I'm used to looking at on other quests (I access them through Story Journal). I have the same problem when trying to search any other release, and the Story Journal page has helped immensely with finding what I want... but the Story Journal has links to the LS1 release pages, not the story mission ones like almost every other link on the page. Can this either be fixed or directions be noted at the bottom of the Story Journal page (and possibly having the link to the Story Journal at the bottom of the each release page, so people don't wander around unaware of its existence)? Or else have a disambiguation page differentiating between the releases and the story pages? I would do it myself, but any of the suggested changes are big projects, and probably format changing. Thanks in advance. ~~TiffanySmith.8216 20:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Small inconsistency with the Revenant skills

Among the Revenant skills with no energy cost, some have the skill information "energy = 0" and some doesn't. For example, Rapid Swipe and Forceful Bash have it, and Rejuvenating Assault doesn't. I think it would be more consistent if this were changed, so either all revenant skills with no energy cost have this skill information, or all of them doesn't. I would prefer adding it to the skills, since it would make creating a skill table easier. What does everyone think? Erasculio 20:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

	Has energy cost	Is for weapon
Arcing Mists#WvW,PvP		Greatsword
Mist Swing		Greatsword
Mist Slash		Greatsword
Arcing Mists		Greatsword
Mist Swing#WvW,PvP		Greatsword
Mist Slash#WvW,PvP		Greatsword
Hammer Bolt#WvW,PvP		Hammer
Hammer Bolt		Hammer
Anguish Swipe#WvW,PvP		Mace
Manifest Toxin		Mace
Manifest Toxin#WvW,PvP		Mace
Misery Swipe		Mace
Misery Swipe#WvW,PvP		Mace
Anguish Swipe		Mace
Motivating Whirl		Scepter
Serene Slash#WvW,PvP		Scepter
Acerbic Cut#WvW,PvP		Scepter
Motivating Whirl#WvW,PvP		Scepter
Serene Slash		Scepter
Acerbic Cut		Scepter
Shattershot		Short bow
Shattershot#WvW,PvP		Short bow
Spear of Anguish		Spear
Rapid Swipe		Staff
Forceful Bash		Staff
Rejuvenating Assault		Staff
Forceful Bash#WvW,PvP		Staff
Rapid Swipe#WvW,PvP		Staff
Rejuvenating Assault#WvW,PvP		Staff
Rift Slash#WvW,PvP		Sword
Brutal Blade		Sword
Brutal Blade#WvW,PvP		Sword
Preparation Thrust		Sword
Rift Slash		Sword
Preparation Thrust#WvW,PvP		Sword
Mistsfire		Trident

It doesn't matter for your skill tables since i've tweaked them. I like consistency so we should do something about this anyway. I'm thinking we don't set zero recharge on skills, so why would we set energy costs? Imo let's remove the Rapid Swipe and Forceful Bash costs. -Chieftain Alex

21:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Fine by me. Erasculio 00:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Linking to GW2E's crafting calculator in item infobox

I'd like to add a link to GW2E's crafting calculator in the infobox of items that can be crafted. While the base ingredients lookup serves a similar function, Gw2E's calculator presents information in a better way, plus it can be set to calculate costs based on materials you already have. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

No comments means no objections, so I went ahead and added it. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

page delete request

I made a page to test something - Test:testpage‎‎. since I can't delete the page totally, so I put this word to request someone to do it so. thanks. :) --Targal (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you can add Template:Delete ({{delete|<reason>|speedy}} or without the |speedy bit if the deletion request is controversial and needs further discussion) to the top of a page that needs deletion. It makes it easier for the admins to keep track of pages that need deletion and is more convenient for you, too. :)

talk 15:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --Targal by 203.249.39.176 03:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Automating NPC locations

Status: Withdrawn

The idea is to use semantic mediawiki to set the located NPCs in an area only once, and not three times like now:

on the area page,
on the NPC page and
in the {{NPC infobox}}.

Idea 1

Set the located NPCs within one area at the area page itself using the template #Template: Locates.
Use the template #Template: Located in on each NPC page, all work will be done there automatically by the template: sorting alphabetically.
Simple description: One can compare it with the templates {{contains}} and {{contained in}}, areas playing the role of the caches/boxes and NPCs playing the role of the items. There we set all the information on the cache/box pages, here we will set the information on the areas, and gather the information for the NPCs (as done with the items) automatically.

Example

Rabbit — the whole Locations list would be created automatically, the Locations section will list all locations (as long as all area pages are listing the rabbits correctly). Currently, finding the missing area pages that list rabbits but are not included in the list is nearly an impossible task.
[[Banker (WvW)]] — the infobox would be be much smaller, removing all locations, which are currently needed to set the semantic mediawiki properties.

Template: Locates

Edit: Renamed to Template:NPC location.
Use the template {{locates|<NPC name>|<Optional: vendor template icon>}} on each area page, for example: {{locates|Rabbit}} or {{locates|Bank Teller|bank}} (will create the {{vendor}} icon infront).
Code, setting the Property:Locates NPC and displaying the NPC name with an optional vendor icon infront.

{{#if: {{{2|}}} |{{vendor|{{{2|}}}}} }}[[Locates NPC::{{{1|}}}]]

Template: Located in

Edit: Renamed to Template:NPC location list.
Using the template {{Located in|<Area; default = PAGENAME>}} in the section Locations
This would make the {{NPC infobox}} location parameter obsolete.
It produces the following output:

Region name A

Zone name 1
- Area name i
- Area name ii
Zone name 2
- Area name iii

Region name B

Zone name 3
- Area name iv

Code, sorting by Located in tree alphabetically.

{{#ask: [[Locates NPC::{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]] [[Has location type::Area]]|?Located in tree|sort=Located in tree,|format=template|template=Located in result format}}

Result format, if the region/zone/area changed to the last time then it will be displayed, otherwise not.

Area
Located in tree

{{#switch: {{#explode: {{{2|}}}|;|0}} 
| The Mists = {{#vardefine: this_region|{{#explode: {{{2|}}}|;|0}} }} {{#vardefine: this_zone|{{#explode: {{{2|}}}|;|1}} }} {{#vardefine: this_area|{{{1|}}}}} 
| Tyria =  {{#vardefine: this_region|{{#explode: {{{2|}}}|;|1}} }} {{#vardefine: this_zone|{{#explode: {{{2|}}}|;|2}} }} {{#vardefine: this_area|{{{1|}}}}} }}
{{#ifeq: {{#var: last_region}} | {{#var: this_region}} |<!-- do nothing -->|{{#vardefine: last_region | {{#var: this_region}} }} ; {{cname|{{#var:this_region}}}}}}
{{#ifeq: {{#var: last_zone  }} | {{#var: this_zone  }} |<!-- do nothing -->|{{#vardefine: last_zone   | {{#var: this_zone  }} }} * {{cname|{{#var:this_zone  }}}}}}
{{#ifeq: {{#var: last_area  }} | {{#var: this_area  }} |<!-- do nothing -->|{{#vardefine: last_area   | {{#var: this_area  }} }} **{{cname|{{#var:this_area  }}}}}}

Tests

Using [[User:Tolkyria/Located in]].
Let's assume we get the following list of Areas upon the inline query: Borealis Forest; Snowlord's Gate; Shaemoor Fields; Village of Shaemoor; Red World Border (Blue Borderlands) for one certain NPC.
Then the result on the NPC page would look like the following:

{{User:Tolkyria/Located in|Borealis Forest; Snowlord's Gate; Shaemoor Fields; Village of Shaemoor; Red World Border (Blue Borderlands)}}

{{User:Tolkyria/Located in|Borealis Forest; Snowlord's Gate; Shaemoor Fields; Village of Shaemoor; Red World Border (Blue Borderlands)}}

Template:NPC infobox

Ensuring that all other templates relying on the NPC infobox will still work: setting the location areas automatically, if they are not set by hand.

 {{infobox location|{{{location|{{#ask: [[Locates NPC::{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]] [[Has location type::Area]]|link=none|sep=;}}}}}|limit=1<!--introducing limit parameter: displaying ''Varies'' as location text if the list length exceeds the limit-->}}

Idea 2

Set the locations of the NPC at the NPC page.
Create NPCs of each area on the area pages automatically.
This is how the french wiki does it!
If you have some concrete ideas, please feel free to add it.

Problems

The number of pages that needs to be updated:
- Number of Area pages: {{#ask: [[Has location type::Area]] | format = count}}
- Number of NPC pages: {{#ask: [[Has context::NPC]] | format = count}}

Written by, supporting idea 1, Tolkyria (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Example

Current area page:

== NPCs ==
=== Allies ===
;[[Ambient creature]]s
* [[Chicken]]

;[[Animal]]s
* [[Brown Cow]]
* [[Content Bull]]

New area page:

== NPCs ==
=== Allies ===
;[[Ambient creature]]s
* {{npc location|Chicken}}

;[[Animal]]s
* {{npc location|Brown Cow}}
* {{npc location|Content Bull}}

Current NPC page:

{{NPC infobox
| image = ...
| location = A area page; B area page
}}

== Locations ==
;[[Kryta]]
* [[Queensdale]]
** [[area i]]
** [[area ii]]

New NPC page:

{{NPC infobox
| image = ...
<!-- locations are set in the template automatically for the Property:Located in-->
}}

== Locations ==
{{npc location list}}
<!-- {{npc location list}} will create the list of areas with the same format -->

Comments

Remark: #Idea 2 was suggested in Discord, but felt wrong for me the whole time. While it may sound tempting to use this method, there is one argument that kills it: red links. Implementing this method, requiring the page existence before the page link shows up on the area page automatically, is the wrong way. This may sound hard, but almost all the time it should be page link --> page rather than page --> pagelink.

A wiki will never be perfect, meaning that there will always be red links, this is just how wikis work. Using this method would mean that we eliminate all existing redlinks on area pages linking to non-created NPC pages and will block the easy creation of new areas and new NPC pages.

Literally everyone can add a NPC to an area page in less than one minute in the correct format, but not everyone can create a NPC page, requiring the NPC infobox, the intro text and the location setting of idea 2.

Conclusion: I think there is no way to implement idea 2 properly, I'll stick with idea 1. --Tolkyria (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I support idea 1, even though I did propose idea 2 in Discord. Currently musing over how the properties will work. -Chieftain Alex

18:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Idea 1 seems better, I agree. My only issue is that it might seem nonintuitive to new users, so I suggest adding a 'click here to edit this content', similar to what {{inventory}} currently has on all articles using it. Otherwise, I support it, as it will definitely fill in some blanks we currently have on NPCs with hundreds of locations. —Ventriloquist 18:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The idea is to wrap the NPCs on the area pages with the template {{locates}}. Actually, Alex doesn't like {{locates}}, he is using {{npc location}} instead. For example:

Current area page:

== NPCs ==
=== Allies ===
;[[Ambient creature]]s
* [[Chicken]]

;[[Animal]]s
* [[Brown Cow]]
* [[Content Bull]]

New area page:

== NPCs ==
=== Allies ===
;[[Ambient creature]]s
* {{npc location|Chicken}}

;[[Animal]]s
* {{npc location|Brown Cow}}
* {{npc location|Content Bull}}

So, it should be, just like {{contains}}, intuitive enough to edit it easily. --Tolkyria (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I meant the NPC pages, they would be using something similar to {{contained in}}, no? Just having a list of all the locations where 'npc location' was used for NPCs. —Ventriloquist 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly as {{contained in}}, the format is done in the background. Alex suggested {{npc location list}} for the NPC pages, that would be enough to create the current format of bullet lists automatically, see #Template: Located in for the format. --Tolkyria (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding Example, see above.

The only problem that appeared is the suffix (During related events only) for areas on NPC pages; which cannot be applied correctly by the template {{npc location list}}. --Tolkyria (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

So currently do we actually list event NPCs on the area articles at all? From memory I think we mostly document them on the event pages - I think we will probably have to list all event npcs on the area pages (which we can add that note) but yes, we would lose that info from the NPC page. Honestly it doesn't bother me if we lose that note on the NPC page. -Chieftain Alex

12:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Some further explanation: Since implementing the idea explained above is quite a drastic change, let me explain it in detail.
This implementation will wrap NPCs on area pages with {{NPC location|<NPC name>}}. This allows at the NPC page to gain the list of areas automatically where the NPC is located (doing some semantic mediawiki in the background). NPCs, which are available permanently in one area, doesn't cause any problem.

However, NPCs available only during an event, will cause some troubles... With this implementation any information which is added on the area page, as level or a suffix (During related events only) will not be passed to the NPC page and is lost. Currently, the automated location list on the NPC page can't take such information in account; i.e. this information would not be available.

So, the two important questions are:

Should the NPC available during an event only be listed at an area page (with or without the suffix (During related events only))?
Should the location of an NPC available during an event only be listed at the NPC page (with or without the suffix (During related events only))?

Currently, I have seen all three types of answers overall the wiki in the lists done by hand, for both questions.

a. No, they should be included only at the event page and not on the area page.

b. Yes, they should be included on the area page.

c. Yes, they should be included on the area page with the suffix (During related events only).

If those two questions are answered, the idea explained above could be either used immediately (either answer a. for both questions or answer b. for both questions), maybe adapted (answer c. for both questions), or withdrawn (differing answers to the two questions above).

Please note that Alex already stated above: "Honestly it doesn't bother me if we lose that note on the NPC page" regarding the event suffix. --Tolkyria (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

My only thought is NPCs(and objects) that only appear during events shouldn't be on area pages: I feel that it can get really cluttered and clunky really fast(upscaling anyone) making it less reader friendly and thus I'm opposed to it. I would love this location thing for resource nodes though, I feel like those are missing quite a lot of locations. - Do_odleplex 19:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit) Before I forget, the note on the NPC page should stay there for the sake of people who need to kill certain NPCs for achievements. Otherwise it's a bit of a pain try to find an NPC only to find out after running around like stupid skritt that they're an event only spawn. - Do_odleplex 19:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

We could do a similar thing for Objects at a later point. -Chieftain Alex

19:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

And that's exactly the only method that can't be implemented: Not having the event only NPCs at the area page, but including the areas of the event only NPCs in the NPC location list (NPC page, section Locations). There is no way to extract the data. Events doesn't even have a location on the wiki, they have only a starting position, which must not be even be the area the NPC is located in.

What I can offer: we can automatize the NPC involved into events and display the results in the section Event involvment like this:

{{event|<Event name>}} — starts in <Event starts in area> (<Zone area>)

For example: Champion War Beast section Event involvment would look like:

[Group Event] Defeat Ulgoth the Modniir and his minions (43) — starts in Modniir Gorge (Harathi Hinterlands).

P.S. Please don't come up with off-topics, they are either easy or impossible, but shouldn't considered right now. As Alex said, objects are not a problem, this is straight forward, and can be done later. However, I won't recommend to touch resource nodes, e.g. Iron Ore (node), this list with all the notes can't be automatized. --Tolkyria (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't think of it as "off topic" just that event objects shouldn't be on area pages, unless you mean the nodes thing, but either way I digress, not important at the moment. Question, what if we simply took the location section out of the infobox? It's basically a less helpful version of the location section and would reduce some of the clutter maybe? Sorry if I'm missing something technical here that removing it would cause issues, seems like a simple solution that hasn't been brought up. Also I realized there are two things that have forgotten, NPC level and NPCs that appear only in certain circumstances outside of events. For the NPC levels, they're usually after the area on the NPC page and after the NPC on the area page. For the situational NPCs, in the HoT maps and some spots in Orr there's a decent number of NPCs that only appear after certain circumstances, ie, in Verdant Brink, some scouts change depending if it's night or day or Dragon's Stand/Orr, some NPCs only appear if the Pact is in control of point X and may not have anything to do with an event, just that they are spawned because an event was successful. - Do_odleplex 21:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The Property:Located in for NPCs is passed via the Template:NPC infobox. Completely removing the location parameter from the infobox is nothing I would recommend.

"With this implementation any information which is added on the area page, as level or a suffix (During related events only) will not be passed to the NPC page and is lost." Levels have been mentioned. It doesn't really matter if it is level or event only or whatever, see answer c. above. Also see "the idea explained above could be [[...]] maybe adapted (answer c. for both questions)". It would require subobjects, doable, not necessarily wanted because it complicates everything, but I think it should be doable.

Nevertheless, it can't solve the problem of not having the information on an area page, suddenly requesting it on the NPC page (e.g. event only suffix on NPC page location list only). There was also the idea of adding coordinates, again using subobjects, but this got rejected, simply because the effort isn't worth it and probably nobody will be ever motivated enough to add it.. --Tolkyria (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Edit: The reason is that I'm just not that motivated to actually ship it... and to decide: with/without event suffix, with/without level, etc... Note: The current implementation should work and can be implemented, if agreed on it.--Tolkyria (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It's unfortunate a consensus wasn't reached but I would still like to see {{npc location list}} to reduce typing the location by hand a second time in the NPC article. It can use the location specified in the infobox. For event-only NPCs we can continue to write the list out by hand. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, the idea of using semantic mediawiki for locations still fascinates me. I developed a version, which allows carrying over the level and any suffix notes (for example during events only or during night only) from the area page to the NPC location section, even after I withdraw it. This version uses subobjects, and the concepts sortkey and inverse properties in order to minimize the amount of set properties, for example Property:Located in tree is set only once, in the area infobox.

I have thought about several different versions and so far I think there is no alternative to my idea, either do it properly by setting it once on the area page and carry it automatically over to everything else; or just leave it as it is.

However, I'm just tired of fighting for it. --Tolkyria (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Account achievements widget

Any chance we could get a widget that could be used to grey out rows of completed achievements in lists such as All or Nothing (achievements)? --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

We probably need to finish adding the achievement ids first. I'll go through the old daily achievement pages and make sure they're marked historical so that I can see how big the task to add missing ids to current achievements is. -Chieftain Alex

06:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Added 266 game ids to current achievements.

I've then gone and created {{Account achievements widget‎}} and bolted it into {{Achievement table header‎}}. Its a tiny bit different to the other achievement widgets, because it searches for row ids of the form "achievement<id>" instead of "achievement-<id>". -Chieftain Alex

18:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)