Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 21

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


Posting here since this spans multiple templates.
I would like to suggest that we have weapons, armors and such include the value of collection parameters set on their skin page.
That way we would be more consistent with the game and would not lose any user convenience. It would also allow to correctly distinguish if a specific equipment/item is need versus the skin unlock.
After implementation the swap would possibly benefit from a bot edit. —Kvothe (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. In my opinion we shouldn't see the parameter collection as being strictly part of a collection but as a more general indication that the item or its skin (which is obtained when account-binding the item) is part of the collection.
I understand your reasoning that the correct collection task (either item or skin) should be marked correctly as it is sometimes crucial, but I think the infobox is the wrong place. Especially, since the Is part of collection currently lists over 7000 entries, I would argue that we are used to it and already expect it; not to mention adjusting all the pages. Hence, I think we would in fact lose some wiki user convenience, as the item is more accessible than the skin.
However, to address this discrepancy, I added a type and subtype column to the templates {{collection table}} (automatically generated) and {{collection table row}} (manually generated) to exactly state what is required (that's in my opinion the correct place). The template {{collection table}} is going even further, in order to get the related item for a skin, the equipment infobox parameter collection (actually the related property Is part of collection) is needed to select the somehow "correct" related item (which would otherwise be difficult for skins that have more than one related item). --Tolkyria (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I do not want to remove the collection from the item but rather add it to the skin infobox aswell. Including it from the items with the skin would be fine. —Kvothe (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Noting PoIs for NPC locations

Since I saw one change already made by Doodleplex I figured I'd get ahead of it. I personally think it's worthwhile to mark the point of interest within an area if a certain NPC only spawns around or at it within an area as a whole. Fire Imp has multiple examples of this, since imps are pretty local creatures by nature. If NPCs appear throughout the area as a whole as well as within PoIs in the area, then don't mark it (See Ridgeback Skale in Trebuchet Bend). Nero9012 (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with listing the POI/landmarks [within the locations section of the page] if the NPC isn't super obviously located. For 99% of locations the "area" will do.
I want to caveat this with the note that npcs should not have any mention of the POI/landmarks in their infobox as this will break stuff. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 17:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Heh, didn't know I had a my own little shadow following me, cute. I second Alex for this reason: I find it more helpful to list the Point of Interest/general location at the top of the page as part of the NPC's description, since editors can be more descriptive there than the location section. For example in the NPC description you can put "NPC can be found near X point of interest/waypoint" and include a template to provide a link for the players to use in game. Exceptions would be of course of Points of Interest that are their own instance, such as the Queen's Throne Room point of interest, those are fine in the Location section, though I'm not sure about the infobox for them. - Doodleplex 19:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what you mean with this. If we take Fire Imp again for example, it has at least 4-5+ areas where they only spawn within a PoI in the given area, so listing everyone of them in the header summary would just be pointless bloating that listing the PoI in the appropriate location section wouldn't do instead. It would get even worse for enemies like centaurs and bandits that exists solely in their camps throughout many areas as well. I've checked the NPCs pages a lot and I haven't seen any PoIs/Landmarks being listed in the infobox either so that's not a concern. Nero9012 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
In general an NPC cannot be in a Point of Interest. They can be near it, but unless it's an instance, they cannot be in one, which means they don't go in the Location section. You can notate it in the notes section if there's a particularly high amount of some enemy NPC in a certain location. That's all there is to it, sorry for the confusion. - Doodleplex 02:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it's worthwhile to add if an NPC is only found near/in a Point of Interest (semantics really, only a small minority of PoIs in the game are instances) within a given location and only adds positive information to the page. Let's say if a user is looking to find a mob in a particular area, they'll know whether or not they are centralized within certain spots and what not. I don't see why the two specifications have to be mutually exclusive, anyway. Nero Nine-O 03:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. You removed information from hundreds of pages because you felt it would look better in another section, without actually moving that information to that section? As far as I understand, the PoIs in the location section weren't breaking anything, I don't understand why you would remove them, you effectively removed very useful information from the wiki. Am I getting this right? Because if I am, then I really don't understand why you would do that. Warming Hearth (talk) 21:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding account key to Precursor collections (and maybe more)

Hey! I've been going through some precursor collections (e.g. Dusk) using the wiki, of course, and I think it would be very useful to be able to bind the account key and cross out the items you already collected. I saw this implemented for the Cat collection

I am new to the wiki system so I don't know how things work, but I did some digging and it looks like that part is called a widget and only a small group of people can work on them. Is someone in that team available for such a task? I have programming experience so I can try to do it myself after getting some guidance on how to start and how to get permission to work on it. I already analyzed some of the code for the cat so I expect most of it to be reusable.

Thanks :) EvilMonkey (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the thing you are talking about is already being discussed. The big issue is, that API does store info about achievement goals not really well for us to work with.
Cats are quite easy to get, you just read API:2/account/home/cats. With achievements however, you need bits part of API:2/account/achievements, and the worst, you need to have the wiki table in the same order as the bits are, which is quite unlikely.
I don't know more of the issue, if someone can tell you more (Alex?), I hope they do it. DJemba (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, ok. It does look a bit scary with those bits.. and then there is "The meaning of each value varies with each achievement." Still, I could continue someone's work if they already started something. Or I could look into it and start building something. EvilMonkey (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Widget talk:Account achievements#Bits. I think this is pretty much the same request. Adding the ability to gray out bits is actually pretty easy, it's just having the confidence that all the wiki "bits" stuff is in the same order as the API. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Black Lion Collections are not in the correct order and Legendary Weapons (achievements) still need to be finished (currently at Frostfang I from the top). Besides those two point all should be correct. —Kvothe (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so it looks like things are already going forward :) I'll be looking forward to that update EvilMonkey (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding a "Show base ingredients" button to the Promotion recipes template

Hello. I recently noticed that some of the wiki pages I was visiting did not have a Show base ingredients button in the recipe "template" (sorry if this isn't the right word, I give examples below for clarity). After playing a bit with those templates to understand why, it seems the recipe type is the main factor here - I didn't test every possible source/type couple though, I could be mistaken.

For instance, on the Charged Lodestone page, said button isn't here, but will show up if you change the recipe type from Promotion to Inscription, leading to this convenient page.

I dont know if there was a specific reason for not having this button on every recipe templates, but I thought I would share my experience in case it's just an odd case that should be rectified. Thank you for your time, here are some more examples of pages with or without the button:

Page Source Type Show base ingredient button?
Precise 7 Agony Infusion Mystic forge N/A No (presumably because of status = historical)
N/A (testing only) Recipe Promotion No
Recipe sheet Promotion No
Bolt of Gossamer Mystic Forge Promotion No
Automatic Refinement Yes
Celestial Orichalcum Imbued Inscription Recipe sheet Inscription Yes
Arachnophobia Mystic Forge N/A Yes
N/A (testing only) Mystic forge Inscription Yes
Recipe N/A Yes 09:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes "base ingredients" is deliberately switched off by default "internally" by setting Property:Can be queried for base ingredients (all the false pages for promotion and demotion recipes. This is set by the line below:
| Can be queried for base ingredients = {{ucfirst:{{{base ingredients|{{#switch: {{lc:{{{type|}}}}} | demotion | promotion = n | #default = y }}}}}}}
The reason that this prevents the query from getting stuck in a loop when finding the crafting path. Unlike GW2Efficiency for example our script blindly follows the recipes and doesn't take into account the cost. Let's try and work through an example:
  • Banner Pennon → 5 Bolt of Gossamer, 100 Spool of Gossamer Thread, 5 Glob of Ectoplasm, 5 Olmakhan Latigo Strap
  • Bolt of Gossamer → 2 Gossamer Scrap. The current base ingredients template would finish here. ... but there's also a promotion recipe there too. So the script would have to pick one of them if the second hadn't been disabled. At this point it would find 250 Bolt of Silk, 1 Bolt of Gossamer, 5 Pile of Crystalline Dust, 10 Philosopher's Stone.
  • Then it'll go ask for Bolt of Gossamer again, and add a further 250 Bolt of Silk to the recipe.... you see where this is going?
The button has the same logic which hides it if it is a demotion, promotion, if the source is unset, or if the status is not current/discontinued (i.e. historical where the recipe has been removed/disabled). I suppose however that we could enable the link without enabling it to be found within the base ingredients widget itself. Would this however be confusing, given that normally these recipes aren't included otherwise? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 09:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Taken a chance and enabled it. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 17:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanations, I didn't think about the loop issue and now understand why the button wasn't there for promotions. I still believe that being able to compare an item price to the cost of even only the "first level" materials used to craft it is convenient, but I agree it may cause confusion because of how arbitrary it is to stop there on the base ingredients page (widget?). Thank you for enabling it for testing, I'm curious to see what the feedback from other wiki users will be on this. 12:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Is there actually a good reason to exclude it on a few pages as we still do yet?
Namely, Alex changed it the template code from
{{#ifeq: {{{base ingredients|{{#switch: {{lc:{{{type|}}}}} | demotion | promotion = n | #default = y }}}}} | y | <-- show link --> | <-- do not show link -->}}
{{#ifeq: {{{base ingredients|}}} | y | <-- show link --> | <-- do not show link -->}}
Hence, it is still excluded from pages that are setting the recipet template parameter "base ingredients = n" (see explanation above why this parameter is important), therefore e.g. the link is exclude from the following pages: 2 Agony Infusion, Amalgamated Gemstone/Recipes, Beryl Crystal (note that "base ingredients = n" is set for good reason there, I'm not questioning this at all). Formulating my question alternatively: Is there any page where enabling the "Show base ingredients" link make zero sense or even would have a negative effect? Because, I think that at least the examples (and similar pages) I listed above would indeed benefit from the link. --Tolkyria (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we should separate into two parameters the base ingredients smw + base ingredients link? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 16:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. It would be definitely also a safer approach as from a wiki user perspective it seems like that the "base ingredients" parameter only enables/disables the link. Thus, the wiki users might remove "base ingredients = n", not knowing why it's required for the query (especially as now we are supporting promotion in general to show the link, which may raise the question for some users why it isn't consistently displayed). --Tolkyria (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
We could add an extra sentence to Form:Base ingredients query to acknowledge the problem with recipes that have the same item in the query e.g. Talk:Vicious Claw. —Kvothe (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Not needed anymore, see this edit. --Tolkyria (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Hats off to the template magician. —Kvothe (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Documenting the original Lion's Arch

Full discussion here: Talk:Lion's Arch (original)#Documenting the original Lion's Arch.--Lon-ami (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

AMA the Second

Hi folks. It's been floating around the discord whether we want to do another AMA on Reddit, so I'd like to start planning things a bit earlier this time around, considering last year's AMA was quite rushed.

Some insights we gathered from last year:

  • People were a bit upset that we chose to do the AMA on Reddit, leaving out the forum folks.
    • Should we host two AMAs — one on Reddit and one on the forums? Should they happen simultaneously or on different dates?
  • The other language wikis felt left out. This time around, I'd like to involve them, too.
  • Can we promote this better via social media?
    • Could ask Stéphane whether we can use the official channels to promote the AMA.
  • How could we use the AMA to recruit new editors?
  • There weren't many detailed questions in the last AMA because people didn't know what to ask. Can we do something to encourage more questions by explaining what kind of areas there are on the wiki and assigning "experts" to answer specific questions?

Lastly, when do we want to host the AMA? Personally, I think we should do it after the next release and before the holiday event since people's attention will be diverted. I propose a weekend at the end of November or early in December. Looking forward to reading your thoughts, suggestions, and questions! User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 11:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts
  • I'd suggest we post a thread on the forum linking to our AMA on reddit. Forum is just too awkward for the AMA format without nested replies.
  • We could let the other language wikis know beforehand so they're able to reply if they want to on the thread. Seems straightforward. Just stick a note on the equivalent of their community portal i guess. (obvious contacts to ask are Doodle/Ruby for ES wiki, Irule/Graouuh for FR wiki and ThisIsIsi for DE wiki).
  • Idk I don't use social media.
  • Maybe link to the previous AMA when we post the current one. No idea how to steer the conversation.
-Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 14:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I really like that we're discussing all of this ahead of time, I think that's a good way to go. Some thoughts of mine:
  • I feel nervous assigning experts. I don't know if others may feel this way about their Wiki work, but I don't really see myself as being an "expert" on anything here. Despite that I really do enjoy editing, and I've been at it for over five years now. I worry that if we assign specific people for things, the rest of us may not get a chance to answer or comment on much. I do think explaining the areas and different ways people can contribute to the Wiki will help with better questions this time around, though.
  • Seconded the idea of linking the forums to the Reddit.
  • I've used SAND's Twitter to boost Wiki stuff before, I can do it again for this. Additionally, our Twitter is now linked to another guild's Discord feed. Not the hugest boost ever, but a decent one.
  • Definitely want to include the other language Wikis!
  • I've noticed the Reddit seems to be a lot more popular and positive than it was the last time we did the AMA. It was a decent turnout last time, but every day the last couple of months it feels like I see the front page with at least half of the topics upvoted over 100. Compare that to last time and it's a fairly positive difference.
  • Could we maybe work on a mini "welcome" video of sorts for the Wiki? Would this help recruit? I think this has been brought up before, and while I don't have anything other than rudimentary skills with video editing, I probably could do something small and simple.
Muirellthe Moon Geode.png 09:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Both of you make some very good points!
  • I'll reach out to the other language wikis soon and invite them to join the discussion here.
  • Agreeing with directing the forum people to Reddit (we did that last year, too).
  • It'd be cool if you could promote the AMA on your community's social media sites, Moon! I'll ask Stéphane next week whether we can get a little push on the GW2 channels, too.
  • RE: experts, listing what kind of areas there are on the wiki sounds solid. Maybe we we can also note down what kind of tasks the representative participants (the ones volunteering to have their names in the opening post so people have an idea who's there apart from whoever feels like popping in) enjoy doing on the wiki.
  • A welcome video sounds like a really cool idea. What did you have in mind? Some kind of trailer with in-game/wiki footage and voice-over or wiki editors filming themselves?
Thank you for the input! User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 11:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for my late response! I'll definitely promote via SAND's Twitter and Discord as soon as we have something more concrete to put forward! Anet used to re-tweet some of our stuff once upon a time, but it's been years. I feel like we may be on our own to promote this through our avenues, so I'll do all I can from my end.
  • RE: experts. What happens if there's too many of us who want to be mentioned in that post? ;P I just realized we'll also have to be sure to have everyone's correct Reddit username, as mine is different from my in-game name and Wiki name.
  • RE: trailer. Something like that! I only have one video project I can even offer up to show what I can do, and saying "what I can do" feels like too much. The pandemic hit and my class was no longer able to learn the video editing software we had, so we lost access to high quality cameras and ended up using our phones and a lot of rudimentary editing software. I know how to do the basic stuff, I can add text and music, cut things roughly, stitch things together, etc. I think something like voice-over and text to explain the simple stuff of the Wiki might go a long way in helping folks.
Really looking forward to this no matter how we end up going about it! Muirellthe Moon Geode.png 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Last year, the number of people who volunteered to be named in the post was relatively small, I doubt this will change this time around. If it does, we can link to the sign-up sheet where everyone who wants to attend can leave their wiki and reddit name as well as the things they do on the site. I'll start the list once we settled on a date. About the trailer, this reminds me of an idea that was mentioned at Stéphane's ExtraLife stream: I think he wanted to do a tutorial to show people how to edit the wiki (and he also did that on stream). Maybe we can recycle some of that footage? I think a tutorial was also requested in the AMA itself. User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 10:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

All right, seeing as the discussion isn't as active as I had hoped, let's get this back on track by deciding when we want to have the AMA. I made a poll here: Click me. Please vote. :)
No fixed time yet, since that depends on the majority of core participants' time zones. Once we decided on a date, I'll pass around a sign-up sheet. User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 09:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry! I disappeared a bit. I think you're correct in that a tutorial was requested in the past AMA, and if not there, I know someone did ask if one existed somewhere. Voted! But I think I'll probably be okay with any time decided, even if it isn't ideal for my time zone. Muirellthe Moon Geode.png 13:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
No worries! Thanks for voting! Let's wait till the end of the week to see which day works best for everyone. I'll try to pick a decent starting time for all the non-EU people this time. Apart from this, I reached out to the other language wikis — let's see if they're onboard! I still need to reach out to Stéphane for a social media boost, too, but he's pretty busy with the Fuser launch this week. Since the video is another matter, would it help if I created a "think tank" channel on the discord for people to toss around more ideas and stuff? User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 10:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea of a "think tank" channel! Hopefully it'll bring other folks out who can do more than I with video editing. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help with the AMA stuff! Muirellthe Moon Geode.png 17:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Done and done. :) User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 18:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hey guys, just a quick note from over on the german wiki: I will try and make some time for it, and I'm also asking a few other authors if they would like to join. --Tera (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Awesome, Think! Thank you. :) User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 17:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey everyone, thanks for the info on the French wiki Inc. We're gonna try to be present for the AMA, cheers --IruleManik (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Sweet! Thanks, Irule! User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 14:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) An update: the AMA will take place on December 5 and kick off at 6pm CET/9am PST (check here for your time zone). To give me a better overview of how many people might be attending, I'd appreciate it if you could add your name to this list: Click me. The AMA will be open-ended. You can drop in and out at your leisure. Sign-up is not a requirement for participation!

RE: official coverage and promotion of the event: I talked to Stéphane and he said that they cannot promote the AMA on their official social media channels if it's hosted on Reddit. User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 15:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Ambient creatures that are not ambient

Hello, recently I noticed there is a big discrepancy how we treat npcs that are both ambient creatures in one area and a normal npc (ally/foe) in another. Currently, we have two different approaches (some examples):

In my opinion, we should stick to only one approach for consistency. Personally, I would probably prefer keeping them split, one article purely for when they appear as Ambient and one when they are allied/foes. However, the second choice, having them on one page, might be probably easier from editing standpoint, but then we would have to decide what will be in the infobox as a race: Ambient creature, Lore/mechanical race, both? Stick to the additional category at the bottom (which is not very user-friendly)? ~Sime 12:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think having only one page but adding the ambient creature category is the best solution (possibly also add a small note next to the locations where they appear as unkillable allies). It will be less confusing and the ratio of them appearing as allies (only in cities I'm pretty sure and some specific locations (Frog as part of the heart in Archen Foreland) compared to regular ambient creatures is quite low so I don't think it warrants splitting at that point. Nero Nine-O 14:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the split, they're not the same thing, just like veteran/elite/champion versions of the same mobs aren't the same thing either.
In the case of Bull, I would move Bull (NPC) into Bull, and leave Bull (ambient creature) where it is, applying this approach to all the other NPCs in the same situation.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Except they are the same thing, the only difference is that outside of some key locations like the Frogs during the heart, the only thing preventing you from killing them is because you're in a city. They have the same appearance, same behavior, same lack of level and so on. NPCs ranking isn't a good comparison in this case.
Upon looking back, I think even putting additional categories to the friendly ambient is a a stretch. Like I said, they are ambient creatures that can’t be killed due to how cities work. Pure and simple. By putting the categories in, we end up with some cases like Mosquito and Mosquito (ambient creature) both being listed on the Insect page, which looks weird. I think a simple parentheses note next to the locations saying “appear as allies”, or just “allies” would cover all bases nicely.Nero Nine-O 17:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the split as well. It might seem simple to mash them all together on one page, but then essentially you need to specify which is which(x is in this location, Z is this location, x has this stolen skill, Z has this stolen skill, this one counts towards this achievemnt, but this one doesn't, etc) so essentially it defeats the purpose of having them on one page. Additionally no they wouldn't be showing up twice on the same page. There's been tests of ambient creatures, and it seem that only the ambient creature crabs counts as a crustacean and not as ambient creatures. - Doodleplex 01:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
The stolen skill/slayer achievements arguments don't really play here since you can't steal from or kill allied creatures. And again, marking where they appear as allies (which is an extremely small amount of locations, which is part of why I don't think splitting is a good idea, way too much splitting and clicking for very little gain) would be very simple with a < small >tag next to said locations. Nero Nine-O 03:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
There are several npcs that have both ambient and foe versions (and well, ally version too but that´s included with foe page automatically), so yes, the arguments still apply. ~Sime 03:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Right but my argument isn't to merge ambient creature and foe versions of the same creature together, so I'm not sure where you got that from. I'm saying that splitting the friendly versions of ambient creatures away from the main page is a move that would cause pointless splitting and clicking for users that simply tagging locations where they appear as friendly (again, mostly cities and some rare locations here and there) wouldn't do on its own. Nero Nine-O 03:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've not seen anything happen with this discussion in over a week and unless I've missed something horribly, the majority of commentators here seems to be in favor of splitting ambient from non-ambient NPCs, so I'm going to consider this matter resolved in favor of splitting. The real question is which NPCs do we have to split? - Doodleplex 00:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Raid information accessibility

Full discussion here: Talk:Raid#Raid information accessibility.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do you not list backpacks in weaponsmith and armorsmith recipes?

For example here: This page says nothing about the ornate weaponsmith's backpack which can be crafted at this tier.

This is just an example, i cannot find backpacks at any other *smith recipe list The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 17:38, 4 November 2020‎ (UTC).

Probably just an unintentional omission, as the page is hardcoded in a weird way where the different types have been specified for each section rather than automating the entire page (automation is great however its somewhat nice to group the similar item types/things together, the obvious shortfall is highlighted here- when they add new content it can be forgotten). Someone just needs to go paste the recipe table with the item type of "back item" set -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome. DJemba (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Documenting Unavailable Area Content

I've noticed recently we currently seem to have a rather inconsistent, non-reader friendly way of documenting content from various locales that either are long gone or festival only, with the result being historical, and sometimes festival, content is spread all over the place, and you need to be a Durmand Priory Historian to find anything. I've made a mockup on my user page of a possible solution to have all of the content in one place, as a subpage of the area page with all of the past content there for readers to find. Of course, if there's too much of festival content or historical content that it starts to make a page too long, a sub page could be split into "festival" and "historical" but overall, I feel this would be the best way of having everything in one place, and not wind up with something like 5 different versions of Lion's Arch(Lion's Arch (Halloween) 2 3 [[Lion's Arch (original)|4]] 5). Thoughts? - Doodleplex 00:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

For your example, it looks like it covers one area within Hoelbrak, would there be one page per area? How would it be named? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 07:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, one per area if needed, not all areas need it. And the name, something like “Area/Limited Time content” or something like that. - Doodleplex 13:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
There aren't too many festival-only dialogues and NPCs in the first place, and most of those NPCs are located within multiple areas at once. I think a zone-wide approach the likes of Lion's Arch (Halloween) would be a better alternative than just having dozens of areas, keep things centralized with no redundant information. Maybe ditch the zone page and just include all the info inside the festival page itself, since those don't have that much information anyway.
For historical locations, include the historical information on the same page. If there's too much information, and said location has undergone heavy changes, then make a separate page for the area, and label it as "(original)".--Lon-ami (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry it took me long to reply since I was the one who "reinstated" the Halloween LA zone, since I have big health problems so was busy and just peeked in and out the wiki at times. I put the things there originally because the page already existed, and it seemed like a good way to remove the historical tag while also putting all the festival stuff in one place. The prototype Doodle created for the festival/historical areas does not look bad, as for example the festivals in DR mainly use only one area. However, festivals in LA and Hoelbrak, for example, are a different matter and I am not sure if we would not end up with the info spread even more. I might even start to agree with putting the npc/objects/stuff on the Festival page (proposed both by lon-ami and Doodle now), depending on how it would look, and with putting "normal" historical stuff on the base page, just with a Historical header as lon-ami suggests. In the end it all comes down to preserving/documenting information. ~Sime 17:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
So what you're proposing Sime is festival stuff on a sub page of the festival and historical content as the sub page for the areas? If so, that sounds fine to me. - Doodleplex 19:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Just to inform about progress, at least about festival pages: created Wintersday/Festival content and Halloween/Festival content based on this talk, the Halloween LA talk and conversation with Doodle. Not sure about normal historical pages yet though, as Doodle had pointed out including it on the current page might prove a bit lengthy in some cases. ~Sime 13:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Armistice Bastion Vendors Missing at some recipe

Hello I just checked recipe for sigil of force and where I can buy it. I've seen all vendors except the ones at Armistice Bastion. I went there to check myself and saw the armorsmith and huntsman actually selling it. Would anyone mind adding them to the list too?

Master Armorsmith Name: Forgemaster Volrundson

Master Huntsman Name: Houndkeeper Owens

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vappy (talk) at 19:41, 17 November 2020‎ (UTC).

Shouldn't be too hard, most of the vendor pages haven't been created yet for Armistice Bastion. I've got the pass, i'll take a look ingame. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
All done, Recipe: Sigil of Force now shows the newly created vendor pages. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 23:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


moved from Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard

Hi, This is perhaps not the best place, but I was just about to put it on an individual page, and even considered editing the page.. This feels like a better idea ;)

The tooltips(?) are very useful, but I often have to click the link to find out the title, since they usually start with the description. It would be great if the actual object's name was shown when hovering. I assume this is feasible, as I'm sure I've seen some that show the 'heading' when hovering over the link.. I'd be more than happy to do some, as and when I come across them... :) Honnaja 18:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of our tooltips (Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Popups) have a helper template to set the contents of the tooltip, but we don't have much control on pages that don't use the template. It should be plausible to edit the helper templates to show the title, but this will still leave the pages that don't use the tooltip without. There might be something clever we can do with JS. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that the mw:Extension:Popups is mainly intended for "classic" wiki articles, namely articles about a specific topic with a proper intro which starts with the linked pagename (shown as bold text in the popup), e.g. Lion's Arch, there the popup is absolutly fine. However, we have article without a proper introduction, simply because there's nothing to say or the infobox states the necessary information, then we can either display nothing or display the in-game quotation to show at least something (we choose the second one). Hence, for items, e.g. Mithril Ore or for skills, e.g. Lava Font the page name isn't obvious at all.
Furthermore, popups originally doesn't support line breaks (white-space: nowrap; if I'm correct), but adding some css (white-space: pre-line;) and modifing some templates it might be possible to add e.g. "Page: <page name>" in the first popup line. --Tolkyria (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Edit: Adding the following to MediaWiki:Common.css should do the job:
.mwe-popups .mwe-popups-extract {
 white-space: pre-line;
--Tolkyria (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
If we wanted to ask Justin, we could probably modify some files on the test wiki extension folder. Specifically the "...\mediawiki-extensions-Popups-master\src\ui\templates\popup\popup.js" file where I'd add const title = escapeHTML( model.title ), to the top to get the title imported, plus <strong class='mwe-popups-title'>${title}</strong> to get what we want in the output.
I think "...\mediawiki-extensions-Popups-master\src\ui\templates\pagePreview\pagePreview.js" fetches the model for the popups from there. The proposed mods are based on what is already in "...\mediawiki-extensions-Popups-master\src\ui\templates\preview\preview.js""
-Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be redundant on "classic" wiki articles that already lists the page title at the beginning?
The pages that require an extra title are pages with an infobox and a quotation, namely those which use the template {{wikipopup}} where we could add {{PAGENAME}} (enabling css linebreak). Would there be any visible difference between this two solutions? Alternatively formulated, what's the position of the title in the js solution?
But if you prefer the js solution, sure it might be less hacky. --Tolkyria (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Handling achievements on wiki

moved from User talk:Doodleplex

Hi. I was waiting to ask this in the reddit AMA, but I apparently missed it. In short : I'd like to "upgrade" the way achievements are handled on this wiki. But I need your opinion before I start spending a lot of time editing wiki and then have it all reversed if admins don't like "my" way. At length : for a while after game launch, achievements only had a summary page for each category, basically the same as the information visible ingame. No guides, maybe a few notes below the table. So, contrarily to any other info about gw2, achievements reference was more dulfy/google/youtube than wiki. Nowadays, things are a little better : most achievements are "known" to the wiki (they have a redirection to the relevant achievement category page), story instance related achievements are usually listed on the page of that instance (usually with a guide or some steps to get them), some achievements -namely scanvenger hunts- have their own guide page. But right now it's a bit random, you don't always find existing guides immediately and many achievements still have nothing more than an entry in their achievement category page. So here is what I'd like to do :

  • Make sure that each and every achievement has its own page - apart from the exceptions below.
  • Each page would be initialized with the achievement template (like Master_of_the_Storms for example and a "Notes" section which I'd either fill if I have good tips to give, or leave empty for others to fill (which, imho, will be more natural for many people. The current situation is not very friendly to people who'd think of adding a tip, see that wiki only handles the achievement category page, and give up).
  • Exception for story instance achivements : make sure that a redirect opens the relevant story instance page rather than the achievement category.
  • Exception for a few achievements that don't have anything specific to them, like all Weapon Master achievements (better keep a common guide on the category page)

Eowin (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you should post it on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Community portal, as it is not a thing only one person can/should decide. ~Sime 17:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I created 1300+ redirects with my bot at the weekend from achievement names for all current achievements - every currently available achievement should either have a redirect to the category overview or a specific page.
I'm not convinced every achievement needs an individual page a la Coin Collector: Challenger Cliffs - most achievements are extremely simple in nature. Only complicated achievements for which the description text ingame is insufficient should get pages created. If it's a one line explanation as to what is required, does that really need a page? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 19:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Some uncommented numbers, simply listing the current facts. We currently document around:
  • Achievements: 4,722 (excluding historical achievements that aren't stored by smw)
  • Achievements that link to a page: 1,977
  • Achievement redirects: 2,686
  • Achievement collections: 469 (all with their own page, where 332 have an API unlock check)
  • Achievement objectives: 381 (where 161 have an own page)
--Tolkyria (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Yup I realized that most if not all redirects are in place, which is a great thing.
There are several reasons why I'd prefer having a page for each achievement (with exception of weapon master due to their common guide)
  • It's more consistent if 1 achievement = 1 page, for all rather than some selected based on wiki editors mood. Just like you moved many years ago to 1 item = 1 page philosophy (I remember arguing about that with an admin, back when all 3 rarities of a rune were on a common page and I thought I was doing a good thing by creating a page for liquid karma ... I was told that runes were about to be fixed, and it was true)
  • It's really more appealing to people who may have an additional tip in mind for a given achievement and can add it on its page rather than face a category page that's not designed or well suited for achievement-specific notes. It happened to me many times over the years, I'm sure it happened to others
  • It also makes information more readily available for the players who searched for a given achievement. It's easier to find the information than if it's hidden below the huge overview table, even if it's only 1 line. No matter how obvious an achievement is, someone who specifically searched for that achievement is probably looking for some tip on this specific achievement. A list of random notes below the overview tables always looked like the quick and dirty solution to me.
  • Here is an example. Minotaur Slayer : quite obvious. But I could write a line about the event in fireheart rise, another line about a norn story instance that allows farming a few. And then link to the minotaur page that lists places to find them (obvious for regular wiki users, not for a new player). Oh and while I write this, I find out that other people thought that Slayer achievements, while obvious, deserved some love : Guide to Slayer achievements is linked hidden below the big table on Slayer page. How many players missed it ? How many other "obvious" achievements could benefit from simple tips like that ?
Eowin (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Have you considered adding the tips you have in mind using the notes parameter? This would inform people that something's to be found at the end of the achievement table, can get them there and it shows it in a on mouse enter preview too. See e.g. the That Was Too Close achievement for an example. Nightsky (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Here's a radical idea: We could take the current table rows, and make each "row template" a "table template". You could have a bunch of space between each little table, and any comments would naturally be placed beneath it. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
This would look horrible, like using one {{achievement box}} after another instead of having them nicely grouped together as {{achievement list}} does.
Loosely quoting Sime, in my opinion that's not a topic that should be discussed on a user page at all. --Tolkyria (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm certain we've had feedback on achievement articles being difficult to edit before this. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so this is somehow official now.
Alex, that's only natural. We want to do so many different things with the achievements, e.g. display the achievements as box, display the achievements as list, display the achievements as line entry, list the achievements that reward a certain item, list the achievements that reward a certain mastery point, check for the unlocked achievment tasks, etc... Obviously this results in quite a lot of information that is needed, tuning it down would mean that we lose some of this and I doubt that this is an option. Also the in-game achievements aren't getting easier, for example the "new" tier rewards, and we have to mirror it somehow. Don't forget the talk pages, all wiki user can always leave a note there.
Regarding "1 achievement = 1 page". Achievements have always been subobjects, moving those smw information to would require an incredible amount of time and probably noone would like to do this. Hence, achievements can't really be compared with "1 item = 1 page" that somehow require an individual page for the infobox and all the smw stuff. However, maybe you mean "1 achievement guide = 1 page", but I think restricting us to this rule would cripple us more than improving the wiki. Right now the rule is if there's enough information that justifies an individual achievement page, then create it. This much more flexible approach, probably what you are refering as "wiki editors mood" (but in the end the whole wiki exists and gets better every day because of the wiki editors mood), avoiding unnecessary one line pages (stating: PAGENAME is an achievement. which is simply an unnecessary copy from the achievement table), which with your rule would definitely exists.
--Tolkyria (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I disagree with creating a page for each and every single achievement. I see no benefit in duplicating the information.
If your goal is to achieve a state of pre-chewed content like Dulfy site once presented, you could start to add a guide section below the existing table (see e.g. A Very Merry Wintersday '12).
I'm not a fan of guide sections personally, because I if the achievement just needs a short note you can use the note parameter of {{Achievement table row}} otherwise creating a page makes more sense.
I know achievement category pages are not easy to edit, so I'm willing to make a guide page that explains the process thoroughly.
(Do not take this as the final words, admins do not carry more weight in a discussion.) —Kvothe (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Body font size

Imho 13px size for the general body text is tiny for nowadays' accessibility standards. Anywhere I look on the web, they recommend at least 16px. I think changing it would only break infoboxes and the main page, so we could leave those at the current size to save hassle. But for the rest I've been using 16px client-side via a browser extension for years, without any issue. -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 16:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(mostly for my own reference when i look at this next:)
Mediawiki MonoBook theme by default has the CSS rule on the body element as "font: x-small sans-serif;" without doing anything to that, the size works out at 10px. Now that is spectacularly small. #globalWrapper is then set to font-size:127% which puts the size at 12.8px. Still small. Actually a fragment smaller than what we usually display our fonts as due to our custom CSS.
Currently our CSS Mediawiki:Monobook.css changes the size back to "font-size: 0.8125em;" (which would appear as 16.5px), but we've also got #globalWrapper and this time that is set to font-size: 100% (essentially applies an undo on the 127% rule) resulting in the 13px you mentioned.
If we change the initial rule to "font: medium sans-serif;", then we could do away with the #globalWrapper { font-size: 127% } and body { font-size: 0.8125em } rules. The final size would be 16px as you mentioned.
As to the appearance, it's a tiny bit big for my liking but I'm not averse to changing it. We might need to scale the headers back a bit (they're based on an EM number so will scale depending on the size we set the body element to) - your proposal would inflate the headings from 25px to 30.7px.
btw, anyone who wants a very quick and dirty preview of Kazerniel's suggestion can do so by previewing {{Custom CSS|form|css= body { font: medium sans-serif !important; } }} on any page. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
That is super large in my opinion. Why not let the people that want a larger font zoom with their browser? —Kvothe (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Browsers zoom images as well, not just text, making them blurry and unwieldily large. -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 21:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the default text size is too small. I've been using 110% zoom here since forever. --BuffsEverywhere (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Let's do a trial for a week and see what feedback we get. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 17:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
No way José. You want to run some A/B tests or whatever, let's plan it out first. - Felix Omni 17:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Have to say such large text is a no from me, unless it can be changed with some settings/making optional. ~Sime 17:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I usually use the wiki in a 1920*1080 resolution with the browser maximized and I have no issues with the font size, they are fine for me. Thing is, nowadays standards are messed up, whoever set it thinks everyone is on mobile or 4k screens nowadays but hey, there are still desktop users with average screens. I hate how websites nowadays have been using huge fonts for simple paragraph texts. I'm not that blind :P Sure, I'm all up for accessibility and options and it would be great if users have a way to set the size, but I don't agree having a huge font as default for the whole thing. That would just reverse the effect: please the currently annoyed and annoy the currently pleased. It's not any website's fault if users want to browser fully-maximized in a 4k screen. :P ----Txonä Atan - (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed that this thread got more responses. I'm personally on a 20" screen with 1680x1050 resolution, so very much not 4k. I simply like to read websites without squinting. I brought the topic up mostly to make the wiki keep up with modern accessibility standards, rather than for my own comfort (as I can just edit client-side CSS as I've been doing). -- kazerniel (talk | contribs) 15:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Actually, browsers have had a font settings for ages and web developers simply forgot/overrode it by setting their own sizes and stuff. If there would be a way to make the style work with that it could be a good option. --Txonä Atan - (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Stone Summit and Wurmslayer's armor pieces

Going through what has missing pictures, I've noticed the Stone Summit and Wurmslayer's armor pages are missing pictures. However, I do not think we need a full gallery section for these pages:

  1. There are no changes at all between races or weight class for Stone Summit armor pieces, so literally one picture works for everything, so it's quite pointless there.
  2. They aren't full sets of armor, Wurmslayer is only gloves, hat and shoulders, while Stone Summit has that and some shoes. It might be better just to have close up pictures of the individual pieces and leave those on the page instead.

Thoughts? - Doodleplex 16:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The Armor of Dhuum helms are like that but have a full gallery, so I think that we either stick with the no full gallery (which makes sense to me) or do a full gallery for everything. We'd have to go through the other incomplete armor galleries to unify stuff either way. Just some food for thought. In the end though, I agree for a half-gallery section, especially since there's no changes across weight/race. Nightwhisper (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I personally don't care if all the pieces will be in one pic (and that one will be shared among the weight pages) or if they are gonna be single, as long as the pictures are presented. I also agree with Nightwhisper that no matter what we pick, we should unify the pages, since some partial armor sets liket the Shadow of the Dragon skins don't even have a page. I mean, technically they do not need a set page but we should treat all partial armor sets to the same standard.
Though, a bit to this is related to get a picture of an armor, you have to click on the Armor page overview and I personally think that all armor pages should have a picture of the armor, not just the overview. (I know it is a bit of a derailment but wanted to say it). ~Sime 03:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Nightwisper, what do you mean by a "half gallery"? Do you mean just gallery of the armor pieces and nothing else? If so, that's fine with me. I agree though, what we do here will be elsewhere if applicable, however, I'm only aware of these two pieces, so if there are others, let me know. - Doodleplex 00:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Festival activity summary instead of availability

Hello, I was thinking that instead of the Availability table for festival activities as we have now, we should instead make a table to summarize what the activities are, how to get there and what the rewards are without the need to go through all the pages.

I think for users it is more important to know this than when the activity was made available (from what I gathered from questions on reddit, people want a "guide", which basically what I propose would be), no one cares that Orphans weren't available before 2015. Obviously we wouldn't just delete this data, they could be added either as a note or another row to the Activity table. I talked about it a bit with Doodle and she wasn't against, but I wanted to go here and ask more people. This is a concept how it would look, it would include all the main festival activities + the Other activities could contain side stuff, like collecting the daily gift from Tixx as an example, since unless you go through the dialogue on his page/the consumable page you wouldn't have an idea you can get it. ~Sime 15:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea, would you like to make it into one template per festival, one big template or just write on the pages directly? DJemba (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It would probably just be one table per page as suggested on my sandbox, don't really think a template to use on only one page is necessary (since all festivals have different activities). ~Sime 00:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, I just did a quick look before and it looked fine. Looking properly, as long as the plan is to incorporate the other activities/races/etcs, that are there currently(I like that you want to add Tixx, great idea), I think it's a great idea. - Doodleplex 00:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Obviously it would include all the activities that are available for the festival, just picked only some of them for the sandbox WIP. ~Sime 00:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)