Talk:Special event

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Name[edit]

Is there a reason for "Bonus event" being lower case? —Kvothe (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, but I believe the title should be plural, as this is a list of multiples and not a singular event. KairuByte (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
It is lowercase because it wasn't an official name, though now as there is "Bonus Event: xx" ingame that seems no longer to be the case. And article titles are not in plural unless that's their exact name again (same like World boss, not World bosses article for example). ~SimeUser Sime Maraca Choya.pngTalk 22:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Feedback 2019/06/16[edit]

That was quite drastic. For me, at least, it doesn't increase the readability. --Tolkyria (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it was easier on the eyes with the images, too. User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 14:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I would like to revert to the old design too. —Kvothe (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm always up for simplicity and simplifying things, I appreciate the effort and also I agree the old design caused broken links. However, I feel this new way was also somewhat drastic and cramped the info as well as removed some info. With the previous design I made a distinction of the features (which stuff changed) and the bonuses (the buff players received), with this new way they are mixed again. What about maybe making a template derived from the releases one for this, a middle ground between both, then no broken links or any necessity for images? --Txonä Atan - (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, also I always thought the official description for these funny and cool xD --Txonä Atan - (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
It would be nice if the 'active' event used the same alignment format as the 'historical' events, I feel. I did like the pictures, but they aren't really necessary. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I obviously think the current format is easier to navigate, but it's also clear I'm in the minority here. I'm not against making further changes to the page, but I'm very much against simply reverting it back.
First of all, bear in mind that as far as we know, special events will be a much more common occurrence from now on, and the page will grow very long very fast. Making each row kilometre long is not eactly future-proof. And I wouldn't be surprised if the current iterations of special events—such as the World Boss or Meta Event Rush—started repeating in the future, which would only add to the problem.
Second, the template used was made specifically for releases. Not only can there be potential changes to it in the future made with releases in mind, but even now some of its features don't make any sense on this page. The release type colour-coding strip is useless, it's always going to be grey. Many events don't have their own articles and none of them have game update notes (and the styling used makes it impossible to distinguish which labels are proper links without hovering over them). The events always have durations rather than a single date to begin with, so the date superimposed on the image is pointless. And while I like the images in principle (and they work well with releases where we can all but guarantee to have some fitting art available), we often don't have anything meaningful for special events (such as with the current Destabilized Magic). And if there's no image, the purple date is very difficult to read anyway.
I don't mind the descriptions, I kept them in the changed version for a long time and I originally wanted them in the releases as well, I'm just afraid they will make the page too long. I don't mind keeping the features and bonus effects split (although I personally don't see much point to it), but I would prefer to shorten some of the effect descriptions—we don't need to know exact magic find increases or a list of all attributes affected by bloodlust on an overview page. And I would remove times from the durations (at least in the historical events), they're just noise. If you find a way to deal with events without an obvious image, I'm not against putting them back in, but they should still make sense. User Noxx Sig.png 22:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I support the current format since it'll be easier to update and its cleaner (particularly bearing in mind not every release has an image). -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay. --Tolkyria (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Feedback 2019/07/17[edit]

Just a note that even though the description states 'receive rewards for each Tier you participate in' for World Boss Rush (July 16), one need only participate in the event to receive all rewards. --Inculpatus cedo (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Template feedback[edit]

Ok so I have been tinkering with a template for this article and I came up with a style merging both previous and current formats used by this article. A scratch of it can be found in my sandbox here, does anyone have any input or comment about it before I turn it in an actual template? Thanks in advance. --Txonä Atan - (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks good, I would just add style="display:none" to the filler rows so that they aren't displayed but are still counted for the odd/even colours, and I'd consider keeping the game modes written somewhere (maybe at the right side of the name/date row?). Also I'm slightly worried about the Enhanced Bloodlust descriptions being too long for such a narrow column, so I'd definitely be in favour of simplifying those instead of just inserting them all there in full. Other than that, though, I have no issues with this layout. User Noxx Sig.png 21:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, somehow I tried using that to hide the row but no idea why it didn't work but yes, they weren't to be intentionaly shown and I was going to hide them.
About game mode, yes I planned to put them too but I was unsure where and ended leaving them out for now. I thought about coloring the rows according game modes (similarly how it's done for Releases) or put them at right side of name/date row yes.
I see the point about too much in a narrow column. The size of columns weren't final yet, I just put a value to get a general feel of how it might be and surely no need to put the full descriptions in a few cases, my main intention is just to split "effects" (the buffs seen above skill bar) from "features" (changes in game mechanics which usually wouldn't be easily spotted like the buff). The length and details could be reduced, like in case of Enhanced Bloodlust the description could be shortened as it is in the current version, per example.
Thanks for the feedback. --Txonä Atan - (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
If this is the new template, it doesn't seem to be working. And now it is, so nevermind. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
That comment was a roller coaster of emotions. :P User Noxx Sig.png 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Lol, it kept saying 'undefined something' even when I refreshed. But, leaving the page and coming back seemed to fix it. Sorry. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hehehe, it's ok. Well, indeed it broke for a bit because of a change, I changed the names of parameters to lowercase and the page was still using them in uppercase, that's how they were initially. But I fixed it within a few minutes. --Txonä Atan - (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)