User talk:Jyavoc

home • talk • contributions • characters • sandbox [ 2 • 3 ] • templates • bots • images

Karma formula

Hey, i dont think your karma formula (File:Dynamic Event Karma Formula.png) is correct. --192.168.104.83 14:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know one way or the other; I used the formula that was previously hard-coded into the Dynamic Events page to create the image form of it. If there is an update that should be done with it, go ahead; I feel not one way or the other, and I provided the raw LaTeX to allow for people to update it accordingly. -Jyavoc 17:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Piles of edits

I don't suppose we could nominate you to get you some Bot editing rights such that your bulk edits don't appear in recent changes? Chieftain Alex 08:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a bot account that I just created, and I wasn't sure how to go about the process of applying for one. It seemed that the only members with bot accounts were sysops. How would I do this? Jyavoc 17:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd hazard a guess of asking either Pling or Tanetris since they are the only ones that can change user rights. Also the result would probably depend if you intended to do loads of junk edits regularly :p Chieftain Alex 17:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Put a request on Tanetris' talk page for my bot account. Thanks! I felt really bad filling up the recent changes yesterday, but I wasn't sure what to do and didn't see knowing what to do as anything that would be on the horizon, and lord knows the state of icon organization was atrocious. -Jyavoc 17:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The category should be "Area navigation templates"--Relyk 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to run it again. I'll change that. I used {{Caledon Forest nav}} as a direct template, so I didn't even think to check that. —Jyavoc 23:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It's missing a few areas in Southsun Cove sadly, I think all the nav templates can by centered. The Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Bots lets users keep track of tasks for the bots, as Dr Ishmael has done. On another note, you can use Template:tl to abbreviate template quickly such as {{Caledon Forest nav}} :P--Relyk 23:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I updated the filter that it was using to get the areas, and it picked up a number of areas it missed the first time around. Was your comment concerning the first run missing areas, or are there still areas missing? Secondly, thanks for letting me know about that template. God, I needed that years ago XP. And finally, do you mean with GW2W:BOTS to mean that I should just post from now on for other bots to do the work/let them do it, or that I should continue running bots in the future, so long as I document what I did there? —Jyavoc 23:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

First round. I mean document what your bot is doing on that page. It provides a place where other users can discuss the bot tasks instead the user's/bot's talk page. Doesn't matter right now since the bot account isn't setup yet.--Relyk 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I put in a request for my bot account to be given the bot flag, but I never heard back on that, so I didn't want to push anything, because maybe I didn't merit having one. Also, I'll go ahead and put a section up there detailing what I did. And I'm assuming that all areas are presently accounted for? It looked like it as I made a quick runthrough of them. There are some mistakes in terms of linking (ie, {{Caledon Forest nav}} now links to Dominion of Winds instead of Dominion of Winds (Caledon Forest)), but these mistakes are reflections of how the individual articles on those zones are, not on any fault of the bots interpreting. —Jyavoc 23:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Relyk misunderstands - the point of the Bots page is to document what the bot-flagged accounts do, because their edits are hidden from RecentChanges by default. There's no need to discuss what non-bots do on that page. —Dr Ishmael 00:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was attempting to be peremptory in the advice, hence the "Doesn't matter right now"--Relyk 06:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Wayfarer Foothills nav}} usage

And like templates shouldn't be used. They're unnecessary, clunky, and it was agreed upon to not use and instead fill out the | connections = parameters (people started that system in order to provide links to other areas of the zone, but it's not really necessary and most such navs are already tagged for deletion or intentionally left non-existent). Or, at least, were. But still please do not reinstate something that's in the process of being removed (sometimes these things take a while to completely remove, given the fact that work is being done everywhere). Konig/talk 03:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The only discussion I've seen has been in support of keeping the nav templates.--Relyk 03:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, |connections= is for other zones this zone connects to, or other areas this area connects to. The nav templates display all the areas within the same zone, for navigation between the areas. Furthermore, none of the existing four templates were marked for deletion, and none of the pages that were created had been previously deleted. —Jyavoc 03:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

@Relyk (hah, I spelled it right first try!): Where is said discussion?

@Jyavoc: Actually, not quite. |connections= is used for adjacent equal-level locations. So regions connect to other regions, zones connect to other zones, and areas connect to other areas. Few area articles have the parameter filled out though because it's fairly hard to denote it all down.

Tell me why it is necessary to "display all the areas within the same zone". Why must we have a huge block of text at the bottom of every zone which looks, truth be told, rather ugly and chaotic. I see none.

"existing four templates were marked for deletion" Because you removed it, and some were already deleted (surely you saw the "warning: this page was already deleted previously, please check the revision history (etc. etc.)" notice? I didn't tag those still in use simply because they were in use and I wanted to use them as a means to know old-formatted area articles.

Either way, they look horrible and if kept must be reformatted otherwise they're no different than a wall of text - which most people avoid using. Konig/talk 03:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, as to why they should exist, it's not like there isn't precedence for this. The style I used was the style that was already employed on {{Caledon Forest nav}}—I literally copied that into the bot. Which leads us into your second question, which was "how [I] didn't see that." Because that's not how a bot bot works. I write code. It goes to the pages and does stuff. I don't go to the pages and do stuff. I was also kind enough to put that into the edit summaries, so that everyone would know a bot did this. There is also discussion directly above you explicitly discussing the bot's actions.

Finally, I'm fine with modifying the way that they look. I still have the bot code and can easily modify it to shrink the font size, and honestly, I think we could even be providing more information on here, though I'm not entirely sure on that latter part. Regardless, I used what has already been existing on one of the most commonly-referenced pages on the wiki in terms of formatting and examples, so I feel like any "mistakes" on my part are understandable. —Jyavoc 04:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, comparing explorable areas to gw2's "areas" is rather silly. They're more akin to GW2's zones, except the latter's far larger. Areas are FAR more numerous. No GW1 Explorable area by region nav is five lines tall, unlike just about every area by zone nav.

"I was also kind enough to put that into the edit summaries" Which kind of leads into my point about how everyone looks over walls of text - I looked at your user contributions to and my eyes just naturally avoided that big blot of black that was "Bot creation of area navigation templates" over and over.

And for the record, Caledon Forest is used as an example of the most up-to-date zone article. Its areas' articles, however, are not (Divinity Reach's areas are probably most up to date, but lack a lot of information that'd exist in zone areas since DR is a city). Konig/talk 04:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If a one line, seven word sentence fragment of mine is repeated multiple times due to the software we're using, I hardly believe that is my fault at all. Also, if anything, a block of edits that look almost identical would cause me to read the summary, to understand what I could expect from all of the edits. At the very least, you'd be able to see that it was a bot, and that I wasn't looking at every page personally before the edits were made. Past that, it makes full sense that we would provide linking between the areas of the same zone. Everything in GW2 is far more numerous, because GW2 is a much larger game than any single campaign in GW1. To say that we shouldn't do something, therefore, because there are too many of them, sounds rather foolish to me. The font size could be smaller, but at the same time, we're discussing pages who are already multiple screens in length when properly filled out. An extra seven, eight lines (two-five lines areas, and then some for the table) at the end hardly is a major detriment in relation then.

But also, if you're asking Relyk for sources, I would also like to see where the discussions were made that you're referencing when you said the nav templates should be removed. As for marking it for deletion, that was something that you posted, so that alone cannot provide me/others with proof that it was a consensus. —Jyavoc 04:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

...Where was I blaming you for the repeated edit summary?

But you know what, I'm tired of arguing with you. I give, keep you wall-of-linking-text. I got better things to do than discussing to improve the wiki with someone who apparently thinks I have an issue with him/her. As for the discussion I was talking about, looked for it found it, and remembered that it was only one other active individual and overlooked (e.g., not commented on for or against) anyone else, but the new system was going through nonetheless. But as said, I give. Do what you will. Konig/talk 04:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "Which kind of leads into my point about how everyone looks over walls of text - I looked at your user contributions to and my eyes just naturally avoided that big blot of black that was "Bot creation of area navigation templates" over and over." would be the direct line where you were commenting on how my repeated edit summaries caused you to not want to look at them.

Thank you for the link.

As well, please consider all of the times that you have made your case and I have gone back and changed my way of doing whatever the current issue has been. If you are true with what you said here ("please do not become another one who believes that I am intent to make my way the way"), I would appreciate that you don't precede concessions you make with "But you know what, I'm tired of arguing with you. I give, keep you wall-of-linking-text. I got better things to do...". We are both mature individuals, and there isn't a need to act that way. —Jyavoc 04:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No where did I state they were your fault (well, nitpicky, yes it was, but not intentionally so). That was my point in my last comment.

And sorry for not getting tired over a discussion that is less about the quality of these nav bars on the wiki and more about your bots edits and whether I blame you for them or not.

I shall wait for Relyk's link - unless you know of it - before continuing anything further on this matter, especially about bot edits and the provided summaries. Konig/talk 05:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Only three sentences were devoted in my response to the bot. The rest was about the quality of these nav bars on the wiki. —Jyavoc 05:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Template talk:Caledon Forest nav, completely convincing discussion! The navs don't hurt to have until we have something that presents better navigation. I don't like it any more or less than using the connections parameter. Ideally, we would have a zone map with the individual area highlighted. ishmael had mentioned something in cartography about making maps of area boundaries.--Relyk 06:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

@Jyavoc: I "like" how you prolong a topic wanted to be dropped (also, perhaps 3 in your third comment). Also, do mind to take note that the "no nav bar" is not solely my argument.

@Relyk: 1 of 2 people pro it was later seeing it as a removable concept, per my link. They do hurt, in my opinion, as both a distraction and extra work in the future. And the ideal situation would be for zone articles, not area articles which would have (at this rate) both the | connections = parameter filled out and these nav bars. Konig/talk 06:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Having zone maps with individual areas navigable (eg, gww:Rhea's_Crater/Map?) is an awesome, albeit time consuming, idea. I like it. But I also think that, for the reasons expressed on your link, we shouldn't do away with the nav boxes, were we to implement these as well. Because I'm at least assuming that they'll be individual pages, like the link above, not something within each page (correct me if I'm wrong), and so while having those pages would be very helpful, replacing the navboxes with those might be less helpful in my mind. That said, that seems like a different conversation, but not one that I'm unwilling to have.

Also, konig, you can't just say "I'm done with this" and force everyone to drop the subject immediately. Just because you say it's closed, it's rude to do what you just did.

I'm not entirely sure how you think that having navigation templates is a distraction. We have the same thing for personal stories. The personal stories navigation bars have links to every chapter that is part of that level block, not just the current track of that personal story; that doesn't seem like that's any more inclusive than having a navigation box with all other areas in the same zone. I know personally, I often wind up on an area page and need to move back to the zone page, and find the area I'm looking for, when it'd be much easier to scroll down to the bottom, where one would expect to have navigation. Furthermore, these are at the bottom of the page. I don't think we're going to overload anyone's senses by having a splash of color at the bottom of an article... —Jyavoc 06:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This is what Relyk was talking about: [[:File:Bloodtide Coast borders.jpg]].

Thing about these nav bars is that it's one huge block of blue text (or will be once all areas get a page). The personal story nav is nicely divided by chapters, and those are in turn collapsable. And they're separated into different templates by arcs. You don't get 20+ links one after the other on those nav bars. That's why it's distracting. As I repeat myself, again.

Oh, and I didn't tell you guys to drop the subject - unless by the subject, you mean the off-topic annoyances. Konig/talk 06:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing about you repeating yourself is that each time you do, you voice it differently and provide more information. So I'm beginning to think that "repeating [myself]" and "explaining" mean the same thing to you. Furthermore, my responding to something that you brought up, and then my defending myself after accusations you make is hardly "off-topic annoyances".

Thank you for the link to that page. I have a much better idea now of what he was discussing.

And if you think that having lists of 20+ links in a navbox are confusing/overwhelming, then I don't see how the |connects= parameter will be any less so, unless it only lists areas that area connects to, at which point, it doesn't do the same thing that these navboxes do, so I'm not sure why you'd want to say that's an effective replacement for them. As I've said before, the format is open to being changed, but I think it looks fine as it is. It's a wiki. There are going to be links. Link density just means it's connected. Which, areas are connected. In-game, they're very connected. So on the wiki, they should be as well. —Jyavoc 07:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've yet to find any convincing argument to remove the navs, rather I only see two -ve opinions (ish, and konig QQing everywhere like a one man protest :P ) that they're rather bulky and four +ve in support of them. Perhaps we should go elsewhere, experiment with the formatting and propose a better arrangement? --Chieftain Alex 09:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The connections parameter is helpful because it assists in locating the area on the map, especially if the player doesn't have the area fully mapped. This is especially true for jumping puzzle areas that only have a single connection like Griffonrook Run. Technically, the connection is purely a creation of the wiki, there are no mechanics in-game that involve or imply areas connected to each other. The map doesn't mark where borders are and we have to do it manually. The nav box allows you to move between areas in a zone instead of navigating back to the zone page. I have a hard time thinking of a reason why its valuable beyond that since you can navigate to any area from the zone page and it lists the area's properties, which also has a map of the entire zone. In one perspective, it's more beneficial to have the user move back to the zone page because it will have more than a simple link to other areas and information relevant to all areas.--Relyk 09:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant that because areas are seamlessly traveled between, they have a stronger connection IMO than other types of locations. Zones require loading screens, as do, therefore, regions; but once discovered, unless the player is actively looking at the map while walking around, there is no further indication when switching between areas. That was my reasoning for why I said that areas are connected. And I wasn't implying that the navboxes be used in lieu of the zone pages; the latter naturally has more information available. The navboxes were/are just a supplement to the information and linking there. —Jyavoc 15:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to have navboxes per zone, let's at least make them useful; just listing the area names is hardly useful, most people will be looking for something other than an area. Looking at US states on Wikipedia, the navboxes provide a LOT more information than just a list of counties. Example: w:Template:Arkansas. A couple CSS changes would be required, of course - remove the pre-defined width and make the font smaller. But then we could include all the (named) map completion objectives in the navbox (obviously sans waypoints and vistas), meta events, and maybe some other things. —Dr Ishmael 15:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I mean, this was something I was wanting to do, but I didn't want to voice that earlier, because the conversation was concerning how the navboxes were already overloaded, and I didn't think it would be constructive to the discussion to say "let's add more." So, I am in favor of this. Would you like me to put up a working version on a personal sandbox (which naturally you all would be welcome to work on). I also still have the bot code in place, so unless you have a strong desire to do so, I'd be more than happy to adjust my script once we have a finished working version. —Jyavoc 15:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the most likely way of grouping the locations within the nav is by "effective level"... organising it by north-south direction is a bit amusing but mostly inappropriate, especially for areas around lakes. --Chieftain Alex 16:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't sort it (thought I do like that idea, Alex; I was just doing it by hand first, so I didn't want to take forever), but I created a sandbox for a new navigation template with much more information. I distributed it in such a way that I think it all should mesh together; two longer sections on the right, four shorter ones on the left. I think the space should be pretty consistently distributed for all zones. Anyway, the sandbox version is here, so tell me what you think of it.

Also, I tagged the entire navbox with the CSS class "zone-navbox" so that users who don't like it whatsoever can add custom css to hide it. —Jyavoc 17:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Before any responses, give me a few minutes; I'd like to produce a horizontal version of what's in my sandbox, so we can have two different approaches and go from there. Be back in five. —Jyavoc 19:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "The funny thing about you repeating yourself is that each time you do, you voice it differently" Because when I repeat myself, I word things differently in the hopes of not having to repeat it again. As to the connections parameter - of course it only links to adjacent areas, I even stated so at the very beginning: "|connections= is used for adjacent equal-level locations". And truth be told, we don't need a direct connection between each and every area within a zone - it's not too much work to go to one of the two direct links (zone article or zone category) which have a neater and easier to read and digest list of the same thing.

@Chieftan Alex: It's not only that they're bulky and hard to navigate through, given their size, but that I don't see the need of them. And no one has provided me a sufficient explanation for why there's a need for them. You all say "so that people can go to any area in the zone" - well, why is this necessary? Why can't people just go to the zone's article and look at the nice orderly list of locations? No one has bothered explaining this yet. In other words what benefit do these nav bars have over having people go to the zone article? It's "nice" to be able to go from one area article to another, but without sorting, cleanliness, or any other form of helpfulness, I see it as uneffective and, as such, unnecessary.

"But then we could include all the (named) map completion objectives in the navbox (obviously sans waypoints and vistas), meta events, and maybe some other things." Wouldn't that make it even more bulkier and, effectively, remove the entire point of the #Locations and #Events sections on zone articles. At that point, we might as well just make those the nav bar, and remove those sections all together from the zone articles (note: I am not suggesting we do this, that's just silly imo, and creates far too much irrelevant information on the area articles). Konig/talk 19:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

@Jyavoc: Horizontal or verticle, there's some big issues I have with that nav bar. 1) There's no order to the PoI, it's chaotic and where the hell are they on the map? 2) There's no order to the areas. 3) There's no order to the hearts, it's chaotic and where the hell are they on the map? 4) Skill challenges, same as 1 and 3.

In short: How would that nav of Wayfarer Foothills be more helpful than Wayfarer Foothills#Locations and Wayfarer Foothills#Meta events, other than combining the meta event list into an unorganized list of locations? Konig/talk 19:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As I said above, "I didn't sort it (thought I do like that idea, Alex; I was just doing it by hand first, so I didn't want to take forever)" —Jyavoc 19:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate my point: How will they be sorted, and, more importantly, how will you be able to tell where these things even are on the map - and if you can't, how is the nav bar more helpful than just having, say, {{Wayfarer Foothils heart nav}} and {{Wayfarer Foothills poi nav}} (or better yet, just leaving the job to the zone article).

In other words, explain to me what I requested from the very beginning: How is this helpful? Konig/talk 19:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

For all of the reasons that have already been enumerated above, this would be helpful. It allows for quick navigation through like things. In particular, this navbox would do the same thing that a page like "List of skill challenges in Metrica Province" would do, or something similar. If we present this on the individual skill challenge pages, it would allow for navigation from one skill challenge page to another skill challenge page directly, if they are within the same zone. It provides, at a glance, what all is in this zone/surrounding area. Are there four meta events and no renown hearts? Are there any jumping puzzles? Succinctly, it puts all information that we have on the zone pages into one, well, navigation box, to allow for navigation between the different pages. We're arguing hub vs. web here, where hub would be the zone articles and web would be linking between all the pages.

Also, sorting would be just as Chieftain Alex described it—by effective level. Another simple method might be by alphabetical order. It will not be the listing that I have now.

Finally, the second, horizontal version is here. —Jyavoc 19:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"For all of the reasons that have already been enumerated above" The only reason I've seen is "to link all areas within the same zone from each area article" which, again, I state once more, does not answer my question. Unless I've magically missed some reason, I have yet to see why reducing article loading by one is so needed as opposed to large nav bar boxes at the bottom of so many articles. Is one additional loading screen truly so horrible that these nav boxes be needed? If these were simple small nav bars, I wouldn't be opposed, or if there was some nice organization to it - which might be possible if it's about one topic, but with it about all these different things in the same zone then we might as well just be taking Wayfarer Foothills#Locations and turning that into a nav bar in order to keep it nice and organized. As you said yourself elsewhere, "the wiki already looks too pretty to look ugly". And as far as I see, these nav bars are lowering the wiki's appearance.

Also, you can't organize skill challenges by level - half of them don't have levels! And for Points of Interest, that just makes it all confusing. How the hell is a person supposed to tell what these points of interests are, or where they are, with this nav bars? I'm sorry, but "this would be helpful" does not describe the nav bars to me and your only argument for why they are has been "It allows for quick navigation through like things" (which isn't even true anymore, given you got PoI and meta events next to each other).

So, and I'll keep asking this until I actually get an answer which isn't just repeating the same thing: Why is quick navigation more helpful than a hub article? Defining "quick navigation" as one less loading screen and fewer options (what the nav bar does), and "hub article" being the zone articles. Konig/talk 19:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You did magically miss one. "Since we use navboxes for pretty much everything I see no reason why not to have these navboxes here.". I also proposed the use of alphabetical order for everything, which now that I think about it, seems like it would be easier to navigate. Finally, take a gander at wikipedia:Zeus#External links. —Jyavoc 19:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, there are points both ways for area navboxes, but let's step back a bit and try to think of what's best for the wiki and its users. So, we'll have 2 scenarios: someone searches for an area, and someone is on the zone page and clicks an area. So, they're on the area page; now what do they want to do next? Would they want to immediately go to another area page, or back to the zone page, or nothing (their search is done)? If they want to go to another area, how would they go about picking another one? Would they go to the zone's page and look for events/poi's in that new area? Would they just look in-game for the name and search/use a navbox? Would they want to go to a labeled/linked map and use that instead? --JonTheMon 19:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for every wiki user, but there have been a great number of times that I've been on area pages and wanted to just move to another area page. Usually when I'm editing; I finish with editing one area, and want to just move to the next area to continue formatting, and to move linearly through all areas. Having to return to the zone article, choose a new area, and move on from there has been a relative hassle thus far. Having a navigation box at the bottom of the page would make that problem go away. So that's just from an editor's standpoint. As for a user, I think a user would use it a bit less, but I don't think that it would hamper anyone's progress throughout there. The worst that would happen would be that they don't use it (here, we're disregarding whether that user has bad internet connection, because we can't control that); the best that would happen would be that they use it and are happy. —Jyavoc 19:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @ Jyavoc; it might be for the best if we don't try to add all the information from a zone page in the nav (else you would be better going to the zone article..) - stick to keeping them lightweight, i.e. location names + possibly sub headings. --Chieftain Alex 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I just added everying that ishy said he would like to see on the navboxes. There is a lot of information on there, however. What sections would you want to keep, and which ones would you not like to? Also, on GWW, they have different navboxes within the same zone for different things. Perhaps we could do something like {{Wayfarer Hills skill challenges nav}} and {{Wayfarer Hills area nav}}, instead of just {{Wayfarer Hills nav}}? —Jyavoc 20:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that your quote, Jyavoc, is not on this page, what you're saying is "because others have it, this must have it too" which is not a good reason. At all.

@Jon: I myself always, perhaps instinctively, just click the zone link in the infobox. For non-area articles, when going to a similar article, as opposed to scrolling all the way down to the bottom of the article for a nav bar I either search directly or search the shared hub article. Nav bars require not only finding the link in the nav bar, but scrolling - or alternatively, ctrl+f and typing in search (which is just as much work as clicking the search bar and doing the same).

@Jayvoc again: It seems like your sole reason for making this nav bar is just to make mass editing easier. In which case, I suggest you do as I do - open up the zone article, and right click the area articles you will be editing to open them in a new tab. And I don't think Ishy actually meant he wanted those things. Rather, he said we could include more, and provided examples. Though I can't speak for him. Konig/talk 20:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a link to the article where navboxes were discussed. Therefore, it really isn't appropriate for you to act like me using the discussion discussing the pros for this, that you asked for, is anything unreasonable. You asked for reasons why, I gave you a reason, that should be that, without any... that. As for that reason, it means this: it has been deemed appropriate in other situations to use a navigation box. Therefore, because other situations, that aren't in contest right now (such as the personal story), use these, we can assume that the usefulness for such things as navigation boxes has been proven, and that this isn't something outrageous to extend that concept to cover other items.

I'm also not saying that it is only here for mass editing of pages. I don't—no one does—enough on pages to merit adding whole templates just to make their editing life easier. However, I am saying that, when I'm on the wiki, that is the situation I find myself in more often than not, and Jon was talking about how the users of the wiki would find it. One navigation box does not need to contain every piece of information—we can have multiple navboxes per zone: one for skill chalenges; one for areas; one for points of interest. But having additional connections between pages isn't going to hurt anyone. It's not going to make the page load considerably slower, and—especially if we break the infoboxes up into multiple, more specific navboxes—isn't going to take up a ton of room.

I'm also curious, konig, how you find the zeus infobox example I posted. —Jyavoc 20:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that was your reasoning, since I was asking you for such - I wasn't expecting you to quote someone else who made a single comment 2 and a half months ago.

The reason why the personal story infobox isn't contested is because it holds no hindrances - it's small and easy to navigate (both in terms of number of links per space given). Just because a nav bar is reasonable in one situation doesn't mean it's reasonable in another situation. "One navigation box does not need to contain every piece of information" Oddly enough, this is what it now seems like you're attempting to do. Having multiple nav bars per zone is something I myself suggested first up above, though I am not quite fond of such, it is a far better (in my opinion, at the very least) alternative to a huge nav bar of unrelated things other than "it's in the same zone."

On the zeus nav bar - I believe that, just as Ishy's Arkansas nav bar example - are of a vastly different situation. They are humongous, but collapsable (thankfully), but wikipedia also covers a much huger and more complexe information database, and thus larger navigations are only in turn natural. I do not think that such a large nav bar is necessary, unless the topic is equally huge - e.g., gw1:Template:Historical content nav. And such huge nav bars are, as it stands, unnecessary. Especially considering the number of hub articles we have established. I wouldn't mind replacing the various hub articles for nav bars (specifically meaning the lists of hub articles being replaced by nav bars), but said nav bars, when used as such and not on the hub articles, would need to be collapsable as a must, and properly organized as a secondary must.

However, in this particular context, I would remain that such a huge nav bar would be unnecessary. I'd rather go with simple and effective, rather than complex and effective - simply because it'd be easier to edit when the inevitable changes come, not just for the veteran editors but for the newbies too.

I remain unconvinced - and I am certain that I can be convinced, as I do see merit in the meaning of nav bars (it's just that these in particular are, at least as they stand, poor in quality and effectiveness from my viewpoint) - that these area nav bars are helpful. Konig/talk 21:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggested above splitting them into multiple versions; I simply haven't gone ahead and done that yet, because our conversation was/is geared more towards "should these even exist," rather than "how should we do these?" If you want to have me produce some mockups of what individual type navbars would look like, I'm willing to produce some. I might do that myself in a little bit, actually. Also, I've reread nearly all of the discussion, and I didn't find anything that you had posted prior to this, suggesting having a {{Wayfarers Foothills skill challenges nav}} or some such; I found arguments you had against such a setup, however. Also, the second, horizontal navbox that I have (which, of the two, is my more favored, as it is more compact) has the ability to collapse and expand. That said, after looking at many examples on GWW, I feel like looking into doing {{Wayfarers Foothills skill challenges nav}} or {{Wayfarers Foothills areas nav}} would be a better idea; just, that we have more navbars, so all pages are linked, but only to other similar pages within the same zone. Finally, all of this will be done with my bot, so that no one has to do any work. I intend to keep that bot, as well, so that if/when/definitely when the game world changes, no one will still have to modify them. —Jyavoc 21:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, that example you posted is... not at all what I had in mind. Meta events would only list the meta events, for one thing, not all events that are part of the meta event. Second, the layout is horrendous - that's not what a navbox should look like at all. Make it look like the Wikipedia ones. —Dr Ishmael 22:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

...

okay, i've done that. —Jyavoc 22:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are the nav bar designs getting worse and worse? If the original is a block of text, that's a brick wall of one for sure (and to be safe, is it my computer settings or the nav bar's settings which are causing tiny harder-to-read font?). Konig/talk 01:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The font size is smaller so that the navbox doesn't take up as much room. Not my reasoning for doing it, and it's been in place throughout the sandboxing, but wikipedia also uses smaller font size for the navbox. —Jyavoc 01:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never really understood why we don't use smaller font in the navboxes, but it didn't really bother me enough to question it until now. —Dr Ishmael 05:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't enjoy having to squint and/or move closer to the screen to read. Konig/talk 05:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ishy, was that saying that you don't like the small font? I don't have a problem with it, so you're the hinging vote right now. —Jyavoc 05:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I prefer the small font. The navbox isn't supposed to be a prominent feature of the article - it's merely a navigational aid. As such, it shouldn't stand out so much that it draws the reader away from the article itself. That's why Wikipedia uses a smaller font and (usually) soft colors on their infoboxes. We copied that format at GuildWiki and can't really remember any complaints about it there. —Dr Ishmael 12:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I definitely want to give konig a chance to respond, but I'll voice that what we have now looks fine to me. When I get the ok, I can modify my script accordingly and knock these out of the way. Also, given the change in the navbox contents, I believe the category should be changed from "Category:Area navigation templates" to Category:Zone navigation templates. —Jyavoc 06:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I still hold to the belief that in its current format, it's unnecessarily stuffed looking. But I'm just one person, don't let me stop you if I'm the only one with such a complaint. However, I would still prefer some alternative design thoughts. And making the nav collapsable if we're going to retain all these things is a must. Though with all the information we're already stuffing in these nav bars, at this point we might as well add the explorer achievement mini-dungeons (which can be added in the same line as jumping puzzles since jumping puzzles are a type of mini-dungeon).

Also, there's still no order to them. This definitely needs fixing. At the very least, I suggest giving a bigger gap between each type of location, as the lines kind of feel like they're blending in (at a glance, you can't tell where areas end and points of interest begin, or PoI and hearts, or hearts and skill challenges - that's bad). Konig/talk 06:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about all the other crap in areas if its zone navigation, you can use the zone article for that. The points of interest, renown hearts, and skill challenges don't need to be there.--Relyk 07:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I spaced out the individual lines so that there is now adequate space in between the different sections, which did look blended when I acknowledged it (laughs). I tried to do a workaround for the navbox to allow for it to be collapsible, but it doesn't look like the technology we have on MediaWiki will support it. Collapsible only works on tables here, and when I attempted to put the header within the table (and manipulate it), it wasn't going to have any of that, and further, adding the collapsible class to the table with the header inside it caused the "[collapse]" link to not display and the header to display funky. So I'm open to ideas, but thus far, it looks like we won't be able to do that. As for ordering, I didn't order them here because there are a lot and I didn't want to do it by hand, but I will have the bot alphabetize them as it is collecting information so that everything is alphabetical order. Finally, I have no objections with adding mini dungeons as well, though perhaps we should make it its own section? Otherwise we'd have to identify which are jumping puzzles (legitimate) and which ones are mini dungeons individually for each element in the conglomerate section. —Jyavoc 07:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing I intend to do for alphabetical ordering is sorting by the standard English title way, which is to ignore "The" within titles. I don't imagine this to be an issue, but I wanted to bring that up just right now, in case that would be. —Jyavoc 07:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Jumping puzzles are identified by Jumping Puzzles, so minidungeons would be a separate row. And sort it by the literal area name, since that is the literal name that pops up in the search engine and referred to as in articles.--Relyk 07:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, that makes my life even easier, so it's not halting my world. Also, Relyk, I did that because I see the discussion linearly, so I was afraid your comment would be missed in the bulk of the wall :P As for minidungeons, I'll add that as a row (if there are any in Wayfarer Hills—I'll need to check on that) so we can... I don't think it'll change the layout, but for completeness and all. We can remove it easily enough. —Jyavoc 07:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wayfarer Hills did not have a mini-dungeon, so I added the one from Caledon Forest, obviously just for demonstration purposes. —Jyavoc 07:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I like Konig's idea of combining jumping puzzles and mini-dungeons. Wikipedia has a good model for this, too, although I can't remember where I've seen it to link an example:

Achievements | Jumping Puzzles: Shaman's Rookery • Mini-dungeons: Tears of Itlaocol

And I can halfway agree with Relyk - there isn't a good reason to have the PoIs here, since they really aren't that interesting in any respect. They're just dots on the map. Skill challenges and hearts, however, are of great interest to most readers. —Dr Ishmael 13:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Implemented dr ish's suggestion for achievement line + adjusted vertical alignment (hope you don't mind jyavoc!). I'm thinking that the Skill challenges/Renown hearts will need sorting - whichever way (level/alphabetical) should be repeated with both. (imo it would make more sense if it proceeded from easy → difficult (low to high lvl). Currently its unsorted except by the alphabetical zone name. --Chieftain Alex 13:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind at all :P I was taught to share the sandbox when I was a kid (laughs). So thank you for that. I do think, though, that it might be smarter to have a different division between the Jumping Puzzles section and the Mini-dungeons section, because we already have established that the • separates the individual entries within a section, and so having the bullet differentiate these two subsections seems like it might be more confusing than necessary. But other than that, I think it looks fine. And in terms of sorting, what did you mean, Alex, that it's currently only sorted by the alphabetical zone name? There isn't any sorting here (laughs), though there definitely will be when I put it through the bot. I just, doing things by hand, sorting seemed like a bit too tedious. Though with everyone focusing on that, perhaps I made a poor judgment call. But in terms of sorting, I think that it might be more helpful, in the long run, to sort in alphabetical order than to sort in terms of level. Even for the zones that I've worked within for a great period of time on the wiki, I don't have it memorized what level something is going to be, and so if we sorted it by level, even people who spend a great deal of time within the zone would probably still have to read all the links in order to find the link they're looking for, at which point having a navbox wouldn't be simplifying at all. Plus, this way, we're keeping more for the zone page—we could always sort the zone page in terms of ascending level, if that were a thing we wanted to have on the wiki. But if we sort it alphabetically, we'd allow the user to do the binary search that we all inherently function on. —Jyavoc 17:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've checked, just because I'm not greatly knowledgeable on jumping puzzles or mini-dungeons. Currently, it doesn't look like there are any instances where there are more than one (max) mini-dungeon per zone, but we do have multiple jumping puzzles per zone, so the issue I brought up above does exist. It isn't exactly what the mdash is designed for, but I'll try it out. For illustration of a place like Diessa Plateau where we have multiple jumping puzzles, I'll add a couple more to the list. And for a point of reference, I'll repeat the navbox, one with the mdash, one with the bullet sepearting the two sections, for comparison. Give me four minutes, then :) —Jyavoc 17:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm also managing to continue discussions in my head after I post, but: if we were to sort everything by effective level, we'd have two different sorting orders for the categories. Jumping puzzles, which don't necessarily have an effective level, would be in a different order than, say, skill challenges. Also, as I believe konig pointed out, not everything has an effective level (some skill challenges have effective levels, some don't). And if we were to sort by effective level, it would only really make sense if we were to include the effective level that we're using to sort after each link, which would, imo, clutter up the navbox. For these reasons, as well as the ones I made above, my vote is for alphabetical order. —Jyavoc 17:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Renown hearts and skill challenges might be relevant enough to stick in the zone template, but renown heart names are just cruel to list. They take up more lines than the rest of the sections combined. hearts are zone-specific, so there is not much you can do about that however. Putting the mini dungeons on it's own line with a <br /> tag looks fine to me while keeping it connected to Achievements. All the separators so far don't have much appeal. Also, all skill challenges definitely have an effective level.--Relyk 18:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

But if we put jumping puzzles and mini-dungeons on a separate line, aren't we just going to make it more confusing than if we were to just put them as two separate rows? I mean, if we line break them, we're just making them their own "sub-rows" then. Also, I'm not sure what you meant by renown hearts, because it sounded like you're simultaneously for and against them. —Jyavoc 18:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had actually meant to use an em-dash in my example, as that's what I recall seeing on Wikipedia (I think I copied the bullet because I was going to add another puzzle or something to the example, don't really remember now). No, it doesn't strictly follow the usage rules for that punctuation mark, but it's not like we're writing prose in here, anyway.

@Relyk: The point of Konig's and my suggestion is to save vertical space, and make more efficient use of horizontal space, by combining two lists of very similar things. Putting a line break in there, while not a full table row, would still be running contrary to the goal. —Dr Ishmael 18:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Oops, didn't mean to submit the addition of the long hyphen to the sandbox :/ --Chieftain Alex 19:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You alphabetized by hand. I think you're allotted at least one copy+paste (laughs). —Jyavoc 19:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, just want to keep this from dying out. We're close enough now to be done. —Jyavoc 22:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I took the liberty of modifying the font size in your sandbox3. Your original version had "font-size:80%", which computed to 10px; I changed it to 11px, which is what Wikipedia uses. Our standard font size here is 13px, so it's still significantly smaller than article text. Links to revisions for comparison: 10px and 11px. I prefer the larger font, myself. —Dr Ishmael 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox3 is where I'm testing the bot script right now, so thanks for posting that here, otherwise I probably wouldn't have seen this. I'll make sure to adjust my bot accordingly. In the meanwhile, please continue to tell me everything right now, so I can do this all right the way we want it to be! Konig, I definitely want to hear from you, or at least get your approval/what have you, so we aren't just ignoring the opposition on this issue. —Jyavoc 04:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Have we considered using "& nbsp;" (without the space) between words inside the links, or wrapping the lines in <span style="white-space: nowrap; margin: 0em 0.4em;"><link here></span> to avoid them taking newlines halfway through links? --Chieftain Alex 08:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Since our navboxes are usually fixed-width, line breaks are inserted explicitly. I would rather we switch over to adaptable-width and use nowrap, because right now even the wide navboxes take up barely a third of the width of my 1920x1080 display. But that's really a separate discussion. —Dr Ishmael 13:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

So I personally think this nav (mdash version) is probably ready for usage in the mainspace. --Chieftain Alex 15:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm a nice guy, and it takes two seconds with code, I changed the bot so that each individual entry is wrapped within a span with a style of white-space:nowrap. It also now renders into 11px. I have a bug to fix with my code not wanting to properly parse the meta events section, but then after that, I'll await the go-ahead. —Jyavoc 18:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to add the s flag for my regex, but after a little modification, it seems to be picking up the meta events, which means that we should get good to go whenever we're ready. —Jyavoc 18:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I presume that this is the current set up for the nav box? Something I'd like to note, in that case, would be that some jumping puzzles do or will have a (jumping puzzle) prefix which that sandbox does not show currently for Behem Gauntlet (jumping puzzle) (which, I might add, there's two Behem Gauntlet entries in the jp section). Also, I don't really see a need to separate the achievements by type - unless we're going to be including Crash Landing and Speedy Reader, all achievements under explorable are mini-dungeons and all jumping puzzles, by nature, are mini-dungeons - as such, all achievements sans those two are mini-dungeon achievements. It'd also be neglecting Flame Temple Tombs, though that's also an area (but so are most mini-dungeons). But these are not big issues. Konig/talk 18:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think there's any need to separate the region from the zone's line in the header (or, for that matter, to list the region as that's always listed in the infobox and is not a necessary for the nav bar - unlike the zone name). Konig/talk 18:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Explicit nowrapping like that is horrible over-coding. I added a single rule to the site CSS to cover this, and reverted the sandbox to match. —Dr Ishmael 19:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ishy, as part of your revert, you removed the region part (which is fine, and I've already mirrored that in the bot code). But you also removed the Meta events section. Was this intentional? I've gone through the discussion and haven't found anything on this, so I want to confirm one way or the other before I run the bot. —Jyavoc 16:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I switched the code for the bot so it now is rendering Diessa Plateau to Sandbox3, so I could check to make sure it worked with not Blazeridge data. Also konig, the Behem Gauntlet problem was fixed (I don't think I actually changed any code, though, so it might have been on the wiki page itself); thanks for catching that. I also have the ability to find the dungeons for an area, and we could put them onto the navbox, though I don't personally think that necessary/something we should do. I'm just trying to be thorough with suggestions (so my apologies). And finally, a something that came up when we were discussing adding the mini-dungeons: when an area is considered a mini-dungeon, should I add that area to both the Areas section and the Mini-dungeons subsection, or to just the Mini-dungeons subsection? Either is fine by me, there just isn't a precedence for this that I could find/think of. —Jyavoc 16:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing meta events was a mistake, yes. "Mini-dungeons" should be limited to the named achievements (which is why I used the header "Achievements"), including Jumping Puzzles, Explorer, and Bosses achievements. —Dr Ishmael 16:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So I would, for zones with a dungeon, tack on Dungeon: Honor of the Waves (per Explorer achievements). And as currently, most of the minidungeon pages seem to just be the area pages for the location they're within, that's what I wanted to know how to handle. I have it set up right now that, since they're area pages and mini-dungeons, they're listed under both. I just wanted to confirm that that was what I should be doing. The wiki is still rather volatile, and I don't want to be helping the confusion any. —Jyavoc 17:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, are there any objections to changing the category for these templates from "Category:Area navigation templates" to Category:Zone navigation templates? I feel the former doesn't cover these properly anymore, whereas the latter would. —Jyavoc 18:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

We're almost there, guys. Just give the word. —Jyavoc 02:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Mini-dungeons have associated Explorer achievements, but not all Explorer achievements have associated mini-dungeons (or at least names for the mini-dungeons). The area infobox for most of those is mislabeled. The difference between explorer achievements and minidungeons is still for discussion.--Relyk 03:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest, then? —Jyavoc 04:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

All jumping puzzles are mini-dungeons, so just have the label "Mini-dungeons" - we'd have to exclude achievements like Speedy Reader and the boss category of achievements though.

If we do this, are we still going to be splitting the two subcategories between Jumping Puzzles and Mini-dungeons? It seems to me, no. But that was a large point of discussion, so that's why I'm a bit hesitant. —Jyavoc 04:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should. Alternatively, we can just call it achievements and include the bosses achievements, but ignore the mini-dungeons without achievements, since the area which the mini-dungeons' information is almost always on will be linked in the nav anyways. It's also solve the whole "does this achievement tie to a mini-dungeon or not" conundrum. Either way, keep it to one line (or section, rather). Konig/talk 05:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I had suggested earlier. My point was to list every achievement in the zone. Areas that seem like mini-dungeons but don't have an achievement are just areas. As for dungeons, they aren't really a feature of the zone (they're a completely separate instance that you merely access from certain zones), so they shouldn't be in this navbox. —Dr Ishmael 13:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Given the horrible state of the Bosses achievement pages, mining through them in bot form looks like it'll be considerably more trouble than it's worth. I can do it manually once I've run the bot script. I fixed my script now so that achievements no longer have subsections, and only pages which link to Explorer will be added to the achievements section. I've tested with a couple of scenarios, and it seems to work fine. If this is all okay, we can run the bot and finally be done with this whole ordeal. —Jyavoc 00:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please God, final bump? I'd like to forget about this conversation, too. —Jyavoc 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Now to implement them? :P --Chieftain Alex 20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! And yes, thanks to all of you guys. The navboxes would not be what they are now without all of your input! Thanks for bearing with me/us on this! And yep. I'm going to take over Queensdale for a while, add the navboxes and go to the different zones and flesh the whole place out. —Jyavoc 20:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Wintersday banner.jpg

so the reason i named this wintersday banner instead of wintersday 2012 was because it dosnt say wintersday2012 it just says wintersday. secondly you could have just moved it to File:Wintersday 2012 banner.jpg instead of just making a new image. which is preferred method when renaming images. - Zesbeer 22:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually uploaded Image:Wintersday 2012 banner.jpg before you [[:Image:Wintersday banner.jpg]]. And I know that it doesn't say Wintersday 2012 on it, but given that the facebook page has uploaded both the banner for shadow of the mad king and the banner for the lost shores, I felt it was safe to assume that this was also a monthly banner being uploaded. —Jyavoc 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jyavoc! I was just browsing around random user pages and found yours. I really did like your header. Read more about you and I guess your good at this :) Now, I ask you if I can borrow that header? Send me a note either way, and you can delete this edit when done. Thanks. --Hencovic 22:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Weapon icon botting

So, I aborted the script early right now, not because there was a problem, but because 200+ updates all at once on Special:RecentChanges was enough for the moment. I'll finish the script later, but I thought I'd give a respite. Also, I was prowling the RC while the bot was running, and with the exception of one edit to a User Talk by the User himself, there weren't any interspersed updates that I saw. —Jyavoc 18:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've run a second batch through. I've still wound up aborting the script early, but more icons were categorized at least. —Jyavoc 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Remind me again why it isn't a proper bot account, I'm sure there was a valid reason there somewhere, right? — snograt 00:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tanetris and Pling are lazy see? --Chieftain Alex 00:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Though but also, I do do more than botting. —Jyavoc 02:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a minute before three in the morning, local time (EST, if I know my timezone properly...) and as the wiki didn't seem active, I finished running this script. Now that all of the existing icons have been categorized, future cron executions of this bot will only pick up a handful every so often, so I think this becomes a moot point from here on out. I'll make sure to save major, first-time-run botting jobs until very early in the morning when people aren't active from here on out, because I should have thought to do that sooner. Regardless, all weapon icons should now be properly categorized. I'm going to go back and clean up some of them, because not all of them are tagged with Category:ArenaNet icons, and if they've been categorized into a specific type of weapon icon category, I'll have it remove them from Category:Weapon icons, as they should be in as specific a category as possible. —Jyavoc 08:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The deed is done, finally, and I feel like a complete moron. It's all finished, but it took me way too many failures to get to this point. The setup I had been working with was built upon a faulty understanding of what needed to be done, and so I apologize for my needless mistakes now cluttering the history pages of the icons, and will adjust all of my bot scripts to no longer produce the errors it has. I've severely tightened what the bots will do from here on out. —Jyavoc 11:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I used to do these by hand before it got too overwhelming. I LOVE YOU SO MUCH RIGHT NOW!!! —CrazyRabidSquirrel 18:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

After messing up the bot a couple of times (and one really big time), having someone say that actually really did make my day. You're more than welcome :) And never feel afraid to ask GW2W:BOTS (or me :P) for something! —Jyavoc 18:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Could you check for any .jpg files you may have tagged as icons please? (they will need replacement) Chieftain Alex 09:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If "you" means "me," the bot only ever considers .png files, unless someone has put the {{weapon infobox}} icon parameter to a .jpg file. If "you" means userbase as a whole, I'll be happy to do it in seven/eight hours if I haven't killed myself after this exam :P —Jyavoc 17:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

nah it definitely hit a few .jpg pages. Good luck with your exam, mine is after christmas (lol revision over christmas -_- ) Chieftain Alex 17:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You got to the reply right before I could edit mine; realized I was sleepy when I wrote that. I checked, and the reason it picked this icon up was because the icon parameter was listed as "Molten Greatsword-icon.jpg" (until you fixed it). I wrote the bots to allow the icon parameter to be anything, assuming good faith. I'll fix that part of the bots and run a script that'll pick up both my trash, and the trash from the rest of the community, once I'm finished tonight (laughs) (dies) —Jyavoc 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

hah!. But so I got bored and decided to modify the bot early. It's doing a special run right now, which if it finds any non .png files as the icon for a {{weapon infobox}}, it'll tag it with {{image request}} with png. —Jyavoc 18:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, well, the bot just finished, and currently there are no more icons that aren't png files linked to from {{weapon infobox}}. When I have a free moment, I'll write the cleanup bot to check more broadly and see what it can find. If necessary. I'm bordering dangerously on sleep deprivation. —Jyavoc 18:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm finally going to ask: why? What utility do we gain by sub-categorizing item icons like this? How many people are really going to browse our icon files by category? —Dr Ishmael 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

chain skill precedent blah blah

Reaper's Rumble, yes there fucking is! :D--Relyk 05:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Vielen Dank, Relyk. I was in the middle of PvP hoping to write it all down while not being reported erroneously for leeching, and pressure, and late, and, thank you :P —Jyavoc 05:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, I was just waiting for a chance to vent about anet naming chain skills with the same name.--Relyk 05:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So you took it out on poor little old me? :P But no, thanks. I was disgusted by the idea of "... (Snowball Mayhem, 2)" but I couldn't think off the top of my head what else to do. I primarily wanted to get the rest of the skills out onto the article. —Jyavoc 05:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

But you know, unless there is another skill with the same name, adding the (Snowball Mayhem) suffix is rather pointless >.>--Relyk 06:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I did gather that. But it was also as I was working, unsure of which ones would immediately have a real-game counterpart and which ones wouldn't. But moreover, because Snowball Mayhem is a smaller part/not part of the "real game," and for added consistency (to make it easier for searching), I just added them across the board. I mean, if it's a huge deal, we can change it. But this was a conscious decision on my part, not a careless mistake :P —Jyavoc 06:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's minor as far as Snowblind requiring a redirect to "Snowblind (Snowball Mayhem)". so unless someone was searching for it in the search bar or linking, we could care less.--Relyk 06:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't imagine it to be too much of a problem. I know that we always want to fill it with as least amount of specifications in the title, but thought it'd just be easier this way. —Jyavoc 06:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Snowball Mayhem skills

Why did you create every single one of those with a qualifier? That should only be done when necessary. [edit:] Gah, now I see that Relyk already addressed this above. I'm not as willing as Relyk to let this go, though, so I'll probably correct them sometime. —Dr Ishmael 15:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already gone ahead and corrected my mistake. On the whole, I feel that if I've made a mistake and someone points it out to me, it should (rightfully so) be my responsibility to fix it. In any case, with the side effect of a couple dozen new deletion tags and needless entries in page history, the pages should be on as few qualifiers as possible now. —Jyavoc 19:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

the Funwerks

Should that be Funwerks Krewe? That's how it is presented in-game, and it certainly fits the qualifications for a proper noun in my mind. —Dr Ishmael 05:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it should be. I don't know why I made it lowercased. I'll go ahead and change that right now. "Krewe" is one of those words I'm not always sure if it should be capitalized like a proper noun, or accepted as in-game lore "regular noun." —Jyavoc 05:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Real-world comparison:

"I am an employee of a corporation." → "I am an employee of Acxiom Corporation."

"I am a member of a krewe." → "I am a member of the Funwerks Krewe."

If it is part of the name of a specific krewe, then the name of that krewe is a proper noun, including the word "krewe." Otherwise, if it is just the word "krewe" used in general, it is not a proper noun. —Dr Ishmael 05:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It's all fixed now, though I did leave a redirect from Funwerks krewe to Funwerks Krewe. And I was more unsure at the time if "krewe" was part of the official name, or it was just a qualifier that followed the name but wasn't officially part of the name, because it was implied. I mean, I see how it is now, so it's a moot point, but it always seems like there's more information to absorb. :P Thanks for the speedy catch of this. —Jyavoc 05:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

They used that semantic in GW1, such as gw1:Experiment Krewe Member. Just one way to figure it if you don't have in-game text to refer to. Of course, I would give you a delicious cookie if you did it that way.--Relyk 06:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Which semantic, Relyk? Ishy's or mine? —Jyavoc 07:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Uppercase, such as gw1:Experiment Krewe Member--Relyk 12:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

icon bot

You've got a bug. [[:File:Simple Harpoon Gun.png]] is not a spear icon, it is a harpoon gun icon. I corrected this yesterday, but your bot added the spear category back to it last night. —Dr Ishmael 15:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This fix probably will stop the bot readding it. Chieftain Alex 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Guh, that should've been the first thing I checked. Thanks. —Dr Ishmael 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got a new bug. your bot first added another template with the trident icon tag, and then updated the old tag, such that you now had two tags on that page. Chieftain Alex 09:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw this bug earlier. The latest bot, which I still haven't run because I've been busy elsewhere on other projects, has fixed this problem, if I recall correctly. I will either fix this bug or disable the bot until I have time to fix it. Thanks for the heads up. —Jyavoc 19:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Accessory infobox → Trinket infobox

Would you be able to run a bot to replace all instances of {{Accessory infobox}} with {{Trinket infobox}}? list / relevant discussion-Chieftain Alex 18:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I got this with AWB, no custom script required. —Dr Ishmael 19:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Sorry -- I've been pretty dead, with school and "social life." Between schoolwork, TAing a course, and personal programming projects, I haven't been able to do just about anything else -- I don't even know when I last patched the client. I still check up every so often, though, and I can't wait for things to die down so that I can get back here. —Jyavoc 19:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Alex: GW2W:BOTS. I need to clean up old stuff, but that's still where bot requests should go first. —Dr Ishmael 19:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, but I knew Jyavoc would briefly login in the evening (+ he hadn't until then so odds were good! ) Good job anyway! -Chieftain Alex 19:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, Alex knew he could bring me out of my seclusion. Well, the bat signal worked; hopefully I can find time this week to patch the client and get back into the swing of things. (It's good to know that you're missed, even if you aren't irreplaceable :3) —Jyavoc 19:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeing "ArmorIcons bot has finished." every day is irreplaceable.--Relyk ~ talk > 20:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I accidentally disabled the rest of the bots, but I didn't have a chance to reenable them because I didn't have the time to test them to make sure they wouldn't malfunction everywhere. Also, if you need, I can make it run... not everyday :X, haha. Looking at the logs, it doesn't seem to pick up enough every pass through to justify running every day, so I might as well lower it down to perhaps, once a week? —Jyavoc 18:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot editing

Hey, don't worry, not a complaint or anything, just a suggestion. If you're using a bot to edit stuff, could you include something like "[bot]" in the edit summary, so it's clear it's an automated edit? pling 07:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

or y'know... mark him as a bot? (you + tanetris are the only ones that can do it right) -Chieftain Alex 08:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a secondary account which I was going to have do all of my bot editing, that way I could distinguish my personal actions against my bots, though there wasn't any real feedback when I asked if I could get that as a true bot account. Because I didn't have that ability, I would run the heaviest of my scripts at really-late at night, so I wouldn't clog up Special:RecentChanges. I'm going to refine the bots that I have (I know it doesn't look it, but I'm actively working on making time in my university career for GW2 again), and if I were to be marked as a bot account, I would be able to toggle this, correct, so that my edits wouldn't be marked as bot-work (I know how to set the bot flag on edits from within my script, but I don't know about the MediaWiki interface itself on the edit page when running a bot account). But I get too far ahead of myself: if I'm not marked a bot, I see no reason why I can't prepend "[bot]" to my bot edits. —Jyavoc 14:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll need to examine your bot edits before I (and/or Tanetris) decide to give you bot user-rights, but I'm pretty sure it would need to be a separate account. And "[bot]" in the edit summary would be helpful either way (unless, I suppose, if the account name has "bot" in it already, like Ish's bot account). pling 07:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Navs

Hi, I was pointed to you by others. Just noticed that {{{{Diessa Plateau nav}}}} lists the "old" form of skill points, not the new. Not looked at any others. Seems will need fixing :) Point me at where it is and I do not mind helping. Claret 03:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah damn, skill challenges have been changed again? Those buggers have been a major pain. Um, I could modify the bots that I used to put them all together in the first place, but if it's only the one navbar, it might be smarter to change it manually. But if it looks like every navbar needs to be changed, I can modify the bot and run the script again. I've been a bit busy with teaching and worrying about grad school, so I haven't been as much involved with the wiki in recent months as I want to be. All the same, though, I'm good with helping out as I can! —Jyavoc 03:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've got it covered. —Dr Ishmael 04:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was going to by my next thing. I really want to get back into the swing of things (once my life calms down even a minute smidgeon), but in the meanwhile, it'd be better to have someone who is more familiar with the changes to do them. Thanks ish. —Jyavoc 04:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I found my way to Diessa Plateau nav and altered it myself. Seems fine, please check it out. Claret 04:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Two interwiki questions

Hello Jyavoc, you seem to be knowledgeable both in some of the technicalities, as well as in more than one language, so I wonder if you can help me with these:

1. I tried to use template:Asuran in de:Asurische Schrift, but I don't know how to implement interwiki templates, so I recreated them in the DE wiki. Still it doesn't look right. Is there a way to replace the DE templates with the current ones, as used in the EN wiki?
2. I noticed that quite a few articles that exist in DE don't have interwiki links in EN. Would it be possible to have a golem bot do this?

Thanks, Subra (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Jyavoc isn't very active here anymore, so I don't know if he'll respond, but I can answer your questions.

1. You need to copy all of the images to DE in addition to the templates. The GW2 wikis don't share a media repository, like Wikimedia Commons. It's been mentioned by our Anet liaison, Stephane, but it probably won't happen for a while yet.
2. A bot couldn't just "do it," no. There would have to be manual work to at least compile the list of EN<->DE correspondences for the bot to work from. Then it could edit each page on the EN side to add a link to DE, and vice versa. (Of course, someone would have to write the script that performs that task, too.)

Hope that helps! —Dr Ishmael 06:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! I intend to come back. But right now, I'm in an internship until the fall semester begins, so that takes up so much of my time. I promise, though, that I will be back! <3 —Jyavoc 13:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for both of you for your replies. Re the bot: I've seen it on Wikipedia, albeit only passively. My impression there was that bots there "just do it", but I may be wrong. Subra (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)