User talk:Rashid

...or here? --Rashid 19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

This page however is there to communicate with you. You did some changes I didn't understand, and you did them to a lot of pages. So instead in commenting on every page you edited, I will talk to you here. Offer help to your edit, say I don't agree with them or just tell you how awesome you are.

It is also a place to joke around and get totally of topic. So your User page is about you presenting yourself to the wiki and the User talk page is about the wiki getting in contact with you. Hope that helped. - Yandere 10:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Wait, were you just mentioning an example of how this page is used, or was there actually stuff I edited that seemed weird to you? (if so, examples would be great) --Rashid (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It was just an example, but it is a very common use for the user talk page. So I thought I mentioned it. I think your edits are very clear and understandable. ^^ - Yandere 11:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad you think so. If you scroll below, however, you can see not everyone agrees... (check the page linked and look at the differences) --Rashid (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh that is quite normal. Consensus is something which is always in flux. New people come to the wiki or start editing sections of the wiki, which have a strong formating consensus. Of course, people will tell you about this and start a discussion with you. These are usually people who care about this. Therefor is one of the fastest ways to meet wiki people with similar interest than you.

It is a way to meet other people, learn their personal preferences and start discussions and work groups with them. Many parts in the wiki basiclly were given shape only because two or more diffrent editors had very diffrent opions, but they all cared about speical parts of the wiki started discussing and worked together to get an overall good solution. That is the beauty of the wiki. ^^ - Yandere 16:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue Sections

Hey, I noticed you were editing some dialogue sections so that it appears like a quote; such as putting the name of the character in the dialogue. Using italics on the player's response looks much better in my opinion and the majority of the dialogues on the wiki looks as such. If you need a reference to as how this looks compare mine and your revisions on this page http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Tygor_Mindflayer to get some sort of idea on how this works. --Ventriloquist (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've seen it... I still think it looks neater with the name. Otherwise, the NPC's text looks like it's just "floating" there. The responses have the icon at the start, at least. --Rashid (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to the NPC's picture in the right corner? Adding the name creates unnecessary text that could lead to some confusion, don't you think? --Ventriloquist (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not the problem, and that's not what you edited out. I mean things NPCs say in their dialogues.. It's just flat out text with no (visible) icon or text to... how to say it... "anchor" it? With the player responses, you have the icon, and the text is in italics (which is how it's mostly done, and it looks neat). I figured since there's no icon for the NPC's speech/dialogue, it should at least start with its name. IMO, it looks better that way... but yeah, you're right; most other pages just leave the dialogue with nothing in front. Doesn't mean we can't innovate. ;o --Rashid (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see! I agree that it does look sort of empty, but, like you said - most other pages do that. Perhaps someone will invent some new look for the dialogue sections? -- Ventriloquist (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I want to do, but you're not helping. XD Undo your changes if you want to. I don't think anyone else minds "my" format. --Rashid (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few people did object to that format back when we established the current consensus. Most people agreed that the NPC name is redundant, unnecessary, and clutters up the page; I don't recall anyone saying anything about needing to "anchor" the lines or anything like that. Don't take the current silence on the issue for acceptance, it's probably just that no one besides Ventriloquist has noticed yet. —Dr Ishmael 13:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I had but didn't feel too strongly about it. But, as Ishmael says, it was discussed at length and a consensus reached as to the format. I have been caught the "wrong" side of a consensus and it's irritating, but the proper way is to try to change the consensus and, if you can't change it, live with it. --Claret (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see the need to divide the formatting of the dialogues. It seems pretty silly to have half of the pages one format, and the rest in another one, it could easily create confusion while editing and creating new pages. --Ventriloquist (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, I see where you guys are coming from... didn't expect 2 others to show up here. @_@ Guess I'll just stick to what's currently there.--Rashid (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)