Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Archive 1

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.

Old S&F

Are we allowed to use the same style and formatting of gwiki's articles? I've seen a few done in that style. I can't really think of a different way to do it that would be any better. - - BeXoR 01:31, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Basic stuff such as the order of headings etc can be done in the exactly same way ofcourse, but more complex stuff like the monster boxes and such might be a different thing. --Gem (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I figured as such. I guess we'll have to redo the code for the info boxes yes? - - BeXoR 02:26, 8 February 2007 (PST)
If you present content or information in a certain way just because GuildWiki did it that way, it's a problem. If someone had never seen GuildWiki but knew everything there was about every unique item, they won't end up with a set of articles identical to GuildWiki's. Of course, some things are logical like having a section for stats or saying where you can get the item (boss name/location) or displaying the more important info first. --Fyren 02:36, 8 February 2007 (PST)

As far as Skill boxes go, their appearance has not change since they were introduced by me [1]. While functionally they are very different, someone could produce the Skill Box as it was when first introduced and build from there. If no one beats me to it, I will do that later on. LordBiro 09:43, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Names of pages

Especially referring to skill names and collectable items, I suggest having calling the pages differently from what they actually appear in game. I would like to find "Watch yourself!" under Watch yourself and Granite Stone Slabs at Granite stone slabs as well! The system as it is on gwg is not really accessible and usually makes you take a three-click-detour via main page. We really don't need that. ~ D.L. (msg) 14:46, 8 February 2007 (PST)

This can be achieved with redirects, so I would recommend that we use the accurate names, but redirect Watch yourself to "Watch yourself!". LordBiro 15:20, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Yes, for pity's sake let's make more use of redirects than Guild Wiki - I find the policy of not including redirects for pretty much anything really irritating (especially the lower case thing). --NieA7 03:29, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Topic is also discussed here. ~ D.L. 03:31, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Thanks for the pointer :) --NieA7 03:42, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Name...

I would rather this be called "Formatting" not "Style" if I have a choice. Everyone has their own style, but articles should adhere to a certain "format"... si? --Karlos 15:24, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Hmm.. I see what you mean. I initially thought style because I thought it was a more encompassing word. Now I'm not so certain :)
I do still feel that "style" sounds a little better. I think it's fairly obvious that something under Style/ will be to do with the layout/appearance/design of the article. Does anyone else have any opinions on the name? LordBiro 16:00, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Style sounds better but I agree with Karlos - style is personal, formatting is something that is just done as per templates, which is kinda what we're after. --NieA7 16:07, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Agreed with Karlos and NieA7. While I like they way Style sounds, Format more accurately describes what we're looking for. --Zampani 18:16, 8 February 2007 (PST)
"Formatting" does sound more accurate to me as well. --Dirigible 18:19, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I vote "Formatting". - - BeXoR 18:32, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Is there a Style guide...uh, Format guide that we should be using? --Vladtheemailer 18:53, 8 February 2007 (PST)
"Format" instead of "Formatting." But either is preferable to "Style"- Evil Greven 23:44, 8 February 2007 (PST)
To paraphrase, format is the layout of a document, formatting is the style of the document's layout. As these guides tell us how the articles are meant to look, I say formatting should be used. We use the formatting guides to provide the desired format. - - BeXoR 23:53, 8 February 2007 (PST)
As you guys know, I prefer "style", and I am OK with "formatting", but I don't think "format" is very good! LordBiro 03:42, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I think "formatting" sounds best (of the above choices). --Rainith 18:44, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I prefer "Formatting" or even the wordier "Formatting guideline"(s). --Barek 08:32, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Nothing that needs two words and a space please. --Xeeron 08:43, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Format is what I'd call it. -- Ifer 08:54, 10 February 2007 (PST)
The old "Style and formatting" is actually more accurate. "Formatting": The material form or layout of a publication., "Style": A customary manner of presenting printed material, including usage, punctuation, spelling, typography, and arrangement. But since most of these articles are about what information goes to which section, "Formatting" seems the more accurate of the two. As for "Format".... well, I think the sentence "Look at the formatting guidelines" sounds (is?) more natural than "Look at the format guidelines". --ab.er.rant 17:59, 13 February 2007 (PST)
That might be true, but that's not the point. It's about accessibility. A one-word policy page is a lot easier to find than one with more words. For "Style and formatting" you're usually forced to go through the links to dig up the page. ~ D.L. 21:46, 13 February 2007 (PST)

(reset indent) formatting encompasses style as well.[2] - BeXoR 22:38, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Well I see what you mean by all of this but why would they make a new guildwars so early? Like people dont like props. ,because of how it is but why would u do hard mode? It dosent make any since they should just make a new map or something.I would like a new profession to.:) --user:mage

Huge list

I get the impression this list was copied over from the GuildWiki. I don't think there are any license implications there, but I do think that it's a bad idea to copy over the style and formatting list.

My concern is that we will start filling in the red links, rather than just building our own list. LordBiro 11:26, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Won't the resulting list be the same, since it's not really something decided arbitrarily; these are simply the main types of pages that we'll have on the wiki to document the different types of items/creatures/places that there are in the game (Creatures, skills, locations, etc). Dunno, maybe I'm missing something. Feel free to remove it if it's inappropriate though. :) --Dirigible 11:35, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Well, if the list is there to begin with, I feel as though it will be a self fulfilling prophecy, if you know what I mean ;)
Our list will probably end up very similar, but that's different to it starting out as identical! LordBiro 13:21, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Gone! :) --Dirigible 13:38, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I've re-written the list, and I did not look at the GuildWiki list while doing so. Still I ended up with essentially the same result. Not really a surprise, is it? We know what we need. Now I see this as a "to do list" that we should get out of the way asasp to start filling in skills, creatures, locations, etc. --Tetris L 00:34, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I was really suggesting that we don't produce formatting sections until we have the need to produce it... LordBiro 10:30, 14 February 2007 (PST)

General formatting conventions first

Actually, I think that's a bad idea to have all the red links there. We shouldn't have individual formatting article links before establishing some site-wide guidelines first. Each separate formatting discussion could reach different conclusions on shared aspects.

Let's start by establishing what should be standardized site-wide.

  1. Naming conventions. Should we go "Chahbek Village (Mission)" or "Chahbek Village (mission)"? Should we do "Outposts (Factions)" or "Factions outposts"? Do we want "Warrior skills" or "Skills (Warrior)"? And general guidelines on how to handle disambiguations are needed.
  2. Categories. Do we want to keep the old "Something by some type" style of top-level categories? Do we want a root category? Do we enforce plural for all categories? Do we redirect singular categories to plural categories? Are we agreed that categories go at the bottom of the page?
  3. What's our stand on speculative or unknown information? Do we remove all unfounded rumors and unproven statements? Should then enforce that all empty sections (except notes and trivia I suppose) be kept and have a "None" specifically stated?
  4. We shouldn't have the "use in-game capitalisation" rule. It's better to use English capitalisation rules. If it's a specifically named object, capital. Generic name, small letters. I really hate the capital "The" or "A" in the middle of sentences.
  5. The "use lower case" rule. Are we keeping that? I've always preferred that all the words used in headers should have their first letter capitalised but if we retain this, it needs to confirmed.
  6. Are we retaining the profession ordering used in GuildWiki?
  7. Introductory text. Some on GuildWiki are opposed to the idea that a section header starts of each page. Do we require introductory text before the first header (barring special reference-type pages of course)?
  8. Stub template locations. At the top or at the bottom? I've noticed both.

--ab.er.rant 02:30, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I agree 100% that we should instate some overall rules with first priority. Actually, I'm writing a draft for Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Article names as we speak, which will cover some of the questions. I also intend to add Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Articles|a guide about general article layout, structure and format to the list, and write a first draft. I also intend to write a first draft for the category guide later today. With these three basic guides drafted we can have a discussion on the respective talk pages.
Having said that, I don't see a reason to remove red links from the list or even blank the list. Just treat the first three general guides with first priority. --Tetris L 02:50, 14 February 2007 (PST)
My 2p:
  1. "Chahbek Village (Mission)" and "Outposts (Factions)"
  2. Not sure about all of it, but categories should be plural and I don't see the point of a singular redirect. They look best at the bottom of the page as they were laid out on GuildWiki, but perhaps there's scope to include categories in info boxes?
  3. Remove it, we document the game as is and archive how it was, we don't guess how it will be. Only exception would be pages for campaigns not yet released but for which some facts are known (so before Nightfall we would've kept the Nightfall article, with a mention of Heroes in it, but deleted the Heroes article).
  4. I think we should use in game capatilisation for all the articles, but put in redirects for common variants (such as title case or lower case).
  5. If it's not in game we should use title case for article titles. The clue's in the name.
  6. I prefer alphabetical order, either of all professions or all professions within a campaign (e.g. Elementalist, Mesmer, Monk, Necromancer, Ranger, Warrior, Assassin, Ritualist, Dervish, Paragon).
  7. Don't see why we need a guideline on that, just do whatever is most appropriate for the article in question.
  8. Stub at the top, it's a warning as much as anything else.
--NieA7 03:04, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Arr, Edit conflict :p A quick answer on Ab.er.rant's list (personal preference):
  1. Mission instead of mission. Outposts (Factions) and Skills (Warrior), 'cause those are your main categories.
  2. Create root category, plural, @ bottom of page.
  3. I think rumors and unknown info shouldn't be placed in the article. Omit the section and place a stub tag or add it to the 'needs confirmation/research' category (IF we're gonna have that). Or simply discuss it on the talk page. Keeping empty sections depends on the situation. Suppose if a craeture/boss has no skills at all, you should keep the skills-section and place "None" in it so other users will know it's not simply missing.
  4. I say keep the in-game capitalisation 'cause I don't know the exact English capitalisation rules...(unless "The" and "A" are the only exceptions).
  5. Always capitalize first letters.
  6. Profession ordering as in-game, keep it (same as on GuildWiki).
  7. Intro text not always needed. It's the same with TOC I think. Kinda looks silly on articles that only have a few lines of text f.i.
  8. Stubs on bottom of the page.
--Erszebet 03:25, 14 February 2007 (PST)
  1. Big M instead of small m
  2. No root category/plural/redirects/bottom
  3. This should not be part of formatting, but a general wiki policy
  4. I dont care. Let the native speakers quarrel about this hehe
  5. see above
  6. Agreed with NieA
  7. no
  8. top. --Xeeron 06:45, 14 February 2007 (PST)
  1. Chahbek Village (mission), Factions outposts, Warrior skills (avoid brackets if possible, they are annoying)
  2. I never liked those "Thing by type" categories. I remember one was "Armor by prestige". "Prestige armor" is preferable to that. Plural, idk, you'd have to give examples. No redirect categories. Categories, I don't mind if they are at bottom or top, I usually put them at the bottom.
  3. idk
  4. If we switch to English language rules, allow redirects for in game capitalisation
  5. ULC unless it's a noun, capitals mid-heading serve no purpose
  6. Use profession ordering as it is when you unlock skills at the balth guy (same as log in screen I recall)
  7. Fyren always told me it was bad to start an article with a heading. I don't remember why.
  8. stub - at the top for newb users - BeXoR 07:12, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Stub tags on bottom please. Or give a convincing argument for why they must be featured prominently in a page. "Because GuildWiki does it so" is not convincing. S 06:49, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Because it's a warning to casual readers that the information presented on the page, while correct, should not be regarded as complete. --NieA7 07:03, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Stop Hand.png
I'm sorry to interrupt, but can we please stop the discussion here? There are far too many controversial questions in one place. Let's split it up into
Sorry again. Do you want me to slice'n'dice the discussion and split/move it, or do you prefer to do it yourself? --Tetris L 07:50, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I've split Ab.er.rant's original post and moved it to the talk pages listed above. I could split and move all the replies as well, but I'd rather not touch other people's statements unless necessary. I'm feeling bad enough for cutting Ab.er.rant's. Could everybody please have a look at the new pages and comment again or move his own comment? Thanks! --Tetris L 08:53, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Hmm, while I see the advantage of splitting this, having a unified page of short questions will broaden the amount of answers you get. I fear that only the usual 3-4 people will be motivated enough to go to all subpages and basically make up the rules among themselves. At least ab.er.rant's list got many responses quickly. --Xeeron 08:36, 14 February 2007 (PST)
People seem to have plenty of motivation to comment on gimmick features of the wiki, like guilds, builds and user pages, in all length and detail, over days and weeks, but they are not willing to take a few minutes to comment on the things that really matter?? I'm starting to get really pissed off by this. >:[ Ab.er.rant did a great job at listing all the essential questions. The questions that form the very basic foundation of the editorial content of this wiki. These questions simply deserve not to be rushed, but to be treated detailed, separate and at length. I refuse to throw them all into one big cauldron and cook 'em like fast food. --Tetris L 08:53, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Maybe different people just have different perceptions of what is important. Believe it or not, I wont lose my good sleep if it turns out to be Chahbek Village (mission) instead of Chahbek Village (Mission). You cant force people to find stuff important. --Xeeron 08:57, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I remember many crusades on GuildWiki that required hundreds of page edits because the original layout was drafted hasty and without proper agreement beforehand. I'd rather not repeat that. The things that we decide here affect thousands of pages. Let's get it right from the start this time, and lets discuss things thoroughly, okay? It's better to spend a few more days on this now than to spend weeks to fix it later. --Tetris L 09:04, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Maybe you are right. After all, those who wont bother going to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Article names wont be the ones who would start crusades later anyway. Might be more important to get those people who care enough to agree. --Xeeron 09:09, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Or perhaps some people feel that what is going to be on the wiki is more important than how its presented. Some people just prioritize differently and as Xeeron said, you can't force people to find stuff important. That being said I did/have read/kept up with the formatting discussions as I think they are important also. Lojiin 09:13, 14 February 2007 (PST)
To be honest, formatting is more important to me than builds or guilds, however I also have a real-life job to do, so I cannot respond as quickly as others might. Don't think there aren't people that care about formatting, just other things get in the way. If I won the lottery, I'd be commenting and changing things all day long :P — Gares 09:19, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Hahaha, if I won the lottery I'd be doing the same but I'd probably be doing it from a beach somewhere tropical. Lojiin 09:29, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Formatting is darn important to me too. For some reason, it just irks me if just an article breaches the conventions adopted and I just have to fix it. :P --ab.er.rant 18:09, 14 February 2007 (PST)
While I appreciate that you feel this is important stuff Tetris, I don't particularly appreciate being told to stop discussing something where it's being discussed and instead cut everything I've said into various little bits due to your own whims as to what is important. Appreciate that people are discussing it at all, don't make it harder than it needs to be no matter how the Guilds discussion bothers you. --NieA7 13:43, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I don't mind the splitting at all. In fact, I should've done that from the start. :) Makes keeping track of discussions easier instead having consecutive paragraphs talking about different stuff. --ab.er.rant 18:09, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I've no problem with the discussion being in several places, what I don't like is how it was in one place before being arbitrarily stopped and cut up, potentially losing 4 people's responses (the questions were copied, not the replies). --NieA7 02:00, 15 February 2007 (PST)
Mmmyeah, it was necessary to split up, don't mind that. I had this page in my watchlist, which is a good habit anyway ^-^ --Erszebet 04:13, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Linking this on the Side navigation?

Seems like having the Formatting page on the side-navi would possibly benefit the adoptions of the standard styles, especially as this wiki is currently in development rather than open to the general public looking for a game guide. any thoughts? --Jamie (Talk Page) 10:30, 10 March 2007 (EST)

perhaps in the toolbox, don't know about the navigation -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 11:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)
I can see how my text was misleading but generally a panel of links is called a navigation or navi. --Jamie (Talk Page) 13:09, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Navicircle.jpg

...-FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 13:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)
lol, well said FireFox :P I don't think a link to the formatting section in the sidebar is particularly beneficial. It would just be taking up extra space IMO. LordBiro 13:58, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Formal guideline system

I've started a draft for a more formalized guideline system that could cover the process for accepting/changing these formatting guidelines. Please refer to Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines. --Rezyk 17:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Glossary

I want to get some clear definitions up for Category:Glossary. That category explains that words in the Glossary are terms used in the game. But that is not true. Some of the terms, especially the acronyms and slangs, are definitely not in-game terms. I would like to reorganise as follows:

  • Terminology - the parent category of the following three categories:
    • Game terms - terms officially used in the game. (rename Category:Game mechanics as well? Hmm...)
    • Abbreviations - for all the acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, etc. Some of these would seem to overlap with the next one though; but we can always specify both categories.
    • Slangs - for terms that are... well... slangs; coined terms like leetspeak, noob, pwn, imba, etc. Basically any term that's been adopted by the GW player community. We can call this "Community terms", "Player terms", or maybe "Glossary".
    • Wiki terms - not sure about this, but this is meant for terms and definitions coined by the wiki community to describe certain elements in the game that wasn't explicitly defined by ArenaNet.

Discuss. -- ab.er.rant sig 02:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go with "official terms" rather than "game terms" and "player jargon" or "unofficial terms" to cover both slang and wiki terms. -- Gordon Ecker 02:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I think I'd go for "In Game Terms" for "Game Terms". Abbreviations is fine, "Player Jargon" is a good alternative for "Slangs" (which isn't a word? Never heard a plural of slang before). I don't think we should have a "Wiki terms" category - we're documenting the game, not ourselves, we shouldn't be using anything that's not present in the game (officially or from players) anyway. --NieA7 06:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I like the sound of "In game terms" and "Abbreviations". I don't know how I feel about "slang" but "slangs" is not a word. LordBiro 06:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
There are also official terms not used in game (patch notes, game manuals and other official documentation). - BeXoR 07:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
"Slangs" is a word, it's (I checked) just not a noun, it's a verb. :P So "Category:Abbreviations" seems to have no opposition, so that should be settled. It's now "Category:Official terms" + "Category:Unofficial terms" versus "Category:Game terms" + "Category:Player jargon".
I think "Game terms" is better than official terms as it will also cover terms used in manuals and official websites but do not actually have an official definition for it. -- ab.er.rant sig 21:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I think Official terms and Unofficial terms sound much better. Game terms makes you think the term came from in the game, and we know many words arent ever mentioned in game. - BeXoR 00:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, as it stands:

  • Terminology - redirects to Glossary:
  • Glossary - articles categorized here should be switch to at least one of the following three categories:
    • Abbreviations - acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, etc.
    • Game mechanics - things about how the game works
    • Official terms - terms used in the game or in official lore and resources; include Category:Game mechanics as a subcategory? Hmm... or treat it as a separate category?
    • Unofficial terms - terms coined by the community (playerbase or wiki users) that has become generally understood and accepted

These are not mutually exclusive, except maybe between "Official terms" and "Unofficial terms". -- ab.er.rant sig 01:44, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Hard Mode and Guild Wars 2

These are going to have significant impacts on article formatting. Creature, NPC, Mission, Quest and explorable area articles can all potentially contain information that varies between Normal Mode and Hard Mode (type and level of monsters, skill sets, strategies etc.). I'm in favor of adding subheadings to any sections which information which varies by mode. We'll also eventually have to decide whether GW1 and GW2 info should be divided into separate categories (i.e. category:creasures (Guild Wars) and category:creatures (Guild Wars 2)), separate namespaces (i.e. GW1:Charr and GW2:Charr) or separate wikis (i.e. wiki.guildwars2.com), but that's at least a year away, and categorisation should be able to be handled largely by wiki bots, and the decision will likely be ANet's. -- Gordon Ecker 02:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

A hard mode section works for me. That is better than going for whole new articles in each case, particularly when there will still be a lot of shared information.
As to whether Guild Wars 2 information should go... I can see that much of the lore is going to be the same so a new wiki doesn't particularly make sense. But who knows, if they integrate it into the game perhaps they'd like a clean chop like that? --Aspectacle 05:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Sections for hard mode sounds good, providing it doesn't make the articles too unwieldy. I think that even though there'll be a lot of links between the two we'd probably be better off with separate wiki's for GW1 and 2 with a lot of cross-referencing, but ultimately it'll be up to ANet I guess (their toys after all). --NieA7 06:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Separate wikis for GW1 and GW2 might be a better idea. As for hard mode, it's just another section in the mission guide, similar to a bonus section. -- ab.er.rant sig 21:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Separate wikis would be a bad idea imo -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 17:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Yet another thing

⇒ Moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Article names#Yet another thing

Not as subpage?

Since most of the accepted policy articles are not actually subpages of Guild Wars Wiki:Policy, should we move all the sub formatting pages out of Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting? -- ab.er.rant sig 01:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

New design of this page

Centre aligned paragraphs look really unprofessional. Can we please not use this on the formatting and other recently redesigned pages? I'm not sure if this was decided anywhere... LordBiro 08:20, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree. - BeXoR 08:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree for the Formatting and Projects pages, but disagree on the other three. I just justified those two, they look a bit better now I think. The other three I think should remain center aligned. --Dirigible 19:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
That's fine, the other text is more like a sub-heading than it is a paragraph, so I can live with just chaning these 2, but I don't think justified is right, sorry. It just doesn't look very professional either (although it is better than being centred!)
I won't change it, and I'll see if people agree, but I do think left aligned looks better than justified. LordBiro 20:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
What exactly is "unprofessional" about avoiding jagged line ends? Comparison picture. --Dirigible 20:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
The spacing between words is increased. Hyphenation is used in printed media to keep the number of characters on a line fairly similar from one line to the next, so even when full justification is used the gap between words is never increased beyond a certain amount. This is impossible with current web technology, meaning the line is stretched as much as is needed. If there is a considerable gap at the end of the line then the words are just dragged out as necessary.
For an extreme example, without justification;

The longest word in the English language is commonly considered to be Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

With justification:

The longest word in the English language is commonly considered to be Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

In print the long word would be hyphenated so that it wouldn't look so ridiculous. That's why I think the use of justify is unprofessional. LordBiro 10:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
For that extreme example (as you correctly labeled it) I'd agree with you, but when looking at the concrete examples of the Formatting and Projects pages I don't think that applies; this wiki hasn't started documenting lung diseases yet, the words in those paragraphs are small enough to not present that problem. Here's Projects aligned to the left and justified, is there really any noticeable difference in the spacing? On the other hand, look at the Formatting page when it was aligned to the left, notice how everything there is in straight lines with the exception of the right side of those paragraphs, their jagged line-ends? Maybe it's just me, but that's visually distracting (bothersome). --Dirigible 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it was an extreme example, but even in your example above you can see that the other lines must have been stretched by the same width as the word "article". Perhaps I am in the minority but I can see that the gap between words on your justified examples differs from line to line, and I consider that more distracting than a raggy right margin, which is commonplace everywhere on the web, including Wikipedia (this is me playing the Wikipedia card, as you might say).
As I said from the beginning this is not a big deal. I think that both left justify and fully justify are better than centring paragraph text, but I personally think that, aside from certain situations, left justify is better than fully justify, and I think it's true in this case. LordBiro 17:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
You can't say you're in the minority, because there's been exactly as many people supporting left-aligned as there's been people supporting justified, one person on each side. So if you're in the minority, then I'm in the minority too, which leads to the question who exactly is in the majority? :P Come on, next person to read this, voice your opinion, left or justify. --Dirigible 17:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Lol, what I should have said was that I can't really imagine many people are as fussed about the gaps between words as I am ;) LordBiro 18:33, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry Dirigible. I'm gonna have to go with left aligned. Consistency ftw! - BeX 00:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Biro on this one. I find justified text with variable spacing between words to be MUCH more distracting than a ragged right edge. I strongly support left aligned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:49, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah, so now I'm in the minority around here. So be it. Help, I'm being oppressed! --Dirigible 01:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm a Mesmer, it's my specialty. :P - BeX 01:11, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
(Offtopic) Great Monthy Python stuff! And Bex, are you implying that King Arthur, son of Urthur Pendragon from the Castle of Camelot, King of the Britons, Defeater of the Saxons, Sovereign of all England was a Mesmer too? ;) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 06:18, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
I think he was a Me/W (I can't believe I forgot to post this!) - BeX 18:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Material formatting

... is included in Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Items, so there is no need for extra subpage for that. - MSorglos 04:08, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then it should be removed instead of a strikeout and Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Materials flagged for deletion. Done :) -- ab.er.rant sig 04:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Cool thing: sortable tables!

I'm not sure what the best place for this is, so I'm just putting it on the main formatting talk page for now. Check out Wikipedia:Human Poverty Index. Go to the table and click on the little dingbats next to the category names -- it's a sortable table! Cool, huh? All you need to do is add class="sortable wikitable" to any existing table that you made with the usual bracket-pipe/pipe-dash notation.

Unfortunately, a lot of tables people have been making use colspan and rowspan a lot, and this can mess things up (at the moment, there's an example of it sucking in User:130.58/sandbox). Still, it's a really cool thing that already built into Mediawiki, and I'd definitely consider using something like this for the longer, more complex tables -- being able to sort by different categories definitely improves usability for me. — 130.58 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've seen this used here already in the unique weapon and max weapon quick references :) It's a great feature. - Anja Anja Astor (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
This would be perfect for skill lists. They will never have rowspans, and this would allow sorting by energy, recharge, etc. MithranArkanere 04:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

I just created some new layouts for our Maintenance templates so the design looks more consistent. Please see User:Poke/sandbox and leave comments :) poke | talk 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I like 'em... some of the old ones were just plain fugly. --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Had to make all divs to tables to align text in the middle of the image (in single and multiline text) :( But now it looks better xD poke | talk 19:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I like them generally, but I would like to have some kind of visible difference between the normal delete template and the redbetter template, mainly because I do a lot of deletions and that would make the process a bit faster. The copyvio template has the extra large thing under it so that's nota problem, it's just the redbetter template. -- Gem (gem / talk) 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
They look great - you must have too much time :-) Hope I find more time to be in wiki more often now that my diploma is presented and I got it. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 20:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem, I actual have not so much time xD - I changed the icon for redbetter-deletions, so the difference should be more clear :) I'll wait up to tomorrow and if nobody is averse to these template designs I will install them. poke | talk 21:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
*happy* -- Gem (gem / talk) 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Great work! - BeX 04:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Woohoo! Nice work. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 05:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The icons are really nice. However, don't you think some background color would be good? Given that almost every article will be in white, I'm thinking some background color helps with making it stand out more. -- ab.er.rant sig 08:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I like it alot, but I agree with Aberrant. Some background, even a faint grey one, would be an improvement imo. To make them stand out a bit more. They are there to be noticed, anyway :) - anja talk (contribs) 10:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
First year design class: want someone to think you do good work? Paint it red. What is meant by that is that if the subtle message isn't getting through and you need to resort to garrish details, something is wrong with the fundamental design. Let's focus on that, then. I like the design. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't understand what you try to say xD poke | talk 16:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL. I'm trying to say that they look fine as they are IMO. If they aren't attracting enough attention, something's wrong with the message, not the delivery. I like 'em. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
For me, no special background color symbolises something that belongs to the article. And I don't mind if I fail at design, but I prefer a subtle change in background color over big bold letters :P Any other suggestion you have to make them stand out more, Thulsey? - anja talk (contribs) 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ah, ok - thanks xD Anyway I added three alternative colorations for background and border. In my opinion a red background is too bright. poke | talk 16:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, red is too bright, but I love the grey. - anja talk (contribs) 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Just added grey background with red border. My choose would be grey background + grey border or white background + red border. poke | talk 16:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I added a lightred background option which I prefer myself. A second option would be gray with a red border. -- Gem (gem / talk) 16:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
@Anja Astor: your user page is blissful. You don't fail at design. :P.
@Gem gray with the lightred border? Maybe? I like the red border as it's a more subtle 'standout' option, just thinking that white seems pre-dominant here so it's a suitable background, and pink is less 'alert' and more 'pay attention.' I'm being picky.
@poke: the cleanup one is particularly clever. Me likey. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, who wants to decide? ^^ poke | talk 17:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I can just decide it so we don't need to bother with this anymore. :P Seriously, I think we can get to an agreement quickly. -- Gem (gem / talk) 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I prefer full grey or full red (light red background) - anja talk (contribs) 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone against the lightred background with the red border? -- Gem (gem / talk) 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, changed it and going to implement ;) poke | talk 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Ugh ... to me, red means either critical or an error. PLEASE make changes some other color. The revision to Template:Move is just plain obnoxious in-your-face ugly - I can think of no other way to describe it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, barely 24 hours along now - to me, that's far too short to allow for adequate community input on this - I wouldn't be surprised if most people hadn't even been aware of this discussion yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we could keep white or grey for move, split and such templates. And templates that are more alarming, like delete, copyvio and redbetter could be red? - anja talk (contribs) 19:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion a wiki-wide identical style for template like this is much better. And even delete is not a "alarming" message. I think it's just a notification. So when red is not a good color, we should really better use grey. poke | talk 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, just a comment, as I said at User talk:Poke, I strongly support the idea of creating a consistent design - but I also have a strong aversion to using red for notices that aren't meant to be red-alert alarming in nature. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think a change with this high of visibility should be mentioned at Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_comment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's ok, I understand you ;) And as you can see it was not my own idea to use red (:P)
btw. "Also, the prior version was shorter (stole less of the screen space). The icon that was added is an okay addition, but seems too big for this purpose." (from Template talk:Move) - old size (on my screen) 1044x33, new size: 879x48. I don't think 15px more in height is such a big problem as the move box is not used that frequently (I would not speak here of "stealing"). I added the icons because split and merge used icons before and they were very useful but not really nice. So I created new ones and because of the constand-design idea I needed icons for the other templates as well :) And in my opinion it fits to the design we use in this wiki.
I will add this on Request for comments.. poke | talk 19:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The height is a much lesser concern to me than the color. I would prefer no taller than the original height, but I won't make a fuss if it's only a dozen or so taller - no idea if others might, but I won't :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
A deletion tag isn't alarming in nature? -- Gem (gem / talk) 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Better explanation: A deletion tag is the #1 thing someone should notice on a page that they visit. It's true that the red might not suit the other templates though, so why not have the others gray and delete tags red? -- Gem (gem / talk) 20:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict again) In my opinion a deletion tag is just a notice. If you visit a page marked for deletion there is no need to get alarmed, because it will just deleted. The only reason to get a kind of alarmed is when you are the author of this page but for any visitor it is just a notice that this page will be deleted. Also please keep in mind that the actual deletion template is not really alarming.. poke | talk 20:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The delete tag, to me, could be viewed as one of the few that could be in red - but templates such as move, split, merge, cleanup, etc should not be red. I'm indifferent on if all the templates have the same color or not, although I do like the consistent styling of other elements of the notices. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Poke's opinion makes sense to me, I agree based on that reasoning that the delete tag has no more reason to be red than any other of these templates. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Good :) So what do you think of the grey version (first here)? poke | talk 20:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My preference would be either gray, or a brown (such as what's on the current move template) - both look good to me. A white background has the opposite problem than red - while red is too much in your face, white is too easilly overlooked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the red examples and added a brown/orange one. poke | talk 20:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, of gray and brown I prefer brown. -- Gem (gem / talk) 20:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Both look good to me, either would be fine. But, I suggest waiting a couple more days for further input from the community. Someone else may have an aversion to one of these colors and could suggest another option that all may like. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Pink? Baby blue? ;P - anja talk (contribs) 20:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Pastel colors FTW! :) I like the gray version as it's probably different enough in value to set itself off from the rest of the white page, and the icons for the big alerts are already red, which is eye-grabbing enough in my opinion. That being said, the brown seems to me very similar to a system message rather than a tag on the page that an editor or viewer would need to pay attention to. I vote gray. :) I still think they all look quite nice. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 06:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Grey is fine for me, as it doesn't stand out too much (although personally, I wouldn't mind a slightly lighter grey). And to nitpick, I think the icons are a little too big. They don't go well with the font size. (And the delete icon needs some top margin :P) -- ab.er.rant sig 23:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I will make the delete icon a bit smaller so that there is a bit more padding ;) But I don't think the icons are too big. Most templates do have 2 lines of text besides the icon and that fits well. But I don't think it will look good if the icon has just the height of one text row (or 1.5).
- I just tried it with 35px height instead of 40px. It really fits better to two lines ;) I will change the icons tomorrow :) poke | talk 00:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I changed the icons and added a lighter grey. poke | talk 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I really like the latest light gray :) -- ab.er.rant sig 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Any other comments? poke | talk 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So as nobody says anything I assume that I am allowed to change the existing templates to the light-grey version...? poke | talk 17:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I say go for it... I love them :). Ale_Jrb (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, everything was replaced :) I hope everything works correctly. poke | talk 19:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice job, Poke. I love the new templates =] Indochine 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The new templates hurt the eyes of the fox >.> -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 01:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Skill trainers

Can't find anywhere that shows the official formatting for skill trainers. Anyways, my suggestion is to make all Skill Trainers pages look like Zhao Di's page. I think it looks alot better than Firstwatch Sergio for example because the skills aren't all cluttered and overlapping in Zhao Di but they are overlapping in Sergio.--§ Eloc § 03:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The NPC Formatting article doesn't really specify how they should look, just what should be included. By overlapping, I assume you mean that they are all on the same line separated by commas, where Zhao Di's page has them all on a separate line? Personally I agree with you and I prefer that each skill gets its own line, but whoa are those profession headers big. They've become visually more important than the skills. I think it can be made to look a little better. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 03:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well ya, I could just use the small icons by using {{Profession here}} then lower down the font size.--<font color="#000000">§</font> <font color="#ff0000">Eloc</font> §</font> 03:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, or just remove the 130% bold font. :P Another consideration: try {{profession|small}} and see how it looks. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 04:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it. It looks like it was me that made the original page, although I don't remember it. I dunno what I was thinking making the headings so huge.. - BeX 04:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but could we make all skill trainers have a box like that?--§ Eloc § 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as there is no example I'd say go ahead. I was thinking of making the formatting a little more similar to the armorer articles but my kb is filled with water and the on screen keyboard sucks. - BeX 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Ya, an on screen keyboard would be slow to type with...extremely slow.--§ Eloc § 18:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Like, it-took-me-three-days-to-reply slow. :P BeX, how were you thinking of changing the format? Anything I can help with? - Thulsey Zheng - talk 01:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Noooo! Make the Skill Trainers like Zhao Di, not liek Armorers.--§ Eloc § 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That is how I would like them to look now (go see) except that you are forced to use table formatting to do it. :( I'll try make a line break template that doesn't make it look retarded. - BeX 04:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok.--§ Eloc § 06:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've filled out the table for list of Factions skill trainers, all four trainer list articles are complete, which should anyone working on the individual trainer pages. -- Gordon Ecker 07:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Archive_1&oldid=2520035"