User talk:42/Archive2009-11-18

Searching help

You might want to bookmark Guild Wars Wiki:Categorical index it's a great additional search resource. -- Wyn talk 02:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If I keep this up, I will have one 1Tb hard drive filled with just reference links. :P 42 - talk 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I use poke's Guild Wars Wiki Tools, and then have made some adjustments so I can have a list of favorite wiki links as part of my Nav bar on the left. I find it handy. Or just create a user subpage of useful links. -- Wyn talk 16:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been perusing some of the other user main pages, and have figured out that sooner or later I am going to have a sectioned page, similar to others'. Just not sure how I want to do the layout yet. And for now, working on the other stuff is taking priority. Fourty Two 19:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Background

Please stop hard coding backgrounds on the infoboxes. The background is defined as white in the global .css file so it is unnecessary to add it to each infobox, and you are bloating the job queue. Each infobox is used on 1000+ pages, and every change you make to the template has to be translated to each of those pages. Thanks! -- Wyn talk 05:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, then none of the infoboxes I have seen showing the crossing lines through the infoboxes should have the lines showing through them. Besides which, as far as I knew, when someone opened a page, that was when it called for the infobox and populated it with that information/template/whatever. On many of the pages I have been looking at while playing, most of them that have lines which are displayed on them, when they cross underneath the infobox on that page, the line is showing through that box. The only way I knew of to solve that issue for sure was to force the background for each box type. 42 - talk 05:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, if you want to make changes that are going to have a mass effect on the wiki, you need to discuss them first. I'm not sure that poke has gotten the style set on every infobox yet, but that is the intention, which you would have been told had you bothered to ask first. These changes that you are making are having a HUGE impact on the job queue, and you are doing it without the information necessary to determine whether it is really necessary. -- Wyn talk 05:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And no, when you make a change to a template it translates across all pages that template is used on. The job queue (which is generally at 0) is now at 6000+ (From Mediawiki: By default, jobs are added when more than 500 pages need to be invalidated, one job per 500 operations.). -- Wyn talk 05:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It was my impression that the only time that template was "used" was when it was called for by someone viewing the affected page. I did not consider that changing, sorry, forcing, the background to hide the lines was that big an issue. This was expressed as a concern in a similar situation, I do not remember where, but I took it upon myself to make what I saw as a minor fix. This goes back to trying to help out the (I think it was you who said this) overloaded sysops by fixing an issue. If I knew there was a way to fix all of the infoboxes at once, and if it were allowed to be done by a regular user, I would have done that instead. It seems that every time I try to do something to help, it blows up (bringing the table help to the GWW, the editing of the table help, and now this). 42 - talk 05:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the issue is that I see something that I think either needs fixing (the case of the backgrounds) or something that I think would be helpful to others who might also be trying to help out (the metawiki table help) and I try to help out by fixing it. 42 - talk 05:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) And you still haven't learned to talk about your wide-spread changes and get input from anyone. Weird. -Auron 05:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you also offered to take on doing the boss table pages for all types of bosses. That is a job that would keep you busy AND would benefit the wiki overall. Instead, you jump from one project to another, and you don't discuss stuff before you do it. I do appreciate your enthusiasm to help, I just question the way you are going about doing it. Any change that's going to affect more than a page or two (especially widely used templates like infoboxes) should be discussed before undertaken. If you aren't sure where to start the discussion, Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal is always a safe bet. -- Wyn talk 05:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And it still makes no sense that, nevermind, I would probably be violating the personal attack policy if I said what I felt. Auron, I may be the only one who thinks this, or I might just be the only one saying it, but it seems that when someone is trying to help fix something, instead of the way you handle things, which seems to be figuratively treating them like they are idiots because they don't happen to know everything you do, you might try letting them know in a less abrasive way.

Wyn, I also try to fix things when I see them as an issue, because I am not sure that when I get done with one project, I will remember to fix (or check to see if someone else has done so already) that problem, especially something that appears to be minor like a cosmetic fix like this. 42 - talk 05:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It's very simple logic. Discuss if something affects a considerable part of the wiki. It's kind of hard to blame anyone being condescending to the "victim" when said "victim" is being obtuse. Pika Fan 05:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should discuss some of the things, before making changes that can 'harm' the wiki. Seal and I discussed the userboxes and had a 'consensus', before a lot of them ended up changed in the end. Suggest you do the same. 72.148.31.114 06:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My dear Ariyen, if you are using your IP to post something about you and some guy called seal, at least state your name so people don't have to guess who, where and why are you involved in the consensus. Pika Fan 06:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, if you want a specific example that the global css "white" background isn't working on the white backgrounds for the infoboxes, and to see what it is I am talking about, check out The Northlands for one of many examples, and if lines aren't underneath the infobox, resize the window until they are, and you will see them visible within the borders of the infobox. 42 - talk 01:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Could you post a pic about how you see the infobox, and how should it look? It may be browser related, since i don't really see something weird in there...--Fighterdoken 01:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My comp is pissed at me for some reason. Every time I try to do a screen capture, it kicks me in places I didn't even know I had. I am using Firefox (it does this under Internet Exploder as well). What is happening is the lines from section headings are showing through the underside of the infobox on pages. In the specific example I posted before, the line crosses underneath the "outside" of the box, then between the edge of the box, and the underneath the picture (if there is a picture there), then across to the other edge of the page. After forcing the specific template infobox background to white, those lines no longer showed through the affected infobox.

K, just rechecked, and now it isn't doing it in IE but it was earlier. Very strange. Either way, in Firefox it isn't doing the hide the lines behind the background thing. 42 - talk 02:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, uploaded two images at File:User Fighterdoken Infobox02.png and File:User Fighterdoken Infobox03.png. Edit with paint or anything what is what you see XD.--Fighterdoken 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Downloaded #2 to my comp, opened with paint, and all I could see was a mash of colors, mostly black. I will have to describe what it looks like. You can see where the "edit" tags are near the edge of the infobox, imagine that line underneath the edit continuing inside the box, but underneath the picture, then visible again on the other side of the picture to the edge of the page. 42 - talk 03:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Pika Fan, it is just as obtuse, maybe even more so, for people who have experience working with a particular system to assume that people who are new to that system are going to automatically know every little thing about it that the person who has been there for a long time will know. I am not trying to claim to be a victim here. This is simply a case of someone seeing something that appears to be a "cosmetic" issue, and tries to fix it with the intent to be helpful. It has been my experience in dealing with computers and programming that the chain of events would be that the system pulls that page someone is using, then pulls and codes that template (with the new format/background) at the time someone requests that page. I admit it, I should not have done that, and the particular chain of events isn't what happens in this system. However, assuming that a person is going to think that a long discussion needs to be had for what looks like a minor cosmetic fix is your way of being obtuse (dense also works) as well. 42 - talk 23:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"removing page linking to itself"

You don't need to do that. They are bolded automatically when visiting the page and won't get rendered as links. Instead it makes it possible to include the texts somewhere else without having to readd links. poke | talk 20:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

K 42 - talk 20:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you not read anything?

We DO NOT USE Title Case. We use Sentence case, EXCEPT where in game case is different. The animal names in the in game dialogue for Wynn are all in lower case in the game. -- Wyn talk 21:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proper English standard was to be used, from what I have read, if there is no specific spelling design or style from how the game spells something. Since I did not talk to the specific NPC with the available dialogue in front of me, I made a judgement call. Besides which, in sentence case, the first word is supposed to be capitalized, and in the names list of the animals, that qualifies as a new sentence. New line, new sentence.

BTW, I also moved the dire, elder, etc links to the first occurance of them in the article. I notated that in the body (in comment tag) of the article as well, for future reference. 42 - talk 21:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, more of a naming convention question. I think, to be more accurate, each of the pages that have a category meaning multiples of something, the page itself should really be tabbed as Category:Template for example, since each occurance on the page itself is ONE template. I personally don't have an issue with it being the way it is, but had I set up the convention from the beggining, I would have done it that way. Now, it would probably take too much work to go through all of the affected pages anyway. I am sure it would be doable with a bot, but not sure it matters that much. 42 - talk 21:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

First, as written in the reversion and also on the talk page, when citing in-game texts, we cite it; so we don't adjust capitalization or spelling errors.

Second, we don't categorize pages on what they use; we categorize pages on what they are. poke | talk 21:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "we categorize pages on what they are." I agree with that, and technically, they are a single template, or whatever. If you named multiple items of each thing on each page, then the use of the plural would be technically accurate. As I said, this was just a comment on something I observed, and something I would have done differently is all. 42 - talk 21:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"I did not talk to the specific NPC with the available dialogue in front of me" I did, both for the initial transcription, and to adjust the links you added, and you should have before you changed it all. -- Wyn talk 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't, as none of my many attempts today to log in to the game were successful. The system kept timing me out. 42 - talk 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, then you should have applied GWW:AGF and assumed that the changes I made were correct, since you were unable to confirm they weren't instead of changing them all back. -- Wyn talk 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
I looked through the EC highlights, and didn't see the changes you had made to the name tags. All I saw was the links to the dire and elder, etc links that I had made were highlighted, and I also saw that word had occured earlier in the article. On scrolling down in the edit area, I thought it was because of the EC that the name changes had been missed by me, didn't realise that it was because of something else still making changes to them. 42 - talk 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Location pages

Thanks for pitching in to help out - I've been steadily working away at these (and quests, and missions, and NPCs, …) but it's a slow process. One thing that you should be aware of though is GWW:LOCATIONS (and the other various formatting standards). In particular, it doesn't provide for a separate items section and suggests profession order for NPCs and foes. I've been steadily fixing non-compliant pages, so it would be ideal if we could standardize on that format. It's not that they're perfect, but at least they provide a common goal to shoot for, otherwise we'll be working at cross purposes. (Of course you can always start an RFC if you'd like to see changes; I really don't mind what the format is, so long as we all do the same thing.) --DryHumour 17:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On many of the pages I have seen, the shrines and other interactive objects have had their own sections, so I was trying to make them match them. Also, on alot of the pages I have been on, many things, the skills, and the NPCs, for example, have been alphabetized. That is all I was trying to do, was to keep them consistent with the others. 42 - talk 17:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but I've been doing exactly the opposite on the grounds that that's actually what the policy implies. Actually, I honestly don't mind about the format itself so long as we aren't working at cross purposes, so my proposal is that we stick to the existing policy (particularly since an RFC can be a bit of a pain). --DryHumour 17:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that the shrines qualify as interactive objects as well, and since they are given a seperate section, it made sense to have other interactive objects in the same area of the article. Sooner or later I will check out the page, and make a suggestion that they be given the same treatment as other interactive objects like the shrines statues. 42 - talk 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Also, if it is an RFC to correct something that is wrong, it might be a pain, but it is for the right reasons. One "policy" I am going to try to get changed is to have proper English formatting be followed, when not specifically worded or formatted to follow game specific wording. Apparent current policy on some page titles goes against proper English format of capitalization in regards to profession class titles.

Categorization

Hi 42, there is no reason to add pages to "parent" categories if it's already in a subcategory. So for example, Category:Serenity Temple NPCs is already a subcategory of Category:Prophecies NPCs so those pages don't also have to be in Category:Prophecies NPCs. -- Wyn talk 19:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The page wasn't showing up as a subcategory on the category page I was looking at. That is why I added it to that category. It is not clear to many people who happen to fall upon a page to see if the information they are looking for is under one of the 20 subpages to find the one they are trying to find. Helpful information isn't helpful if you can't find it. The point that "that information is already listed somewhere else" isn't a reasonable one, because as I have said before, if you can't find the information, it does no good. A page being listed with multiple links to it is more helpful than someone having to go hunting for it. It comes back to ease of use. 42 - talk 20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cluttering up the category tree isn't the solution. There is a fairly extensive categorization system in place, but it only works if people use it properly. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sit by and watch it get trashed after having put so much time and energy into it, so when I see someone making a mistake, I will point it out. I use the categories extensively. It is my alternative to the Search feature. I probably know the tree structure better than the great majority of the users here (not to sound "holier than thou" just stating a fact as I see it). I'm more than happy to discuss additions, options etc. but the basic structure needs to stay the way it is without up-ending the cart and rebuilding the wheel. -- Wyn talk 21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Then there needs to be a way to show the parent categories and sub sub categories on each category page as well, or at least parent categories on the affected article pages, because, as I said, and this still does apply, just because you know how this works does no good for the person who doesn't have the knowledge base you do. Assuming that they will automatically know "well, that is a sub category of this particular category" just because someone else with much more experience dealing with the system knows this is, sorry but, just asinine.

Let me give an example of what it is I mean. Let's say that a person who just recently bought the Factions campaign (their only game of GW) looks something up on the wiki, and they mistype what it is they are looking for. The page they happen to get to is a page from a Prophecies NPC (it doesn't much matter which one for the example). The categories showing up at the bottom (as it would currently be) has, say, Ascalon NPCs for the category listed. This category happens to be a sub category of Prophecies NPCs, but that doesn't show up on the article page.

The system knows this means that this page is, by extension, within the category of Prophecies NPCs. You, having the knowledge and experience dealing with the wiki for the time you have spent on it, would know this; as would someone who has played more than just that particular campaign of the game. That new player is not going to automatically know that, and to assume they should know this, or else effectively treat them like they are idiots for not knowing this is, in my opinion, ridiculous, and also disrespectful of those people. The parent categories being displayed on each page, in this example, would quickly let the person trying to make use of this information know that they are looking at information they didn't want. They don't necessarily have the knowledge to see all of this that you take for granted. 42 - talk 23:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
Wyn, and others, in case you (Wyn) are still looking at this page, I created two new templates and put them under the utility category, because I didn't know what area would be more appropriate for them. One is titled Elite, and one is titled Unique. The usage and purpose is on the pages themselves, but both are to put the respective tag next to the item it is flagging, and also to add that page to the respective categories (Category:NPCS with elite skill]] and [[Category:Drops unique]] automatically at the same time. 42 - talk 01:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Only problem is that you tell us about it after you've done these templates and began using them. And after i reminded you what you've been told before, as seen in a section below :/ - J.P.Talk 02:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's how categories work if people are still confused.... sub category is linked the bottom of the page. User clicks on the link and sees all pages in that subcategory, and at that times sees what the parent category is (linked on the bottom of the sub cat page). If user wishes to see everything in the parent category, they click on the link there, and should come to a page that shows sub category links and few pages. To put every page that is contained in each subcategory also into the parent category is just unnecessary, and also needlessly clutters up the category links on each page (which on some of these NPC pages are already in the double digits). I systematically remove pages from parent categories if they are already in appropriately linked sub categories, so once again, you are pitting yourself at cross purposes to the overall organizational work going on here.

Think of the categories like a filing cabinet. The parent category is a drawer in the cabinet. Each sub category a folder, and each page is a piece of paper in that folder. You aren't going to have loose pieces of paper in the drawer, you'd never find anything. (a very simple analogy). What you are saying is to place each page on each level of categorization, bloating the category links on each page beyond the point of usefulness. -- Wyn talk 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

JP, it was easier responding to this and the other posts at once. Read my response to this below. 42 - talk 02:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
Once again, Wyn, you are basing that on your experience level. A new user isn't necessarily going to know that, or see that, or think to look for that. That example is also going on the idea that the person is going to be forced to go through the filing cabinet labels end in an office to see if the page they want is in that section. Your example is more like someone is able to pull a page (blindly) from that entire huge filing area, and expecting that person to automatically know which cabinet (or in the case of a library, which section) that page came from.

A better example is that the wiki user pulls out a page (NPC page for example) and there is a string at the bottom that only ties that page to one specific file (which more than likely would have more than one page), and that file has a string that ties that file to one specific drawer (which more than likely has more than one file), and that drawer is one of many (that they cannot see how many other drawers there are) in that specific cabinet. And the only way that person will know what section (Campaign for this example) that specific page is in (and you presume that they even know how to do this) is to take the time to follow that string to the linking file, folder, drawer, cabinet, section, etc. etc.

There are no marks on that page that let the person looking at that page know what big section that page is from, the only link (string in my example) is to the specific file that particular ONE page came from. 42 - talk 02:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, I am not confused about how it works at all, as I think I have shown in my previous example. The problem is you seem to think that by that one link on the page, that a person looking at that page, who has little to no idea how the category system works, will automatically know what overall main heading that page came from, by looking (again if they know to) that one little link. 42 - talk 02:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is a balance between too many categories at the bottom and tree usability. About the only way I can think of to combine the two would be to have the categorization layers be on each category page. Like, Guild Hall NPCs -> The Battle Isles NPCs -> Core NPCs -> NPCs by location -> NPCs. So, it doesn't clog up each article which can have many, many category leaves, but still allows a quick look at how deep each leaf is. --JonTheMon 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's vital that people know what the main category may be just by looking at the page. If they want to find the parent category, then they simply follow the the links. It's really not that tough. I totally don't buy into the idea of putting some tree path on each page, and I don't believe it is always best to reduce the number of times a user has to click to find what they are looking for, especially when it has the potential to disrupt the organizational structure of the entire wiki. I mean, give me one practical reason that someone would need to know the parent category at a glance from a page, that wouldn't be just as well served by them following the category tree backwards from that page? -- Wyn talk 04:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "Your example is more like someone is able to pull a page (blindly) from that entire huge filing area, and expecting that person to automatically know which cabinet (or in the case of a library, which section) that page came from. " They already know where to start looking by following the category link at the bottom of the page. You are trying to make this into some case of a new user who has his head up his ass, and can't find the category at the bottom of the page is just doomed to never find the parent category.... Any user that has his head that far up his ass isn't going to be looking for the parent category. -- Wyn talk 04:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, as I said before, and you seem to be intentionally ignoring it, not everyone that uses this wiki is going to have the same skill level as you. Not everyone who uses this wiki is going to automatically know every little in and out of how to get around it. You keep thinking that anyone that makes use of the wiki as an information source is going to have the same skill level as someone who has been editing it or working on it from the first second they use it. That isn't always going to be the case. It isn't that they "have their head up their ass". You presume that they will automatically know every little thing. As I said, that is your perspective of things, and that isn't wrong, it just might not be right for someone else. If they are trying to find out some information about Factions, or Nightfall, and they can't easily tell they are looking at a Prophecies page, and, let me say it once again, 'DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET AROUND LIKE YOU DO and cannot easily tell that they are looking at a Prophecies page when they want a Nightfall page, what good is that page and that information doing them? None. They look down at the bottom of the page, and let's say that page category shows "Category: Droknar's Forge NPCs" for one example, that has nothing on there about it being in Prophecies, and if they aren't far enough in the game, there is nothing on that page to let them know that they are not looking at the Nightfall campaign they think they are, one way or the other.

You keep assuming that anyone that makes use of the wiki is just going to automatically have your skill level, and knowledge of how to make use of the category pages, just because they open the wiki. That is not fair to them, and it is also not realistic to expect that of everyone who makes use of the wiki. It also comes back to, if that category is a sub of a sub of a sub, how much work are you going to force them to go through to find the useful information they are looking for (that is assuming that they know how to do so in the first place), the whole time assuming that they "have their heads up their ass" just because they don't happen to have the same skill level as you do?

They are trying to find useful (to them) information, and making it harder on them means that the people this wiki is supposed to be there for, if they haven't already, will be more likely to try to figure out the game themselves, then to waste loads of time on a "help" page that isn't helpful because the people organizing it want to assume that the person who is using it automatically knows every little detail about it already. 42 - talk 04:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I may have missed something in the above WoT (Wall-o-Text), but don't most, if not all, NPCs have the campaign they can be found in listed in the NPC infobox? o_O --★KOKUOU★ 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was using that as one example. Not all pages have an infobox that gives the necessary information right out. My point is that Wyn seems to think that the wiki pages are only viewable from the standpoint of existing files that is used in an office or a library. How the wiki actually operates is that a person could (to use the library example) figuratively pull one page out of a book in that library and read the information on it, and possibly not have any idea what section that page is from, without having to go pull the book out, then find what shelf that book is on, then the section, etc.

Not everyone that uses the wiki is necessarily going to know how to do that from the beginning as Wyn seems to want to think.

BTW, when people refuse to see a point as seems to be the case here, a detailed example is sometimes the only way to get them to see the other side. 42 - talk 05:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, it appears things are not being explained clearly by me. I will try one more time.

"Think of the categories like a filing cabinet. The parent category is a drawer in the cabinet. Each sub category a folder, and each page is a piece of paper in that folder."
Wyn, that is how normal filing systems work. In that example, the person is starting from the outside of the filing system. As I have said before, but it seems to not be getting through, your view of this system is too much like an office filing system, and that is not how the wiki actually is.

"You aren't going to have loose pieces of paper in the drawer, you'd never find anything."
The wiki (and the entire internet) is a system where someone actually CAN pull loose pieces of paper out of anywhere inside the files. All that page would show is the category (not parent) that particular page is in.

"To put every page that is contained in each subcategory also into the parent category is just unnecessary"
"What you are saying is to place each page on each level of categorization, bloating the category links on each page beyond the point of usefulness."
No. What I am saying is that every parent category that a particular page is in should be shown on the page. The addition to the parent category as well as the sub category was the only way I knew of to make this happen. The category page section on each page is a minor thing, if it provides the usefulness (and the documentation you seem to think is the sole purpose of this wiki) that a category section is supposed to have.

" ... have the categorization layers be on each category page. Like, Guild Hall NPCs -> The Battle Isles NPCs -> Core NPCs -> NPCs by location -> NPCs."
Finally someone is seeing what it is I am trying for.

"You aren't going to have loose pieces of paper in the drawer, you'd never find anything."
That is exactly my point. That is how the wiki is now, to a larger extent than you are admitting, Wyn. In a regular book, any page you look at will be automatically identified what book it came from because it is actually in that book when you look at it. Imagine that you have one huge loose-leaf book. Within those loose-leaf books are dividers, one for whatever related subjects you want, lets say one each for Prophecies, Nightfall, Factions and Eye of the North, and sub-dividers, and so on (not tied to any specific page) for each section, NPCs, locations, guides, etc. While the pages are in that book, you can easily tell where each page belongs. Take all of those pages out and throw them in a huge pile in the middle of the room. Now imagine you are someone who doesn't have the experience level dealing with either the game or the wiki, and pick up one random page out of that pile and tell me what main section (Proph, NF, fac, etc.) that particular page came from, just by looking at the page. You couldn't, because other than the category (specific sub-sub-sub-section) that page is in, you cannot tell where it belongs. That is how the wiki actually operates, despite many people's repeated refusal to see this point.

"I use the categories extensively. It is my alternative to the Search feature."
I have no problem with that, but that is another one of my points. It is supposed to be a category. Just because you and many others use it as a search engine doesn't mean that it isn't still supposed to primarily function as a category (i.e. index in a regular book). Many people, if they are looking for information located in a book by using the index aren't going to not use it just because it shows other ways to find information in a method they don't use. In an index in a book, if someone is looking for something that is a subsection of another section, they can clearly see what higher level that info is a part of. In your filing cabinet example, they can tell where that page came from because they are standing in front of the drawer it came from.

"but the basic structure needs to stay the way it is without up-ending the cart and rebuilding the wheel."
It is not my intention to unnecessarily rebuild the wheel, but when that wheel is square, sometimes it needs to be rebuilt. 42 - talk 23:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You're sorta missing one aspect of my quote. I would only put that tree that you liked on the category pages, not the articles themselves. Putting it on the category pages leaves articles less cluttered. JonTheMon 23:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have serious issues with the idea that EVERY level of category, parent down to sub sub section should appear on the page. For some of the articles on this wiki, that would mean upwards of 30 category links on the page. This is what the category tree is for. If a person is starting on a page, it is very very simple to follow the category tree to the parent category. If they are starting at any level of the category tree, it's very very easy to follow it in either direction. Putting ALL those category links on pages not only would be confusing to many many people, it would also make that section of the page larger than some of the other text sections. It simply makes no sense at all. -- Wyn talk 23:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And you are missing my point, the idea is to let someone know what section the page came from more than just one specific chapter. Because of how Wyn thinks the wiki is organized, all the page itself shows is what chapter a certain page came from. Your example being on the category pages isn't a bad idea either. The addition to a page that it is on would add more to look at to each page, but it would eliminate any question where that page is from. It doesn't need to go up (if there are too many levels) all the way to the top, if there happens to be a sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-category. In fact, I think a better way to do it would be to have the category, the immediate parent category, and the TOP category that particular page is in. That would reduce the category real-estate needed to show where it came from. 42 - talk 23:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As for treating this like a book, no. Very few pages on this wiki are associated with only a single "chapter". So you would end up with multiple listings, this simply makes no sense to me in any way shape or form. -- Wyn talk 23:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

42, you're only gonna clutter up things if you group one page into multiple categories. That would be confusing to any user. It's a harm more than being helpful. Do you not see what you are doing? -- riyen ♥ 23:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
I see what it is that I am trying to do, it is a shame that you don't. I presume that it is because I am not explaining clearly.

If someone doesn't know what drawer they came from, and that is information that could let them know they are looking in the wrong drawer, why should they not be told that right off? Why should they have to work harder with a system they may not know, just because that is how other people have gotten used to the system?

"Better yet, you come up with the reason why this IS useful. Convince us. Give us an example of a practical application for this category that isn't already covered by something else in a more practical way."
Wyn, while this quote from you is from the discussion page on another useful and helpful thing I am trying to do, it also applies here. (And for the record, I have given many practical examples. I cannot be blamed if people refuse to see them.)

"I mean, give me one practical reason that someone would need to know the parent category at a glance from a page, that wouldn't be just as well served by them following the category tree backwards from that page?"
Once again, one (of many) practical reasons. A person just got the NF campaign, they look up something in the "help" link from within the game. They somehow end up looking at a page from Prophecies. They are not at the same skill level as you are with the filing system that the wiki uses. The reason that they would need to know that page they are looking at was from Prophecies (use any other example you want here) is that they are looking at a page that is doing them no good, and they will not know that because they might just think that page is from somewhere in the game they haven't gotten to yet. It has nothing to do with "well I would look it up this way or that way" or "they have their head up their ass". Someone who doesn't know your filing system possibly might like to know that they are looking in the wrong drawer of information before they spend more time looking all over for the information that they do want.

"This is what the category tree is for. If a person is starting on a page, it is very very simple to follow the category tree to the parent category."
Once again Wyn, it is very simple if that person knows the filing system in use. Each page could by nature of the information on it, "appear" in multiple books, or in the loose-leaf binder example, multiple sub-sections.

"Putting it on the category pages leaves articles less cluttered."
Putting it on the category pages and not the pages themselves just continues with the same problem that there is now. Someone looking at a page that they have no idea what drawer it came from.

I try to add some usefulness to the wiki, and get told that this wiki isn't about being useful, it is about documentation. I try to add something that helps with that documentation, and get told that isn't allowed. I wish people would stop thinking that their way is the only way to do things, and look at the actual usefulness factor, instead of just seeing "how is this useful to me". 42 - talk 03:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The only one that seems to have problems with the way it is now, is you. Again, I can't fathom why, the categorization tree is set up very logically, and is very simple to use. By keeping the category links at the bottom of each page to the minimum, we make it easiest to find the right place for people to start based on what information they are looking for, starting with the lowest common denominator. By adding a plethora of other, less relevant links, it will only server to confuse people. Maybe if you made an example page in your sandbox to demonstrate what you are trying to do, because if I am understanding what you want, it's just going to be a clusterfuck of links on the bottom of the article page. As for being "our" way, it's the way the entire community has decided on through 2+ years of discussion. -- Wyn talk 04:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"A person just got the NF campaign, they look up something in the "help" link from within the game. They somehow end up looking at a page from Prophecies." Unless they click off the page that will open, this can't happen, as all game links go directly to the associated page. So if someone with only NF opens the F10 menu and clicks on a link for one of the quests in their log, they will open to that quest page, not some random page from Prophecies. I really think you are inventing problems to fit your "solution" where no problems actually exist. Cluttering up the category tree, and the way categories are displayed on articles, will only server to confuse people. -- Wyn talk 04:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to laugh at this "A person just got the NF campaign, they look up something in the "help" link from within the game. They somehow end up looking at a page from Prophecies." There are characters from multiple campaigns with same names. It is noted and why I did try to split the pages, but ended up in a 'split no split' deal. I think all pages should be split to each campaign for less confusion and because so much is different. Some don't see that. I think whomever got that campaign, might not have seen the Nightfall campaign on that page as well, got confused, lost and didn't bother with it. I do think we need to clean up pages, but Categorizing pages with multiple categories to death isn't the answer. I don't see that as helping someone such as you described... I see it hurting more than anything, getting confused, etc.

I do believe thinking in "how this is useful for the community" would be better suited. I think that's how Many on here are thinking and you don't seem to realize that. That's how come there's so much that the rest of us can see as hurting, that you see as helpful. Wouldn't really want to run off people, but want to try to keep this place clean and handy and useful without too much, without over stepping the boundaries. If you had maintained many websites, etc. You'd understand this. It's not easy. It's not going to be. It's not about making things easy, but making things true to fit the game, while abiding by the policies and using the guidelines as help. While talking with others and collaborating with helpful ideas, etc. So much GW2 could learn from this too. I saw where you wrote there that the polices here are bad. Have you not see the help and good this has done? Are you blind to the truth and facts that if things weren't in place, it'd been worse off and in a state of catastrophy that not hardly many would use this site?

Most things I search for via Google that deals with guild wars. The one thing I am proud of is that this community, this website always shows up as number one, because of the good the people have done here. I just think though that maybe if you would use a sandbox (can be done) as a main point and test your theories on Categories, etc. prove us that way if it'd work and not be over loading on pages, etc. ridiculously. You might have some interest. It'd be better than Messing up a lot of categories and pages. -- riyen ♥ 04:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that up Ariyen. Not all people are members of that community I presume that you mean, and they seem to think that other people who just play the game, and do not make use of the wiki other than quick info checks here and there are not also who this wiki is for.

Wyn, if they come to a page first off that is from Prophecies, it can happen. If they use the search box, and mistype something, it can happen. I am presenting real-world examples of something that could happen, and should be taken care of beforehand. You also will probably argue, "well why hasn't it been brought up before now." More than likely because the person who might have had this problem didn't bother to say anything, they probably got pissed off and said "to hell with it" and left. I am not "inventing problems" to justify the solution. You seem to be ignoring realistic potential issues because they don't fit your side of this discussion.

Another side effect of the "2+ years of discussion" is apparently an extreme case of closemindedness. People think that the way things have been done is the only way to do so. No one else can have an idea, unless it is in-line with one that is already set in stone. In regards to the game information, I agree, that should be how it is. If it is in the game, then it should be here, accurately. Little to no leeway on that. However, I think that is also part of the issue; people get too close to things, they miss the possibility of another view point, another theory.

I said some of the policies were bad Ariyen, not all. Some have usefulness. For instance, the policy about NPA, and AGF. Those, or something similar, are something that I highly recommend be used on the new wiki. It doesn't have to be exactly what is here. I recommended that new policies be used on a new wiki. In the case of how AGF is done on here, it seems to be the case of presume something someone is trying to do is bad first, and have them prove it is something good to people who refuse to see any other view than their own.

I know (reasonably well) how to get around the wiki, and find the game information I need (most of the time). I do not have the mindset that my way to do this is the only way. Many of the other users on GWW appear to have that mindset judging by the posts they make. It is an attitude and a mindset like that that could cause problems on GW2W, and is causing problems on here.

"They already know where to start looking by following the category link at the bottom of the page. You are trying to make this into some case of a new user who has his head up his ass"

Once again, that is presuming they know the filing system being used, not all users will. And you are the one who is trying to make it a case of that. All I am trying to say is the way some people see things isn't the only way it is.

Auron, I have a quote in response to yours in another section, I don't actually believe it, but it seemed the thing to say at the time.

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

42 - talk 05:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW Wyn, how is it not relevant that a page with information about something in Prophecies or Nightfall or whatever, not have a tag saying that it is from that section? I would say that is very relevant. 42 - talk 05:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, to make things Simpler, as I have said. Just do what you're 'thinking' , what you feel would help. All in a sandbox, etc. via your userpages. Don't forget the previews too as they do help. But, maybe if you do that. Get Opinions. Then from all of those, see if it would be okay or not to do this 'stuff' to the actual pages. Save your self some Reverts or deletions that might be done on you. Also seek the community portal for advice (but follow what it says there first). -- riyen ♥ 05:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen, read my post below, using categories isn't allowed in the main sandbox, I would presume it is the same for user sandboxes. Either I would be violating accepted policy by using categories to prove something that has already been proven on pages too numerous to count, or I wouldn't be able to show what I meant by following policy. Since it has already been proven, I will take the choice of erring on the side of caution on this, and not put categories in my sandbox page. (Not intentionally anyway.) 42 - talk 06:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nnnnnnnnope, categories work fine on userspace sandboxes unless you make exceptions for it on templates or such. And as long as you don't "create" the category page (the categories still work without them) should be fine for testing purposes.--Fighterdoken 06:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Use User:42/Sandbox/Categorization as your example... create a page with the categories listed the way you would like to see them. -- Wyn talk 07:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)