User talk:42/Archive2009-11-22

Do you not remember anything?

Like what you were told about discussing about things? Though i'm not against this {{elite}} template. But that's not enough.Actually i am. This, and {{unique}} will just cause loads of unnecessary work.
And why the categories? - J.P.Talk 01:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Locations Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs is the way to go.--Fighterdoken 01:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Not NPC Formatting? --RIDDLE 01:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh...--Fighterdoken 01:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) AWB + autoedit ftw, could implement those very quickly. — Balistic 01:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

AWB?--Fighterdoken 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

aka Wikichu -- Wyn talk 02:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

JP, which category are you referring to? The utility template category, or the NPCs with elite skill category, or the Drops unique category? The Drops unique category was made along the same format as the other drops categories, the elite skill category was formatted the same way as other already existing NPC sub categories, and the utility category was because I couldn't find a better category that seemed to fit the reason for the template. Adding the templates to the pages isn't that big a deal, I will work on that myself for the boss pages I am working the lists on.

The alternative to have these pages added to each of the categories is to go through the affected pages and seperately add the respective categories by hand. This way is done like the existing flags, with the added benefit of having the category be added automatically. And Riddle, I did not have 5 hours of scrolling through page after page of template categories and subsections to find stuff.

JP, talking about it for months while people argue "it has no use" while basing that decision on it not being in use at the time is more than likely all that will happen. And in the end, a useful template doesn't get used. I added it to a few pages, not going to go through all of the pages affected right now. It seems that many people want to justify something not being done simply based on the reason that it isn't being done yet; instead of honestly approaching something new with an open mind, and seeing what actual use something might be. 42 - talk 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
Besides which, using these templates isn't changing any of the NPC page formatting, unless you consider it being added to another category a formatting change. 42 - talk 02:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is how you do it:

• Go to proper formatting talk page.
• Say "Hey, can we do xxxxx?".
• If answer is yes (or there is no answer in a certain amount of time) do the changes
• If answer is no, discuss.

This is how you don't do it:

• Make the changes.

When a change is not "trivial" and would require a lot of editing on different pages, is better to discuss it first, regardless of how much sense it makes.--Fighterdoken 02:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FD, as I said, this doesn't change any formatting of the pages, it doesn't make use of any categories not already in use beforehand, and it doesn't "require" a lot of editing, it can be done as people see them, or it could possibly be done by a bot whenever. It has the added benefit of making things easier, because people don't have to go through the added work of adding another category or categories to an existing page. Are you going to sit there and discuss each specific page to decide if it belongs in a certain category it isn't in yet as well?

And JP, this would actually make less work in the end, more so for the pages that would be being added to NPCs with elite skill category. A person would type in {{elite}} and the added typing of [[Category:NPCs with elite skill]] would be saved. The way it is now, the pages that don't have the category tag do not show up in a category they belong in. Someone would have to go through these pages and put that tag in by hand. How does using this template make more work again? 42 - talk 03:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FD, also, been reading the pages at the links you posted previously. There are many examples of people making changes to pages and then pointing those changes out on the discussion page. I did not do anything different than those people did. I changed a few pages (I believe 5 or 6) to include the new template(s), and posted on my discussion page, and on the template and related discussion pages themselves the idea behind them. 42 - talk 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr

For once, yes, it is a forced change on the current guideline. The current guideline says *{{Skill icon|Skill name}} ([[elite]]) and you are arbitrarily changing it to use the template and autocategorize instead. Visually it may be the same, but it is still a change that would require being done to all boss articles.

And no, changing it "as we find them" is not the right course of action for the sake of consistency. Besides, doing so would go against the reason you are trying to use for justifying the category (a half done category is worse than the current lists after all).

And to your last note, there is a difference between a minor required change, and a change done just because you want to. The fact that we are having this discussion should be proof enough that there is no concensus around it, and thus the change cannot pass (would have been reverted on previous cases).--Fighterdoken 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the examples I am talking about, I do not know if the change was reverted or not afterwards, my point was that the change was made before a discussion was had about the change. 42 - talk 04:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff. link? In any case, it could be cases of "we discussed this on Talk:Ursan_Blessing", which are quite common really.--Fighterdoken 04:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You were the one that posted the links FD, earlier in this topic discussion. Those links that you provided was where I got that information. 42 - talk 04:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ya, but a quick search on the historial of the pages didn't reveal any non-discussed or non-trivial change, so if you have an specific example contested changes being made anyways, it could be helpful.--Fighterdoken 05:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

FD, people arguing with no "facts" against a logical argument (that uses facts) "for" something would be helpful as well. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen any time soon.

I do not need to dig for historical evidence to prove my point when I have already done so. People's repeated refusal to see that point, while they keep saying they wouldn't find it useful doesn't invalidate my point. If it is properly documented or not, this is an appropriate identification, with a valid reasoning for it. I never had a question that everyone would find it useful, or make use of it. Not a doubt in my mind on that. I am also not trying to say that they would find it useful just because I say so.

Personally, I would like this to just be something seen on a mouse-over, so that people could click anything up the chain in the category directories. I am not sure if the technical function of the wiki can do that or not. The pages this change would be made on are already in that category by the nature of the information contained on them. 42 - talk 01:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No, is not technically possible.

Also, i take your unwillingess to provide the required information as evidence that you don't have, in fact, such information to back up your claims. As such, i still stand on my opinion that you are just trying to bypass community consensus and force your own personal opinon over the community.

Finnaly, i would like to ask from you to just stop for a couple weeks, get a better grasp of what THIS wiki is, how it works, and what intends to document. This case, together with the norn text template, makes me think that you are still lacking on the knowledge required to "change" things, and you are acting solely based on enthusiasm.--Fighterdoken 01:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Take my "unwillingness to provide the required information" that I have already provided (repeatedly) any way you want. In fact, the wiki also helps with that. Click the category link at the bottom of any categorized page, and follow that link up the chain, as Wyn is fond of recommending in response to many of my points. There. More documentation. You will more than likely, as many others have done, refuse to see it, again, and claim I didn't provide it, again. People refusing to accept or see it doesn't mean it hasn't been given.

Read closely the main page of THIS WIKI (right at the top of the page), "Welcome to the official Guild Wars Wiki, the comprehensive Guild Wars reference written and maintained by the players." (my emphasis). Might I recommend you look up comprehensive. I would say that I have a pretty good grasp of what this wiki is, and what it intends to document. Care to reconsider that I am acting "solely based on enthusiasm" yet? I will admit that the "how it works" part I apparently don't have a full handle on, because it seems to me that "how it works" is often in almost blatant opposition to that statement on the main page.

My attempt to thoroughly document applicable categories (this one, Category:NPCs with elite skill, Category:Drops unique), rejected, in apparent agreement with the main page statement, and in supposed opposition to "how it works." My attempt to get the Norn dialoge template in use, not totally rejected, but not accepted as well as it could be. If in use, would help document the game better. Again, apparently in agreement with the statement on the main page, still not sure if it is in opposition to "how it works." Is this "enough information to back up my claims?" Do you still think I am acting "solely based on enthusiasm?"

I provide the information that you claim I haven't time and time again and get told by people who cannot be bothered to read my "wall of text" that I haven't provided that information. All I have been given in "justification" of their point of view is that it is not consensus, or it supposedly violates guidelines.

• Guideline - "1. A non-specific rule or principle that provides direction to action or behaviour."
• Synonym - Rule of thumb - "A general guideline, rather than a strict rule."
• Oh, and that pesky little statement on the main page of this wiki, about a "comprehensive reference."

In fact, I have repeatedly presented my side with facts. I have not been given that same courtesy. I have seen very few (if any) facts to back up the other side, except for rare occasions such as your response that my idea for a mouse-over isn't possible (you still didn't really provide fact, just a statement). For example, claims that a guideline (that is being confused with policy, see the above definition of "guideline") has been violated is not a solid fact.

Your opinion is not any less valid because you hold it, nor because it is different than mine. I am not being given that same consideration. Because I hold an opinion that isn't shared by many others, my opinion is not valid.

Do you honestly think that when this wiki was started, that people just got it in their heads that they needed to discuss something endlessly before making an improvement? 42 - talk 03:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Just a friendly note to let you know that GWW and GW2W share the same user database... so anyone who has an account here, has the same account there. -- Wyn talk 04:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, but some people do not make use of the account on GW2W, and others might not be aware that that is also possible. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/User:42 Happy Friday the 13^th by the way. 42 - talk 04:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

They can learn the hard way (as I did) that their name is already there. Secondly, some may not want to make use of their 'account there. Some may not want to buy the game. Think more optimistic in that people aren't as dumb as you might think. -- riyen ♥ 04:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also not going to assume that everyone who might see this page just automatically knows everything either. It isn't because they are dumb, they might honestly just not know. This sounds like more of another example of people assuming that everyone else should know what they do already. They are not dumb for being that way, like others want to suggest. 42 - talk 04:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, most search up the bosses themselves or such and find out on the page, what campaign it is, etc. Not only to mention, they should know what boss they're looking up in their own campaign, what campaign it's from. I don't see the 'excess' that you do. I don't think people will 'wander' like you think, because most look for what they want and get it. If not, we do have help sections to direct in right directions. -- riyen ♥ 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to think how it would be from someone who just searches from the game help, and is looking for something quick. All of these examples that others are using assume that the person is going to have a working idea about how to operate in the wiki. That will not always be the case, and just because many of the people do know the wiki doesn't mean the people who don't have that knowledge should be ignored. The better a job the people who maintain the wiki do, the easier it is to use for the person who needs the information to look it up. As I have tried to explain to Wyn many times, "helpful" information that you can't find is not helpful, and the more you make someone work to find it, and assume they will know every little thing automatically, the less likely they will be to try to keep working at finding it. I am already seeing a lot of that attitude popping up on GW2W, and there isn't even any in-game content there yet. 42 - talk 05:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because that attitude pops up there, doesn't mean it pops up here. I haven't seen those problems here and I do believe that is because we DO have a good working system. (Have you not looked at the lists that says Main Page, etc?) -- riyen ♥ 06:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The pages aren't designed so that you can find things if you know your way around the wiki - they're designed so you can find things if you're not an idiot. Stop being bad. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 07:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen, see the discussion pages on [[:Category:Unique]]Category:Drops unique and Category:NPCs with elite skill for some most recent examples of people seeming to think that their way is the only way to do things.

People think that just because that is they use something, then someone else who might not do that the same way is using it wrong. That is not the only place but it is the one I can put my mind to right this second. That is one example of those people who are used to the wiki assuming that everyone will know how the system works. All I am asking is take into consideration that this wiki is supposed to be a reference, (as Wyn has said before, to document the game). As that, it is supposed to be an information source tied to the help button in the game, but also able to be a stand-alone (to some extent) resource. Many of the people who play, in my experience, would like to play more than be forced, because of a limited number of references, to spend a lot of time looking through a complex system of information.

No one on here besides me (or at least very few it seems) are considering this. They are also not just instantly necessarily know how the wiki system works. It has nothing to do with people "having their head up their ass" (Wyn) or them being an idiot (Armond). It has to do with a very simple point that not everyone is going to look up information they want the same. My example before, someone with a brand new NF campaign tries looking up something, somehow gets to be looking at the page for Droknar's Forge, if they are not that far in the game, they are not going to know they are looking at a Prophecies campaign page unless it says it on the bottom. DF actually does, but one of the location pages I was looking at was a Proph one, but didn't have it on the categories section. My point was the individual using the resource wasn't automatically going to know they didn't need that info. This wiki, in spite of what Wyn seems to think, actually is here to be a helpful resource to the people who make use of it in the game. It is to "document" the game, yes, but if someone can't find that information because they don't happen to know the system, it isn't very helpful. The button from the game is described as the "help" button for a reason.

Despite my repeated attempts to point out this fact, many people still seem to think that their way of doing things is the only way and/or if someone doesn't know the system then they are stupid (implied), and many try to claim it is me that is saying that of those people who just don't know. My intention is to make this wiki a better place by making it a more useful resource for the people who make use of it (It is for the help from the game, and the people who edit it and know it 'aren't the only ones who are going to use it.) 42 - talk 17:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the specifics of 42's editing plans, but the feedback to his projects and the comments left here seem unabashedly uncivil, which is a terrible way to welcome new users, especially ones who care about the wiki and are willing to -- as he has done -- put in tons of tedious work to achieve them. Update them on wiki policy, but DON'T get dogmatic with "the way the wiki has been done", because it was just designed by users like 42 and yourselves and is fallible, nor rude and rejective of edits so clearly made with good intentions. Thanks for reading my two cents if you bothered to. | 72 {U|T|C} 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Who made that last post? (looks around for +30 signature :P ). Thank you 72, for seeing what I am trying to say. Not saying that everyone is the same is all. My many attempted improvements have almost all come to the same fate. I even had someone try to say that initials and words were the same (on a userbox I made). 42 - talk 17:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I stopped reading when you said it was hard to find out that droks is in proph. It says so in the infobox on the right. It's the first line after the picture. And guess what? That's standard. Pick a town, any town. It'll say that, and it's easier to see than a category (especially at the rate you're going, where every page will have 20+ categories).

Just to test this theory, I hit the random page button for a while. When I didn't get a disambig page, an anet employee page, or something like that, there was always an infobox containing relevant information (profession, skill type, campaign, etc). If someone can't see that infobox, a huge list of categories at the bottom of the page - under a horizontal rule, no less, which stops the eye just as much as the borders of the infobox does - isn't going to help them. (Especially as, by your own argument, if they're new to wikis, they might not know what a category is.)

You adding categories everywhere does nothing but make the categories on a given page harder to interpret and make it easier to reference various pages. That is the point of a category - to have a list of similar pages that a wiki-goer can use to check for consistency, etc. It's not a way to show basic information about a specific page - that's what infoboxes and the like are for.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

All that assumes, of course, that you don't actually read the page. All the mentioned information is also available from skimming the page.

Remember what they say: if everyone around you is crazy, perhaps it's you that's the crazy one.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw your links. One of them is a dead link. The other, I agree with the others. You may not. You must remember that discussions decide if it's the 'best' course of action for many, not just what one thinks. Also I do agree with the deletion of the category still left. ""gonna be an overly large category, just seems not that useful"" IT is going to be more of a headache and really you have not proven a point as to how it'd 'help' those you think are going to be as stubborn to go into the categories first and be all over the 'place' not finding the needed information. Let me define something for you. Templates are only used for the Majority like Npc Boxes and user boxes, not something simple as {{unique}} and {{elite}} where people could do [[elite]] and [[unique]] just as easy and can 'See' this on so many mission, quest, bosses pages, etc. it's unreal. Categories are used to keep current pages in their own sections, see the missions pages and quest pages for examples. There's no need to create added 'buffer' like other categories to place items in that don't really necessarily need it. I can see one created if several pages already link there, but it wouldn't make sense to create one to add so many pages to it. Not necessary. Just think, your actions could cause problems instead of actually being a help. Got to think of how you could actually be a help. Ask, get responses on things, before doing some Major work. -- riyen ♥ 19:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Armond, that was meant as one general example, not necessarily the best one, but I was not going to take hours to find a more appropriate one. You say that it is to group similar pages. Aren't all the pages that have certain info for Prophecies similar, being that they are all talking about Prophecies information? Some of them are on pages that are about henchmen in a certain town, some of them are on pages about quests you can only get in a certain town, but they are all pages about information in Prophecies.

I am not trying to "add categories everywhere", I am trying to show categories that are applicable. A page that is in category X which happens to be a sub category of W and all the way back means that that page, by extension, is also in category A. All I am suggesting is that the page be tagged with category X, category W, and the next highest distinguishing category it is in. In the case of the game, that would be Prophecies, or NF, etc. I did not know how to get that get it to do that, other than adding the page by hand. So instead of taking a horrendous amount of time to find out (which I might never have found if it was something only a sysop could do), I was using that time trying to make the wiki more useful to more people.

K, once and for all.

• I am not saying that the potential users of this wiki are idiots.
• I am not saying that they have their heads up their asses.
• I am not trying to add categories everywhere.
• I do not think that the way I do something is the only way to do something, and anyone else who does it differently is wrong because they don't do it my way.
• What I AM trying to do is to help the wiki be better by giving the people who use it more ability to find what they are looking for in a possibly easier way.
• What I keep getting back is a basic "well, this doesn't look useful to me" or "well I don't do it this way", so by result of both (and more arguments) of these, "that isn't useful to anyone else, because they should look up things the way I do"

I try to use general examples to show an idea, and have people point to it and say "well this specific example isn't how you said," instead of them looking at the concept. I even try the concepts, and people still pull the "well this part doesn't fit so the whole idea must be wrong." 42 - talk 04:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if all these people (who, by the way, "use the wiki") are saying it doesn't look useful to them, then the possibility of your categorization schemes providing an easier way for people to find what they are looking for is rather slim. You could of course argue that the only people who have been involved are the "veterans" so to speak, and they don't represent "everyone". But in such case would it not be more productive to request community involvement in these discussions, rather than bashing heads repeatedly with people who are dead-set against your ideas? Since that does not seem to be productive for anyone. Vili 点 04:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, explain all you want, but do your Category suggestions, etc. Do it all in a sandbox and see if it works. Also if you're not saying that wiki users aka potential wiki users are idiots, please don't try to imply that again.

Secondly, If it works and you can provide the evidence, aka your sandbox (or whatever you name it all as), then talk with people and get their oppinions or ask the community for their advice. Community makes up all kinds of people. I am not a veteran, nor one of those on here that deem it their way, but I do try to look at things in more than one way. But does it hurt to try out your thoughts in your play area, before doing any 'damage' that you 'might' cause? -- riyen ♥ 05:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not need to plug a light into a wall to see if it the outlet works if the TV plugged into the other side of the outlet is on.

The categories already show up on the bottom of the page. And I have already seen many of the pages in campaigns have the campaign category showing on the bottom. As far as having multiple category links showing on the bottom, people would refuse to see the usefulness of it in my sandbox or anywhere, as many have already proven by their statements.

Any "damage" done is minimal and very easy to fix, as I have made a minor change to a small number of pages to show the concept. Not only that, the "testing" has already been done over and over on other pages.

All I said was that people might not know. Other people took that to mean that I said those people are idiots. 42 - talk 06:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just checked to make sure, and it says on the sandbox to not add categories. I would presume it would be the same for user pages, even if they were a sandbox page. So doing so would be against the guidelines if I did, and useless if I followed policy. 42 - talk 06:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to find a specific example to prove your point. And if it takes you hours to find one, maybe you should just fix that example instead of trying to change every other page on wiki. I spent half an hour hitting the random page button and didn't find anything at all like what you were saying.

Also, yes, if they can't find their way around an easy-to-navigate wiki, they must be dumb. Either way, no amount of "help" we give them will be useful. So, in essence, you're saying "I want to help the dumb people in ways that won't do anything except cause clutter and headaches - and by the way I want to ignore consensus, which is what the wiki is founded upon." You should stop that.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 09:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for once again showing what I mean Armond; the attitude that just because it is easy for you, it must be easy for everyone. Oh, and "if they want to look up different information than me, or maybe look it up a different way than I do, then they shouldn't be able to because I don't want to."

I am not going to guess how long you have been using a wiki, because it doesn't really matter. Obviously, you apparently knew every little thing about how to operate in it from the second you started using one. Bull! And yet, you still have that attitude.

When so many people's response is to have attitudes like that and use lame excuses like "that is consensus" or "that is how it has been done, and that is how it should be done from now on", then people need to step back and take a hard look at things. 42 - talk 03:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

From a neutral third party who often argues that things need to be simpler, your changes are ridiculous and, for the most part, useless. You would realize this, except you're too busy telling everyone that they're wrong and you're the only person who knows how anything works. Just stop, the whole act is old and overused. -Auron 03:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course I didn't know everything immediately - but I knew enough to ask or to figure it out on my own. It wasn't hard. Also, the superemphasis is super-annoying. :/ -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It was never a question that the changes may not be useful to a portion of the people who make use of the wiki all the time. I never claimed to be "the only person who knows how anything works." I am not telling everyone they are wrong, I am saying that their way isn't the only way to look at things. Try to learn the difference, Auron. I can get into enough situations without someone else trying to put words in my mouth. You are right on one thing, the whole act (insisting that the way many people do things should be the only way anyone else should want to do it) is old and overused. Somehow that doesn't stop people. Armond, if it bothers you that much, feel free to not read my talk page, and scroll right by any posts I make. I will try to not be too bothered by it. 42 - talk 08:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only one annoyed by your emphasis. Also, we're not actually insisting that there should be only one way to use the wiki (although I'm pretty sure that's how wikis are - there's only so many ways available to organize things); we're insisting that your ideas will clutter the wiki far more than they'll help. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 15:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The annoyance factor comes more from people who refuse to see that their way might not be the only way to do or see things. By insisting that these changes (which are not any different than many other categories already in use for years, with no adverse affects to the wiki, BTW) which are not "useless" nor "far more clutter" than any of these other examples (see Aberrant's post on Category talk:NPCs with elite skill) are in some way harmful is a ridiculous point to try to justify. To say they are clutter, if this was the only category like it, could be a valid point. Once again, check Aberrant's post. There is no problem with those categories being there. As I said on the other discussion page, I do not get it in my head that the way that I look things up is the only way to do things. I am not saying that everyone against these improvements is saying that, but it is the larger number of opponents to this improvement that are.

By insisting that this new way to look up information shouldn't be allowed, by extension, you actually are insisting that there should be (not specifically one, but) a limited number of ways to use the wiki. 42 - talk 02:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, Armond, if this wiki were constantly being changed in information, and/or constantly being changed in layout and purpose, then your argument for this being "clutter"ing might almost be a valid point. As it stands, the wiki is pretty much sorted out how it is in regards to the information. This is not going to affect any of the information contained on the pages other than adding another relevant category to the page. if it is only done on mouse overs, that is fine, if it is technically possible within the limits of the wiki. I do not know myself if that is possible or not, being more used to programming languages from a while ago, and not how the wiki does things. 42 - talk 02:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can get all categories to default to not show on a page (without having an annoying button like wikia does), I'll stop caring and leave it to other people to say how all these categories are dumb. As it is, the categories' very existence is imo cluttersome and more is always worse. Also, I addressed ab's point - besides, using useless categories to defend making more useless categories doesn't seem like a very good argument to me.

Reading comprehension is good - when I was talking about being annoyed, I was talking about how you seem to insist on emphasizing random unimportant words with bold and italics, not yadda yadda im a martyr for making wiki ez to use.

By the way, who cares if there's only one way to find things, so long as it's easy to use? Not that that would ever be the case, but just theoretically...

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You responded to it, you didn't "address" it. Useless to you doesn't mean useless. Again, that is how "you" want it, not necessarily how everyone else wants it. I am not going to sit there and tell you that you are wrong for thinking that, like you and many others want to do.

BTW, if they were "random" they wouldn't be emphasized. There is a reason (of the author) to emphasize those words, it is to draw attention to them. If you can't see the relevance, I don't know how else to explain it. You don't think I should get annoyed with people refusing to see logic and facts when it stares them in the face? Actually, and this is kind of surprising even to myself, I'm not that annoyed about it. A category is like an index in a book, despite many people's attempts to claim otherwise. Not one person has proven in one small way how this isn't the case. They have made points why they think it shouldn't be done, but very few are a legitimately backable one. If you want to see my proof how the category thing is like a book index, check out the talk pages on the categories I am trying to get going. If you don't know where they are, Category talk:NPCs with elite skill and Category talk:Drops unique.

Once again, in the same case as the "uselessness" of something, easy for you, OK. If this wiki was just for you, and me, and the people who work on it all the time alone, I wouldn't be addressing this issue (or attempting to anyway). The idea behind this wiki is documentation (to me is helpfulness) . I have proven time and time again how this addition or adjustment would qualify for both, and yet somehow, people still refuse to see it because "it isn't helpful to them." It is a valid helpfulness point, and it IS a valid documentation point. Personally I wish I could say that everyone who would ever make use of this knew every little thing about it already, because then we could get down to adding more features to it.

For example, I am basically wasting time fighting for something that should be a non-issue and should (as I said, unless there is an actual technical issue preventing it) have been done by now, instead of working on another project that I started, boss tables (which many people have also argued against), or working on a template that is kicking my ass to standardize some of the dialogue sections in a lot of the NPC pages. 42 - talk 06:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop for now...

...until the template is finalized and full approval is given (or at least run by the community). --JonTheMon 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in the process of going through for research to see if there are any other "standards" that need to be included in either of the templates, and all I have found is that there is no standard other than a lesser version (on very few) than the layout my main template now has. It looks like Ragnar is the only one with that information on the NPC page. Not saying it is the only one that way in game, but only one I have seen so far.

While we would have to see if each specific norn merchant type also used the init dialogue template, if they do, then this could be added to further simplify the standardization of the pages. Other people have been working on this, I still don't get why it is such a problem when I do it. 42 - talk 20:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I reverted the merchant ones was, even though I'm not in-game, they were in a town. So, it's clearly obvious you wouldn't fight them. --JonTheMon 20:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Again, the problem is that you just rush and do it on mainspace from the begining, instead of sandboxing your way out.

On the template itself, while i would have supported this when EotN came out, it's kinda useless now since all pages should (didn't check) have already the info in place. And since the chance of the text being changed is slim, templating it is just a lot of work for zero overall gain.

Now, if the pages don't have the text, having the template there so it can be subst'ed would be actually helpful.--Fighterdoken 21:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Certain testing could not be done from within a sandbox, that was why it was moved. No other reason. I already did testing in sand box, check User:42/Sandbox/NornNHPDialogue and User:42/Sandbox/NornInitDialogue. I have checked, and now have been through the better part of half of the Norn pages. There are many with no dialogue, and many more with one minimal line of dialogue. This template is to address that issue. Check them out and see if the typically lame excuse of "zero overall gain" applies here. If the work on this template is not done, then many people will waste a lot more work going through each of these pages to hand format everything in there (which many have already done, and it still is not done).

Each Norn has a different text specific to them (in regards to the ones in explorable areas) and otherwise the format in the dialogue is exactly the same. It is not "alot of work for zero overall gain", it is a lot of work, on that part you are correct. But the whole idea behind a template is to standardize the layout, the information being presented. You don't see people arguing against the use of infoboxes.

Instead of just saying "this isn't worth the work", try looking at the intended usage, and try making suggestions to improve it. Too many people, it seems, tend to look at only "how is this useful to me" instead of asking "is there a way this could be improved to be helpful to more people." 42 - talk 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want people to start hearing you, you need to learn to condense your ideas.

There are many with no dialogue, and many more with one minimal line of dialogue. This template is to address that issue. Is a pretty good argument, but if you hide it on a wall of text, people will miss it.

Snce that condition is meet, the template could be useful actually, if not for being used directly on the pages, at least for being subst'ed in them.--Fighterdoken 21:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not totally against this idea, just want to make sure it's good before getting put out there. And like Fighterdoken said, it could be used as a subst template, to permanently place the text there. --JonTheMon 21:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FD, If I have many points to prove, I do so in the way I do. I am not like everyone else, nor do I expect everyone to be like me. However, I DO ask for the same respect that I give others, to listen to their ideas even if I don't always make use of them.

Straight substitution wouldn't work, as each NPC has their own specific text. This is actually has another template in it, that does that.

Jon, I guessed that since you suggested an improvement to it, instead of the usual attitude many people show of "delete it because I don't see the sense." 42 - talk 21:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line. You cannot simply take matters into your own hands and change everything just because you decide it is the better way. This is why GWW:FORMAT exists. You need to discuss things with people. de Kooning 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

De Kooning, check the formatting guideline you claim I am violating. The NPC formatting says that dialogue should be in there, by specific campaign, etc. It says nothing about doing this. Try another argument, that one is bull. Besides, I am following the overall idea that this wiki represents the game. This does it more accurately to the game than many of the "standards" in use, when they actually are in use. The format might not be the best, but try suggesting "well this could be done this way," instead of trying to use an argument that has no base.

This is also why GWW:BOLD exists. If we took your attitude as you seem to intend it Kooning, only a limited number of people would be allowed to make changes, and this wiki would probably get done by the time everyone was done playing GuildWars 10. 42 - talk 21:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You are aware that you can use parameters in a substitution? So, it would end up with the formatting you want, and (like other offer pages), the offer dialogue template would be called with the right parameters (assuming you had the correct ones when you subst). --JonTheMon 21:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And bollocks, could you try a little harder to keep the indents right? It gets a bit confusing/have to pay attention to where the text for each person ends. --JonTheMon 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about using your template. Also, GWW:BOLD is a proposal. de Kooning 21:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I am aware of the concept of parameters. If you look at the edit page of the template, you will see I make use of that Jon. My problem (this line really should be back on the template talk page) is how to pass the parameter to the sub template from within, and get the subtemplate to do certain things based on if that information is present, otherwise, default to something set. The question is, this might change more than what the template displays for text, it could possible change the end result layout.

I have seen some table templates that have multiple "parameters" being passed to them, and I will check them for ideas. After I get done with the research. I am into S now and it seems that Ragnvald is the only one with that particular brand of dialogue section. It would be very helpful, Jon, if you could interact with other Norn in the way that Ragnvald seems to have been done, to let me know if this is the same with them as well. Also, check and see if this is how collectors in explorable areas do it.

As far as the indents, this is how I have seen many dialogue sections be indented, it is harder because usually the character text is presented first, that would be one indent, the NPC is usually two, and any other text is indented according to where in the dialogue line it falls. This was an attempt to keep it standard to that form.

De Kooning, it doesn't say anything about NOT using a template either. What is it you think templates are for? To standardize a specific portion of text. A template to make sure that everything is done the same. The infobox uses different specific information on each page they are used on. As does this template. You have no problem with the infobox templates, do you? Stop making up excuses to try to argue against this. If you are going to argue against it, at least have the courtesy to have a valid point, then make it. 42 - talk 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, infobox is in there. So, I have no problem with it. de Kooning 22:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And let me guess, you would have been arguing against infoboxes if they weren't in there. Try another line. You think all of the templates had all of the bugs worked out from the beginning? 42 - talk 22:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides, how do you think ideas for changes and those guidelines came about, it was from people looking at something and trying to come up with ways to improve it.

Read Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines#Role of Guidelines as well in case there is any confusion. Also look up the definition of guideline while you're at it. That is all that is, is a guideline, not "this is how it is done, PERIOD!". That is what policy is for. Learn the difference. 42 - talk 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I would suggest retaining the speaker names, to make it more clear to whom the piece of dialogue belongs, independent of presentation (indentation, font, formatting, etc.). WRT to sub-templates, keep in mind the difficulty of passing optional named parameters to them. When I originally wrote {{Offer dialog}}, I did consider using explicit flags to indicate that an option (accept, decline, ask) should be present without any text. Unfortunately I settled on using the presence/absence of the parameter to make the decision. Bad idea, in hindsight. I've put together an improved, but backward compatible version on User:DryHumour/Sandbox/Offer dialogue. FWIW, I also don't have any strong feeling if this is a worthwhile enterprise, but I suspect it's no more or less suitable for inclusion than the quest texts. One thing though: at least in the short term I would recommend against {{subst}} — there is a certain inevitability to requests for format changes (like indents ) so it is convenient to need to change them only in one place. (That being said, I don't have any way of estimating the server load; I presume it will be very low for seldom accessed pages like these.) Plus if they ever need weeding out, there's always "What links here". Finally, I would recommend sticking to a sandbox until consensus is reached (which can take quite some time). Fortunately there is very little testing which cannot reasonably be done in a sandbox --DryHumour 22:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, 42, I was kinda talking about your indents on talk pages. Often times it seems that your first paragraph of text isn't indented the same as 2nd, 3rd, etc. For dealing with optional parameters, I'd check out Parser functions and Help:Templates. --JonTheMon 22:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. That was my fault: I misunderstood what you meant, Jon. --DryHumour 22:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The difficulty with optional named parameters is that there is no simple way to preserve the notion of "not present"; either the sub-template call must explicitly include the parameter, or must omit it. The "obvious" ways of bypassing this are unfortunately rendered ineffective by the fact that the equal sign in not reparsed if it occurs in a braced context (e.g. a template, function, or extension call). (See, for example, Passing parameters to a subtemplate.) --DryHumour 22:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) 2 times

De Kooning, also read "Please note that these guides are meant to be a help, and shall be seen as a recommendation rather than strict law restricting creativity. If in any case the standardized formatting doesn't fit the purpose, you are free to modify it. Also, if you think that a formatting is generally lacking in any respect, question it! You are always invited and encouraged to suggest improvements on the respective talk page." from the formatting page.

Dry, the problem is, waiting for making a legitimate improvement based just that people either do not see, or refuse to see, that they are arguing against the purpose of the wiki in many instances (this being one of them). This formats the dialogue in one specific way that is in accordance with the ideal to accurately represent the game information. The discussion pages are filled with people discussing that "something needs to be standardized", this is something that can do that.

The indentation is a minor point, and if people are using that as an excuse for not using a template that helps keep formatting standard, they need to find a new argument. There are certain tests and ideas that cannot be properly tested (and solutions developed for them) without "real-world" testing. The impact of this testing while the template is fleshed out is minimal, and the benefit is this allows more people to see it "in action".

BTW, I try to keep the indenting of my comments the same for the entire post. I don't always succeed. 42 - talk 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x7) I would guess there are more easy ways, but i think you can use variables to pass the parameter to the second template... can't you just pass the value as you got them anyways?.

In any case, why use nested templates instead of just a big all-inclusive one?

By the way, just a question. You say you want to standarize a portion of the text but... Are the dialogues standard enough for that? It's quite easy to template them if they were, but if you need to change everything for each page, then is far more easier to just not template, or just do a template for the things that are actually simmilar between pages and leave the rest of the entry to be manually processed (as you did at Template:Norn bounty dialogue).--Fighterdoken 22:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In one specific example that gave me the idea to use part of the template in the bigger one, the Norn collectors have one specific item of text, then that is it. The res shrine people have that exact text format, then they go on to more text. It makes more sense to just call that first template from the bigger one, since that text is the same instead of just recreating it again.

Some of them, the problem is not knowing all of the information. That is also another reason to use this template now instead of waiting Dry, Ragnvald seems to be the only one who has the information from blessings and all of that on it. Don't you think it would be easier for people to update that information if it applies on other norn before they do all of the formatting by hand? Especially when there is a template, that can have the added benefit of letting someone know easier that there is more information missing. 42 - talk 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FD, that is why I am trying to do this template, because it is the same. If you have any characters that can get to the Norn area in EotN that haven't seen any Norn, or have some you haven't yet talked to, do so, and you will see what I mean. The only difference being what specifically is said, the actual text on the buttons for choices. The layout is the same for all of these NPCs. 42 - talk 22:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you probably want to make a simpler template that can be easily subst'ed like in my example. Setting unknown fields as "missing text" or something like that should be enough of a clue for editors to tell them that such spot is lacking of the right information.

Is a lot easier for new editors to change things when they don't have templates to fill, and i talk as an editor who on his time had no clue about wiki editing.--Fighterdoken 22:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The intent behind having the template as it is is to not just have a straight substitution. As Jon has pointed out as well, there may be more text that is missing from the larger number of the dialogue sections as they are now. It is my intention to have the missing text default show if nothing is entered where there should be, just haven't figured out why it shows up on the template page, and not in use. That is something that cannot be tested in sandbox, because it shows up with straight transclusion, but not from within something other than a template space.

The good thing about a template, in regards to new users, is it gives the editor a guide to what needs to be put in, and it does the formatting of the information for them. What do you think would be easier; having to look at another page and figure out how they did it, or a template that tells you "Hey, I need this, this, this, and this?" 42 - talk 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh? Got an example of where your "test doesn't work from the sandbox"?. You may be placing the template names wrong... (like "test" instead of "User:42/test").

About the template, as long as parameters are named properly, sure, it easier, but for something like this it will be confusing for first-time editors one way or another.--Fighterdoken 23:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds terribly like the debates we used to have with another user, Mtew i think his name was. Thus I will say the same here that I told him there, when making an over arching sweeping change it is normally best to use a sandbox to test the proposal and then gain the communities input on it from there. I can see that Jon and fighterdoken however are already helping you sort through this though and thus I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with. :) -- Salome 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And that is another case of it cannot be properly tested in sandbox, it needed to come out to play, so to speak for people to see the true usefulness in action. Yet another argument to keep things the way they are because they are done "a certain way", never mind that people have not finished the text. This would allow that to be completed better, and more consistently, and by the time the discussion got done, people would be arguing "well why should we use this, this is already done on these pages. And specific examples of how it doesn't work from the sandbox, check multiple layered templates done solely from within the sandbox. THAT is what doesn't work. 42 - talk 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that Fighterdoken is right: virtually everything (including nested transclusions) can be tested from within a sandbox. I have an example at User:DryHumour/Sandbox/Norn bounty dialogue Example, if you're interested. (I am not addressing any other reasons for not doing so, simply pointing out that it is possible from a technical standpoint.) --DryHumour 23:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to 42, the wiki does not work on the basis that cause we think we know better, we can just shortcut out the bit about gaining consensus. Yes its a pain but we are a community and this site belongs to none of us individually, thus changes against the consensus get reverted, therefore in the long run its better to gain consensus first. -- Salome 00:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Salome, despite what many people seem to think, this is not a "change", since there is no standard in use on the majority of the NPC pages, the ones that do have something like this, this is the same setup as the ones that are there already. All the intent behind this template is to do is standardize that dialogue, which currently is all over the place depending on where you look.

Dry, and FD, for simple nested templates that do a straight transclusion, that is true. The sandbox does work, as I have done on the testing before breaking this out to play. The problem is if you call a template that needs processing, the system has an issue with "template loops" if the template isn't in the template space. Adjustments and tweaking cannot be done on many of them because a lot of the time, all that shows in the template space in the finished product is often that error message.

Dry, your specific example does call a dual layered template, but the main page doesn't call a template for processing, it simply transcludes, and the "nested" offer dialog template is in the template space. It is possible to have nested templates, in theory at least, many ridiculous layers deep. But, if there is any "processing" of things, those templates cannot be properly fully tested because of the template loop errors.

Salome, this is not a "change" as people seem to try to insist. This is something that is an issue that many people have already "complained" about on talk pages too numerous to mention, and many times over the years, the idea to get something standardized. This also directly addresses the issue of the "in-game" reproduction, as it is to recreate the dialogue line as it happens in the game already.

FD, as far as the file names go, I don't think that was ever an issue. I have a more than passing knowledge of how computers work; I have an Associates of Science in Information Systems. I know about file names. 42 - talk 00:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhm...

• Template
• Template nested into the previous one
• still works

Sure you didn't try a recursive nesting on your tests?.

(Added) As you say, maybe you can't put the "=" sign on the templates, but if you can't, then just find a way around it.--Fighterdoken 01:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did pre-testing before trying the NornInitDialogue and NornNHPDialogue. The original nested transclusion testing I did was actually 4 pages, each one called the one below it and displayed the text from the page below and some of it's own. On the simple straight transclusion, at first there was no problem. Soon, that error still happened, but the text was readable. When I did the testing on the main test pages of mine, the place where Init was supposed to show up just had the template loop error.

The only other thing the big template called was the offer dialogue box, which is in the template space. That part worked fine. 42 - talk 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell would you need to nest 4 layers of templates? Are you sure you couldn't just make them 1 or 2?

(Added) There, four layers. Could you please, make an actual example on your userspace of what doesn't work for you?, or point to the appropiate revision? Otherwise, i think i will have to make the request again for you to test things on your own userspace first.--Fighterdoken 01:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did that to make sure that there wouldn't be a possible error in it in the future. Make sure it works by over working it. I could have stuck with 2 levels, but I wanted to allow for the possibility that one of the templates I called, if it called another one, would still work. I am not sure if it will show up because apparently it depends on the reload of the server pages. You are familiar with the first part of the Norn bounty dialogue, check out the Norn init dialogue template, and imagine what text that is on the Bounty one with one line that says

Template Loop Error: Norn init dialoge

That (changed to reflect what it would look like in this situation) is what was showing on my testing. I found out from Wyn the reason is that the system doesn't like template use if it isn't from the template space. 42 - talk 01:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that error about recursive nesting? That's why i want to see where it happened.--Fighterdoken 02:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(Please note that I have not read the template source, so I apologize if I have the wrong end of the stick.) As I understand the use case, there should be no need for recursive template calls at all. Is the problem perhaps trying to pass the putative "result" of a template expansion directly or indirectly as an argument to another instance of that same template? If so, that will likely cause all sorts of problems: mediawiki template arguments are not like parameters in languages like Java and C++. It is perhaps better to imagine that the text of those actual arguments is substituted directly into the called template definition. (I oversimplify, but I think it suffices for the purpose of this discussion.) Thinking of it this way, one can easily see how this would be a Bad Idea™ in a general purpose template (i.e. one not explicitly intended to handle being called recursively). --DryHumour 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Whatever the case, I have the new improved (I hope) prospective templates ready for perusal. They do not need to be broken out in public because the real-world testing was done with the first set. This new set addresses many issues people have mentioned with the first ones, and some I think I might have missed the first time out. The page is long, but please read and understand, especially the presumptions at the top. This needs more in-game verification and testing by a few people to verify before I will put them out.

• Prospective Norn init dialogue version 2
• Prospective Norn bounty dialogue version 2

42 - talk 07:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Dry, I am presuming by your wording that you mean what in programming is called an "infinite loop." To the best of my knowledge, that wasn't the case. Unless I somehow made one during editing by saving the file before it was "finished" and it had a reference to itself, which is the only possible way. I am careful about those because they are a usually a huge pain in the butt, and often hard to find when you need to find it quickly.

To compare how wiki works as opposed to Java (as I see it), you "can" pass command line arguments to Java classes, and wiki templates. Wiki happens to call them parameters. Unlike Java a template cannot "operate" on anything that isn't given to it. All the wiki template knows how to do is to look at what it is given like a picture that it cannot change. It can perform basic functions depending on what is sent to it, but that is it. All it "returns" is another picture to whatever page or other template called it.

"By the way, just a question. You say you want to standarize a portion of the text but... Are the dialogues standard enough for that? It's quite easy to template them if they were, but if you need to change everything for each page, then is far more easier to just not template, or just do a template for the things that are actually simmilar between pages and leave the rest of the entry to be manually processed (as you did at Template:Norn bounty dialogue)" FD, that is what this discussion is about, that template. The format and dialogue line of talking is the same on these NPCs, the only difference is the actual text "said" by them. Each one has their own, but that still follows the template layout. 42 - talk 07:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Isn't that error about recursive nesting?" FD, when I had that happen, I thought the same thing, so I checked and double checked and then checked a couple more times, to make sure, and I was still having that error. I asked Wyn, and she was the one that told me it was because of the template being in the userspace, and not the template space. Not saying that it won't happen from a template calling itself (or indirectly doing so), just that this wasn't the case this time. 42 - talk 23:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because Wyn says so doesn't mean it's the truth. Should have asked Poke instead XD. Sadly, since it appears you cannot duplicate the error, we will never know what it was exactly.--Fighterdoken 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not ask poke anything in regards to how things are done unless there is no other choice. I am not going to go into more so as not to have it taken as a "personal attack." By the way, shouldn't that also apply when someone is being singled out on their attempted improvements?

I will try to remake the sub pages I did before to repeat the error on here. If I remember properly, it also happened on versions of my first version of the templates in the mainspace now. Will check that as well. 42 - talk 06:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Been thinking about it, and taking time to recreate an error takes away from time I could be spending on good ideas to present to have them dismissed and deleted. 42 - talk 03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)