User talk:42/Archive2009-12-09

Template issues

I've never had problems (except for crossing all my t's) with using templates in the userspace. You might have had problems calling a template from the page it's on; just make a separate page that only calls your sandbox template. --JonTheMon 02:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Truly, the mediawiki parser does not care what namespace the template is in: the Template namespace is simply the default. In my experience, most difficulties arise from the difficulties caused by failing to take that into account when working outside the Template namespace (which is all to easy to do – we've all done it, most of us probably more than once). Do also remember to take into account that a template substitution is just that: it is not a subroutine call like that of Java or a functional binding like that of Lisp. It has much more in common with macro substitution languages like that of the C preprocessor or m4. However, my only interest is in clearly highlighting the possible, not in proscribing any particular approach so I won't harp on about it any further. --DryHumour 03:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Then tell Wyn that. I got that error and thought I had made it so that the text called itself somehow. I checked through, and it was still having the error, Wyn was the one that told me about the template space issue.

As I posted above, the newest versions are up and ready to view and poke fun at. There are a lot of presumptions made, as you will see from looking at them. They are all listed on the prospective bounty dialogue template. I also redirected the discussion pages for each to here, so that I don't miss a comment that Dry made about my work before. :P 42 - talk 07:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that but I really had to pee. I am putting out a call for help on this template, so we can verify what is correct, what needs to be tweaked, and so on. Anyone that has characters that can play in the EotN areas are asked for assistance. These all apply to explorable areas in EotN, so it is pretty straightforward, I hope. I will check what I can, but I do not play hard mode, so some of it I cannot check myself.

Here's what I need.

• Verification of the dialogue line is the same as that in my Norn bounty template proposed above. I understand the specific text will be different for each Norn. I just need verification that the order and layout is the same for every one of them.
• Verification that a Norn your character hasn't talked to yet "does" say something before the PC(Player Character) responds with "How can I be a part of the hunt".
• Verification that once you beat the Norn, but do not accept the Norn Hunting Party bounty and close the window, that the same text as "first contact" is repeated. This applies to the accept/decline buttons as well.
• Verification and/or documentation that the dialogue after killing at least 25 monsters in a map area that the text spoken when talking to a Norn is different for each Norn or not. If it always the same, then what text is "said".
• Verification that the same dialogue line idea is the same in hard mode (vanquishing) as it is in normal mode. If the text is exactly the same for each specific Norn in HM and NM, even better. If not, then what is it for that.
• Verification that the dialogue icons in all of these situations use the , , and icons, and in what specific times and situations they are used.

Basically, I need to know exactly what is "said" by a selection (larger than two) of res shrine Norn in all possible situations . If someone wants to help out and see if the collectors say anything different in HM than NM, that wouldn't hurt either. I need the range of different Norn so that it can be verified that they all follow the same dialogue line format. I am presuming by what I have been able to test, that each Norn has their own specific dialogue, but the order is the same. 42 - talk 07:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

42, what about where a template sends you to a cinematic? One of the quests/missions (forgot the name) sends you to a cinematic. It's noted after the answers. Just wondering about 'issues' or problems like that. -- riyen ♥ 03:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The template being talked about here is intended for the standard Norn res shrine guard. Adding that cinematic option to a template when only one or two have that would somewhat defeat the purpose of having this template. If that event happens on all (or the huge majority) of them, then we could add that. If there are any differences that happen on a few of them, we could use this template and add the different information after, or the dialogue section can be hand crafted specifically for those.

I am presuming that the "additional information" on Ragnvald referencing vanquishing is from Hard Mode. As I said, I don't know hard mode, I don't play it, and I cannot check the information from that. 42 - talk 04:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dry, in the simple transclusion of a template, that is true, that is the case. However, I don't think this is a simple template transclusion because of asking the editor to add info, this is not just substitution template. 42 - talk 04:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

redirect categories

You know, it's not really helpful to have redirect categories. If a page is in that redirected category, it won't be listed with the other pages where it's supposed to be. --JonTheMon 08:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Was doing that more to add to the instruction of the page, to show what a redirect does in action, went a little overboard. 42 - talk 17:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, why did you create all those redirect pages? Like, just to get rid of red-links in examples? --JonTheMon 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

To show people if they clicked them, what was supposed to happen in a redirect. Just like I said in my post just before your last one. 42 - talk 04:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You know, there is a help page to explain what is supposed to happen in a redirect (Help:Redirect), so I don't think this page also needs to show it. --JonTheMon 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comes down to making someone go looking when there is a perfectly good example right there. Too much "well this is already listed somewhere else, so let's make someone go looking for information that can be linked to from a reasonable place here." 69.182.220.38 02:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you're going to need to explain how redirects work, not just give examples. --JonTheMon 02:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since this is the page about what is recommended for page titles and what isn't, how does having redirects explained on that page help again? These are examples only. 42 - talk 03:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

If you are going to archive pages in the main namespaces Template talk:Quest infobox/Archive2007, etc. Please do it properly using the {{archived}} template, and linking the archives on the primary talk page through an {{archive-box}}. Thanks! -- Wyn talk 22:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you noticed, since I saw the archived template, I have used it. Since the main space talk pages do not have a standard used, if it is a problem how I link the pages, fix it instead of complaining how I do it. 42 - talk 03:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I did fix it, and I wasn't "complaining" I was simply asking you to do it the way it's done throughout the wiki. You notice I said Please & Thanks sheesh. -- Wyn talk 03:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You normally put an exclamation mark after "Thanks" like that? Most people I know use that to stress a point, like something they would do when they were not happy with someone. Almost every idea I post, you seem to find something wrong with it Wyn, why should I think this is any different? 42 - talk 03:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I ALWAYS put an exclamation mark after thanks. Try a little AGF. -- Wyn talk 03:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I am not into overly explaining myself it seems, so let's try this.... You need to use the {{archived}} template to categorize the pages into Category:Archives, and using the {{archive-box}} is standard practice on all mainspace pages for achive links. I'm sorry you took this as me bitching at you, I really wasn't, I was simply trying to point you to the templates, as I was unsure whether you knew they were there. -- Wyn talk 03:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the main space archives to be the same throughout wiki. Would help make it easier and better... To be honest. -- riyen ♥ 03:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, I am like most people (I would think), in that I presume that people will continue how they have. Since you have been so well receiving of my ideas so far, what reason did I have to think any different? AGF goes only so far when someone is constantly having issues someone else's ideas.

Ariyen, not a problem. I try to work within what I am told is acceptable (even though most of the time, it still gets me told I am not doing it right.) 42 - talk 04:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're told you're not doing it right. Stop and get consensus on your ideas, etc. before attempting 'big' changes. It might help, you know. -- riyen ♥ 04:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So might people NOT having the attitude that the way things are done means they are automatically right just because of that. On this case, I acknowledge I wasn't doing it right. However, I do not get it in my head that because I have been doing something a certain way for a long time automatically means I am doing it right, or the best way I could. 42 - talk 04:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen, let me give you a "for instance" example here. I (in trying to make more help available) add a link to the metawiki table help on the help page. I get told that this isn't appropriate and that GWW needs to have it's own. Oh wait, first I get told "it is somewhere else (the link)" so it is not needed there, as if having more than one link to information is somehow bad. I then get told that it needs to be strictly in GWW space, like somehow the information would be changed somehow being on our space (I guess that is how it was meant).

I port the page to GWW space, fix all the links to work from GWW space (catch hell for that too, but that is another story) and then get told that isn't proper either, and that I should have just put a link on the help page (which is all that I wanted to do from the beginning).

The problem is you get all of these people telling someone "how something should be done" and "wait for consensus." Guess what? I don't have the desire to wait for months to see what everyone who wants to tell someone else a different way to do something figure out what is the right way, or wait more months for consensus to make improvements to something I see that could use improvement, or in some cases, is just wrong. If everyone took that attitude, then (and I think I posted this elsewhere), this wiki would finally get finished when people stopped playing GW 10. 42 - talk 04:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because you "don't have the desire to wait for months to wait for consensus" doesn't give you the right to make sweeping changes without it. Unfortunately, on some issues here, months IS what it takes to reach a consensus, however, in most cases, that's not true. But this is really besides the point of this topic. As I have said before, I appreciate your enthusiasm to make GWW better, you just need to do it in a way that is appropriate. Again, I was NOT bitching at you about the archive thing, as I had already corrected it, I was simply trying to give you information I wasn't sure you had. -- Wyn talk 04:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

42, If you can't wait on a consensus on things? Don't bother changing them, because you'll have people changing them back to the way things were not only because you didn't bother to 'wait' to see for other people's opinions, etc., but also because most people may not see the need for changes that you do and that you have yet to 'proove' to show. And how to proove? Try User:42/Sandbox Create that into multiples if you have to. That's what a sandbox is for. To play in, to prove things, etc. -- riyen ♥ 05:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Wyn, if everyone took that attitude on everything, the world would still be flat, and the center of the universe. I do not have a problem with people presenting valid points that differ from mine. I have a problem with people using invalid bullshit excuses to justify their point against something being improved. Such as the one about "it has been this way for years."

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that is the case. Then why isn't the wiki done completely? Why was I able to show you (presuming you looked as I asked) that your statement about the dialogue being completed (sorry, you inferred it) was wrong? Why is it that people assume that because "it has been this way for years" means that there is nothing that can be improved, despite my pointing things out?

Which reminds me, I believe you still have yet to point out what specific part of the guideline you claim I am violating or changing without discussion on the use of my Norn dialogue templates. I try to do "what I am told is right (Ariyen's words)" and I do that, then I get told that is wrong. People need to make up their mind which argument they are going to use.

Ariyen, people will ignore proof no matter where it is, if it is on the wiki, or in someone's sandbox, if they have the attitudes that many have. They think just because it is how it is done for so long, means that it (the wiki) cannot be improved. See my point above about the wiki not being finished. 42 - talk 05:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually am trying to show an example in the talk page of Formatting/Article . Now that can't be hard, can it? -- riyen ♥ 05:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about you specifically. Many people have been shown proof (many repeatedly) and still refuse to see it because it goes against what they think is correct. It doesn't matter where they see it; according to them, it is still "wrong." 42 - talk 05:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why you need to talk with people, not going against them. Ask why they see wrong, etc. Compromising might help. I'm still learning too. ^.^ -- riyen ♥ 05:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What makes more sense, waiting for 20 different people to figure out what is right, when they all think something different is right, or fixing something that you see is wrong? I think that time is better spent productively instead of waiting for all of these people (who will more than likely not think you are doing something right no matter what, anyway) to figure out what they think is right. You then need to waste even more time pointing out something because they think their way is the only way something should ever be done. 42 - talk 05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Who told you that it had to take 20 people? Look. read this here. Once you realize it only takes a few people? Maybe you'd have a 'change' of 'heart'. -- riyen ♥ 06:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Plus you would cut out a lot more drama if you proposed your changes first. --RIDDLE 06:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) There is no problem at all with "fixing what you see is wrong". The problem is, if people don't agree with you on things being wrong, you HAVE to discuss and try to reach a middle point that works for everyone.

Reaching concensus doesn't mean "find what is right". Reaching concensus is making everyone compromise on little things to achieve a greater good, even if the end result doesn't please everyone. You fail on this, since you can't compromise at all, nor are you able to recognize that people can dissent with you for reasons you don't agree with.

Off topic, but... please, stop trolling the wiki. We are not here to get you because it's you, but because you are trying to step over the whole user base and impose your own view of "what should be". Admit at once that you are not all the wiki-knowledgeable you preach to be with your titles, and be willing to listen to people when then try to fix your wrongdoings (even if they are not nice while doing so).--Fighterdoken 06:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x3) Plus I would get to waste productive time (YAY!) endlessly talking about changes that people don't want to see would help improve the wiki, when it could be improved if people would stop thinking that if they didn't see it yet, it must not be something wrong. 42 - talk 06:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I suggest improvements just because I am "trolling", that is my main intent with these. Right. And read my other posts. I (unlike others) have said it isn't automatically right just because I say so. As far as being willing to listen to people, I am when they make a point. I am less likely to listen to someone who basically is sticking their fingers in their ear and going "la la la la la la, you are not making a point because I refuse to listen to it, la la la la la". 42 - talk 06:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are subst your template on the pages, then you are fine, and not "violating" the guidelines, if you are simply adding the templates to pages then yes, you are not following the guideline, since the guideline does not include the use of the template, and to get it to, you would need consensus reached by discussion. That's why I've been saying that you should just subst your template on the pages. -- Wyn talk 06:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

FD, re-read my posts, I have many times said that people can have valid points and it has nothing to do with me agreeing with them or not. Wyn, I have been spending time reading on here many things, and I have yet to see it say somewhere "you are not supposed to use a template unless it is specifically listed". Please feel free to point out exactly where it says that. The guideline on dialogue says that it is supposed to have the text the NPC says when clicked or prompted. My template helps with that. 42 - talk 06:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The formatting guideline gives a clear cut example of syntax and formatting. If you just start adding templates to that, sooner or later there will be inconsistencies throughout the wiki. Again, just subst your template to apply the appropriate formatting to the page, while leaving easily editable code for future editors, and I will get off your case about it.And STOP WIKILAWYERING! Just because something isn't clearly stated, you've been told by more than one person to discuss these changes before you start applying them, and that's all it should take. -- Wyn talk 06:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Dialogue

"Something NPC says when clicked on or when prompted. Group by location if necessary"

"No mission- or quest-specific dialogue."

and

Dialogue

Write down the lines an NPC says when clicked on or prompted. Group by location and/or situation if necessary. If grouped by location, sort them by storyline. Additional sorting should be done alphabetically. Don't include mission- or quest-specific dialogue, those dialogues are covered in the mission- and quest-articles itself. Mission briefings on the other hand can go in here. "Dialogue text should be written in italics, included in double quotes".

My template follows that, almost exactly, and other people are allowed to wikilawyer me and tell me I am not following guidelines, yet when I point out that my template does almost exactly what the guideline says, then I am wikilawyering, and it isn't allowed? Bullshit!

I get the guidelines thrown in my face, and that somehow isn't wikilawyering until I use those same guidelines to show I am following them. Get off allowing others to wikilawyer and telling me I am not allowed to (which I am not), then I might be less prone to think bullshit arguments are bullshit arguments. 42 - talk 06:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it say anything about using templates? No. And you've been asked not to use the templates (or at least subst them) by several members of the community. So, respect them, and try to reach a consensus on it, don't just go off and do it anyway. That's how this community works. --JonTheMon 06:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Then all of the comments, sorry, so-called accepted ideas on how to help need to be reworded, so that it is not implied or even right out stated that helping can be done without long term discussion and justification before improvements can be attempted. Because, apparently, despite the help page, people are not "very welcome to add it in". 42 - talk 06:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, you're the one wikilaywering here 42. You're refusing to listen to the others here, refusing consensus. I've shown you pages and how we chat to agree on something, before posting it. (I learned, here the hard way.) I've just been where you are. You won't get anywhere. We've tried to help, you're exhausting it. You're also causing problems, by 'fixing' problems that honestly, I agree with others that doesn't exist. It is also annoying to see someone jump from one project to another and not finish what they started or get consensus done to see if it really needs all this changing or to go back the way it was. -- riyen ♥ 06:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if I am (which I am not), which is only in direct response to what is being done to me, other people doing it must be OK then. I have no problem with consensus. I do have a problem with people using the guidelines to justify not making a change. Then when I use the guidelines, all of a sudden I am wikilawyering, and then saying me using the guidelines isn't OK because of "consensus". That is wikilawyering even worse than what I supposedly am doing. You (those that this applies to) might try a new idea. It is called being consistent.

I do not tell someone else who points out a problem I didn't see that that problem doesn't exist, just because I didn't see it. I have been too close to a situation, or gotten used to working with a system that could be improved to see potential issues with it. I do not think that my way is always the best way, or even the only way, but I do not stick my head in the sand and ignore facts because of it.

It is also annoying getting almost every idea I present getting (for the most part) just trashed time and time again with very few people taking an honest look at it. I do not get it in my head that my way is the only way to do things. I am willing to listen to suggestions, unlike many others.

Wyn, I have asked for help on the research for the new Norn dialogue templates. Even have them on the RFC page. Very few people have responded with actual suggestions for improvement. Dry and Jon so far are the only ones. In fact, the second version is in response to Jon's suggestion, and I don't agree with him on many things at all. It has nothing to do with if I agree with someone or not. You suggested an alternate use, not an improvement, and I think Ariyen asked for clarification. 42 - talk 07:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there are few people joining the discussion, then consensus will be easy to reach, and not "take months". However, I still do not see anywhere on Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/NPCs where the use of your templates has been proposed. So, yes, while you are asking for help/input on the templates themselves, you have not yet asked for the templates to be included on the pages or added to the formatting guideline. -- Wyn talk 07:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

When the templates do not propose a change to the accepted formatting, how is it necessary to ask for change? The templates (the new ones a little better than the old ones) help complete the task of adding the dialogue. Since it isn't a change, but it helps fill out what is asked for, why is this so hard to see? Or even better, have you point out where exactly it is not allowed?

Besides which, these templates are not intended to be used on ALL dialogue sections on ALL NPC pages. 42 - talk 07:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There you go, wikilawyering again. We don't HAVE to point out where it says it's not allowed. You've been asked by MANY members of the community to not use them on the pages without discussion and consensus. That is where it says it's not allowed. Of course it isn't used on all NPC dialogues, but there isn't a page specifying the formatting for the Norn Bounty giver pages seperately, and the change to the guideline would be put in as a specific note covering those specific pages. BTW, wikilawyering = needing EVERYTHING to be detailed in a policy or guideline before it has any meaning/validity (just in case you are still confused about that point). What you don't seem to get is there isn't a problem with people editing and making the wiki better UNTIL someone disagrees with what they are doing and asks them to stop and gain consensus. We have asked you to make a proposal for the addition of these templates to these specific pages, and had you done so when IT WAS FIRST ASKED, the discussion would most likely be over by now, but instead, you want to argue and fight and cause conflict. So this goes on and on. It's your actions that are causing most of the negativity you are receiving. -- Wyn talk 07:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Before you screw things up, here's a few suggestions: Propose your templates here. Request for comments on them here. If nothing happens or you get impatient, whichever comes first. Play the game or step away from this site. You'll only get negativity, if you continue. -- riyen ♥ 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may suggest, Ariyen, why don't you take a step back and let Wyn deal with it? You've said your piece (quite a number of times, might I add) and repeating the same thing over and over again just pings watchlists and embitters the issue (not that I mind either). NuVII 08:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. ^.^ but highly 'doubt' we have a 'listener'. -- riyen ♥ 09:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I get told to follow the guidelines, so I do, and then get told that isn't being done right either. Apparently it is fine for other people to wikilawyer, and then say when I do it, it isn't proper. THAT is what is causing the negativity. Wyn, you might want to check GWW:RFC as far as asking for help. I was told by many to check the guideline pages, so I did, and did something within those guidelines. Then, after that wasn't "allowed" was when the consensus card was pulled out. Might want to reconsider who was pulling wikilawyering first; saves on people having a problem with being treated how they are accused of being. 42 - talk 04:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ariyen, unlike many others, I actually do listen to other points, instead of what some people do and ignore reason. 42 - talk 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

NPC Dialogue

About this edit

Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/NPCs#Dialogue states you don't include quest-specific or mission-specific dialogue on the NPC's page. That stays only on the quest or mission pages. ~Shard 03:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

K 42 - talk 04:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Norn Bounty Givers

If you are visiting all the Norn bounty giver pages, I would like to ask you to please add them each to Category:Offers Eye of the North bounty-like blessing. Thanks! -- Wyn talk 04:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Not planning to in the near future. I did for the research before to see how many actually had dialogue. Not planning to revisit any time soon, until it is decided to use the template or not, and if changes are made first. 42 - talk 04:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thought of something. Could modify whatever the final version of Template:Norn bounty dialogue is so that if it is used, it adds the category automatically. Thanks for the idea for improvement Wyn. 42 - talk 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

But Category:Offers Eye of the North bounty-like blessing goes with all bounty givers in Eye of the North, so wouldn't all the templates need to be modified? --★KOKUOU★ 05:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Not my plan, since I will be arguing as vehemently as I have been against it's use when it's finally proposed for discussion. Don't worry about it, I'll apply the category myself. So much for your protestations that you wish to IMPROVE the wiki. -- Wyn talk 05:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, doesn't helping suggest improvements get accepted a lot better than constantly tearing something down? Even if it was unintentional on your part.

Kokuou, this template I am talking about is intended for the Norn Hunting Party givers only. But, you are right. That would have to happen if the template was simply substituted depending on if it was a part of the template already or not. Otherwise, if it wasn't there already, it would need to be added manually to each page. Again, an argument for using the template as I had originally proposed it, this categorizing would be done automatically.

Wyn, you claim the names in the template are hard to understand. Did you even bother to read the parameters section where it explains what they are for? On both proposed versions? Would it be better if I typed out the full names? 42 - talk 05:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, I am still at a loss of how having and using a template that allows editors to enter text once and have it show up the multiple places and situations it needs to be makes less sense than having to have them re-enter the text repeatedly. I also don't see how me going to MANY pages and doing category work manually when the template can be modified ONCE and take care of that alot easier.

How does me already having visited those pages well before your comment on the "bounty-like blessing" and saying I had not planned to return visit anytime soon have anything to do with me "not wanting to help IMPROVE the wiki", when that is what I am trying to do.

I am getting the impression, Wyn, that you are against the template for small little "problems", and it is easier for you to just recommend against the whole thing, instead of suggesting ideas to improve it, and make it more usable. 42 - talk 05:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, before you leap

You posted a link on a guideline to a rejected policy. Rejected policy being Guild_Wars_Wiki:Redirects. Don't do that, Wiki does not use rejected policies. Look before you link a guideline next time. I undid your link, because of that reason. We don't want to lead people to pages we don't use, like that rejected policy. -- riyen ♥ 19:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't me that posted that link. Check again. 42 - talk 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was. The correct link was Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Redirects . -- riyen ♥ 19:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I must have thought I was directing to the proper one. AGF. 42 - talk 19:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Nods, must have. Just check out the links next time. :-) -- riyen ♥ 20:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Given your reaction on another topic, this is good advice Ariyen, perhaps you should try following it yourself. 42 - talk 02:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Items dropped

As a rule of thumb, if an article doesn't include this section already, is because the npc in question doesn't have a item that deserves being noted (like uniques). Please don't mass-add the section to articles if you are going to just set it as stub. Just assume that if they are not already there, is because the entry value for that sections is "none besides generic boss drops".--Fighterdoken 04:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

People have been listing common crafting material, stackable items, and pretty much anything a boss drops on almost every boss that has that section already. Why does this not apply to all? 42 - talk 04:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because other people have done it doesn't mean it's right. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 04:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the formatting guidelines, understand the formatting guidelines, follow the formatting guidelines. Drogo Boffin 04:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And just because other people haven't done it yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be done either Armond. 42 - talk 04:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just double-checked the formatting guidelines, and I am following them by placing the items dropped section if it is missing. The only possible issue is where I am putting the section tag. I don't feel it belongs at the top of the page, and the guideline implies that is where any stub tags go. 42 - talk 04:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You missed "understand the formatting guidelines". The guideline says "if applicable" to the drop sections, meaning that they don't "have" to go, but if there is something to be noted, then they "can" go (in short: if you know an item to be named, put the section and the item; if you don't know, don't put the section with just a stub tag).

About the "issue", {{section-stub}} should do the trick.--Fighterdoken 05:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And you missed "If an article is not of stub length but contains empty or very short sections, tag the sections alone with {{section-stub}}.". I am following the guidelines, because on that section of Formatting/General, it says to tag empty sections with the {{section-stub}} tag. 42 - talk 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That should read as "tag the sections as stub only if those sections are non-optional". Also, you not only tagged, but also added the sections.--Fighterdoken 05:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware that I placed missing sections and then tagged them. Maybe the section you are quoting should say "any sections confirmed not needed." We can sit here and quote guidelines all day until it gets said that you are right for quoting the guidelines and I am wikilawyering because I do the same thing. Neither one of us is 100% right or wrong on this. 42 - talk 05:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't even know where to begin... WHY?!. Everything was fine but for some reason, since you first started editing, everything has to be argued over. Sure you might want to make everything better, but it seems that every little thing must be taken to court over. Please note, if you continue to add Items dropped, then do it properly. It's Items dropped, not items Dropped with a captital 'd'. Also do not add locations for bosses who only appear in Missions, the guidelines (which you yourself tell people to read) states, verbatim, "Important note: don't list missions here! Always use the "Missions" section for that. If an NPC only appears in a mission/missions, the whole "Location" section should be omitted and the "Missions"-section be used instead.".../sigh.... ~Celestia 05:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the formatting guidelines, understand the formatting guidelines, follow the formatting guidelines. Drogo Boffin 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal request: Please stop

Please take a couple weeks to check the guidelines and guidelines talk pages, understand how they work, how they don't, and what is the purpose behind what they state.

I know as a new user you are interested in helping and filling all the holes in the wiki, but while trying to do so you are only making more holes breaking things that are already done. Just be patient, pick one single project, focus on that, and learn your way on the wiki from there.

I know that excesive bureaucracy and discussion time lenghts are discouraging for active editors (been there, done that, got tired of waiting, stopped editing), but just trying to push your way into the wiki in order to change the work mentality will not help. On the contrary, it will end in a nasty way.

If you want to improve the wiki, you first need to understand how things are done actually, but more important, WHY things are done that way and not in a more common-sense user-friendly way.--Fighterdoken 05:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Drogo Boffin 05:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x2) (Reset indent) Might I also suggest that you check the Formatting/General guideline page as I suggested FD. Just because you can sit there and quote one guideline that I am supposedly not following doesn't mean that I can not do the same. I am following the guideline, and in this case, the larger guideline. In this case, this is one user disagreeing with how the guidelines are worded. You are the one turning this into something more.

I see problems, and I try to fix them. I am not the one who feels the need to take everything "to court over." Others are. As far as the capitalization, I follow proper English standard in the majority of how books and magazines are done, including game manuals, and how I was taught in school. I am not going to all of a sudden stop using proper capitalization.

You are apparently going on the assumption that all of the wiki is already done ("but while trying to do so you are only making more holes breaking things that are already done"), and this is just a clean-up type of issue, when I am going by the point of view (and there is more than just this as evidence to back this view up) that the wiki is not done, and this is helpful to people who want to add missing information, to help make the wiki more complete.

As far as the locations section being hacked out, sorry, being left out, because of that, that is not listed for the locations section to have missions put there. There should be a location section on every NPC page (for consistency) because there is always a location, while there is not always going to be a mission section on every NPC page, because that doesn't always apply. A location always applies. I will propose a change, based on logic, to that effect, and if people are willing to see the obvious, ok, if not, oh well.

Just because something isn't there doesn't automatically mean it doesn't need to be there. People miss things, it happens. You get used to working with a square wheel, but that doesn't automatically mean a square wheel is better when someone wants to suggest trying a round one. 42 - talk 05:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Being against an improvement just because it is a change is the wrong reason, no matter how much supposed evidence (improperly named, BTW) there is to support that view. If that was the case, the world would still be flat, and the center of the universe. 42 - talk 05:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just re-read the formatting section you are talking about FD, on the NPC page. It doesn't say "don't have a location section", it says to not list missions there. I have not done that. 42 - talk 05:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I missed this one too. FD, on the top of the NPC page, I also found this, which applies here as well. "Make sure you've read the general formatting guidelines as well, which take precedence should there be a conflict.".

I am following the guidelines (that you pointed out to me, as well as others I found myself) as they are stated. Re-read the sections yourself if you don't believe me. I am all for getting along with people. I am not making these changes just to cause problems. But the wiki is also not as done as you would apparently like to assume. 42 - talk 05:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

From Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting in the Location section. "Important note: don't list missions here! Always use the "Missions" section for that. If an NPC only appears in a mission/missions, the whole "Location" section should be omitted and the "Missions"-section be used instead." You did the exact opposite which shows that you have not read the guidelines carefully enough or that you just do not fully inderstand them. Please listen to people who have been editing for a while and that know what their talking about. Stop assuming that your allways in the right. Say "I made a mistake" and learn from them, stop argueing over everything. We are giving you advice and not yelling at you. Were trying to help you understand. Drogo Boffin 05:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :::: I have no problem admitting I make mistakes, and I did miss that. Just because others who have been editing for a while doesn't mean that they are automatically right either. However, just because that was missed doesn't mean that the overall general formatting guideline doesn't apply. And as I said, I am going to propose a change to that, that follows logic and actual reason. 42 - talk 06:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You also missed the first line of GWW:GENFORM. The fact is, you miss too many things for the level of activity you have on the wiki. It's because of this why i ask you, in the name of Dwayna, to stop and take some time to understand first.

Also, the fact that people has to go over your edits and start undoing some of them when you mass-edit something means that yes, you are breaking things while fixing others.--Fighterdoken 06:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I didnt say that people who have been editing longer are allways right. The policy/guideline is fine the way it is. If the boss is only in a mission/missions then a location is not needed since the location is listed on the mission pages. There is no reason to add an items dropped section to a boss that doesnt drop anything more than normal drops that you can get from any mob. That is following logic and reason Drogo Boffin 06:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion of they "have to" FD. They feel they have to, largely because they have the same mindset that the wiki must already be done. If it is already "broken" (in this case, incomplete), then what is wrong with bringing attention to something that needs to be fixed?

Drogo, you didn't say that, that is correct, but that was what was implied. As far as it being "fine" the way it is, that is your opinion, and that doesn't mean a thing other than that is your opinion. My opinion is that it is wrong, and needs to be fixed. And that doesn't mean a thing other than that is my opinion.

And if the items dropped section (in the way you say it) was the case then why do many NPC pages already have a list of items they drop, like common crafting materials, the occasional stackable item, etc. I am following the standard already applied to far too many of the NPC pages to be listed. That is following logic, reason, and the way things are already being done. 42 - talk 06:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the logic would be to follow the guidelines and remove the stuff that people have added that do not belong. Not continueing to make the same mistake. Because somebody else did it doesnt mean that it is the right thing to do. Drogo Boffin 06:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And because someone is following the bigger guideline that happens to overrule the lesser guideline doesn't mean that it is right to get on the person doing to about not following the lesser guideline, either. And yet, that seems to be the case more often than not.

Besides, I am not going to remove something that I feel should be there. 42 - talk 06:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

See? that is the problem we have with you. YOU don't change/remove/edit something YOU feel should be there. Screw previous concensus. Screw people that don't agree with you, specially if you don't agree with the reasons they give to you.--Fighterdoken 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments like"Besides, I am not going to remove something that I feel should be there." and people that do what you are doing is the reason we have policies and guidelines in place. Drogo Boffin 06:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And when someone does follow a policy or a guideline that happens to be there, if it still doesn't follow what you think should go, then that person is automatically wrong, just because you can also pull out another guideline that is supposedly more right. I have no problem with logical reasoning FD, when that is used. "Because I said so" doesn't qualify as a valid reason, when the guidelines have been proven to be "for" both sides in this case.

Actually Drogo, I am following the guidelines (and for the record, I have stopped added missing sections for now) that were stated. Some of those guidelines don't follow others. I also followed the statement on the NPC formatting page that says the general guideline is the "higher" authority in case of dispute, and then get told that isn't right either. 42 - talk 06:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are causing more harm than good. You cannot be both following and not following them at the same time. We are all telling you what you are doing wrong. We are having to back through all of your edits to remove your mistakes. Drogo Boffin 06:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"You cannot be both following and not following them at the same time." Then re-read the general formatting guidelines closer. I am (well I was) following that one, in regards to the missing sections, and not following the other ones on the NPC page.

I never claimed to be following all of the guidelines at all times (which would be impossible anyway). You are choosing to go back through my edits not to fix problems, just what you perceive as problems that may or may not be following the a guideline you don't want to accept or interpret another way because it goes against your view. 42 - talk 07:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't want to accept our view either, 42, so kindly shut up at once.

Regarding the "npc format says yadda yadda" issue: Yes, GENFORM takes precedence in case of conflict, BUT there is no conflict here. GWW:NPC (or any guideline, for the matter) doesn't force the inclusion of the locations section. As such, there is no need to stub something that is not included to articles in the first place.

To make it clear, if a section on any article cannot be filled because the content of it would be "none", then the whole section is usually ommited instead of left in blank (or as "stub"). This is the kind of stuff you would learn if you for once just take vacations and use that time to learn how the wiki works.--Fighterdoken 07:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) And following that mindset implies by default that there is nothing missing when, more than likely, there is. You, sorry, the wiki help pages, suggests stuff to do to help, and I am trying to make known what is missing. You seem to be intent on making it harder for people to be able to help add missing information.

And there IS a conflict here even if you want to ignore it. The proof being almost this entire discussion line. There is a valid reason for stubbing the sections, even if you choose to ignore it because it doesn't follow your line of thought. This might be (I am not holding my breath) something you would see if you stopped to realize that the wiki is not finished, and hiding ways to add information doesn't help it get closer to being done. In fact, it only hurts that process.

I do not need to accept a view that I don't agree with. I agree that it is your view, which I don't share; especially when it seems to go against what the wiki is supposedly for. A view that I don't agree with doesn't automatically mean it is wrong, like you seem to want to imply about mine. It is still that person's view.

Either way, I have stopped adding the stub sections, unless there is a map missing. 42 - talk 07:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't move tags such as {{stub}} to the middle of the page. It makes harder to locate them if they are there, plus they were placed at the top so they are clearly noticeable. If you blend them with the pagebody, they become less visible.--Fighterdoken 07:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

They were put right up top after the infobox, where they are easier to notice. Especially on the 10 or so pages that had a missing map stub that actually had the map in place. 42 - talk 07:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

They are supposed to go right up at the top of the page for visibility purposes.--Fighterdoken 07:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the reason, just the actual visibility isn't there if they are at the very top like that. 42 - talk 07:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh... yes, it is, from both a reader and editor's point of view. Easier to see and remove if they are at the top instead that behind a infobox or other text.--Fighterdoken 07:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

42, look at your talk page. Almost every topic on this page and in your archives is a message telling you you're doing something wrong. Wake up. Take FD's advice. Stop making big changes until you understand the guidelines. ~Shard 07:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

FD, if it is so visible, why is it that I have removed about 10 map stubs from pages that had a map? Shard, thanks for your opinion. 42 - talk 07:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll type that again without the opinion part.

42, look at your talk page. Almost every topic on this page and in your archives is a message telling you you're doing something wrong. Wake up. Take FD's advice. Stop making big changes until you understand the guidelines. ~Shard 07:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem, Shard, is I get told I am not following guidelines (this is not the point for this part of the discussion), and when I prove that I am following guidelines, then, either I am told that I am still wrong, or get accused of wikilawyering. It would seem that the only way, in most cases, that I can "do anything right" is to just not do anything.

Since the wiki is not as complete as it could be (which, judging by various peoples' posts, they don't see it that way), and still needs lots of information added to it, I will not stop trying to help improve the wiki, even if some people are too set in their own minds to see it. 42 - talk 08:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't read most of the crap on your talk page, so I don't know anything about you wikilawyering or how well you say you're following guidelines. All I know is your talk page is cramming up RC with people telling you you're doing everything wrong. I'm glad you want to add to the wiki, but there's a proper way to do it, and apparently you're not doing it that way. I don't think all these people would bitch at you because they find your name annoying.

I'm not taking sides, and I really don't care enough to look through all of your contributions, but it seems to me like you're causing more harm than help right now. Wiki doesn't need this kind of drama. It needs the Lena-socking, Backsword-failing kind of drama. ~Shard 08:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer your concerns towards Shard... Users are expected to have basic knowledge on guidelines and policies. But besides that, they are also expected to comprehend the "meaning" of what is written on guidelines and policies (which we refer to as "spirit"). Users learn the "spirit" of policies and guidelines on two ways:

• By checking the talk pages of the policies/guidelines and all the relevant discussions that took page in the formation of these, and by participating in the discussions of the changes to these.
• By LISTENING when other editors tell them that, regardless of what common sense and by-the-letter interpretations would dictate, things are done other way (the "concensus" way).

You can inquire people as to why, and if you don't agree you can propose changes. What you cannot do is keep going regardless.

This is your problem. We tell you that things are done in another way. You don't agree with that, but instead of trying to sway concensus towards your side, you just ignore the advices of those you don't agree with and keep going.

By the way. As you say, this wiki needs a lot of information to be entered yet. Why don't you invest your time and energies on entering that missing information and leave formatting to the lazy ones of us?.--Fighterdoken 08:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am working on another project, and while working on that project, I notice things missing. What makes more sense? Tagging it when someone is there and notices, or waiting around and hope someone else sees it sooner or later?

If someone does want to help, and cannot easily tell that information is missing (which is one of the huge benefits of not letting someone stub tag where appropriate), how are they going to be able to help as effectively? I am trying to save the time needed to find out without wasting huge amounts of someone else's productive time just finding out if information is missing or not.

If you are going around in a new house, would you rather have the lights on so you can see what is where, or would you rather wander around blind stubbing your toes and other body parts all the time, finding out painfully where everything is located?

All that I am trying to do is draw attention to what is missing, and what is there. In the above example, leaving the lights on. By doing this the way you insist on, what is happening, is people have little to no idea (easily) to see if they are going to stub their toe on the coffee table. 42 - talk 08:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Here is an even better example. You have a huge puzzle (the wiki). You have an idea of what it would look like when it is done, but you're not totally sure. You want people to help put that puzzle together. What makes more sense: hiding the specific parts that are needed and/or not letting the people "helping" know what those parts are supposed to be shaped like; or letting people know what parts are missing, and what those pieces are shaped like? Or, here is another possibility; not letting people know what the pieces are shaped like and having an issue with them trying to fit the parts they think belong? 42 - talk 09:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You could also look at the wiki as a layered puzzle. The way things are now, the picture might be missing some things, but there's background there, so it doesn't look too out of place. Making empty sections and putting a lot of stubs everywhere (oh, btw, stub implies minimal content, so a section with just a section stub doesn't qualify) is like putting an empty piece over the background; while before it may have been incomplete, now it's glaringly incomplete and unfinished. --JonTheMon 14:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The point being, if you want the most people able to help finish that puzzle, it makes more sense to let people know what pieces are missing and what they look like. This is like having someone help, but not letting them see the whole picture, not letting them know how much is left on the puzzle, and making them search for a piece. 42 - talk 21:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jon, the way things are going, and the way it seems most people want this to be, and to use the puzzle analogy again; all that is known about the "finished" picture on the puzzle is that it might be some sort of car, no idea what color, or even if it is a truck and not a car.

I have seen others say (besides on this discussion line) that if there is no information in the section, then that section is usually not placed there. I see an issue with this. People won't know that information isn't found, or someone has intentionally left it out, or whatever. I think, if the idea is to get the wiki to have the info it needs, like in the puzzle example, let people know what is missing, don't hide it. People understand that it is a work in progress. It is the nature of the beast. 42 - talk 07:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You may be right on that leaving "blanks" without telling people that "it is intended to be blank" may be confising to some people but... That is current concensus. Some of your recent edits are challenging this regardless of the fact that you have been told already to not put blank-just-stubbed sections. Please revert until concensus is changed. (Added) Ignore that, i see the section was there from before.

You may like our customs or not, but you have to follow them.--Fighterdoken 08:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As I had already said, I had stopped putting in needed empty sections, all I am doing is stubbing ones that are already there, and if they are missing maps, when I am in there fixing other stuff. 42 - talk 16:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

While I am pretty sure that there are other pages that back up this point, go check the history on Sewp the Darktooth, FD. That page has a missing info stub on the items dropped section, and the last edit before mine adding missing links, was in 2008. I am not going to add more pages to here as I find them, to further prove this point out. It is enough that it shows that this was done before. 42 - talk 03:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetizing skills

Please note when alphabetizing skills that monster skills are sorted last as per GWW:NPC and GWW:PROFESSION. Happy editing! --Silver Edge 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. 42 - talk 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hi there. I have commented on your username request at the English Wikipedia. Basically, you cannot unify this account with a Wikipedia account since these are two different projects that have nothing in common (except for using the same software). You are invited to register an username and work on Wikipedia of course. Regards SoWhy 09:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)