User talk:Dmitri Fatkin/Soldiers Of Thunderstorm (historical)

Guild Formatting Guidelines

This is a very well designed page, but sady, I believe it is too long, and doesn't follow guild formatting guidelines. Calor 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps it's a bit too long, yet my main goal was to make something useful for the general auditorium of players, rather than a single guild and its alliance. If you have any concerns on how to improve this page, I'm all ears =) Dmitri Fatkin 02:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Back to the topic, you could try splitting the build section into sub-pages leaving just a link to them, as to not overload the page with information. 72kb in just text may be a bit too much.--Fighterdoken 06:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am marking this page for guild cleanup it does not follow the fomatting guidelines. It is very nice, but it is far to detailed and uses far to many images. Not to mention that is takes more time than usual to load the page. Please remake this so that is applies with our current policies and guidelines, thank you. --Shadowphoenix 05:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll be very happy if you could point on which parts of the page should exactly be shortened or amended (would be nice to see in which way, also), as I'm not currently able to edit the page in the details because of some business outside of the city. So far, what I was able to get from this is the idea of including two PvP builds on the separate pages. Is there anything else that you think might be improved? Dmitri Fatkin 14:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added some changes in order to decrease the load time of the page. If any of you will have a desire to provide additional tips for further improvement (the text part may be), please leave them here. Dmitri Fatkin 00:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For Wynthyst Could you please, instead of simply placing the cleanup tag, comment with a proposal of precise page changes here? It is extremely difficult for me to start editing the page without knowing exactly what should be changed, and marking the page for deletion is not what should be done, to my belief. To rephrase that, this page is not going to improve "the standard way", as guild space editing guidelines are used to aid users in their writing and are not the ultimate "everyone must fight for to the last stand" rules, especially in the light that this page was designed with another, GotW feature scripting guidelines in mind, for which the usual pattern is as follows: a) the history of the guild, b) PvE builds discussion, c) PvP builds & tips, (d) the profiles of notable members of the guild, and some screenshots, of course. ;) It's not my personal invention, I'm just following narration style set for these kind of articles by Andrew Patrick in the beginning of 2005. Of course, it's always possible to cut the whole thing into pieces and "sew five hats from one", but this isn't a thing I will happily perform as I hardly imagine why would additional 5 seconds of page's loading time should be the reason for its major reconstruction. I do have a compact version written in 3rd person voice for example, though, since some of its parts are already in use on the official Guild Wars website, I'm not going to republish that work here. And, to note once again, I'm asking all of you to provide your suggestions here - it makes them way easier to fulfill. Dmitri Fatkin 08:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok you want details of what needs to be done? First, have you read Our guild page policy? It clearly states "Guild pages should not deviate from the style and formatting guideline for guild pages in formatting or content without excellent reasons." If you have also read our guild page formatting guidelines you will know that the content should be restricted to:

• Any major achievements of the guild (defined as listed on http://www.guildwars.com/community/notableguilds/) should be listed on the guild page.
• A small section regarding general play style, preferred build types, and philosophy of the guild is encouraged.
• Facts about the guild such as a picture of the guild cape, the guild tag, the style of play the guild prefers (PvP, PvE), the territory the guild plays for, the faction that the guild has allied itself with (Kurzick, Luxon), and the approximate size of the guild should be displayed in the {{guild infobox}} template.
• The guild infobox template also includes optional sections for information regarding the guild hall, as well as any VoIP communication (TeamSpeak, Ventrilo) servers and IRC channels that the guild makes use of.
• While a small description of recruitment policies is allowed, all actual recruitment, especially applications and discussions, should not take place on the Guild Wars Wiki. Linking to a recruitment page on your website is a good idea.
• Contact information should be listed. This includes (but does not require) links to the website/forums that the guild uses, and a short (not a complete roster) listing of important in-game contacts. Note that only a list of names should be posted, not detailed information about the players.
• Any sort of defamation or personal attack is categorically disallowed. In general, guild articles should not discuss other guilds. This includes statements such as "unlike other guilds, Example Guild has only friendly members."

This does not include long discussions on builds and playing tips.
Furthermore, the policy indicates: "Guild pages should not use large or large numbers of images. A single image of your guild members striking a pose or a guild cape is allowed. Profiles of every character of every player in the guild is not." This includes images used to create skill bars.
The individual profiles of your members do not belong on the guild page, they belong in User space, if they don't have their own, then one member should create a Guild Member subpage that can be linked here.
The purpose of the Guild namespace is not to provide website hosting for guilds, it is to document their existence in the game. -- Wynthyst 08:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll try to shorten the profiles part a bit as well. A website hosting? You must be kidding me... we've set up our first website about ten years ago, so all our projects are stored on a personal webspace, with no problems, to my knowledge. :) I'll remove the outdated members info, yet, I do not see a reason of why a guild should not include the brief profiles of its members if they're from a foreign guild and aren't able to arrange a presentation themselves. A strong reason to include the content as it is? Well, the story presented here is the full version of our actual GotW submission, which I really didn't want to change, in spite of necessity to do so because of multilingual translation. You see, I'm one of those folks that believe in the importance of narration spirit. It really depends on by whom the story is told. We've had a few other variations of the guild's story, if you're curious, please check that (page 2). I know that Oni Wa Soto's version is probably better than mine, though, it's already been featured in another article and the difference between these two stories is like 2-3 kilobytes, in other words, it's not efficient to rearrange such amount of text in terms of saving up space on ArenaNet's 1GB website, if you see what I mean. :) So, my stance on that theme is: if it loads fine in all browsers, then it's working as supposed to. Dmitri Fatkin 10:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reason is simple. It does not conform with the community determined policy that regulates guild page content. If you feel this policy is bad, you have every right to propose changes to it, however, until it IS changed by community consensus, it's not up to you to decide whether you are going to follow it or not. It was suggested earlier that the builds sections be moved to a supbage and linked, and that you needed to remove some of the images. I have suggested that the member profiles be moved to User space where they more appropriately belong. As for the GotW submission, that also belongs on a subpage that is linked. -- Wynthyst 10:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Both suggestions were taken into the account. Perhaps, I'll slightly edit the main text here and there, when I have the chance. It's the summer, you know, and I don't feel like sitting at the computer, even in case of spending time in such a beautiful environment as Guild Wars. :) Dmitri Fatkin 11:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Your guild page is simply too long - so long, in fact, that it defeats the entire point of the guild namespace by no longer being an easy-to-use reference for your guild information.

Use subpages heavily when you clean up this article. Subpage for the member info (although this frankly doesn't belong in the guild article period, it belongs in the user namespace), subpage for the pve builds, subpage with pvp tips/discussion, subpage with pictures of gimmick tombs builds, etc. Put them all on separate pages and merely link them from the main guild page, which should do a lot to leave the article short and sweet.

Similarly, the guild history should be a quick read. Cut it down to about a third its current length, or put the current version on a subpage and summarize it on the main guild page. -Auron 11:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that when I start splitting the page into many sub-pages, it'll completely eliminate the initial design of SoT guild space. Not to mention I've had that "please cut it by three times" issue before, so in terms of shortening things, it's one big "no-no" for me. What you're saying is basically: please redesign the page you've created 5 months ago. Sounds like a joke? Yes. Is it funny? No. For those who like quoting guidelines, the explanation is: the content on this page cannot be re-formatted because of its design. If changed, it'll lose 80% of its attractiveness, and no, I'm not going to use the basic template, as it doesn't reflect the coolness of our guild! :) However, you're welcome to help me with editing, folks, but only if you're certain about what you're doing. Dmitri Fatkin 12:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The guild page policy isn't something you follow if you feel like it, it's something you have to follow. Also we have the guild page formatting guidelines which will provide further info on what is and what isn't allowed.
In relation to your guild page first remove all builds, discussion on strategies, quick tips, member profiles and place them on subpages. Also remove that animation from the bottom since it alone adds 230kb to the page, same goes with the four large images (Guild_Soldiers_of_Thunderstorm_screen1.jpg to Guild_Soldiers_of_Thunderstorm_screen4.jpg) they add roughly 440kb. Lastly as Auron has already said cut down the guild history to at least a third and place the full thing again on a subpage.
These pages are only meant to provide a short documentation of guilds not act as a complete reference to everything about the guild and its members. You mention quoting guidelines and mention "the content on this page cannot be re-formatted because of its design." but since yours doesn't follow our policy/guideline by being excessively long you don't really have a choice since if we let one guild have it their way others will want the same treatment and that is definitely not happening. Also there are probably those in the guild wars wiki community that would be more than happy to remove the guild namespace completely and disallow anything guild related on this wiki.
Also lastly if a person places a guild cleanup tag on your guild page it means that the guild page isn't following the correct formatting placed in those first two links I gave. Usually it's best in cases like this to ask on the this talk page if the guild page is fine now and if the answer is yes then you can remove it. --Kakarot 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If they don't want these pages - they don't read them, it's simple as that. To me, an "Example Guild" template sounds like a guiding example. And, if I don't have a recruiting section in my own guild's page, it's not really that I'm supposed to mark it for deletion and scream: "Fire!", right? So far, I haven't seen a single page in the Guild namespace using such sweet-looking design, you can trust me, I've browsed them all. Perhaps some of my friends will be willing to help with modding it, I dunno. And yes, I can cut things, it's way easier than writing them. So, I'll probably just cut the PvE part out, no one in my guild cares about it anyway. What surprises me hard is that some of you still care about kilobytes... we aren't in 1996, using our 14400 ZyXEL modems, for real. Dmitri Fatkin 13:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You've had plenty of reasons for why this page doesn't conform to policy, and "it looks nice" isn't a valid counterargument, nor is it an "excellent reason". If you're not willing to stick to the wiki's policies (which include sticking to the guidelines), this guild page will be deleted after Saturday, 14 June 2008. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) There is a reason why you haven't seen another guild page like yours, they have all more or less followed the guidelines that have been set out on this wiki. Yes some of them could still use a bit of trimming/changing but considering your guild page is twice the size of the next biggest guild page; this is in text alone mind you not counting the images. Also going by the date of the original cleanup tag - May 27, 2008, it has been a week and a half that you've been given to clean it up to standards and considering guild pages are meant to be deleted after a week I'd say we've been more than fair. We've already said exactly what changes need to be made and seeing what Brains has posted I don't need to continue. --Kakarot 14:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So far, I haven't spotted a single valuable edit, besides the addition of the cleanup tag. From the above posts, it looks as if I'm preventing the improvement of this page, and the fact is that I'm not. All I need is a few easy weeks so that I could do a major redesign that includes all of the features mentioned above. We'll come to that, no doubts. :) Dmitri Fatkin 14:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My advice; save a copy in your userspace, because if this page doesn't conform with standards by June 14, it'll probably be deleted. Just in case you don't get the work done in time, you won't lose all the work. -Auron 16:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled by your statement "I haven't spotted a single valuable edit, besides the addition of the cleanup tag". You seem to be implying that you wish US to make the changes to your page to bring it into conformation with policy/guidelines. Normally that isn't how it works, but if that is what you want, I would be more than happy to take care of that for you. It would take me less than an hour. -- Wynthyst 17:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, then. Any thoughts on the current revision? I've spent the last two hours rewriting the code, so it should load in about 5 seconds now. For the moment, I'd prefer to have the list of "to-do stuff" here, as I don't want the guild history narration to suffer from significant text shortenings - I've already experienced that issue during the compilation of our GotW application. It's like composing a novel and finishing up with a "best-seller" pocket book. However, on the other hand, one person cannot be certain of what the general audience prefers. Perhaps I've over-worked in terms of facts presentation, though, I've told only a half of what I actually could. ;) Dmitri Fatkin 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not about shortening code so that it loads faster. This is about conforming your content to policy and guidelines. This means, removing the pictures, removing the member profiles, cutting the guild history by 60% and removing the playing tips and strategies. I don't know how much clearer we can be in regards of what you need to do. -- Wynthyst 18:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Have you seen the most recent edit? I believe the most of these things have already been addressed. I've migrated the playing tips, all build templates and strategies. The rest will interfere with initial placement design -- I don't want SoT to be associated with a "100 gold nub Ascalon page". Dmitri Fatkin 18:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This isn't about what you want, it's about what policy and guidelines dictate. The fact that you feel it "will interfere with initial placement design" is beside the point. -- Wynthyst 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a Few Thoughts

Hi, Dmitri. Since you asked me to comment about this situation, I will do so. I understand your position on this matter, but the Guild Wars Wiki really isn't simply a hosted website where everyone does his/her own thing. It's a community resource. I urge you to follow the community's expectations for your guild page on the Guild Wars Wiki. Feel free to follow your own desires on your Guild website -- after all, that's your site and you may present the information, images, and content that you desire, in whatever style and at whatever length you wish. But this is a space for everyone, a community space, and as a member of the community, I think it's safe to say that it would be greatly appreciated by all of us -- members, contributors, SysOps, Bureaucrats, even ArenaNet folk -- if you would address concerns about content, load time, and images by bringing the SoT section into conformance with what the community feels is the best configuration for these pages.

You may not be aware of this fact, but I've been a professional writer/editor since I was 17 years old. That's a good long time ago. :) I have words I live by: "Don't get married to your text." I know that you spent a lot of time and effort in writing this page and naturally you take a great deal of pride in it. I recall how hard you worked on the Guild of the Week application, and how much content you gave us in that effort, as well. Of course you like what you wrote, that's why you wrote it. Naturally you feel that all of the information you included is significant enough to be part of the section; that's why it's on the current page. Happily, in this case, folks don't seem to be recommending that you hack, slash, cut, or delete the text completely -- they are simply stating that you should use sub-pages to present that information. Surely that's a splendid compromise! And if you need help in doing a redesign, in partitioning the page to a main page and subpages, I know the good people here will give you all the advice you desire. Truly, your presentation can be just as effective with a more reasonably-sized guild page and several sub-pages. And those with slow load times will thank you for making it possible to open and view the page more easily.

Take care, and I look forward to seeing the newly-revamped SoT pages soon. -- Gaile 19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally, it starts going into the right direction. Kudos for the tips, Gaile. :) We'll do it this way: after all forthcoming edits will be done, I'll restore some design features of the page by comparing it with the old revisions, yet the content (text placement) itself is going to look as in the newest page edition. Hope that'll solve remaining problems. Dmitri Fatkin 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For Brains12: Guess it's ok if I'll use the standard guild infobox colored in my own template? Yellow color is really out of place here. Dmitri Fatkin 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine. (Note that I'm not Brains, just voicing my opinion here) -Auron 13:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My opinion would be no; the {{guild infobox}} template should be used as is, for the reasons given by Aiiane. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Auron - *cough* wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a template? --Kakarot 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... seeing as that's talking about Template:Guild and we're talking about Template:Guild infobox... no, it wouldn't. -Auron 13:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it may be possible to allow the guild infobox to house a colour parameter -- it'll allow you to change the colour but still have you use the infobox. Still looking into it though, so hang on until that's sorted. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean something like this Brains? --Kakarot 15:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Skipping a Line Break

I'm currently in need of some help with formatting technique that I'd like to include in the upcoming revision, that is:

<BR>[[Image:Lightning_Hammer.jpg]]  <BIG><B>Soldiers of Thunderstorm [SoT]</B></BIG><DIV align="right"><B>[http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%A2 <span style="font-style: oblique; color:#93CFF1;">Russian version</span>]</B></DIV><HR>

Can somebody please tell me: what would be the best way to include that code without a line break, so that it displays right at the same line as the Soldiers of Thunderstorm sign? The problem is that <DIV> tag naturally includes a line break and unluckily, I was unable to pick up the right code for use with <SPAN>. Thanks. Dmitri Fatkin 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars?

I'm not going to engage in that, though, I'd like to point out that there are at least 10 guilds which are using a customized version of Guild infobox, and, according to your recent edits, you should go and correct all these boxes also, otherwise, this seems too biased and unfair. The actual question is: why can't a customized version be used if the default one fails to meet a user's expectations? Dmitri Fatkin 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Links please. About the second, that is actually a good question that can only be answered by "because the policy/guideline states so". If you want to propose changes, please do so. There have been several complains about this lately, so it could prove to actually reach a good end if you want to give it a try by redacting a proper modification proposal.--Fighterdoken 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Guild:Frontline_Py. That's what comes from the top of the head, though, spending another hour, I can give you about 20 links, if you want so. :) Dmitri Fatkin 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• One person breaking a rule is not an excuse for others to break a rule. If that were the case, any kind of enforcement would be impossible.
• You are welcome to fix the other pages that are not using the proper infobox, or point them out here.
• A customized version is not updated along with the rest of the guild space if the original template is updated; thus if there is a need to change the infobox (perhaps due to a wikicode update or similar), in order for the change to be reflected across every page, they all need to use the actual template. If the template is lacking in some fashion, changes or extensions should be proposed for the actual template itself, instead of discarding it.
• As it is, the template is maintained for display consistency. Discussions of issues regarding that should go on Template talk:Guild infobox, not an individual guild page.
• Please respect the existing conditions until consensus has been reached on potential changes. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict xover 9000) On the other hand, the Guild pages policy actually kinda allows personalization as long as it doesn't breach the "concept" or formatting. Admins reverting may want to reconsider under those grounds (GWW:GUILDS#Strongly discouraged, first point). Maybe it could be solved by moving the proposed infobox to the guild namespace, in order to not breach the "no transclude" prohibition.--Fighterdoken 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I am working my way through the entire list of guild pages, in an attempt to fix those who have changed the infobox as well as correct other problems. This is a very time consuming process and as Aiiane has pointed out, you can feel free to fix any that you find that have done so as well. -- Wynthyst 23:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Guild:Bones_Of_Vengeance, Guild:Discipulos_De_Osensei, Guild:The_Imperial_Guards_Alliance ~Dmitri

All right, Aiiane, let's try to discuss it this way: please insert this code instead of the default guild infobox into my page and answer yourself a question: which of the examples actually contributes to page's readability, appearance and initial influence on the visitor? Is there a single person, besides Aiiane, who's thinking that a yellow-colored box looks better than blue? Dmitri Fatkin 19:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again Dmitri, you are missing the point, this is not about what 'looks' better. This is about what is called for in the policy and guideline, that's what this has been about from the beginning. -- Wynthyst 03:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate the creativity you have put into your guild page, the way you would like it to be is not acceptable on Guild Wars Wiki. As others have stated; the problem is not with how "stylish" or "cool" the page looks, the problem is that it violates our Guidelines and Policies. Guildelines and policy were created for a reason, not following them could cause all the work you have put so much time into to be deleted. You can make this guild page look nice, and still follow the Policies and Guidelines whilst doing so. The type of guild page you want would be more suitable on Guild Wars Guilds. The purpose of the guild namespace on Guild Wars Wiki is not to provide a "stylish website" for guilds, it is to document guilds and their existance. Please try to compromise with what we are saying. Thank you --Shadowphoenix 04:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel what you're saying, but it's not me who's in charge of setting/adding or changing the guidelines, and currently I'm trying to do my best in order to come to a suitable, mutual agreement, what truly boggles me is the pressure that's been going through this conversation. You don't seem to take multiple things into the account, such as: the time spent to write the contents of this page, the number of hours which were put into arranging its look, the number of hours needed to rearrange its appearance to comply with your requests and guild formatting guidelines vs. major, and mainly, beyond comparison real life events which prevent the implementation of your suggestions in a blink of an eye, perhaps some of you have got too much free time on the hands in order to understand that. Dmitri Fatkin 04:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC) (I wasn't even in town when you've tagged it for cleanup).

If time is the issue, I would be glad to reformat it for you. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reformat it, again? What thing on Earth would that be now? Dmitri Fatkin 05:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"the number of hours needed to rearrange its appearance to comply with your requests and guild formatting guidelines vs. major, and mainly, beyond comparison real life events which prevent the implementation of your suggestions in a blink of an eye" (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You should read it as "that were needed to...". Personally, I consider it solved by now. Dmitri Fatkin 05:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And you see Dmitri, as a member of this community, you DO have a voice in setting of policy, whether or not your views will be shared by enough other members of the community to make the changes to policy you want is another question, but there is no one person or group of people 'in charge' of setting policy and guidelines, it's a community effort, that's what the wiki is. However, until such time as changes ARE made to the policy and guidelines covering guild pages, we expect all guilds to comply. It has nothing to do with disregarding how many hours you may have put into your design/layout, it's about whether or not that design/layout complies with policy.-- Wynthyst 05:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

True dat :) But it starts to look as if Aiiane wants to go into censoring the contents of this page. As was said before, the guild's story is not going to get hammered by 60%, it'll make the whole thing useless. And regarding the colored infobox - I surely can live without it. Dmitri Fatkin 05:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really, honestly puzzled where you got this idea that I want to modify the textual content of your page in any way, shape, or form from its present state. In fact, the only issue I personally have with your page at the moment is the modification of base page colors (page-wide background color, default text color) because my personal beliefs are that base colors should be left to the wiki skin to determine, so that users may set their own preferences in that regard (for instance, I prefer not to have to read light-on-dark text), hence my comments here. But with regards to the text, now that the items not directly about your guild are sub-paged, I have no issues with the content of your page at all, so I'm having difficulty figuring out why you think I want to censor it. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, let's then leave it as is and will move to the policy improvement thing. :) Dmitri Fatkin 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just curious to know your opinion...

Which coloring scheme do you like the most: the old dark teal or the new light green? This is the question that will probably determine my stance on the whole customization issue. Please compare the new & the old revisions and then comment which one and why do you like. Thank you. Dmitri Fatkin 23:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cant you make them so you can toggle between both? It can be done. ya and SoT fuckin' ownz --Super IgorUser:Super Igor 16:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, please don't use swear language on this page; thanks. And regarding the request itself: no, I doubt it, as that would require modifying all subpages. Just tell which one you think looks better. :) Dmitri Fatkin 00:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)