Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:General formatting/Archive 2

Formatting and spacing

A click on the edit button to your right will instantly clarify this comment in ways words maybe shouldn't attempt to phrase.
When there is need to format coding, headers, lists, tables, and the likes, there currently is editor's discretion as to how to space wiki-functional characters from content.
A bulleted list, per example, could be formatted in two ways, depending on the user who formatted it:

*Like so
*Which is
*Most generally seen

But what is also seen — in my opinion much neater — is this;

* Instead of
* The example
* Seen above

The same applies to other forms of coding:

• Spacing commands and parameters;

"width: 100px;"
versus
"width:100px;"

• Table content;

"| style="..." | content"
versus
"|syle="..."|content"

• And also applies to headers:

==This== 
versus 
== This ==

Now, I know that there is no difference in functionality. In fact, I don't even expect this discussion to be taken that seriously. The only thing I am trying to say with this is; should there not be a uniformal formatting standard regarding these spaces?
If the edit window looks more organized (in my opinion; the spaces make the formatting appear more organized and appealing), there might be less new users afraid of breaking things in main space (and thus more likely to edit, albeit this is a Crystal Ball) if there is a clear distinction between content and coding, as well as an easily grasped pattern to things when editing.
Similarly, should tags such as <br> be spaced away from the content also?
Or is that considered a taboo on wikis? If not, are there examples of tags spaced from content causing different behaviour than intended? When I used my last break tag above, I had considered the fact that the extra space behind it may have been interpreted as a space on the next line, at least in terms of code (turning the line into a pre-styled line instead of just a new line). Hitting Show preview, however, pointed out that this wasn't the case.
So basically; would it be beneficial to find consensus for this type of formatting and then carry it through as such, no longer leaving it to the user's discretion. Pay no mind to the amount of articles that would require changing; I am sure I (and possibly others) can still make all the subsequent changes depending on the consensus that rolls out of this discussion. - Infinite - talk 11:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"should there not be a uniformal formatting standard regarding these spaces"

I agree with you that it is preferable, but I would still say no.

What I would say, is that all guides and the like could be changed to the "preferable" style (if it is by consensus), so that new people learn that way.

My reasoning (experience?) is based on similar things on Wikipedia. People editing in good faith can be incredibly asinine about the most irrelevant of details, and those not editing in good faith just have more ammunition. Neither is worth the trouble.

So basically, I'd advocate any and all encouragement until it involves going to a talk page and telling people they're not doing it "the right way". A F K When Needed 16:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks neater without spaces, and I'd really rather not have my watchlist populated with edits adding spaces. Manifold 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Being nit-picky about things as insignificant as spaces is pointless and a waste of time.

If we made a formal decision one way or the other (either spaces or not), it would just mean something that we would have to retroactively fix/patrol for every page on the wiki. In addition, it would make it (more) difficult for newcomers to create pages with the "proper" formatting ("In the future, please use preceding spaces in all table styles, titles and bullets, per GW2W:GENFORM."), and thus would add yet another thing to the long list of "things that must be policed."

Also, people have different editing styles; I normally put spaces in table styles, but not in bullets or headers, because I think it looks awkward otherwise. If it did come down to it, I would probably propose exactly that, as a matter of personal preference. Aqua (T|C) 18:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Skills with the same name

We need to have a concrete format for the naming convention on skills that share the name with other skills. I have seen:

1. Mind Stab (Greatsword) - Capital Disambig
2. Mind Stab (Sword skill) - Capital Disambig + skill
3. Stab (warrior) - All lowercase
4. Stab (thief harpoon skill) - All lowercase + skill

IMO, I think we should either use the 1st or 3rd ones. We don't need to label all the other skills with (skill), so it seems unnecessary to put them on these pages. Mattsta 22:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, 3 looks best to me. pling 22:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Current standard is 3, so we should change the odd ones out to follow suit. - Infinite - talk 02:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think 4 would look weird as 3. "Stab (thief harpoon)". I propose to have skill in the parenthesis still for this reason. There's also the fact that some skills share name with items (Lava Axe (skill) and Lava Axe, for instance). — Rhoot 01:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

{{clear}}ing skill articles

Hi.

Currently I'm adding traits to skill articles, and I've noticed an inconsistency. Some skill articles - I'm inclined to think the vast majority, based on my experience - have a {{clear}} after the infobox so that notes, traits et al are below it. This does lead to some whitespace being created.

• On skills which have short infoboxes, such as Signet of Restoration, it's aesthetically pleasing and I can understand why the clear template was utilized.
  
• On skills that have substantially longer infoboxes, such as Thumper Turret, it's responsible for far more whitespace being created and the usage of the template is more dubious.

I'm using a monitor with a 1920 x 1080 resolution, and articles such as Thumper Turret contain far too much whitespace for my personal liking. I'm unsure of how to proceed. While I have no problem at all manually removing the clear template from all skill articles in the name of consistency, I refuse to do so without some discussion beforehand. Just ask if you want any screen captures. I'd be highly appreciate of all ideas offered. ^ ^

Thanks! A F K When Needed 11:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there data that's supposed to be there that's currently missing? If so, we might need to wait til we have more information to proceed with any kind of decision. --JonTheMon 15:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not exactly a mover and shaker here, but not to the best of my knowledge.

I don't mean to blow it out of all kind of proportion, but it seems like half the article is whitespace on some articles. A F K When Needed 15:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Im not too clear on how the data will be when the skills are released but it seems like with some skills most of the data is on the info box, making it too big. Maybe changing how that's formatted would help? But then again we might have to change it again as more data for the skills are known, especially since damage calculation formulas are still unclear, and other iformation like skill range etc aren't clear yet either. --Lania 18:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization (again?)

In light of recent file moves, some moves I spot on the log are downright awkward. As I was going to comment on File talk:Plains worm hatchling render.jpg; "I disagree with this naming convention. The NPC is named Plains Wurm Hatchling so therefore the render of said creature should really be located at [[File:Plains Wurm Hatchling render.jpg]]."
Frankly, I don't feel it makes sense to move the render of an in-game NPC (of which we know the name and its capitalization) to a location such as that. I know current formatting rules dictate it is in the correct location now, but those rules should be changed. I still stand by initial stance: in-game allocated names are to be copied verbatim as titles on the wiki. And to strengthen my argument I re-present to the community ye ol'e loaf of bread.
In Guild Wars 2, we know of the existance of a consumable named Loaf of Bread. As current formatting dictates, the item Loaf of Bread would have to be documented as Loaf of bread (or more accurately; loaf of bread). It is beyond my understanding as to why anyone thinks this is a good idea. We are documenting a game here; titles of articles and files should be copied verbatim. We should document the item Loaf of Bread on the article Loaf of Bread (in this event it already is done as such, but it was just an example).
Currently only skills are excluded from sentence case capitalization (as per the official general formatting we have written down on this article). Copying skills verbatim is a step in the right direction, title or no title. However, I feel that needs to be extended to every in-game title, across the wiki as a whole. Per example, the icon for the item Loaf of Bread. As current rules state, one would be expected to find the icon for the item Loaf of Bread at the location [[File:Loaf of bread icon.jpg]]. This may make sense on wikipedia, but it makes zero sense on GW2W. The icon is for the item Loaf of Bread, not for the non-existant item Loaf of bread. Therefore, the icon should be uploaded at the location [[File:Loaf of Bread icon.jpg]].
As for concept art we should also copy titles verbatim. If concept artist x uploads a new piece named Son of a Birch, we should upload that artwork to [[File:"Son of a Birch" concept art.<ext>]].
Lastly, we already know that races and professions are common nouns in the game itself, so that part needn't altering.
I really don't see how the previous consensus was crafted, but it just makes no sense. We're not wikipedia; we document a game. We need to follow the capitalisation rules (at the very least in titles) used in-game. An item named Loaf of Bread is never a loaf of bread; a concept art piece named Son of a Birch is never "Son of a birch" concept art. These things are really not that hard to grasp. - Infinite - talk 14:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This has been the convention for all three wikis now and I never really understood why other than "other wikis do it (non game wikis)", and "wiki is cap sensitive so lowercase should always be used". I always found the capitalizations or the lack there of annoying at best. If we want to change the capitalization rules so that everything matches, I don't mind at all... because right now it's just messy. --Lania 16:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

An argument for lower case

I have pushed for the "use lower case" convention since 2006. However, I do not believe we disagree very much.

First and foremost, your concept art argument is incorrect. Concept art titled "Son of a Birch" makes "Son of a Birch" a proper noun. That would be the correct capitalization of the image file and of an article (though I think an article for each piece of concept art is silly).

Secondly, your item examples are incorrect. For example, GuildWiki's Fiery Dragon Sword article and Guild Wars Wiki's Fiery Dragon Sword article. Even on this wiki, items like Vial of Weak Blood are in title case. My original "use lower case" proclamation specifically calls out item and skill names as exceptions. I believe this to still be the case on all wikis.

The only case where we disagree is generic NPC names. The NPC is not, in fact, named "Plains Worm Hatchling". Guild Wars 2 simply displays all names in title case for aesthetic reasons. You can see this yourself when you look at a task's objectives -- common nouns like this are written in normal sentence case.

Consider the following two sentences that differ only in case.

Next, kill four plains worm hatchlings.

Next, kill four Plains Worm Hatchlings.

The first less jarring to read. As the wikis originally contained more guides and actual articles than you see now, sentences like this are common.

Note that, because MediaWiki captializes the first word of all articles, both plains worm hatchling and Plains worm hatchling point to the same place. This means you can use the phrase naturally at the start of sentences too.

In short, I don't think any of your examples are very good, and I think the convention should stay. However, I think we should edit this formatting article to specifically call out item and skill names as being in title case.

—Tanaric 01:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This basically boils down to the IRC argument ("Documenting != Transcribing") we had. I disagree with not transcribing in-game objects by default (though I am open to reason as to what we should not transcribe, and how transcribed information should be presented). Titles of objects (including NPCs and other non-objects) should be directly transcribed from in-game (users will wiki via the capitalisation as seen in-game), but past that it should follow standard capitalisation rules (in the article). I am merely targetting the actually written formatting guidelines on this article, not the actual practises, for they may differ. - Infinite - talk 01:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If the policy article does not represent actual usage it can be edited. Policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. Obviously there is some overlap, but the primary goal is to describe tradition/consensus for new editors.

I argue that using normal sentence case for generic NPC articles is in fact transcribing. For example, the task Honor the Spirit of the Snow Leopard (which should be in title case because it's a title) has the following description:

Speak to Shaman Sigarr to be transformed into a snow leopard and hunt prey.

When you target a snow leopard in game, the target text says "Snow Leopard." Your argument seems to be that because the target text says "Snow Leopard" the game identifies them as title case. I argue that the task text is more representative, and that all target text is in title case for aesthetic reasons. See EQ1/EQ2 as an example of lowercase nameplates; it looks silly IMHO.

Anyway, even if you disagree with that reasoning, there's a practical element. If you name the article "Snow Leopard", the task text must be wikified like this:

Speak to Shaman Sigarr to be transformed into a [[Snow Leopard|snow leopard]] and hunt prey.

This is injecting extra effort where there need not be any.

—Tanaric 02:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Extra effort is not the issue

Extra effort is completely irrelevant to what we should or shouldn't do, that first and foremost. Please don't imply we should be lax.

Then; the target is indeed "Snow Leopard" and thus the snow leopard will be documented as such. The title is "Snow Leopard," whereas the article itself will use "snow leopard" (because it's not a proper noun). Basic, accurate, and correct. The in-game object has its correctly named article and the article itself applies regular capitalisation. It matches both logics and reference and is really the optimal way to go, documenting-wise. - Infinite - talk 02:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you should re-read what I wrote. I argued that "Snow Leopard" is incorrect as an article title, and you have not refuted my line of reasoning.

You have yet to put forward a line of reasoning. You have simply repeated "title case is logical and correct" without supporting that conclusion. So far this is just you and me talking, but as I push the issue to attempt to build consensus, be aware that typically non-arguments like that are ignored.

Re: "extra effort", it is 100% relevant to everything we do. We are not building a resource merely for readers. We are building a resource that _anybody_ should be able to edit without a degree in wiki syntax and policy. Keeping things simple is virtuous; it does not make us "lax".

—Tanaric 05:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I really think I read what you wrote correctly. Aesthetic reasoning or not, that is how the object (note: object) appears in-game. We are documenting a game (which is my main argument here, mind). If a player finds something in-game and they wish to look it up on wiki, they will look for the name of the object they are interested in. If this would be "GOLEM 500er34ASURA," our article for it would have that title. If they're looking for "Loaf of Bread," our article would have that title. If an NPC is named "Logan Thackeray In Disguise," our article would be that title.

And on that last particular example it currently appears we would clash. This NPCs name is really just title case capitalised for aesthetic reasons.

But that doesn't mean we should change the capitalisation in the title on the wiki because we know how it was intended. The first thing we should present to any user (of any wiki) is the fact that we know what you're looking at and what its title is. Our article should not be titled "Logan Thackeray in disguise." However, we should (and hopefully will) apply the actual house(s) of style (ArenaNet's and our own) to the NPCs title and therefore apply sentence case for the rest of the article, because we both agree that things were merely capitalised for aesthetic reasons.

The real difference in argument we still have is the fact that you would (according to your arguments) not transcribe the NPCs title as it appears in-game (as an actual target). This confuses me greatly, because I can't find an actual reason as to why we would apply wikipedia-esque standards to this wiki. Our titles, be they efficient or not, should match those in-game at all times.

What we don't match is objects that don't have a virtually "physical" appearance in-game. We should apply sentence case to that, and further only capitalise proper nouns. Why? Well, because that's how the language works.

I still disagree with your effort note; I can understand how it would be easier for users who aren't familiar with the ways of a wiki to use, but I also feel that this community has a skilled enough persistently active userbase that can catch those edits and alter them. Alternatively we have (and should continue to have) redirects for sentence case use. Keeping things simple may not be wrong in intention, but it is certainly incorrect in execution; we fail to respresent what we're documenting because changing the capitalisation of targets is never exact.

To point back at your interpretation of my argument here; "Your argument seems to be that because the target text says "Snow Leopard" the game identifies them as title case."

That is a wrong conclusion. The target text says Snow Leopard, which means our article about this target should be titled "Snow Leopard." However, I never said that that means it identifies as title case (as explained, it would be sentence case in the articles, because that is what it is). This is merely me fighting for the accuracy. The target is title case, so our title (and only our title) should be title case.

Bottomline is this; I feel we should have an exact representation of the game objects, and you feel we should have an interpreted and corrected-where-only-aesthetics-are-used-for-capitalisation representation of the game objects. And I feel I make more sense because a wiki documenting a game should use a WYSIWYG approach when documenting, because that is what is expected of us. When transcribing the required information is done, we apply sentence case and proper nouns capitalisation as we already do in the articles themselves. My argument is the game, your argument is the underlying approach of the developers. And naturally both of these have a certain weight in them, but currently you're just brushing my side off as irrelevant because you feel your argument makes more sense (to you).

As a final note, I must point out that your sudden editting reappearance to this wiki (after what, 4 years) solely to "set standards" for us "noobs" is a really, really terrible attitude. It's not like we have spent the last couple of years turning this into the hellhole GWW is. Nor do I feel we're being noobs at all. The only thing I agree with is that we need some more time catching up with the stream of BWE edits, which we will, with or without your interventions. And this will be a great wiki, with or without your interventions. - Infinite - talk 13:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Infinite, though I actually agree with your stance on capitalisation, I feel your hostility toward Tanaric to be totally unwarranted. He is, in my opinion, just giving his opinion of what is right for this wiki and from a user with his experience, it is an opinion that I take very seriously indeed. I'm not a wiki noob either, (debatable) having been on this wiki and its predecessor since day one, but nobody has ever called me one. More respect to grandfathers, please. --snograt 13:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you feel I am being hostile, I did not intend it as such. The quoted words are his own, I can't simply ignore them. Also, grandfather or no grandfather, I won't change my attitude because someone has been registered for longer than me. I don't think that should come as a surprise. - Infinite - talk 14:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that was the major issue - I didn't see those quoted words anywhere. I'm obviously interrupting an argument that has carried over from IRC - 'twas ever thus. --snograt 14:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In the heat of the actual argument, words may have carried over from IRC (but I do feel that those words have value, simply because they were about the same discussion. IRC isn't an excuse to vent the actual thoughts on a topic to avoid looking bad on the wiki, really. I respect Tanaric's opinion, I do. I just feel differently and I feel his attitude regarding this is more coloured than the wiki comments make it out to be). - Infinite - talk 14:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that you feel strongly about this, but I believe your passion is blinding you to the discussion. You have still not responded to my argument.

An Argument for More Capitalization

My argument is really simple: I believe the in-game prose, like task text and dialogue, is the canonical representation of character and item names. Therefore we should use this capitalization in all places where it is technically feasible.

This folds into a nice technical and usability argument: MediaWiki software is designed for sentence-case titles, and supports it with special cases for the first letter of article names, so my approach is also easier for editors to use.

There's also the aesthetic argument: Writing in sentence case looks better in prose in other GW2W articles. Having words Randomly Capitalized in sentences looks Silly And Unprofessional.

You've attempted to refute my first argument. You have made the connection that target window -> article title casing and prose -> article body casing. There is no basis for this perspective; you need to explain why you think that. You can't just repeat it, along with "Basic, accurate, and correct." over and over again. If you can't, stop responding and let one of the many other editors who disagree with me but can express it attempt to make the point.

You have also misinterpreted my argument regularly as "you feel we should have an interpreted and corrected-where-only-aesthetics-are-used-for-capitalisation representation of the game". This is not the case. I believe that my capitalization is canonical, and that therefore editors who contribute by transcription (which I'm not diminishing! It's valuable!) should find my capitalization more correct.

(Further, I think that misinterpretation is fundamentally flawed. We are editors making a resource for readers. We should make it as reader-friendly as possible while not shooting ourselves in the foot with editing complexity. We should be editing anything transcribed from the game to make a better resource. Documentation is not merely writing everything down -- your statement "a wiki documenting a game should use a WYSIWYG approach when documenting, because that is what is expected of us" is patently incorrect. This is useless for our readers. Just because we're a wiki doesn't mean we're a dictionary or an encyclopedia. Opinionated content that goes on forums or GameFAQs belongs here too, and in fact is probably the most useful stuff we can have.)

You have not refuted my second argument. You have said "we are not wikipedia" twice. You have also said the community can "catch those [incorrect sentence case] edits and alter them." Any argument that starts with, "it's okay, we'll just do a bunch of manual work and refer people to a policy" is a non-starter in my opinion. Why expand the need for a janitor caste? Those editors are already the busiest and most prone to burning out. If we can, with 0 effort, make the obvious choice the correct one, this saves everybody a lot of stress.

You have not refuted my third argument, though you do mention redirects which can solve this problem.

You've further reverted to irrelevant quotes from a personal conversation not involving you to debase my character. Again, not a good way to make a point. Especially because your quote is out of context. The IRC channel is an unofficial place for old friends to _chat_. It is not policy, it is not a forum for consensus, and it is not the wiki. This is why when I felt us having a clash of philosophy, I immediately took it to the wiki. We don't list the channel on the wiki for a reason (or at least we didn't used to, maybe that's changed).

Look, at the end of the day, article casing is a pretty trivial thing. As you noted, our disagreement can be solved by liberal use of redirects. While I think it'd be unfortunate to have to make a lower-case redirect for all NPCs linked to in articles, especially because the average editor will instead just incorrectly use title case in prose and janitors will have a bunch of work in re-editing to lower case and adding a redirect, it's a workable solution. I won't keep this argument going if it's just me and you.

But I think the underlying philosophies you've shown in this conversation are dangerous. If they're the consensus opinion at launch, this wiki is doomed to irrelevancy before it even begins. If our articles are based on transcription instead of context, Zam's database will be better than us, period. There will be no reason for us to exist. This conversation is probably more relevant to my item page style question linked elsewhere, but the same patterns are showing up here and I am concerned.

As a final note, I want to disagree with "currently you're just brushing my side off as irrelevant because you feel your argument makes more sense". If that was the case, I wouldn't have bothered replying. I legitimately want to understand the reasoning behind your opinion. If you have a logical basis I haven't considered, learning it will help me improve. I did misunderstand the connection you made to refute my main point -- and I hope I better characterized it above -- so thanks for pushing forward. Hopefully in your reply you can make it clear _why_ you feel that way.

—Tanaric 20:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you are both WoT'ing a bit too much and not getting to the gist of the issue enough. I partially care about attitudes and outside references and personal remarks, but let's refocus on the issue and the cases for it. --JonTheMon 00:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, should have taken this to personal talk some time ago. Thanks for the oversight; I'm a bit rusty. —Tanaric 04:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Reset indent

(Reset indent) As to why I feel towards verbatim titles without losing sight of their proper capitalisation is something I was asked to adress more clearly and properly, so here I am;
Most capitalisation in Guild Wars 2 regards the aesthetic. Having targets with non-title case capitalisation will look odd in a videogame. I agree that this would be different for a wiki, but that is an argument against my stance and I will leave elaboration there to those opposing my perspectives.
When I am in-game and I read a target name, I will automatically include its capitalisation when I wish to wiki it. More often than not I have looked things up on the wiki and most of the times I would be redirected in one way or another. I simply feel that when I type in what I see, I shouldn't be redirected to someplace else. I expect that the majority of editors feels the same way (simply looking at the new pages list makes me inclined to believe that).
However, in this topic we need to argue whether transcribing titles is the correct way to go. I believe so. I firmly believe that the more something looks as how it appears to in-game, the more familiar a user feels on the wiki (and hopefully more intuitive). Changing capitalisation is just as confusing to new users as having to format an inter-wiki link; they most likely understand neither (and would need a guide to do one or the other (or both)). So my main argument here is familiarity with the game. People expect to see on the wiki what they see in the game. I also agree that there should be limits to transcribing information.
Further, I feel not only titles should be the only verbatim-capitalisation transcriptions. But before anyone jumps on that, a few examples (which god forbid I ever get right)):

• If one asura in-game is named Extra-Genius Asura it doesn't mean all the instances of the word "asura" should be capitalised all across the wiki (note that that is already not the case). However, whenever referring to this specific NPC, it would be written down as "Extra-Genius Asura" because that is the title as it appears in-game. It is technically just a name like Hope and Grace. We would treat "hope" and "Hope" differently, because they are different instances of the same word, where the latter is a name. That principle should also apply to in-game names on the wiki.
• Snow leopards in-game are wearing the title "Snow Leopard" (or a variation of that with a unique prefix). There are two instances when referring to this NPC, which can be found at the bottom of this argument. When reading Tanaric's comments, I quickly note that he would merge the two main instances of it into a single article, which would use sentence case. However, I feel that for the completeness of this wiki we should differentiate between the two. In fact, for the sentence case instance below I would even argue plural would be better when pointing out the difference, but I'd prefer a suffix tag to denote its difference with the title case instance. Note that even though I appear to use capitalisation as my only difference below, I treat these instances as if the other doesn't exist, to point out the capitalisation. Nothing is final about those supposed article titles, nor do I support this minor difference.
  • The target Snow Leopard; a monster or an objective. This should be documented as "Snow Leopard" because the target(s) has (or have) that name (like the asura example above).
  • The snow leopard(s); a breed of animals that appear in-game. This should be documented as "snow leopard" because races are sentence case according to both ours and ArenaNet's house of style.
• Skills have no reason to be subjected to sentence case capitalisation (so far every participating user agrees to this). A skill title is a name (however, things they inflict are not names). If this needs any further elaboration I will be expecting them to point that out.
• Anything that isn't directly in the game follows houses of style, and where conflicting follow sentence case (unless it is proven to be a title). Concept art names are always titles. The English language in general treats art titles as names.

So, to summarise;

1. Actual targets should have their articles with verbatim titles and instances. Direct targets have names, even though their underlying definition may not be a name (Snow Leopard versus snow leopard). To be accurate I feel we should approach this with a WYSIWYG stance, to not unfamiliarise users. I also feel there should be a clear difference between direct targets and their underlying representation (two articles on the snow leopards; one for the actual targets, and one for the actual race). The article about snow leopards as a race would be a bestiary entry (linking to Snow Leopard, the target, amongst other targets of the snow leopards race (Juvenile Snow Leopard)).
2. Names are names and therefore to be treated as common nouns, as the English language denotes.
3. Everything that isn't a direct target or a name should follow sentence case capitalisation (as the English language also denotes, albeit with exceptions).

Then, to address the quotes found above this comment;

• "I believe the in-game prose, like task text and dialogue, is the canonical representation of character and item names. Therefore we should use this capitalization in all places where it is technically feasible."
  • I agree with this, with the aforementioned exception of direct and actual targets. I feel the targets should be treated differently (as explained above, hopefully clear enough).
• "MediaWiki software is designed for sentence-case titles, and supports it with special cases for the first letter of article names, so my approach is also easier for editors to use."
  • Where capitalisation would not be sentence case, however, MediaWiki will remain unideal for our cause. The special case for the first letter is not enough to address our actual use of it; we will have quite a deal of articles where there exists no sentence case in the title, no matter what. I disagree that it is easier to use by default, but I do admit there are cases where it is easier to use (but only where common logic will point it out as such (skill names, item names, NPC names)). Even a minor bit of confusion will confuse, which I wish to avoid.
• "Writing in sentence case looks better in prose in other GW2W articles. Having words Randomly Capitalized in sentences looks Silly And Unprofessional."
  • Agreed where random words are actually random, as I addressed above. I Don't type Like This Because i feel it is correct, which is why I simply type as I'm supposed to (with the odd superfluous punctuation here and there). If you interpret a game like I do, you wouldn't feel my approach is random (I hope you don't, after reading all of this).

But most fundamentally, the sentence that struck me as most odd was this one;

• "Just because we're a wiki doesn't mean we're a dictionary or an encyclopedia. Opinionated content that goes on forums or GameFAQs belongs here too, and in fact is probably the most useful stuff we can have."
  • "Welcome to the official Main page Guild Wars 2 Wiki, the comprehensive reference written and maintained by the players."
    • ref·er·ence/ˈref(ə)rəns/
    • Noun: The action of mentioning or alluding to something.
    • Verb: Provide (a book or article) with citations of authorities.
    • Adjective: Of, denoting, or pertaining to a reference library.
  • We are in fact appointing ourselves to be a library-esque environment. When you work at a library (like I do), their indexes will appear to have a lot of random capitalisation. This is hardly ever actually incorrect, but I agree that all of the capitalisation rules there have been properly addressed prior to their implementation. I hope that this long comment is working its way towards a more clearly defined argument. I don't know if you disagree with the header on the main page, but this is assuming you do not disagree with it. Personally I would choose a different noun to introduce ourselves with.
  • I mostly disagree with the opinionated content on main space. I don't know exactly how "wiki" translates to improvised facts on how to go about things such as collecting a certain item or unlocking a certain skill point the most efficient way. All user-generated additions should be facts, and not opinions about how things should be facts. All of these facts should be referenced if they can not be found in the game. On this wiki we usually frown upon personal rants and guides in main space; it's not/never objective. This is why GW2W was already doing quite a lot better than GWW (up until now, because we inadequately prepared for the first Beta Weekend Event), for we took on a serious stance to repel subjective information. If you feel that is wrong then I would like to ask you to start a topic on that to elaborate (for I'd be curious to learn your perspectives on our purpose).

Ultimately I view us as what we're probably intended to be by the majority of our users; an encyclopedia about a game. If we can fulfill the following tasks at any time, our purpose is already served;

1. What is object/target x?
2. How can I get (to) it?
3. What do I do with it?
4. Which tips are available for me to do better at what it is I'm doing?

• Rinse and repeat.

Also note that this can be altered to fit direct request;

1. What is object/target x?
2. Where can it be found in the lore?
3. What was its purpose?
4. What was its relation to the rest of the (in-game) universe?

• And so on.

Without a single shred of doubt a database is better at documenting objects in its most efficient form, but the wiki is unique because it doesn't solely cover gameplay. We will never be rivaled in terms of all-encompassing documentation (that you fear it is understandable, though). But if we merge articles together over capitalisation rules, we will never be an exact official wiki. We have the luxury to document more than just objects, and our articles should reflect this.
This is why I feel we should have extra capitalisation standards. - Infinite - talk 12:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

le sigh Ok, it seems like the two of you are coming from different initial assumptions and haven't really addressed those. Infinite's is "clicking on something and transcribing that exactly is more intuitive" vs Tanaric's "lower case is more intuitive, and if it's used in a sentence, even better." One issue I have with lower case for some articles (items) and title case for other articles (skills) is that it creates two standards and I think that's even less intuitive. --JonTheMon 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel we can have one rule with exceptions for this kind of formatting. We'll have to split up general formatting into sections and define them individually to get the most accurate system (because the amount of variations are simply that vast). If I *had* to define it into a single standard, I'd probably phrase it something along the lines of;

"Written text conforms to English capitalization rules. Articles and section headers use sentence case with the exception of proper nouns.
In particular, note that races and professions are capitalized as common nouns, not proper nouns.
The names of skills, items, NPCs, and direct targets will remain capitalized as they appear in-game. For instance, Healing Rain will remain capitalized regardless of its placement in a sentence.
Species articles and target articles are to be separated. Per example, Snow Leopard will depict the NPC Snow Leopard, whereas snow leopard will depict and define the species. To avoid confusion, the target takes priority over the species, where specie articles are to be suffixed (snow leopard (specie) or snow leopard (breed)).
If concept art has a title, treat this as a name and format it verbatim. For instance, concept art piece The Pale Tree in The Grove would be formatted as "The Pale Tree in The Grove" concept art.extension."

I'm not sure if that covers everything I stand for accurately, but that would be a quick mock-up. This points out exactly why individually defining formatting would benefit us greatly. - Infinite - talk 15:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In game captializations don't follow english rules and it's there for aesthetic reasons and for readability and I think the wiki should follow that same convention for only those things to distinguish something that is directly transcribed from the game vs what someone wrote on the wiki. I don't think it's that confusing to use normal capitalization rules for articles and use direct transcription cap rules for article titles. In anycase, I think infinite's idea makes sense. --Lania 17:06, 02 May 2012 (UTC)

Summing up

I think there are several competing principles at work:

1. Does the wiki need to follow English grammar as far as capitalization goes?
2. Should the wiki follow in-game capitalization when quoting text (e.g. heart-task goals, descriptions)?
3. Is it easier for readers to parse paragraphs using one system (Title Case) vs another (lower case)?
4. Should we follow the same guidelines for titling articles?
5. Should articles for acronyms (notably NPC) use acronym case? (e.g. GToB), lowercase (gtob), uppercase (GTOB). ...
6. Is one style or another less effort to document?

Like nearly everything grammar and style related, some of this comes down to personal preferences. Tanetris finds lower case easier to read; I find it more sensible to stylize jargon (capitalization, color, font, or other choices work equally well for this purpose).

For article names, forcing a default style is going to cause us to need extra redirects: either snow wurms requires Snow Wurms or Great Temple is going to require Great temple: the first for verbatim text, the second for predictive search/find.

So, while I have a strong preference, I think the most important thing that we can do is to choose to follow a rule that makes it easy for infrequent contributors to get it right. Therefore, I think we should follow one extreme or the other: (nearly always) lower case or (nearly always) Title Case. (Which ever we follow, there are going to be a lot of sensible exceptions, if we are doing our job well.)

We should also adopt a policy to allow redirects in articles where sensible. For example, [[NPC]] should be preferred over [[Non-Player Character|NPC]] — of course, we should avoid inappropriate redirects, but the first is much easier to parse while editing than the second. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously this is a heated topic, but we really need to make a decision about this. Pages like Chat Command and Messaging System and how they're getting linked to throughout the wiki are really making my fingers itch.

My personal preference has been for sentence case for all but formal titles (because Arena Net are using chicago manual of style and then applying this to wiki convention calls for sentence case page titles and lower case use in sentences). But I am not going to argue much about it because the decision which nets us consistency is more important. What's it going to be? -- aspectacle  15:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, there aren't any rules that mandate the use of english grammar for everything on the wiki. like I said before we should use Anet conventions because a lot of pages are already title capped, it is less confusing to just use the cap formatting from in-game, and creates a level of "continuity" between the game and the wiki. So, my opinion is-> Capped titles for only formal titles, while headers titles and articles use regular english grammar rules. --Lania 17:19, 03 May 2012 (UTC)

"Does the wiki need to follow English grammar as far as capitalization goes?"

• Yes, with exceptions specifically defined.

"Should the wiki follow in-game capitalization when quoting text (e.g. heart-task goals, descriptions)?"

• Yes, quotes should be verbatim. They are quotes after all.

"Is it easier for readers to parse paragraphs using one system (Title Case) vs another (lower case)?"

• Probably, but I feel that using one system is going to be inaccurate in places. Again, exceptions should specifically be defined.

"Should we follow the same guidelines for titling articles?"

• No, as I have clearly defined in the main section above (I feel) titles should depict what they are depicting. If a target is capitalised, the article should too (even if that means targets where you'd usually apply sentence case (can one target the message system? If not, sentence case).

"Should articles for acronyms (notably NPC) use acronym case? (e.g. GToB), lowercase (gtob), uppercase (GTOB). ..."

• This depends on their in-game use. All three examples are used in GW, so all three acronyms should exist as redirects.

"Is one style or another less effort to document?"

• Probably, but I'd prefer accuracy over effort. Especially if accuracy feels more natural to users to begin with.

And personally I feel this section tends to be read separately from the main discussion. I didn't write up all that text to simply have it bypassed by a list of issues we should discuss. It doesn't do justice to either Tanaric's nor my own arguments. Therefore I advise everyone to at least skim over the main discussion before addressing these issues. - Infinite - talk 17:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to yank the bandage off of this one, if I'm reading all this right, nobody is opposed to using Title Case for page titles for item and skill names, such as Crude Longbow? Wombatt 04:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sort orders

I would like this wiki to formally adopt alphabetical as the default sort order for lists, tables, etc. Obviously, if there is a compelling reason to use a different order, we should idr it. Storyline order will almost always be best. Sometimes chronological will make more sense, rarity-order or cost-order will often be appropriate for item lists, and so on. That can be discussed for individual articles/categories/templates.

Here's an order I don't think we should ever adopt: ANet-order. I don't think the developers give any thought to presentation or organization when they list Mesmers last as a profession (due to the accident or intent of it being the last reveal). I continue to find GWW and GWiki more difficult to navigate b/c it chose to adopt ANet's idea that Warrior should be listed first.

In the beta, things like Recipes and Merchant inventory appeared in ANet order, which makes it harder to find things. Part of the purpose of the wiki is helping players to find stuff out, so I think we are obligated to present a more useful organizational structure to players, rather than follow ANet's misleading lead.

So far, this wiki is inconsistent (as expected) about presentation. However, I think we are ready to establish a default for sorting. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think by allowing for alphabetised listings we allow for much easier automated generation of listings, particularly as we're talking about installation of tools that can do this for us. I'm all for easier. -- aspectacle  15:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that just don't make sense to follow Anet's order on lists for the wiki, so alphabetical is best as it is easiest to find and search, and better for automated tools. Plus Anet's order can change before/after release, further BWE's. Other methods to ordering like depending on effect of the item on the list doesn't really make sense to me. --Lania 17:22, 03 May 2012 (UTC)

Profession sort order

→ moved from User_talk:Tennessee_Ernie_Ford#Alpha order

I think most of the articles are listed according to profession class, then alpha order (soldier/adventurer/scholar), so there's a fair few to change if you wanted to go that way. There was a discussion about it, but that must have been over six months ago now. --Xu Davella 06:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The most recent discussion is here. Generally, the wiki is inconsistent (some articles use reveal order, some use Soldier/Adv/Sch order, some alpha, some random). Since no one objected (either in discussion or to the edits...until today), I've been boldly converting to alpha order for the reasons stated.

I try to put myself in the mindset of someone who presses F10 every so often. They are unlikely to worry about "class," since the game doesn't mention it much. They will be looking for Thief, which should normally follow Ranger and be ahead of Warrior. I've always thought that ANet did a large disservice to GW1 players by sometimes following alpha order, sometime anet's profession (i.e. random) order, and sometimes an arbitrary order. It's a system that requires people to have an innate understanding of the game or game-specific jargon or game-specific mechanics.

Sometimes, there's a good reason to adopt a different order (e.g. armor varies with "class," but little else does). The rest of the time, using alpha order means less work for the reader to find what they are looking for.

I've not been rushing this, in large part to give others a chance to offer an opinion. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The community decided on the profession double-order, not ArenaNet. Because this order has been widely accepted as the standard across more than just this wiki, I feel we shouldn't change it now. If the wiki was the only location that housed this order, as well as usually ignored by new users (or other users who may be oblivious to consensus here), then I'd argue we should change the order.

Whilst I initially also favoured complete alphabetical order, it seems plenty of other users back then and current prefer the present sort order for professions (something your post on the freshly started discussion does not actually address (which is why I'm leaving this comment here, and possibly a similar comment there)).

P.S. Note that we already ignore ArenaNet's sorting order in terms of professions (we list the mesmer before the necromancer), but not for traits and other in-game representations (which are due to verbatim copying, possibly a byproduct of the consensus regarding quotations). - Infinite - talk 13:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell if you are saying we should or should not stick with a sort-order that is non-intuitive. I posted the suggestion to change the previous practice; as noted above, I'm slowly converting articles based on no one objecting and having two frequent contributors supporting the idea that, in the absence of a strong alternative, sorts should be alphabetical.

The previous consensus was reached (1) before all profs were revealed (and it was thought that prof-type would have more meaning) and (2) well before most of the current contributors were involved. And again, the prof-type→prof order hasn't always been followed, or, when it has, it's not obvious, e.g. {{Specializations nav}}. I didn't address other preferences in my post for two reasons: it's not mentioned in the general formatting guidelines and (even after reading the discussion), there's no stated reason as to why prof-type is preferred (it was a statement of preference without any supporting argument). In short, this is a case of evolving usage and needs leading to an updating of any previous practices or agreements (i.e. consensus).

Finally, I completely understand "organization order" is different from "default order," so articles on "armor class" and "armor" are going to sort by profession type. But in general use, there's not much difference between a scholar and a soldier, for example: scholars can use swords, soldiers can use staffs; all types use skills (there's no "spell" per se in GW2); all types cause aoe/burst effects; and all types have a pet of some kind. Even the profession articles themselves only mention prof-type in association with armor class, i.e. "prof type" is functionally the same as "armor class." – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 14:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying, whilst I personally favour(ed) completely alphabetical ordering, the GW2W community and other big communities prefer the current profession ordering; Sol/Adv/Sch (each subsequently alphabetical). They have long since adapted this style and changing it now will cause more confusion than it will cause clarity (Crystal Ball, I admit). - Infinite - talk 14:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I have to strongly disagree on two levels: (1) I think it's already more confusing (as argued above) and (2) I'm not sure why what other communities decide should have a bearing on what we do here. The thing is: the game isn't even out yet, so there are tons of things we are learning and revamping, so we shouldn't necessarily stick to a consensus established in 2011: there are fewer people reading (and editing) the wiki today than there will be in January 2013. Neither do I think we should do something different just because there are more people here now than last year. But, in this case, there's a compelling reason it's worth updating: alpha order is more useful to more of our intended audience. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 14:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Armor rating and especially what kind of armor you can wear is still quite a factor, too, when thinking how relevant armor classes truly are. And no matter how much ranged or melee the traditional frontline or backline roles have, soldiers still excel in melee and scholars excel in long range or indirect combat. Adventurers fall in between. Mediggo 14:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel now that the standard we provided back then has spread so massively across a majority of the GW2 communities, I feel it is a tad too late to actually change it again. I believe the majority of the people has taken this sorting order as the "official" order (hopefully not because the "official" Guild Wars 2 Wiki presented it (and they therefore assume it is ArenaNet's official order)). - Infinite - talk 15:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we are using sort order to prescribe/recommend how people play, then I might agree that armor class should determine the default prof sort order. One shouldn't have to know that Warrior excels in the frontline to know to look for it second whenever the wiki is sorting by profession. Armor class is going to matter for "Guide to playing an elementalist" and "Guide to damage, control, and utility," but that doesn't mean it should matter for whether we list Thief Traits before or after Warrior traits. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Too late? After the game is out might be too late, but this is the perfect time to ensure that we are appropriately organizing information so it's the most accessible to the majority of people. And, as a reminder, the majority of people aren't reading the wiki...yet. (added) In fact, I think because this is labelled the official wiki, we owe to readers to be the first to change and not to be unduly influenced by what other sites have decided. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You'd be surprised how many people read the wiki, really. We have recently had Stéphane step in to inform us of how confusing our FAQ and articles on the HoM topics are. This doesn't just spark from a few wiki users, because ArenaNet usually approaches us in a different manner to rectify minor errors that should be clarified.

We are already widely used and respected. I feel changing the order should see a new community consensus at large, rather than from one editor being bold (normally I'd not mind anyone being bold, but this change is larger than you appear to sketch it). - Infinite - talk 15:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And if we were to change the order currently in wide practice to that of true alphabetic order in places where combat roles are not so relevant (e.g. traits lists) we might also have to decide on where the true alpha order should be used and where Sol/Adv/Sch order should be used instead. It seems a little too big of a hassle to go through at this point... And the Sol/Adv/Sch isn't exactly broken as it is, yes? Profession equality, which true alphabetic order would promote (that's how I see it anyway), is important but I'm not sure if it's that much more important over front/mid/backline or Sol/Adv/Sch order currently in use practically everywhere(?).

By chance, I have included both profession nav template and trait nav template on my own userpage in a collapsable section. Go check it if you want. Alphabetic order of traits nav makes it looks rather confusing given that the other navs still use Sol/Adv/Sch. Mediggo 15:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Although i prefer strict alpha orders for a lot of things, profession order should be Sol/Adv/Sch then alpha because of how the professions are referenced. I'm curious though, is the sol/adv/sch convention something Anet created or the community created? I vaugely remember a video interview talking about it. --Lania 16:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think they have mentioned the professions/armor classes in that order each time they have been talking about armor and such. Mediggo 16:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It was the GW2W community who created the sol/adv/sch --> alphabetically order initially. It has since been adapted on multiple occasions by ArenaNet. - Infinite - talk 16:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it's good enough for Anet, I think it's good enough for the wiki. Also breaking it up into 3 categories makes it easier on the eyes when trying to find the information you want. I think it's kinda of a "intuitive" way of organizing rather than procedural. --Lania 16:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes there is a Macro set order that overrides the individual order of independent items in the world in this case the Dev's have created such a Macro set order in the use of Soldier / Adventurer / Scholar or Heavy / Medium / Light Therefore and because of this Macro Order the individual items must reorder after that Macro order is imposed Furthermore Alphabetically after the imposition of the Macro Order we have SOLDIER ( Guardian, Warrior ) ADVENTURER ( Engineer, Ranger, Thief ) SCHOLAR ( Elementalist, Mesmer, Necromancer ) note we did impose alphabetical order but only after the Macro Order was appeased. but why you ask... not Adventurer, Scholar, Soldier as the alphabetical order of the Macro order ?? Because Americans can be Greedy, Selfish, and Stubborn and they always want the BIGGEST and the BEST first therefore the Macro order is under the Uber Macro Order of Heavy / Medium / Light the biggest and the best and the most expensive most Expansive and the most impressive comes first. "Ie the fat guy wins again!" the skinny guy was lost in reruns. Rudhraighe 16:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I feel it is intuitive mainly because the majority of the GW2 fans have adopted this order since its implementation; it feels intuitive because it's what we're used to. Habits are much harder to change than most other wiki issues, which is also why I continue to oppose to changing it now (contrary to my initial opinion back when this order was forged, where I favoured alphabetical order completely). - Infinite - talk 16:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(Triple edit conflict) Not just the eyes, but the mind. :) They call it chunking. I'll agree that personally I find it easier; I could simply be used to the system, but I also do think that breaking up the eight professions into 2-3-3 makes it easier. It may be counterintuitive, but I do believe that there is such a volume of information to be navigated through that applications of division and hierarchy that are done before alpha listings can be important in making things just that much easier to find. Redshift 16:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I have to agree with the consensus here. Changing an established convention simply because it's not "intuitive" or "natural" ignores the reasons that it became a convention in the first place - i.e. people must have thought it was intuitive enough to establish it as a convention. Why would so many other fansites adopt this ordering if they didn't think it was a "good thing"?

Furthermore, unlike the profession ordering in GW1 (which was mostly random and, as Ernie noted, inconsistent even within the game), this ordering has a logical basis that can even be coded in s SQL clause: order by armor_class desc, prof_name asc. It's not difficult to figure out, and once you figure it out, it's actually easier to use than purely alphabetical because of the additional sort level. You no longer have to scan the full list for "necromancer", you know it's going to be in the bottom third with the other low-armor-class professions, so your visual search area is reduced and you can find it more quickly. —Dr Ishmael 16:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: After looking at Mediggo's page, I noticed something: {{Specializations nav}} doesn't explicitly show the 2-level hierarchy like {{Skill lists nav}} and {{Professions nav}} do. Displaying the ordering hierarchy in navboxes like that, which are highly visible, goes a loooooooong way toward helping new readers understand the system and making it even more intuitive. —Dr Ishmael 17:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary

I think this page should specify that pages should have a brief "summary" or "introduction" directly after the main heading before the level 2 headings. I think also this page should offer guidance/suggestions/whatever on insuring a quality summary. - I wonder if this untitled section is a "summary" "brief" "synopsis" "abstract" or whatever. - I'm confident these should be more like "guidelines" less like "rules". - I'm thinking perhaps: -- Be short; no more than 5 sentences and/or 2 paragraphs -- Provide just enough information for a someone unfamiliar to be able to see how the topic of the page fits into the context of the game. -- Provide just enough info to distinquish this topic from similar topics. -- Introduce most or all the level 2 sub-topics in context. -- Be understandable on its own without the support of the rest of the page. -- Eschew details that do not enhance the overall understanding. llandale 22:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

CSS classes

I think we should list all the classes defined for things like infobox, nav, and table styles. I'm not sure if Template:STDT has all of them, but anyway they should be on a formatting guide like this one (or perhaps a separate page with help and examples of how to use them). I also think we should consider renaming a couple of them since it's not particularly clear what they describe: e.g. "mech1", "mech2", "promo". I'd prefer full words that explain what these are, so you won't always have to consult a guide when creating a table, for example. pling 16:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

yeah what does mech1, mech2 etc mean? Is there somewhere explaining all of these anywhere that I missed? Yeah help page for tables with examples would definitely be helpful. I'm not a very good coder, and tables still confuse me from time to time and a decent help page (probably separate from but linked on this page)will be great. --Lania 19:44, 05 June 2012 (UTC)

mech1 and mech2 are variations of the mechanic colours. A list of the classes would be utmost helpful. - Infinite - talk 19:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

table classes are based on navbar colors that Aqua used here, so he could explain scope of each class better (like how mech1 and mech2 are different). A list of classes:

• table - for a new standard table;
• warrior, guardian, ..., necromancer;
• asura, ..., sylvari;
• npc;
• pve;
• equip, item, rune - for respective item types, all use the same color for now, but were added for possible future split;
• mech1 - major mechanics (professions, races, attributes)
• mech2 - other mechanics;
• lore;
• location;
• promo - for promotional materials, like books etc.;
• hom - for Hall of Monuments;
• boon;
• condition;
• crafting - for crafting materials;
• recipe - for recipes (uses same color as crafting);
• white - for white table, which is used when rows are colored differently (List of downed skills). In this case each row should be assigned one of the classes above.

To make a table you just add smth like class="lore table" to the top. There is also a skills class, which was added for Dr Ishmael, and which I'm going to kill, as it's quite useless after tweaks we made with Tanetris and Pling. The only think it does now is that it sets table minimum-width to 100px, which is better to be done by adding style="min-width:100px", as it is less obscure. You can also set width of any table this way. Please, don't use width instead, as it will not fit smaller screens. When there are several tables on a page, they should be assigned same min-widths, and cells in the 1st rows should be assigned widths, so that they all look uniform.

There is another special class for tables, that should be used with rowspanned tables to structure them better (see List of guardian skills):

• line - adds line after the row it is added to.

There are also color classes for professions and races that set bg of an element they are applied to to one of the color used (like skill infobox headers). Each is used in pair with one of other classes:

• dark - color of skills infobox to be used with white text,
• medium - color used by table first row headers (the one that was used in table headers before),
• light, lighter - colors used in table rows before.

Classes thus look like mesmer dark, or asura lighter. Dark, medium, light, lighter may also be used without a profession, in this case they will produce gray colors used with any profession. Dark is used with infoboxes now, medium-lighter were added for previous table design, new one doesn't use them, so they may probably be deleted (of left for possible later uses, medium can be used with navbars for professions e.g.). Alfa-R 20:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Redshift has noted on his talk page that colored tables are not looking that good sometimes. Probably having that many color templates for tables wasn't a good idea after all, and leaving just profession and races colors + any color (for any profession) + white (as default table class for general tables) would work better, as it will match with any design. What do you think? Alfa-R 12:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessarily that we should prune the colored tables, but I do think the white is the most suitable and flexible, especially for the case of merchant tables. To paraphrase my reasoning, at the moment the table brings in a number of colors--blue links, red links, purple karma, green rarity (necessary for the current duplicate naming of fine/masterwork items and otherwise useful as a sort), copper/silver/gold currency--and the green of the npc infobox, I feel, is distracting via the green background and confusing in that it seems like there's a 'Masterwork' connotation being given to the item. This becomes especially so for merchants with long sale lists like Tiga Fierceblade. Thus, I'd request that something as useful and neutral as the white table not be restricted into a narrow purpose. Redshift 12:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Redshift, it's not that having the classes is in and of itself a bad thing, it's how and where they are used. In a listing of items like what a merchant sells, white/gray is best since the data itself is color-sensitive (rarity). Perhaps the "npc" color class won't be used much because of this, or maybe it could be repurposed to be used for tables that list NPCs themselves (instead of things an NPC sells). —Dr Ishmael 15:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok then, but what do you think about making white style the default one? Alfa-R 09:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)