Template talk:Gww

Alas, this template is bugged. With non latin characters the link is somewhat strange:

• Tyria (world) becomes Tyria .28world.29
• Lion's Arch becomes Lion.2527s Arch, etc.

One awkward solution is to create redirects on GWW, but that's not really satisfying. MORTUIЯUS 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Required?

If we put a note in Trivia whenever GW1 events are semi-relevant to events in GW2 (such as the origin of the monsters in the Catacombs), this template will become obsolete and with that, avoid accidental inter-wiki browsing. It may have been nice 2 years ago but nowadays I find this more annoying than a site notice. When is the GWW article a source of information if it's relevant to GW2 directly and thus supposed to be covered on GW2W articles? - Infinite - talk 20:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

As seen here, lot of useless, not enough useful. - Infinite - talk 20:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As much as I hate this template, between using it and copying all GW1W content here, I would rather use it. My favourite example is the Shining Blade article: it doesn't really matter for GW2 that Bartholos was one of its first leaders, or all those details about the War in Kryta. If we added all that content (which is mostly irrelevant to GW2), we would risk having articles with more GW1 information than GW2, even after release. I would rather point people to GW1W and tell them to go look there if they want to know GW1 information. Of course, I agree that the template is being overused - it doesn't make sense to add it to mechanics articles, and it doesn't really need to be in ALL lore articles, only in a high number of them. Erasculio 21:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're not going to delete the Template. I've added it to all pages :S on GWW and I was going to do it on the GW2W but I'll wait till this discussion ends. --The Holy Dragons 21:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would only use it in articles which depict events/NPCs/lore which have their roots in GW1, but are very weakly apparent in GW2 (as Konig pointed out; Ventari for instance. To be honest, that makes most sense to me. A short history paragraph in GW2W articles should suffice in most if not all other cases. - Infinite - talk 21:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also Holy, I appreciate the edits you made in regards to this template, albeit, in my opinion, a tad extreme to link GWW to GW2W and vice versa in that fashion. :) - Infinite - talk 21:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm ok from now on I'm only going to add the {{gww}} and the {{gw2w}} for important pages. --The Holy Dragons 21:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

After some thought, it might be more sensible to discuss here where the template should remain and where it can be substituted or even removed altogher. Shall we? :D - Infinite - talk 21:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

hmm ok let the discussions begin! --The Holy Dragons 21:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

maybe we should remove the ones on the user pages because that's not really what the template is meant for. IMHO --The Holy Dragons 21:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should create a substitute userbox for that and replace. Much like my own userbox (except that is also in my style). - Infinite - talk 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I would remove it: from all ArenaNet staff pages (there's no information about them on GW1W that we couldn't have here as well), from all mechanics pages (there are a few left: conditions, minions, bone fiends, PvP), from the pet pages (doesn't make much sense, IMO), from all GW2 articles that have a page in GW1W (the Kralkatorrik article has more information here than there, same for Ebonhawke), and from a few other articles (Powder keg?). Oh, and I agree with the above. Erasculio 21:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, maybe a {{User:gww| Name }} and a {{User:gw2w| Name}} template :P and yes @ Erasculio for the A-net staff.--The Holy Dragons 21:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eras on those. I should start on recreating the userbox for the profiles then. :) - Infinite - talk 22:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

GL&HF! ^^ --The Holy Dragons 22:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox. First and only userbox is what I'm planning on tranforming into a Userbox template. Ye? - Infinite - talk 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:User GWW - Et Voila. - Infinite - talk 23:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I do not believe that the amount on the other wiki's page is relevant to whether the tag should be added or not. A note would be the case for mechanics (and Anet staff as Era pointed out) - as it was discussed before (primarily skills), but lore, NPCs, events, etc. should have the template and not the note. Neither is irrelevant to due it being different circumstances. I personally think the template should be used overall, but others disagree in mass prior so I didn't argue. But my point is: amount of information on a page is, imo, irrelevant to whether the template should exist or not. It is to denote there is a page on the other wiki, not to denote that there's more to read on the other wiki. For the examples Era used: Kralkatorrik on gw1w should purely be about the ED as a landmark while on the gw2w, it should be the events of its awakening and afterwards, only denoting it slumbered in the area it did. And this is, in fact, the case (though there's little need for the concept art on this wiki and the other one could probably use a minor expansion). For Ebonhawke, on the gw2w, it is about Gwen fortifying it and its history since, on the gw1w, it is about being a possible future content and being an unexplorable town. Amount of information is irrelevant, it merely has to exist imo. -- Konig/talk 23:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) But by that logic the template should go on EVERY page that shares name with GWW. - Infinite - talk 23:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As per the actual Template: Description - Used in articles where the Guild Wars Wiki may have more information and relevance concerning the original series. In other words, where it is relevant to link information that is indirectly relevant to GW2. - Infinite - talk 23:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the "there's more to read on the other wiki" meaning is better than the "there is a page on the other wiki" one. Erasculio 23:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

"But by that logic the template should go on EVERY page that shares name with GWW." No, as I stated, this is not the case. Re-read the beginning of my post. In regards to the description, I'll pull out the most important part: "concerning the original series" - you see, if it is there on the gw1w, it concerns the original series to some degree. Whether it be a name of a place on the map, an unnamed weapon of minor plot significance, or some guy with a link to the story, they're all relevant to gw1 because they exist during that time. And as per the purpose of splitting lore between the two wikis (something I personally hate but deal with), gw1-relevant information is never the same as gw2 relevant information. Even if one summarizes the information of the other or if one has more overall information than the other, that does not merit the removal from "all GW2 articles that have a page in GW1W" (I don't see why Era would even suggest that in the first place, unless he mistyped). -- Konig/talk 00:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant those articles that are about GW2 things which have only been hinted at GW1, so the articles here are far more complete than the articles there. As I mentioned above, I think the "there's more to read on the other wiki" meaning is more useful to us than just linking to every lore article that exists here and at GW1W. Erasculio 08:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't our primary goal with the tag be, though, to enhance an article. In case of Ventari and Sohotin; we know they are directly affecting the plot. The tag only informs users that there is information on the GWW which is more in-depth about the past events. And my "EVERY page" was not very subtle; that should've read "EVERY lore article". There would only be a few exceptions suddenly and we're trying to reduce the use of this template, right? In the very least we should probably replace this template with the one I linked above this paragraph. This template is definitely not destined for User space, whereas User GWW is. We know there is Charr in both games and in both timeframes, with rich history. The template is an asset there. For locations of no direct importance lore-wise I would personally leave the template alone. Landmarks are different, but only if they affect GW2 directly. But then again, Ascalon is a whole different place in GW2 lore. The history of Ascalon City is different than the history of ghosts infested Ascalon City, the template could be used to remove the in-depth parts of Ascalon before the foefire (as is basically, right now), but in essence that is only indirectly relevant to GW2. Ergo we put a template. On articles as Bear Spirit I see no use for the template. The GWW Bear Spirit is irrelevant completely to GW2. Et cetera, et cetera. - Infinite - talk 23:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"articles that are about GW2 things which have only been hinted at GW1" Such pages don't exist on gw1w. All pages there have been "more than hinted at," as they exist during gw1's time. But that's off-topic. And neither a gw1w's page nor the gw2w's page will be "more complete" because one holds information relevant purely to gw1, and the other purely for gw2 (with a potential small summary of the article topic's history). Or that should be the case. If it isn't, then it's the articles' content, not the template on the article, which should be altered.

"we're trying to reduce the use of this template" See, this is my issue. I do not see a need to reduce the use of this template. It's not something that pops out onto the screen like a sore thumb, nor does it add unnecessary categories. It serves as a less-than-subtle-but-not-too-big-of-an-eyesore note that the topic is linked to something existing in GW1.

To note: I have no issue with the userspace version of the template, though I see no issue with this template being used in user-space either. I'm neutral on that topic and it doesn't affect me either way.

Regarding the "similarity or somewhat related" bit at the end, Infinite, I disagree. The fact that it existed in gw1, to me, is enough reason for it to be relevant to GW2. For Bear Spirit specifically: We actually see the Bear Spirit on the gw1w, but we don't on the gw2w. By Era's argument, the tag should be removed on the gw1w, but kept here. But I disagree, as it will more than likely get expanded in the future, and when that expansion occurs, Era's argument will have the situation reversed, but it's still relevant - maybe not to the game, but to those looking at the article - to show its state in gw1. By your and Era's argument, the individual god pages should be removed, since they've distanced themselves completely during gw2 and thus will only be "hinted at" in gw2 - but such would also be the case for gw1... thus where should it go? By your combined argument: No where. Unless I'm misunderstanding something here. -- Konig/talk 02:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"but it's still relevant - maybe not to the game, but to those looking at the article - to show its state in gw1." But the thing is, we need to document the actual game (an argument used against me a lot (admittedly not by yourself yet)) and not indirectly relevant to irrelevant information about the game. The novels are directly relevant to the game, as we know the events from the novels return in GW2.

As per your god pages argument; personally I believe we can merge all god pages into a single article as can we merge all spirits pages (at least at this point in time). The gods have indeed distanced themselves. Though we don't know how they interact with the game much, other than through the human racial skills, they might be more apparent in the actual game. Because of this, it is currently more sensible to me to combine them and slap this template on that article, whilst removing the individual pages (and thus reducing the amount of articles with this template). We know there are gods for the humans; we don't know what their roles will be. The template links to GWW as to show users what they used to do in the past. No need to cover the past on GW2W, especially before we know much about GW2 itself.

Also with the bear spirit. The article on GWW is so short and meaningless. It shows an NPC which starts a mission in EotN and the dialogue around it. In GW2 the bear spirit gets a whole new purpose. Though they share name, they are completely different things. Not because they are different in lore (because they are the same, lore-wise), but because their purpose in the games are different. It's not coherent to tie them together with this template. Ergo, I agree that lore is a bitch to document on two seperate wikis, but this template should not make it okay to just glue all lore articles together.

And I am trying my best not to hurt lore, because in my opinion you are the source of lore information and therefore I value your knowledge concerning it more than most if not all other contributors. At the same time I'm supposedly documenting a game which makes it hard to draw lines for me, I suppose.. - Infinite - talk 03:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For the gods: Reasonable, but I disagree. For the bear spirit, "Though they share name, they are completely different things." Wrong in every way. They are the same thing. The gw1wiki article is just lacking in terms of lore (which it is for many NPC articles). For "we need to document the actual game" And why not link to shared traits of the game series? A good example of how I think things should be done, but not a perfect example, would be Diablowiki and its D1&2 variant - that is, if it is relevant to the lore of both, it should be on both. Reason why it isn't a perfect example is because they overlap lore too much. I'd rather see a reduction of overlaping lore. With Era's peeve, the issue is on gw2w's side of the article content, but only/mainly (depending on the article) due to the lack of information of the article's topic in GW2. Effectively, I think it's far too early to go removing both articles and the inter-wiki templates for based on what information currently exists on articles. There will be overlaping lore, this is unavoidable. A prime case being Strait of Malchor and Blazeridge Mountains and their gw1w equivalent, which is only due to the lack of interaction/mention of them thus far. When we know their relevance to GW2 or post-GW1 events, or even learn of pre-GW1 events relating to them, then it'll no longer be the case where they're the exact same or damn close to it. Just like how the Khan-Ur article was.

TL;RD It's too early to deem what articles are or are not "different enough" just as it's currently impossible to expand articles like Fleshreaver to be anything more than a summary of the gw1 variant - because all we know is that such articles are relevant to the game. We just don't know how relevant, or rather, we don't know anything outside "they exist." If we go remove the gww template from all the pages pointed out above, we'll just end up adding them again when we learn more! -- Konig/talk 05:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's too early to know which articles are not complete enough on GW2W, but not too late to know which articles are not complete enough on GW1W. That's what I was talking about when I mentioned GW2 content that was only hinted at GW1. A great example is Sohothin. Our article about Sohothing states that it exists, that it belonged to Rurik and goes a bit on its story. GW1W's article about Sohothin states that it exists, that it belonged to Rurik and goes a bit on its story until the end of GW1. Both articles say the same things, with the GW1W article being more incomplete than the one here, since it does not have some of the GW2 bits our article has (as it should be). Doesn't really make sense to link from the GW2W article to the GW1W article - there's nothing to be read there that can't be read here.

Plus, the Sohothin article on GW1W is not going to receive new information. It already has everything known on GW1 about the sword, and we have no reason to believe the incoming content to GW1 - Winds of Change, then the Elonian content - will mention the sword at all.Even if we were to assume that the other step of Guild Wars Beyond after those would have something to do with Sohothin (which is an assumption, but anyway), considering how long GW1 content takes to be developed, I wouldn't be surprised if GW2 were released before that happened at all.

In other words, I don't believe in linking from GW2W lore articles to all GW1W lore articles. I only believe the link should exist when it adds something to the article here, which isn't the case for many lore articles such as Sohothin. Erasculio 10:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You're not entirely correct on the gw1 articles, actually. In terms of lore, it was agreed for the most part that all events taking place during and prior to gw1 would go on the gw1 wiki. GW2 will likely delve into history - considering the main antagonist shown being one of pre-history - thus said lore would be, by said agreement, be going on the gw1 wiki, with a summary on this wiki. Then there's also Beyond to take into account. Gww is not yet complete. And even if Sohothin and like articles doesn't get an increase of lore, it would serve as a purpose to denote "it was in gw1, here's the gww version" - not everything has to be done for the case of adding something to an article. Same reason, effectively, why I disagree with your comment on not over-categorizing certain NPCs. -- Konig/talk 00:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"not everything has to be done for the case of adding something to an article": which is fundamentally what you and me disagree with. Guess we'll have to see what other people think. Erasculio 00:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I will attempt to decipher this, but...its kinda hard to get legitimate opinions when the entire conversation screams tl;dr. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am confused how events 20~2 years prior to GW2 would be sensible to cover on GWW, which covers events that happened 250 years ago. That's what the "agreement" reads to me. - Infinite - talk 10:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll quote myself "GW2 will likely delve into history" Historic lore would be summarized on the gw2wiki and placed on the gw1wiki, as has been done thus far. To an incomplete degree. -- Konig/talk 13:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But how far into history will it delve? I don't see any foundation for covering events that happened 20 years prior to GW2 on the GWW, especially if it's not apparent in GW1 itself. - Infinite - talk 13:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

.... Go, reread the post of mine before Aquadrizzt. I don't want to quote the entire thing. Basically: GW2 is likely to delve into historic events from before gw1's time since it deals with pre-historic enemies, and we're told that we'll learn more of the seers - who's civilization has ended since shortly after the writing of the Tome of Rubicon. More than likely, we'll learn more ancient history. -- Konig/talk 18:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, failed to read that "pre-history" bit correctly the first time. My bad. - Infinite - talk 18:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Konig I'm confused - are you saying that if we find out more about the the prehistory of the world in Guild Wars 2 we should update the gw1w? If so I'd rather we reversed our previous 'agreement' and spent the time making the wiki for the new game better and allow it to contain the information we find in GW2 and its prequel novels. I think any other scheme will be pretty confusing to new editors (and me) and not really all that helpful by having the main articles for important characters (I'm thinking of the dragons introduced late in Guild Wars lore for Guild Wars 2) like Kralkatorrik, Zhaitan, Jormag and so on split across wikis or on gw1w wiki. -- aspectacle  21:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't completely clear. Lore relating to things (people, places, events, things, etc.) that are during or predating GW1 go onto the gww if it is seen or mentioned in any form during gw1 (this includes a simple unnamed item, map object, or other). This is why Zhaitan doesn't have a GW1 article, but those I linked to do. For instance, gw1:Mursaat and gw1:Seer got a nice improvement from gw2-related interviews, and so did their gw2w variants. -- Konig/talk 23:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Restrictions on this template

I know this discussion was also had a year ago, but I think that we need to refocus.
There are dozens of articles that have this template, so much as the actual purpose of this template has been lost. Articles such as Miniature and Dolyak feature this template, and the presence of this template adds nothing to either of these articles other than "Miniatures existed in Guild Wars" or "Dolyaks existed in Guild Wars. This wiki's purpose is to document Guild Wars 2, not things that have been carried over from Guild Wars. That being said, there are dozens of articles that benefit from this template as well; for example, human or Shining Blade. The counterparts of these lore articles have information that transcends the 250 year gap and thus the lore on the subject from Guild Wars Wiki is both useful and relevant.
tl;dr I propose the removal of this template from all articles that exist on GWW, but have no relevant information for the Guild Wars 2 version. I can generate an exhaustive list if necessary. Aqua (T|C) 00:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I would just as soon remove all uses of {{GWW}} (and its GWW counterpart) from all articles and start from scratch. Just when do we want to link? When the names are the same? Or when there's some relevance to connecting the concept in GW with the one in GW2? Jora and gw1:Jora are the same person and interlinking makes a lot of sense. But what about Insect and gw1:Insect? These have nothing in common aside from the name. I would even argue that Mesmer and gw1:Mesmer are so different that inviting the comparison is misleading to readers (and it's even worse when comparing skills like Mind Wrack and gw1:Mind Wrack).

Lore, some NPCs, locations, and histories make sense to link, but I think we should only use the template sparingly elsewhere. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely like to see this template less often. For skills, we could probably get rid of {{Guild Wars skill}} and make a single list page that lists all skills that have GW1 cognates. (I'm basing this idea on how we no longer keep historical trait articles and instead archive the info on List of historical traits.) Heck, why not make a generic [[List of reused Guild Wars terms]] and make it a huge list of all reused skill, item, and creature names. That would really cut down on where this template needs to be used. —Dr Ishmael 14:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I like that idea. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that ANet recycles, but I think there's something unfair to our readers in implying similarities where there are none (these are classic false friends/faux amis: vocabulary that has nothing in common except the spelling). It's only slightly better than saying, "World of War Wiki also has an article on Warrior".

I'd prefer list of recycled jargon from Guild Wars, but the less opinionated list of reused Guild Wars terms is fine, too. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Using infobox template

Why not use infobox template on this, smth like:

The Guild Wars Wiki has an article on Template talk:Gww.

<div class="infobox">
{|
|[[File:Gwwlogo.png|50px]]
|The [[gw1:Main Page|''Guild Wars'' Wiki]] has an article on '''''[[gw1:{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}}}]]'''''.
|}
</div>

Alfa-R 08:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, would fit nicer with our new styles. pling 14:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines

When using this template, it should be placed "where"? (at the moment, it can be seen all over the place)
In accordance with what seems to be the general consensus, I propose:

When using this template, it should be placed under the last chapter of the article: such as References, External links, Trivia, Notes, or See also (see The Mists). If none of these chapters are present, the template should instead be placed at the very bottom of the article (see Gwen).

Alternatively, for articles where the upper right corner is not already occupied by other media, it may in a few cases be more purposeful to place it at the top (see The Underworld).

Titus 16:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that it should be placed at the top for Gwen case, it seems somehow thrown away at the bottom (or maybe it's just my impression). – Valento ^msg 17:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I just looked too briefly at the article. In my mind, that image of her was located at the very top, not below biography. This particular one would fall under "for articles where the upper right corner is not already occupied by other media". But, how about (e.g.) Crystal Desert and Elona. How do we decide where to put it at the top and where not to. Those are very similiar articles, just happen to have a "random" image at the top, which is enough to push the gww tag all the way to the bottom. Feels too random, care to suggest a better guideline? Titus 18:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)