Template talk:Signets nav

This seriously isn't needed, this can just be a list of signet page... No point in having a template... --Naut 13:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, I always liked being able to jump onto other similar articles right away, rather than search the lists. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 14:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone who ends up on the strength page might reasonably want to check out the rest of the attributes, but how often would someone who lands on Healing Signet want to check out the rest of the signets? Manifold 15:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

how about with a [[:Category:Signets|category]]? I agree, there is no need for this nav. Are we going to make one for spells? glyphs? adrenaline skills? you get my point Venom20 15:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I often run into that myself and that's why I am making the navs. I would gladly make the nav for all those things and would often use it. I don't understand why are you guys so against a feature that simplifies browsing and is no big deal. Yeah, it is not "needed", it's not a must-have, but it's surely a helpful tool so why not have it when we can? ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 16:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that categorizing is enough for these sorts of relations, otherwise we might as well turn up having templates for all skills that heal, elites, skills targeting allies or elementalist skills, and if there would be an elite ele ally-healing signet, the page would basically only consist of navboxes. Don't get me wrong, I personally really love navboxes, but I think that this is redundant, categories should be just fine. · LOQUAY · 13:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, although I would not include all those, I can see that skills having multiple of the templates might be an issue. So how about this compromise:

NOT make any more nav templates for the skill types - shout, adrenal, whatever (includes deleting this one), and just make one nav for each of the profession skills (ele skills nav, war skills nav..). Seeing as those skills will have many types depending on many factors such as weapons etc, the categories might get really messy there and they already are - from Conjure Frost (random first skill I tried), it took me 4 clicks to get at least to the general Category:Elementalist Skills and would require even more clicks if I would want to check out all the skills. The navs could sort them much more nicely. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 14:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess that might work, but we would have to hide it by default so that the long list wouldn't obscure every single skill page, like in the GWW's historical content navbox. · LOQUAY · 15:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a very good idea seeing the number of skill types. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 15:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"it took me 4 clicks to get at least to the general Category:Elementalist Skills" why not just search for 'Category:Elementalist Skills', if that is what you are specifically looking for. Though I think that having large NAV's are a waste of space (when cat's do the same job), I am absolutely willing to compromise and have the respected navs on pages. So long as they are made collapsible. This could definitely work. Venom20 16:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just want to say that I cannot figure out how to make it hidden by default, making it show by default it easy (class="collapsible"). This problem has plagued my personal templates for a while now, so I'm hoping someone can do it Venom20 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

class="expandable" should do the trick. · LOQUAY · 17:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You are a genius!!! Thank you. Also I added it to the nav. Venom20 17:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not, I just know how to find stuff ;-). Anyway, does everyone agree with the compromise? · LOQUAY · 17:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think this nav (or the axe skills nav) is necessary. The skill infobox will likely link to relevant list articles. Also, the names of these templates are horrible for lots of reasons; "Template:Signet skills nav" would be better (assuming it's going to stay). pling 18:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If the infobox will lead to the list articles, that would be perfect, probably. So, I'll just ask, is there any being worked on yet? · LOQUAY · 18:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) In regards to making searching easier, this is a sure-fire way of doing it. And as I have already learned, this is what we are here to do. For instance, look at Signet of Fire. The NAV isn't anywhere in the way, it's neat and tidy. Or even look at Whirling Defense, even with the horrible formatting on that page, the nav is still tidy and pleasing to the eyes. I agree with you pling, in reference to the NAV not being necessary, I disagree in it's usefulness perhaps. I also apologize for jumping the gun with the axe nav. I will wait to see more responses on the matter before making any more, to see what the general consensus is. Venom20 18:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still totally against this, it's so pointless and a waste of space. --Naut 18:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there was no elaboration. Are you saying it is pointless because one can accomplish this with a cat? I shared that view, but then I thought about it. A cat is just another click and a page to load. I figured that the same can be accomplished with a NAV and all the information is then already on the page loaded. I also used to share your view in regards to it being a giant waste of space. But then it was suggested to make it expandable. This solves any space problem. Now it is just a thin line at the bottom of a given article. I'm not trying to sway your decision, I just don't understand what is pointless or wasteful about it? Are you worried about space on the server? It was explained to me months ago that this is not a valid concern because a page is very small. In fact, the NAV itself is only 896 bytes. Want to talk about wasteful templates, why are there 2 pipe templates? (Template:! and Template:Pipe), sorry off topic. Venom20 18:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the process of removing Template:Pipe, by the way :). —Proton 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just saying it's irrelevant because we have a page for it already and a category, this whole is idea is what the category are for. And for things like this, we should just follow GWW outline because it worked. --Naut 18:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but cats are realistically inaccessible, and not nearly as colorful or easy to navigate. Cats force you to follow one cat, then another, then another. Navboxes have a much simpler format. I support this 100%; although I think we should put restraints on how many we use, as we don't want to drown pages in rainbow colored navs. CelleyBear 19:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of x articles would be the alternative browsing option, not a cat. (I agree - categories aren't really browsing tools.) I'm not sure if an infobox is being worked on, but I'm sure it'll link to relevant articles when it's finished. pling 20:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

List of signets. Pling: Chriskang designed a skill infobox. --Riddle 20:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I never found that list of signets from GWW very helpful. It is listed in alphabetical order, which IMO does not help anyone at all (unless they know what they are looking for). I think that list for an RPG should first be sorted by profession (because why would a warrior even care about the ranger skills) , and then perhaps by alphabetical suborder for ease. I would like to see one of these infoboxes that link to all the relevant information, but until that happens, these are still the best option, IMO Venom20 20:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You can change to whatever order you want by clicking the "><" Button by the names of the columns... --Naut 20:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also the option of a "see also" section containing links. That would also be better than this template. pling 20:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Takes up unnecessary space/bytes. Horrid colour coding. Amateuristic. A normal list is fine. In short: No. - Infinite - talk 20:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x4 Well, on the smaller skill types it seems the lists will be enough, but I'd still really prefer also having a navbox on the big list pages as I said (like ele skills or whatever page that might get too big). On those pages the list is so long that it is not really much better than a category when you just want to quick-browse through and face the epic walls of text. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Takes up unnecessary space/bytes." irrelevant, see above. "Horrid colour coding" this can be amended, and I don't see what it has to do with functionality. "Amateuristic." the entire wiki is created by amateurs. If it was professionally done, this wouldn't be a wiki. "A normal list is fine." yes it is fine, but a lengthy list on each page is a huge waste of space. Venom20 21:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly call those Walls of text... tbh the list of GWW was fine, easy navigation was accessible through changing the order of the list. This nav seriously isn't needed. --Naut 21:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't GWW Venom20 21:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but what's the point of changing things that we're fine on it? Much like the skillboxs.. and this topic. --Naut 21:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We're wasting time, go discuss Admin policies instead so we can actually set some guidelines on this wiki. - Infinite - talk 21:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My internet loads it for over half a minute and you would hardly call that a wall of text? Anyway, the nav lets me browse through the skills far more quickly even if the list is sortable and I also don't have to load another page with hundreds of images. I admit I didn't know how the listing works here before I made this nav and therefore I agree this particular nav may not be vastly needed, but I bet it could really help some other pages with a very long list. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 21:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Until we find out there's going to be roughly 70 Signets, then it's yet again searching for a needle in a haystack? We can make a list like on GWW with smaller resolution icons up front, to reduce loading problems. - Infinite - talk 21:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) , "My internet loads it for over half a minute and you would hardly call that a wall of text?" That isn't a wall of text, these are walls of text. --Naut 21:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of changing things is just that, to change them. Yes things had worked in the past, and they'll probably work again, but can it be made better? Also, which policy proposals would you like to discuss. Several have been discussed this week, I agree that we need to get things implemented, but this isn't the page to discuss it, try a proposal talk page. While I'm at, why was this page hastily tagged for deletion, active discussion is still active, is it not? Venom20 21:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, just going to throw this out there, why can't there be both a link for all the people who want pretty pictures to a skill page, and a NAV for people who want the ease of finding skills? Yes it is redundant (but easier for people who aren't wiki-ers), no it wouldn't hurt the server for space. Venom20 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Tagging for deletion does not mean it is going to be deleted straight away, it is too open a discussion on it's deletion. Which is what we're doing. "he point of changing things is just that, to change them. Yes things had worked in the past, and they'll probably work again, but can it be made better?" That is true, however this is NOT better then the previous. --Naut 21:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You could've kept this template in your userspace, like almost all the other users'? - Infinite - talk 21:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Tagging for deletion does not mean it is going to be deleted straight away" true, but according to the currently discussed delete policy it sets a deadline of at minimum 3 days for further discussion. Also, your current opinion is that is will NOT be better, but the template hasn't even been working for a full day yet. Change takes time. True, most proposed items should be left in a user's space, but the creator of this one thought it would be beneficial to the community as a whole and made it live. Venom20 21:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Minimum" and "proposal" being the key words. You can rest assured that an administrator will not delete this while discussion is active; if they do, it's by mistake, and they'll probably restore it straightaway when asked. Don't worry about the tag. pling 21:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

For future templates of this user, please keep them in the userspace and request comments there? - Infinite - talk 21:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) While a Nav Box for skill types might seem like a good idea right now, it will become a massive problem later. Take an Elite Elementalist Signet; that's 3 nav boxes (which will at minimum be the size of three title bars...which is still a rather large portion of the page). Plus, someone who is looking for information on an elementalist signet will probably not care at that particular moment about warrior signets, or ranger signets, or necromancer signets or any of the four unnamed professions' signets. It is not necessary...I would prefer that we just have a skill nav bar that shows all the skills of a single profession (with proper sorting, etc.). It would kind of look like my attempts at trait nav bars (which we can discuss the usefulness of later.) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 23:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying then that whether it be a nav or a list, either way it will be useless because the person looking is only looking at one thing? then why doesn't that person just go to the skill page? Venom20 00:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that is what 99% of all Wiki users does, I don't know. Do you? - Infinite - talk 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean we have come to terms of agreement that this nav is totally pointless? o.0 --Naut 00:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's just get this done. I support Aquadrizzt.Since he said pretty much the same thing like me. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Venom: No, what I was saying is that a nav will every professions signets is pointless because people who care about a specific elementalist signet might care about other elementalist signets, but I can guarantee you they wouldn't care about warrior signets at that time. @Naut: Yes we agree that this nav is pointless and can grow into something massively out of hand. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"@Naut: Yes we agree that this nav is pointless and can grow into something massively out of hand." Thank god, delete away pl0x. --Naut 00:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

3 cheers for deletion!!! kainotophobia > ease of navigation Venom20 01:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If we did do boxes, which I think some things should be needed like professions... like under elementalist have a box linked to the other professions, similar to what they do have on gww. One of the few things I did like and often use.

Anyway. I'd done something more like...

Cause it's not too much color to it. Ariyen 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Please think of the people with higher resolutions in any design, width percentages are ALWAYS bad. :) - Infinite - talk 16:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a fairly selfish way to think. Yes we must consider people with high resolutions, we must consider people with low resolutions too, people on laptops, people who use wiki frequently, people who don't know how to search and navigate a wiki, in general, we should be thinking of everyone when designing. Unfortunately, using percentages ensure that there is little to no horizontal scrolling, which is always goo in itself (on any resolution) Venom20 16:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're on lower than 800x680, you bring horizontal scrolling to yourself almost everywhere, there is not a single monitor these days that can't display 800x680 or up, it's not selfish. - Infinite - talk 17:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

and if you are using 2560x1440, then you are just asking for whitespace. Venom20 17:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hah, it looks bad on my laptop, but I'm just stating general layout. Tweaking of the size can always be redone later. :-) <3 Ariyen 17:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

At least I'M willing to compromise, I can't see how dissing people with proper current-age resolutions would aid to compromise. - Infinite - talk 17:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually more like...

I think that'd look better. Ariyen 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's looking better now. :) I'll test it on a lower resolution for a bit.

EDIT: I see what you did with it, very clever! Thumbs up! =D - Infinite - talk 17:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna paste in main page. if anyone has any problems. They can revert. Ariyen 18:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If that type is liked, it can be placed on all navs for consistency. Ariyen 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Use category instant

No reason for this template.. -- Itay Alon • Talk 20:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea how long we have been saying this... --Naut 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories, you can't sort by profession or anything else like that - hard to navigate. That's what's said on Infinite's page and I do agree with it. Ariyen 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've linked this before, but list. Seriously. --Riddle 01:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Riddle - we got categories and lists, use them both. -- Itay Alon • Talk 05:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I said on the other template. Apparently it's not known about navs and their usage on gww nor that people should give others a chance at "being bold". This is not positive and so I ask you two to stop this and please work towards positive. If you don't like it, give detailed reasons. Else, take a peek at the pages I have mentioned on the other template. Thank you. Ariyen 06:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Now really.We have Categories, we have lists. There is really no need for a signet navigation template. What's next? enchantment nav, shout nav, stance nav, warrior skills nav, norn skills nav?

I would say that even the axe skills nav is unnecessary. And even if it is. I think is better to wait for a more complete game first...a beta or something.--Sharkinu 07:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then what do you have to say about [[Template:Conditions_nav|this]]? Does that seem bad? Not to me. Did it make this page longer? No. Give people a chance and you'd see pages like that aren't so bad. After all, it's annoying and sad when we have people who aren't letting others be bold... Ariyen 20:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This and the conditions nav are completely different things all together. The conditions nav is not going to increase in size, at all. Due to them being the set conditions that Anet have stated themselves. This is subject to get much larger, and much more annoying. Something similar was used in GWW for the conditions nav and it worked perfectly. There is nothing wrong with following the trend, or as you put it copying. And we are not stopping peoples imagination in anyway, a lot of new things have been accepted into the community, however for this instance it has not. I don't understand why you are more or less crying over something which is almost a lost cause. Most people don't want it and it is doubtful that it'll be passed into the community. So let's set things aside and be productive towards something else, like policys or whatever. --Naut 20:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Being bold means not being afraid of editing things, it doesn't mean opposition isn't allowed. See the consensus flowchart: an edit is made (i.e. someone is bold by contributing to something), and if it's opposed it's discussed. pling 20:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, some posts here pretty much say: "Go away discuss about something else and stop contributing here, I am most certainly right anyway." which feels wrong to me as well, people shouldn't be discouraged to contribute on any talk page unless they are vandals or spammers.

Anyway, my points still stand: categories, navboxes and lists are each simply better at what they're for than the other. Lists are better than navs and cats in the information part. Categories are good for deep searching in the related things. Navs are much better at quickly browsing the related content - they are thousand times smaller than lists, they are sorted by various criteria which are actually related to the content (not like cats), and best of all they are on the very page so you don't need to search throughout anything else and the nav is just always there (you don't have to go back and forth every single time like with lists&cats).

The discussion is still very on-going and we have certainly not reached an agreement yet. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 21:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but we have so many that are like signets nav is bad. Conditions nav is not. What? Um, they both are skill types that will be used on many professions. I don't think there will be more of one than of the other. I don't see the differences. Also, telling someone to go do something else is rather childish. This is about content, not about telling someone to hush that has a right to speak. I can see this one working as much as any other one, even allowing one to make it look better work better and help.

@Pling, yes that is true. However, the opposition is just not necessarily here being about content nor is it being given a chance to show how it'd work. It's more so about I don't like this here, no matter what it's here for. It's not being given a chance. We are having people jump at not wanting things, than allowing change that could work (If liked in the end). If it doesn't look right in the end or doesn't work. Then I can see consensus of either getting it removed or changed. So far though, this is not allowing people to be bold. It's starting to go down a path of trying to scare away contributors and editors of making a change that could work and then could be applied to become consistent on other pages. This is not what I feel should be on a wiki and is what ruins potential good articles, etc., as I could give an example of quite a few. Ariyen 22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose a challenge. Can somone navigate this for me. Can you get from here to here by following the cats. Venom20 03:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My specific issues with this:

1. What can the navbox do that a Category or List couldn't? I'm pretty sure if a newbie was looking for everything signets, Signet would display a proper link to more information.
2. I find the list to the most flexible if not the best choice simply because it displays all information and allows me to reorganize the list based on numerous things like cast time, cooldown, campaign, and profession.

If we're looking for a comprehensive list, then a list is arguably best. If we're looking for a quick-browsing list, a category wins out.

To address a point:

1. " Um, they both are skill types that will be used on many professions. I don't think there will be more of one than of the other." Flat-on-its-face wrong. As cocky as this seems, this is one of those times where I will tell you to look up the differences yourself (the most notable difference is that you don't put Weakness on your skillbar and press 6 to activate it).

@Venom:Boom --Riddle 04:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeating myself here "Then what about the navs at the Elementalist Armor Page (or any other Armor page that has navs on them) on gw1? What about the navs with the henchmen? The navs with the party stuff? or even the navs on the professions, etc.? Are you saying those are useless? Really, Give this a try and stop this "lists and categories only". As It could work, just you people won't give it a try. let them be bold and show you how it's done on their user pages then, if you all are going to cry about it on actual template pages and articles. I don't see this to hurt, but I don't understand all the negativity. I used navs when they were available on gww." From Template_talk:AxeSkillNavBox. Ariyen 04:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, On gw1 You use signets, you can also use skills that'd cause bleeding, or poison, or weakness, etc. Can't tell me those skills could and would not do good on a nav. When I think it'd be nice to have skills that are similar in a nav rather than a long stupid list to scroll through that'd take longer to upload (especially when redundantly using photos that'd be best left on that skill page it's self). After all, it takes more bytes per space, word, etc. used and the longer a page, the more kb to download, etc. where as a box would take up less room. Ariyen 04:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I will a bit repeat myself but seems like I gotta sum it up even from the other page.

1. Navbox is much smaller than a list, Navbox is sorted by various criteria which are actually related to the content (not like a category), and best of all, nav is on the very page so you don't need to search throughout anything else and the nav is just always there (you don't have to go back and forth every single time like with lists&cats).

2. The fact that the list "displays all information" is what makes it inferior to navs in terms of quick browsing. Yes, "If we're looking for a comprehensive list, then a list is arguably best." - sure, but if we are looking for the fastest browsing tool, nav wins. Also, category? Have you tried using categories as fast browsing tools?? Categories as they are now, epicly fail when you want to browse with them.'

To give you an actual example, let's take Conjure Frost. Okay I want to quickly see all other Elementalist skills so I scroll down and click on Category:Conjure Spells. Oh damn, this category leads nowhere but only to 1 more other skill, if you would like to get to Category:Elementalist_skills from here, you would need another 4 pageloads and know exactly what you're doing.

Well, let's try again, I choose the other category, Category:Water attunement skills, hmm, seems like I found a few other, but I want to see all in one place! Okay, so I click on Category:Elementalist skills, that should finally show me ALL the skills I want. Blast! The page is cut into another 6 subcategories! <sarcasm> That's just great, now I need only like 12 more clicks back and forth to see them all and it was all so very quick! </sarcasm>

What I mean is the navs are a bit like elite versions of categories, available at all times and much easier to browse.

A bit long but I felt like I have to merge this here to answer you. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 06:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@Eagle, your point on Conjure Frost is irrevelent because if somebody wanted too; "quickly see all other Elementalist skills" the easiest and most common way would be too go to the elementalist page and click on the link that says "List of elementalist skills" as it was on GWW. And @Ariyen, you seem to be missing the point here. The main reason people don't want this is A Because it'll get too big, and B It'll pointless with the Category and List system which worked fine on GWW. --Naut 10:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet some posts above you said this is what categories are for. The Conjure Frost part was in response to all the people (including you) who said anything like " this whole is idea is what the category are for" to show them how the category browsing is pathetic at the moment and can't be used as an excuse to not have navs. As I have also already said, the lists are HUGE and require loading this huge page every single time you want to check all the skills which is unacceptable for quick browsing, then you're better even with the pathetic categories, which is a bit pathetic tbh. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "the easiest and most common way would be too go to the elementalist page and click on the link that says "List of elementalist skills"" translation: "the easiest way to see more skills of the same profession when you are on the skill page is to follow the link to the class page then from there follow a second link to a list." No offense, but I'd rather stay on the page that I fund rather than clicking all over the wiki. Venom20 13:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"I'd rather stay on the page that I fund rather than clicking all over the wiki." But that's YOU. And it's hardly "all over the wiki"; 2 pages, that's it. And viola! Done! I don't see what your problem is. --Naut 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, getting to the destination across 2 pages(also back and forth repeatedly) is better than going over 0 pages. gg. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 14:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we take this over to Template talk:AxeSkillNavBox‎‎ to keep all this discussion to one area? --JonTheMon 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I would appreciate if everyone please continues discussing this on the other template's talk page to prevent massive confusion for other users around who might want to join in. Well, and to prevent confusion in general. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 15:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)