User talk:Andrealinia

Just curious

Where - if anywhere - was it discussed on having the table you've been adding to pages such as Lion's Arch? I'm wondering because, personally, I think the older way is better - primarily because you can tell which PoI and waypoints are in each area without having to go to the area's page, whereas that table simply shows how many. It has the benefit of showing how many vistas, skill challenges, and hearts are in each area, which would remove the need for subsequent pages - except that, again, it doesn't show which, just how many. In which case, such tables only truly benefit by showing amount of vistas per area (as the others were covered in their own ways, though imo skill challenges and heart lists did need an improvement).
Not saying to remove them, I'm just curious if there was a discussion I missed while trying to avoid the chaos of mass wiki edits this past two weeks. Konig/talk 06:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I was just standardising the layout to match every other location based page :) There's going to be tables showing all the poi's names and all the vista descriptions etc. (like every other location-based page) to ensure a common formatting throughout the wiki ^_^ — Andrealinia 06:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

By "every other page" you must mean "five other pages that uses a table instead of list" (2 of which structured differently) - because all other pages but the now six articles formatted with tables for a Location section (one of said six lacking a Location section) use the older list (and number in 24 iirc). I do hope you don't mean like Lornar's Pass or Caledon Forest in regards too "tables showing all the poi's names" - because quite honestly, those pages are horrendous. Multiple tables like that is bad and just, again, looks horrendous.

And besides, why on earth would people want 6+ tables denoting locations on a single page? That just... looks bad. Konig/talk 07:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank god I'm not the only one who doesn't like the number of table >_< Anyhow, I was going to try and figure out a way to have the name on hover because the old list looks very plain and is very hard to see exactly what is there (Plus it doesn't mention anything about vistas, which can be quite useful), but that would also get rid of the POI table and tell everyone which poi is there. — Andrealinia 07:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I've been more than tempted to remove those "improvement" tables and return the lists (but same goes for those individual vista sections - those zone articles are just plain simply a mess) - functionality is more important than appearance (or being "very plain"), I didn't because I figured that things can be tidied up once people get over the editing rush. But anyways, a way to fix the issue with PoI and heart redundancies is the hovering bit, and hovering isn't needed for vista, but waypoints are stuck because they don't get individual links (PoI and Heart icons can link directly to an article if we set it up right). Personally, I think an entirely new design's needed... Konig/talk 07:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you want to have a look at the Lion's Arch page now? I've got the names for the POIs and the Waypoints in. I think it looks better than the confusing list before it and not as crowded as the multitude of tables in use at the moment. I don't think the vista information is needed on the Lion's Arch page - I think it could stay on the Area's page. I didn't realise the points of interest had their own page, so they and the waypoints link to the area page. — Andrealinia 07:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Just popping in with a link to the cartography project for Konig, since he doesn't seem to have noticed it. (Also for anyone reading this in the future.) —Dr Ishmael 14:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) There is a link on my userpage as well. Also, we'd welcome your input on layouts — Andrealinia 14:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks good Andrealinia. Tables make the data sortable and much more useful. You might want to watch THIS discussion though. — Malacon on Blackgate — 20:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I wouldn't've seen that :) — Andrealinia 05:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Weird Edit

Somehow my edit listed a 2k delete in this page. Checking history it shows a lot of posts that never displayed on my side. Somehow that fact caused several posts prior to mine to be deleted. I am restoring them. If they do not belong someone else can remove them. — Malacon on Blackgate — 20:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

header rows

Why do you insist on overriding the default formatting (and code) for table headers? —Dr Ishmael 14:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Because default formatting has the table headers centre aligned when it looks better left aligned and it saves having all this extra " style='text-align:left' " that doesn't even seem to work. — Andrealinia 14:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Center-aligned is the default formatting for table headers pretty much everywhere - even Wikipedia uses it. If you don't like it, you can change it in your personal CSS, but don't override it for everyone. —Dr Ishmael 15:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* You really need either an attitude check or to learn how to rephrase your words. This is a wiki, however you really treat it like it's yours and what you say goes. — Andrealinia 16:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't come up with those default formats, I didn't write the CSS for them, I didn't even participate all that much in discussing them. All I'm doing is making sure that tables are formatted properly according to the styles and formats that were decided on by the community. It's not what I say, it's what the community has said; I just happen to be the most active enforcer in the community.

Table headers should be table headers, not standard table cells formatted to look like headers. You are using improper formats to get around the defaults because you don't like the way they look. The proper solution is to start a discussion about whether the default CSS should change, and if you still don't like it, override it with personal CSS. —Dr Ishmael 16:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

My point is not that your preferred format is necessarily wrong, but that your method for implementing it is wrong. Case-by-case overrides are bad practice in any project and should be evaluated to see if the default needs to be changed. —Dr Ishmael 16:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, maybe you just need to work on writing things in a nicer way. I changed it anyway :) — Andrealinia 16:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Who do you think you are?

Greetings,

I've recognized that you changed the video link of my video to yours in the Troll's_End and the "Troll's_End/solution" pages. Whyever you do this, it's not okey. --ManniL 07:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've not changed any links, I've not even made any videos so I think you're mistaken. I did move the content from Troll's End/solution to Troll's End but I never removed any links at all, just reformatted them for consistency. — Andrealinia 07:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry! I've only noticed the change between the newest version and the old one. I've looked into the page history again and have seen that it was someone else. Sorry ^.^#

Need some advice

I can see you have been working on the cartography on the wiki and I have a couple of questions. One is whether I should include generic npcs such as Noble, or Citizen on pages for different areas? I am currently working on Divinity's Reach areas, and trying to complete those pages. I noted that there are many with location-stub on them, and was thinking I could finish completing the pages. I am just not sure what makes an area page complete? A good example is Plaza of Grenth. I think it may be done (with the exception of generic named npcs) but before I remove the stub I want to be sure. Should area pages have a map? Is there anything else that should be added? Any advice you can give me would be appreciated. Surriela 22:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, the definition of "complete" is something that only the majority of the wiki can agree upon. I'm going to move this conversation to the cartography project found at Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Projects/Cartography so everyone can reply and help you out! — Andrealinia 09:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)