I like this for now. It should stay how it is until the official wiki is near-finished, then we should switch the links to the official wiki.--Coloneh 04:44, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

I don't see any reason to disagree with this as a policy since it just makes sense. One question though, should the opening statement be taken to be a "We are not GuildWiki" statement. That is, should this policy also preside over that "We are note Wikipedia/GuildWiki" question? DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:45, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

Perhaps change it to link to our "we are not gw" policy. Armond 06:43, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
I'm just curious, why is interwiki linking to GuildWiki enabled (gw:), but not to the Guild Wars Wiki (gww:)? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:45, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
GuildWiki. Guild Wars Wiki. I think anyways.--Sefre SefresigTalk*Cont. 05:47, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
Right, but [[gw:Main Page]] is currently enabled to show gw:Main Page; but [[gww:Main Page]] is not currently enabled, so that inter-wiki link won't work (you get gww:Main Page). I'm just curious why one has been enabled, but not the other. I would think we would want both working. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:50, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
Oh, I feel like a idiot, didn't fully interpret your comment and made a fool of my self, sorry. I have no idea tho.--Sefre SefresigTalk*Cont. 05:55, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
Put bluntly, noone on Anet IT's gotten around to fixing it. Gww does not support any inter-wiki links, so I'd assume noone can link to them either. - Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 06:43, 24 April 2007 (CDT).
My understanding from MediaWiki's documentation is that our use of "gww:" here is unrelated to if that wiki has inter-wiki linking enabled. All that's involved in maintaining a table on this site to tell it what prefix to use, and what url to use for the link. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 07:08, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
I think both GW: and GWW: must be there for people to use. In terms of democracy and keeping our independents profile we will support both sites. gww: will implemented very soon, just has not been a priority. gcardinal 14:29, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
Just bumping this. Tried to make a GWW link and it still links to GuildWiki. Biscuits Biscuit 18:55, 19 September 2007 (CEST)

On a semi-related note, Template:Build-stub seems to be having problems with inter-wiki linking to wikipedia. Can some one please review that? Maybe it'll help us figure out why we can't link to gww. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{Bacon}} 18:31, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

We can't link via gww because gcardinal hasn't added that one to the table yet. Same applies to interwiki links to wikipedia. These are all easy to fix, just don't appear a priority issue yet.

I just thought of something.most of our links will be going directly to guild wiki(old) for now. and most of the builds(that were copied over) have red links like this [[bla]] , and those direct to other build pages on this site while links like [[gw:bla| bla]] take you to wiki(old) and [[gww:bla| bla]] takes you to guild wars wiki(new). I dont claim to know alot about wiki coding, but would it be possible to change it so that links like this [[bla]] go directly to guild wiki(old) and we could have a link like [[pvx:bla| bla]] to go to other builds. this would be much simpler as far as editing goes. it would also let us switch all the links like this [[bla]] , to go to guild wars wiki(new) when it is finished.--Coloneh 23:10, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

If it can be done, it would likely require tweaking the wiki code at some very core levels. I've seen issues before on other software where customization of that sort causes problems later when applying patches and upgrades. Its best to remain with standard functionality. New options can be added via extensions, but changing default behavior can cause problems down the road.
I would really like to see a bot or something then. changing links like that is a bit tedious for my taste.--Coloneh 23:37, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
A bot would be good for that. hopefully someone here has a pet bot that they can setup to do this and other tasks for the wiki.

"As ArenaNet wants the official wiki to be the main reference resource, links should link to the official wiki whenever possible." When did this happen. >.> Ni sig Ni 02:11, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Saw it somewhere on GW. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{Bacon}} 19:59, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

In my personal opinion, I feel like we should continue linking to GuildWiki in the future instead of the "official wiki." The main reason is that this builds category originated from GuildWiki, many of our builds are from GuildWiki, the idea was from there, etc. If it were not for GuildWiki, we would have never existed. Somehow it's somehow moral to link to where we all started from. But I suppose that is from me supporting GuildWiki over GWW. But still :P It might be the official, but anyone can tell that GuildWiki is easily far better than GuildWarsWiki and will be that way for a looong time, even when GWW becomes decently informative. They can't make us, right? (Not saying we shouldn't have gww: prefixes, but that they shouldn't be the policy, for the sake of quality to PvX's users.) -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 16:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)


With bbcode, this will be a minor thing... more of a guide, really. We won't have to link any skills as they will be mouseovers; the only stuff left over would be mentioning role names/PvP maps/etc, and that's not enough to have a policy for. -Auron 05:54, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Wasn't the decision made that a skills section wouldn't be recreated as this wiki is intended for the collection of builds. This would mean that linking is still needed for since there is information that the mouseover doesn't show. --Dummey 09:27, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
True, but Auron makes a good point. I'm re-thinking my reasons for creating this policy. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{Bacon}} 18:27, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
It would be silly not to use it, since you can't use the bbcode in talk-pages or any other place that doesn't use the build-template. AFAIK, [Diversion] doesn't parse into a picture of the skill Diversion with appropriate tooltip, as gwbbcode does. I tried to find the way to use this, but I can't find it in the PvXwiki:PvXcode article. Am I missing something? Otherwise I'd say implement interwiki-linking. -- User Corrran sig (CoRrRan / talk) 13:27, 9 May 2007 (CEST)


Can linking to Wikipedia using "WP" be setup too?

Should be able to. wikipedia:Guild Wars Guild Wars wp:Guild Wars But apparently no. Unless I forgot the coding... Help anyone? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 22:17, 10 May 2007 (CEST)
w:Guild Wars? I think I've had a brain fart. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 16:16, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
[<address here> <name you want shown here>]... that at least works for all addresses... We've never had a straight to wikipedia link. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 16:24, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
To illustrate Frvwfr2's point, if I want to link to Wikipedia's Page on template help, I could link [ Template Help Page], and the link would show as Template Help Page. But that isn't Wikipedia specific. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:39, 14 June 2007 (EDT)


In fact, if you changed the nature of this policy, we could turn this into the equivalent of GW:AR and GW:We are not wikipedia. We want people to know that our purpose isn't to be GW/GWW or Wikipedia, and, we want them to know that in terms of retaining information, everything should be done through those other sights since our purpose is merely to retain builds. Just a thought. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:45, 14 May 2007 (CEST)

I'm not too familiar with GW:AR - can you summarize for me? (I can't access it from the school computers and I've lost internet at home, at least for now.) -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 20:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
It's the article retention policy for GuildWiki. Summarizes what type of content the wiki maintains, as well as providing links to some related articles such as "Criteria for Deletion", etc. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:15, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
Yeh, so this article could cover what we retain, how that differs from Wiki, GW, and GWW, and then have a section on Inter-Wiki Linking when necessary. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:19, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
Sounds to me like the name shouldn't be IWL, then. Can someone more familiar with the policy write a draft here on a more appropriate name? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 08:04, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
I can try to do so tonight. DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:11, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.