This new saection in the bottom is highly subjective... I think it's candidate for deletation. What do you think?Torg Snowflake 20:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole section at the bottom "Role of the Knight" was copied from the forum. It's not really what is called "encylopedic". Maybe we have two options?
  1. Delete the section
  2. Start a new series of pages called "Guides" with tips, subjective opinions etc.
I would go for 2, because it would make the wiki more useful. (There's also a ton of material in the forums that could be used for "Guide" pages). G.Slack 21:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you see, that's the problem (And kind of ethic question). If this is a wiki, we can't have subjective material, right?. Anyways, if we do this I prefer a "guide" section with a "subjective content" warning. You are right, it would be useful.Torg Snowflake 23:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Also: Leaving one's name as "author" cannot be made in any page. It would be understandable in the "Guide section" however. So we recognize different guides.Torg Snowflake 00:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there can't really be authors, and subjective material would have to be readily identifiable. If we used a guide "namespace" (like Guide:Knight or Guide:Hunter) we could maybe just have one warning for all guides.
Namespaces are used in wikis to set apart material, like help articles for example. This wouldn't be an official custom namespace like Help (which apparently gives special database priveleges), but would be helpful all the same. G.Slack 01:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well seems that's figured out. I'm not sure how to make on of those, but if you make the first one could also transcribe the famous "hunter sets" ( Snowflake 17:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth asking one of the game wiki helpers, like Richard1990, how other game wikis handle this. Though I'd say having a sub page for each author guide would be ok. So, say I wanted to write a Knight guide, it would be at Guide:Knight/Onteron, and if G.Slack wrote his own guide, it would be at Guide:Knight/G.Slack. Guide:Knight would then of course be an index page to all the individual Knight guides. --Onteron (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me!Torg Snowflake 00:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Hopefully it will encourage more people to write guides. G.Slack 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Moved the knight guide info here. Any ideas on how to organize all the different guide pages (such as linking/lsiting on the front page etc.)? Once we work that out, I'll post a message on the forum, inviting people to add their guides. G.Slack 00:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought Onteron left a message somewhere about a custom Guide namespace, but I can't seem to find it. According to this Help page, wikis are allowed only 3 custom namespaces, and have to apply to the central authority to get them created. We could create a custom Guide namespace (hopefully alot of people will contribute guides for a lot of content); or we could use a "virtual" namespace -- just give the page a namespace address (i.e. Guide:Knight) without registering it. I would vote for the second, reserving the custom namespaces for future use. I am also not sure what benefits actually creating a custom namespace would provide (it appears to be something to do with the database). G.Slack 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it was on your talk page where I'd left the original message. I'm not keen on using the virtual namespace, though not for entirely rational reasons. I find them ugly, because they're technically "wrong" and think they look amateurish, and can cause some problems (see below). I realize this won't be the case here, but whenever I see a wiki using one, I think "oh... they couldn't even set up namespaces properly".
When using a virtual namespace, the corresponding talk page for an article becomes eg 'Talk:Guide:Knight', instead of the correct 'Guide talk:Knight'like all the other namespaces. I don't like this either.
As I say, not entirely rational reasons... but a genuine problem that does arise is that, unlike the proper namespaces, virtual namespaces are sensitive to whitespace after the colon. Eg with the normal "User:" namespace, User:Onteron and User: Onteron are the same page. But "Guide:Knight" and "Guide: Knight" are two different pages (note the spaces after the colons). So we'd have to decide on a policy, so that everyone knows which form to use, when creating articles and writing links, and try to ensure everyone sticks to it, otherwise things get messy.
I don't know if using up 1 of our 3 namespaces is such a bad thing. If we want to use a namespace to conceptually separate subjective content from the rest, then that's not a bad use of a namespace. Maybe though we should of a slightly different name: one that suggested any sort of subjective content. I can't think of what that would be at the moment though.
However, since making the original suggestion for the article titles, I was wondering if we needed the extra namespace at all, and that maybe just the titles "Knight/Guide by Onteron" and "Knight/Guide by G.Slack" looked better. Then we could just link to any guides at the bottom of the Knight article.
--Onteron (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I'll try to do some research on how other wikis handle this stuff --Onteron (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll change my vote then to real custom namespace, because there are sound technical reasons to do so (that Onteron describes). Would the "Guide" namespace be able to capture all subjective content? At the moment I can't think of anything better, and Guide could describe things like Tutorials and so on. G.Slack 19:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: I've asked the game wiki helper Richard1990 if he has any information on how other game wikis do this (link). I haven't been able to find any of this sort of content on the other wikis myself. --Onteron (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He got back to me, but he doesn't know of any other wikis that do this.
Re the namespace name: "Guide" is ok, but the problem I have with it is that it seems to encompass more than we want to put in this namespace, since basic "guides" and tutorials are going to be in the main namespace.
So maybe how about "Strategy"? Because strategy is what is subjective, isn't it? And I'm assuming it's going to be mainly strategy in these pages. --Onteron (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
One more suggestion: "Opinion:"? Ok it's a bit newspaper-y, but just a thought. --Onteron (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Knight Guide Discussion Edit

I'm not a native english speaker, so I might be wrong, but are you sure the word "punishment" in the first paragraph is the best one to use? It made me giggle and associate it with weird sexual acts, not war damage. :) Maybe its just me.. :P Vizslah 11:45, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Szia, Vizslah. A puni, csak magyarul hordoz szexuális tartalmat. :) Amúgy viszlát a szerveren.Spamassassin 20:22, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, most of the article sounds strange to me. This is just one of many articles which needs to be rewritten in a universal style. At the moment there are lots of personal opinions and poor word choices. I'll try to look at the class and subclass articles at least this week and see what I can clean up. -Ignis Shield Conflict IconEdge 12:23, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.