Heroes arena is back to 8-vs-8. Still says 6 v 6 on mp.
--Skye
UPDATE!! TESTING WEEKEND!!! PLEASE PUT UP THE NEWS!!![]
Hi guys, I'm still sorta new to GuildWiki and this is like one of my first few useful posts so pleasee don't flame me for doing something wrong, thank you. Read the headline! ^_^
Giving "Builds" an own heading[]
At this time, the "Builds" hub page has been accessed over 1 million times! That makes it third most accessed page in its category, right after Armor types and Elite skills list. I think it's time to take out the Builds link of the "Professions" heading and give it an own heading. This is my suggestion:
[:Category:Tested builds|Tested builds] – The communitites' builds of choice.
Should I put it on the editcopy?
~ Nilles (chat) 11:58, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
Indifferent. In my mind, the builds page already serves as a good "portal" for builds, so there is less need for linkage on the main page, as long as that page is linked. --Xeeron 12:15, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
I think the main page should only have a link to the Builds, as that page is really the main builds portal. But, I do agree that Builds should be a main level link (not a sub of Professions, etc). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:18, 26 September 2006 (CDT)
Note: The way the "Builds" link is right now, it doesn't work. It is currently formatted as follows:
Out of boredom more than anything else, I've been playing with this some more lately. To be honest, the idea of adding quick access links has started to grow on me some, so I tried some modifications to make the mixed styles a little less jarring, as well as adding section headers similar to my user page (which were directly inspired by Wikipedia's main page).
User:Barek/Main Page3 (added to show section header boxes without the QA)
I'm not saying that either of these should be used; just tossing out a mix of different ideas for consideration - maybe some will stick, maybe they wont. But it can be used to start a discussion to see if anyone likes either the section header style changes, or the quick access links on the MP (which in an earlier version were not supported, so I'm not expecting a huge change on that - just tossing it out there). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:26, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
I admit, they both do look nice. However, I'm not sure how the quick links should be handled and how we avoid that users miss them because they were too blind to scroll down. Good job though. We should pursue the idea. :) ~ Nilles (chat) 18:37, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
I never actually use the main page... but I don't think it's possible to make those tables look good without a major overhaul. If something's got to be on the main page, I'd prefer a single, if prominent, link to the existing QA page. Besides the QA stuff, I like the "boxed" headings but I really dislike the colors compared to the current main page. --Fyren 18:48, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
I agree on the colors, especially the green is too bright - but those can be tweaked. To be honest, my main motivation on these drafts was to discuss the change in section headers - the QA stuff was more of a tag-along. I originally preferred them on their own page, and while the idea of them or something similar on the main page is seeming more reasonable to me now, it's not the main reason for the drafts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:56, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
We have been trying to fit those in on the main page when we designed them, but gave up. I love the quick links, but a main page should not be bigger than one computer screen. I do however love the boxes around the titles of each section! -- Ifer (t/c) 19:01, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
I like your second example, I seriously think it is much more functional than the current main page. This would bring the information I use more often one click away from the main page (one click closer to me). Me likes! --Theeth (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
I added draft 3 (above) - it also uses the section header boxes, but drops the quick access links, which should be treated as their own issue anyway. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
I like it :) I think we can make this third edit the new main page. It's all new and stylish :) -- Ifer (t/c) 02:49, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
I do prefer this design to the current design. I like draft 2, but I feel as though the QA links take up too much space. Is there any way we could cut this down to only the most popular information on the main page, and include a "more" link to take people to the QA article? Or perhaps even some JavaScript to hide certain columns unless you press a button (like Fyren's build javascript idea)? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 04:58, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
"a main page should not be bigger than one computer screen"
100% agreement here, the quick links mess up the main page, making it long and confusing. I could live with the section headers if the colors are doned down, but a definite no to proposals 1&2. --Xeeron 05:07, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
One computer screen is an unspecific measurement. Do you mean 1 screen at 800x600? Or higher? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:25, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
I know we're not Wikipedia, but their main page is 4 pages long if one page is 1024x768. Our main page is currently 2.5 pages long at 1024x768.
I'm not opposed to the main page being longer than 1 page, provided the most important and most likely needed sections are linked to at the top of the page. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:28, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
One screen at the current standard. Someone posted that some months ago, but I remember 800x600 only being in use by very few percent of users, so the standard would be 1024 or 1280. And I dislike the long main page of english wikipedia. The wikipedia.org portal is much better. Or take a look at the page of the most successful internet company ever: http://www.google.com/
There is a reason it is so popular: Simple, non-confusing, small. --Xeeron 06:43, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
I agree in principle, but I think our goal and Google's search engine's goal are different. When you go to google.com you are going for only one thing, to search. Google has a few links to subdomains etc. for it's other services. In our case we offer all our services on the main page, and we don't know what the user is going to want. I can appreciate the argument for a simpler main page, but I'm not sure I agree with it in practice. Equally though, I think the success of google has more to do with investing in search engine technology when its competitors were investing in portals than it does its user interface, although I don't doubt that it was a contributing factor :)
If we could get some usage statistics regarding the way in which people use the main page that might affect my opinion one way or the other. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:51, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
Actually, it could've easilly been me that said Main Pages should ideally be one page or less. I know that I said something along those lines near the start of the year, although it may have been someone else who said it more recently that you're thinking of here. However, the Main Page again grew beyond one page even on a 1024x768 many months ago. It's even slightly longer than one page on a 1280x1024, so I've given up on encouraging the smaller Main Page like I once did. Also, just an FYI on the background: When the QAs on the main page were originally discussed, I had done a half-arsed job of doing a mock-up of them because I really wasn't in favor of them at the time. Now that a more evolved version is also being rejected by most, I feel better that the idea died on its merits rather than due to a lack of effort on my part.
For those who do like them on the Main Page; the only two options I see would be to either create a Java option to expand them (still a click, but faster than a regular link); or convince the community to make the Main Page modular so that the content could be shared between more than one page - I believe a css setting could then be created to redirect those who want it to the alternate version. The downside of course is that modular content would require more effort to maintain with limited benefit to most users, so I wouldn't expect a lot of acceptance for that option unless other benefits could be seen.
That just leaves the section headers. Personally, I like them - although the colors used could benefit from some experimentation. I like the darker borders, but the headers seem to much to me. I'll experiment with some other color combinations later today, to see if any work better. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:01, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
Java on the main page.. we could leave the top three and the bottom cells, make the fourth and fifth expandable, and add the quick access links as expandable cells.. I would like that- fitting everything on the main page while still keeping it within viewing size :) -- Ifer (t/c) 11:38, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
Spelling[]
'Speciality' is spelt wrong on the main page.
Ben (Orison Lightfoot ingame)
Actually, specialty is the american spelling, and speciality is the british spelling. We use american english here on GuildWiki, because the game is in american english. Thanks for keeping an eye open though, and you're welcome to make the change yourself(We will correct it if you add something bad- that's wiki power!) -- Ifer (t/c) 11:55, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
Use either AFAIK, if one is one one way, it shouldn't be changed to the other — Skuld 11:58, 16 October 2006 (CDT)
Inscriptions[]
Ok I see the history move now (thought I didn't save or something) but traditional weapon modifiers and inscriptions seemed to be two different things and I didn't think it hurt to separate it out. However if it gets removed again I won't put it back! More to the point already split out are Weapon upgrades and modifiers – Innate powers of your weapon. Inscriptions are arguably more like Runes than either of these and not innate. Anyways whatever the crew decides, I could see users having a hard time finding it. --CKaz 16:54, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
I wanted to place another vote for having inscriptions directly linked from the mainpage. It is the same type idea as having the Runes and Insignias separate, why not do it for Inscriptions? --RabiesTurtle 16:23, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Re-sync?[]
A re-sync is in order, as well as another one tomorrow, after the Halloween Event will end... PS: Anyone thought about Archiving this talk page? — Poki#3 09:53, 31 October 2006 (CST)
Feel free to archive some of the older sections - anyone is free to do so.
I re-synced most of the changes onto the Main Page. I didn't move everything:
The Halloween notice seemed a little silly to post at this point, as the event is nearly over (less than 12 hours left)
The Inscription article has an unresolved move request - so I decided to wait on that resolution before moving it over.
The revised section headers don't have any current comments on the talk page, so I left them for now.
If I missed any other changes, I appologise. re-propose them on the editcopy, and discuss on the talk page if you feel strongly one-way-or-the-other about them moving over. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:07, 31 October 2006 (CST)
I never, ever achieved a page, so I would prefer to leave important pages, such as this to the pros, and experiment on less important things, like my User page ^^;; Anyway thanks for moving some things over. Someone should really monitor this place more often... — Poki#3 18:34, 31 October 2006 (CST)
Builds Revisited[]
I added a note to an earlier comment regarding Builds having its own category. I would make the edit on the Edit/Copy page, but there is not an editable section heading for the section where I would like to make the change. Clarifying what I put in my note earlier, the link to the Builds page is incorrect and results in a database error. The current code is,
* '''<nowiki>[Build:Main Page|Builds] – Character and team configurations. </nowiki>
The code should be (at least the link that works for me is),
* '''[[Builds]]''' – Character and team configurations.
I'm repeating this here because I'm new to this editing thing, and I didn't know if you ever re-read previous discussions. Jlschleigh 14:30, 3 November 2006 (CST)
The link to [Build:Main Page] via <nowiki>[Build:Main Page|Builds]</nowiki> is a correct working link that takes the user to the main page of the Builds portal. The Builds link will also work, but it is merely a redirect page that still takes the user to [Build:Main Page]. It's easy to see that these are legitimate links in my post, as they show as blue links. If the links were broken, they would be red. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:29, 3 November 2006 (CST)
Thank you for checking. I can't seem to repeat the error, now, but yesterday I tried about 4 or 5 times and got the same database access error. I will certainly let you know what that error is if I come across it again. Jlschleigh 19:30, 3 November 2006 (CST)
Link to Mirror on main page?[]
I'd like to suggest linking to the read-only [http://erkdog.netho.tk/gw-wiki/gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page.html Mirror] that ErkDog has set up in the 'site notice' at the top of the main page. Currently the site notice reads:
GuildWiki is experiencing a lot of slowness – The site is getting a lot of hits with the release of Nightfall. Bear with us!
I'd suggest changing it to:
GuildWiki is experiencing a lot of slowness – The site is getting a lot of hits with the release of Nightfall. A read-only mirror is available [http://erkdog.netho.tk/gw-wiki/gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page.html here] (note that the mirror is incomplete, but is currently faster).
Now, I realize I could just change it, but as it may be a sensitive subject, and it would be on the main page, I'd like to get opinions first. Comments? --Rainith 19:38, 6 November 2006 (CST)
heh - prior to the new hardware, I couldn't even reach the site half the time, so I never saw this post. Now that the hardware's here, it's no longer needed. Oh well. :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:57, 17 November 2006 (CST)
Insignia, not Insignias[]
Insignia is already plural (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insignia). So there's no need to call them Insignias on the Main Page (or anywhere else).
As "Insignia" is the plural of the latin root "insigne", which is rarely used in english writing, I tend to lean towards the use of Insignia (singular) / Insignias (plural) for english, as mentioned at [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insignia Dictionary.com. I could accept either; but I prefer insignias for plural. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:52, 7 November 2006 (CST)
Guild Wars uses "Insignias" as the plural form. As both are correct, I would also recommend "Insignias".--Ender A 06:58, 16 November 2006 (CST)
Well, that settles it then ... in-game terminology always wins. :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:58, 17 November 2006 (CST)
Section Headers[]
I didn't see any comment on them so here's mine: I like them ^^ — Poki#3 05:34, 20 November 2006 (CST)
I like them too; but then again, I'm the one who suggested them. I didn't want to automatically take them to the Main Page without first getting feedback, so thanks for starting the talk on them! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:17, 20 November 2006 (CST)
I really like these, guys. Looks really nice. Gravewit 14:06, 20 November 2006 (CST)
I like them too! I'm sure I said that initially (possibly on this page) but I can't be bothered to find out! :) Yay me. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:43, 20 November 2006 (CST)
Okay, they got merged into the Main page :) — Poki#3 17:02, 20 November 2006 (CST)
Sandbox[]
Is it worth having a link to the Sandbox on the Main Page? --Xasxas256 19:20, 21 November 2006 (CST)
I'd say no. There's a link to the Sandbox when you edit a page. If people are new to Wiki, I doubt they'd be any more likely to see it on the front page than they are on the edit page, and if they're not new to Wiki, they know to look for it anyway. ScionOfErixalimar 16:08, 27 November 2006 (CST)
I agree - not needed on the Main Page as it's available from any edit link as well as being available in [GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Builds]. However, I would have no objection to it being worked into either GuildWiki:How to help, GuildWiki:Frequently asked questions, or [Build:Main Page]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 27 November 2006 (CST)
Minor[]
According to every other item on the front page, that t in "the third campaign" after the Guild Wars Nightfall - under the What's New category should be capitalized, making it "The third campaign". DancingZombies 16:28, 1 December 2006 (CST)
We should also capitalize "unique gear dropped by certain bosses" after "Green" Weapons and "commonly requested information" after Quick access linksDeadjack 08:22, 6 December 2006 (CST)
Voting on the main page[]
Maybe there could be a link to voting on things on the main page, like builds, policies and so forth. Changed every day, week or few days. Other options are, hot topics, Page of interested, Random page and so forth. This is just a suggestion to others to look at and i wont be following it up. (sorry if it has already been mentioned before). Xeon 08:11, 6 December 2006 (CST)
This has already been discussed here. I agree with the consensus there...I don't think this belongs on the main page. ScionOfErixalimar 15:09, 7 December 2006 (CST)
Announcements on Main Page?[]
Is there a place where we document the announcements that occur on the in game logon screen? (e.g. double faction, chest drop weekends etc.) What about in game network maintenance? At the moment the logon screen talks about: Another Double Fun Weekend, Network Maintenance Notification and that the Domain of Anguish now open, on the main page we have a link to the Domain of Anguish, should we also be listing network maintenance and events? I know events are normally listed on GuildWars.com news but could they be more prominently displayed on the main page itself along with network maintenance? --Xasxas256 21:06, 8 December 2006 (CST)
This would be REALLY nice...I can't tell you how many times I have logged into GW, and only as I hit enter do I notice the announcements have changed, so I end up logging out to check them. Since I come here for information I'd love to see a place for this so I can simply check here rather than log out just check those announcements. ScionOfErixalimar 23:01, 9 December 2006 (CST)
GuildWars.com news already linked, this is not needed --FireFox 23:51, 9 December 2006 (CST)
I think it would be useful to have it on the main page. I know that space is at a premium there but to have a link to Domain of Anguish but not the current Another Double Fun Weekend or Network Maintenance Notification seems inconsistant to me. --Xasxas256 00:52, 10 December 2006 (CST)
Long ago, I think that I remember every special event being linked (assuming I'm not thinking of something else here); but many were left for days beyond the end of the event. Eventually, the admins just stopped and only posted links to major events (campaign releases, tournament articles, or major updates - the smaller events were left out). Also, all articles from the Main Page are internal links, and we've never maintained articles for all the double-something or other weekends that have come along, although I suppose we could link to the specific news article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:59, 10 December 2006 (CST)
The events are pretty regular these days, we could have an events page ala our news and game updates pages and just link to the relvent event page. --Xasxas256 01:07, 10 December 2006 (CST)
Collectors/Weaponsmiths[]
Would it be possible or wanted to create a quinker link to the general collectors or weaponsmiths list page.
Necromantic Biscuit 09:09, 21 December 2006 (CST)
Improvement drive[]
This idea has been derived from Wookieepediea. They have an improvement drive project on their main page. Each week they select one article to be the article of the week to be improved. The article is shown in a small box on the front page and all contributors are asked to improve the article as much as they can. This has resulted in many excellent articles, removing the stub status of many important character, event, etc articles. We could start a similiar project, where every day or every two days a new major article is selected to be improved and is promoted on the front page. We are such an active wiki that the page featured would probably be a lot better after the day or two. And there certainly isn't lack of major articles needing improvement. -- (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2006 (CST)
A page where future imprivement drive articles can be suggested. Every suggestion which is accepted is put into a list, which we then use to select the article to be improved each day / each two days. We could also have two articles at the same time.
A template which is placed on the talk page of the article for the duration of the day.
An improvement drive box on the main page with a link to the current impovement drive article.
Users are encouraged to gather information for the article in game / through the web or just make layout and display changes to make the article better. Getting rid of a stub status is one main goal.
Any comments? I'll start working on this if no one has anything to say against it within a few days. I'll also drop a note on the admins user pages. -- (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2006 (CST)
I have no objections to something like this being tried, I honestly don't think I have any interest in joining in, but that is neither here, nor there. --Rainith 23:37, 27 December 2006 (CST)
No major objections - but some questions on implementation. My assumption is that we'll use a box that will be linked via an inclusion onto the Main Page; that'll require some redesign of the Main Page - I'm guessing you'll work on that. My concern is with keeping it updated. In the past, all content of the Main Page has been protected from edits by anyone except for admins in order to prevent vandalism of that high-profile page. Would this box have the same restriction? That will require an admin who supports this adequately to process the article rotations 2 or 3 times a week.
I think a better solution might be to create a high profile link to a new page for GuildWiki:Improvement drive (or some similar name). That page can be linked from the Main Page, and from the Community Portal - maybe even from the navigation box. That would simplify maintenance of the featured article to be handled by the community the same as the Build page featured articles are handled. At the same time, there has been talk off-and-on about creating a navigation template for the top of the Community Portal page - I think this would be a good reason to finally get such a template build for that page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:07, 28 December 2006 (CST)
I've been thinking about this and I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't let others than admins have access to the main page content. The potential for vandalism is huge, and any vandalism targeted at the main page through this project would also harm the project itself. This would require some extra time from admins, but seriously it isn't a lot of work. Just update the small box with a link to the new article. I don't think we should have any inclusion of the article itself on the main page. Some of the articles in the project won't even have almost any content at all. -- (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Actually, I think a prominent link from the Main Page (maybe in the "What's New" section), titled whatever makes sense, but pointing to a project organising article such as GuildWiki:Improvement drive would be sufficient. That article then gets used to list the article(s) targeted for improvement. This simplifies the issue of updating the Main Page, as it would not be needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:52, 28 December 2006 (CST)
The idea has merit in it and we could do it that way. Let's do a test run woth only the permanent link. If the project gets enough popularity, then we can just leave the main page without an updateable box. This might actually help the pressure on the articles when selected to the project. -- (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Personally, I think it's a wonderful idea. The only challenge I see is implementation. But other than that, it sounds like it would really help to improve the wiki. Nice find Gem. =) — Jyro X 02:48, 28 December 2006 (CST)
I have created User:Gem/Improvement project and User:Gem/Improvement project template as suggestions. Feel free to edit them and post suggestions. -- (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2006 (CST)
I'm not against the idea, but I have my reservations. Yes, it will outline a specific article that needs work, thus making it more of an issue to get done. But I think if someone finds an article that needs an upgrade, there is no need for thousands, or even hundreds, of users to get involved. If they believe it should be upgraded, by all means, upgrade away. There are not as many conflicting ideas in one or two people upgrading an article at the same time as there could possibly be if an article was highlighted. I can see the GW:1RV policy being stretched to its limit, since you highlight a chance to help with an article to anyone in a short amount of time, yet probably most of those editors will not know about GWiki's policies. While I am neutral to these suggestion, it is an innovative idea and great find Gem. I just hope it doesn't get out of hand, even with the best of intentions. — Gares 10:20, 28 December 2006 (CST)
I'm aware of the problmes that might be caused. The Wookieepedia is a pretty small wiki, opposed to us, used by thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. Highlighting a single article might cause some trouble. You also stated that instead of nominating an article a user could fix it. In most cases this holds true, but there are complex articles with a lot of reasearch needed which could really benefit from this. Also, if smaller articles are proposed, we could add more than one each day. Maby a complete category of bosses for example. -- (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2006 (CST)
It sounds like an interesting idea. We get drive by vandalism every once in a while anyway, I doubt this would cause all that much of an upsurge in the problem. Besides, if it were a defined page the admins could keep a close eye on it for as long as it were featured. --NieA7 18:40, 30 December 2006 (CST)
Any further comments? I'll make final versions of the template and page soon if no one has any constructive criticism. I'll also make a suggestion for the main page box. -- (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2006 (CST)
I made my final edits if no one disagrees or wants changes to the User:Gem/Improvement project and User:Gem/Improvement project template suggestions. Should we start implementing this? -- (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2007 (CST)
No one has said anything during the weekend so I'll just assume everyone is okay with this or doesn't care. Now I need an admin to edit the main page and create the official pages for me. -- (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Sorry, I must've missed that the examples were up. I though the link from the Main Page was going to be to a secondary portal, just as the Builds main page is a secondary portal? That way once setup, the featured article could be updated without admin involvement. Did I misunderstand completely? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Hmm. Oh yeah. Only a link to the project page, which will then be updated by anyone. Great. Good job Gem, nicely thought. He he. Correcting the mistake at once. No, I've slept almost as much as I should. Seriously. Not. *giggle* -- (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Finally done with GuildWiki:Improvement project and Template:Improvement project. The Main page edit copy is also ready, unless someone wants to edit the text. Any admin here to update the main page? -- (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Done, Gem. (And thanks for the fixes Barek, been a while since I've done a sync, things have apparently changed some since then.) --Rainith 21:49, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Thanks both. <3 I hope this wors well. -- (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2007 (CST)
What if we had a link on the main page to a page that had article stubs on it, and then by other classifications, such as if it's armor, a location, a mission, a weapon, a monster etc. so people aren't focusing on one project a week, but a main project that's posted, then a whole page of stubs that they can help improve according to the format and syntax page if they wish? Nhnowell
I am soon going to change the improvement project if no one opposes. (see the talk page for the project) If the changes are made, the improvement project focuses on more than one article at a time by removing the 'article of the week' concept. Then all major articles taht are posted on the project page will be concentrated on (hopefully) by many users. The reason why the project was created is to get major articles completed. The stub categories aren't a good way for this sort of concentrated improving as they are full of articles with only small things missing and sometimes also fully completed articles. -- (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2007 (CST)
Thanks Barek, I had missed that before when looking I guess. Nhnowell 18:36, 6 February 2007 (CST)
Unique Weapons[]
Shouldn't this be changed to "Green" Items rather than "Green" Weapons? Or are shields classed as weapons too? --SK 06:16, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Shields and off-hands are classified as weapons. I think that comes from the game manual. --Rainith 23:36, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Yeah, foci and shields are called weapons in the manuals. An in-game example is that foci and shields are also created by the weaponsmith along with the other weapons, not an itemsmith. — Gares 10:23, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Character Picture Upload[]
I do not think we should encourage it so much that it is on the main page, Mr. Anon. Maybe you do, but it would raise the amount of uploaded char pictures by alot. —Blastedt— 13:12, 1 January 2007 (CST)
I agree, it's bad enough as it is, I don't see why people think that we care what their generic ranger/warrior look like... but alas... --FireFox 13:22, 1 January 2007 (CST)
No thats why you use external links..it will not hinder the guild wiki site in any way as you are redirecting people to pictures stored on websites such as imageshack
Ummm, what, exactly, is your point? We already have images on-site. We actively discourage linking to off-site images except where the images are too large or the compilation's accredidation is in conflict with the site license (ie: can't be released under site license, so it's offsite). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:49, 1 January 2007 (CST)
Wintersday[]
Wintersday has been changed to the 11th. wanna change that on the frontpage? Stevo101 20:29, 5 January 2007 (CST)
What about a link to a getting started guide on the main page[]
A link to a getting started guide on the main page would be useful. When I was first on here, I had to look round GuildWiki for hours looking on a guide on how to get started.
11:47, 6 January 2007 (CST)
You mean like the ones linked under "New player campaign guides" in the "Game basics" section on the upper right of the Main Page? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:58, 6 January 2007 (CST)
CSS[]
The wiki should use more CSS and allow for users to use CSS in their designs. Look at [1] I think it is. This is an example of how our wiki could not be horrendously ugly. On a side note, I didn't know where to put this message. --Mgrinshpon 22:27, 7 January 2007 (CST)
The popups for the skills were discussed previously - it's a software tool call gwBBcode by http://gwshack.us that was modified for use on a wiki. We discussed using it once, but if I recall correctly, the problem was that the current version has problems with its bandwidth and system resource usage. They've mentioned working on a version update (I think they said planned for v2.0) that would resolve that problem, but I haven't seen a post from them in some time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:33, 7 January 2007 (CST)
Hmm? we can use our own css — Skuld 16:27, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Insignias[]
The main page mentions that insignias are for armor sets crafted in Elona, but there are armor sets in other places that you can put insignias on too. The only one that I have confirmed is from Ascalon, but I am assuming its like that in all towns where you can buy armor. VegaObscura 22:03, 11 January 2007 (CST)
You can only add Insygnias to Elonian Armor, and Insignia-less Obsidian Armor crafted after Nightfall came live. You can't add it to Prophecies and Factions armor. — Poki#3, 05:28, 12 January 2007 (CST)
I checked it and you're right, you cannot buy armor with an insignia slot in Ascalon, but you can buy insignias there. That's what threw me off, please disregard this now. VegaObscura 17:30, 13 January 2007 (CST)
Easter Eggs[]
Perhaps a link to an Easter Eggs page could be added to the main page, if an easter egg page exists that is :) Thefez 24 January 2007
There isn't a page for easter eggs. With the earch I could only find two easter eggs in the game, one in the Shing Jea Arena, one in the last mission of Nightfall. -- (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2007 (CST)
That kind of page could get totally out of control depending on the varied definitions of "easter egg" as many may interpret skill names or inscriptions, etc. as easter eggs as well as monster names and so on that all may pay homage to other comedy routines or people, etc. I wouldn't be opposed to it at all personally but I think keeping it limited to genuine easter eggs (like what Gem described) and not things like "Never Give Up!" and "Never Surrender!" were from Galaxy Quest, would be necessary.--Vallen Frostweaver 07:42, 25 January 2007 (CST)
Those are called trivia in the wiki and ofcourse shouldn't be in cluded. I don't think we need an article for these yet, but maby in the future if more are found. -- (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2007 (CST)
RE: Recommend to emphasize or rephrase "Game Mechanics" description //Game Basics on Main Page.[]
Admins:
The Game Mechanics section on the main page needs to be emphasized or otherwise re-worded.
There is a sizable amount of lousy Note edits and questions in Skill page discussions that would not exist had a user read a page like Damage, or Health. Often, these people aren't even aware that these articles exist (despite being on the main page). This lack of awareness wastes both the admin's and the reader's time - the former for having to revert, and the latter for having to go back and review an article.
As it stands, the Game Mechanics link is written passively, despite it being an extremely important section to read. That being said, I think that changing the Game Mechanics description to say something suggesting that it is required reading before adding to Skill Notes or posting questions in Discussion would be one way to resolve this.
Another alternative would be to re-section or re-organize the Game Basics section into something along the lines of, "Read here first!"
I can't think of any other ways to resolve this issue, but I hope that you see what I'm trying to get at :) GrammarNazi 09:02, 1 February 2007 (CST)
Is the massive slowdown in the site a permanent thing, or is wiki being hit by robots?[]
I've tested on multiple machines, wiki is crawling the past 20 hours or so. Is this a temporary problem?Cyrogenic 18:14, 4 February 2007 (CST)
I can't say that I've seen any "massive slowdowns" personally. I did notice a slight slowdown around 2-3am PST this morning (Sunday Feb. 4th). If you're seeing them currently, I'd say it was something either on your end, or between you and the wiki's servers. --Rainith 00:59, 5 February 2007 (CST)
Hmmm... I'm getting them at both work (a lab, not actually regular full-time job) and home, so I'm not sure. Oh well.Cyrogenic 02:17, 6 February 2007 (CST)
Its going VERY slow right now. Normally it takes me about 5-6 seconds to load a page on guildwiki, now its taking me anywhere from 30 sec to 3 minutes. Anyone know whats up? - Entice789 (Talk | Contributions) 13:31, 10 February 2007 (CST)
I think that it's just the traffic. It's slow now, but it's around fine eight hours later. ~ Pae 16:48, 10 February 2007 (CST)
Well, its 3AM Mountain time and I'm still loading pages really slowly... - Entice789 (Talk | Contributions) 05:01, 11 February 2007 (CST)
Hm, I get realy slow loading pages as well but only in the evening (around 21:00 - GMT+1). Slowdown I didn't used to get before, but I guess it's just net congestion in my case... --Erszebet 06:23, 11 February 2007 (CST)
It's been doing the same thing for about 5 days now for me. The main page usually takes 5 minutes to load. Anything else takes 1-2 minutes. It doesnt seem to matter what time it is either. Gandorf 14:22, 11 February 2007 (CST)
Official Anet wiki[]
Should/could there be a link on the main page to a page about the current "official" info related to the official ANet wiki (licensing differences, what will/might happen to guildwiki, etc). I know there is a fairly large discussion about it already on the community portal talk page, and I can only imagine that the amount of talk and interested people will grow quickly over the next few days/weeks and it probably at least deserves its own page, if not also a main page link. -- Peej 11:46, 8 February 2007 (CST)
The announcement about the ANet wiki is already posted in various places on this site. I don't think it should be on the Main Page until ANet posts it on THEIR main page. That's just my take on it. We don't want every user in the world rushing over to the new one and creating chaos (no offense to the majority of the users) until more groundwork and policy can be laid out. — Jyro X 16:25, 8 February 2007 (CST)
Yup. The new wiki policies, style and formatting and other basis should be set up first before we attract most users. -- (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2007 (CST)
I'd be surprised if the wiki is launched with a complete set of polcies in place. If nothing else who's gonna make them? Are they just going to take ours wholesale? Or is this what all the discussion with our site admins is about? It's all so shrouded in mystery at the moment... Probably because there's not much more to know, but not knowing there's not much more to know makes you think there's more to know, you know? --NieA7 18:29, 8 February 2007 (CST)
We are working on the new wikis policies, style and formatting and basic templates all the time. Most of them should be ready in a few days. -- (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2007 (CST)
EDIT CONFLICT ....
Anyone can get on the new wiki currently. And yes, many of our policies, or at least versions that have contributors who have dual-licensed their work, are being proposed over there. Someone posted links to The official Guild Wars Wiki on Wikipedia already, so it's not a huge secret; just not formally announced yet. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:37, 8 February 2007 (CST)
Oooh, looks fun. Can us peons join yet? --NieA7 18:42, 8 February 2007 (CST)
Yes, the wiki is in full action. Just keep in mind that the policies are still being formed so don't do anything radical yet. It would be best to go through all policy suggestion first. We are making some stuff really differently there. -- (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2007 (CST)
Great, thanks. I'll go take a look. It'll be interesting to be in on the start of things. --NieA7 18:52, 8 February 2007 (CST)
I'm not into all the news, since I don't monitor GW Forums, but I personally think that a better idea would be to mark this wiki as an official wiki... making a new wiki is a lot of work, and I already see a lot of things that are directly copied from here. That doesn't make much sense... Well it's not like we have much to say about it -_- — Poki#3, 09:31, 9 February 2007 (CST)
There is a copyright/licence issue that prevents that. This site is "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike " A-Nets is GNU (if I recall correctly).--JP 09:53, 9 February 2007 (CST)
To add to Gem's suggestions, during this re-structuring of the new wiki, please feel free to add your voice to the discussions going on. It is a community project after all and we welcome any who wish to help decide on the new framework. Some major discussions going on right now include the possible additons of guilds and a strict policy on the additon of builds. Also included are, of course, policies being re-worked and some new ones being added. Again, all are welocome to voice their opinions to help shape framework as it is a community project.
And yes, there are certain things being copied over, but only those things from which each contributor of that policy, template, etc. who have released their contributions to GFDL license in additon to GuildWiki's Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. — Gares 10:45, 9 February 2007 (CST)
problemo[]
Is it just me or does anyone else have the same problem; Guildwiki takes about 3 minutes to load a page. I hope someone can help me. --SigmA 08:13, 11 February 2007 (CST)
umm...go up about 10 lines or so, we're already discussing that =S- Entice789 (Talk | Contributions) 15:25, 11 February 2007 (CST)
Request[]
Can someone please post a new map to the locations of all the buried treasure, lost treasure and dont touch locations agin since they dident remove them. I feel this would be nice to have.Or at least tell me where the link is located. GbxCiviC 23:02, 15 February 2007 (CST)GbxCiviCGbxCiviC 23:02, 15 February 2007 (CST)
thanx and sorry my bad for the incorrect spelling.
Slowdown Again?[]
I had the slowdown problem about a month-3 weeks or so ago, and it took me about a minute up to two minutes to load any and all pages. I'm starting to have the same problem again, but it's gotten worse over the past few days and it's taking around 30 seconds or so sometimes to laod pages. I have a good internet connection and fairly new computer, and all other websites are working fine. I'm just wondering if people are starting to have the same problem again. Nhnowell 18:49, 4 March 2007 (CST)
The Domain of Anguish isn't really new anymore, so I feel it should be deleted. Nightfall itself is a much bigger and prominent subject, so it should still be left on. Alreajk 21:19, 10 March 2007 (CST)
Nvm this, rash decsision.Can't remember how to revert, or strike out text :/ Alreajk 21:25, 10 March 2007 (CST)
Lucky weekend[]
Please remove that aberrant red text o.O — Skuld 14:52, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
A capitalization change would be good, too. See deletion discussion at Lucky weekend. (vs. Lucky Weekend) Jinkas 16:03, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
I still think such entries as Lucky weekend should be normal weight font (as opposed to boldface) and be indented, for instance under GuildWars.com news. Much like the Domain of Anguish is indented under Guild Wars Nightfall. It doesn't have the relevance to be that emphasised. --MRA 09:39, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
We should take it off now, the not-so-lucky weekend is over. Nhnowell 15:06, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
And I suggest removing Nightfall and DoA to "Make place" for them. — Poki#3, 04:06, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
At this stage, GW2 is vaporware. I see no value in listing it in "what's new". Personally, I also do not believe we have enough known on GW:EotN to justify it on the Main Page, but I won't debate that one much - at least it's due out this year - but to me, I would at least like to wait until someone has been able to report on hands-on time with the expansion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:01, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
I agree. It's been said that GW2 will have a tentative 2009 release date, and it could still be pushed back further or canceled altogether. There's a long history in gaming of projects being delayed and canceled. I don't see that there's any serious, pressing need for any GW2 page here on the Wiki. It all still speculation anyway, Eye of the North included.--Ninjatek 11:18, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
Just the toss the thermonuclear pineapple into the discussion :D Are we going to be referring to EotN as "Campaign Four"? Reason for asking is, noticed on the current EditCopy is being referred to this way, but from what little hard detail there is, it appears to be more an expansion on the old campaign(s?), than a new campaign. Comments? --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 06:06, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
Now that the Celestial Tourney has finished there's a space for it now. I wouldn't mind an Eye of the North link, even if we don't have all the info that article is the kind of thing people will be hitting the Main Page looking for. If we don't have all the info yet tha doesn't matter, in fact people may just be wanting to see if the release date has been announced yet. To be honest I'd say the same about GW2 as well, don't make it hard to find something lots of people are looking for I say. --Xasxas256 06:07, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
I'll buy the whole GW2 is vaporware but in the same vein, Nightfall is hardly "new" anymore. Select major updates seem more like "new" items.
Soundtracks[]
The search isn't returning anything so I'll post like it hasn't been addressed.
Given that all three games have a retail version of the soundtrack it seems reasonable that the soundtrack gets its own page. "Jeremy Soule" only links off to the real wiki site. Any other music related articles seem to only mention the bonus or the add-ons that can be purchased through DS.
The music is cool as hell, it could use some wikilove.
Did you try the DirectSong page? --Rainith 01:04, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Second anniversary[]
We need an link for the second anniversary celebration, but has an article been created that we can link it to? -- Dashface 02:21, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Yeah we definitely need this. And please, can we get rid of Guild Wars Nightfall already? It's not new, and Eye of the North belongs there more than it does. Alreajk 15:00, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Get rid of NF, Replace with EotN[]
Nightfall is hardly new and is wasting a spot that a newer thing should have. Eye of the North deserves the spotlight now, as it's coming within several months. Also, the Hard Mode on the editcopy generates more hype, which is what this game needs. Alreajk 00:43, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Gwen won't be here for several months, it's not new if it isn't in the game. Solus 00:45, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
There is also so little official information out that there is no point for a link on the main page IMO Eric368 00:55, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Not to mention the fact that there really are hardcore players out there who haven't bought Nightfall yet (gasp!), so yeh, keep it until at least EotN Beta event or similar official info release. (T/C) 01:01, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
please don't take down the main page[]
I understand there is heated discussion about the main page, but it seems rather silly and unprofessional to favor not having a main page as opposed to an outdated main page.
At least wait till the new one is decided on and ready to go live before taking down the old one. Thats just my two cents... 209.45.206.102 20:15, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Ummm ... huh?!? I would reply further, but I have no clue what "heated discussion" you're talking about here - or are you referring to the builds wipe that took place today? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:24, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, I guess my post was a bit presumptuous. I just assumed that there was debate, because it seemed like the main page was taken down rather hastily, without a new version to replace it. I apologize for the assumption.Cowboysoultaker 01:55, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
"What's new?" box[]
Could we maybe tone down the usage of boldface in the "What's new?" box? Beside the "permanent" links for updates, news, and current campaign (for which boldface is a comprehensible text weight) I think we should give anything else in normal weight.
After all, each link is already emphasised by the browsers link color and mouse-over feedback (i.e. underlining and a change of the mouse pointer).
Moreover, I would also suggest to indent minor topics under one of the permanent topics as we do in the other boxes (such as Hard mode under Updates or Domain of Anguish under Nightfall).
Example given:
In my opinion this appears more elegant. --MRA 11:12, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree ... but should the new miniatures be under news or updates? I can see either. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:22, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Eye of the north isn't new yet. :)
Deleting pages[]
I wish to delete some of my user pages that I do not need any more, can someone tell me how to delete them or if I cannot delete them how to request them deleted?--Banditda 19:57, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Place a delete tag on the pages by inserting the following code: {{delete|reason for deletion}}. Simple, isn't it. :) -- (gem / talk) 20:36, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
down again?[]
And once again, for the fourth time in the last 7 days, the wiki is down. All the information I get is that we should vote on a new main page and it points me here. I hate to sound disgruntled and all, but all I want to know is why it's down.209.45.206.102 20:36, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
I think He/She is saying that wiki is down alot.?.--Banditda 22:26, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm not sure they have the right wiki, we're not voting on a new main page as far as I know. — Skuld 03:47, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
This is the same person who wrote "please don't take down the main page". He/She is messing with our minds! :O — Poki#3, 09:01, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
No, I assure you I am not (btw, I can't sign on at work, this is my actual log-in). I go on break around 8pm every weekday and lately I've found the main page down with a link to the edit copy. I was wrong about the vote thing, it actually said "proposal's for the main page can be given here" and linked to the edit copy.Cowboysoultaker 16:11, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
It sounds like a problem on your PC, try clearing your system cache. Viewing edit history of this site's Main Page, it has not been taken down at any point in the last several months. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
Yup. If you look at the bottom of the Main page you'll see those words. So possibly the work PC cache is filled up, or the browser is broken, or they block some sites and/or scripts. — Poki#3, 18:13, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
the more I think about it the more sense it makes. sorry for all the confusion, I will check that out.209.45.206.102 20:11, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
I checked it out, and I can access guildwiki from mozilla no problem. This version of IE is an older version, and never had trouble with guildwiki before, but it looks like guildwiki no longer supports this version of IE (5.0).209.45.206.102 19:59, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
5.0? ...HOW did you get that? Windows 95? NT? 3.0? :O — Poki#3, 20:22, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
Maybe link to BuildWiki PvXwiki?[]
There is a website for builds... I know that this Wiki removed the builds, but it is still nice to have them available. Maybe a link on the main page? Or somewhere? --Skax459 16:11, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
EDIT: Oh yeah, the website is [2]. --Skax459 16:14, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm sure we wont link to PvXbuilds, they are a direct rip of the wiki builds section before the wipe, but we got nothing else to do with them. -- (gem / talk) 18:12, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm actually not opposed to directly linking them on the main page, at least for a short period. I'd like to get more discussion on this before we do so, however. —Tanaric 08:22, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
We already link to them from the GuildWiki:Builds wipe article, and I think we should also add the link to the Build article. They are a fork of the GuildWiki database, so I see no problem pointing people to them.
As for the main page, I wouldn't want it listed there permanently, but maybe listed under "What's new" for a short period of time of two or three months would be good for both sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:25, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
It's not a huge concern to me. Linking to them and explaining that they are a backup of the builds section might even reduce the amount of "bring back builds" spam that we receive. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:27, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm in favor as well. -Auron 08:32, 10 May 2007 (CDT)
Not until Buildwiki has enacted a voting policy. Their build section will probably become a flooded monster like this wiki's builds section became. Give them a little time first, please. --Mgrinshpon 08:22, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
They've delayed voting on a policy specifically to get more people to the site to vote on which policy would be used. Directing more users in their direction would bring more users to their policy vote, which seems to be their preference. After-all, they could have voted with just the admins over there, and they chose to wait until a bigger user base was available to select the vetting policy they will use. Because of that, I say the sooner a link is provided, the better. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:27, 11 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't mind having a link on the main page to them as well for now. Is this enough consensus to go ahead and add it? I just don't really like the wording as it currently stands: A GuildWiki fork containing nothing but builds articles. Do we need the word fork? --Xasxas256 21:55, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
Spoon, perhaps? --Mgrinshpon 09:09, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Or spinoff..but that doesn't sound right. How about we ditch the whole "started off of wiki" idea? M s4 18:08, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
I was gonna say: GET RID OF THE BUILDS WIKI LINK!!! But after I saw Barek's most recent post here I will accept it. I think It was great that the builds were removed here but people have to be arrogant... Anyway if they're going to make their own wiki and try to make a better vetting policy, I say let em do it. Directing more people to help with that couldn't hurt, could it? Alreajk 18:26, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Just for the record, we are not named PvX Builds, we are named PvXwiki. Please change the link on the front page. (I'm not used to being unable to fix typos on a main page...) --Armond Warblade(talk) 13:38, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Just wanted to thank you guys for linking to PvXwiki. Gcardinal 21:13, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
Mission[]
Shouldn't Mission on the Main page in the code it has Mission in and and it says overview, but the overview is under Missions. -- Library user —The preceding unsigned comment was added by146.74.224.207 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 June 2007 (CDT).
What? If you want the missions to link to Mission overviews then it's not needed, since all the 3 overviews are are the bottom of the mission article. — Poki#3, 19:53, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
(talk) 19:28, 3 October 2006 (CDT)
09:53, 31 October 2006 (CST)
18:34, 31 October 2006 (CST)
16:28, 1 December 2006 (CST)
23:51, 9 December 2006 (CST)
(talk) 17:56, 26 December 2006 (CST)
02:48, 28 December 2006 (CST)
Nhnowell 18:36, 6 February 2007 (CST)
06:16, 27 December 2006 (CST)
Blastedt
— 13:12, 1 January 2007 (CST)
11:47, 6 January 2007 (CST)
08:13, 11 February 2007 (CST)
02:21, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
00:45, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
