Talk:Main Page

From Guild Wars Wiki

Note: Before editing this page please consider whether this is right place for your edit. Most especially, comments about the layout of the main page should go to the copyedit page instead, while discussions of general interest to all wiki editors is best placed on the Community portal. Please add new discussions to the bottom of the page.

Contents 1 Color 2 Proffesions 3 AreaNet Portal 4 Give up on events! 5 16,000 6 this game goes down 7 code 13 8 Why are the guys on Wikia getting uptight?

[edit] Color

We should change the colour. The page has been like this for way to long. — ク Eloc 貢 16:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's fine as is imo. We don't need hippie tie-dye colors or anything. It looks good and professional right now. Calor 19:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a restyle is needed. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Mine eyes! Calor 20:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't mind a restyle that's a bit too much Brains, although I could certainly come up with a lot worse. --Kakarot 20:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

i bet eloc would love that color scheme :P - Y0_ich_halt 20:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't make me break out the neon-green-on-hot-pink color schemes again. Also, is there any particular reason why we need to change the color scheme? Consistency is good. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right poke Y0, I do like that colour scheme of Brains'. Although, change the link colours to something else. Also, Kakarot, hippie tie-dye colours sounds pretty good actually. ;) — ク Eloc 貢 23:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why me?? o.O poke | talk 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, wrong person lol. — ク Eloc 貢 23:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually like the way it is. It resembles wikipedia. I've been to a lot of other wikis, and they just look tacky because they use special color themes. IMO, this looks very professional and user-friendly. Also, due to its similarity to wikipedia, it has an air of familiarity that puts users (and editors) at ease. I suggest that we do not change it. Sorry to be contrary =P. Mohnzh say what? 23:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with everything you've said, Mohnzh. Calor 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia language? As each one is different. — ク Eloc 貢 23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same language everyone here speaks. English. Calor 23:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I only use the English and Polish, but I jumped over to Spanish just to see. They are all three the same. Mohnzh say what? 23:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was thinking of Italian Wikipedia which used to have a neat colour scheme to it. — ク Eloc 貢 04:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

See, that's not bad. I thought you meant changing all the font colors and backgrounds and stuff. As long as we keep the whitish page with black font to maintain the wikipedia-like professional appearance, the headings can be put on nicely colored tabs as they already are. I do like the Italian thing. It has a sort of 3D appearance. Minor color changes like that I am not opposed to. Things like the color scheme suggested above...bleh. Mohnzh say what? 14:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that was just aimed towards Eloc using his userpage colour scheme.. it wasn't serious :P -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed ;-). Mohnzh say what? 15:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is the only wiki that I know that has the coolest colors and style. Everytimg I got to PvX wiki the links take me to Wikia and it pisses me off cause wikia sucks at the colors and everything.. Halogod35 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proffesions

(I'm also going to mention this on Guildwiki.) WHat if for all of the proffesions pages we also name all of the heroes that have those proffesions, like for Necromancer it would be Olias, Master of Whispers, and Livia.--‎FireTock 14:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? Calor 16:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? — ク Eloc 貢 00:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not list every Necromancer NPC and enemy on the Necromancer page also, then? What do we/readers gain by listing heroes on their profession's page? Calor 00:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

... have you been reading the responses on GuildWiki? -- Brains12 \ Talk 00:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We already have categories for that, such as Category:Necromancers. Also, if you want to see what heroes are in a particular profession, we have Hero#Recruitment order, List of Nightfall heroes, and List of Eye of the North heroes. And PS: it's "profession". -- ab.er.rant 06:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AreaNet Portal

why broken link?--Sum Mesmer Guy contribs 20:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Anet IT has messed up the guild namespace with the Anet namespace in some way.. - anja 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

that's a good trick, how did they manage that then?--Sum Mesmer Guy contribs 20:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea. IT are skilled people ;) - anja 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to work fine for me now. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, was fixed within an hour. - anja 08:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Give up on events!

Arenanet just give up on envents if you guys have nothing else to think about. It's getting agravating that only about 11% of what events you guys are putting out are MMO base or PvE. Idea: Why not head over to guildwarsguru.com and get some ideas if the developers can have any! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.98.160.14 (talk).

Um.... what?

2/5 = 40% of the events for the month of May were purely PvE.

2/4 = 50% of the events for the month of April were PvE.

2/4 = 50% of the events for the month of March were PvE.

3/5 = 60% of the events for the month of February were PvE.

I'd say that's a bit more than "11%". You can look at the list at Weekend events. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the events, don't participate, or just ignore them. It's ridiculous to ask them to stop. -- ab.er.rant 02:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL @ u tho... from hat ur saying its a 50/50 balance, whats unfair about it? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:81.158.148.151 (talk).

If you check the lists you'll see that they are more or less alternately. One PvE, the next PvP. When there are two PvP, therea re usually two PvE, the average is 50/50. I see absolutely no problem about that. MithTalk 13:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

maybe hes saying this because he never gets anything in the bonus drop weekends..--Raph Talky 13:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't. But then again I'm not on enough to actually get anything. Although one time I did get a black dye during a dye drop weekend. That's pretty much it. I like the bonus faction weekends though. That's how I got my boost on my Kurzick title. --Shinigami King 02:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

i go back to my previous post. Other than that, im pretty much the same as shinigami, except i got a few picks during the lockpick bonus drop weekend--Raph Talky 23:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 16,000

This wiki just have reached 16k articles. Woo! Halogod35 01:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah. — ク Eloc 貢 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yay! FireFox 3 coming out and now this. Good news day. MithTalk 13:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] this game goes down

sad to say but this game is slowly going in history. take a look google trends here [1]

What is that? And who cares?--The Gates Assassin 11:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it is quite expected after three years and GW2 being announced already. - anja 15:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

hey look, the same thing is happening for WoW. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at this, a 9 year old game is competing with Guild Wars. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 09:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars is killing itself. diablo 2, nice :) 67.159.44.24 15:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at this, Google is beating Jesus, Allah, and God, combined. For more proofs of why Google is God, see here. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If google is god how can google beat god Fox007 19:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the Invisible Pink Unicorn simultaneously invisible and pink? *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That was epic. — Skakid 20:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Epic win ^^ DE +10. Calor 22:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do people google for "google"? meh :P poke | talk 23:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

pokemon beats them all too [2]. --Cursed Angel 23:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Google beats all three (and more) combined. Also, @Poke, I'm wondering if, aside from the legitimate searches for Google, people doing research, etc., when you do a Google search (from a search bar for instance), but you don't add a keyword, does it treat it as a search for Google (because that would be kinda funny actually)? *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

oddly, most poeple look for news when they are, y'know, new. Backsword 13:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Comparing 3 major games [3] Dominator Matrix 00:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

runescape is the most retarded shit i've ever seen. how the fuck can so many ppl play a game with that graphic? i cant even endure it a second. --Angemon

Its not always about the graphics. 000.00.00.00 09:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This game goes down, so slowly... (x6)

Even maplestory beats guild wars [4] 70.231.243.69 00:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Every little thing that you say or do

I'm hung up

I'm hung up on you

Waiting for updates

Anet night and day

I'm fed up

I'm tired of waiting on you

XDDDD MithTalk 13:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Google trends only shows how many people are searching it on google, that doesn't mean that it has gone downhill. — ク Eloc 貢 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah but if less people are searching for guild wars, that usually means less people care about guild wars. No 15:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When I search via google for specific things, I don't include "Guild Wars" in the search as it is mostly that location names or skill names are that unique that I find what I want.. And I use the wiki as main resource, so there is no need for google. poke | talk 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The bulk of people who would Google search "Guild Wars" are those who are interested in buying it. If anything, the graphs show that less people are looking to buy it; of course, it's hard to effectively figure out what the graphs mean when you don't have the reason for each search. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at this one here [5] guild wars 2 is going up! JaKeD-uP 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at this, D2 and D3 are getting searched way more than GW1 and GW2: [6]. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 20:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] code 13

is anyone else getting code 13? Plohek 08:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

i get it to Q.Q Fox007 08:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Might I get you to check this, Regina's Journal that directs us to this on to this Network News. I still don't understand why it wasn't put up on the login screen. If it was, I haven't seen it. 000.00.00.00 09:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC) 08:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why are the guys on Wikia getting uptight?

I've spent quite a bit of time tonight flicking back and forth between Wikia and this. I haven't found a lot of difference in quality of discussion but i have made some observations, namely:

1 Official is quicker with updates

2 Wikia is more likely to crash

3 I don't mind commercials but if they flash or make noise i go somewhere else

4 Wikia is more likely to have comments signed by players with elaborate sign-offs. Probaly an indication of their computer literacy or a measure of their nerd factor.

5 Neither site is tolerant of new users. If you don't key in the exact description of an artefact you have seen on-screen for less than 0.1s you get a mis-direct. I was brought up on Google:- If you do a typo you get some options.

6 I'd like to finish with a question:- Is anybody listening? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:78.16.161.79 (talk).

No. *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Calor 02:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --Shadowphoenix 02:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The bit in #5 is mostly just an issue with the actual software that runs the wiki - the default behavior is to only really look for exact page names. Try clicking the "Search" button instead of the "Go" button if you're using the box on the left. We're also planning on switching to a plugin which will add better searching ability. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That plug-in is automatically installed with MW 1.14, AFAIK. Calor 03:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but we still don't have it yet. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I incorrectly inferred you were implying it would be added separately than any other updates. Calor 03:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Google/Dictionary autocorrection is a great feature, it would be great to have it in wikis. But that's something that should come with the version of the Wiki engine. But not having autocorrection is not 'being intolerant with new users' it's 'not being user-friendly'. It's not the same. Wikia may have a different policy for signatures. In the official wiki we try to keep them small. MithTalk 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

meh gravewit and the wikia move pissed half the community off at guildwiki, otherwise guildwiki would still probably better than the official, now its just dead. No 14:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree as the information on GuildWiki was falling into disrepair long before Wikia took it over, while the information on the official wiki has done nothing but improve. GuildWiki does have the advantage of more historical information, but that's to be expected since it has been around for almost 2 years longer.-- Wynthyst 14:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Once GWW and Anet said that there would be developers frequenting the wiki, GWiki had the final nail put in the coffin. I think that more than anything else has caused hordes of people to migrate here. Calor 14:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re #4: That might be a sign of this wiki having a stricter GWW:SIGN policy. --Xeeron 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re #1: That's because we're official... and official employees make official announcements here :)

Re #3: Try Firefox and Adblock ;)

Re #5: We added the content. We didn't make the wiki software. Both wikis use the same software.

Re #6: Technically, since you aren't really speaking, no one's listening :) -- ab.er.rant 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)