Talk:Main Page/May-December 2008

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)

Plain simple pages are better. White background, black letters, some colore in a couple of borders and headers, tango icons and done. Perfect. MithTalk 17:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

i'm thinking, brains idea, just with the black text green or white|Killer demon

im bored of plain white we need colour!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mulacleffop (talk • contribs) at 18:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC).

Well, themes would work better, personally I think it is fine as it is. -- WoB 07:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It does need a few changes. Age shows on something that never changes....at... ALL. Maybe just change it for the holidays? That'd be cool. Or some GW backgrounds even. {Ankara Storm} --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ankara Storm (talk).

You'll find Help:Signatures to be useful. -- ab.er.rant 03:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't change the color keep it simple, because I know a lot of people (me including) run the wiki in the background while playing GW and making a fancy color theme would just make computers slower, to the point where it gets really annoying. So a nice simple white theme that load fast is fine, plus it looks nice. I also agree that the Italian theme looks very nice and it could give some life to the wiki as well as the idea of changing the colors during an event.--83.199.125.247 15:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So long as there's nothing fancy like animations, it won't slow a computer down. You could make it all bright red, and it wouldn't increase load times (while an animated background with animations for button rollover would slow stuff down). -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 16:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I have to say loading white, and loading bright red, make no difference to your computer performance. --Lemming 16:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing we could do would be adding id tags to the code so people could customize color and other aspects of the page with their personal css. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 19:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

wintersday color scheme

Ok, having a theme for wintersday, good. I applaud you therefor. However, would it be possible to turn the red down just a tad? It clasheth mucheth with the eyes, or the greeneth... Anywho, thanks for the great wiki and Merry Christmas, and a happy Wintersday too!Kyle van der Meer 13:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You can use the Main Page/editcopy to propose changes; alternatively, bring it up on Talk:Main Page/editcopy as that's where the discussion for Wintersday decorations is. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Professions

(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)

ArenaNet 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)

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)

Well that is just normal to put events 50/50 becouse some players play more PVE and some PVP. I dont see the problem there so could u tell us or me why you added this to here?

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)

this game goes down

sad to say but this game is slowly going in history. take a look google trends here [1] --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Zomby (talk).

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)

Can't believe anyone would think that this game is on the downfall. Especially with the GW2 in the near future. People aren't searching it anymore because they are all playing it. I can vouch from the 4th of July event that there are an abundance of people still playing the game. How can you dislike a game that you buy once and never pay for again. An almost unlimited amount of missions with more to come, always some kind of event on the weekends, always updating, great Graphics whats not to like. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:DragonLordIIII (talk).

DragonLordIIII, you're supposed to sign when you post, not use the unsigned template on your own posts... -- ab.er.rant 14:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

lmao. Maybe he put the unsigned template in his preference? — ク Eloc 貢 22:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(yeah sorry we're drifting away from google game comparison search statistics) Reminds me of the once abused "awsome-sauce-comment"-sig. —ZerphaThe Improver 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he first wrote it in another section accidentally, someone put the unsigned on, then he moved it to here. But yeah, off-topic -- Brains12 \ talk 22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just fyi. *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone take interest in GW2 when Pong has been around for much longer and it's where all the action is? GW2 should go open source so they can compete with Pong. [7]  Woop ‧ talk ‧ 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't find this very frightening. All games dwindle down at some point. They start out small, then jump up huge and then head their way back down again. All games go through that cycle. Rarely a game can jump back up again, and I suspect that this will happen when Guild Wars 2 comes out. To have this type of game with no lvl cap? That will hit big with a lot of RPG game players. --Lustre Of Havoc 21:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Guild Wars is going through that cycle much faster than other games. Compare how fast Guild Wars is losing attention to how fast Diablo 2 is/was. Also look how much more attention Diablo 3 is getting than Guild Wars 2. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 02:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that Diablo 3 is recent news, while news about GW2 is many months old, it's understandable that D3 is more prominent on people's minds... not to mention the fact that D3 has been to be already playable. -- ab.er.rant 11:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to worry about this? Large 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Only if you've bought shares in NCSoft. -- ab.er.rant 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I have. J/K Large 18:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so that link says NCSoft is making less money during a downturn than before. And did you see the part where Guild Wars brought in about 5 million that quarter? Which -considering that's all based on sales of new games or from other things in the Online store and not any subscription fees - is pretty good to me. Yukiko 02:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm yes i dont even spend my time on google searching for guild wars. Its alot easier to bookmark them and seriously do you have anything better to do then make up crap like this?? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:92.0.240.177 (talk).

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)

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)

Re #2: Wikia's servers host a rather large pile of wikis in addition to GuildWiki, so sometimes the site will lag due to that. As an added bonus, Wikia loves to use all sorts of exclusive "bonus" features on it's wikis, which generally come across as more of a hindrance (such as their default Monaco skin, extra advertisements, and whatnot). All that combined gives Wikia a bigger chance to suffer a crash, and by extension, GuildWIki.

Re #4: Like Xeeron and a few others mentioned, that's the difference in signature policies, not the skill level or nerdiness of the users. A good number of users on GWW are also on GuildWiki, and vice-versa, with different signatures on both. Users on both wikis are pretty much equal in computing skills and nerd factors. :D

And, a reply to the title: it's not the guys on Wikia, it's Wikia itself. Most of the users there dislike the very same things you dislike about the site. The particularly annoyed users are editors on here now, while there's still a large number of users who dislike the official-ness of GWW, and are more inclined to "go down with the ship", so to speak, then to swim to the nearby Coast Guard boat (don't like my analogies, don't read 'em). Personally, I edit both wikis just about equally, the only reason I'm on GuildWiki more often is because I've got admin duties there. :D -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually what is on Guild Wiki is more factual than the official Guild Wars Wiki. Some quest don't have the right wording or are missing information on this site, and the walkthroughs and notes on the other site seem overall more helpful. 70.108.148.240 20:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If a quest doesn't have the right wording here, please, please fix it! You could even create an account, and become a regular contributor. That's the joys of wiki-ing! :D Ale_Jrb (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I use both wikis- they both have things that the other hasn't. I would have to say that Guild wiki is better than this wiki, however they have had a 2 year headstart for fixing things up so the too are pretty balanced overall. IMO they're both great though.--86.153.179.249 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I have ever used GuildWiki for is armor galleries. Theirs tend to show better views of colorable areas, but other than that I always use GWW. Bad grammar, incorrect information, badly worded notes, and downright ugly styling of pages plague GuildWiki. To be entirely honest, I have yet to find a single page for which GuildWiki's article is better than GWW's. --orith is so fail 03:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be more moderate in your statements. Most the style of GuildWiki came from the same group of people who helped design GWW. Also, if you really want examples of better articles, try comparing all the mission and quest pages side-by-side. -- ab.er.rant 03:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Guild Pages

Is it allowed to make branches of guild pages? Such as /Events to list events coming up or something so that Guild Members can check since everything can not fit into the Guild Announcement? Nature` 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It is allowed, but please note that guild pages are not to be used as noticeboards, or to post any kind of dynamic information such as reports of on-going events. A small page about a specific event organization is fine as far as i know, but using it to post "today we are going to yadayada, tomorrow yadayada, next week yadayada", could be a bit too much.--Fighterdoken 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Two Small Questions

1. Would it be appropriate or acceptable to have a link on the main page to the Guild Wars 2 wiki? That seems the most likely place to link, and would no doubt help the second wiki grow in content and members. (I am pretty sure this has been asked before -- just checking.)
2. The main page Interaction Portal descriptions says, in part, "Staff members that are active on the wiki." Every time I read that, I wonder, could we change that to "Staff members who are active on the wiki?"

Thanks for your consideration. :) -- Gaile 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Guild Wars 2 Wiki has ground to a halt in terms of content and user contribution. That probably won't improve unless you guys give us some more details! :P. This was discussed, sort of, with Emily on her GW2W talk page -- gw2:User talk:Emily Diehl#Linking to the GW2W from the GWW. A couple of people who responded thought that more content would be needed and the basic policies sorted before we link from this wiki. Obviously, that was months ago and there are more people here to put their view in, but I doubt things would change -- the GW2W just isn't 'important' at the moment. Seeing as the beta has been delayed as well, the level of activity there is practically non-existent in terms of content.

I think the "Staff members.." text has been changed on the editcopy; of course, feel free to edit that if you want a change to be made. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Brains. I like the revised text -- no worries.

One thing to note is that ArenaNet did release a small FAQ on Guild Wars 2. May be time to link, may not be time to link, that's not for me to say. But boy, it sure would be handy! :) -- Gaile 20:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The most recent FAQ on GW2 did not provide any information we didn't already have, I vote against linking, it will just turn GW2W into more of a troll breeding ground than it already is.-- Wyn 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Wyn, there's no need for a link to GW2W, as there's next to no info, and all the info that exists has already been appropriately documented. Although, things will change when more info is released. Calor 22:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason that a link can't planned and designed before there's a need for it though. I too agree that the content of GW2W is minimal, but why not have the discussion over where it goes and how it looks,etc start sooner? 75.146.48.190 22:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is going to take months of discussion to decide how/where to link it. Until Anet is ready to provide us with some serious information regarding the game, I think it needs to be left alone.-- Wyn 03:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's nothing to plan. Just insert a nice GW2 logo at the top and it'll be done. Besides, the design we currently have might even change before GW2 gets more info out. And Gaile, "help the second wiki grow in content" is not going to happen if you guys aren't releasing anymore info. Everything we know about it is already in there... for months. -- ab.er.rant 05:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the information has been "in there... for months." But who sees it? How do they find it? I think there are two ways to look at this: Don't link, and you have people wondering if there even is a Guild Wars 2 wiki. Link, and you have people wondering why there is so little content. I guess I personally feel it would be nice to link to the Guild Wars 2 Wiki. I feel that the information that we do have on Guild Wars 2 -- as "lite" as it may be -- is hard to find. I think I see a way to fix that: link. (And I'm sure that declining to link will not prompt the company to release more information, if that's the intention. ;) ) Again, I'm just one member and I don't presume to be anything more. Still, obfuscation through non-direction seems counter to what a wiki is all about. -- Gaile 06:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Will add the link to Guild Wars 2 and Main Page/editcopy. -- ab.er.rant 07:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, obfuscation through non-direction seems counter to what a wiki is all about. Hear hear! This is my pet peeve about some aspects of wiki-ness, when people would rather have no information, rather than incomplete information. Biscuits 09:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo Wyn and Calor here, it's kinda of a bad idea. Mostly for the false or speculative info other people will try to fabricate. The cons outweigh the pros, unless someone would kindly correct me. I would rather have no information than false information any day. --People of Antioch 09:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm not trying to 'withhold linking to prompt the company to release more information' I think the creation of GW2W was WAY too early, I dont' think there is a sound reason or nearly enough information available to sustain an entire wiki, and by linking it, as has been pointed out, people are going to just created speculative/fabricated information. Due to the fact that we don't even have core policies, there really is no administration to speak of there.-- Wyn 09:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. To me, it's just pointless to link people to a quiet wiki when it's much better to just point people to Guild Wars 2 (just look at the talk page). That article plus the external links is more or less everything that's in GW2 (so claiming that this hiding or rejecting incomplete information is uncalled for). -- ab.er.rant 09:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For now, I've taken it out of the editcopy, as it doesn't seem to be a popular choice (I agree with wyn/calor/brains/PoA, it's a bit too early). There's nothing on that wiki, and it's still too early for even policy discussion.

Can we put a link to our GW2 page somewhere? I'm thinking the Updates, news and events section, although that might not be the best place for a semi-permanent link. -Auron 12:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We have links on some of our articles to articles on GW2W. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Gw2w. poke | talk 13:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Auron, I think that's a great suggestion! I was just typing up the same idea when I noticed your comment. I don't want to bring the whole wiki for Guild Wars 2 into a greater prominence than it should be now; I totally agree with you folks who have provided solid and well-thought reservations about doing that. I just thought the main page looked a little bare without some sort of reference to the upcoming title, and linking to the page could be a really nice idea. It's up to you guys -- I'm just makin' conversation here. :) -- Gaile 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Icons

The icons on the main page representing each of the category headings (ie the destroyer for PvE, the outpost for PvP, the shield for Game Basics, etc) have solid backgrounds and look pretty ugly imo since half of these pictures overlaps with the blue background of the heading. I notice that they're .png format and it would be really quite simple to make the white (or blue, in the case of the destroyer) backgrounds clear instead. Is there any reason this hasn't been done or why I wouldn't be allowed to? Mr J 10:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They have transparent backgrounds for me, what browser are you using? --Kakarot 10:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, IE6 and I noticed here that someone else mentions the blue background visible on the destroyer and the white on the others. I'll have access to a more up to date version later and I'll confirm but this version of IE has no problems viewing similar .png files with trasparent backgrounds on other sites such as on the main page of http://www.pvxwiki.com Mr J 10:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IE6 has serious security holes, so I'd recommend that you upgrade anyway. If you like IE, stick with that, or there's always Firefox or Opera. Kokuou 10:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If IE6 has problems displaying the images, that will be a large percentage of the users that are seeing these wrong, so we should try to make it work for them if possible. We can't expect them all to use a better browser. ;) Biscuits 11:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not my computer, so I can't upgrade it. Also, I'm not sure the browser is the problem as other .png files from other websites work just fine. Could just put aside the usual lolIE garbage and actually answer the question? Is there any reason why the images can't be edited to try and resolve whatever causes them to show up incorrectly? Mr J 11:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is fairly well-known that IE6 don't support png alpha-transparency. The background of the images are already transparent. Pvxwiki uses a workaround for IE6. Load their icons [8] directly and it should have a grey background in IE6 --Zora 12:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Checking the page source directly with the browser I can see that it substitutes the .png files for .gif and I probably just didn't notice the times the transparency failed on other sites or workarounds are fairly common. In any case, my question now is: Is there any reason why we couldn't or shouldn't implement a similar workaround here? Mr J 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

IE6 is no longer supported, there is no need to make workarounds or anything like that, it would be like making programs compatible with Windows 3.11 or Windows 95. You could say is an old mistake that should be buried and forgotten. Window XP updates will even suggest to upgrade to IE7. Use IE7, FireFox or any other browser instead. We can't make pages for all older browsers, specially when they do not work the way they are supposed to. Replacing .png files with .gif is not an option when alpha blending is used. PNG is a W3C STANDARD. So if a browser does not display them properly, the browser is the problem. MithTalk 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

K. Known problem with IE6, don't want to bother because it's not required by W3C Standard, upgrade your browser or ignore the failures of Microsoft. Discussion closed then; I'll remove the RfD. Mr J 15:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

A good comparison vs WoW LK vs GW2. NOTE: Some of the picture are mixed up... Most of the GW2 "content" is concept art of the canceled campaign 4 and various other art found. Not real content, but something to watch here. Dominator Matrix 00:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

hb weekend

y isnt hb weekend same as montly turnament its good for the servers tehy need exersize XXx dark inuyasha xXx 09:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)satanschild666

Lol, I was just thinking the same thing. -Auron 09:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

nob hbers spoilt 2 weekend wil runnin spechilists lik mi get NON Shadow Naruto Super Saiyan 889 09:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

^ in english, plz? --Uchiha Lena 05:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"Noob HB'ers spoiled 2 weekends while running specialists like me get none." I think... Kyle van der Meer 12:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Halloween colours!

Looks amazing, you guys surely did do a fantastic job! --Stokoe 23:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it burns my eyes, any chance the brightness could be knocked down a notch? Misery 07:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Erm its a dark shade of orange. It appears that way in FF3 anyways. Dominator Matrix 07:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Deja vu?...--Fighterdoken 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How much time do you actually spend on the main page that it is that bad? -- Wyn 07:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I would add a little bit of green. MithTalk 12:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As in pumpkin colors? Personally, I think green would make it look more Christmas-y, instead of Halloween-y. I'd add a ton of black if I had my way, but then people would really be complaining about their eyes. :D -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 12:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Some black too is also good. MithTalk 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

PUMPKINS? ORANGE?

what is this i dont even Vael Victus 23:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My images are better! =P — Seru Talk 01:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on mad king thong thorn. Vael Victus 18:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Game Update Link Missing?

I can't help to notice that there is no listing of the October Game Updates on the main page. The newest one showing is September with following that August and July.....but no October at all. Could that please be fixed (since the main page apparently and logically can only be edited by a selected amount of people)? Thanks! Juriaan Cuthalion 01:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It was there before but was accidentally removed when the halloween decorations went up. Fixed. - Tanetris 02:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad... -- Wyn 03:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing Link

I believe we should have the Halloween link on the page (like we did). Dominator Matrix 15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a link, literally front and center. See right at the top where it says "Happy Halloween"? - Tanetris 17:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Some people probably won't even look there, because it's not the usual place we link to events. There was a link under special events before we updated the page yesterday, so I assume it's another thing lost during the copypaste from Wyn's sandbox :P -- Brains12 \ talk 19:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I readded it. -- Wyn 19:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Server Maintenance Question

I know it's not a very long downtime, but could it have been done before the Halloween event or after? Just since this event only lasts for so long. I'm not complaining really, don't get me wrong, but I think this is probably not the optimum time as the login announcement claims.. GW is usually MORE active during these special event weekends, or at least seems to be from an end-user standpoint. I'm sure a lot of people are ticked cause they can't get their costume brawl fix lol.

I wouldn't mind if they would do a whole system-clean up and defrag their servers and databases. I don't mind the time. This may eleiminate some server side error. Please sign you comments!--24.26.8.197 09:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that this event was extended to 8 days this year really makes these 3 hrs nominal, and may be part of why the maintenance is needed. -- Wyn 09:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The security patch they applied wasn't released until a day or so before the Halloween event started, and maintenance on as large a scale as GW's servers is not something you can prepare in a day (unless you want it to take several times longer), so no, it couldn't have been before. As for after... The longer you wait to apply a security patch, the greater the odds someone will exploit the vulnerability. They waited until the weekend was over, and scheduled it for the least-active hours of the day possible. Delaying for another week would not be a good thing. - Tanetris 11:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This can't be anything near as big as a system-wide defrag - that would require days of downtime in the best realistic circumstances (though downtime would likely be handled by cycling in replacement servers while each individual server was defragged, but that would extend the process to be at least a week long). My guess is that the servers are going to go through a rolling restart thing (as central servers don't like it when all their slaves die at the same time), and they're simply going to disable a couple key servers (login servers, client communication servers, maybe a couple game content servers for places like guild halls and port towns) for the entire three hours to avoid any complications of "hay, you were running around Kourna and your game content server just restarted, gg".

The fact of the matter is ANet has so many servers that even a rolling restart of their game server clusters can take up to three hours. If they were going to the extent of installing new software on the servers, it would probably take them around eight hours of downtime to do the thing properly.

Honestly, I'm just glad we don't have to deal with the kind of weekly downtime Blizzard servers have. Three hours of downtime isn't a huge amount, regardless of your time zone, whereas Blizzard's eight hour downtime (beginning at midnight Pacific, no less) is pretty bad.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Read what I wrote, I wrote "I wouldn't mind if they" meaning? Dud! This is not the reason but It would be nice if they did. but yeah true this would takes days to pull off. Just my 6TBs take 2 day to defrag is a nightmare!--66.192.234.74 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great, except for the part where I wasn't talking to you or anyone in particular. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 15:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then I'll apologize for the "false" accusation. But since you talked about something I stated on my post. Don't know what I was thinking.--66.192.234.74 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My PortableApps

Hehe I love my PortableApps theme. Was bored made it quick work. I have a pic in my user page check it out.(User:Bermudezis2005)--Troy 16:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wish the guys that work on PoratableApps would allow us to change Text color.(Can do it my self just don't fell like doing it the hard way.)--Troy 16:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit stretched. MithTalk 21:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(Me Troy)Yeah I do admit it is a bit stretch but I couldn't find a better image to put there that I wouldn't have to scale in PS so i just dropped that one I think it still looks cool.--24.92.180.7 18:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Halloween Redux

Please add and format a link to my page of the halloween 2008 redux. http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Halloween_2008_redux --'DAVA 06:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

New background

I think in my opinion we should get a new background for the Guild Wars login page, "in game" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gabelo01 (talk • contribs) at 11:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

That's nice, but it's not anything we can do; we're just players like you are, and ArenaNet doesn't check this page for suggestions. If you have suggestions for the game, see ArenaNet:Portal. -- Brains12 \ talk 11:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, they check there for suggestions? Wasn't it like a few weeks ago that they even knew the bug page *existed*? -- euphoracle | talk 02:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Kim got the information on skill bugs from Mike Z prior to be pointed to the Skill bugs page. That comment was totally uncalled for. -- Wyn 03:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It was a perfectly valid comment; the information I was provided with led me to believe that Kim had no idea of any of these bugs. Most of them have been around for ages, and have been reported numerous times, and are quite aggravating. When they are fixed out of the blue (around the time Kim was informed about the page), it becomes difficult to believe that anyone was passing the information along in the first place. -- euphoracle | talk 15:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Kim had never heard of the skill bugs page because, unlike the other feedback pages, which were created by or with the involvement of the QA team, the skill bugs page was created by regular wiki editors. IMO people didn't bother to inform Kim earlier because they either felt it wasn't ready or assumed she already knew. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

IM SO BORED

-.---Hellfirez 04:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Whooptie Doo -- scourge 05:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Logo

Um... lets not use this logo next year... I think it looks awful up there. --Shadowphoenix 13:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We can still change it, you know? poke | talk 13:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to use Image:Wintergreen Shield.jpg, but I need emily to upload it as a png (coverted it to ping on Fireworks but tere is a lot of white space and it doesnt look right when I just erase it :P) --Shadowphoenix 13:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually think it looks significantly less awful than the colour scheme which always seems to be chosen in such a manner to physically assault my sense of aesthetics. Misery 13:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have to agree with Misery, the logo is decent in comparison to the red-green combination on the main page. Well, in 2 weeks we'll have back our tested and proven colors I guess. --Xeeron 14:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Misery (I guess Misery loves company : D) too. I like the logo, I think it's fitting for Wintersday, but the color scheme is making my eyes bleed. The green isn't THAT bad, but that shade of red is. Erasculio 14:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hot and cold hues usually never fit well toghether. Specially if they have high saturation. If we don't change the Blue link color, then red must depart. White section names over a darker green would be nice too, to fit a 'snow over pines' theme. MithTalk 17:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Main Page/editcopy. If you (this is the general you, everyone) do not like it, go ahead and fix it. That is the wiki way. - Tanetris 19:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

17,000

EVEN MORE WOOT xD -- Halogod35 03:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)