ArenaNet talk:Portal

Archive

---

One

ArenaNet:Text bugs

Why the no edit section thing on the discussion page? Could we remove it so it would be easier to edit individual sections? — ク Eloc 貢 01:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Because {{text issue}} interferes with section edits. -- Gordon Ecker 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

How does it interfere? — ク Eloc 貢 03:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The template creates a section header on the displayed version of the page, however, because it's a transcluded section header, it doesn't show up in the page's "source code". -- Gordon Ecker 04:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. — ク Eloc 貢 04:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NC Soft West

Now that ArenaNet, NC Soft Austin, and NC Soft Europe have been merged to form NC Soft West, will this have any effect on how the wiki works? Would we have to change the names to, for example, NC Soft West Interaction? Sorry if this has already been posted elsewhere, but I checked the relevant pages and couldn't seem to find anything. Kokuou 19:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Regina's been asked at User talk:Regina Buenaobra#NC West; we should get more info soon enough, and then we can act as necessary. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, soon after the announcement almost everyone from Arena Net went into quiet mode. I wonder if they are going to move into a single building with the other teams? That could delay a bit our monthly updates. Erasculio 17:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Separate skill bugs page

IMO we should consider creating a separate page for skill bug reports. The skill bugs page would cover all skill-related bugs which don't fall under text bugs or AI bugs. -- Gordon Ecker 08:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. About 25% of the stuff on Izzy's page and the Misc Bugs page is skill related. ~Shard 08:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. — ク Eloc 貢 15:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NBow people support. I suggested this two months ago, a few sections up. Backsword 02:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Gordon, Eloc, and I are just better than you. ~Shard 04:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Less talk, more do. ;) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Since when is better a synonym to slower? Backsword 06:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL good one. ~Shard 07:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

err... so where is this new page? -- NUKLEAR IIV 10:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Highlighting older issues that have not yet had ANet feedback.

On the miscellaneous bugs page we've got a few issues that have been reported several months ago, but which have not had any ANet feedback. They're not marked as reported, nor do they have any resolution against them. Should there be a status icon to reflect these, or should all these issues be relocated at the bottom of the page to highlight them? Sadie2k 01:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

3 Years of Guildwars Symphony

Just got done watching the PAX'08 thing on youtube, and immediately went to google and looked for a release or CD or .mp3 or anything of the Guildwars theme symphony... Couldn't find anything. Is there a digital hard copy of this piece, or just recordings? If not, is anet/soule/whoever planning on releasing one? I have all 4 themes on my iPod, I'm dying to have this compilation. 68.193.113.198 20:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(moved new section to bottom)

You may want to ask Regina directly. -- ab.er.rant 11:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the Play! symphony (the one responsible for the arranged theme) is going to make a CD, link here. But it appears the CD has suffered its share of problems - it was supposed to be released months ago, the current release date is September 15th, and those who preordered have been left without any explanation (as read here). Erasculio 12:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh that's a shame, I guess my iPod is going to go hungry for a while :( 68.193.113.198

The full symphony is now available on iTunes for $0.99 a song, or from other sources on the net. 68.193.113.198 05:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy new year Anet! ^^,

Well, after much complains, which is common, it's time to thank you all at ANet for fixing the bugs that can "really" be fixed. But, like everyone knows, GW can't actually be expanded due to servers, and i have to say that it's not a problem at all, millions of players doing millions of clicks/generating pixels/messages --etc at the same time, very own combat areas (not all players at the same time in explorable areas = not a mess). GW have been around for a while, and players never died due to the "low storage", and they keep complaining, it's part of everything, people complain about almost everything (and yes, i'm included). Anyway, this is not what some people call "persuade" (there's nothing to persuade, LOL), only the truth. So, happy new year to everyone at ANet, and their families. Keep doing what you guys do best. Thank you all for GW!

Happy new yearz for all teh haxXxorz in ANetz.

--Inflame 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

SCAMMER

dear gaile, srry to interupt you, but i have been scammed today horribly by a guy named Hmong pride,unfortunately i do not know how to take screenshots... but he has my most precious sword in pre that was lended to him as a thoughtfull guildie i am. after i had given it to him, he left the guild and ignored us all, i do not know if u can do anything about this, but if so, please do. for i have spent every last penny on that sword, and id hate to see him not punished... yours truly, bufflo bill ranger.

Posting on this page doesn't mean Gaile will see your post. In fact, I highly doubt she looks at this page. She has more important things to attend to. If you gave someone an item, there's no way you can guarantee you'd get it back, so you shouldn't be surprised. No other way to put it, but tough luck. calor (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think item scamming is a rule violation. Just read the guide on avoiding in-game item scams and be careful in the future ;)96.233.9.217 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

ArenaNet talk:Art bugs

hello, everyone. i didn't know where to suggest it to at first, since the article is already a talk page, so ab.er.rant referred me to this page, but i was hoping to suggest that ArenaNet talk:Art bugs be split into subpages, due to the size of the page. anyone agree? azalea||chat 14:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

They do look a bit old... I'd probably collect all of the green check marks and place them into an archive, and then move the gray check marks into another section. You could split them, it just means more clicking though. (Terra Xin 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

yes, but is clicking really an inconvenience? haha, i just thought that the page may be a bit large to load on slower computers. so, i'll get to sorting the page out a.s.a.p. :] azalea||chat 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My mouse is going to get fade marks on it now. :P (Terra Xin 01:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

heheheheheheh >:] azalea||chat 22:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The armor section is quite large, so I could imagine a "Armor art bugs" page. poke | talk 00:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

would "ArenaNet talk:Art bugs/Armor" work? azalea||chat 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Or just ArenaNet talk:Armor art bugs to make it sound a bit better ;) poke | talk 14:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

done. :] azalea||chat 05:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that looks better now :) (Terra Xin 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Signatures

IMO feedback entries should be signed like regular posts. This would allow them to be safely moved between pages without GFDL-related attribution issues. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

So...

Why do we bother linking to the Scribe here anymore? It's been years since we heard from him and the page serves more as an archive of his old stuff than any kind of newsworthy source. I say allow his article to provide a link to his archive and let the old man retire. (Satanael 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Redundant

With the incoming Feedback space, I think the entire Arena Net namespace will become redundant and should be removed. Only developer updates, website news, login announcements and in-game talks would have to be placed somewhere else. What do you people think of moving them to the mainspace? Erasculio 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should just tag the old suggestion pages with {{old suggestion page}} and keep them as archives, however I don't have any objection to moving them into the main namespace. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving them to mainspace sounds is fine, and getting rid of the namespace makes for less clutter imo.. fine by me in both cases. – Emmett 06:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing Anet space

Now that Feedback is going live in 3-4 hrs, I've been trying to figure out the best way to "close" all the old suggestions, skill feedback and bug report pages, and quite honestly, I think the easiest would be to simply move the few pages still being used in the Anet space back to Main (where they were originally) and have Emily lock the entire ArenaNet namespace (as Feedback has been locked while we've been building it). That would effectively keep it as an archive while stopping additional entries. Comments? -- Wyn talk 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this. Minimal fuss and muss. - Tanetris 14:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What kind of moving numbers are we talking about (and also, if this doesn't happen, what kind of protting numbers)? --JonTheMon 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

ArenaNet:Developer updates and subpages, ArenaNet:GuildWars.com news and subpages, ArenaNet:In-game talk and subpages, ArenaNet:Login screen announcements plus its archive, and ArenaNet:Staff presence are the only ones I see worth anything. Maybe 200 including subpages, but a pretty easy task for bot-moving. Versus, if you want to be thorough, probably close to 2,000 suggestion and skill feedback pages. And talk pages would need to be done separately. And it wouldn't stop users from creating new pages. - Tanetris 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the bug pages that are staying. -- Wyn talk 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea; we don't have much content left and we can simply that rest to the main namespace. For the bug pages that are staying, I hope, they will be resolved at some point, so leaving them there shouldn't be a problem. And we don't need to lock the namespace immediately anyway. We can simply do that in a week or such; that gives us a bit more time to resolve all that and move the things. I think we will have enough work to do today with opening the Feedback namespace anyway. poke | talk 16:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea. I think it'd be best to close what's not gonna be used anymore. You don't want 'stumblers' such as myself to stumble into it and post in something that's inactive. :-) ♥ Ariyen ♀ 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

All active content has now been removed/redirected to either mainspace, or feedback, so the request has been made to have the ArenaNet and ArenaNet talk namespaces locked to all but administrative edits. It will remain as an archive. -- Wyn talk 00:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

should we assume that any GWW and official site links have also been repointed accordingly? (after that, locking seems sensible)   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the ones on the main page (which are being discussed atm), I believe everything has been adjusted accordingly. -- Wyn talk 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)