Talk:Main Page/March-April 2007

HOW TO KILL SMITES WITH SS NECRO (FAST)

Although this was an interesting piece of info, I deleted it from here and moved it to GuildWiki where builds are handled. See the SS/55hp build talk page. -- (gem / talk) 05:23, 28 February 2007 (EST)

While I 100% agree that this did not belong here and might be better placed in guildwiki, be careful about the licence. If I understood correctly, we use a different one, so I am not sure you can copy his contribution over to gw. --Xeeron 05:41, 1 March 2007 (EST)

That's correct. Unless someone dual-licenses under CC-BY-NC as well as GFDL then we cannot transfer from this wiki to GuildWiki. LordBiro 06:21, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Ooh, I didn't even realise it's problematic the other way. :) Was probably too late or something.... or not. -- (gem / talk) 11:44, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Policy on use of British English/American English spellings

I was wondering what the policy was regarding differences in spellings between the US and UK. I submitted some text...being English...using British spellings. The text was later edited to US spellings. I realise that the site is hosted in the US and probably a large majority of readers are US, but AFAIK there was not a recommendation or guideline to use American English spelling... and it seemed rather provincial to do that. Had the person in question (say) made a comment on the talk page to say something to the effect 'I think we should use American spellings here' then I probably would have just gone in and changed it myself. But it just seemed kind of rude to correct a spelling when it wasn't wrong, just different to how that editor would have written it. Vlad 20:25, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Because the game is American, American spellings take precedence. There's no official policy on it yet, as most of the policy forming is in the works at the moment. And there is a warning to not submit work if you don't want it edited. :P - BeXoR 20:28, 28 February 2007 (EST)

We need to come up with a policy on this then, sort of like a general content policy, which may include our stand on the "use lower case" thingy. Or is this more Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting than Guild Wars Wiki:Policy? -- ab.er.rant 20:38, 28 February 2007 (EST)

To be perfectly honest I would prefer a non-policy. i.e. make this something that doesn't need a policy on. Right now, the implication is that as BeXor said and the actions of the editor implied is that as an American game on a wiki hosted on an American server we need a policy to legislate the dialect of English being used. My contention is that there is no such need. If someone writes grammatically correct English in whatever dialect they're used to then there should be no complusion to feel the need to correct it.Vlad 20:48, 28 February 2007 (EST)

BTW, its somewhat amusing to notice that the date format shown by wiki is in an 'international' format of day month year, rather than the US month, day, year. Vlad 20:50, 28 February 2007 (EST)

That's because the American date system is silly. ;) I agree that american spelling should be used when you talk about specific things in game, a specific set of armor for instance or a quest title featuring honor. But for the rest I'm not sure that the differences are significant enough for us to worry about it. Extra 'u', s instead of z in some cases, grammatical curiousities between the two doesn't hugely impact someone's ability to parse and understand the language if it is well written in the first place. That aside someone has already proposed a policy -> Guild_Wars_Wiki:Use_American_English --Aspectacle 21:47, 28 February 2007 (EST)

I agree with Vlad that a "non-policy" on the matter would be more appropriate. There's really no need to mess with the dialect being used in the vast majority of cases. Rewording prose for clarification purposes is an exception, of course; so is correcting the spellings of the skills/places/creatures to match the in-game ones. Other than that, I don't think there is a need to ask for any particular dialect. --Dirigible 21:52, 28 February 2007 (EST)

(Edit conflict) Aw, you beat me to it Aspectacle. I was just about to point out that link (I had to find it first though). The only thing I have to add to this is that I may at times "correct" words that are spelled in British English (or what ever the official term is) if the article has had multiple editors and has the same word spelled in both American and British English. Or there may be times where I make changes and my spellchecker, set to American English, flags a word, if I'm unfamiliar with that spelling I may change it, assuming that it was incorrect. That said, I don't think I've done any of that on this wiki, and have rarely made changes like that on GuildWiki. --Rainith 21:55, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Added it to Guild Wars Wiki:Policy to get more people in on it. -- ab.er.rant 23:49, 28 February 2007 (EST)

I will go read the policy, but I'm weighing in with proper spelling. And that's armour with a "u," thank you very much. *ducks* --Gaile 01:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Coding problems

I think there is an unclosed p tag between the first two tables of the Main Page. A table should not be in a p element anyway. --TulipVorlax 14:44, 3 March 2007 (EST)

I've try it in show preview of the editable version, and you dont seem to need that p tag but then you must place something like margin-bottom:5px in the style element (attribute?) of the first table so it keep the espacement. --TulipVorlax 14:58, 3 March 2007 (EST)

style="border:thin solid #aaa; 1px solid #aaa; that part is not good neither. And you have that more than one time (on two ou three tables). The last part is just ignored --TulipVorlax

If you're going to be picky, it shouldn't be in a table at all :P but I do agree with you. I suggest you make these changes to the Main Page/editcopy. LordBiro 07:30, 5 March 2007 (EST)

OK, just a thing to add and three to delete. No big deal. (I know table layout is bad but it's a wiki, not my web site. See my userpage for the link, if you want.) --TulipVorlax 16:29, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Done! --TulipVorlax 16:34, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I think LordBiro already knows that tables in user pages look good ;) -- ab.er.rant 20:34, 5 March 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure what you mean Aberrant, although I guess it's just a joke that I don't quite get :P LordBiro 05:22, 6 March 2007 (EST)

OpenSearch Plugin Fix

The OpenSearch Plugin for this site has an error.

There is a space above the initial <?xml?> header tag.

Firefox hates errors in XML. It will treat that as a syntax error and refuse to read it.

Someone higher up needs to edit the opensearch_desc file and remove that space.

--74.234.67.231 19:19, 4 March 2007 (EST)

Images

Where'd they go? When you go to an image page, the image that was previously there is now text. When you click on it directly, it says you don't have permission to view it. :/ --Chiaro 11:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

My browers doesn't load any images apart from the logo in the top left corner. Hmm... they have messed something up. -- (gem / talk) 11:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

This happened for me at GuildWiki too from time to time. It would solve in a couple of hours, but I don't know if it was a problem for more people or not. — Anja 11:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

it's borked for me too -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 11:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It's happening to me too, and also with the sidebar image at gwiki. - BeXoR 11:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

They're back! --Chiaro 12:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Time Zone

Maybe I should ask at the studio, but does anyone know why this is posting in Eastern Time? I admit I don't know -- do all Wikis use EDT/EST? Is it configurable? We use "Studio Time" (Pacific Time) nearly always, often adding GMT for ease of translation to other time zones. But we never use EST/EDT, and this Wiki is not hosted in an area covered by the Eastern Time Zone, so that's not the answer, either. Hmmmm. Any clue, guys? --Gaile 01:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Most wikis prefer to use Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), although GuildWiki uses central time (I'm guessing that's where Phil has that server located). So, it is configurable. I had meant to ask why this one being on eastern time, but it hadn't come up yet. You got to it before me! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:29, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Correction ... most wikis use UTC ... more discussion on this subject is at Talk:Official_Guild_Wars_Wiki_FAQ#Time_Zone. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

UTC is almost the same as GMT, but that's a long discussion there debating about the difference. And UTC is basically the standard for most Internet time systems. Under a user's preference you can alter the time from UTC to the time zone you live in. Doesn't help with the current problem, but it is some useful information :D — Gares 14:20, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Moving Bestiary articles from GWiki

Ok, so I have contacted Tanaric about exporting all the bestiary articles on GWiki, and then removing the "Description", "Trivia" and "Notes" sections from those articles and then importing them here. The only catch is that we need someone to "code" some kind of Perl script or whatever that will take the exported articles from GWiki and STRIP them of those sections (which are considered creative content) and then save them.

I am unsure yet what format the export from the database will be. I asked Tanaric nad have gotten no response yet, however, if we are to go ahead with this, I would like to hav a few names here that I can contact in-game and get their e-mail so as to work with them on porting this data. I think it would be a great thing if we can move that huge amount of raw data here.

Any takers? --Karlos 06:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember that there are incorrectly spelled headings too. The easiest way would probably be to specify the headings which should be kept and delete anything not under those headings. -- (gem / talk) 07:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Karlos, Tanaric told me he had replied to your email. I posted as much on my talk page under the request that you made for me to contact him. I may be mistaken, and you may be waiting for another answer.

I am against importing information from GuildWiki to this wiki, as I told Tanaric when we discussed your proposal. I'm aware that the information on GuildWiki is probably correct and that there is no license implication since the information would be factual, but I am against it on principle, as I think we should make efforts to produce our own "bestiary" articles. You might notice that on this wiki the term "bestiary" has not been used, and instead we have the category "creatures". I think this is a good thing.

I will put my objections aside for a moment: From a technical standpoint, I don't know what you expect to get out of the database other than the raw article contents. I'm 99% certain that all you would get from a database export would be the raw article contents. In which case a bot to traverse articles in the bestiary categories would be just as useful as a database export; even more useful in fact since to produce a database export you would need to know the name or the ID of every bestiary article in advance.

It would not be particularly difficult to write a bot (I would recommend using Python, since there exist some comprehensive MediaWiki libraries for the language) to traverse and store bestiary articles from GuildWiki.

However, saying this, I cannot agree with a mass import of articles from GuildWiki. LordBiro 08:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bestiary collection on GWiki is almost complete, I highly doubt (and would like to be wrong) that we can every reproduce that completeness, simply because the incentive is not there. Who is going to go back to the northern shiverpeaks and redocument all the skills of the Succulent Junipers? On the flip side, it makes THIS wiki immediately usable in one aspect. In addition, the basic facts are not copyrighted. There are THOUSANDS of creatures, and their information is NOT readily accessible like Skills, you actually have to go out, and observe the creature use his skills. This is an iteration that takes time, because with high end creatures, they usually have 4-6 skills and some of them are too subtle to be noticed the first few times you encounter it (like Mursaat Mesmers keeping Physical Resistance up all the time or those Crystal spiders in Dragon's Lair using Hex Breaker).

Maybe I don't have as much faith as you do in what can and will be done, but I think it's not practical for us to expect the bestiary of Tyria to be as comprehensive as it was in GWiki. As such I think importing those articles is a good thing.

We'll talk the technical side when we have a acandidate to do this. I have no time to implement such a script myself at this time, you can see my contributions have been fairly limited. And yes, you are talking about an earlier e-mail. I don't know what format the dump would be in, if you can answet that, I would be grateful. --Karlos 16:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well I won't reiterate my comments, I'll just say that I'm opposed to any mass import.

I am quite certain that the database dump will be the same as the raw content. I recommend you ask Fyren.

I wouldn't recommend a "database dump" though. How would you determine which rows in the database you should dump? Or, alternatively, if you dumped everything, how would you determine which lines in the dump you should parse? LordBiro 18:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I've got a dump from February, which would be fine for this purpose. Here's an excerpt:

  <page>
    <title>Charr Scout</title>
    <id>16481</id>
    <revision>
      <id>463696</id>
      <timestamp>2006-12-11T01:03:17Z</timestamp>
      <contributor>
        <username>Kalomeli</username>
        <id>1326</id>
      </contributor>
      <minor/>
      <text xml:space="preserve">{{BeastInfo  | name = Charr Scout| image=[[image:CharrScout.jpg|128px]]| species = [[Charr]]| prof = [[Warrior]]| icon = [[Image:Warrior-icon.png]]| level = 6, 8}}

==Description==
'''Charr Scouts''' guard a gate that [[Charr]] warbands break through to attack and win the short battle at [[The Great Northern Wall]]. They are under the command of [[Bonfaaz Burntfur]], who commands the warbands that win that victory at the wall.

==Location==
*[[Ascalon]]
**[[The Great Northern Wall (Mission)|The Great Northern Wall]]

==Skills Used==
None

==Items Dropped==
*[[Charr Carving]]
*[[Charr Hide]]

<!--Categories below this line--->
[[Category:Charr]] [[Category:Warriors]] [[Category:The Great Northern Wall]]</text>
    </revision>
  </page>

There are thousands of these XML entries in one gigantic XML file -- it's a little over 2 million lines, or about 106 MiB. This is a non-trivial parse, as not all of them are in identical formats.

However, I agree with Biro that such a copy isn't necessarily beneficial. Once we go official, people will add that information. It didn't take us long to generate this content on the GuildWiki, and we'll have a much bigger stock of editors here. Additionally, I think the benefits of a fresh start with experienced editors -- a far cry from the "hey guys this would be cool" guiding principle we used starting the GuildWiki -- outweigh the lack of content such a start entails.

I feel less strongly than Biro, however, and will provide you with a copy of the dump if you can garner something resembling consensus that this is the right move.

—Tanaric 16:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't see what it would hurt, and it could only give us a head start -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 16:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the technical details, Tanaric. Any thoughts, people? Do we want this transfer of creature articles from GWiki? If yes, we'll talk about the technical side of stripping the description and notes. However, for now... What do people have to say in favor ir disfavor of making this transfer? --Karlos 10:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm for it, but don't have the technical abilities to be of much help. --Rainith 12:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Section editing broken if section contains pre?

Hi, I noticed that if I edit a section wich contains <pre></pre>, after saving full article is screwed up. Any way to fix it (without disabling section editing?) - MSorglos 15:36, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Necessary?

does anyone else think this is a guildwiki knockoff?

I agree, is this really necessary? gw.gamewikis.org has been around and has served me well. http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page

Many of the contributors of GuildWiki are now also working on the official wiki. Please see the FAQ for the reasons why this wiki co-exists with GuildWiki. LordBiro 17:19, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I am always reminded of when GuildWiki went down last fall and everybody was screaming for Gravewit's head and wanting ANet to take GWiki over etc etc whenever I read comments like the above. Short memories, however, for many people :( Fox talk 17:23, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Why Not?

Why not use Guildwiki[1]. It already has 15,000 some articles. Why just do another one? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:152.163.100.76 .

please add new comments to the bottom of the page, please also take the time to read this page or the Guild Wars Wiki:FAQ as it answers your question. --Lemming64 15:56, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

To answer the anon, this is the official wiki, hosted by ArenaNet. You might want to check out Wiki FAQ. It'll answer your questions. -- ab.er.rant 03:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Well now with guildwiki deep 6ing their builds page, there isn't much of a reason to go on that site either. I don't know about this site at all to be honest; as of right now, we can't edit much of anything.--72.68.109.112 18:34, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

...What can't you edit? LordBiro 18:57, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess, the policy issues make people feel nervous about editing? my impressions are, thanks to the medium of statistics which are totally made up, 50% of new editors are turned off from editing because of the "please do not do that because of <this policy>" constructive criticism is still negative in some peoples eyes. --Jamie 19:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I highly doubt that. Casual users and editors don't bother reading policies. Also, I'm thinking the anon meant that "there's nothing much to edit", rather than "can't edit". And do we really have 50% of all new user talk pages with such warnings? -- ab.er.rant 03:05, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't know wether it is 50%. But that Welcome-Template could be something somebody will hinder to edit much here. - MSorglos 03:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Having watched developments closely, that's totally contrary to the facts, MSorglos! Go look at the user talk pages bearing the welcome links - you'll see most of them are happily editing away. Watching RCs, the majority of the people who've thrown their toys out of the playpen and stropped off have done so because they were asked to reduce their user page sizes. More to the point, as Ab.er.rant points out, casual and first time editors are not concerned with policies or formats. Neither are vandals. people who stay to edit in more depth or across a wider spectrum of articles do follow policies and formats because they want to make high quality contributions that others won't revert :P Finally, as I have seen on a talk page elsewhere in this wiki, do we want to turn a blind eye now and allow anarchy now in the hope that we can undo it all 6 months or a year down the line, once attitudes have become entrenched..? Fox (talk|contribs) 04:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

An important note, and one I see often overlooked, is that it's better to have a user contribute something that doesn't fit within our preferred formatting than to have them contribute nothing at all. Nothing should ever be reverted just because it doesn't look right. We must be careful to avoid adopting the "editing elite" mentality here that seems to have developed over at the GuildWiki. —Tanaric 02:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep, but policies controlling that have all been rejected and are being reworked into "guidelines" instead. -- ab.er.rant 04:56, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Translation

If I understood, you plan on adding the wiki content to the game. However translation will be a problem since the wiki is not ready to be translated. How do you address this important issue ? I believe that it is quite important since most of the players are europeans and do not always speak english. Do you plan on hosting other wikis with their own informations and linking each wiki with the game ? As a programmer I dislike this idea even if it may be the only possible way to achieve it. If this question has been answered, feel free to delete this post and link to the answers.Truthseeker 08:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

If you're hoping for some Anet developer to respond, you'd want to try asking Gaile directly instead of here. They're not planning it, Mike envisioned it. As for translations, there are supposedly plans for officially hosted wikis for other languages. -- ab.er.rant 11:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Request Assistance

I'm used to there being an easy access link on the main page to click and post a question but I can't find such a thing here. Should there be or is there one that I overlooked?

On a side note, my question was, is there a way to change the font color of links on your page without changing your overall preferences? For example: User:Vallen Frostweaver/Free Userboxes shows up in a bright blue (or slightly darker purple once clicked). Is there a way to change that font color for the links like that on a page? Thanks.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 14:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Answered my own question for part 2. How about part 1? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 14:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

The talk/discussion pages don't fit your needs? --MarkL 10:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Why a Guild wars Wiki ?

You wanna copy/paste Guild wiki to Guild Wars wiki and delete guild wiki or what ? I dont get what is this for. Anet dont need a wiki... they can put all the info on the guildwars website. Or make an account on Guild Wiki.. and then make a Gaile Gray Page on guild wiki... I really think this wiki is useles.. and its not a wiki if we cant contribute.. if Anet handle it. And we have all we need in guild wiki. Delete this wiki plz. --69.159.137.163 18:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Btw.. i read the FAQ... and its still bull shit. --69.159.137.163 18:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

You are entitled to your opinions but swearing is not allowed. so don't... --Lemming64 18:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

You should add everywhere in he wiki: "This article is candidat for deletion due the fact of copyright from Guild Wiki". Com on.. 90% is copy/past.. and 10% is copy/past + change color and some text. Ask Gaile GRay and the other of Anet to make an account on Guild wiki and make those page somewhere in guild wiki. Don't have to remake exactely the same site with more info added by Anet. Well.. more info ? No, all is empty. --69.159.137.163 05:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

The reason for this wiki is that GWiki had a wrong license as ANet is going to implement a in-game help system that uses the wiki for information. The GWiki license would have prevented that kind of system. Also, we get better servers and bandwidth for the wiki.

What comes to stuff 'being a copy of GWiki', as both wikis handle the same game, there will be the same information. Information cannot be licensed like that, layout, walkthroughs etc can be. -- (gem / talk) 06:10, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Also this wiki has just started, you can't expect over 10,000 articles to be written overnight. --Lemming64 07:02, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

This is really amusing. The anon claims to have read the FAQ. Yet didn't seem to have read the part regarding the licensing on GuildWiki, the copyright issues on contributions, the ownership of content, the use Anet is considering for a GFDL wiki, etc... "understanding" needs to come with "reading". -- ab.er.rant 23:15, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

This may be a totally bad idea, and legally confusing with licensing etc., but if ANet wants an in-game help system, why not go, become members of GuildWiki like most of us are, edit articles they know are misinformative, and then make some sort of licensing agreement with whoever actually RUNS GuildWiki, and then use that as a database for an in-game help system. Absolute time-saver unless I missed something. (Nhnowell on GuildWiki) 24.61.22.75 19:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

That is impossible. Read the faq. The license can't be changed by the one who owns the server. The contributions are owned by the people who contributed and only they can change their licens. With thousands of registered editors and tens of thousands of IP editors it is impossible to change the license of the wiki. That's why ANet started a new wiki with a suiting license. -- (gem / talk) 19:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Clearly you did miss something, yes. If you actually read the FAQ they have been in contact with Phil, who hosts the guildwiki, and no licensing agreement is possible. one might call it, impossible. Not because they can't make an agreement with Phil, because that is the way the Licence works. --Lemming64 19:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

And it was posted right under my comment about "reading" and "understanding"... >.< -- ab.er.rant 23:05, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Add a Scribe section to the Main page?

There is a Gaile News and a Gaile/Frogtalk section - why not add a similar page for the scribe? Even a link to all the scribe articles found on the official website would suffice, n'est pas?Tuor Son Of Huor 19:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Resolution issue

I just wanted you guys to know that the minimum viewing resolution is 1024x768. While I'm personally ok with that, we should find out how many of our users are browsing with a resolution below that. Maybe one of our admins can look that up. If we had a really large number of visitors that couldn't properly view the main page, we should draft a new design accordingly for those users. ~ dragon legacy 00:52, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the majority of people these days use 1024x768 or higher. At least that's what "web design" experts always say. I would assume that most people with a computer that can run a game like Guild Wars would have a viewing resolution of 1024x768. And keep in mind that it's not just the main page that would look horrible at lower resolutions. A lot of information is presented in tables that barely fit on 1280x1024. And then you have to consider that some people like to browse with their sidebars open. :P - BeX 00:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I believe that I read recently that 1024x768 is the most commonly used resolution currently, but I remember being surprised at how many still used smaller resolutions too. Granted, there are two primary problems with this statement:

1. I have no idea where I read it, so cannot provide a link.
2. I believe the population studied was general internet users - not specific to gamers, let alone Guild Wars players.

That said, I do know that I and others in my guild frequently have a wiki open either in a window behind the game at a lower width; or some of us have secondary video cards or secondary PCs where we browse while playing, and these secondary displays are typically less powerful with lower resolutions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I know. Fact is, most browsers tell the webservers they visit on what resolution they're running (agent info). An admin with access to the server statistics can tell us a pretty exact number of how many visitors with resolution under 1024x768 we have on this server. ~ dragon legacy 04:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

A while ago I produced a liquid layout for the main page, but it wasn't very refined. I've recently re-worked my idea to use the current main page design. The advantage of this kind of layout is that it will look good at any resolution. Have a look at User:LordBiro/Main Page and try resizing your browser window and/or altering your default text size. LordBiro 05:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

(I should add that I haven't touched the table at the top, with the 3 Guild Wars logos in it, so that won't be affected when you resize). LordBiro 05:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Looks kinda bad at 1280x1024. :S - BeX 05:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

lol, does it? Could you post a screenshot? LordBiro 06:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm lazy but it looks yuck to have four boxes on the top and only two at the bottom. :( - BeX 10:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Looks fine at 1280 for me, the only problem is when you don't have the window maximised --Lemming64 08:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Look's ok on 1024x768 and 800x600. I switch between the two usually.--Eloc 09:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

For what it's worth, it looks fine at 1680*1050 Er, scratch that - at 1680*1050 I see 5 at the top and one at the bottom :/ --Snograt 10:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

This can be remedied easily by adding more boxes :P LordBiro 10:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That's not really a good solution. ;) - BeX 10:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

New Look

I like the new look ^^. Instead of making this site crappier looking than Guildwiki, it is now alot better looking and I also like the new skill pages.--Eloc 09:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Looks amazing! Wiking 16:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I leave you guys alone for one day as I work on a huge math project of mine, and return to find the wiki in...AWESOMENESS! Amazing work. I commend everybody who contributed to its creation. File:Esig2.jpg Eldin 21:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:P. I contributed, done alot of the categorys and did some skills and most of the heroes.--Eloc 22:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Great looking main page and skill pages :D.--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

This is indeed looking very nice. Main page and skill pages are looking very professional, way better then the unofficial Wiki. Kudos to the people involved Arduinna 05:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The campaign image are way too big, it shift all the category outside of browser window and force to scroll horizontaly to view all of them. Not everyone browse maximized. Even maximized some may have to scroll if they set a low screen resolution. Aside from that the new category icons and frames look great. --Bob 14:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

So? Who cares if you have to scroll.--Eloc 16:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Horisontal scroll is bad, bad I say! ;) No, but it's really inconvenient and looks kind of unprofessional for a main page. If you keep your window not maximised, you might have to count on horisontal scroll, but we should think of low resolution users also - Anja Astor (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

If it is so important to them then change the resolution or get a bigger monitor.--Eloc 01:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought it had been discussed back when this wiki first started to aim for a minimum resolution of 1024x768 (as that is the general minimum standard of the web currently). I have no recollection where this was though so I have nowhere to point to.  :/ --Rainith 01:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Eloc, you're being offensive. Don't expect other users to use the same hardware and/or configuration as you. Despite browsing at a resolution where the main page looks perfect, I'd like to see the images scaled smaller or to make them scale to the table. -- ab.er.rant 01:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

There have already been come changes to the size of the images in the edit copy. These allow the page to be resized down to ~800px across without requiring horizontal scroll. I don't think that it looks much different and it is a little more usable for others. More changes around the images are pending my access to a better image editor. --Aspectacle 01:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Eloc, it not about the screen or resolution, those number been given as reference. it all about using side bar or view more page side by side. Any well designed site should scale to any window size. This isent '90s whit "Best views whit Microsoft Internet Exploiter 5.0" animated gifs anymore. --Bob 01:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Catering to every user is a webdesigner's nightmare. At the moment, the main page works fine, except for the images, which if you feel strongly about, you can drum up support to have them removed over at Talk:Main Page/editcopy. Most websites do not cater to all resolutions, so I would expect most users to be used to having to scroll a bit now and then. - BeX 01:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Bob, learn to spell...'whit'? And your sentences make no sense what so ever.--Eloc 19:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

That's clearly a typo of "with". GWW:NPA please. He's basically supporting the preference of making the main page more friendly to different types of resolutions. -- ab.er.rant 21:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

How am I violating NPA? I just said his sentences make no sense whatsoever.--Eloc 22:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Never mind then. Since none of our behavioral-type policies made it through policy proposal. -- ab.er.rant 23:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep, looks like the page was fixed now for resolution.--Eloc 00:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

protect

The new images for the main page should really be protected. --Lemming64 12:04, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Already done per the discussion on Talk:Main Page/editcopy. --Rainith 12:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well it hadn't been done when I posted that :) but thanks Rainith --Lemming64 12:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Guild Wars 2 of EOTN

After the links for GW Prophecies, GW Factions, and GW Nightfall, there should be another or just a plain link to info on GW 2 and GW EOTN.

Buttons & Armor"s"

On the main page, it says,

                                               Equipment
                                                    Armors:...

I think that it would be better grammar to say Armor, not Armors.

Also, it would be useful to have article, discussion, + history and whatever at the bottom of the page as well as on top. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Mattwbr .

Feel free to edit the main page copy. As for the links at the top, that's a MediaWiki feature. I doubt it can be changed without manually building it. -- ab.er.rant 22:44, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

is there really any need for (GWW) in the page title?

see topic --Jamie 09:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Not really, if its for spiders it can be put elsewhere — Skuld 09:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, that's what I thought, it doesn't look right in the page title. --Jamie 09:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

soo..... any chance of getting it removed from the page title tag? seems pretty pointless but its annoying the hell out of me :) --Jamie 16:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree! It really bugs me. :( - BeXoR 23:53, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Searching for "GWW" on Google, the first hit from this site is the Armor page, which is #166 in the results list (page 17 if you are using the default 10 results per page setting). I assume that's the main reason why those initials are in the title of each page, (and yes, page title data is taken into account by the search engines when they calculate the relevance of a page to a particular hit; it's the reason why so many spam websites have an entire dictionary in their page titles). So, even tho it's kinda ugly having that GWW in the title, it's at least there for a good purpose. :) --Dirigible 00:18, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Can't that be put in the meta data instead? - BeXoR 01:59, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It wouldn't really help much, if at all. Only few search engines even bother with using metatags for ranking sites by relevancy nowadays, they're just too manipulable (Google doesn't even count them at all). --Dirigible 02:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

These tabs are getting ridiculous. It's a month after the initial conversation, I know, but it bothers me too. As I write this, searching on google for GWW, the main site shows up as #6. Is it something we can remove once we overtake the "GRAINGER WW INC" links that are #1-5 and still maintain the search relevancy? Or are we doomed to have it forever?--Mafaraxas 22:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Translation tables

We would like to provide translation tables to the community for things like skills names, mission names, and quest names. These would be big spreadsheet-like tables that would contain, for example, every skill name in the game and its equivalent name in every supported language. These tables are not primarily intended for the benefit of English speakers, but rather for people who speak other languages and are trying to use English language web sites like this one as a reference source. The most complete repositories of information about Guild Wars are often written in English, and we should try to make them as useable as possible by non-English-speakers. So having said that, is this wiki an appropriate place to host the tables, and if so, where should we put them? --Mike O'Brien 20:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Will it be a while before you guys start hosting the wiki in other languages? Because MediaWiki supports Interlanguage linking. -Smurf 20:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I noticed the table you'd posted at Emote#International Versions, Mike, and if that's what you have in mind, then I'd say that it does seem doable. Maybe if we could install the sortable tables code here, it would make those large tables easier to use since the readers could just sort the skills/emotes etc alphabetically for their language, (see this page for an idea of what I mean). --Dirigible 13:11, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I can see the tables being useful on some articles, but less so on others. I can't really say more than that, hehe, it's just not as appealing a prospect as multiple language wikis, especially since, if someone new were to correct a mistake then the majority of users here would have difficulty recognising whether it were correct or not. LordBiro 13:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

In all honesty, I doubt wikis in other languages are going to become available soon, at least for the majority of languages. GW is available in eleven (I think?) languages now, and with the exception of the most played languages (English, French, German?) I doubt the rest will get a wiki any time soon. (Maybe the Chinese and Korean wikis too? I have no idea what the player population numbers look like.) Even if they did, they'd be very scarce on information for a long time. As Mike said above, the most complete information sites are usually in English anyways, so it kinda makes sense for us to help facilitate other languages as much as possible. --Dirigible 13:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

If the information is divided into different areas, then I think that a link from each of the related pages would be nice. Perhaps add something to the side bar, "Translations", "Other languages", um... something ... and have a page explaining the tables (possibly in those other languages, but that could be hard) and providing a link to all of them there too? --Aspectacle 17:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I posted a table of localized commands and emotes as a test. I'd like to get feedback on naming, linking, and presentation before I post additional tables of things like mission names and skill names. --Mike O'Brien 23:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I like Aspectacle's idea. A simple link to a translations portal on the side bar. The portal would contain links to all the translation tables that we're hosting. That way, it beats having to edit alot of pages just to point ppl to the same translation table. -- ab.er.rant 04:15, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree that it would be nice to integrate things better. It would be nice if a non-English-speaker who came here looking for information about a certain mission could find it, and right now that's unlikely to be true. Anyway, I'm going to concentrate on uploading the raw data, and let you guys figure out how you want to use it. --Mike O'Brien 19:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I have a collection of a bunch of English to Traditional Chinese translations (skill, armor, weapon, boss, monster, location, quest names) available here, it's under GDFL, but quite incomplete. Feel free to either add to it over there, or port it over here. -PanSola 00:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

PanSola, those translation tables are awesome and look like they must have been a huge amount of work. It would be nice if this wiki could benefit from that effort but I don't currently see an easy process by which we could extend those tables to include other languages. --Mike O'Brien 19:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah. I'm just saying the data is available under GDFL if anyone want to manually port it over here ^^" Or can be linked to from here to allow others to add to that wiki. -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 03:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Quick-access links

A "quick-access links" option in the navigation menu would be useful. Alaris 14:27, 27 April 2007 (EDT)