Talk:Main Page/editcopy/Archive 3

Grey boxes

Looks like we can get rid of the grey box around some .png images (on older IE versions) just by shrinking the images 1 pixel. Still not sure if it changes anything for other browsers. (It may not be the transparency it should be, but at least everything is white now).--Fighterdoken 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest they look kinda blurry now. Unless there is a solution that doesn't impact those on a higher version that does support it, I don't like it. --Lemming 18:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i guess other solutions could be making everyone start using a browser that supports it (something that works in old computers/OSs and have not the cache problems firefox has) or Switch every transparent image to .gif.
By the way, any clue why images as display the white box, while display the fugly grey one?--Fighterdoken 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't force people to use a particluar browser just so we can show a few images.... br12 • (talk) • 19:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

IE6 and older are not able to display transparent png; that's a fact which is not manipulable (at least not without a tricky css fix for each! image). Switching to gif is no solution as gif has a very bad quality.. The reason why some of the images have a white background is that png allows you to set "chunks" that show instead of the transparency if the browser/whatever cannot display the alpha channel of the image. Normally IE uses that weird looking blue-ish color for that - at least if there is no chunk is set. poke | talk 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"We can't force people to use a particular browser just so we can show a few images" - equally so, we shouldn't force people to see distorted images just because some people want to or are stuck with an inferior browser. --Lemming 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

But maybe we could force people to upload images using these "chunks"? At least those who have a transparent section. Not really like it affects the content of the image, but i think it should be "all grey" or "all white" for those with old browsers, not a mix based on who uploads the image. (Now looks fine by the way)--Fighterdoken 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that very many graphic programs are not able to set the bKGD chunk so it's not easy for them to add them.. poke | talk 21:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What programs can you add it in? - BeX 03:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I found a nice program on Smurf's page: TweakPNG. It's maybe not easy to understand it, so here is how to add a white bKGD:

Drag and drop the file you want to change into the window, look if there is already a bKGD chunk in the list. If not, add it per "Insert/bKGD". The you will find a bKGD chunk in the list with the color "(0,0,0)" (black). Double click on that value to get a color picker; change to white and press ok. Then you will have the correct color added. Save the file ("File/Save") and upload it :) poke | talk 06:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Message at the Top of the Page

I know many people in game, or on sites, who beleive the content on the wiki is written by Arena Net staff. While some additions to the wiki are from them, the vast majority is not. Perhaps we should add after the welcome message that this wiki is edited and maintained mostly by other players and not Arena Net staff. The Official Wiki in the title implies otherwise. Some people take the word of this wiki as the word of Arena Net. Anon

If you hit F10 in the game, it say community wiki.. — ク Eloc 貢 07:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people don't use the F10 function, they just come on this site after seeing links on forums or something. That would mean they wouldn't see the community wiki written in F10, so maybe we should have something like that on the actual wiki. -- br12 • (talk) • 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

A clarification certainly wouldn't hurt. -- ab.er.rant 16:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"The wiki comunity welcomes you to the official Guild Wars wiki!"? poke | talk 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't exactly clarify who the "wiki community" is. If someone thought it is Anet, then wiki community, to them, would still mean Anet. -- br12 • (talk) • 19:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[1] possible solution. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Eloc, this isn't wikipedia, and copying wikipedia's "tagline" doesn't solve the issue that we were trying to address anyways. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer Aiiane's message over Eloc's.--Kakarot 04:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to do away with the box completely. It is big, ugly and swallows up main page space. --Xeeron 10:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the way Aiiane's sort of encourages people to become contributors, good use of space. I think that one serves the purpose very well. Anon

The current one seems to wishy washy to me, it sounds way too informal, and not for GWW br12 • (talk) • 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I swapped the panes around, added a new long one at the bottom, and moved the "message at the top" into the first table cell. A little too much symmetry ain't nice. How's it look? -- ab.er.rant 14:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That looks really good! Although, the bottom box which spans the whole pages looks very out of place. It wouldn't look too good at the top either, but it's alright for now I guess.-- br12 • (talk) • 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like this design, I don't think the bottom box looks that out of place. :) - anja 14:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The top looks bare after seeing it without the Welcome bar. I think that's what's making the bottom one look weird... for me anyway... :P br12 • (talk) • 14:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, good job Anja :P. We would've had more Guildwikians bombarding us.. -- br12 • (talk) • 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the new design. The new box is more informative than the old one by tons and I dont feel it looks out of place in the bottom. --Xeeron 16:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The bottom one still does nothing to indicate this is a wiki written mostly by players not by Arena Net staff. It even links to pages where some of the most obvious misconceptions of this fact take place. I agree with Anja's change from "the" to "a" although I think the essential thing is letting people know the information from the pages doesn't come from A-Net it comes from us, especially for those "ask a question" pages. Maybe we should also ask the A-Net staff if they mind a category on the main page linking to their discussion pages to show the main difference the average user would see between the official and any other wiki. Anon

Anon, look at the top left box instead. - anja 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I kept reading the edits and I noticed you "changed" something but I could never find it on the page so I was confused. I would say "I didn't see it, it's obviously not clear" but I think I'm just used to the old layout, it just looked like it was shifted around a little. On that note, while I don't strongly dislike that proposal, I still prefer the message at the top, we still have the "odd one out" effect with the bottom box and the emphasis/balance on different categories seems strange now. I do like that the later one has a bit more information though. I dunno, I still like the first but they both have their strengths. Anon

Finally, someone agrees with me about the bottom box! br12 • (talk) • 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) it just looked like it was shifted around a little Of course it does Anon. I did mention I just swapped the panes around. For those who don't quite like it, feel free to edit it. I just shifted things around to give some ideas. If you don't actually edit the page and see how it would look, it'll all just be talk. Visualising something is different from actually seeing it. Now to address some concerns:

Letting people know that this wiki is not maintained by ArenaNet people. First question: How can we be sure that new users will even look at the main page? For all we know, they would stumble on to one of the articles from F10, or from googling the topic they're interested in. If we really want to ensure visibility of that note, it should be placed at the very bottom, next the "Disclaimers" link or it should be incorporated into being part of the logo on the top left. That would ensure visibility, not placement of the note at the top of the page or in a cell. On the help pages, we have big notes at the top of the page too, but alot of people who ask questions don't seem to even bother reading that top portion.

The bottom box. I was really only testing it out. Having 6 boxes all the time gets kinda old, especially when they're rather bland, to be honest. It was an idea to add things to the main page rather than just trying to fit everything into six boxes and the welcome bar. That bottom bar got reduced into three lines, it was vertically longer when I first created it. I feel it's a bit too compacted right now though. If it seems out of place, any suggestions on making it better? Short the width? Increase the gap? Drop the borders and colors? Add icons? Remove it totally and put those links elsewhere? I just didn't like the thought that we're actually stuffing the wiki community links, community portal, and register link as the last cell - makes it seem the least important - if it's our wiki's front page, shouldn't wiki-related stuffs be in a more prominent location?

Anon, you mentioned emphasis/balance on different categories seems strange now. Could you explain it again? I'm not sure I get you. -- ab.er.rant 04:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the opinion that the wiki is completely ANet staff produced widespread? One user saying so does not make it so and wouldn't be worth getting worked up about.

I like your changes Aberrant, but I think if you want something completely different you could go much further. I've been playing with something User:Aspectacle/BoredBox, a style sheet version of the main page (you will need my rather untidy monobook.css). This is mostly for my own amusement and isn't finished but it can give some ideas for what can be done.
For those that can't be bothered. It is a two column format with a cramped index on the RHS with the content from basics, pve, pvp, equipment and the middle has the wiki, outand about, updates and a new feature article sort of slot. This is inspired by something Eloc posted to the main page talk; Wikipedia (Italian). For those that do look - please forgive the orange. :P --Aspectacle 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the Italian wiki. It's pretty neat with the tango and all that. — ク Eloc 貢 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, those aren't tango icos, they are nuvola icons (I think). LordBiro 19:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh, close enough. It still looks neat regardless. — ク Eloc 貢 00:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment about balance was simply, a symmetrical page gives equal visual weight to everything on the page, with the elongated box at the bottom of the page more visual weight is added to whatever is inside the box; it is what stands out and so the eye is drawn to there to either ignore it, or pay more attention to it. I'm not saying we need a religious balance on the page, just it was something I thought was out of place. With the welcome message at the top of the page, the visual weight IS out of balance in favour of that message, but to me that was the point. I think it is important to let people know this is a community wiki, and we write it not Arena Net, I certainly don't see how it can hurt to mention it, even if many people already know it. Have a look around, without prior knowledge there is very little info immediately available for someone to identify this is written by average users. The logo itself "Official Wiki" sort of implies the opposite. I haven't personally changed the page myself because a) I very much like the change Aiiane made, and b) Am not very familiar with formatting codes etc so I merely made the suggestion. I personally don't feel a need to propose anything else - Aiiane's proposal (with I think Anja's correction from "the" to "a") did exactly what I wanted it to do. I don't care about whether the page is getting "old" to some users, I don't feel the need to change for the sake of change, I think the current page with Aiiane's proposed change does the optimal job, for now anyway. Anon

Well, I won't want to be adamant about your concerns, since I seem to have a different perspective on presentation. Since the change wasn't that well-received, I've reverted the design changes back to Aiiane's previous change but I've retained my edits on what should be linked. Seeing that we have navbars all over this wiki and nobody said that they attract too much attention, I'm of the opinion that this had the same effect. Also, given that I placed the more important links like help and policies and guidelines at the bottom, I don't see what is wrong with drawing attention there. We shouldn't be hiding them in the lower left corner of the page. And yes, a 6-celled table gives emphasis on the first cell and the first row, which, incidentally, has gears and equipment in them, and push community matters (when community should be highlighted) to the last spot. If anything, I still prefer the wiki community as the first cell and gears and equipment being the last. -- ab.er.rant 04:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved the community section to the top left place. Also included the welcome line in that box since it is essentially a community matter and the top left is the place readers start out reading at. Moved the "we maintain ..." part to Updates and news, since it includes links to recent changes and new articles.

As you can see, the new layout places emphasis on the community part, while maintaining the strict 6 boxes layout, without ugly full length boxes. With the new ordering, the 6 boxes are also much more symetrically filled, compared to half empty boxes before. --Xeeron 12:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

New Layout

Re: Ab.er.rant's edit. I like it. I think we should keep the updates on the Right though. Maybe swap the Updates and the Game Basics sections. Biscuits 19:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Sysops need to sync the main page more often. It hasn't been synced in forever. — ク Eloc 貢 01:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Anja did it just today; before the layout change; although the last one before that was Poke on Nov 1st so you are somewhat right. One change I'd like to see for the non-themed page is changing the Main Event image, as the current one is better for the Wintersday themed page seeing as it's a Winter Gift. --Kakarot 04:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A present is quite fitting, but we could use the blue birthday present instead. --Xeeron 12:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah either the blue or red present would work. --Kakarot 15:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wintersday Colours

Lemming 64 got the discussion started at User:Lemming64/Sandbox2, but I thought I'd bring it up in a central place. Assuming there will be Wintersday this year, shall we decorate the main page. I like the suggestions over there so far, except it needs to be synced with this version, and the colours could be a little darker / less pastel for my taste. What about setting it up at Main Page/Wintersday? Biscuits 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The one over there needs updating. — ク Eloc 貢 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we ready for some xmas decorations now? --Lemming 01:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Never! — ク Eloc 貢 03:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly -- br12 • (talk) • 15:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Xmas w00t! looks great can't wait to see it up :) nice job Fall 15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, out of the one on your sandbox and the one here I prefer yours, also I prefer having the logos I made at regular size (240px) because the smaller ones on that second link look too blurry to me. --Kakarot 03:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Lemming's version. There the content is not pushed away by big images and I think the content is still the most important thing ;) poke | talk 13:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking good Lemming :) --Kakarot 23:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit late I guess (I blame holidays), but is neon green a must? :P - anja 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's more pastel than neon :p --Lemming 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Still hurts my eyes :/ But I guess it's better than my ideas :P - anja 00:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Community events

If we're going to have pages on player-run events, would it be a good idea to link it from the main page? Otherwise these pages will probably get little to no visibility. -- ab.er.rant 16:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If we do, we need to be veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery careful. That section of the wiki (even more than guild pages, build pages and user pages) can very easily become a magnet for shameless self promotion. I am not saying don't have player run events, or don't link them, just be sure to clarify in advance what we want to host. For example, the current definition at top of the category page can mostly only be verified after the event is done. --Xeeron 17:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah good point. It might be a perfect haven for scammers if the link gets too prominent. Forget it then. -- ab.er.rant 17:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a good idea, is to only promote ANet sactioned player events, much like the RAWR cup. Things like that.. Drago 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Main page image redirects

Hi guys! I'm not sure if you've noticed this yet, but the holiday images on the main page aren't redirecting to the proper pages. Are we going to set up these images to auto redirect to the campaign pages? -- Emily Diehl (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, all :) Since it's causing some confusion, I'm going to go ahead and set up these redirects. If you'd like to do something else with these images, please feel free to revert my changes. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have had them redirecting in the past, but I guess it would be prudent to do so :) --Lemming 22:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ops was getting confused with the random icons and the campaign logos. --Lemming 01:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Main page welcome

Just curious as to why the welcome message is not placed on the top of the page... Doesn't seem that bad placed under the wintersday message, and helps making the page a little shorter on height.--Fighterdoken 21:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

GW2W

A link to GW2W in the "How to help" box. So people can join in the discussion and we can have a reasonable policy ~ SCobra 21:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to normal

Should we change the mainpage back to normal now that Wintersday is over? — ク Eloc 貢 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes definitely. Maybe wait till decorations are gone in game? Although I'm fine with changing now too. - anja 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's about time to go. --Lemming 00:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Move wiki community back to bottom right?

I made a copy of this page with the wiki community box moved back to the bottom right. I think having the prominent links to the Help pages in the top left discourages people from actually using the wiki as they can just ask a question. What do you think about putting it back that way? Biscuits 22:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it takes away the Register and How To Help parts. I do agree with your Help concerns, but I think the others take precedence. -- Brains12 • Talk • 22:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. What about doing something with the help links? I don't want to make it hard to find them, but it would be better to guide people towards having a look around rather than jumping in and asking a question. Biscuits 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We should get ArenaNet to place links of the help things to be integrated into F10. — ク Eloc 貢 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that would do the opposite of what I'm trying to achieve. I want people to make more effort to look up info on the wiki (or even add it!) rather than just asking a question that may already have been answered, and will soon get lost in the archives. Biscuits 14:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The "How to help" link is in the support portlet and the register link is in the upper-right when you are not logged in. I prefer Buscuits version. poke | talk 14:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Biscuits version is better and as Poke already mentioned both those links are in good locations elsewhere on the page; as well as every page on the wiki; so I don't think moving that section would be much of a problem. --Kakarot 14:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We're never going to get people to do more effort if their here for just asking a question. They just want their question answered and that's about it. — ク Eloc 貢 00:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If they would search for it instead of asking right away, everyone would gain. (They would learn how to search and find info on wiki, we would save time answering the same questions over and over again) - anja 01:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Except they don't. — ク Eloc 貢 01:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there is mostly support for this. Any other naysayers? Biscuits 21:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Idc — ク Eloc 貢 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am used to the Main Page having that section @ bottom right and was missing it when I used the Main Page last time, then I noticed it shifted. I prefer Biscuits version, but mostly (for my own experience) out of habbit. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 13:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

FAQ section maybe?

Just a thouht, maybe we could have an FAQ link on the main page. It could save some people a lot of time.-->Zionar Platonius

The FAQ link is already in the main page.... it is the first link under the "Support" box on the side menu and it is the third link on the top left box on the main page... -- ab.er.rant 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

About the Support box Ab.er, it's not just the main page but every page too :) --Kakarot 02:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant more like a Q&A sort of thing, where PLAYERS provide the questions they want answered.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.70.200.231 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC).

See our help section, for example Help:Ask a game question - anja 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The link mentioned by Anja already appears on the main page, as well as the account and wiki ones too. --Kakarot 22:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanquishing link on main page

I am really missing it! I just started my 2nd vanquishing tour with my old main char and I am sure many other people find the info there useful. It is hard to find elsewhere and it is the only really new feature of hard mode besides lockpick chests. Please bring it back, this really good piece of information gets lost without a direct link on the main page for those that do not know where to find it. --Longasc 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bonus Mission Pack

Unless I'm just blind, we're missing some sort of easy link to the Bonus Mission Pack from the front page. I'm not sure where we'd fit it in, but it seems like something we'd want to be on click away from the main page. Just a thought. Crystal Myr 00:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mallyx

Let's put a big picture of Mallyx on the front page! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.193.113.198 (talk).

No. Why? Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 22:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Creatures, Monsters, Bosses, Pets

Just a thought, but the "Creatures" section is a little confusing. I was trying to find a link to monsters today and didn't see it. It threw me off that "Creatures" only had "Bosses" and "Pets" listed under it but not monsters.

I know now that "Monsters" redirects to "Creatures" but wouldn't it make more sense to make a page just for creatures and one just for monsters? The creatures page could stay the same and the monsters page could be a list without the non-monster creatures. If that is too much work, maybe just leave "Monsters" linked to the "Creatures" page and have them both go to the same place (but have "Monsters" listed between Bosses and Pets on the main page).

I won't make these changes but would like to know what others think.

On a related note

On the "Creatures" page, it is seems odd to me that not all creatures are listed according to their area. "Charmable Animals" for example is only listed under "Core" but links to a page that gives animals broken down by core, proph, factions, nf, and eotn. Isn't "Core" really just the areas that are common to all games (ie UW, FoW, Battle Isles, etc) , not stuff that can be found in different areas of all games? For example, wurms are listed in Core as well as all other areas and Margonites are not listed under Prophecies...

Anyone mind if I make some changes there?--Louai 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How would you define "Monster" and how would you define "Creature", especially given our definition of what NPC is? "Monster" is too narrow a meaning. As for the Creature page, it's best to ask about it at Talk:Creature. -- ab.er.rant 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That is part of the problem, I'm not completely sure how to define it...Maybe monster isn't the right word. What about listing Creatures, Bosses, and Pets as a subheading (is that the correct term) under NPC? It would then look something like this:

Storyline

Missions • Quests • Lore

The World

Explorable areas • Towns • Outposts • Dungeons

Maps • Minigames • Hall of Monuments • Landmarks

Non-player characters

Collectors • Crafters • Merchants • Traders

Heroes • Henchmen • Skill trainers

Creatures • Bosses • Pets

Hard mode

Guide • Vanquishing

Does that make sense? Does it seem intuitive (especially considering what you, Ab.er.rant, brought up about the definition of NPC)? Thoughts anyone?--Louai 17:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "Creature" is that it's mostly been abandoned in favor of NPC so it's kind of like an obsolete term on this wiki. But it looks fine. Maybe it just needs a big rewrite. Feel free to edit your changes in. -- ab.er.rant 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your summary log Louai, you can't edit the main page. It's semi-protected so only admins can edit it. We sync this editcopy with the main page periodically, giving it a few days for people to oppose or discuss changes before sync-ing. -- ab.er.rant 01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know...I actually only put it there because I didn't know what else to put and didn't want to leave it blank since it was a change to the main page. Thanks tho :) --Louai 17:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

add suggestion links

i think they should add thouse so people know where to post them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.172.43.101 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

Swapping around sections?

What would people think of swapping around the main page sections a bit? Specifically what I'm thinking of is moving the "Updates, news, and events" section to the middle-top, the "Wiki community" section to the upper-right, and the "Gear and equipment" section to the bottom-right. That way, they're more organized with the "general info" sections along the top 3 panels, and the "reference" or "database" sections along the bottom 3 panels. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I always saw our current layout as: left 2/3s content, right 1/3 organisation/other. Dont think it matters a lot in the end. --Xeeron 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

make the change i think that makes sence

gaile stuf rename

should the gaile stuff be renamed and what to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.165.117.200 (talk • contribs) at 23:01 on April 7, 2008 (UTC).

No, that's the name given by Anet. Calor 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And I think we should wait till our new Community Manager had some time to settle in and decided on how to continue. poke | talk 23:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I thought anon was talking about other stuff. Calor 02:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)