FANDOM


Weekend Bonus Reward Events

Does Anet support anywhere that they announce these events besides the Login screen? Particularly, is there any place that gives more than the week of notice we get from the In Game Announcements menu on the Login screen? Personally I'd love to know when the next Double AB weekend might be coming up to plan accordingly with my guild. Desolation0 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I would like to state my opinion which is allowed on the wiki and no one has to right to lynch me for saying so. I think that nearly all of the trivia on GuildWiki is a load of crap. The Notes on GuildWiki aren't perfect either. True "notes" are ones like how Holy Wrath splits energy penalty among the maintainers. Other notes (this is just a made up example) like the ones saying Lightning Hammer and Lightning Orb are good with Dual Attunes are not notes, they are advice. I wouldn't mind a seperate section on advice only to clarify this. While some of the advice on GuildWiki is unfounded, biased to one style of play, or simply does not work, most of it is viable, with some help from editors with proper game experience to weed out the bad advice.

Trivia is a different story. I removed the Trivia from "Shields Up!" which was promptly readded. Whether "Shields Up!" really is a common reference to Star Trek can be argued somewhere else. Looking at Talk:Ryoko awhile back and my continuous peeving with seeing unnecessary Trivia on skill pages added by fans of the respective trivia, I thought maybe the rest of the wiki has something to say about this. Maybe this has been brought up before, and if there is such precedent, please link to it and I will see where to go from there.

My main point is that there is no point to trivia. Notes are definetely needed and should be included. Most of the advice is very good and currently it is working. However, the trivia has been riddled with addings, removings, and their reverts. Apparently a lot of the paragon shouts are refering to Monty Python. Some people think only a few of them are. But besides the childish gratification of seeing their favorite piece of media connected to Guild Wars through this wiki's trivia system, what point is there? Sure there are some people that first visit an article and go, "Oh..that does make sense". I'll admit it's happened to me before. But just skimming through Shout's trivia section, I've never seen the said To the Limit video. If the wiki is trying to teach me popular culture, that's something disagreeable, but acceptable. I can choose if I want to listen to it or not. What really bothers me is that the trivia asserts itself as true or is clutter. There is trivia that says "this may be a reference to -insert media here-" which is stupid. Far-fetched trivia that requires a stretch is obviously unneeded, and pointless. The "their names do sound kinda similar" is not needed to be replicated every time someone visits an article. Other trivia asserts itself as true. Like Victory is Mine's trivia states "Stewie from Family Guy says "Victory is Mine" quite often, usually whilst trying to assassinate his mother, Lois." Some people, especially the ones that don't know what Family Guy is, don't think this is true. Who is GuildWiki to say that it is.

You can tell me "just ignore the trivia if you have such a big problem with it". Well I can add a joke about how funny Echo Menders are, but we don't have that. Sure, it is foolish, but who's to judge that it is more foolish then where to cap the skill? Common sense is usually the judge. While more people will benefit from where Mending's skill trainer is than how funny my joke is, I could argue that at least one person will laugh at my joke. I'm taking it to an extreme example to clearly illustrate how pointless Trivia is. While common sense and the general standard for the wiki is to not have mending jokes but to have skill trainer locations and trivia, how is the mending joke, in principal, different from trivia? Neither contribute to the gameplay of Guild Wars, unlike the skill trainer location.

My proposition: Remove all the trivia. All of it. I haven't looked through all of the Trivia in the wiki, but I'm pretty sure that some could be interpreted as a note rather than a pop culture reference (which is pretty much the vast majority of trivia) and could be added as such. Some trivia is so blindingly obvious, such as "Can't Touch This" is a reference to MC Hammer's song Cant Touch This. But, indeed, you really can't touch the shouter of that shout. If trivia really is blindingly obvious, then it is. The wiki doesn't need to say so; everyone will think of that song when they see this skill. If trivia is obscure, then it is as well. Fans of that skill, boss, or place will think of whatever it is supposedly referencing it to. When someone unlocks "I Will Survive!", they can think of the song if they want. They can think that they will survive in game if they want. It's their decision. It's not a sentence on a section of a skill page that decides for them. GuildWiki is not the place to exchange popular culture. Well. At least not in the mainspace. You can do whatever you please in userspace. Trivia was invented by fans. It's main contributers today still are fans of specific media. It clutters the wiki. It makes the wiki less authoritative.

Exception: Some trivia is genuine Guild Wars trivia and not connected to an outside, non-Guild Wars Source. Take example Jamei's Gaze is definitely referring to Jamei. "This does not effect Guild Wars gameplay, so you are contradicting yourself" you may say. Well then Lore doesn't effect Guild Wars gameplay. Hell, let's get rid of all the spoiler warnings then, eh? By keeping these types of trivia, I'm not being a purist to a Guild Wars based Guild Wiki.

Even though it would be a lie to say that I have no personal feelings against trivia and this is truly nothing more than an opinion, consider as one. I have only contributed to the wiki a small amount and I am just an anonymous user. I fully understand this is not my call to make. I just am trying to shed some light onto the situation. Biased? I did my best to present both sides of the argument but surely every singly written argument exceeding ~1000 words has some (maybe a lot if you can point it out, which if you can please do) bias in it. There maybe points I have missed, or some possibly fatal flaws in my argument, which I am willing to hear to if you choose to respond. Most importantly, if you disagree, there's no need to flame me. Remember, I'm not demanding anything at all, only proposing. This is just an opinion.

I forgot to sign, excuse me 67.162.10.70 22:52, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Guild Wars is full of obvious intentional pop culture references, and I think we should aknowledge that fact and include plausible trivia. When something implausible ends up in the trivia section, such as the dubious Ryoko trivia, it generally gets removed, generally leading to a discussion on the talk page, which usually reaches concensus soon after someone points out how implausible or tenuous the alledged trivia really is. Anyway, I think this discussion belongs on Project talk:Style and formatting. -- Gordon Ecker 23:33, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
I agree that a lot of the trivia in the wiki are very difficult to believe. You are entitled to your opinion, however biased or unbiased you may think it is. Here are some thoughts of mine after I read your comments:
What I would like to ask is why do you think that a trivia section equals "an exchange of popular culture"? How is one section with a header title that means "insignificant or something of little importance" affect GuildWiki's credibility? You mean you actually became distrustful of the contents of a skill page because someone added a crap trivia at the bottom? I'm not convinced of your "less authoritative" argument. I think you're just bugged by stupid trivia. If you think they're stupid, put a message in the respective talk page and garner support for their removal.
And on the side, yes, if you propose to get rid of all trivia, then Jamei's Gaze trivia goes too. Your argument applies here (I see Jamei's Gaze, I think of Jamei, no need to mention Jamei, people can make whatever connection they want). Another thing about the Echo Mender joke, if you look at Mending, you'll find it there. You can even provide links to any relevant forum posts if you want. The thing I find strange about the skill pages is why the trivia section is not right at the bottom. --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig (msg Aberrant80) 03:09, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
Personally, I support Wikipedia's stance on Trivia's section - but I've never proposed it here as I've seen such major support for the sections here. Basically, WP's stance is that trivia sections are useful when an article is first being built; but trivia sections over there do get tagged as non-encyclopedic. They view the trivia sections as a collection of facts that are either yet to be incorporated into the text of the article - or if they can't be incorporated, then they are too loosly related to the core subject to merit remaining and are purged from the article after a period of time. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 08:34, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

GameWikis - FuryWiki and meta again

One new wiki and one not-so-new wiki: FuryWiki and the return of meta, the GameWikisWiki. As with the older wikis, account info is shared among Fury and meta, so you don't need to make a new account if you have one already (and of course, you can edit anonymously if you like).

Not much to say about FuryWiki; it's a wiki for Fury. If you're in the beta, head over and write some stuff up. It's essentially empty right now, but I'm adding my feeble knowledge to try to seed it. If you're not in the beta, the signup page is here. I have no clue how often they accept new testers.

Meta's actually even emptier, but I'm trying to address how to get new wikis going. There's a very barebones policy there for what to do if you want us to host a wiki for something (that policy being essentially "write some content for it"). --Fyren 04:43, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

A few questions...

How do you add sections to pages? I need to add sections to MY page. Please and thank you. :) -- MiniKold 15:13, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

See Project:Editing_guide. You add sections with ==, which is the same as hitting the "+" tab next to the Edit button. Entropy Sig (T/C) 15:16, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Bullseye.com ad...

Anyway to block the Bullseye.com ads? I don't even know what the ads are for exactly (tried going to bullseye.com and bulls-eye.com and found no sites) but there are a lot of scantily dressed ladies in the ads. Which is not the kind of ad I would like us to host. --Karlos 00:33, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

There's things that might be worse. I'm seeing ads for buying gold (the one I just saw for WoW). Gwiki shouldn't have anything to do with that kind of thing - it encourages players to do something that may cost them their account and undermines the site's reputation. SarielV 21:02, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

It is not that bad tbh. Just a gossip site if anything. You know, the stars, celebs, controversies, and all that jazz. Readem (talk*contribs) 00:36, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Seems to have something to do with games as well, which explains why it's even here. The site's called "BullzEye" btw, with a Z instead of an S. Makes it cooler! =P --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 00:38, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
Fine and dandy but there may be young children around the computers (as was in my case). The last thing I want is to introduce my very young brother and very bewildered grandfather to the internet's scantly-clad ladies. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 00:43, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
They need to learn sometime!
...but on a more serious note, I do agree, it doesn't seem like the best ad for this site. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 00:53, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
If you're running a version of Windows prior to Vista, you should be able to deny them by h4X0ring your hosts file. Though if the site gets revenue based on page loads, that might be you stealing money from the site. No!!!
DaveK 06:04, 10 July 2007 (GMT)
I often read Guild Wiki pages durring lunch at work, as a harmless passtime. I was recently given a warning by my supervisor as a result of the Bullz-eye content in the sponsors column. I tried to add www.adbrite.com to my blocked internet lists, but that didn't seem to stop the ads. Also - The sponsor column runs ads for buying gold for real world cash - which is a "terms and conditions" violation. The sponsors need to be reviewed more closely. - Lefick
Best way to block them is with Firefox and the AdBlock plugin. Adbrite is a particularly annoying one and not one I was ever able to fully block via the hosts file. --Rainith 12:26, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
It's Google Ads. The sponsors can't really be "reviewed" as they're just loaded based on keywords. What the wiki admin can do is to block them, so please do post the urls of offending ads. --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig (msg Aberrant80) 19:33, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
It isn't just Google Ads (at least it wasn't a while back). Adbrite was added a while back (I don't know if they have since been removed as I block them) and they were not able to be blocked (in any way that I could figure out) using the hosts file "hack." Google Ads are easily blocked with the hosts file though. --Rainith 20:21, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
You can disable them in your css settings. You can copy mine as a template to block it on your account. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:26, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
There's no reason why it wouldn't work on Vista. DeepSearch 10:06, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I've been relaying complaints over the last few days to Gravewit as people have been making them. --Fyren 21:44, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the css hack, Barek :)--SnogratUser Snograt signature 16:49, 14 July 2007 (CDT)
The only problem with the CSS solution is that it appears that the MediaWiki software still attempts to access the site, then just doesn't display it. The good news is that the visual distraction is eliminated. The bad news is that some security suites tag the site http://ads.adbrite.com/mb/te as spyware, and still pop-up warning messages everytime the site is accessed, even though the results are never displayed. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 14:56, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Running Guild Wars Under an OS other than Windows

I propose, as someone who is very, very sick of his terribly slow windows install that there should be a comprehensive section of the wiki devoted to helping those who wish to run Guild Wars on a non-windows operating system. I apologise if this is an old concept or that I haven't looked hard enough for an existing page (I have looked fairly hard though), but there needs to be an easy to understand, stress free guide to installing Guild Wars on a non-windows OS; this just simply isn't provided immediately elsewhere and hence, as a source of all things Guild Wars, we should definitely provide it. I'm posting this here to see some thoughts on the topic; if there is enough interest I would certainly consider fronting a project to bring it into being.

Cheers, --Vagabond 05:05, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I know at least a couple people here run it under various *nixy OSes. I don't remember who, off the top of my head, besides Tanaric. --Fyren 05:28, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Well, given that you're only complaining about the install part, and since you only really need to install once (for each computer you're using), I don't see why a slow install would warrant a switch of the OS itself. But if you're interested, the official wiki has a page on it: [1]. I tried finding a similar page here, but I'm not sure if anybody did. --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig (msg Aberrant80) 20:08, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
Instructions on Linux:
  1. Install current version of wine, not the outdated one in your distro's repository
  2. Download gwsetup.exe from guildwars.com
  3. run gwsetup via wine.
  4. run Guild Wars via wine.
Runs pretty well, actually.
Tanaric 19:13, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I had a look at the Official Wiki one. For a casual nerd who has just begun the arduous path to become a fully baptised member of the freakish society that is Linux 0(ie. me), the first glance of this page caused me to wet my pants and order an exorcism. Its a heap of terminal commands, command line switches and other horrors. I know that many would argue that a true Linux nerd revels in that sort of situation, however for someone like me, who is simply a casual "Oh I'll see what something that isn't windows is like, what a delightful trifle (guffaw)" after reading in their PC Magazine that Ubuntu is "Linux for the folks", and that it is really easy to use (what a larf), a huge jumble of code in a not very easy to read format is hardly appreciatable. I'm proposing a really dumbed down version, not patronising but easy to understand, that can help someone who just wants Linux because they don't want to pay for XP Profession 64x, or because they're cheap, to run their favourite game, and currently this simplicity is not on offer. Oh and what switches do you use Tanaric lol, mine keeps randomly closing :P Cheers. Oh and I didn't mean the installation process, I meant the installed version on Windows. Vagabond 05:12, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
I just tried restructuring the "Guild Wars on Wine" article on the official wiki, hopefully making it less intimidating. Let us know how that looks. --Dirigible 12:57, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
That's brilliant well done. There is pretty much no way you can go wrong with that guide, however I use -dx8 instead of no-shaders these days. But this isn't the place to write that, so well done and problem solvered (you'll only get that joke if you're an Aussie but oh well, it made me chuckle).Vagabond 23:48, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

GW:EN Skills...

Not sure if anyone posted this elsewher, but peering into gw.dat, some people have seen the following skill names: read here Should we bother add them now? --Karlos 03:25, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Nvm. I found the discussion. Please ignore. --Karlos 03:46, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
Why speculate about those skills, the description of what the skills do is in the gw.dat file as well, lol. -- Xeon 06:38, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
Wiki.GW Has a full list of what I assume are "legal" PvP skills for each proffesion. Are we allowed to copy them? Only thing they don't say are which ones are elites The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.239.97 (contribs) .
None of them are elite, Izzy confirmed it. -- Gordon Ecker 18:01, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

Sponsors

Players Take Note As a reminder, if you purchase in game gold, your account is subject to suspension and possible termination.

How come GuildWiki has RandyRan.com as its sponsor? Does GuildWiki support gold trade that can eventually terminate account? 80.89.53.119 14:35, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

GuildWiki itself has not very much control over what shows up in the Sponsors, and we don't necessarily promote or endorse any of them either. There are a few reasons...one is that they are randomly chosen by Google ads based on keywords. Another is that certain unscrupulous companies somehow manage to avoid having their ads blocked by normal means, such that removing them can only be done with haxxor-type code changes to your Wiki files or Internet program itself. Then of course there is the issue that these types of services (runners, online gold, etc) continually change their websites all the time to avoid being shot down by ANet/NCsoft or whoever. If you notice, the ads change all the time, even if the actual people behind them are the same. This makes blocking them difficult since your target keeps changing. Finally...there's only like one or two people on GWiki staff that actually have control over these kinds of things, and they're not usually very active. So the whole process is kind of convoluted. Entropy Sig (T/C) 15:30, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
Actually we add them to the blacklist of ads. Search thru the site, there's lots of references to this. The most recent version is always here (http://gamewikis.org/blog/2006/04/17/current-google-adsense-blacklist/). The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gravewit (contribs) .

"Randy Run" should be added to the list. Foo 16:55, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

black list randy run. Gcardinal 20:13, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
Looks like simple edit takes some time :) 80.89.53.119 11:33, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
1 week later and randy run still on the site. Gcardinal 10:52, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
1 week later... again. RandyRun still on site... Looks like someone making to much cash from it :P I am just saying... 80.89.53.119 12:47, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
Also, report them to Anet. That would probably help more then just cut the ad.—├ Aratak 08:14, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

PvP vs. PvE Skills

With the upcoming GW:EN campaign, a lot more PvE-only skills will be added to the game. I'd like to verify if I got the template system right:

  • Equippable skills for use in PvP and PvE get neither the "pveonly" nor the "nocats" flag
  • Equippable PvE-only skills carry the "pveonly", but not the "nocats" flag
  • Non-Equippable skills (festival arenas, skills granted during missions etc.) receive the "nocats" flag, but not the "pveonly" flag.

Q: Is this correct? - Xanon 15:10, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Skills players cannot see in their skill menu get nocats. Skills players can see in their skill menu but are PvE only get pveonly. --Fyren 01:30, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Hmm, i marked all skills that are pve only that people can use with the tag, junundu skills and mission skills (no event skills or monster specific skills). -- Xeon 04:32, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Probably doesn't really matter what's marked as pveonly. --Fyren 07:26, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for the answers. Fyren, with your last reply you mean that it doesn't matter for the skills that have "nocats" already if they get tagged "pveonly" as well? - Xanon 16:13, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
The nocats parameter prevents automatic categorization of the skill article in order to keep the categories like Category:Enchantment spells clean and useful for players. People seeking a list of all skills of a type are probably concerned with making a build, so "special" or monster-only skills aren't helpful. The purpose of the pveonly parameter, which was only (relatively) recently introduced by Xeon, is so far just to add the text "PvE only" to QR boxes (like at the bottom of ranger skills quick reference). This ends up being possibly redundant for pages like celestial skill where all the listed skills are necessarily PvE skills. --Fyren 18:10, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Location article format standardization

While vanquishing today, I noticed that the location articles often had very different formats, particularly for shrine locations, number of enemies present, and miscellaneous vanquishing notes. They can be at the bottom, in a subtitle under Notes, spread across the article, inserted at the top, formatted inconsistently, or just missing altogether. These should be standardized so that information is easier to find, with a Shrines section and a Hard Mode section. The latter could be a subsection of Notes, or independent. New community task? Spirit's Strength Issa Dabir 19:49, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

See Project:Style and formatting/Explorable areas. The missing thing is hard mode, because nobody actually started any discussion for standardising hard mode information. --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig (msg Aberrant80) 20:14, 23 July 2007 (CDT)
I know that's there, but it's not implemented. Even for bounty shrines, a feature predating hard mode, the formatting is all over the place. I'm posting here because it would be a good idea to make format standardization a community task, once the format is extended to hard mode data. Spirit's Strength Issa Dabir 05:56, 24 July 2007 (CDT)
Has the wiki dropped the "getting there" sections or is it just not happening on some of the locations?

Advertising

I don't know if anyone has noticed but Google Adds has placed an advertisement for a website which sells in game items and gold. This is against the GW rules and it's kinda offensive that a website which supports the game has the advertisement to a website which hurts it so much. I don't belive this is intentional however is it possible to remove the advertisement or replace it with another one which isn't offensive to the game?58.110.141.54 13:03, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Edit: Nevermind I saw the discussion above.

How can you not click on the USA Body Armor ad? - Candle Krowman (talkcontribs) 00:35, 28 July 2007 (CDT)
Guild Wars Gold In Stock
They advertise in-game as well... they're surprisingly good at avoiding capture. I can only imagine accounts caught advertising in-game are marked and/or banned... they probably make enough money to buy new advertising accounts every so often. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 05:44, 30 July 2007 (CDT)

Re Sponsors

I see you have Alexa Toolbar as sponsor, Alexa is well-known spyware that most anti-spyware and anti malware tools will remove, maybe you could remove it too ? ;p

Alexa is not a spyware, its a world leading statistic company, trusted and used world wide in confirming real site traffic without have access to the real "hard" statistic. Its no different then google or any other toolbar. 80.89.53.119 17:15, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
Anon is right. Those statistics you hear that say, "Wikipedia is the 9th most popular website in the world" comes from Alexa. It's about spyware as much as google toolbar is. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/ 17:50, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
But google toolbar is spywere, haven't you seen that video of "google's master plan" RT | Talk 19:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

gold add

you have a add on your pages that takes you to a page were you can buy gw gold "RUNtastic"

Sigh....Archive Time

92 kilobytes....Can't people just get top of the line computers and computer browsers? Amyways, apparently another archive time is coming up. Nhnowell 12:25, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Feel free to do it - there's no designated archiver, anyone can do it. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 12:27, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Archiving is like taking out the trash... anyone can do it, it's just most people don't want to do it. *twiddles his thumbs while someone else archives the page* --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 14:28, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Done. -- Gordon Ecker 19:41, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Lol...I know anyone can do it, I just don't know HOW to do it, and the last thing I want is a big ugly mess to start off the week. Nhnowell 09:35, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Don't worry about messing something up. Everything's easy to revert if you don't do something perfectly. Better to do something imperfectly than to do nothing at all! —Tanaric 13:10, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Official Wiki

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page WTF... Did they jsut steal everything off this wiki? Its the gayest thing... this is the real wiki, the original. 71.243.16.15 13:56, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

The same general style is also from here and here, to say the least. It's just the general style most wikis use, not necessarily plagiarism. Also note that many of the admins on here are also admins on the official wiki... --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 14:46, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
Keep in mind also that both wikis are documenting the exact same thing, and a lot of the editors that created the articles here are working there too. Because of this there are bound to be many similarities. - BeXor Bexor 00:24, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
Everyone I know still refers to this as the good wiki—JediRogue 07:43, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
Because everything except for Gaile Talk and the EotN skills was copied from here in the first place (and poorly at that, lots of articles are still empty) --Gimmethegepgun 07:48, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
Meh. I don't like comparing them. This wiki is much more useful overall (talk page discussion on skills is fascinating and teaches loads - by far, most official wiki skills don't even have talk pages). The official wiki has, however, some nice things - Izzy responding to comments on specific skill balance and map mechanics and the like. To get the most out of the game, one has to use both wikis. -Auron 07:49, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
Doesn't even have an Error page... how pathetic. ANet won't document their own error messages --Gimmethegepgun 07:56, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
Anet isn't documenting anything. They aren't responsible for the articles, the editors are. All they are there to do is host the place and solve tech problems. :P And not everything was copied. Information is going to look the same because 1. it's the same editors or 2. it's from the same game and data doesn't change... I think the official wiki is doing very well considering the time frame it has been up, compared to this one. - BeXor Bexor 08:16, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
I wish you some of you guys would actually go and read the FAQ before spouting off accusations. --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig (msg Aberrant80) 20:12, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Unsuitable Adverts?

I just noticed the following advert on the banner at the bottom of the page ...

GW Guild wars gold/platin - Buy cheap guild wars gold fast
7/24 fast delivery and top service www.colorpub.net

As buying GW money with real money is against the rules, is this really a suitable advert for the wiki to be displaying?

Bonsai nine 03:05, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Those show up randomly; as fast as the admins block the ads, the advertisers change sites. Just copy the URL whenever you spot on of those, so an admin can block it. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 04:30, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

http://www.peons4hire.com too. Foo 23:07, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Bioshock

lol i know this has nothing to do with GW and its so off topic kittens will die but... after going on many forums and asking "Why is Bioshock good? What are the new gameplay aspects?" i get NOTHING but douchebag responses. I went on to comment about how incompitent they were and how ppl on wikis pwn and help others. Soooooo i know this violates GW:blahblahblah but i am hoping that anyone who owns Bioshcok could tell me what is so great about it (lol is is very strage huh...) --VengeanceEcho Ftw (talk|contribs) 00:25, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Well, I don't own the game (yet), but from what I know, the AI is on a totally different level from other games so far. Rather then simple patrolling foes, they will actually explore on their own; just because a guard walks past in one direction, doesn't mean he'll ever do it again. Also, the original game was a cult favorite. And yes, this probably isn't the best place to post this. :D --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 02:16, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Two new issues coming up with Gw:en

  • We have 4 products, Prophecies, Factions, NF, and gw:en, but we still don't have 4 'areas'. we have three continents, but when listing a location for something, "Tyria" would just not do. the areas of prophecies and gw:en should have two distinct names. I'd suggest 'inner Tyria' and 'outer tyria' or something of the sort of 'pre-quake Tyria' and 'post-quake Tyria'. (this makes me think, is "pre-searing" a term coined by anet or by the comunity?).
  • The {{c4}} box was just changed from saying "ch4" to saying "Guild Wars Eye of the North expansion". this perception is bound to cause trouble in many places. I know gw:en is not a standalone product, but isn't it the next "chapter" in our heroes' story? isn't it a new "campaign", a cumulative effort in achieving a goal? My point being, that the fact that gw:en is not a standalone product barely affects the content of the wiki, (hell, it barely affects the gameplay), and that gw:en should be acknowledged as "chapter 4" or "the fourth campaign". (personally thinking that the word 'chapter', which indicates continuity and order, best describes it).

Foo 18:45, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

  1. I don't see where the issue comes up. As far as the organization of information goes, this wiki does not use the area names to organize data related to the products. We were not supposed to use "Tyria" to imply something is tied to Prophecies campaign, or to use "Cantha" to imply something is tied to the Factions campaign. The Far Shiverpeaks and the Tarnished Coast are just new regions available for players to visit on the Tyrian continent.
  2. It's not a "campaign", as Anet is specifically using that term for stand-alone products. While I don't mind continuing referring to it as C4 for the time being, I am against explicitly calling it a campaign. If you want to use the "a cumulative effort in achieving a goal" definition, then heck, Sorrow's Furnace would be its own mini-campaign too. No opinion on "chapter", except that's a term Anet pointedly avoided at the time of Factions. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:14, 27 August 2007 (CDT)
  1. In Maps you have a Prophecies section which includes Tyrian maps which are only of "small" Tyria. articles like Eggnog and Spider Web are relating to origins of items as 'Tyrian' and 'Canthan'. Chaos in Kryta says "This quest allows Canthan characters to travel to Tyria for the first time", which could be misleading now. Guild Wars Eye of the North Sneak Peek Weekend includes a section called "Getting to the Far Shiverpeaks", even though getting to the Far Shiverpeaks is not the point, getting to the gw:en territory is. I believe that the best way to solve all of those little diversions is to have different names for the prophecies-tyria and the gw:en territory.
  2. So if we anyway "disobeyed" anet on this, I see no reason not to keep calling gw:en 'chapter 4'. Foo 23:49, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

(PanSola, an addition to your #1: "The Far Shiverpeaks, the Tarnished Coast, and the Charr homelands". I believe that using all those extra sub-areas' names will make things unclear and crowded. Foo).

(Another note, by looking at the Denravi Sword article, which also uses the names of the places, I'm understanding that the thing that leads me here, is that using names of places is romantic and fantasy-like, in opposed to using the products' names, which is more cold and technical. Foo)

(Beh, they just keep coming. another problem is that the name of the newest product, is also a name of an outpost, which could be repeatedly very enoying. Foo)

I've fixed the Denravi Sword article. Feel free to report others or fix them yourself. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 10:17, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
If no one objects, I'll fix Template:Armor_art_box, Template:QuestItem and so on... Foo 07:46, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
Object, at least for the two templates you explicitly pointed out. Those two only refer to campaigns and not continents in their code and documentation, so I see absolutely nothing to "fix", whereas editing those templates can use quite a bit of server resources that may hinder site performance for a period of time. Please explain how exactly you plan to "fix" those templates first. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 09:38, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
Those templates ask to name a campagin, while Crown and future gw:en quest items, does not belong to a campaign, hence the word should be changed, in my opinion, to "chapter", so that the entry of "Eye of the North" in Crown would be valid. Foo 13:40, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
The use of the word "Chapter" was originally used by Arena-net, and they intentionally converted to the use of "Campaign" ... the word "chapter" implies they should be played in a specific sequence, which is not the case. Why not just convert the text in that box to a more generic "Where found", "Package" or "Game package"? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 13:49, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
ah I see now. "game" is my current fav pick, but I think the whole thing might need more discussion from more ppl.-User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 15:05, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
'Game' is pretty good! XD I also expected more people. could someone open the door for them? Foo 19:28, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
Actually I changed my mind. We have existing practices to "use what the game use" and "be consistent". We should take a look at how the skill list menu sorting option word things (currently it has a sort by "campaign" option), use it for skills, and consistently use it across the wiki for other stuff. My bet is while Anet doesn't consider GW:EN a campaign, the skill sorting option is gonna remain as sort by "campaign", in which case that's what we'll do to. If Anet actually changes the wording, then we will change too. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 19:37, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
Core isn't a campaign either, but it's still used in the campaign entry. -- Gordon Ecker 21:15, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

User CSS question

From what I've heard before, it's possible for a user to modify the site CSS on their own end, such as changing the look of their "new messages" box and whatnot. Does anyone know what coding to put where that would allow a user to hide the Gamewikis projects at the top of the site? I don't play any of those games, so the links are of no use to me, and they clutter up my view when I'm working. I was hoping there's a simple way to just remove those on my end. --GEO-logo Jioruji Derako.> 03:08, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

User:Jioruji Derako/monobook.css is where it's at. if you are having trouble with the code, just copy someone elses... Foo 08:07, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for the point in the right direction. Just need to figure out the coding now. :D I guess I can just type in User:username/monobook.css to view someone's coding? --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 09:33, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Ya, mine is User:Xeon/monobook.css. -- Xeon 09:36, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Is there a golden rule to CSS editing that I should knw or something? o far, I've figured out that #navbar is what I want to remove, but it only seems to work in preview. (you guys can move this discussion to my talk page if you like, in case it starts cluttering up the portal here.) --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 09:55, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
At second glance, turns out I need #navbar. (horay Alt+Shift+e.) I think I've nearly got the hang of this, though; I don't understand how it works, but trial and error is working well. I can figure out the "how" part later. --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 10:23, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

"In other wikis"

When using Wikipedia, I find the "In other languages" box very useful. for anyone who doesn't know, it's a feature that lets you easily find the same article in other languages' wikipedias. it is good for looking for extra info, and for other viewpoints. for example, in the code for this article in the english wikipedia, you can find the line "[[de:Hühnerei]]", which adds a line in a box on the left to the Deutsch article on the same subject.

I think that this kind of synergy between the official wiki and the unofficial one, could have a great benefit for the wikis and for the community, and I would be happy if the people in charge would seriously consider this cooperation. this suggestion is being posted simultaneously in the other wiki. Foo 14:08, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't know if it would be of great benefit fot the wikis, but I would love it! I'm always switching back and forth between these things by editing the address bar! -- 208.97.167.26 00:08, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
this is a neat solution I was given in the other wiki. Foo 05:01, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Nice find there, Foo; where exactly did you find it? I've got it up and running now on both wikis, and it's a real boon. --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 16:36, 8 September 2007 (CDT)
[2] --Ab.Er.Rant User Aberrant80 Sig (msg Aberrant80) 03:33, 10 September 2007 (CDT)

GW deepthroat o.O?

Project:Sandbox Read and comment!!!EreanorsignPvEreanor 22:55, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

Didn't belong in the sandbox, so I removed it. If anyone want to keep a copy of it, feel free to do so under your user space. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:20, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
The Truth: Part 1 Done.EreanorsignPvEreanor 23:26, 29 August 2007 (CDT)
A copy here isn't really needed. It was a straight cut-and-paste from http://gw-truth.blogspot.com/ .
So far, the author hasn't produced any evidence to substantiate any of the claims, so for now I support not having the content in articles. If the author later produces some evidence that can substantiate some or all of his claims, then those parts could be worked into the appropriate wiki articles. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 10:58, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Let's delete the thing then. How do you do that?EreanorsignPvEreanor 17:09, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
The sandbox can just be erased and reset with the single template at the top. For other pages, you can request deletion of a page by inserting the following at the very top:
{{delete|(insert reason for delete request here)}}
That will insert the page to the "candidates for deletion" page, which admins review periodically. Only admins can actually perform a deletion. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:30, 30 August 2007 (CDT)
Thank you.EreanorsignPvEreanor 19:46, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Candidates needed?

I asked on the talk page to Project:Requests for adminship, but many people may have missed that, so I'll repost here.

Most of the original batch of admins appear to have reduced their activity on this wiki. Looking at recently banned users and recently deleted articles, I see a large percentage having been done by me. If I were more active on the wiki, this wouldn't be a big deal to me; but my on-line time is dropping - I've recently resigned my GWW sysop status, and will have much less time for helping either wiki going forward.

So ... to my mind, we desperately need some fresh blood in the admin pool on this wiki. Unfortunately, I haven't been paying close attention to who are currently the more helpful, experienced, even-tempered, and trusted community members now. So, it's up to the community to start nominating potential candidates. Users who have a track record, who know the site policies, who can keep calm in discussions/debates ... in short, we need concensus builders who are trusted and respected by other contributors.

The GW:RFA policy explains how to nominate candidates ... I only hope some begin getting nominated. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:49, 6 September 2007 (CDT)

Another thing I think we could use is an admin noticeboard. -- Gordon Ecker 00:08, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Community changes

I gather that 84.175, Barek, and Tanaric have (or are about to) resign and/or leave the wiki. Any other high level defections? BftP 18:02, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

Me. I might decide to be on the wiki more than I have been in the past. Consider I have been highly inactive in the past few months, I consider that a high level defection. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 16:49, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

Temporary sysops

Writing this here per User:LordBiro's request (he was in a rush and unable to post this himself); he has temporarily sysopped User:Stylva and User:Dirigible to help cleaning up the mess from the last vandalism spree. This is only temporary, and these rights will be removed from us very soon. --Dirigible 12:01, 14 September 2007 (CDT)

Admin noticeboard and requests for comment

Does anyone object to creating an admin noticeboard or requests for comments page? I don't see any downside. -- Gordon Ecker 22:05, 15 September 2007 (CDT)

I would like something like that. GW:RFA and GW:ADMIN aren't updated and maintained on the up-to-date level that I would like; there is at least one sysop out there, who isn't even mentioned in the archives of RFA or anywhere in ADMIN, and it confused the hell out of me. This should also help new users and anons from falling back on the excuse "SOZ I didn't know ur Admin" or whatever. Finally, keeping watch over purely administrative actions (as opposed to simple things like Talkpage commentary) is slightly difficult with the includes-all Watchlist capabilities we currently have. Entropy Sig (T/C) 00:38, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
An Admin Noticeboard works wonders on GWW as well, a lot easier then searching for an Admin and posting to their talk page. Just need a quick way for people to find the noticeboard, as well. --GEO-logo Ĵĩôřũĵĩ Đēŗāķō.>.cнаt^ 15:13, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
The admin noticeboeard is up. -- Gordon Ecker 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this redundant to Category:GuildWiki:Administrative reviews? I have no objection to switching, but we should eliminate the existing system at the same time a second one is created. As it is now, we have two different destinations that must be monitored by admins here. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the Category has never ever been used (to my knowledge)...I see people add Delete and Ban and Merge and other tags to stuff, but never a Category:Admin Review cat tag, nor add directly to that category. In any case, I would support changing it to the Noticeboard, since it is more accessible to users and trackable than a category. Entropy Sig (T/C) 00:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Will the admin notice board replace the existing tagging+category system? That'd take some getting used to. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No. The noticeboard is to request undeletion, protection, and unprotection. And perhaps other special cases. Regular occurances like deletion and banning will still use the tag system, since that is so much more efficient. Admin notice board is for the "special" requests that you don't see very often, and for which no tag currently really exists anyways. :) (Am I right, Gordon?) Entropy Sig (T/C) 00:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there was a Template:Admin review tag that was used pretty extensively at one time. One of projects I worked at back when I became an admin was to cleanup everything that had been in it, along with some other admins. I admit, it hasn't been used a lot, mainly due to poor publicity - but us old timers remember the tag, which is why I wanted to understand if this new page was replacing the old tag. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It was intended primarily as a faster alternative to categories for alerting the admins of vandalism. It's not as fast as PMing an active admin who happens to be online, but it's more reliable. -- Gordon Ecker 04:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It's no faster - in both cases, an active admin must go to either the notice board or the category. Same amount of time either way.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support using an admin notice board over using categories - but mainly for the reason that a "ban" tag causes more harm than good (the ban tag can cause anger issues on the part of the vandal, resulting in more aggressive vandalism while they try to go out in a rage of destruction) ... but I view having both as being redundant - doubling the number of pages that must be checked by admins.
If we're going to use the admin notice board, then I say we should go all out, not some kludgey half-arsed solution. Use the admin notice board and eliminate the ban tag and eliminate the admin review tag. Notices can be created within both of the tags pages pointing people towards the new page (place the notice inside "noinclude" tags, so that the info pointing to the new page is not inserted if the tag is used erroneously going forward). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 14:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
But edits to the admin noticeboard show up in people's watchlists immediately, while additions to categories can only be observed by specifically looking at the categories. I'm not sure about other admins, but while I was more active, I checked my watchlist far more frequently than the categories. -- Gordon Ecker 07:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand your point, but PLEASE read more than just the first sentence of my post. The rest of my post was far more relevant to the point I was trying to make. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Imho I would remove the Admin Review tag since nearly no one knows about that anymore, so it's kind of obsolete. Ban-tag will take awhile to switch over, but I can see how it would be easier to have the Board rather than the Cat...Putting a Category in your Watchlist does not tell you when articles get added or removed to it, since technically it's not an edit-change-thing. The Board would solve that. Redundancy...hmm...well, I think Barek's idea to put a Notice to Editors is a good idea. Should still give it some time, though, since few people look at the page itself - they just add the tag... Entropy Sig (T/C) 04:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't comment on phasing out the ban and admin review tags because I didn't have anything to add to that part of the discussion. -- Gordon Ecker 09:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Upload Image Page?

What's up with the upload image page? It's giving me an error saying that the page isn't writable by the webserver. Thanks. User:LikaiKailla

I think the Wikia Server Move broke it. Hmm...I'll go poke Fyren. Entropy Sig (T/C) 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Special:BrokenRedirects

Under this category is Grinch's image, Mgrinshpon Contributions. When I go to that, I get redirected, but it still says that it's broken. I don't know if special pages have a talk page, so I'm posting it here. PaintballerSig The Paintballer (T/C) 16:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That particular redirect works just fine, or at least that is what the user told me the last time I deleted it. It's a strange one because it seems to use a non-MediaWiki redirect path, which I guess is why it shows up as broken. Entropy Sig (T/C) 16:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Pop ups

The new ads on the bottom are getting the the point of ridiculous. about 3 seconds after you move to a new page, thse stupidly annoying flash pop ups will pop up from the bottom taking up half your screen, NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE (main page, pops up. search for soj, it pops up. click a link, it pops up AGAIN, hit the back button OMG THERE IT IS!!!). Clicking the close button or clicking anywhere beside the ad closes it, but nothing prevents them from popping up every single damn time. So far I've seen these from Circut City and American Express...can we PLEASE ditch the invasive ads?71.159.139.53 05:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

O_o I haven't ever seen a single popup on 'Wiki. Neither a warning that Mozilla stopped a popup. --VipermagiSig -- (s)talkpage 05:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Lolol, and Wikia says they would reduce our ads. Iirc, Barek had this nifty piece of .css code you could add to your Wiki profile which blocks 99% of the ads. Although I'm too lazy to use it :P Entropy Sig (T/C) 06:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You could use adblock plus, i'm not because i want to support the wiki, although i now may reconsider if they get annoying RT | Talk 19:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

guildwiki

If I want to go to www.guildwiki.org (wich I always do) it doesn't work, but if I go to gw.gamewikis.org it does work, is this because of the wikia move or is it my computer being noob? ShadyGuySigByMe 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have the same problem--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/User_talk:Tanaric/Archives4#WHOIS_lookup_on_.22Guildwiki.org.22 The current guildwiki admins have no control over the guildwiki.org domain, so the switch to wikia servers probably broke it.
Crap.. gw.gamewikis.org is such a stupid name... ShadyGuySigByMe 14:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

PvX Wiki

PvX Wiki has dropped affiliation with us. (Talk Here) Judging by the discussion going on there, they're being pretty snub about it. What do you guys think?~ GoldDeanIconDean</small> - 01:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think, they need to see tht we have much more information than then currently--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think they should have dropped their affiliation with us a LONG TIME AGO, right around the time several months before PvXWiki was founded. Gold ads on GuildWiki has always been an ongoing issue. We see them, we report them, they get removed, until different ones show up and the cycle repeats. That's how it was done during the Gravewit era. That's how it's gonna be with Wikia too. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 04:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Meh. They're mostly ignorant contributors who know (at best) half the story. Don't take their snobbery to mean anything, it's unfounded. -Auron 04:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That's why they're PvX, and we're GuildWiki. They can't be expected to know the full story of a Wiki they probably rarely use themselves; same as we can't go getting all defensive because they decided to switch the Wiki they refer to for skill descriptions. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 05:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I second that. Why care about the people haven't, from their comments used the Gwiki enough to know that one apple doesn't spoil the lot. We have tried to help people by being alot less mechanical than GWW, they hardly have any help or clarification for other than the most obvious parts of the skills. While they appear to be misinformed, we can't go aggro on the unknowledgable and arrogant people of PvX, after all they are thinking of making their own database. Anyway, them switching databases simply mean more people will have to come look for help on Gwiki rather than having instant advice on hand, if anything it's their loss. IHMO I laugh at the fact many of them blame us for the gold GW ads rather than the supplier who handles the output. Flechette 06:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, to be completely fair, there's plenty of PvX'ers who didn't like the switch, from what I can see (mostly contributors who are editors here as well). So that "one apple doesn't spoil the lot" goes both ways here. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 08:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I've just realized that half of their skills link to us while half are linked to GWW. Wth? or just laziness? Flechette 10:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
All bbcode now links to GWW. Authors who link skills by hand may link to either this wiki or GWW. -Auron 10:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thats a pretty cold shoulder on the part of PvX. I'm surprised that I hadn't realized this sooner. Makes me second guess whether I want to bother posting my builds on there or not. (Supports GuildWiki over GWW ANYDAY!) Isk8 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: looks like GCardinal has changed his stance regarding GuildWiki's move to wikia. http://www.pvxwiki.com/wiki/PvXwiki_talk:Financing#New_owner -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Gw Dictionary

Ok. I'm going to do it. I'm going to make the Guild Wars Dictionary. It will be just like a normal dictionary but instead it will be a page here on wiki and it will only contain certain phrases or words from Guild Wars. Like for example, WTS: Want to sell, a Guild Wars Player wanting to sell an item. Or Iway: I Will Avenge You, A Guild Wars Warrior skill mainly used in PvP. If you want to help me in anyway please use my talk page or list out some words or phrases you see. This may take a while so i'll make it today and work a little bit on it each day and eventually it will be the ultimate guide for noobs with no idea what people are saying or the ultimate guide for looking up words. By the way should this be put into another category on the main page or what?Fire Tock 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You can check out WoWwiki's terminology guide for ideas on how to organize it. -Auron 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Really you think it will work? Ok that may help i'll probably use that. And also, I won't have much time to work on it tonight so I only have enough time to set it up and list a few things help out if you want.Fire Tock 02:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea! Maybe we should consider making it a community project?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
That's actually a Glosary.Ereanorsignreanor 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No 'cause i'm doing it in Alphabetical Order. And also a glossary is used to describe words ina certain book. GW isn't a book.Fire Tock 03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Started It. CHeck it out, and please add more on. Guild Wars Dictionary. :).Fire Tock 03:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

K, Changed it to a Glossary of Terms.Fire Tock 14:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have Category:Glossary, but I can see the use for your page too, because it is an article rather than a category. However I fear that we will have to eliminate or merge one or the other eventually, since they both have the same content pretty much... Entropy Sig (T/C) 06:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So what do you want to do?Fire TockElementalist-icon-small 15:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's about what we want. I think the best option is to keep the Glosary article, delete the category and add a See Also section to each of its articles linking to the Glosary.Ereanorsignreanor 00:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention, any terms mentioned in the Glossary Article should link to the corresponding article in the Wiki, if an article exists. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. But also this is gonna take a hwile so we need all the help we can get to finish it.Incendiary BondsFire TockIncendiary Bonds 02:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You can't delete the Glossary category because then you'd have about 1000 red links :P Entropy Sig (T/C) 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea; rather then manually taking everything in the Glossary Category and linking it to this new article, can the Category itself be linked or redirected to the new article? That just seems like a much, much simpler way to go about it. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well you see...The Glossary category contains many many MANY articles, the content of which could almost all be ported into the new Dictionary article. The Category could be linked to the new article, certainly. I don't know about a redirect, though - #REDIRECT overrides most text stuff in an article, and that may be confusing if someone clicked on the category to see what is in it. Entropy Sig (T/C) 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
A short explanation in the Category, explaining what exactly the category is, and a link to the corresponding article for more details. That should do nicely. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, is the proposal to have one super long page called the GW Dictionary, that essentially is the transclusion of all articles in Category:Glossary (like how we do with Collector data by region)? I just want to warn that, unlike skills or collectors, it's gonna be harder to keep track of new glossary articles to ensure they are added to the dictionary (unless we use DPL to handle it). We might have to make sure the Dictionary back-links to the Glossary too, just in case some of the articles are missing from the Dictionary. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much...I know what you're saying, but as long as someone is diligent about watching Special:Newpages it should be alright. Entropy Sig (T/C) 06:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GuildWiki's spin-offs: Was soll das?

First: "Was soll das?" is German and means "Why did you do that?"
Speaking on behalf of the German GuildWiki's administrators (and of the users I think), we're currently irritated by GuildWiki's recent spin-offs, which are also aviable in German. And that's why I'm writing. I believe there is no sense in this project. Why are you going to recreate an existing wiki? Look: Why are you working here and not at GWW? Maybe because they are going to recreate a wiki that already exists. They do it for re-licensing. What GuildWiki - or should I better say Wikia - is now doing, is for pure commerce. The German GuildWiki was founded in the end of April 2006 and contains more than 9,100 articles, 11,000 images and has 2,500 registred users. Users can enter German words to find the correspondent article on this wiki (this means we are not working against Gamewikis in any way). Is there a need for a new German Guild Wars wiki(a)? I don't think so. We are currently a page without commerce at all. There are no ads (thanks to AdBlock Plus Gamewikis doesn't have ads either) and we are independent, so we really fulfill the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA. Wikia is a commercial organisation. If I look at Gamewikis' Wikia Move, I don't think, a commercial organisation fulfills the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA. Even GWW is closer to CC-BY-NC-SA, because they are not using the Wiki for their game right now. But that's another topic. By the current developement in the world of the Guild Wars Wikis makes me sad and is drifting away from the original idea of wikis. --Warrior&#039;s Endurance numma_cway 16:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Soft spot...Ereanorsignreanor 17:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Recreate an existing wiki? Uhh correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this wiki exist LONG before GWW? Isk8 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say anything else... --Warrior&#039;s Endurance numma_cway 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the German Guild Wars Wikia was request by a user called Meister Der Zauber in October. Wikia staff did not create the German Guild Wars Wikia just because they wanted to screw you over (they probably didn't even know of your existence), they created it because a user requested one. You should talk to Meister Der Zauber to convince him to merge his project with yours, and closing down his German Guild Wars Wiki(a). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 18:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I am also one of the administrators of the German GuildWiki(Tobias Xy). I don't think that they didn't know about our existence because they copy article from our GuildWiki. (duplicate vs Original). Indeed, it is on in German, but maybe the resemblance is recognizable, nevertheless. --84.143.180.192 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
If you feel the resemblance is strong enough so that it is more likely than not they copied stuff from you, then I strongly encourage you to warn Meister Der Zauber that they are committing a license violation (GDFL vs CC BY-NC-SA), and notify Wikia staff accordingly. However, it may be that they are coping from the English GuildWiki and translated it into German, instead of copying from the German Guild Wiki who originally translated some stuff from En GuildWiki; it'd still be license violation, but the implications would be quite different. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Cinematics

Methinks that we should start documenting the cutscenes as well, add in the cinematic quotes like we do w/ quest dialog. Thoughts?--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 21:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A good idea, but to integrate them into quest/mission articles or give them their own, THAT is the question. Entrea Sumatae Entrea Sumatae 23:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that depends on how much we document. Simple dialog alone could take up plenty of space for just a quest/mission page; if you've got to write down some of the visual cues as well (*Koss was angry*), then you're looking at too much to stuff into an already full article, and should go separate. --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 02:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
We already document the dialogue for many cutscenes and cinematics, mostly Prophecies missions though. I have no objections to continuing this process. Entropy Sig (T/C) 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unique Item rework

I just noticed that unique items have no template! Hows about we make a new weapon template for uniques and update all the unique pages to use them? Sound like a good project to anyone? Entrea Sumatae Entrea Sumatae 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone interested, please head to User:Entrea Sumatae/Templates/Unique Item Test Template and tell me if that seems to be a good template, then tell me so on my Talk page. Entrea Sumatae Entrea Sumatae 22:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no "Official" template for Unique weapons, but there is a general consensus of what they should look like. What you have looks alright, I see no issues with implementation. S&F guides need a rework anyways. Entropy Sig (T/C) 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone who sees this, please check the templates I have over at User:Entrea Sumatae/template test and see if they look good! Entrea Sumatae Entrea Sumatae 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this. It's not too different from normal weapons template. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 23:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need it? and all the work it'll take to implement it?Ereanorsignreanor 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
As one of the older admins use to say (forgot whom), as long as someone else is gonna do it, the amount of work is not an issue when deciding if it should be done. As for whether we need it or not, I'm totally neutral on it. If it existed already, I wouldn't move to remove it, so it cancels my not seeing a point of why doing it. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BMP release date

The Bonus Mission Pack will be released on November, 29.Ereanorsignreanor 00:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Resize

Why did all the text in wiki suddenly resize and change font? --Gimmethegepgun 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Everything is as it's always been. What page where you looking at, as it could have had an unclosed font tag on it.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 21:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said on Entropy's talkpage, it might be you pressed ctrl and scrolled? --- VipermagiSig -- (s)talkpage 21:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's it, my bad. Also MP, I said ALL pages, meaning every page had it --Gimmethegepgun 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, wasn't sure, cuz you didn't really say that before.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 21:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lag

I have been getting excesive lag today on Guild Wiki, but it hasn't been appearing anywhere else on the web, does anyone else have this problem?--Gigathrash sig GigathrashTalk^Cont 19:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, though I hesitate to say so cause I'd have to reload the page. Not all things lag, either. Recent changes doesn't. —JediRogue 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit slower than usual, but not much for me. --- VipermagiSig -- (s)talkpage 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm lagging badly, but i just put it down to my bad computer.. --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) 19:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Whack template

Please only use the whack template when a reversion is performed on an edit that has the possibility of being assumed good faith (blanking of minor sections by clueless but not malicious users, "testing" edits, etc). If something is balatant malicious vandalism, please simply quietly revert it, leave a ban tag on the user's page, and don't otherwise communicate with the vandal. Thank you for your cooperation. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's my template, I orignaly made it for blatent vandals, might edit wording, thanks. RT | Talk - The Whacking editor 21:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Serif font on a screen?

Serif

The general gist is: Serif - PRINTED body text San-Serif - screen fonts

reason? Serifs on screen make text illegible and bad for reading if the reader has a) poor eye sight, b) has a CRT monitor, c) has low resolution with no anti-aliasing (eg size 10 serifed on 100% on MS windows is considered poor quality)

From your own link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif#Usage

and if you still insist on using Serifs for a default screen font that post dates the late 90's, then go and get yourself a set of government guildlines and standards for screen and print layout.

A general rule IF you use serifs is that Size 8 san-serif = size 10 serif size 10 san-serif - sized 12 san-serifed font

This is also why a large software vender starting with M had to change their default font size from 10 to 12 for their serifed fonts in things like (insert company name) word.

Veldrik 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sans-Serif

The general gist is: Serif - PRINTED body text San-Serif - screen fonts

reason? Serifs on screen make text illegible and bad for reading if the reader has a) poor eye sight, b) has a CRT monitor, c) has low resolution with no anti-aliasing (eg size 10 serifed on 100% on MS windows is considered poor quality)

From your own link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serif#Usage

and if you still insist on using Serifs for a default screen font that post dates the late 90's, then go and get yourself a set of government guildlines and standards for screen and print layout.

A general rule IF you use serifs is that Size 8 sans-serif = size 10 serif size 10 sans-serif - sized 12 san-serifed font

This is also why a large software vender starting with M had to change their default font size from 10 to 12 for their serifed fonts in things like (insert company name) word.

Veldrik 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My general gripe is, WTF are you thinking? Veldrik 23:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So it is changing TO Serif? Bad call in my opinion. My eyesight is horrible and I have enough trouble reading some of the text around here as it is. Serif font would be reason for me to stop using Wiki. I hope you all will reconsider. --Aldora xmas--23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We are discussing it MediaWiki talk:Common.css. Keep in mind that everyone can edit their own personal style sheet so that you use your own fonts if you don't like whatever is decided. —JediRogue 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, is it possible to only use serif on the title/header? (ex: "GuildWiki talk:Community Portal" for this page)--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thus far, that's what it is right now — Fin sig kyrasantae 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The point is that the font with the POOR legibility should NEVER be the default. I'll copy this to the MediaWiki talk:Common.css aswell since it's more important to have a legible screen that won't push users away from the site, than a site with "prettyfied" fonts and round corners on tables. Veldrik 00:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.12 upgrade

Wikia is slowly upgrading its wikis to MW 1.12, from the smallest first. Depending on how many problems there are with the upgrade (skin/extension compatibility), GuildWiki might be upgraded as early as the second half of next week, or the first week of January or later. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 08:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what does this mean to general editors? Are there any particularly big changes in the software, or something? Should I be scared/happy/terrified? --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The main thing I've noticed in 1.12 is the new feature to set how a page's title is displayed, so in 1.12 we will be able to have page titled "iPod" (whereas now it'd show up as "IPod"), and "____ rules" (whereas now it'd show up as "Rules"). For more stuff, see w:MediaWiki 1.12/new features. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and as a "feature", the section edit link in MediaWiki 1.12 no longer floats right (but that can be easily fixed in CSS if the community prefers the old way). -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
We've already been upgraded. Unless I don't know how to read that page because we seem to already have those features—JediRogue 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Try creating the page ipod, and you'll see that at least the page naming has not been implemented yet.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 01:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think GuildWiki has *any* of the features mentioned... -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 01:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The feature "Nonexistant pages can now be protected ... to prevent page creation of a bad page." could prove useful, has been cases in the past of a spam page being created, deleted, created again, deleted again, etc. --Wolfie Wolfie sig (talk|contribs) 01:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Such as with the mysterious Under discussion page that keeps getting created.--Marcopolo47 signature new (Talk) (Contr.) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I can think of several non existant pages that need to be protected. Anyway, I was thinking the delete reasons and RSS feeds seem to be there already. I just forgot that the uncategorized templates in special pages was in the last version when I read that page.. —JediRogue 01:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
GuildWiki is running Mediawiki 1.10.0 as of this writing. --Bishop 10:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

SVG

Proporal: To enable the wiki to support SVG images. the SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) format is much easier to use than similar formats and it is scalable to an almost unlimited size.

At the moment I am not sure exactly what is required to implement this. Apparently a change in the sever software is necessary. If this is the case we would need to contact Wikia about this.

My main reason for posting this here is to gauge opinion on whether you think it would be a worthwhile change?

Thanks, Vito Corleone ::::::: 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I knew we could get the placement right if we just stuck it everywhere until someone fixed it! :D Felix Omni Signature 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Lolz! RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Clever thinking that is what it is!!! lol. Think anyone even cares about SVG (except me)lol??? Vito Corleone ::::::: 18:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I care! Open standers, and use of a multitude of stuff on wikimedia commons. RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I mean if we are to use the wiki as a free and open resource then I think we should - as much as possible - use open standards. Especially when the open standards in question are better than the closed ones currently used!!! *end of rant*!!! Vito Corleone ::::::: 18:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll care once I figure out how to use this GIMP thing. I don't really have time today, though. Felix Omni Signature 18:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GW2 Wiki

I see a chance to merge the 2 communities, don't waste it.Ereanorsignreanor 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A good number of us have already merged... I think we're off to a good start. Bar a few people who avoid the other wiki simply because it's the other wiki, I think we should have a nice, strong community going there from the get-go. So long as people don't go crazy about which wiki they came from on GWW2 (which is actually GW2W, now that I think about it), then there shouldn't be any problems. It's a new wiki, it'll be a new system, we'll most likely be getting new admins, and it's a clean slate, for the most part. Let's do some good. (editing.) --GEO-logo Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 02:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Agrees! RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 14:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with these sentiments. Now is the time for every good man to come to the aid of his party. Felix Omni Signature 14:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And bring back a fish. RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 14:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea for explorable areas/missions

I am currently working on vanquishing areas. This has been quite a challenge so far, as every area is different. It helps greatly to fine tune my and my heroes' skills for each area, however, it's pretty daunting to look through every enemies' skills (there can be quite a few total) to see if I need to watch out for enchantment removal/non-fleshy creatures/hexes/conditions/healing vs. prot monks/etc. Nothing like clearing 3/4ths of an area only to find some enemies with skills they didn't have in normal mode that completely wreck you.

I think it would be nice if each explorable area and mission had a table which showed if various things you might want to plan around were present. There would need to be some discussion as to what is relevant. There should be some way of showing if these conditions are only present in hard mode too.

Once the criteria were agreed upon, it would be a matter of looking through the skill lists of each enemy in the area for them. Merick 17:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So like an area diagnostic. RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 17:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:10.10.20.183

Everytime someone posts a comment on the referenced page, it just resets the problem, causing it to continue. To avoid this, I suggest that an admin fully protect the page from all edits (not just anons), then post a final message on the page to take all discussions on it to a subpage, such as User talk:10.10.20.183/discussion or to avoid any risk that subpages could trigger it too, then point user to a page such as Project talk:Community Portal/user:10.10.20.183 for discussion. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Note, I missed it on the talk page ... can the note to discuss the issue at Project:Wikia_staff_noticeboard#.22New_Messages.22 be made larger type, then fully protect the page from all users? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have now protected the page from all non-sysops. I didn't make any edits to the page, although the protection template is no up to date. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 18:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The IP is creating spammish articles, how can we tell him to please stop?--Gigathrash sig Gìğá†ħŕášħ 18:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
We can't, since it seems to be containing multiple users for some reason. ~Incarnatos~ 19:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
What if I ban the IP? -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Risks banning multiple people, which is frowned upon AFAIK, then again, I suppose they could just make an account. ~Incarnatos~ 19:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I could ofcourse leave a ban message that explains the situation. I'll wait for more input before doing anything though. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be the best course of action. ~Incarnatos~ 19:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
<Charitwo> catherine unblocked it to unblock a 10th of wikia users
<Charitwo> for 15 minutes over 10000 people were blocked
Taken from Wolfie's post of the IRC conversation Here So would banning that IP make things worse here like it seems to have there? Isk8Isk8 19:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Would have to block it to find out the impact really. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Incarnatos (contribs) .
When doing the ban, there should be a check box for account creation blocked y/n ... when blcoking the IP, just ensure that setting permits account creation. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Ban the IP, enable account creation. I'm getting the message even when im bloody logged in =/. And I click check it, then i go back to what i was doing, 5 minutes and no edits to that page later, you have new messages: User talk:10.10.20.183.. =/ --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 21:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, ban incoming. And I'll ofcourse allow account creation. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 22:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Are there currently vandalistic postings coming from that IP to justify the ban, or is it just to address the confusion? If just confusion, I would hold off for now. If you do the ban, be set to monitor this wiki and your talk page on the other wiki for comments about any need to lift the ban. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
There has been vandalism from this IP. I put a message that asks the user to register an account for the time being to avoid the block and I allowed account creation from the IP. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 22:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And I'm monitoring all of my talk pages whenever I'm at a computer, but if I happen to be offline then anyone else is free to act if required. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 22:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Is the page now uberprotected, (So I don't screw up again) RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 22:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It is. Gem just didn't want to edit the notice. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 22:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Converting Policies to Values

I have a proposal to convert most of the GuildWiki's "policies" into "values".

In summary, this will not affect what is banable is what is not, it is just a change of wording to sound more positive.

  • A policy is something set there to police people with, something you have to follow or you get into trouble.
  • A value is something you want to abide by because it matters, it is important to ppl, because it is deemed good.

Not all policies are appropriate for being converted into values, but I'd like to have as many values and as few policies as we can. Since currently all policies are enforced on case-by-case basis by admin discretion, I foresee no ill effects in converting most into "values". I think this can be one of the things that highlights the difference between this particular community and the GWW.

Comments? -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to be negative about your idea, but it seems rather arbitrary to me. I'll support the idea if you feel it will make a difference, but I don't think it's going to affect my behavior much. Felix Omni Signature 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that it wouldn't do much, a Policy is a good a name as anything, isnt it? --Warwick sig Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone's going to say this, so I may as well show off. "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Felix Omni Signature 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I can see how this might be useful but would also be confusing. The word policy is accurate for both of these things. I can see this being confusing and contributing to arguments of semantics. Seeing as the policies are indeed enforced on a case-by-case basis, it does no harm to leave them as is. I can see how any extreme violation of a "value" would need policing and could potentially lead to the need to ban someone. In general, I'd say leave it as is. Policies like NPA and 1RV are the kind of things which may need blocking in case of violations while QDV, Bold (know its only proposal), etc would only be guides but they are all used in roughly the same way: to serve as guides and references to what is expected behavior. —JediRogue 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Things which should apply equally regardless of where on the Internet you are (QDV, NPA) could be safely converted to "values". But things specific to a Wiki (1RV, AGF) should be left as policies. Entropy Sig (T/C) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That was from Romeo & Juliet just in case you didn't know. Values sound like "spirit of the policy" to me, and you don't write that down.Ereanorsignreanor 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
That was my understanding, that they wouldn't be written down. Or did you mean just changing the page titles, Pan? That would be silly. Entropy Sig (T/C) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Achievements

One time, I saw a page from constantly clicking random page; that had a list of everything to do int guild wars. It had every mission, quest, title, town, everything to do in Guild Wars, it was a checklist, it was printable and it was on this website. I dont know what happened to it. But i'd like it to come back, or maybe im just blind and don't know what happened to it. So, anyone that can help me out, amke it again, or tell me what an idiot i am that it's right in my face. Please do so, ty.--&quot;Burn Baby Burn!&quot;FireTock 14:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=checklist&go=Go By simply typing 'checklist' to the search box. :) -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 17:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Other sites links

Hey. What kind of page is this? Also where is a page that links to other sites like Wikia?(76.247.222.101 07:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

As stated in the banner above "This talk page should be used for discussions regarding GuildWiki in general", as for a page that links to other sites, as per the GW:AR policy "We [GuildWiki] do not retain any information on external websites (such as fansites and forums)", click the link for greater detail. --Wolfie Wolfie sig (talk|contribs) 07:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to disallow position:absolute and other stuff

While currently we lack the ability to do so, as soon as we are able to I plan to disallow any use of position:absolute, opacity:0, opacity=0 on the wiki (edits attempting to do so will get blocked). Please voice all your objections, concerns, or otherwise legitimate uses of such coding now. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 21:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

/Agree. It has been so annoying, and what it was linking to was disturbing --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 22:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
/Agree. I can see no legitimate use for it, and we have all seen how it may be used otherwise. Felix Omni Signature 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
/Agree, for reasons already stated. --Wolfie Wolfie sig (talk|contribs) 01:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
/Agree. While I dislike taking such measures just to deal with a few vandals (it gives them attention), this is a special case of vandalism because it actually takes administrative powers to completely "fix" it. Which is a Bad Thing(TM). Entropy Sig (T/C) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
/Agree. Read everyone else's statements :P --Shadowcrest 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
lol the people in the district must DESPISE us by now :P Eh, to heck with them. /Agree --Gimmethegepgun 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

AntiSpoof

Recently we had some vandals who made accounts with weird names and ones very similiar to existing user names. How about installing this extension? It's used on the MediaWiki wiki so it should work ok. -- User Gem sig (gem / talk) 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Has it still been happening? I thought that fad ended within 2~3 days and it was quite a while ago. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa) 03:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We installed the Serif headers to fix this, now we can tell the spoof names.Entrea SumataeEntrea Sumatae [Talk] 03:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.