Add more! --Fyren 15:24, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

I really don't like the italics and quotes around the questions, is anyone opposed to me removing them? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:43, 27 September 2006 (CDT)
No problem - I added them, but have no objection to their being removed. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:47, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

"The GuildWiki" vs. "GuildWiki"

I'm a little upset that Skuld edited my usage of "the GuildWiki" and stated that it was wrong. I've been calling the GuildWiki "the GuildWiki" since its inception, and I've seen other editors use the same grammatical construct. We certainly aren't "the Guild Wars wiki." —Tanaric 13:23, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

I prefer GuildWiki. --Fyren 13:45, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
Same here, although I have seen both used interchangeably. Technically we're not "The" GuildWiki, as there's now,, etc. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 13:49, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
"The" doesn't imply that there is only one; it implies a specific one. More to the point, it's grammatically incorrect to say "I read book" or "I read wiki." Were there only one GuildWiki, you could make an argument that GuildWiki was our name... but there isn't. It's what we are. Just like the Wikipedias are referred to as objects, I believe we are too. I've got no problem with people who choose to use "GuildWiki" without the article, but, since I wrote the vast majority of policy on the GuildWiki, it stands to reason that using "the GuildWiki" in policy articles is standard, and I'd like to put it back in that form. :) —Tanaric 13:56, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
That's a really poor argument. You wrote them that way so that's the way it should be. You know better than that, heh. --Fyren 14:01, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
The book anaology is a good argument. I guess that I've always viewed "GuildWiki" as our name rather than than as an object description. I've never viewed it as a problem to be a name shared by multiple websites because just as multiple people have the same name, so do multiple websites in different countries.
While I prefer "GuildWiki" over "the GuildWiki" ... in the end, I guess it just doesn't matter that much to me and I can see the argument on both sides. So, I'll let others decide and I'll just follow along with whatever everyone agrees to use. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 14:05, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
I generally refer to us as "the GuildWiki", unless I'm typing in a hurry ;) I see no problem with us using both "the GuildWiki" and "GuildWiki" interchangeably.
I was also a little bit upset that the page had been edited in this way, mainly because the edit summary seemed quite harsh. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 15:49, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
Fyren, I'm glad you can tell when I'm joking. :)
I also have no problem using them interchangably, I was just angry about how it was changed. I'm changing it back in this specific instance because of that, and hopefully this will never come up again. :) —Tanaric 16:56, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
To me, it's either "the GuildWars wiki" or plain "GuildWiki" (without "the"). GuildWiki is a name, a proper noun, and shouldn't have an article. But hey, this isn't a big deal. --TurningL sml 07:49, 16 November 2006 (CST)

Adding Images?

I personally still have no idea how to add/upload images to the wiki.. So, how do you? Aarkshark 10:17, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Add [[Image:image name.jpg]] to an article, show preview/save page and then click on the red link. Or click on the Upload file link in the toolbox on the left. --Rainith 16:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Ah, thanks for that :) Aarkshark 18:03, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Is it ok if I use images to show each of the drops I get from treasure hunting on one of my userpages? Right now I've only got one on there, and I figured I ought to ask before I make a habit of posting an image of the stats on each new thing I pick up from buried treasures.AOTT 17:55, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Server Issues

First, I would recommend a section of the FAQ on server issues. After the recent period of frustrating server problems, it is likely on the minds of many. It is also probable that other server issues will happen again sometime, it's a fact of life. Now would be a good time to make this page the go-to resource for that frequently asked question. At the very least, a pointer to some server status information would be great. However, I don't know of any such page. Is there one? Second, HOORAY NEW SERVER! Things are working fantastically for me. :) Third, I didn't have a clue what the problems were until that message at the top of the page was added. What were they?--Ender A 06:48, 16 November 2006 (CST)

The old machine wasn't fast enough to keep up with the number of users we have; we were CPU-bound. If you have some specific questions you want on the FAQ page, post them here. I suppose making Project:Server status or something like that wouldn't hurt. --Fyren 06:55, 16 November 2006 (CST)
That sounds like a good idea. I'll go ahead and start the article. Feel free to add relevant content. As for a particular FAQ question, I would suggest something like Why am I having difficulty accessing GuildWiki pages? and the relevant links/suggestions, along with a link to Project:Server status.--Ender A 07:24, 16 November 2006 (CST)
While having a page that gives information about the server status is definetly a good idea, and much needed, it should definetly not be located on the wiki server itself, because if the wiki server is down, creeping slow or otherwise inaccessible nobody is able to read that page. Doh! I'd rather put the page somewhere else on, or make it a thread on the gamewikis forums or on the GuildWiki forum on GWGuru. --TurningL sml 07:40, 16 November 2006 (CST)
Ah, well, with that concern in mind, I vote we have both, and that the page Project:Server status refers to an outside reference in the case that the server is completely unable to respond. (This way, there is a more casual resource inside the wiki itself, and a more formal resource outside. One both gives information on past and future server information for the curious, and has a talk page on the wiki, the other is in case the server is inaccessable. This also provides at least a temporary page until a decisive system is devolped.)--Ender A 07:48, 16 November 2006 (CST)

whatsup with those numbers on Recentchanges?


  • (diff) (hist) . . Point Blank Area of Effect‎; 18:26 . . (+25) . . Phoenixseregon (Talk | contribs) (→PBAoE Aftercast)
  • (diff) (hist) . . m Build talk:W/D Thousand Tank‎; 18:26 . . (-4) . . Rapta (Talk | contribs) (rm. red link)
  • (diff) (hist) . . m Build talk:N/Mo Reckless Spirit‎; 18:26 . . (+303) . . Jamie (Talk | contribs) (Attributes table cleanup)

--Jamie Jamie 12:30, 29 January 2007 (CST)

It's the number of letter changed. That way blacking a page will become clearer as it will be marked with (-1,000) or whatever.--- Star-small~Edo Dodo~Star-small (talk)12:32, 29 January 2007 (CST)

aha I see, thank you. --Jamie Jamie 12:37, 29 January 2007 (CST)

No problem.--- Star-small~Edo Dodo~Star-small (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2007 (CST)

other languages redirections

Is it all right to create Pages with titles in another language than english and then redirect to the english article?

This wiki is for english articles only, right? But redirection isn't a problem I think. --RotzKotz ere 08:22, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

No, please don't use anything aside from English in the main namespace. Maybe contribute to if you're intersted in a German wiki. --Fyren 15:26, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
Meh, there is no Dutch Guildwiki... --SigmA </font> Omigod 15:27, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
Didn't know there was a german one. still... :( --RotzKotz ere

The build deletion

I'm all for the build deletion as the reasons are very valid, but I'm confused as to how one adds a build to their user page? I'd just like to have some builds archived to somewhere I can get to them. Any help would be great, ta! ^^

Just copy and paste the build page into a user subpage. --Kitty1 (Talk) (Cont) (Cool) Soft206:38, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

100% map completion

how is it possible to have 100% of map when some areas are not accessable (randum arenas pvp) when not playing a pvp player? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (contribs) 03:37, June 21, 2007.

To answer your question, there is a certain amount of leeway given so it is entirely possible for a PvE-only player to get 100%. FYI: This is not really the place for this type of question, the information you want is in the Cartographer article, but if you have any further questions about it, go to that article's talk page (click on the "Discussion" tab). --Wolfie Wolfie sig (talk|contribs) 22:50, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Something about GWW?

Should we add a question about the differnce between Gwiki and GWW? RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea, but maybe just because i can't stand GWW :P--Ricky sigRicky Happy wintersday! 17:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why; it's not a frequently asked question. New players aren't likely to ask "What's the difference between this wiki and the official wiki?" It's sort of common sense; this wiki is run by players, the official one is run by a-net, hence "official." Felix Omni Signature 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)