Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 4

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.
The current version of this page can be found at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Community portal.

What's a spoiler?

I ask this because I got curious while expanding the EoD-related pages and thought about going through the GoA-related pages, and I got curious what others think. How far into the story would a spoiler be? If it isn't based on how far into the story the information is, then what makes a spoiler a spoiler? This is, of course, not discussing background information given (i.e., the charr's accout of the Foefire from GoA), but plot-based information.
Using gw1 as an example: Would the Searing be a spoiler? Would Bonfaaz's death in Nolani Academy mission be a spoiler? The gw1:Ascalonian migration? I think setting a line for this would be helpful in preventing an issue that appeared (and is still present but to a smaller extent) on the gw1wiki: The over-use of the spoiler tag. Unfortunately, with EoD, that issue has popped up a bit, hence why I began a discussion (rather than just debate to myself before making a change). -- Konig/talk 03:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to no spoiler tags at all. This is a wiki - the act of documentation is spoiling something for someone. Some conventions may be handy - if the character dies, for example, you probably wouldn't include this in first paragraph of their page. Sections like 'Plot' or 'Role in <book|game>' could be used as signals for spoiler type content in an article.

Using Logan as an example. The lead paragraph explains who he is, his personality and how he is viewed as human hero. A header "Role in Edge of Destiny" tells of what he does there. Another header "Role in Guild Wars 2" tells how as a human character he pops up to guide you through event x, gives you quest y and dungeons a, b and c. And then dies in the final fight against Zhaitan. :P

Some of the notable characters of the Harry Potter books on wikipedia are good examples of how this structuring might work. -- aspectacle

04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Term-wise, I consider any event that takes place after page 1 and is not discussed on the back of the book to be a spoiler. Translating to games, this would be anything not in the trailer. I realize this is a lot of things, and many people may disagree, but that is my opinion. As for what would constitute for a spoiler tag, I would say anything past the first 1/4th of a book/game, such as Rurik's death would probably be the first spoiler in Prophecies. Or (You did put spoiler in the section title, so I'm not going to scream SPOILARS!) when Logan, Rytlock, and Caithe are thrown into jail, I wouldn't consider that a spoiler, but defeating the Dragonspawn, I would consider spoiler-worthy. Or better yet, as Aspectacle said, no tags would be fine too. Eive

05:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the spoiler tags. IMO, the goal of the wiki is to be as helpful as possible to as many players as possible; if we remove the tags, we would basically be telling people to not use the wiki unless they want to be spoiled. I don't think it's fair to tell someone who's just looking for help in the Nolany Academy mission that he cannot use the wiki unless he's willing to know how Prophecies ends.

I think a spoiler is any important revelation, made with the goal of having some kind of impact once it's revealed. The Searing falls into that category; Rurik's death and return do, too. The death of a random charr boss doesn't, for example.

For Edge of Destiny, I think the spoilers are focused mostly at its end (the two climatic scenes). The problem is that those scenes have some kind of impact on many characters, hence the spoiler tags being used often. I think we could actually remove most of those spoiler tags once the game is revealed - if it's common knowledge why Logan believes he has a "dark past", then we could just remove some of the tags, but if it's something revealed only slowly and dramatically, IMO we should keep it.

I would like to remove the spoiler category, though. IMO it isn't really useful, and only adds to the excessive categorization some NPCs have. Erasculio 10:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally cannot see why the Searing is a spoiler - it's mentioned in the Prophecies manual and is an event at the end of the tutorial - something most players cannot even witness, in fact (and the example I gave wasn't a random charr btw, if it was Bonfaaz you were referring to, Era). I'm uncertain about the removal of spoilers - that's a helpful way to find out which pages utilize the template(s). I agree with keeping tags, I just don't want them overused. I realized I didn't state what I think is a spoiler: I think plot-influencing events after halfway through the story (unless highly important prior - e.g., the envoys resurrecting the players in Factions or Rurik's death) are spoilers - this would knock out things like Shiro being the cause of the plague in Factions, the Searing, or the Ascalonian migration. Things not influencing the plot are not spoilers, of course. -- Konig/talk 11:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As a wiki, in essence EVERYTHING is a spoiler that is not already stated in the manual. What to tag as actual spoiling are events that affect NPCs later on in the story, such as Undead Spoiler Boss in GW1. Also, I think the edits to the novel pages and events much like undead spoiler boss should have a clear spoiler tag on their articles. Some information just massively spoils the storyline, plain and simple, other information simply informs players of the lore (which is usually very easy to miss). In case of the former, NPC deaths and the likes should be tagged, whereas non-NPCs-though-in-lore deaths should not. At all times, though; keep spoilers out of edit summaries. I would go as far as commanding contributors not to put spoilers in edit summaries, but yeah. - Infinite - talk 15:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think spoiler tagging is needed only if the spoilers are in sections you don't expect them to be found. If I'm reading the plot section of an article I'm expecting plot spoilers especially when I get to the end because I know that like all good plot sections it will tell me how it all ends. I don't think we should cater for those stupid enough to think a section called plot or 'character appearances in novel A' won't reveal the details of the story to them. Using conventions like this we can also avoid disagreements on the subjective judgment call on what is spoiler and not. I can see from just this discussion there are already many different opinions on when a plot detail becomes a spoiler.

It would be nice if we could keep spoilers out of RC - but sometimes innocent mistakes happen. I think those on RC lurking simply have to accept they might end up spoiling the books/game for themselves and take a wiki break if it matters that much to them. I think you can ask for consideration with edit summaries but once the damage is done there isn't much point yelling about it to the person who made the mistake. -- aspectacle

02:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Aspectacle here - spoiler tags are pointless on a wiki whose sole purpose is documenting a video game. A simple note on the main page would suffice - "Please note we do not mark spoilers - you have been warned!" (taken from Wowwiki, which documents a game with probably 50 times more lore/spoilers than GW's ever had).

As long as the sections are arranged with a header that describes the content, spoilers aren't an issue. -Auron 13:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --ஸ Kyoshi

21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree with Kyoshi and Auron. Spoiler warnings are pointless when documenting, because event x is almost certainly affected by event w, so therefore event w would have a spoiler warning about its effects on event x, and event x will have a spoiler based on the specific parts of the event affected by event w. tl;dr: No spoiler tags. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 21:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can go with Auron's suggestion of putting the spoiler tag/notice on the main page, and removing the use of the spoiler templates. But I doubt that everyone would be pleased with such, especially at the beginning of releases (that's the prime issue, I think, as that's the biggest time in which something can spoil things for the most people). -- Konig/talk 02:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite honestly, if you're on the wiki, you are begging to have spoilers. It's your own fault. If we warn you about it on the main page, that should be more than enough. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 02:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was spoiled on a talk page for something not at all related to EoD, I was (more minorly) spoiled on this very page. I'd really appreciate it if I didn't have to completely avoid all pages of the wiki until I've read/played the newest book/content. Whatever else we decide can agree to keep spoilers off of talk pages unrelated to the subject, or at least hide them? Manifold

02:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's rather impossible to do, Manifold. Because we get random ips and new members every day, some ips start discussions on trying to link the most unrelated topics, and many topics will be about spoilers in the story. You cannot discuss a spoiler on the main page, so the discussion about it would be on the talk page. -- Konig/talk 02:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As previously stated, we document the GW2 universe. As such, you should be expecting spoilers the moment you enter the wiki. And, as Konig said, it is impossible to regulate content when some of the users publishing that content couldn't care less (or don't know) about "rules". Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 02:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we prevent anyone from ever adding anything slightly spoilerish to any inappropriate talk page, merely that we do our best not to do so, and to correct it when it happens. Manifold

05:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Manifold. As I said before, assuming that we don't want people who would rather avoid spoilers to use the wiki is IMO extremely unfair; we should focus on helping as many players as possible, not as many players who think as we (or some of us) do. The argument that not everyone will behave doesn't really convince me - it's the same thing with vandalism. If someone vandalizes a page we don't leave it there because "we get random ips and new members every day" or because "it is impossible to regulate content when some of the users publishing that content couldn't care less"; we fix it. Likewise, if someone adds a spoiler to a place where a spoiler should not be, it's simple to fix it by adding a spoiler tag or hiding it; and if someone adds a spoiler tag at an edit summary, we can even ask an admin to hide the edit summary and thus avoid the spoiler.

Not to mention how adding a spoiler tag to the main page would look rather ugly; anything noticeable enough to act as a warning to all users would also be noticeable enough to have a negative impact on the page's design (and for the records, Firefox can't find the word "spoiler" here). Erasculio 10:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Eh, this is getting off of the original purpose of the topic (and I'm not exempt in being to blame). To be perfectly honest, I don't care what we do with spoilers, that is how we document/notify them, just so long as we still document them. I just wanted to see where, for the current practice, the spoiler tag isn't necessary. This wasn't intended to be a discussion for what we should do with it, but rather, as the title asks: What is considered a spoiler. Which, seems to vary from "what's not in the trailer" (aka everything) - as stated by Eive, and somewhat by Era (since he considers something which is in the manual, the Searing, to be a spoiler) - to "everything after the first 3/4 of the story" (aka, just the ending). I personally say everything plot-related at and beyond the halfway point. But that's the point I would like a consensus on please. -- Konig/talk 12:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In short; a spoiler to me is information easily stumbled upon unintentionally which reveals events which affect the latter half of the storyline. Especially the conclusion. Note that most of EoD is a direct spoiler to GW2 story mode. - Infinite - talk 12:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

@Konig: "Which, seems to vary from "what's not in the trailer" (aka everything) - as stated by Eive, and somewhat by Era (since he considers something which is in the manual, the Searing, to be a spoiler)" - that's a somewhat disrespectful way of twisting someone else's words. I have stated clearly what I believe to be a spoiler above; please only credit me with that defition, or don't bother saying my opinion at all. Erasculio 12:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to accuse him, Eras, considering the history of disagreement and misunderstanding (sometimes both at once) between you two.

I personally don't see a problem with spoilers, but I enjoy a story's execution even if the story itself has been spoiled (most of the time). Guess I'm a little odd, though. There was a comment somewhere above about separating content into sections based on the source, especially (or particularly) concerning books which could be spoiled. I think that would be enough of a deterrent for those who accidentally find pages with some spoilers on them, though pages which are entirely sourced from a book could be another issue. If we consider everything in the books a spoiler (to one extent or another), then it's a simple solution, at least. --ஸ Kyoshi

13:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, the only answer I see presently is that this wiki itself at the moment IS a spoiler for anyone and everyone wishing to play GW2. You don't come looking for information on a game that hasn't been released yet without receiving spoilers, and up until the release of the game, the wiki doesn't "help" outside preparation for the game. Long story short, spoiler alert on main page until the game is released, then the spoiler tag can be added to pages appertaining to the storyline(s) of GW2 so as not to accidentally ruin the adventures of people (I'll use the part of Hell's Precipice's page concerning Prince Rurik as an example of what I mean by this). Darke 23:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Or, we could just say everything has a chance of being a spoiler, and that it is up to you to be careful. You are on the wiki; you are looking for game information for something. I don't feel like it should be any surprise when you encounter a spoiler. Though I guess a notice on the main page wouldn't hurt. Aqua (T|C) 23:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A big spoiler notice on the main page would hurt our eyes, if nothing more. Again, I don't think it's fair to forbid people who want to avoid spoilers from using the wiki; we pay a very small price, just the inclusion of spoiler tags, for being able to allow the wiki to be used by as many players as possible. There is no point in telling someone he cannot get help on a Pre Searing quest unless he's willing to know about the end of Prophecies. Erasculio 00:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The spoiler warning (if there is one), would be small, and would follow with usual main page color scheme. Also, if you are looking for help on a Pre-Searing quest, why the hell would you be poking around at the end of Prophecies info? Aqua (T|C) 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if you're really bad at wiki searching... --ஸ Kyoshi

00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Dead Spoiler Dude is a classic example of why spoiler tags are necessary. "Information" is wide-ranging - I might come onto the wiki to find the location of the Dude or see what quests he's offering. That doesn't mean I want to know about a future major plot point or how the story ends, which is what the Dude's page would include.

"I don't feel like it should be any surprise when you encounter a spoiler" - the definition of a spoiler is something that ruins (spoils) something that would otherwise be a surprise.

Also, let's not forget about the Wikipedia effect. Reading one page will often lead you to reading lots of other pages. pling

00:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

But undead spoiler dude - not that he's called that on the wiki any more - is a very specific case as his existence is a spoiler given you already met him earlier. Most other character names do not spoil like that. You only come across him if you're 1) in RC 2) reading the ending of a plot section 3) reading a listing of characters 4) using the help listing on search. He's not so much a case for spoiler tagging more for page renaming - we don't need to worry about that until we see something like that again. I still maintain normal readers will only find spoilers in specific sections and if you read a section called plot you're asking to get spoiled. -- aspectacle

01:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler tags wouldn't help much in that situation. If the page is arranged properly, the end-of-proph storyline he's involved in would have its own header (or, more sensibly, its own article - undead rurik is a completely different NPC, after all). If you don't want to read about his end of proph storyline, you stop reading at that header. Simple. If a header named RURIK's ROLE AT THE END OF THE GAME doesn't stop someone from reading on, a small "spoiler" warning isn't going to do it either. -Auron 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The UdSD was an example, true, a bad one, but I'd like to reinforce, up until the release of Guild Wars 2, essentially everything on this wiki is a spoiler to some degree. Penultimately, if people are searching for information on what to expect as soon as they start playing, such as background lore, professions, mechanics etc, they'll want all the relevant information and facts, regardless of whether it's a spoiler or not. Once the game is released however, people may just want the basic information on getting through a mission or dungeon, and people should be given the option to not be presented with the story line(s), extra lore etc, as it detracts, for a fairly large proportion I'd imagine, from ArenaNet's portrayals of said storyline(s) and lores. Certainly, records of the cutscenes et al should be kept for people wanting to recap, or preview, but this should be optional. Darke 04:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original question: For me, a spoiler is the unintentional revelation of a major plot element. So mentioning Rurik dying is definitely a spoiler. Same for saying that Kormir becomes a goddess or Shiro is an emissary. However saying that you need to battle char boss XY in mission Z is not really a spoiler. Everyone expects to battle char and also to battle some char bosses.

In terms of dealing with spoilers, I dislike the aesthetics of spoiler tags, but I am willing to deal with them for the sake of people who want to read the wiki and not encounter (major) spoilers. In any case, we need to keep in mind the difference between GW1 and GW2. By now GW1 is very old, so most people will know the story line and we need to put less weight on not spoilering. On the other hand, GW2's story will be new to all users of GW2W for a while, so we should be extra careful. And extra careful does not equate to spoiler tags, there is a lot more we can do to prevent spoilers:

Use sensible headers (NOT: =='''RURIK'S DEAD'''==)
Be reasonably vague in the intro of the article, especially in the first sentence. Give people the chance to notice that they are reading a page they don't want to read before reading the spoiler
Don't unneccessarily link to spoilers if you can link to a non-spoiling article instead
Don't unneccessarily bring up spoilers on the talk page (of course some times it can't be prevented, but there is no need to discuss the final mission on the tutorial area talk page)

If we all excert a little effort in that direction, maybe we can keep the wiki accessable for people who do not want to be spoilered without making it too (spoiler tag-) ugly. --Xeeron 22:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If those precautions are taken, then spoiler tags probably won't be needed. Headers would need to be page-specific though, unlike GWW's standard four-or-five-headers-and-nothing-else on every NPC or quest page. pling

23:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather use generic titles for main things (i.e., "History," "Locations," "Culture") and then get specific for breaking down those main sections (i.e., "Of Khan-Urs and Shaman castes") personally. It seems more cleaner that way. -- Konig/talk 00:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Referencing and blog posts

If information comes from blog posts, should we really reference it? It's like referencing the main gw(2) site(s), and I think we agreed in the past that there's no need to reference the main site. Perhaps this was discussed/agreed upon and I just missed the memo, but the kodan info has been getting reference tags by others so I'm just wondering if I should add them too. -- Konig/talk 07:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to refer to the blog post and I propose to do so in case others missed the update. However, I also propose to remove official site references on the next big edits to these articles. - Infinite - talk 11:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Community collaboration

→ moved from Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Community collaboration

Hi guys. I didn't know of a better place to put it, so feel free to move if necessary. I would like to request your comment on this proposal. I'm the creator of GWDB and I am a big supporter of the wiki. Some of the biggest and most promising community projects are trying to set up a plan to help each other and work together more closely. I invite the wiki to join in on this. Of course the wiki will be an exception in the way your community is built, but there are plenty of ways to collaborate for us. What are your thoughts? -- Karasu (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested in creating an account on the wiki and making positive contributions is most welcome to do so, but the wiki will most likely not participate in any kind of cross-promotion. At best, if a fansite is notable, it will make it on our List of fansites - but definitions of "notable" and other criteria will be decided on before the list gets too bogged down in junk.

This wiki is official, and more importantly, it is a wiki. The ultimate goal is simply to document the game, not to be a meeting place or a social networking site. As that seems to be the entire purpose behind "the alliance," I'm not sure you'll get much support here. -Auron 11:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much what Auron said. I like the idea but a wiki isn't exactly suitable for it. Shadow Runner 11:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"not to be a meeting place or a social networking site" - That's not what I expect from GW2W either. I know the differences between these sites and the wiki. More specifically, would it be a good idea to create scripts to interact with the data on the wiki or sit together for the official API. On the other side the wiki could import dynamic data generated by users on a site more suitable - I'm thinking about the state of game dynamic events and information concerning the auction house. Similar to what GWWiki does for Traveler and Zuests, but this time it will be more complex and depend more on user-input. Plenty of sites will want to display such information. Maybe it's too early for all of this, but we are trying to prepare already. --

Karasu (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone does have a problem with external sites using our data. About data automatically going the other way (being imported to the wiki), I am more doubtful. The mediawiki software was especially designed to help with all the potential problems of user generated data (eg. Talk pages, reverts, easy watchlisting). Any external solution would basically have to copy all this. And then, it is still questionable whether it would be worth the effort, when the data can also be (and most likely will, very quickly) be updated on-wiki. --Xeeron 14:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

ArenaNet might have a problem with external use if it involves scripts calling the wiki's information or causes server strain. Like Xeeron, I'm not sure your proposals would be technologically feasible or even effective. Note also that all content in or out needs to conform with Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Copyrighted content. pling

15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the things we want to discuss with them. There is going to be an API and wiki integration anyway. Unless we get more information about the API or game mechanics everything on that part is impossible to work out anyway. --

Karasu (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

^That. - Infinite - talk 13:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Anything is possible but I agree with Auron. Not the place. - Lucian

Shadowborn 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Reiterating what has been said: I question the choice to be promoting a select list of fansites. We are an encyclopedic reference from GW2. We are here to document the game. We've provided a list of places where you can go if you wish to use (or prefer) a forum. The wiki, especially an official wiki such as this, should not be taking sides with one group of fansites and not promoting the other. And then there are the technical problems. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 21:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Link ish brokded (Xu Davella 00:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC))

Order of Professions in main space

I think, for general continuity among pages, we should have a specific order of professions. My thoughts are they come either in the order they were revealed (E, W, R, N, G) or that they go by armor class then by either alphabet (E, N, R, G, W) or by order of reveal (E, N, R, W, G). Aqua (T|C) 17:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Alphabetically, be it by class or in general. - Infinite - talk 17:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Armour class then alphabetically. My OCDishness would prefer soldiers to come first (2,3,3 instead of 3,3,2). pling

17:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Pling, I like your idea. I was thinking about it that way after I posted initially. :) Aqua (T|C) 17:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So it'd be; G, W, R, E, N.... Can someone dropkick our ranger? :) - Infinite - talk 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

What about unknown? On sides or what? - Lucian 18:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think common should go below everything else. Aqua (T|C) 18:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Unknown should go under common. A three/four-lines system displaying;

Revealed, in order Pling stated,
Common
(Upcoming)
Unknown

This is how I see it anyway. - Infinite - talk 18:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I hoped that the website would show them in some special order, but it's only reversed reveal order.. poke | talk 19:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Who knows what it will be displayed like after all professions are released/the game is released on the official site. Until then.. - Infinite - talk 19:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There is one special order in the XML called by the professions flash file. It's weird though. Chriskang 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is a weird order?! After some thought I think it is the order of the professions in their reveal image. -- aspectacle

21:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. :) - Infinite - talk 21:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In order from left to right, you mean? (Xu Davella 22:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

Inluding shades, yes. - Infinite - talk 22:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So it appears to have hit consensus (and I swear the order was altered on navs, etc in the past already), yet the current order is back still the old system. Just to clarify, it *is* G, W, R, T, unknown adv, E, N, unknown scho, so we should alter navs and lists accordingly? (I'm not sure if I'm just noticing this on the most obvious locations and everything else is in order, though.) The skill lists nav and the traits lists nav are two examples of this. I don't know if I should change the order again (I'm not even 100% sure I actually saved the lists according last time), but with my hazy state of mind I rather some form of confirmation first. - Infinite - talk 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. (Xu Davella 09:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC))

Feedback

As GW2W is getting more and more busy and we seem to start getting some more attention by ArenaNet as well, I think it is a good idea to think about feedback related content by now (ideally we should have done that from the beginning). The thing is that ArenaNet needs a custom license clause so that they are able to use content of the wiki as feedback and integrate it into the game. The problem is that our current license as it is, does not allow that, as ArenaNet would be required to a) provide attribution, and b) license the game under GFDL too. Both of course is not going to happen.
On GWW we solved that issue by creating the feedback namespace which includes a special license that double licenses any content to both GFDL and for free use by ArenaNet. While the first part is mainly to be compatible with the rest of the wiki, the second part is important for ArenaNet.
Now I'm strongly against copying that Feedback namespace to this wiki. The problem with it is that we divide the wiki that way. ArenaNet members need to have a separate talk page in the feedback namespace to safely talk with the users, and all game-related things need to be discussed in that namespace as well, while the actual content is in the main namespace. Plus, the special license is not that clear on GWW's feedback namespace. As such, I would like to propose something different, that would prevent us from separating the wiki and on the other hand allows ArenaNet to access any content on the wiki.
The idea is rather simple: Apply the special stance we have on GWW's feedback namespace to everything on this wiki. This means that we would dual-license any content to both GFDL and for free use by ArenaNet. As most of our content comes from ArenaNet, this wouldn't restrict us much – except for personalized content (important: user space content would be included, so any special/personal things a user comes up could be freely used by ArenaNet too).
The only problem we have is that this wiki is already running for quite a while and we cannot safely relicense all old content to that license. This is one of the main reasons why I am bringing this up now: while the wiki exists for a while, the content is actually still rather limited (and in fact, there are not that many different contributors, so relicensing most of the content would be actually possible). As such when we change the license now, then by the time ArenaNet looks at the wiki, the content under the old license is probably buried so deep that it is actually unlikely that ArenaNet will be accessing it – so they are nearly safe to use any content on the wiki. Good for them, and good for us.
What do you think? At least I think that this would be much better than creating a Feedback namespace at a later point. poke | talk 22:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we allowed to do that? I was under the impression that ArenaNet decides the licensing on the wikis. If I'm wrong, or if you're suggesting that we ask them about doing this, then I think it's a good idea either way. --ஸ Kyoshi

23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If ArenaNet wants to take feedback from the wiki again I think we should make them aware of our preferred licensing situation and agree we need to do this before the release of the game and the number of contributors balloons. I'm personally fine with my contributions being (re)licensed for ArenaNet's benefit, but then I've never spent much time giving feedback or improving my user space. I know that wikipedia changed their licensing with probably only a few of their many anonymous content contributors agreeing to the change. -- aspectacle

23:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The last solution (Feedback namespace) was developed together with the community and in the end both, the community and ArenaNet decided together about it. Changing licensing only works when both parties work together; but I doubt with a solution like "just use anything you want" they'll oppose. And as I said it makes it easier for us too and helps getting more (official) attention to the wiki. poke | talk 00:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly - I would never want to encourage arenanet to make changes of this nature without the support of the contributors here. I think the Feedback space on gw1w eased the issues relicensing and in particular I think there was concern from users about their user space contributions? -- aspectacle

00:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The one problem I can see in this solution is that it's a less organized way to do it; devs won't necessarily know where to look for inspiration or the suggestions if it's more of a general thing, and they'll have to search every page on the wiki to find if anything is perceived as a problem. That said, if they agree to it, I don't see any reason to keep from simplifying it. --ஸ Kyoshi

05:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

aspectacle: No, the problem was rather GWW's age and as such amount of contributions that would not fall under the new licensing. It's different on this wiki and the number of contributors is still quite limited, so we could "easily" ask as many people to relicense their old contributions.

I would probably prepare some list-thing that would contain all contributions and we could strike out already relicensed contributions by certain editors until we come to a very low number of unavailable contributions that ArenaNet couldn't use. Then either we delete those revisions & content, or we hide them deep enough with big flashy warnings. poke | talk 09:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Waar Kijk Je Naar

10:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The current GW2W community is very small and most of the contributors from the last years are still active today so it shouldn't be too hard to find most of them and convince them to switch to dual licence. I'm concerned about people who want attribution for their work though. Quite a few contributors are writing fan fictions on the wiki and they might not want this to be freely available to Anet. Shouldn't we create a special namespace for them instead? Chriskang 10:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Content is still licensed under GFDL, so everybody else than ArenaNet is required to follow the GFDL license. If people want to distribute content (e.g. fanfics) about Guild Wars, and don't want ArenaNet to read it (because that would require that they could freely use the content), then they should post that content somewhere else, preferably in an offline book, because that's the only safe place.

Also I would believe that if someone comes up with the most awesome idea ever in a fanfic and ArenaNet wants to use that idea, then they'll probably provide some kind of alternative attribution (for example a NPC of the author as a thanks); but having such a license change is required for ArenaNet to read the content to begin with. And I don't know if I would like to write fanfic content on an official wiki without official people having the chance to read it – at least, it shouldn't be that way; so people are free to do it somewhere else. poke | talk 10:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's Anet that this discussion should be directed to. It's OK to include us, as we can pretty much get consensus relatively quickly on our end. Just remember that it took a long time for Anet to agree to the idea of using dual licensing in the first place, so the faster we can get their views on this the better. As for dual licensing the entire wiki, I reckon it's definitely a good idea.(Xu Davella 11:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Even though we do finally have a new ArenaNet liaison, experience has shown that GW2W is very nearly the last thing ArenaNet cares about right now. With that in mind, there's absolutely no reason to wait for their input before we discuss this at length.

16:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to it being their license and not ours, but I suppose since the only effect it has is to give them more rights to use our posts, even acting as though the license were different would do little harm. I'm still concerned that with the suggestions spread out everywhere, it may still be useful to have a feedback space to keep it organized for them, rather than requiring that they check very nearly every wiki page (or that we direct them to pages of concern via staff pages, which we've agreed against in the past as best I'm aware) to figure out what players are thinking. --ஸ Kyoshi

17:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Xu Davella: No, we discuss this first so we can get to an idea first, what we want. Don't forget that we as a community run this wiki, not ArenaNet. As such if we don't want to change the license like that, then we simply don't but also accept that ArenaNet won't be looking at the wiki much. In the same way we decided on GWW that the Feedback namespace was going to be the way it is now. So we decide and get ArenaNet's OK on it. If they have a good idea, they are free to suggest it to the community, and then again we decide if we would like that or not.

Kyoshi: I am in no way implying in this discussion that I want or even support actual feedback discussions on this wiki. Actually I want this wiki to be as feedback-free as possible. Personally I neither want to accept feedback on talk pages, neither in a dedicated namespace like GWW's Feedback namespace. It is just that if we want to have ArenaNet presence on this wiki, which is something we should really be interested in to make this wiki better (in many ways), then we have to understand that this will only happen when ArenaNet members can freely access the wiki. And that's not going to happen with our license and their current legal position. So this discussion is only about adjusting the license to provide ArenaNet free access, but has literally nothing to do with a feedback-collecting system we tried to establish on GWW. My preference (and others as well) would require ArenaNet to make some official forum or something dedicated to feedback, but not to abuse the wiki for that (we stated in the beginning of the feedback namespace, that a wiki is not an appropriate medium for such things; and by looking at the namespace, you can see that this is obviously true). poke | talk 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I assumed since we were comparing to the GWW's Feedback namespace that it was going to be a replacement of some kind. But really a forum would be much better suited to the purpose. And I wasn't aware that ANet couldn't access parts of the wiki because of the license, that seems silly. --ஸ Kyoshi

18:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, they could access it, but their last stance was that they cannot read anything because when they get any inspiration (whatever kind that actually is), then they are actually breaching our license when they use that (even indirect) feedback for the game development. So instead, they just don't officially visit those areas. poke | talk 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose changing the license of all my contributions, and if people want to double license everything I wouldn't oppose it, but I would rather not have any feedback at all. I have to admit I'm not really sure about what our current license prevents ArenaNet from doing - does it prevent ArenaNet from speficially replying to suggestions about the game, or does it prevent them from answering questions and etc (without suggestions) thrown at their talk pages? If it's just the former, I wouldn't actually want to allow people to make suggestions at an employer's talk page, but if it's the latter then I guess the license change is necessary. Erasculio 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the topic again, Erasculio, it prevents them from reading, and as such prevents them from participating on the wiki. poke | talk 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GFDL doesn't prevent anyone to read. As long as the content stays on the wiki, Anet (and actually everybody else) has the right to: read everything, answer to questions and reply to suggestions but Anet doesn't have the right to use anything from here in game because the game is not -and will never be- released under GFDL. Which basically means that every suggestion/comment/feedback here is pointless because, even if Anet reads it, they don't have the right to change the game based on this content. Chriskang 21:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @poke: I have read the discussion a couple times, and I have noticed how it mentions the current license preventing ArenaNet from using content in the game, as opposed to reading content in the wiki. If something is read here but not used in the game (such as a question about how has their day been), from what is said above ArenaNet would be allowed to read it. Hasn't ArenaNet itself said recently that they use the GW1W as a source of information? That means they can read it at least, without worrying about attribution issues.

@Chris: that's actually fine by me. Let people make suggestions elsewhere. Erasculio 21:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

When the Feedback namespace was created back then, it was said, that ArenaNet developers are "disallowed" from officially reading the wiki as they can get inspiration off comments on the wiki. As such the Feedback namespace was created and they received a feedback talk page so that they can participate at least in a very restricted area on the wiki. poke | talk 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case I wouldn't oppose the change in license, but it's a rather stupid policy (as ArenaNet itself has said, they have taken inspiration from other games, and those were not given a special license just so ideas could be taken from them). Erasculio 21:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

@Poke: this sounds like a safety policy from the company to be sure that no GFDL content is included by mistake in game but nothing in the GFDL actually says that. But I think we're changing subject. We know for sure, from GW1W experience, that people will write feedback here and that Anet finds the wiki useful for the developers. So, if we want the game to be as good as possible, why not make life easier for the developers and allow them to read/answer/reuse everything from here without caring about the licence or their internal policies? Chriskang 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That's my point; we are merely opening up an extra door for ArenaNet, without really restricting ourselves – at least unless you don't trust ArenaNet enough to allow them to use your content (which you are publishing on a wiki about their game btw). poke | talk 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem like anyone is disagreeing with the issue. So what do we do from here? Mass messaging? (Xu Davella 09:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

As this is quite an important topic, I want to wait longer for further input. After that, we ask ArenaNet, and if we come to the point to accept this, we need to involve the whole community (i.e. wiki-wide notices) where we make the final decision. poke | talk 09:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "unless you don't trust ArenaNet enough to allow them to use your content (which you are publishing on a wiki about their game btw)." QFT. I think this is fine and shouldn't be/is not a negative action towards either side (although I had to ask poke directly to make sure I understood). Besides, somewhere it makes sense to me as well, as the wiki is fully owned by ArenaNet. Though not maintained, still owned, so ye. :> - Infinite - talk 13:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

wow, that's a long read. "if we want the game to be as good as possible, why not make life easier for the developers". I think this sums it up, at least for me. There are some wonderful ideas on this wiki already, and if we can help in any way to improve the game I think that we should. I do say we, but this is just a personal opinion. I too am opposed to any extra spaces (ie feedback). As it's been said, a forum medium is far better suited to that need. In short, I am in line with this current method of thought. While I do think it's silly that anet is not allowed to read the wiki, I can see it being true from a legal standpoint. It is difficult to prove the origins of ideas, so this would ease that difficulty and allow more ideas to go forth. Venom20

15:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Haven't read the whole topic and I'll just say this on the original point: I don't even know why the gw2wiki wasn't given the same treatment as the gww when the Feedback space was first created - nor do I know why the gww has a gw2 space... I'm in support for a feedback space here, and I'll leave my say at that since I haven't read the whole discussion. -- Konig/talk 18:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

“I haven't read the whole discussion” – then please do that, because this discussion is not about accepting feedback from users. poke | talk 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(thanks to Kyoshi for a tl;dr version) Point was that I'm in agreement with having the licensing changed - in some form - to allow accepting concepts and ideas without the fears of what could go wrong. I'm not big on legal stuff, which is why I was merely stating "I agree" in a long form. If you want everyone to read, there should be at least a tl;dr of the intro (that's what puts me off the most). -- Konig/talk 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure about this; I think we should stop to discuss the problems this will give us in other spheres. One of the things I believe GW1W failed miserably at was the management of the ArenaNet staff's talk pages, which eventually led to most of the ArenaNet employers leaving the wiki. The kind of measures we could take against people filling those talk pages with feedback spam and mutual bickering was somewhat reduced by ArenaNet's own inability to tell people to stop; I guess it would be seen as bad community relations from the company to tell people to basically shut up. With the license issue, we have the perfect reason to forbid people from making suggestions at the ArenaNet employers' talk pages regardless of what those employers say (or have to say in order to save face). I'm not really opposed to fixing the license issue, but I would be more confortable in doing so if we had a different way to deal with the problem. Erasculio 22:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I support dual-licensing everything, but I would like to insert the clause "except where otherwise specified." This would allow people to share some things under the GFDL only if they do have misgivings about giving ArenaNet access.

23:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

@felix - If that's something feasible, we can design a template that users would be required to have slapped onto the page they want to protect. But would that page then be allowed to have any content relating to Guild Wars/2? (Xu Davella 02:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

I would probably make a simple extension that would add some magic word (for example __RESTRICTED_LICENSE__) which then changes the page somehow automatically (like adding a warning, changing colors, or something), and is also restricted to the user namespace only. But in general, yes, I don't see a problem with restricting special content (even if it's GW-related) to GFDL only.. Of course, the parts that are taken from GW, are still property of ArenaNet then. poke | talk 13:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

^ And to clarify; what that property interacts with will be protected (given it is not Guild Wars content being interacted with). - Infinite - talk 17:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

*Bump* ... Y'all might be throwing good effort after bad and ya prob'ly better come up with a solution soon before reality picks one for ya. Time better spent might be on features and policies that improve transparency so that ya know WHAT it is Anet's actually using and what's not being used. ...Once you know that, organization will be a lot easier & contractual agreement won't be required for every damn thing. --ilr 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You can only ask for transparency from ArenaNet, no amount of policy will increase that or overcome the limitations of wiki software for forum style moderation. I'm interested to see the outcome of the gww discussion but even without it by accepting the ArenaNet feedback friendly licence across this wiki we're keeping all our options open until we understand more of what ArenaNet intends to try and use gw2w for. -- aspectacle

04:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we want the ArenaNet staff here in the first place. Their presence has never worked out at GW1W, and even John, the only staff member that is still there, has been questioning whether he's doing more good than harm. I'm not sure the community can deal with so much free access to the developers. Erasculio 19:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's misleading and you know it. All the tension that happened there was a result of interpolicing within the community itself. But you may have a point too... circuitous as it is, the no-split proposal could complicate that in unpredictable ways by distorting the very "quality filter" that caused the fight between sysops (not like they've needed excuses before). --ilr

20:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (I apologize for taking so long to voice an opinion on this matter.) I support whoever's idea it was (Felix?) to use a dual licensing except when other conditions apply. Aqua (T|C) 03:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read this discussion and as it seems reducing or changing the original GFDL is not an option, adding this extra license is a good idea. The largest part of users don't know how this works anyway and think ANet are allowed to be inspired by their posts, as demonstrated many times on the feedback/ideas on talk pages. The __RESTRICTED_LICENSE__ is a great way for people that are aware of this --

Karasu (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki new logo

Hi everyone,

So, we need a new logo for the GW2W as the current one uses the old GW2 logo. So I'm going to call people for ideas, proposals and opinions (please let's be as open-minded as possible). And to start somewhere here are 2 logos based on the current GW2 logo (by the way, it has to be based on the GW2 logo and the whole design of the dragon shouldn't be altered):

candidate 1.1: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Wynthyst_GW2W_logo.png

candidate 2.1: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/7/7d/User_Infinite_Gw2wikilogo_new_user_design.png

Let's move this project ahead and try to get this done sooner rather than later. So, your turn now. ^^ --Stephane Lo Presti talk 22:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been using a similar image to these for a while now anyway and it works quite well. I wouldn't mind either of these two being implemented. Shadow Runner 23:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Of the two links here, I prefer the second - the text's font is much nicer and more consistent with the current GW2W and GWW logos. pling

23:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sticking to the official logo for simplicities sake would be ideal so the two options are good. I like Infinite's stronger text and the transparency of Wyn's option. However, an update to the favicon would also be a good thing. Can we simply use the one from the official web page or do we need to differentiate the wiki pages from the main site using the favicon? If the latter perhaps we should consider unique icon options? -- aspectacle

23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Using GW2.com's favicon with [[wiki braces]] around it might be enough. pling

23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I personally like Infinite's, though it would need to be transparent for it to work. Aqua (T|C) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The font and overall position of the background in Infinite's one is exactly the same as how our current logo is displayed. Cut & paste?(Xu Davella 05:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Here's a similar (candidate 3.1) and not as similar (candidate 3.2) logo. --Moto Saxon 06:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I also vote for infinite Cirdan

06:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I use a different image for the logo, I say Infinite's because it does look slightly nicer. Eive

07:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'd prefer Infinite's candidate since it's simple, yet stylish. I even use a logo like this already :D - J.P.Talk 10:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Saxon_gw2w_03.png (candidate 3.3) --Moto Saxon 07:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

wallpaperez watermark? --zeeZ 08:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Back then I didn't even know the logo was generated from a standard background and a transparent logo. :P

That said, if a transparent version is required, I should be able to generate that, too. - Infinite - talk 08:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Stephane, are we going to accept a user-submitted version now? As far as I know (and I know that pretty well), the original logos (here and on GWW) use a proprietary font, and I personally would not like someone of us to try to imitate that font just to make it look like that. I would prefer if you could get a designer to spend 5 minutes and make us a new logo, that actually fits to the “official” part in “official wiki”... poke | talk 10:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been using infinite's version for quite some time now and I'm really enjoying it ^^ --

The Holy Dragons 10:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Poke, you are aware that my image's font *is* a direct copy of the current GW2W logo font? :P - Infinite - talk 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I like Saxon's third one. Though I'd like to see it at 150x150 which is the standard size for a wiki logo. It's innovative. Who says we have to have something that looks like the original gw logo? You guys are so.... stuck. The artwork that we are seeing from GW2 all has that great splash of style. I say let's be different :D. -- Wyn

talk 13:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As per Wyn. Let's leave it massive too, and we can pretend we're wikia.

15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it says "Guild Wads" because of the dragony bits behind it. I'm also not sure the right edge will look good in a logo. pling

15:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As per Poke, I wish a designer would create it for that "official" flare. What I'd like to see is a version similar to Infinite's logo with the entirely red dragon instead of the red/black/etc. dragon.-- Shew 15:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Saxon resized it. Put it into your css and look. I like it. -- Wyn

talk 15:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I kind of like that style (Saxon's 3rd one), but I'd prefer it transparent & without the watermark.-- Shew 15:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Saxon_gw2w_04.png (candidate 3.4) Here is a transparent with no watermark. (I had to take out the drop shadow, is that something that could be added with css?) --Moto Saxon 16:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all for your feedback and in particular Saxon for great new ideas. I'll investigate whether we can get the GW2 favicon. About the fact that it's a user-generated picture, I don't think it's a problem. Regarding the font, I can probably change this once the community has decided what it prefers.

Logo Summary 1

Since we've got additional versions people seem to be interested in, I've added a "candidate number" for each proposal (previous ones are 1 and 2):

candidate 3.1: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Saxon_gw2w_01.png

candidate 3.2: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Saxon_gw2w_02.png

candidate 3.3: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Saxon_gw2w_03.png

candidate 3.4: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Saxon_gw2w_04.png

(if candidate 3.3 was selected, I'd suggest we move the "Guild Wars 2" down for better readability or find a way to separate the "s" from the red dragon; I also agree that it'd be better without the watermark) --Stephane Lo Presti talk 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I really like Saxon's, though I'd scale the dragon down to have it not spell Guild Wads. Also I'd move it to the left slightly. - Infinite - talk 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I like candidate 3.1. --? Kyoshi

17:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate 2.1, once its bg is fixed and/or made transparent. I like candidate 3.4 as well, but the 2 isn't particularly obvious, so that could cause some confusion. --Sirrush

17:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The current logo, note the lack of transparency. - Infinite - talk 17:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidates 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 are conceptually identical, except for text style (position & font), and regarding that I already said it would be best to have someone at ANet create it from scratch, preferably with transparency..

Candidates 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 look nice, but are completely inappropriate for the wiki logo. Main reason for that is the position of the logo doesn't work with the cutoff in the logos. You can only use such cutoffs correctly if (a) the image is completely attached to some kind of border, (b) that border is actually something that sticks to the foreground (i.e. the logo is put in the background). Both is not the case here, and visually putting the logo into the background is quite contrary.. poke | talk 18:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried Saxon's _05.png (not "candidate 5") and noticed it had white outlining, which clashed at least with the current background. I ran it through GIMP and created http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Proton_gw2w_01.png (candidate 3.5:) which removes said outlining. Just thought I'd toss it up here. —Proton 18:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay here is a revision based off of the feedback. 1) Moved the dragon to the left. 2) Made font more readable. 3) Added "2" in "Guild Wars 2" since the "2" that the Dragon is forming is half cropped out.

candidate 3.6:http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Saxon_gw2w_05.png < Transparent background/no drop shadow

candidate 3.7:http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Saxon_gw2w_06.png < Default background/with a drop shadow

Sorry for all the candidate adds. Although most of them are meant to be improved revisions. If the "2" i added in these is unnecessary then I can drop it and just make the original text (from candidate 3.4) more clear. --Moto Saxon 18:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks poke for the catch (by the way, I'd rather have the community work on it, at least until we get something people like, and then involve an artist, although I'm not sure that they're actually going to have the time) and Saxon for the ideas and reactivity! Could you design a version where the dragon-2 is whole and not cut? (no worries for adding candidate, as long as we can keep the numbers consistent :) --Stephane Lo Presti talk 18:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As per poke:

candidate 2.2: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/7/7d/User_Infinite_Gw2wikilogo_new_user_design.png - the old candidate 2.1, but transparent.

Hope you like.- Infinite - talk 19:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As per Stephane and Poke's suggestions these two have more dragon and no/less cropping issues. Both of them would need the minor white spots cleaned up through GIMP (I'm not sure how to do that quite yet). And I used a slightly different font for "official wiki". --Moto Saxon 19:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

candidate 3.8:http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Saxon_gw2w_07.png < centered

candidate 3.9:http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_Saxon_gw2w_08.png < off centered

Though the examples with it look like a funny font, I really think having it say 'Guild Wars 2' instead of just having the big dragon 2 in the background. Infinite's smaller dragon somehow shows up better as a 2, but the really big one gets too abstract to read as part of the name.

purple llama 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidates 3.4 & 3.6 are my favs. I would live with the cropping bc I think they are aesthetically more appealing. Ideally I would take 6 and add in the little "2" with out changing the font of "guild wars". --Moto Saxon 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the cropping: http://min.us/mveGz5 ... poke | talk 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Poke for the quick reference on the cropping, for those that haven't seen what we are talking about. Like I said, I'd be fine with it, but I know others may not. If that design is a general favorite, then one option would be to create a border within the image for the dragon to butt up against, and not have a transparent back ground...basically just mak it look like any of the other plain white wiki boxes on this site. --Moto Saxon 21:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion to any people designing icons. Sharp edges (such as to cut off everything outside the box) don't look very good upon implementation. It *looks* cut-off, which isn't exactly great. Aqua (T|C) 21:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dood, Moto! dood doesn't want parts of dragon. Dood wants full. Ya blind here? Doods use full dragon. 206.51.226.198 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with that^comment...since there are 10 candidates and half of them have full dragons, including some of mine. --Moto Saxon 21:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a question: Do we really need "official?" This is wiki.guildwars2.com. It may look sleeker without "official."-- Shew 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think some people are thick enough to not realize that if it's not in the logo. lolpeople. - Infinite - talk 21:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dood, Moto! Most of your pictures only shows part of a dragon, not all of it. Got the clue now? 206.51.226.198 22:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Look agin, please. And besides, Stephane said let's be as open-minded as possible. So it is certainly okay to post and/or prefer a cropped dragon. --Moto Saxon 22:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The last picture is slightly off. I like this [1] --'Mai Yi' {TC} 22:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

@IP...after rereading I'm guessing that we both interpreted Stephane's request differently for a version where the dragon-2 is whole and not cut. And I apologize if I interpreted him incorrectly. I thought he was referring to how the dragon-2 falls off the page on the top, right, and bottom sides. But perhaps he was referring to how I cut out the dragon for the text. Or both. Not sure. --Moto Saxon 23:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Dood, this one is best. You can read the letters better. Bold, ftw. 206.51.226.198 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Saxon, my initial post was meant to say that there wasn't general guidelines, initially, and people should look at all the proposals without preconceived opinions. I expressed my preference for the "dragon 2" being whole (so not cut, hence my suggestion for your design with the whole "dragon 2") and not cut but this is still open to discussion. I want the wiki community to create, as much as possible, a concensus on this and I'll try my best to be the facilitator of that. --Stephane Lo Presti talk 00:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to voice my support for candidate 2.1 and propose a name change from "dragon 2" to "twogon". --zeeZ 01:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

if proposals are still being accepted, I thought I'd try something different and bring the focus back to the wiki part:

candidate 4.1: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/File:User_purple_llama_Gw2wikilogopl.png purple llama 03:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate 2.1 also uses the same dragon/coloring as the logo already on the home page (opposed to the dragon/coloring I used). So it would make more sense to keep those identical. Although I'm not a fan of [[ ]] brackets. And Candidate 4.1 may also have some fun potential. --Moto Saxon 03:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate 3.3 is still my favorite, the "watermark" provides the 2. I think maybe if the GuildWars were all black rather than the orange flame, that would allow it to stand out better and lose the GuildWads appearance. I still disagree with the logo having to have the red dragon intact rather than cut, I personally think it makes a statement that is really lessened in other versions. As for the right edge cut off being too sharp, what about softening it the way the bottom has been with the drop shadow sort of thing... regardless, it's staying in my personal css :D Thanks Saxon! Candidate 3.6 would be my second choice. -- Wyn

talk 04:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been using candidate 2.1 since July 6, 2010. Today I tested out the 2 most promising others, being candidates 3.3 and 3.6. 2.1 is still by far the better ones. The cropped, or half-cut, dragons do not produce anything. I mean that any artistic value is lost by the item's placement. They cropped ones look great when they are standing alone, well done creating them, but they look horrible when they are placed in the appropriate location. Candidate 2.1 I find offers a classic design that is still elegant enough. Just my 0.02 Venom20

04:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Purple, that's awesome :o – I’d vote for either 2.1 or 4.1. poke | talk 09:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate 4.1 has my vote. Though, Purple, would you mind uploading a version with white brackets as well for comparison?-- Shew 15:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I like candidate 11 w/ white brackets (candidate 4.2) more than with the red brackets. It helps the 2 in GW2 stand out more. And the red brackets are almost two dark to be over that background imo.-- Shew 15:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

very nice. The red brackets annoyed me, but the white brackets of candidate 4.1 look fantastic. I'm torn between 2.1 and 4.1 now. I'm ok with either of those. Venom20

15:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Gah, my first edit conflict! You guys are too quick for me. I had made them red to pull in the red from the logo, and also to make them not super prominent since for many users (who are just using the wiki for information) they won't have any meaning. They're there, but they're not *there*, you know? But I'm just offering ideas here so changes are good. I have more variants (mostly on the gw2 part) in my psd version, if anyone wants to mess with it they're welcome to do so.

purple llama 15:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice work Purple :) I made a slight variant (candidate 4.3) from your psd. Not sure which I like better, the centered dragon or the one on the right. Either way, your design is probably my fav. Lets get it fine tuned and put it up :) --Moto Saxon 16:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I prefer Purple's original 4.1 over Saxon's variant. I'd suggest moving the 2 behind the Guild Wars, but that's just personal preference. --Sirrush 17:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I like candidate 2.1 and 4.1 (with white brackets). For 4.1, it would be cool if the dragon was coloured the same as candidate 2.1's dragon. pling

17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I kinda like the simplicity of the all-red dragon, tbh, but it wouldn't hurt to see both side by side.-- Shew 18:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Was playing around with Llama's .psd a bit and came up with File:User Tanetris sitelogo.png ~~(candidate 4.4)~~ (not a candidate). Needs "official wiki" stuck on there, but I like Saxon's lettering, and I'm going back and forth on brackets or not. Feel free to play around with it. - Tanetris 18:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going for the colored version, why not just use this? My only worry about having the colored version is that the logo would be too detailed with the text as well. Now that I've seen the small, detailed dragon, my vote is 100% for the red dragon. What does everyone else think?-- Shew 19:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think 1.1, 3.9 and 4.1 (with white brackets) are my favorite so far. --JonTheMon 19:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I very much prefer Tanetris's "Guild Wars 2" dragon. I think I might prefer keeping the characters blacked-out - we obviously don't have the other professions yet (and it may be a while till we do), but also it makes me think of the figures symbolising anonymous wiki contributors as well as professions. It would probably make "official wiki" easier to read as well. That said, I do like the colour the revealed version brings... The revealed characters give a little more depth to the image too, which is something I've always thought the new logo style lacks.

By the way, the right edge of that image will need to be improved, since it's cut off. pling

19:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Purple's logo, with Saxon's text and Tanetris' GW2 logo. Yes. poke | talk 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't upload this (candidate 5.1) as a candidate (obviously, given the bad cropping of whitespace, small font, etc.), but what do you guys think of this background vs the shadowy profession background? It's from the GW2 website as well.-- Shew 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: After reading --Moto Saxon 14:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)your updated comment (about the anonymous contributors note), Pling, I think I prefer the shadowy professions to the background I just uploaded.-- Shew 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have Saxon's font, so I used the closest one I had since his version lost my transparency and I wanted to resize that part anyhow. Made the bottom part smaller to make it look less cluttered when it's actually in a layout, and put in a slightly larger textured gw2. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User_purple_llama_Gw2wikilogople.png (candidate 4.5) Updated the psd too, in case others want to poke it while I'm back to work.

purple llama 20:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Tbh, I liked the previous version's sizes more because of the emphasis on "OFFICIAL WIKI" via the smaller GW2 logo & larger background.-- Shew 21:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, just so you're updated, I've had a fairly rough day today so I haven't been able to catch up with the discussion here, but I will do later today or (more probably) tomorrow. Bring on new ideas and concepts and feel free to discuss them. Thanks again for all this ^^ ttys --Stephane Lo Presti talk 22:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry your day has been rough! Thanks for being so involved on this wiki, though!-- Shew 22:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I really like candidate 3.3. Pretty stunning. As for this, I really love it but I'm afraid it isn't as practical as other wiki icons (then again, it seems nice). - Aios

0:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, another one. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:User Purple llama Gw2wikilogopld.png (candidate 4.6) Back to the nearly the original sizes, stole the small caps (but not the fonts, realised what I liked was the smallcaps) from Saxon's. I finally figured out a) why the two parts seemed disconnected and b) how to fix it, and added some dirt to the image to bring it together. I really like how it turned out, (but if no one else does I'll let it go.) One note, I don't have a version of that textured gw2 logo without a white halo, so the transparency isn't as awesome as I'd like. If it (or any of mine) gets picked I can put some actual effort into cleaning that up.

purple llama 06:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that looks a lot better, Llama. -- Xu Davella 07:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a winner! imo. poke | talk 09:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Still prefer the red dragon, but I think I'm outnumbered there. :-P I think we have a winner too.-- Shew 11:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(Hey, if Llama's one makes it to the artist, is there any way we can get the profession's reveal backdrop more defined? I'm specifically talking about the girl with her hand on her hip and the char-looking one. It's kinda hard...to tell...what they look...like. *cough* OK thanks, bye!) :) -- Xu Davella 12:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We have a winner? Have we voted yet? I thought this unreadable messy snake of comments it's just for candidate proposals. --zeeZ 12:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The conversation is two-fold. It's about candidate proposals and selecting which one the community enjoys. Also there isn't so much a vote involved, but more so a consensus. I too enjoy Llama's. Just remember, if anyone is torn between one or two of them, you can always modify your css to use your desired one. Thanks to Pling, I think it's hard not to envision the shadowy figures as anonymous editors. Venom20

13:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I forgot to add that my wife give the thumbs up to Llama's. Venom20

13:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Haha @ Venom's wife's vote :) Nice :) I'm okay with this version. My only real complaint is with the brackets. I don't think there should be any. Mainly because the vast majority of wiki users have know idea what they are for, thus making it look oogly/weird. Which tbh was my first thought when I started using the old gw1w. And even now, knowing what they are, think they are still unnecessary and distasteful in the logo. I also preferred the solid red, centered dragon bc it's more vibrant, but I'm more concerned with the brackets. Either way, I can always change my css to what I want and will be fine with whatever. --Moto Saxon 14:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Still prefer the dragon and text alone tbh, and the shadowy stuff doesn't seem like it'll fit since it's a picture of the professions unreleased; just looks messy. But I guess it's a good excuse for me to start learning CSS. --? Kyoshi

14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if others have noticed, but that shadows in the background are brownish opposed to a grey-scale. I think the grey-scale would look more universal and crisp, although the brownish is what it on the gw2 site. --Moto Saxon 14:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I still think I love the idea, but find the logo most people seem to like too busy. Also more inconsistent with GWW. :P But as above, we can always run a monobook to pick our preferences. - Infinite - talk 16:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse my color-blindness, Saxon. =P --? Kyoshi

18:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Logo Summary 2

Hi, I've re-numbered all the candidates (using version numbers) and modified people's comments accordingly. I know it's quite intrusive but it's the only way I found to keep track of the changes without forcing everyone to do it themselves ;). I don't think we're quite yet at a "voting stage" but I'm going to list the current candidates:

candidate 1.1: File:User_Wynthyst_GW2W_logo.png
candidate 2.1: File:User_Infinite_Gw2wikilogo_new_user_design.png
candidate 3.1: File:User_Saxon_gw2w_01.png
candidate 3.2: File:User_Saxon_gw2w_02.png
candidate 3.3: File:User_Saxon_gw2w_03.png
candidate 3.4: File:User_Saxon_gw2w_04.png
candidate 3.5: File:User_Proton_gw2w_01.png
candidate 3.6: File:User_Saxon_gw2w_05.png
candidate 3.7: File:User_Saxon_gw2w_06.png
candidate 3.8: File:User_Saxon_gw2w_07.png
candidate 3.9: File:User_Saxon_gw2w_08.png
candidate 4.1: gw1:File:User_purple_llama_Gw2wikilogopl.png
candidate 4.2: File:User_purple_llama_Gw2wikilogoplwb.png
candidate 4.3: File:User_Saxon_Purple_Variant.png
candidate 4.4: File:User Tanetris sitelogo2.png
candidate 4.5: File:User_purple_llama_Gw2wikilogople.png
candidate 4.6: File:User Purple llama Gw2wikilogopld.png
candidate 4.7: File:User Tanetris sitelogo3.png

At the moment my preference goes for sleeker versions, which makes the logo more readable and the GW2W more tied to our official logo (thus making it easier for everyone to recognize and trust it, and for us to integrate it in the GW2 family). Something like version 3.8 for example. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stephane Lo Presti (talk) at 22:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

Yea I definitely prefer the 3.* series. It's simple, clean, and to the point. If I had to choose one with the profession smudge art, it would have to be 4.6 because the GW2 logo isn't hovering randomly. Cirdan

22:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I still like 2. --'Mai Yi' {TC} 22:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I removed 5.1 from the list. I only uploaded that to see what the background would look like, but the cropping definitely isn't good enough for it to be considered a candidate, imo. I love 4.2. I can love 4.6. Tbh, 3.8 feels more fan-made to me than 4.6 because the font is fan-made/not even a mainstream font.-- Shew 22:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should split the 3-series into two, or just remove the cut-off versions from the list all together, as they simply don't work for the wiki.

I put a preview page on the sandbox, splitted into three categories of styles. poke | talk 01:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

ew la la. fancy work poke. two thumbs up :) --Moto Saxon 01:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the "A series" or "type 3" (if not for the lack of a 2 in the text of the image) for the same reasons as Stephane. A1 and A4 in particular.

Also I inserted page breaks at each summary/compilation, hope nobody minds, but I hate scrolling so much. --ஸ Kyoshi

01:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the picture formerly known as 4.4 was never intended to be a candidate as-is, I'm just changing that to something similar that actually can be. Also slipping an uncolored variant on as 4.7. - Tanetris 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Saxons 3.3 version would be my fav if the main dragon in the front would expand out fully throughout the page. -- Xu Davella 15:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That could be very cool. I wonder if it's possible... -- aspectacle

01:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It is. We need to edit; this to do so. - Infinite - talk 01:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Picked positioning and text at random from one of Saxon's cut off versions to test the header change. This is the result to give an idea of how this might look. [[:File:User_Aspectacle_Overflowlogo.png]]. The 2 in the text looks particularly out of place in this example but I like the effect quite a lot. -- aspectacle

02:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeahhhh --Xu Davella 02:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just uploaded this and this for people to test out using this coding. Just so everyone can see what it looks like. --Moto Saxon 04:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I like it. -- aspectacle

05:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I already uploaded my css, might keep it like that, :) -- Xu Davella 05:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

If we're putting a logo in the background, I'd say put the whole thing there, or at least the whole 2. Putting a cut off logo and a background with a notch in it is just asking for trouble with browser compatibility, keeping the image together you'd minimise any issues.

purple llama 06:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Purple's comment. Thought 1 Currently the background is notched and the foreground is transparent. Thought 2 If we want the background whole, then I would advise not making the foreground transparent. Reason being, with Thought 1, different browsers may move the two around by a pixel or so, causing you to see where the edges of the foreground and background don't match up (this happens when I view on my phone). If we did make the background whole and left the foreground transparent then this pixel difference would cause the foreground logo and background logo to not line up and look blurry. So the solution would have to be Thought 2. --Moto Saxon 13:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A better solution (if going that route, which I'm not terribly crazy about) would be to have the dragon 2 whole in the background image, and not include it at all in the logo image. That way the only difference in how things line up will be between the text and the dragon, where a pixel here or there doesn't make much difference. - Tanetris 13:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That is probably the best solution if we did go this route. --Moto Saxon 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That (what Tanetris said) was what I was trying to imply, sorry if it wasn't clear.

purple llama 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I tested out that cut off image with the extended border, and I am not a fan. I still prefer the A1 or A2 type of logo (it's nice and classic), or I also enjoy the C2 and C6 variant. If going with a C-class logo, I would like to see the background without colours. I'm just not a fan of the B class. Venom20

18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

C6, me likes. The B's aren't my thing either --zeeZ 18:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I like A2 the best, followed by B4. Manifold

19:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In order of personal preference, included with elaboration and arguments for and against:

A2
- Arguments in its favour: The classic set-up it exploits gives this logo the edge. It is clean (that is, not busy), easy to grasp in a single glance and is consistent in design with the current GWW logo. Furthermore, both the GW2 logo and the "wiki logo" are, though different in size, equally apparent.
- Arguments against: The classic set-up is rather plain, the logo is not a general eye-catcher. The set-up is not very original.
C6
- Arguments in its favour: Innovative design. Reduced focus on the GW2 logo enables increased focus on the wiki aspect. The profession reveal shadows as background quickly draws focus onto the logo. A playful side to blend the 3 different aspects together provides an excellent eye-catcher logo.
- Arguments against: The logo is very busy. The attention from article to logo increases when in use. Slightly trivial, the colour scheme is not aesthetically complimenting the logo.
The concept of A4
- Arguments in its favour: Brighter GW2 logo compliment the bright design of the wiki. The location of text is shifted from under the logo to right over it, drawing all focus to the text.
- Arguments against: Not yet polished to compete properly; the GW2 logo has been cut-off on the right side and the logo's "body" has been cut away to place the text. Important fixes. The font that spells "official wiki" appears to be a mash-up of fonts, as it looks generaly inconsistent. Has an incredible amount of white-edge, which can be problematic (but never has to be). The logo can enjoy an extra 5x5 in its dimensions, solving the cut-off-on-the-right issue.
Alternative file 3.5 on B4
- Arguments in its favour: Extremely innovative design, originally designed by Saxon, but enhanced by Proton in terms of transparency. Same arguments as in favour for A4.
- Arguments against: Requires a change to the wiki background image to display a bigger (and vital) portion of the dragon. Note that this is a massive fix (if not impossibly large) if this logo ends up being decided on, after which I recommend Proton to equally fix the transparency if applicable (the background would need to be uploaded in 2 stages). Also, as per arguments against A4, the dragon's "body" has been cut away to place text, which can (and should) be tweaked to make the cut-away less abrupt.

And that is my stance on the logos at this point in time. - Infinite - talk 01:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A2--'Mai Yi' {TC} 20:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup. A2. The option which will surely have the fewest people who can object to it. :) -- aspectacle

21:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I support A2, but I wouldn't mind A4 or A5. Then again, A2 is already my monobook, so I'm kind of unaffected anyway. Aqua (T|C) 21:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki new logo

Logo Summary 2

Logo references

Superb work poke, very strong the wiki-fu is on GW2W ^^ I'm putting it here. Tanetris: the one problem with your version is that it'd require a new version for the next 2 profession reveal ;) But I'll still put it there, in case a majority of people like it. In general I feel that the candidate 4 family reduces readability, and given its focus on professions I'm not sure it's the right message. I'm going to wait a little bit more until calling for a vote, just in case some people propose new directions during the week-end. (EDIT: I didn't mean to say that a vote would replace the rule of consensus on the wiki, we'll still abide by the wiki rules, but may use a vote in the process)

Type A: “Classic”

A1 – 1.1
A2 – 2.1
A3 – 3.1
A4 – 3.8
A5 – 3.9

Type B: “Cut-off”

B1 – 3.2
B2 – 3.3
B3 – 3.4
B4 – 3.6 (alternative file 3.5)
B5 – 3.7

Type C: “Profession-reveal layout”

C1 – 4.1
C2 – 4.2
C3 – 4.3
C4 – 4.4
C5 – 4.5
C6 – 4.6
C7 – 4.7

Time for trying to get a consensus

What is your preference in the above logo table (A1-5, B1-5, C1-7)? Feel free to state what alternative you'd like too. Thanks ^^ --Stephane Lo Presti talk 18:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A2; I would like A4 a lot, if it was improved so that the logo isn't cut like that for the text (also I think I like the dragon's color of A2 more). I also like C6/C7 but I don't believe it will look that good up there at that small size. I could imagine it well in a huge size though (t-shirts anyone?). As such: A2. poke | talk 19:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A2 is my fave. Shadow Runner 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A2 or A4 is what i like the best! :) Foreign

A2, biased as it may sound. You can refer to my other opinions above this section. - Infinite - talk 19:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer C7.

Orrery

19:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

C2, C7, and A5.-- Shew 19:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A2 has been fine for 6 months or so for me, fine forever if you ask me ;) --N aut 19:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As seen above, Mai Yi, Aspectacle and myself all support A2. Aqua (T|C) 19:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the A-series, followed by the C-series, particularly C6 --JonTheMon 20:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely A2 - keep it simple. Reaper of Scythes**

20:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A2 or a cleaned up A4 as per poke. -- aspectacle

20:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if everyone can vote on this, but if so, I think A2 is the best. Bitter 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can voice his opinion Bitter, this is not a vote but a search for consensus ^^ --Stephane Lo Presti talk 21:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd personally most prefer C series, probably 6 or 7 (5 would be fine too except for the lettering). If not, I don't mind A2. - Tanetris 21:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The C-series. C-3 and C-6. I'm all for something new and not as traditional as the A-series. --Moto Saxon 21:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe we should vote on a series before we vote on specific images within the series?-- Shew 21:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd vote for the A serie then. Chriskang 21:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

C-- Shew 22:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) How about we actually step up and decide without having yet another intermediate decision? I don't see the point of choosing series when there are only one or two things from each series that people are actually considering. A2 and A5, C6 and C7. (And B series has been ignored entirely). I still prefer A2 out of all of those. Aqua (T|C) 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I like A2. --'Mai Yi' {TC} 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point, Aqua.-- Shew 23:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

C6 and 7 are my fav. - Aios

0:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm torn. I prefer A2 and have been using it for the last 7 months. I'm probably going to remain partially out of consensus so long as either A2 or C7 is selected, either of these two are perfectly fine with me. Venom20

04:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A2 for me Cirdan

06:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I say A4-5. I just don't see the necessity of having "Official Wiki" stand out and bracketing it, if you're unaware that this is that wiki despite the URL, the main page, the navigation box, and (if A4-5 were picked, which it won't be) the slightly less standing-out text that says Official Wiki on the logo, then you have a problem. And personally A4-5 look much better aesthetically than A2.

07:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, A4 isn't that bad either. I do not like the centring on A5 though. So I"ll add A4 to my pool of candidates. Venom20

10:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A1-3, hard to say which one I like best. --ஸ Kyoshi

13:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it's hard to find consensus when you just tell everyone to shout it out. Besides, anyone who doesn't get their way here can edit their css and get their favorite anyway. So foregoing a vote and instead waiting until everyone agrees is kind of silly. --ஸ Kyoshi

13:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's my current understanding that a vote would not lead to a consensus, but solely to majority/minority situation. It's actually very easy to gather the opinions here and create a vote based on this, but I thought that the wiki was working on the basis of consensus. A2 is currently the most popular design. --Stephane Lo Presti talk 16:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A2 and C6. The empty space in C7 ruins that one for me. --Riddle 16:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A vote in which everyone votes for the same thing (or nobody strictly opposes that decision) is consensus. On more concrete issues, compromise can be made between proposed solutions, and there are concrete reasons for choosing one solution over another, but here it's simply a matter of which design "looks better" to one person or another, which is hard to negotiate such that everyone can agree. --ஸ Kyoshi

16:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather, when I say "vote" I just mean people stating their opinion. Deciding based on majority rather than consensus is what I was suggesting for this discussion, since waiting for consensus would get things done much more slowly if at all. --ஸ Kyoshi

16:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As A2 seems to be to nearly everyones liking, is anyone opposed to making that the new logo? poke | talk 16:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A4 and B2 are my favorites. Wasn't there any logo with just the words 'Guild Wars Wiki' instead of officialWIKI? --

Karasu (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

my 2 cents i like A2 but i wish it followed the gw2 font for the "official wiki" ie the font from B2, but with brackets like how it is in A2 .--

Zesbeer 08:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think A2 would do well overall. Not a lot of people would be familiar with the background pic in the C-lot. -- Xu Davella 09:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

also i would like C4 way more if all the professions were out. and the white text had a 1px stroke of black on the bottom.-

Zesbeer 09:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the 'Classic' series. A2 or A5 are both my favorite. From the type C the version C3 or C6 are also fine. Balwin 16:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

the favicon

so is that going to get changed as well seeing as it has nothing to do with gw2w?- Zesbeer 05:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's called a favicon. I mentioned it early on in the conversation and Stephane later said he'd look into whether we could just use the official website version. I tried to make a version with wiki brackets around it but the icon is so teeny it is really hard to make it look right. -- aspectacle

06:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

what if it was the same as the official website but a different color?-

Zesbeer 06:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Though if we're changing the colour I'd rather it matched the colour of the icon we've been discussing so hard recently. And we were getting so close to consensus - it seems like there are now only 4-6 contenders which we can't agree on. :P -- aspectacle

06:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

my other idea was to just use a smaller version of the hom 50/50 icon.-

Zesbeer 23:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We're getting close!

I gathered the following stats from the above discussion:

A2: poke, ShadowRunner, Infinite, Naut, Aqua, Reaper of Scythes, aspectacle, Bitter, Mai Yi, Venom20, Cirdan, Riddle, Zesbeer, Xu Davella, Balwin, Foreign
A5: Shew, Eive, Balwin
A4: poke, aspectacle, Eive, Venom20, Karasu, Foreign
B2: Karasu
C2: Shew
C6: Riddle
C7: Orrery, Shew, Venom20
A series: JonTheMon, Chriskang, Kyoshi(1-3)
C series: Tanetris(6, 7), Moto Saxon(3, 6), Aios(6, 7)

At this point A2 gets 72% (18/25) if I'm not mistaken, which feels good enough to go ahead and pick it. I attempted to recreate the logo using our official fonttype (also following some visual guidelines we've got for our logos) and came up with this:

A2b ([[:User_Stephane_Lo_Presti_gw2wiki_A2_b.jpg|original]])
A2c (original)

Let me know if it feels good enough. --Stephane Lo Presti talk 16:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think A2c looks awesome and A2b's font is more off-centre. If the font is centred under the "GuildWars" rather than the dragon, I would go for A2b. I awed at the resolution, mind you. - Infinite - talk 16:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say that this looks pretty bad, but wow, it's big! I don't like the placement of the c version though. I have uploaded a smaller size of your proposal here, so one can see it in an actual working size. I'm not too sure yet, what I think about the way the “[[WIKI]]” is written (is it smaller than the “OFFICIAL” text?). Nevertheless, please remember that we will need a transparent logo in the end. poke | talk 16:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's also the c version in small. Both with dumb transparency added... poke | talk 17:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Infi is right. [[WIKI]] is not properly centered with OFFICIAL on A2b. Chriskang 17:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It is centered; I had that feeling first too, but I checked it when resizing.. It is really centered. I guess it looks off because of the brackets, or because the whole text is a bit more placed to the right in the whole logo.. poke | talk 17:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ye, the "wiki" is centered, but the "official wiki" as a whole is not. - Infinite - talk 17:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There are 148 pixels between the left of the O and the left of the [. There are 118 pixels between the right of the L and the right of the ]. That's not what I call centered. Chriskang 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

On a resolution of 3,000+, 30 pixels doesn't make that much of a difference, though. But alright, we stand corrected. :) - Infinite - talk 18:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Might want to check the resized version though, Chriskang. poke | talk 18:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not visible on the small version. Did you correct it, Poke? The whole "official wiki" text is still too far right though. Chriskang 18:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, I did press the "center" align button, but iirc nothing happened (hence I said, it is originally centered); don't know if I just didn't notice it or not.. heh :P poke | talk 19:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A2c gets my vote but I would not disagree to using b. --ஸ Kyoshi

20:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I like both. --'Mai Yi' {TC} 22:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A2c is my vote between the two. --Moto Saxon 22:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A2c for me too. Though I'm not especially bothered either way. -- aspectacle

23:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A2c I like!! :) Foreign

New version, I tried to made sure it's centered, the "official [[wiki]]" is bigger and it's got a transparent background. What do you think? (looking at it again, I should probably reduce the margins)

A2c2 (original)
A2d

--Stephane Lo Presti talk 23:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

i like a2c2 a lot i just wish the "offical wiki" was in the gw2 fount.-

Zesbeer 23:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks great!. --'Mai Yi' {TC} 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I like it too. A 155x155px image with smaller margins would probably be perfect. Chriskang 00:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one bothered by how small "official wiki" is compared to the GW2 logo? - Tanetris 01:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks great! I'll vote for this iteration Cirdan

02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tane, the "Official Wiki" section is to small and not really in a good font. Use the GW2 "font" and make it larger and I would like it. Aqua (T|C) 02:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And once again, uploaded a smaller version of it (see above). What I dislike a bit is the huge vertical whitespace that is created by this text layout. And the text can't get much bigger without resulting in the A2b version.. poke | talk 07:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What I really like about the original version A2 is the ratio of picture to text. None of the newer version (2b,2c,2c2) really catch that. But in general they are not bad either :) Balwin 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a logo for the wiki, "official wiki" should be much larger. If one word had to be larger than the other, it should be "wiki", not "official". To be honest, I think the text we currently have would look better with the new image (i.e. the original concept). pling

19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here we have A2d, with a big WIKI! (added it to the gallery above) poke | talk 20:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of that sans-serif font style, particularly the boldness, which looks out of place near the thin, serif "Guild Wars" text. I still prefer the original-style text, which has the added bonus of being consistent with GWW's. pling

20:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Closer...

About the font size, I've created a new version A2e where it's increased. I've also created A2f at poke's request (it's A2b, without bold text but with bigger font). About the GW2 font, I don't think it's a good idea as we want visibility rather than style (I've nevertheless used one of our official fonts).

A2e (original)
A2f (original)
A2g
A2h

--Stephane Lo Presti talk 20:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Stephane. I've resized your "small" versions correctly. Also I created a non-bold version of my A2d proposal above based on your f-version. Added it to the table above. I have to say that it looks much better with a normal-width font and I agree with what was said above that the wiki should be written bigger than the official part. That's also one of the problem I have with the one-line version: It doesn't allow increasing the font size. The other problem is that it introduces much whitespace at the top and bottom of the image. poke | talk 20:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

in that case still a2e-

Zesbeer 22:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that the whitespace makes it less appealing. A2e --ஸ Kyoshi

02:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I favor A2e too. Chriskang 07:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For me it is the version A2g. Balwin 11:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with both, with an advantage to A2g because of how readable the word "wiki" is. I also want to reply to a topic I heard: keeping the GWW and GW2W logos consistent. This is not required as the two games have their own style.

So far 3 people for A2e (Zesbeer, Kyoshi, Chriskang) and 3 for A2g (poke, Balwin, me). What do other people think? How many people prefer the original A2 or any other version?--Stephane Lo Presti talk 17:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say A2g but I don't really like the font (though that's just my problem) --

The Holy Dragons 17:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the original A2 (text). Also, while it's not required for the two wikis' logos to be consistent, it would be nice nevertheless. pling

17:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I too prefer the original A2, but any of these are fine with me. --'Mai Yi' {TC} 18:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the sizing of A2g, but I don't really like the way the font used looks at that size... Would be better with a serif font. - Tanetris 19:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I prefer A2-nought over the rest. I just like that original font. I could go with A2g if the "Official" was a bit bigger, the "[[Wiki]]" a bit smaller, and maybe a little less spacing for "[[Wiki]]", too. --Riddle 21:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I also think that I - regardless of consistency between GWW and GW2W - prefer the original A2. - Infinite - talk 22:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I added A2h, which uses Stephane's giant-ass quality logo, but the original font. - Infinite - talk 17:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

i like a2e but like the font on ad2 better then a2h.-

Zesbeer 03:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The new fonts don't feel as natural as the previous ones. Alsi in A2g the 'L' from official is very close to the bracket from wiki. My preference goes to A2H, second place A2F. --

Karasu (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I already said, that I like the version A2G, but A2H would be great, too, because the original A2 was my favorite as well.Balwin 16:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, at this point I wouldn't mind any of them. No vote from me going forward. --ஸ Kyoshi

21:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

agreed with kyoshi. -

Zesbeer 22:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Everyone has a different opinion on the fonts and the nitpicking about it is obviously getting us nowhere closer to a decision. They all look fine - pick one and be done with it. -- aspectacle

23:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A2h. Nice and bold, perfect tracking. I'd change the font on the word official because it looks stretched out, but this discussion is going past its use-by date. --Xu Davella 04:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A2h I like!! do with that!! ~ Foreign ~

Let's end this (maybe)

I reread everything since my last summary and it looks like A2h is one that accrues the better overall opinions and is closest to a possible consensus. So if you see a good reason not to take this one, please speak out. We still have some time to make a decision, just in case a discussion is needed, but it'd be great to reach a consensus before we move ahead to other topics (such as the background image?). --Stephane Lo Presti talk 00:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

yes, i think we are done here...-

Zesbeer 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we switch to an Alternative Vote system, or perhaps have a vote on switching to that voting system first! ;) However not that I have been involved until now I would go ahead and switch it up as suggested by the majority so far :) --Lemming

15:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we? May be. Should we? I don't feel comfortable with this idea given that the wiki community has lived happily with this system for years now. Correct me if I'm wrong but, if this was something that the wiki community wanted, it would have been discussed and actioned a while ago.

FYI I've now been using this logo with that background in my monobook.css (thanks to Infinite for the instructions, which can be found a few lines below on this page). These two feel good so far, although the color scheme conflicts sometimes with, for example, the green of the main page text boxes.

Can a few people experiment with these for a few days and let us know how they feel? Thanks!--Stephane Lo Presti talk 00:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Lemming will have been kidding about the voting. Discussion on a voting system would take 20 times longer than this discussion would have taken probably only to be rejected! :)

The new logo and background look fine. I agree about the main page colour, but we can easily change the main page colour ourselves so let's make that another discussion. -- aspectacle

01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't intend to support voting for all systems of the wiki, but for matters which are purely (arguably) based on opinion, it might be the quickest way to get things done. A consensus deciding to vote on one thing and agree on the result could save a lot of the time we used on this. Regardless, I don't see any opposition. --ஸ Kyoshi

02:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It helps somewhat to have some prior knowledge of Lemming (though the winky-face helps), but he was pretty clearly joking.

Given the support and the utter lack of disapproval since calling for objections, I think it's safe to move ahead with implementing the logo. The background is a separate issue and should be left to the appropriate section. I'd prefer the background not have to be rushed ahead for the sake of the logo (especially not a background that pink). - Tanetris 20:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually noticed that it does make a lot of sense to TEST the logo and background at the same time, so that people can get a proper feel of what the wiki is going to end up like.--Stephane Lo Presti talk 20:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you, Stephane, if we were at the beginning of both the logo and the background discussions, or at the end of both. As it stands, we're at the end of the logo discussion (we've settled on one that pretty much everyone is reasonably content with) and at the beginning of the background discussion (a few ideas have been tossed around, but nothing solid). Thus it makes most sense to implement the logo decided on, and continue to work on a background with the understanding of what logo it should be intended to go with. If by some off-chance someone does come up with a background that's amazing but doesn't fit with the logo, we can burn that bridge when it comes. Neither artificially extending the logo discussion nor rushing the background discussion is going to benefit anyone at this point. - Tanetris 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm just curious how this will going on? After a long discussion we found a compromise .. and then nothing happens. So, what are the next steps?? Balwin 19:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you had actually read the conversation's conclusion, you'd realize what Stéphane's intentions are with this consensus. - Infinite - talk 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

headbg.jpg

i feel like that should be changed to something more "painterly"...- Zesbeer 00:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed mine altogether, looks better. - Infinite - talk 00:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

To be specific, this: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/skins/monobook/headbg.jpg. And yeah, I'd like it to be replaced with some subtle-yet-cool art, similar to how GWW has this. pling

19:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it might be redundant if we ever switch to Vector.. poke | talk 19:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Good thing that we're NEVER DOING THAT then. - Tanetris 19:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

something like this could be used -

Zesbeer 22:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's something we want to change. I'll add it to the (long) list of things I have to check.--Stephane Lo Presti talk 20:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

← moved to User talk:Zesbeer

(Reset indent) please post ideas if you have any i also thought that we could just use this though the top part would be lacking.- Zesbeer 12:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That is vertically oriented, we need a horizontally oriented piece... Aqua (T|C) 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: [[:File:User Aquadrizzt BG Image 1.png|Here]] is an assortment I assembled from grayscaling various environmental concept art. Aqua (T|C) 21:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

way to white and can't see any detail something like this would work. i also suggested the side thing because it would be cool to have the side bar have a image be hind it.-

Zesbeer 02:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"way to white" Erm, you do realize that having something like the profession reveal would be way too much color (and also give the impression that all we care about is professions ignoring races, orders, dragons and everything else.) It should be generic-ish and very low saturation/intensity. And the website sidebars don't really work well, they are too colored to read text over. Aqua (T|C) 03:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

erm,you do realize i didn't link to the colored version of the profession revival right? also the other wiki has more color in there then any of urs did you cant even tell there is anything going on in any of the images u posted. they just look like white blocks also nice saying "(give the impression that all we care about is professions ignoring races, orders, dragons and everything else.)" because a dragon 2 isnt giving that impression OH WAIT.-

Zesbeer 03:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I mocked this for the headbg file. (Note; you will have to scale it to fit your resolution.) - Infinite - talk 03:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I thought the idea was to start with safe ideas, as in neutral ones, with limited colours and whatnot. As per above, we need a horizontally-oriented image, not a wallpaper. I do understand the concerns, though. - Infinite - talk 04:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If the above is not true, then here is the coloured version, if one would desire. - Infinite - talk 04:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that Zesbeer's one would work because the image would go behind the white boxing that the text is in, down the sidebar. You wouldn't be able to see the image on the right, however. Of course, there's more free space for a horizontal image across the top. --Xu Davella 04:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@Infinite thats too much of one color it can have some color in it i am thinking mainly grays and pastel blues and greens if you look at the concept art you will see what i am talking about. what i am thinking of is something that looks like the edges of the stuff i have posted where it looks like messy paint strokes ect. like the last example of what i posted look at the top and bottom. that's what i am thinking ill come up with something soon when i get less lazy and get on photo shop. for example if you look at the inside of the dragon logo its got all sorts of textures.-

Zesbeer 08:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Xu, having done brief tests with the website side images, they a) don't look right and b) make it *very* difficult to read the text. Aqua (T|C) 17:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, back to this topic. I like Infinite's proposal, because it's simple and neutral. But maybe it's a bit strong on the color? It needs to be put in context, could anyone use the A2h logo proposal (see above) and hack it into a wiki to see what this looks like? --Stephane Lo Presti talk 00:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you go to Special:Mypage/monobook.css, edit in one of the following:

For grey:

#p-logo a { background-image:url(http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/8/83/User_Infinite_Gw2wikilogo_new_user_design_2.png) !important; }
body { background:  url(http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/1/19/User_Infinite_headbg.jpg) no-repeat; }

For colored:

#p-logo a { background-image:url(http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/8/83/User_Infinite_Gw2wikilogo_new_user_design_2.png) !important; }
body { background:  url(http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/3/32/User_Infinite_headbg_color.jpg) no-repeat; }

and hit 'Show Preview', it'll show you the A2h logo with the appropriate background. Other backgrounds can be previewed by changing the URL on the second line (make sure you use the image file's direct URL, not the URL for the images File: page), and other logos changing the URL on the first line (same caveat). - Tanetris 04:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Alternatively, I uploaded a faded variant of the coloured version. - Infinite - talk 15:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

That and, ~~due to me having no idea how to make the headbg's I made to scale on resolution like the current headbg's,~~ users will have to put a scaled version in their sandbox and use the direct URL for said scaled version.

I.E: I put the following in my sandbox;

[[File:User_Infinite_headbg_color_faded.jpg|1800px]]

which is an image width of 1800 pixels on my 1920 pixels wide resolution (as to "fully" display the headbg).

Equally, the link I use for the headbg is

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/images/thumb/7/7f/User_Infinite_headbg_color_faded.jpg/1800px-User_Infinite_headbg_color_faded.jpg

which only works if an existing scaled version exists somewhere on the wiki.

I hope it is all clear and understandable.- Infinite - talk 15:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that the background image isn't supposed to be scaled. poke | talk 20:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Which is why there's a big line through that part. The actual image can be used on all resolutions without technical stuff. - Infinite - talk 20:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Infinite for these instructions, it's working really great ^^ My impression is that the faded color works better and fits well with the logo, I'm going to test it for a few days to see how it feels. Can anyone else test it and give his/her opinion? I noticed that this background change will require recoloring some pages, like the green in the Main page. --Stephane Lo Presti talk 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Headbg references

Add your proposals to the gallery and use a different letter per concept, or if an existing concept is used as base use the next number in the chain and put your proposal right after. - Infinite - talk 15:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A - 1.1
A - 1.2
A - 1.3

Thanks for this Infinite. --Stephane Lo Presti talk 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

@infinite did you darken the image? it seems darker to me... anyhow a-1.1 is exactly what i am thinking. EDIT: yea used the monobook with both and liked the gray with the new logo. better then the red, also i think it was just my second monitor. -

Zesbeer 12:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I liked the colored ones better. To me, the gray one looked...well, like a wall of gray. Nothing particularily interesting. I prefer the non-faded colored one, but I could settle with either. --Riddle 07:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd really like to see some less pink options. Perhaps even some not-pink-at-all options? Maybe? - Tanetris 20:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll cook some other colours tomorrow. - Infinite - talk 21:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

so today is tomorrow.... -

Zesbeer 23:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, yes, you are right. Today is tomorrow (+x days). I'll get to it asap. I also want to see other proposals listed; I have no idea which ones were opted for. Just add them to the gallery (like the logos were added). - Infinite - talk 08:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

i still think they need to be darker... maybe i need to adjust my monitor... anywhoo a idea i just had; what if for skill pages and pages related to professions/races the header changed to the corresponding shade color the default would be gray so anywhere where we are talking about Engineers it would switch from gray to a light brown colored header... -

Zesbeer 22:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

well i changed to the new skin ie Vector... so it dosnt use a headbg so maybe that should be changed to the defalt skin?---

Zesbeer 19:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "what if for skill pages and pages related to professions/races the header changed to the corresponding shade color" Not sure that this is a) possible nor b) a good idea. I'm using the red, it looks nice with the logo... Aqua (T|C) 20:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

yea i stoped caring the new logo is epic and so is the new skin i highly recommend switching.-

Zesbeer 20:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing skill icons

i found a build tool for gw2 that has several skill icons we don't, and a few that are better quality. though some of them seem definitely to have been taken from here, i.e. glyph of elemental harmony. i wasn't able to simply right click on the icons to save them for upload here, but i figured there are plenty of people better at that sort of thing than i am. if not, then i believe one could just take a screen shot of the page, than crop it to the right size.[2] Akbaroth 05:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So, what exactly do they have that we don't? All I see there is content copied from here. Chriskang 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I did a significant amount of snooping, and if we agree that their information is valid, then I will extract the icons that we are missing. Aqua (T|C) 13:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you please share the names of the skill icons that you found on this site and that are missing here? Chriskang 14:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Signet of Earth, Rush, Blood Is Power, Ghost Armor, Plague Signet. Aqua (T|C) 16:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded Signet of Earth and Rush but I can't find a good quality source for the necromancer utility skills :( Chriskang 00:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Names, trivia, skills and GW

Seeing as ArenaNet will name a lot of GW 2 skills after GW skills wouldn't it be better to make a category that will contain all of the GW 2 skills that have a namesake in GW instead of having a "A Guild Wars skill bears the same name as this skill." line in the trivia section of every other skill page?--78.3.11.33 02:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it would be. This has been brought up several times but I have no idea what was decided. -

02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would find it much more effective to not have skills linked like that as well, especially considering how almost all of these skills differ in function. (And the fact that Guild Wars 2 is a completely new game and thus not connected in terms of mechanics.) I can already see Trivia sections for all NPCs with surnames that indicate a GW1 ancestor. Whatever you do with it, though, I won't mind. - Infinite - talk 03:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't remove the trivia note on gw1:"It's Just a Flesh Wound." just because the Black Knight didn't get his arms back when he shouted it. A category in addition is fine but I think the trivia should be fine to stay. --ஸ Kyoshi

03:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an external reference compared to an equal skill name, though. I don't believe you can compare the two. Again, whatever you do with it, though, I won't mind. - Infinite - talk 03:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again. I hate trivia. Just wanted to put that out there. --Xu Davella 04:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I also dislike trivia... where I imagine it'll get messy is for skill names in both games, which reference something external. Which do we mention? (Hint: we will not have two trivia notes for one skill name)

I think the obvious ( / only) solution to the above is to list the external reference. Which means the "this is a GW skill name" trivia note would become inconsistent, and should be removed as such.

A F K When Needed 12:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'm forced to conclude that originally people expected it to be a rare occurance and thought "worth noting, why not?". Now that we know ~every second skill has it's name in the original Guild Wars, we recognize it to be the common thing that it is; and that it is no longer as notable as previously thought.

A F K When Needed 12:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@Infinite: I don't see that it makes a difference whether it's an external or internal reference.

"Hint: we will not have two trivia notes for one skill name" Why's that? Honestly, this means it would have all of two trivia notes, which is not "cluttered" at all; we have skills on GW1W which have multiple name references too.

Guys, you're making a big deal out of things which are by definition trivial. Two lines of text on an article that you probably will have to scroll to see under the skill's stats, including trait descriptions and such, will not even slightly inconvenience anybody, and for those who are curious, hey, there they have it. --ஸ Kyoshi

14:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Two sentences; possibly more than two lines.

"this means it would have all of two trivia notes" -- wrong. It would have all of two trivia notes to do with the name only.

So there's a "GW 1 skill name" triva note. An "external ref" trivia note. A "this could also be a reference to... other external" trivia note. Perhaps (rare - but it has happened) a final and third external trivia note. Which is four trivia notes. To deal with only the name. Then there's other trivia notes. No. Go away. It's not happening. It just isn't.

Please remember there are many contributors who want no trivia at all.

tl;dr: When over half the page is in the 'trivia' section, you're doing it wrong.

A F K When Needed 15:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Or to put it simply; the amount of skills that share name are so many that such facts are no longer considered trivia. - Infinite - talk 17:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is it even worth noting Kyoshi? I understand it's trivia, but at this point these repetitive notes are more of an eyesore than a trivial fact. As Infi said, these have stopped becoming trivia due to how many of them exist. It's like going onto Wikipedia and under every reptile page, putting "This animal is a reptile" in the trivia section. Yes, we get it, it no longer needs to be stated. -

17:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

They do mention that, but not under trivia. They don't note that there are similarities with other species of the familae in trivia either. - Infinite - talk 17:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"When over half the page is in the 'trivia' section" Judging by what we have just from the demo, when traits, skill combos, acquisition, and notes concerning ANet's bad wording (and related skills, maybe) are added to each skill's page, you'll probably have to scroll down to even find the trivia section for half of them. In addition, I know of no skills thus far that have been a reference to more than a GW skill (in fact, I haven't yet seen a noteworthy external reference), so that point is severely lacking in evidence.

If you just don't like the trivia section then I by no means intend to trample on your opinion. However, I find trivia particularly interesting, and it would be ridiculous to think I'm the only one, or that anyone who's interested in trivia will have played GW and know the skill is a reference already. --ஸ Kyoshi

18:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) A skill of the same name in a second game of the same series does not equal a reference, but at least a notable point. If anything it should go in notes. That said it also shouldn't, due to the note not being a primary influence to the skill. Perhaps a seperate article/category listing all things that are shared between the 2 games would be a strong addition. - Infinite - talk 18:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, notes are for the skill's quirks, or things that aren't clear from the description but are relevant to the game itself. Trivia is for things that do not concern the game but are related to the skill. The name of a skill being a reference to something, even GW1, has nothing to do with how that skill functions. Again, I see no reason not to add a category, but I think the trivia note should stay. --ஸ Kyoshi

18:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

From where I stand, a category and a page listing would be plenty of recognition, as that way users will be able to see/find the information if they want it, but won't see it on every second trivia section. I feel like trivia should be something more unique to the skill(think external reference, rather than a category it falls into.) Sachem 19:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with a trivia page listing (and, indeed, linking to) each skill in both GW and GW II where the name is found in each. However, doing so in the mainspace is, imo, inappropriate.

"In addition, I know of no skills thus far that have been a reference to more than a GW skill (in fact, I haven't yet seen a noteworthy external reference), so that point is severely lacking in evidence" Ah, you don't know of it, so it doesn't exist. Cool story.

Off the top of my head? None Shall Pass, which is well on it's way to having a Trivia section longer than most assignments I submit in college. I do believe it's fair to say that the article is currently over half filled by it's trivia section. What the future holds; none can say. All we can do is react to the evidence / situation of the present.

Compromise: Can each skill have a "skill name/trivia" page? We can be far more accepting of trivia, we can put down as much trivia as we want, and it won't clutter up articles. Hell, I'll even accept it being in the main space (under that condition only).

A F K When Needed 22:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems like an over wrought solution for what is, for most articles, no more than 3 lines of text. As Kyoshi has said this is getting a bit blown out of proportion due to the scant knowledge we have about the skills so far. I think we should hold off on holy crusades against the supposed evils of trivia until we see exactly how much and how many articles are over-burdened by trivia. From what we've heard from ANet they're trying to dial back the external references in GW2 so it is less likely every other quest is going to be a reference to star wars. -- aspectacle

04:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the trivia notes regarding re-use from GW1. I wouldn't be opposed to making it a category instead, but I do want it noted in some way for those who care. Manifold

04:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

These are good compromises. Especially, splitting the article into a /trivia section for each skill. :) --Xu Davella 05:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"None Shall Pass, which is well on it's way to having a Trivia section longer than most assignments I submit in college." That statement is so exaggerated I could have used it as words-in-your-mouth sarcasm word for word, but I'll settle for "damn, you write some short essays." --ஸ Kyoshi

06:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To be fair I removed a misguided piece about the similarity of the phrase to gandalf's 'you shall not pass' after the post was made. -- aspectacle

06:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I also like the category idea. I'm open to both compromises out-lined so far.

A F K When Needed 12:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I like having the note in the trivia section. Even if the underlying reference takes a bit, adding a single additional line is not that much. However, if it goes to category-only, a separate page linking GW2 and GW skills would be needed and/or a lot of info on the category page itself. --JonTheMon 15:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Not really, all you would need is a line in the category page saying something like "List of Guild Wars 2 skills that have namesake in Guild Wars".--78.1.123.93 18:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if we want to not link to anything. *cue "we're not babysitters" argument* --ஸ Kyoshi

13:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We could make it an article instead and have links to both the GW2 article and the GW1 article of the same name in concise manner. We could even have a one-liner elaboration as to what other similarities they have. - Infinite - talk 14:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see what difference it makes for the "eyesore" argument whether there's three lines in a Trivia section (the title, one external and one internal reference) or two lines and a blip in the category box that would presumably say about the same thing.

I don't see any mechanical issues with the article idea as long as categories can redirect; otherwise we're back to linking from a cleanly noticeable place, like a trivia section, or worse--an infobox. --ஸ Kyoshi

17:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the reason it's an eyesore for some people (myself included) is because it adds one more line in the "trivia" section, because if that was the case then the problem would be with the "trivia" section itself not the line. The reason it's an eyesore is because you find it on every other skill page (out of 68 warrior GW 2 skills we know about 34 have a namesake in GW), sure it was nice and fun piece of information the first time I saw it, it was nice and fun the second time I saw it, hell it even was nice and fun the third time I saw it, but when I saw the forth and fifth time I started thinking "Ok I get it, a lot of skill are named after GW skills what's the point of saying that over and over again?".

As for the "babysitting argument" just embed the link to GWW in the line mentioned above and be done with it. I don't think anyone will sprain anything if they just type in the name of the skill in the rather obvious "search" function on the main page of GWW.--78.3.12.149 19:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"I don't think anyone will sprain anything" Exactly the babysitting argument I was referencing, thanks for illustrating it so vividly. --ஸ Kyoshi

02:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How about just the template link? It's not a note and it's off to the side for anyone interested enough to investigate. Or did I miss the point? Teddy Dan, yo. 03:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The gww link template is taken to mean exactly the same thing as documented on the other wiki. For skills and mechanics stuff they're named the same but considered to be fundamentally different things so we're avoiding that template on the skill pages. -- aspectacle

03:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Then I'm for a new page listing all of the skills, with respective links if necessary, with duplicate names. Unless that's more work than anyone intended. Teddy Dan, yo. 04:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kyoshi you have not explained what is so wrong with the "babysitting argument".

There is a situation very similar to the one we are discussing here on the GWW in which a triva that would have to placed on a lot of skill pages is instead given a section of it's own on 2 non-skill pages. A lot of Assassin skills have in their name a keyword that indicates what they do ("Fang" for skills that cause deep wound, "ox" for skills that knock target down...etc.) but you will not find this information on any of the skill pages (not even on the page of the one skill that is exception this rule) in fact as far as I know you can find this information on only two place in the wiki. If it was done there why not do it here?--78.3.31.250 04:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) U s i n g t h e e s t i m a t e s o n t h e n u m b e r o f s k i l l s o n t h e F A Q p a g e , t h e r e w i l l b e a b o u t 6 0 4 s k i l l s . A s t h e I P s h o w e d , h a l f o f t h e c u r r e n t w a r r Apply Poison|i o r s k i l l s a r e l i n k e d t o a G W 1 s k i l l . U s i n g t h a t logic that's about 302 pages with the exact same trivia note on them. Anyone else find that repetitive and annoying? Actually, I'm fairly sure if we put "This skill has the letter g in it" in the trivia section of every skill with the letter g in its name, it wouldn't be there as often as this. And Kyoshi, I personally don't get the eyesore argument either. That's why I'm not using it. My opinions on this are summed up rather nicely by the IP's first paragraph. -

05:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Can't trivia section be made hideable, dropdown or whatever, like sections with spoilers on some other wikis? Mediggo 12:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes they can but it's not really useful to have it that way. I think having a category is better. - Aios

13:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I figured the babysitting argument argument was obvious, but I guess not. The fact that a player can get to some piece of information without our help does not preclude our giving that help. Basically you're saying that if a player can find information on his or her own with some subjective level of effort, we needn't point them to it.

@Eive: You say it's repetitive and annoying but you claim to not be using the eyesore argument. I considered those the same thing, but maybe you're interpreting it differently. The only argument I seem to be seeing against the note is that it's "annoying." If every annoyance on the wiki were removed, I'd have been banned long ago for being a speculation buzzkill. --ஸ Kyoshi

19:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I consider the "eyesore arguement" the "When half of the page is in the trivia section" or "That extra one line is too much" and "we will not have two trivia notes for the same skill name". My biggest concern is that we're using the same one line on 302 pages. Apparently the ~~only~~ best argument for not making a separate page for it is the babysitter argument. Well why not link to it? Make a page similar to gw1:Inscription/Trivia except replace the Origin box for "Link to GW1 skill" or something. Maybe split it up into several boxes/pages based on profession? Put a link to that page on the Skill page and possibly several other pages. -

21:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Since trivia seems to spark so much drama on both wikis, why not remove that section completely? Some may say that it just doesn't feel like a wiki without a trivia section, but do all wikis have to fit that mold even if it means personal-preference-wars all over the place? The trivia section is becoming the new "passive" troll in that its very existence is breeding unnecessary drama. You clearly don't tolerate "trolling" from users, why tolerate it from wiki sections? Of course, some would place the "guns don't kill people" argument, but why not remove the gun anyway? It'll still remove a potential threat from the equation. Teddy Dan, yo. 23:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't call it a compromise if it swings farther from the center than one of the sides of discussion, Dan. And as I said before, I disagree with removing trivia altogether.

Eive, the differences I see between the GW1 skill and the inscriptions are, first, that all inscriptions are on one page so making another subpage to condense it makes sense, and second, that there is no central page for all GW1 skill references apart from the skill page which includes skills not referencing GW1. On that note, it would seem that adding all skill trivia to that page would be a solution, but that inscription trivia page looks messy (and that's with less than 302 points on it; that'd be a lot of scrolling) and doesn't show the context of the skill, which is interesting to juxtapose with the trivia note to see exactly why they used that name. Beyond that, there are also traits which are references to skills in GW1, and those wouldn't fit under the skills subpage.

With that in mind, here's a better argument than the babysitter one (which I considered more a counter-argument than an argument for mine, but meh): things would get messy and unorganized or inconsistent, and all to try to fix some perceived "annoyance" or "eyesore". --ஸ Kyoshi

00:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, compromise never satisfies anyone because of its very nature. At least one side is going to be disappointed. However, I won't push my proposal. It would probably breed yet more drama of its own. So, since it is nearly impossible to come to a mutually comfortable conclusion because some are absolutely ardent in adding it (for humor) while others are just as ardently against it (for aesthetics)... I've got nothin'. Teddy Dan, yo. 01:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"some are absolutely ardent in adding it (for humor)" You thinking of this? ;)

We're talking about the "A Guild Wars skill bears the same name as this skill" note, not something funny. Personally I want the Mending note (it's unique and actually interesting, not going on over 300 pages is a definite plus) but I don't like this note. When you're pointing something out about 50% of any range of items... it's not noteworthy.

A F K When Needed 08:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

[[Skill/Trivia]] and list all overlapping skills in name like this:

Mending in Guild Wars 2, Mending in Guild Wars 1.
- Due to Mending being a skill subjected to much ridiculing in the original Guild Wars, especially used by warriors to regenerate health over time, it was inspired to be a Guild Wars 2 healing skill for the warrior profession.

Or something. And then for all of them overlaps. - Infinite - talk 10:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

much ridiculing

dee grammerz, Im gud wit dem

A F K When Needed 10:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

... Why, yes... I did indeed confuse this with the Mending talk at the time I posted that comment. I am ashamed. v.v Teddy Dan, yo. 10:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed and am ashamed. - Infinite - talk 10:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I have that effect on people :(

A F K When Needed 11:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I just found something relevant to this subject that I'm sure at least someone here will recognize.

"Regardless of sources, arguments and facts, as long as people have trouble with a note, we might as well not add it, which is what Riddle pointed out and I do believe I rested my case with that."

But now someone else's recognizable point ( "I do understand your point :3 But from a logistics / practical standpoint, it's better to spread work out. When we get the real information, we'll be busy with the real information." ) makes enough sense to me to confuse the hell out of me and land me back on the fence... again. Teddy Dan, yo. 12:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@Infinite: As I said above, the centralized page looks messy if you don't do it for all trivia. If that's your plan, then I should point out as I did above that the inscription page Eive referenced as a concept to follow has only 52 entries (52 inscriptions unless I'm counting wrong) while our list will have 302 entries from the GW1 references alone. That's a lot of trivia stacked messily on top of each other (an eyesore, if you will), and again, all to rid us of this perceived irritation that I guess I'm immune to. --ஸ Kyoshi

14:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If I had to choose between having all the similar names trivia on one remote page or having it on every page where applicable, I would go for the remote page (if only for the sake of never having to look at it). - Infinite - talk 17:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And your only reasoning is that it's annoying for you. Just the same, I would choose the opposite because then I could see trivia without sorting through a list 300+ items high.

I still think once we have all the skill information, including descriptions and scaling by tiers and effects of traits (and trait icons) and skill combinations/synergy and acquisition notes, you'll probably never see a trivia section without scrolling. --ஸ Kyoshi

17:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"the centralized page looks messy if you don't do it for all trivia" - Lies and slander.

It's not a trivia page, it's just a page which records the instances of skill names being found in both games. It's a single page for a single topic. What's messy about that?

A F K When Needed 17:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) potential compromise: how about we create a category bar at the bottom of pages, such as on gw1 pages? that way, it would be very aesthetically pleasing from all angles. information there for those who want it to be, and easily accessible kyoshi. Also would be very useful for other purposes besides ending very serious arguements about trivia =p, such as allowing people to see creature categories quickly and easily. an example, scroll down Sachem 17:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Sachem that the concept of a category for this is what is being discussed... Aqua (T|C) 20:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I have no idea what an ordinary category bar itself has to do with documenting trivia. - Infinite - talk 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a method for making the gw1 thing easily visible without being ugly, as opposed to the massive page listing kyoshi is worried about. Sachem 21:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

So instead of the bar, you propose a category, as per mentioned above. Something like [[Category:Skills that share namesake with Guild Wars 1 skills]]. With one-liner on the category itself: "This category lists all skills in Guild Wars 2 that have a skill in Guild Wars 1 of the same name." The category itself is rather long, don't you think? - Infinite - talk 21:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not read this entire conversation yet, but I dislike the addition of another category. I would like to see the use of categories on GW2W to be sparse. This is in opposition to GW1W, where the addition of categories was apparently too liberal. Venom20

23:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

As opposed to redundant/pointless trivia? I, myself, have had to call for the removal of at least a couple redundant notes on GW1W, and I admit my contributions to anything but feedback and talk pages on either wiki have been sparse (at best). If you're going to talk about the popularity of categories, you'll have to admit that notes and trivia are just as bad. Getting rid of only one for the same reason that fits another is wrong. Wow, that reminds me of another conversation... Teddy Dan, yo. 23:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As many to all contributors in this discussion voiced at least weak support towards a category, coming up with a solid and short name for such a category would be ideal. For instance; [[Category:Skills that share namesake with Guild Wars 1 skills]] as I stated above may be accurate, but it is much too long to go with. - Infinite - talk 00:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

i havent been watching this conversation but what about [[Category:GW1 skill name]]-

Zesbeer 00:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

cough*cough Venom20

04:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly what needs to be avoided at all costs. Teddy Dan, yo. 05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"It's not a trivia page, it's just a page which records the instances of skill names being found in both games." Fine, but it doesn't change much. I don't like the idea of a 300+ item long list of trivia, and I like even worse the "fuck it, throw it all out" style idea suggested below. --ஸ Kyoshi

04:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you dislike the idea below? I hope it's not for the same "eyesore" argument you opposed, which is what it sounds like to me. Teddy Dan, yo. 06:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The concept below is to create a seperate section on every page applicable, specifically dedicated to listing things such as the namesake of skills, history and other things that we find that inspired the existence of a subject in GW2. It is indeed weird that you (as defender of the trivia bullet) dislike the concept. - Infinite - talk 11:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood, because I was of the impression that you meant to throw any Guild Wars trivia notes out altogether. Probably shouldn't have been editing so late if I didn't catch that. I honestly don't see what difference an entire new section would make to mitigate the irritation you guys felt toward it being in trivia, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't mind it. I'll discuss it below though.

To be clear, Teddy, I never said that the eyesore argument is invalid. I don't oppose the argument so much as I don't get the same irritation from the trivia section notes, but would have from the large central page (or more importantly, would have found it unreasonable to completely remove any piece of trivia on the grounds that certain people found subjectively unimportant or irritating). --ஸ Kyoshi

18:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just don't like when people advocate one thing for the same reason they oppose another. It just bugs me. I have nothing to argue with, this time, so I'll let it go. Teddy Dan, yo. 02:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Guild Wars 1 influences

So discussions such as this one and the one above made me question if we should note Guild Wars 1 influences as just another bullet of trivia. In fact, due to Guild Wars 2 being influenced by Guild Wars 1 in vast majority; it makes sense to treat it as neither note nor trivia. A special Guild Wars 1 influences section. It should state history of a particular skill, mechanic, NPC, etc, that can be found in the original Guild Wars game. For instance, it is a good place to put where Mending originated from as now being a warrior skill. Or that Logan is a descendant of Gwen and Keiran. Or that blackout was reworked by the guild wars 1 skill of the same name. All it would need is a concise name. Thoughts? - Infinite - talk 09:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Teddy Dan, yo. 10:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My only suggestion would be to add a note in the Guild Wars article, accompanied with a link to something like Guild_wars/influences. --Xu Davella 12:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

→ moved from User talk:Kyoshi

I don't particularly see a problem with it, but take for example the trait None Shall Pass. If I understand right, you would be splitting this single trivia section with two notes into, essentially, two trivia sections with a single note in each (or a section which contains both notes and has a different name?). I don't quite understand how this serves your purposes, though I don't particularly dislike the idea so far. A little more elaboration would be nice. --ஸ Kyoshi

18:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that it's more than a consice bullet of trivia. None Shall Pass would have a GW1 influences section pointing out that it was originally a warrior skill (we can link on the word skill) which knocked down moving foes and has now been reworked into a trait that knocks back foes as you cast the ward, which is similar in effect. The trivia on None Shall Pass remains the Monthy Python reference, which is stand-alone from either game and should therefore be mentioned on both wikis. The coolest thing would be if we can find out why the gw1 skill has been reworked into a guardian trait and then state why this decision was made in this new section as well. Sort of like how lore fans want to read everything that doesn't visually happen in game, I can see people wanting to know why a skill has been reworked into something else. - Infinite - talk 19:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it's just more elaboration than the single "annoying" repetition. I see what you're thinking then, and I do like it. --ஸ Kyoshi

22:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Builds

Umm i have no clue what you are talking about but i would put in a place to post builds even though there is PvX wikia. Its fine having PvX but for this wiki you should put a build posting place if you even need to in GW2 ~ Foreign ~

Two things. 1: You missed one colon. It was probably an accident.

2: You're offering a new suggestion that the above aren't discussing. It would be best to create a new section like so (== Builds ==) and propose your suggestion for a builds page there, since I'm currently unaware of any feedback page on this wiki. However, it is probably too early to create such a page since not all of the skills have been released. We don't want continual edit-spamming every time a new skill is revealed.

But... perhaps simply setting up the new page now and protecting it until all of the skills are revealed (and possibly tested?) would be a good idea. I would move this to a new section, myself, but being bold in the past has earned me nothing but contempt. So, I'll leave it for someone else. Teddy Dan, yo. 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Made a new section for this. As a side note, builds in Guild Wars 2 are less focussed on the 5 players choice skills and much more focussed on the traits, equipment and advanced useage. If there would ever be a builds namespace on this wiki, it would have to be extremely advanced in terms of documenting skills affected by traits. But I doubt there will be much animo for such a namespace, so making your own builds page within your user space is the way to go. - Infinite - talk 01:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

At least until someone devotes countless hours, days, even weeks to chronicling the currently ever-growing tree of possibilities. Teddy Dan, yo. 01:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the PvX community plans to create a PvX2Wiki.

01:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If builds are varied enough to be worth documenting, PvX2 will be created. We don't have enough information to give a definite yes or no at this time. -Auron 10:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it best to leave the builds for PvX2wikia to deal with. I know that GWW had trouble with this and it is a good thing for us to avoid. --Xu Davella 11:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

At most we should have a meta article that describes what that is and what builds are common there (it would need updating whenever metashifts occur). - Infinite - talk 11:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

i think it would be good for anet to host a pvx2 wiki, not saying have a space here just saying that they use there servers. but i also hope that anet has a much more detailed and integrated stats system for gw2 where you can upload your builds, ui ect effortlessly and built into the game. that space i hope would also give u info on kills, deaths, skill usage, damage taken,damage healed, ect. something i wish gw1 had.-

Zesbeer 12:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

3rd edit: i also think that there will be something like this thinking back to the ipad ap that they reviled a wile ago.-

Zesbeer 22:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a far stretch, I suppose. --ஸ Kyoshi

23:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If there isn't an IPad app, I'm sure someone (perhaps me) could program one. Aqua (T|C) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

there is one-

Zesbeer 05:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That one focusses on social interaction, not quite mechanical interaction such as builds. But maybe combat logs can be viewed on the app, so that would be partly mechanics. - Infinite - talk 13:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was saying wouldn't be a far stretch. --ஸ Kyoshi

20:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

im sure that seeing that they are putting in the effort in its like why wouldn't they have status and other gw2 related info on that app. -

Zesbeer 23:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bah, everyone stop talking about Wikia. It's www.gwpvx.com - and the one for Guild Wars 2 (should there be one) will likely have a similar URL.

A F K When Needed 08:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Only two people even mentioned Wikia. --ஸ Kyoshi

18:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It'll probably be http://www.gw2pvx.com/ but I doubt it will be as useful as the gw1 one. - Infinite - talk 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping it won't be used as much, I kind of dislike PVX because back in the old days every1 used their own builds and that was way more fun ^^ IMHO now it's.. I need a build! QUICK PVX! :( --

The Holy Dragons 19:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Kind of off-topic but PvX is really bad and there are builds better protected and much more efficient out there. <3 - Infinite - talk 20:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

100% true and making your own builds still is 100 times more fun but... back to the topic k? --

The Holy Dragons 20:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a topic in this mess? It's about as hidden as the plot in Yu-Gi-Oh! (see what I did there?)

I value PvX for storing builds for heroes, etc. Not everybody enjoys making builds for every hero - with PvX, you don't have to.

I also value PvX for standardizing what's used in FoW / UW / DoA, etc. If you're not in a Guild that finds such stuff fun, you have a better chance of getting some action when everyone does the same shit. Also, said action is more likely to result in phat lewtz. PvX (definitely) doesn't always have the best build. But they have a build, which you can use to quickly grab a PuG and go do something. I see that as bringing the playerbase together; I like it a lot.

I also value PvX for stalking Auron. We should all stare at him and see what he does, imo.

A F K When Needed 15:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Locations category tree

Upon looking through information on Queensdale, Blazeridge Steppes and other locations via the demos and interviews, it appears to me that the persistence world of GW2 will be divided into large zones - overall, 6 cities and 25 other zones giving a total of 31 zones (this does not count instanced areas - be they dungeons, personal story "missions" (for lack of a better word), or other instanced zones). Within these large zones are variously sized "landmarks" (also used for lack of a better term). For instance, Queensdale has 25 known "landmarks" (only 6 having made articles), and Divinity's Reach has 22 (only 8 being listed on the article - others I see via this image). As such, I propose the following category tree set-up for Category:Locations:

Category:Locations (for the time being houses Location, Tyria (world), Tyria, Cantha, and Elona, along with any unexplorable locations such as the Crystal Desert and Ring of Fire places)
- Category:Ghosts of Ascalon locations (leave as is)
- Category:Edge of Destiny locations (leave as is)
- Category:Kryta locations
  - Category:Queensdale
  - Category:Divinity's Reach
  - Category:Lion's Arch
  - Category:Gendarran Fields
- Category:Ascalon locations
  - Category:Black Citadel
  - Category:Blazeridge Steppes
- Category:Shiverpeak Mountains locations
  - Category:Hoelbrak
  - Category:Wayfayer Foothills
- Category:Maguuma Jungle locations
  - Category:Rata Sum
  - Category:The Groove
- Category:Orr locations (sub-categories for this would be made at a later date due to lack of zone knowledge)
- Category:The Mists locations (sub-categories for this would be made at a later date due to lack of zone knowledge)

Further zones we find would be placed into their appropriate region category. If we get smaller locations in the future (if possible), we could just add those to the zone categories. When we get a new game going into new continents, we can create continent-based categories. And of course a category for the third book will be made when/if necessary. -- Konig/talk 05:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. - It really doesn't get any more efficient and compact than this. - Infinite - talk 11:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - It is compact, clear and efficient. Aqua (T|C) 12:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't see anything that needs changing. Looks good. --Xu Davella 12:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'd also like to add onto something (mainly clarification): This suggestion calls for the removal of "Category:Settlements" (and the sub-categories) as that category appears to have assumed a similar structure being used as GW1 (small outposts being their own zone), and by extension the removal/total overhaul of {{Cities nav}} as that too is out of date and to continue it will make it extremely large and, worse, unclear as to the prerequisites of what makes it a "settlement" and not just like any other named location (and why cities are part of it). In regards to Category:Dungeons - I am unsure and vote to leave alone for the time being, but I feel that it may be best to put into the "zones" categories as we get their location.

Whether the settlement/dungeon part is agreed upon or not, I will enact the first suggestion later today if no disagreements (I hate stalling changes). -- Konig/talk 12:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you would have included Settlements in the proposal if you intended to keep it, so this should not affect current the support. As for the overhaul, I agree as well. The Dungeon category can remain next to (or within) the proposal above as means to categorize the 8 dungeons at release. - Infinite - talk 12:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"I was under the impression that you would have included Settlements in the proposal if you intended to keep it" "I'd also like to add onto something (mainly clarification)". :) -- Konig/talk 12:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Category:The Groove" I support this typo.

I think putting the word "locations" in each subcategory of the category "Locations" is a bit redundant. But it's a minor issue really, and everything else looks fine. --ஸ Kyoshi

19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Template's turn

To finish up the re-ordering of locations, I'd like to bring up three ideas I had that would replace {{Cities nav}}. They can be found at [[User:Konig Des Todes/Sandbox#Template ideas]]. These would be put on the zone articles (e.g., on Queensdale). Personally, I'm prone to the second idea; first feels to long, third feels too short. So what's all of your thoughts? Go with one of the three or none for now? -- Konig/talk 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with option 3 for each individual zone of a region, and then use either option 1 or 2 for the region articles like Kryta. But I'm no more helpful. --08:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the second one, and the reason why is as exactly as @Konig's. Glastium | talk 10:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Also support the second. Seperate cities makes most sense due to them being directly linked by asuran gates, whereas explorables are not. One can waltz into, for instance, Rata Sum from Divinity's Reach and have absolutely *no* idea where they are. that same person could look it up on wiki and then might be most likely wanting to see where else he/she can travel to. I'm calling GW2W:BALL on this one (even though we don't have it), though. - Infinite - talk 11:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If the books are to be taken seriously, Infinite, Divinity's Reach also goes to Ebonhawke which can't be a city as we were told there's only 6 cities - one for the five main races and then LA. So there's at least one case of a city->Explorable via asura gate. Just nitpicking though. -- Konig/talk 11:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah... But I wonder if Ebonhawke is one of those outpost-like warded areas or perhaps just a home instance... I raised your nitpicking with a speculation! Oh. Right, either way; still think the second proposal is most efficient. :) - Infinite - talk 12:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the second one as well, but there's one tiny little thing that bothers me: when you are on the Divinity's Reach page there is no way to get to Queensdale or any other Krytan map through the navbox (although Queensdale might be linked to in the infobox). The first version is slightly confusing as to what is a city and what isn't but I don't know how to seperate them better. The only thing I can come up with is something like

Explorable zones
Ascalon	Black Citadel	Blazeridge Steppes • Plains of Ashford • Regrown Flame • (Unknown name) • (Unknown name)
Kryta	Divinity's Reach Lion's Arch	Gendarran Fields • Queensdale • Valley Headland‏‎ • (Unknown name) • (Unknown name)
Maguuma Jungle	Rata Sum The Grove	(Unknown name) • (Unknown name) • (Unknown name) • (Unknown name)
Orr		(Unknown name) • (Unknown name) • (Unknown name)
Shiverpeak Mountains	Hoelbrak	Wayfarer Hills • (Unknown name) • (Unknown name) • (Unknown name) • (Unknown name)
Steamspur Mountains		Timberline Falls • (Unknown name) • (Unknown name)

but again, it is still a bit too large unless hidden by default. We will also eventually need a dungeon navbox, which must be a separate one, so a city-only navbox makes a little bit more sense.

12:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And nox hit my main issue with the second one too. @"The first version is slightly confusing as to what is a city" Based on the videos and maps and whatnot that I've seen, the only difference between a city and explorables is that cities don't have (apparent) hostiles and instead of dynamic events and the like, it has activities. In other words, the only difference is what's within the place. If a city must be designated from the others, a simple (city) can be slapped right after the name. And yes, a dungeon nav may be needed (more like wanted).

@Infinite: It'd be a silly thing to not have it as part of an explorable, if not a city itself, as that can lead it to be subject to dynamic events. So I do hope that it's part of some explorable. Consensus appears to be in favor of option two (I was thinking it'd end up being option three tbh), but I won't enact it yet. -- Konig/talk 12:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

i like noxx's idea though i think that the nave boxes would be fine if they started with auto hide...-

Zesbeer 22:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not against auto-hiding, but the emptiness of two of the city boxes just looks odd - and that also forces Kryta and the Maguuma Jungle to be doubled up no matter what. And what if there's more regions than we know about currently (there's the Far Shiverpeaks, Depths of Tyria, and Charr Homelands that are possibly visited)? Then there's going to be more empty shaded boxes which will make it look worse. Then again, this will likely be altered again in the future when we know even more. -- Konig/talk 01:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"the emptiness of two of the city boxes just looks odd" If chosen, there could as well be some kind of a filler text like

(no city)

.

10:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Due to the support for option 2, and the lack of comments on Nox's proposal, I'll implement option 2 - if it's decided at a later date to go with Nox or something else, it can be changed. -- Konig/talk 11:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lore-articles from blogs

The Wisdom and Power of the Kodan was put verbatim onto the wiki, I'm curious if people think the other lore blog articles should also be copied. To be specific, as it stands, I'm referring to:

All are written in the same style as the Kodan article - the other minor races ones just also get a "behind the scenes" added onto it, which breaks the immersion and has been the reason why I haven't put those onto the wiki yet. -- Konig/talk 10:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that it's good to copy those, too. At least to expand the lore on wiki a bit. Also just in case that the blog is pruned (probably not, but at least we'd have those entries available still). - Infinite - talk 11:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If its for lore, do we cut out the behind the scenes stuff? --Xu Davella 12:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Also just in case that the blog is pruned" This has been the reason behind my thoughts as well. Some GW language sites/pages have been removed - one such case being the entire Taiwanese site and with it some lore on Abaddon (that he was the one that gave magic too freely and was capable of defeating 2 gods on his own), which has caused constant issue with the authenticity of said lore. I'd personally would want to copy every blog post of significance, but that'd be a lot of work as I'd like more says. -- Konig/talk 12:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

GW2 Fanday

As some (most?) of you know by now, this week ArenaNet has invited a number of members of the Guild Wars/Guild Wars 2 community to visit the new Anet HQ. Poke and I will both be there representing the official wikis. There's a certain amount of rumor that there'll be some playing GW2 involved at some point, so my question to the GW2W community is this: What information is the wiki desperately missing? Please, nothing about confirming the last profession or such, I mean stuff that will be findable in the demo at this point. Stuff like what are the norn starting pets, what does the engineer symbol look like (assuming engineers are playable), what downed skills do necromancers have, etc. If you had your hands on the demo, what's the burning question you've been wondering forever and none of the youtube videos show? After all, we're going for you guys, not just for ourselves.

Although I'm personally pretty damn psyched. - Tanetris 12:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is unlikely that we will get any new information, then the first contender would be what changes have occurred with the recently revealed professions, specifically the elementalist, ranger and necromancer...and more info on ranger traits. See if there's any updated screen shots on as much UI as possible. It is likely that the dyes have expanded, so check that out if you can. Oh, and more info on the chat screen - see if they're still using channels or not. Just do your best to avoid those questions where we know that the answer is "we're not ready to talk about that yet." Otherwise - have fun! ;) --Xu Davella 13:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the engineer will be playable, so get stuff about the engineer. Skills, icons, traits, etc. pling

15:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Official race icons, if they exist. Also, have fun! I'm jealous! Last thing: if possible, try and find out the missing weapon skills for the revealed professions.-- Shew 15:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say to ask whether Jormag/Dragonspawn came out of Drakkar Lake, whether there are PvP arenas (now or in the works) that feature underwater combat, and if there's a special name for skills you can activate mid-shot or that toggle when you use them, like Cluster Bomb or Animate Bone Minions. They're less responsive on Twitter than they were before I started asking questions to them on it, even simple stuff. --ஸ Kyoshi

17:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you ask what part, if any, guilds play in Guild Wars 2?

18:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I would request, should you remember, that you ask "does losing access to Necromancer minion skills, mean the destruction of minions raised by them?" -- The obvious and most relevant example is, when I raise a bunch of friends then enter the Death Shroud. I'd be pretty unhappy if my minions saw that as reason to die instantly.

A F K When Needed 18:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a limit on how many questions one can contribute for consideration? If not (Necro question is of higher importance to me) "are enemies in PvE likely to have enough interruption (and similar counters) to realistically leave a group of players with insufficient survival?" or "are abilities equipped in the healing slot flagged to be ignored by enemies in PvE?".

Reason being that with people having just the one healing skill, losing access to one healing skill is a far more significant development for the team. While I expect professions like the Guardian could help temporarily, I am unsure of how viable this basic concept of the game is.

A F K When Needed 18:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, starting to feel like that relative nobody likes who always outstays their welcome... one last question (obviously I don't expect all of them to be asked). "Are the majority of PvE instances balanced around only one healing ability per player, or is it expected that many will bring additional healing skills such as Mark of Blood, Leap of Faith, etc.?".

My last one. I promise.

A F K When Needed 18:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

“Is there a limit on how many questions one can contribute for consideration” – Just ask whatever you would like to have answered (it should be reasonable of course). I'll constantly take a look at this page and look out for questions. Please just understand that at least I (don't know about Tanetris :P) won't pester the devs with the questions all the time, but rather mention them when the time is right ;) poke | talk 18:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope you can get some information abou the reworked elementalist, if it is already integrated. And the still missing weapon restricted skills =) -- Cyan

19:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking generally things that I (and Poke) can find out through playing the demo rather than pestering devs. So things like missing weapon skills for revealed professions and whether minions die when you enter Death Shroud (I'll say pretty unlikely, since I'm pretty sure I remember seeing a necro with minions in Death Shroud in one of the demo videos floating around, but I'll check) and suchlike I can look at/test directly are the sort of thing I'm looking for, but if there's a good chance for asking questions, I'll see what I can do there too. But yeah, feel free to ask as much as you like, but no guarantees everything gets answered. Also in general I'd personally like to focus on making our knowledge of existing stuff more complete over pushing for sneak-peeks at stuff they're certain to release eventually anyway, but that's me. We'll do our best! - Tanetris 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Any information on traits and skills would be greatly appreciated. Aqua (T|C) 19:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to learn anything about damage types, including whether some classes will have strengths or weakness to them (remember, necros have piercing armor insignia, and paras and dervs were originally going to have two elemental armor insignia each), and how monster strengths and weaknesses are going to be handled. Manifold

20:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is something that I've been looking at for a long time: could you find out what the initial amounts (read: y intercept) of the derived statistics are or at least get some values (without any items that screw it up) so I can run a regression and generate the equations that calculate the derived statistics from attributes. Aqua (T|C) 20:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Simple enough task, can you go die as a necro and remark on the downed skill selection? Venom20

21:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

USBKey + Screenshots == win. :)

Otherwise the icon on the profession choice screen for the engineer. Any information which allows us to tighten up the ranger pet type listing is also welcome (ie: dog + wolf == canine? raven + moa == avian?). What is on the list is mixed and kind of misleading and it is the most often misquoted bit of information from this wiki I've seen on forums.

If you get into an asking mode, I'm also interested whether they're willing to talk about where the wiki fits in their grand plan? Whether it links in, what information and resources they might be able to provide us with, whether they're going to continue to use the wiki for feedback, whether they're going to try to support other languages. I'm 100% certain they won't have an answer but I can hope. :) -- aspectacle

23:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) my wishlist of questions: any info on pvp, the amount of character slots at launch? will we be able to swap professions? thats all i can think of off the top of my head...-

Zesbeer 23:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What are all of the new Elementalist and Necromancer skills, or at least what are the new skills like, since the change... (cos I doubt they'd allow them to show up with old skills that we were told are gone) Also, what are the new ways the elementalist has been changed to synergize skills with other professions? And how do Weakness and Vulnerability work (and stack). Those all are just killing me. ~~

Kio madoushi 23:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

@Manifold: I think I remember an interview where they said damage type vulnerabilities didn't add any depth to the gameplay so they were disregarded. I'll try to find a link. --ஸ Kyoshi

02:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And for my final last question (sorry :P)... any chance of grabbing screenies of the new Sylvari?

A F K When Needed 12:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask for that too, AFK, but I'm sure it won't have asura or sylvari featured AT ALL unless the corresponding reveal week comes... I can't imagine them giving the sylvari revision away without sylvari week first... ~~

Kio madoushi 18:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

can you ask about what kind of obs modes there will be in gw2-

Zesbeer 21:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have one question and one request - question: are regions of any restriction to the maps (e.g., in GW1 all zones had a shared region, and default settings for things like affiliations were based on the region; is this the same for GW2?). For the request - please observe the various levels of names, I'm wanting to try to set up general formats for various kinds of articles, and location and event articles are the most lacking in enough knowledge to do so. Konig/talk 00:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Skills: War Hammer, Ele Earth, Ranger Greatsword, Guardian Greatsword/Hammer. !!!New ele mechanics!!! Everything about the engi. UI. guild/alliance mechanics. !!!Character costumization!!! Anything about Sylvari/Asura...screenshots, bio questions etc. Sorry if these things have already been listed. --Moto Saxon 20:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, In a lot of the screen shots and video's ive seen, a lot of ppl seem to be running around with less than 6 pieces of armor on. Does one piece cover you globally? Are the exposed areas taking more damage? I just can't figure out why these people trying out the game don't have full armor, is it not needed, or maybe you just don't start with it? Can you "hide" your headgear as in gw1? And about crafting armor...are there crafting specific armor skins or can I craft high end elite dungeon armor with out having to go to the dungeon? What crafting discipline does the shield fall under, if any? --Moto Saxon 21:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not gonna catch up enough tonight to see how much is already answered by others, but some quickies:

Couldn't get a greatsword for ranger or hammer/greatsword for guardian (I assume because those skills aren't fully ready yet) and earth attunement was locked out, so no chance to grab those skills.
Also couldn't check for pet skills, as the pets started at level 1 regardless of char level and I wasn't gonna xp farm em up enough to level em enough to unlock pet skills.
Minions do stick around in while you're in Death Shroud.
Never did get a chance to ask about necessity of additional healing. Nor about secret projects.
One question I did get to ask, to the art team, was if character customization would have any effects on norn animal forms. Answer: No. Bear Form looks like Bear Form, etc.
Power and Toughness increase Attack and Defense (respectively) 1:1. Vitality increases health 1:10 (i.e. 1 point of vitality adds 10 points of health). Precision to Critical percentage is... Confusing. At level 35, increasing precision from 632 to 666 reliably increased crit at 12:2, alternating between 5 points and 7 points, but besides the fact that a simple 6:1 would make more sense, if those were steadly the numbers, one should have 100% by 600 points in precision. So I don't know.
- All tests were performed naked and weaponless and, aside from precision (which only the level 35 char had that many points at once to test), showed consistent results at level 1 and level 29 across multiple professions.
No usb port on the demo machines. I did photograph the screen (among other photos). I'll sort all that out at home.
I assume you guys have seen the engineer icon? If not I can dig that out first.
No chance to ask about char slots (and I'd assume that would be a decision they make later). I didn't ask specifically about changing professions, but I'm 99.9999999% sure Anet has already said you can't.
Best I can offer is a photo of a random NPC sylvari who still looks like the old design.
Still no char customization in the demo
Correct that you don't start with all armor pieces, if you're playing in a level 1 starter area. Each armor piece contributes to your overall defense rather than just provide defense for the part it covers.
Transmutation stones are available from boon-sellers (I don't remember if that's the right name, but close enough). These NPCs, if you talk to them normally, offer to sell you a boon for karma. If you use an appropriate charm/dignity/ferocity dialogue option, they will offer the boons for cash and offer a transmutation stone for karma (note: I am generalizing based on the 2 boon-selers I met). Tin, which works on items of levels up to 20, was 300 karma, and Iron, which works on items up to 30, is 600 karma.
- Pure speculation: Assuming this stands and also assuming that selling stones as a microtransaction stands, I would assume there would be no level limit on microtransactions transmutation stones.

In deference to Stephane, I will disclaim that all statements refer to the demo we played (except for the part marked as pure speculation, which is pure speculation, and as such does not necessarily refer to anything that ever has been or ever will be), and as GW2 is a constant, iterative work in progress, some or all of these statements may change by release time.

As far as things like skills and traits, mostly I just photographed those or wrote them in my notepad (the paper kind). Again, will sort out at home. More personal thoughts will likely appear in my userspace when I have time to sort those out as well. - Tanetris 08:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Also one thing (for now): UI customization, as in GW1, is definitely being considered, but not being actively worked on right now because of the state of the game. poke | talk 08:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work Tanetris. I've just updated the power, toughness and vitality pages with their effects, looking forward to your info on traits and skills. Thering 09:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Skill lists

There is some lack of consistency between skill lists, as Noxx went and edited some to a format different that what we've been using(as seen on Bleed). The argument for them was that that was how we were formatting the race lists. (I was under the impression that the race lists were formatted that way because we didn't have race tangos yet...) The format previous to that can be viewed on (Condition). Which do we want to use? Aqua (T|C) 16:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say use what's on Bleeding atm, as there's little need to repeat the tango icon so many times. Looks cleaner to me. Konig/talk 17:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Konig. The format used on the Bleeding article looks best. My opinion, for what it is worth. --Quiesce 17:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The condition list seems inspired by GWW, but inexperienced wiki users may be unaware to expand the hidden lists. Overall the lists on Bleeding are much cleaner and more obvious as well. - Infinite - talk 13:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Source: namespace

For things like The Movement of the World and A Spirit of Legend, and maybe developer updates and stuff too. Thoughts? --Santax (talk · contribs) 03:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What purpose might it serve, other than adding an additional seven characters for me to type when I want to reference The Movement of the World? --Riddle 04:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, Lore: is only 5 extra... xD But we don't need the namespace addition - lore, etc., fits in mainspace content ~~

Kio madoushi 05:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't see a need for a new namespace, truth be told. None the less, should a namespace be created, I would love to see copies of all blog and official website articles/pages in it. Konig/talk 06:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the current template at the start of all official blog entries and such is enough (albeit perhaps in the future (when the game is plenty released) we could introduce a namespace for all developer entries prior to release). - Infinite - talk 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What Infi said would work but that is later down the road. - Aios

16:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming features

GW1W has an gw1:Upcoming changes and features page for content said to be released in the future. Would it be useful to start such a page here for content planned to be released after the game launches, which would eventually turn into a "upcoming features" page, or should we wait for release to start it? Specifically, guild halls, player housing, the Dominion of Winds, more about the fate of the Bloodstones, etc are planned to come out sometime after launch, but this information is scattered all over the wiki at the moment. Manifold 15:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how the game is yet to be released, I suppose everything is "up and coming". I feel such a feature should not be implemented until much after release. Venom20

16:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think such a page is best delayed until the original release transpired. - Infinite - talk 16:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As above, no hurry. --ஸ Kyoshi

19:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"everything is "up and coming"" - we can't list everything on this wiki on one page. :p Konig/talk 19:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I was saying things that are firmly planned for post-release, not "everything". Manifold

19:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think a page like this might be useful even now. We do know that the 8th profession reveal and closed beta are up and coming this year. --Moto Saxon 19:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Posting this type of info in one place may be more proactive against people always asking and getting frustrated during dry info times. --Moto Saxon 20:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If anyone asks questions about when the next piece of information is going to come out, then the only thing we would accurately post on the upcoming features is "we don't know". --Xu Davella 06:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Page Topic

Sorry, don't know where to put this. It seems to me that the individual pages in the Wiki should clearly indicate the general topic of the article. Instead of "Elementalist" it could be "Elementalist (profession)". Other topics perhaps "Quest", "Repeatable Quest", "NPC", "Mission", "Outpost", "Event" etc. llandale 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That naming convention is only used for disambiguation... i.e. when there are two NPCs of the same name, or two skills of the same name. In this case, we use the subtitle to distinguish between two things. It's not really necessary for things like professions or races, because there is only one profession named Elementalist. In addition, the topic of an article should be pretty obvious within the first paragraph or so. Aqua (T|C) 03:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Guilds

→ moved from Talk:Guild

I was never really around the GW1 Wiki, so did the guild article format ("Guild:<guild name>") work well? If so, should we expect / go ahead and implement that same format here?-- Shew 22:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a guild namespace? -- Xu Davella 16:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, no. 50.88.142.72 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we create one?--

Necro Shea Mo 04:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say we could use Guild:<guild name> again. it worked perfectly fine at the GWW. --

The Holy Dragons 05:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't we need actual sysop intervention to create a new namespace? -

05:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why.. but let's wait for a sysop then. --

The Holy Dragons 05:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

You need IT/ArenaNet access to the wiki configuration to add in a new namespace. Similar access as required to change the site icon, for example.

As to guild pages here it was agreed early on not to support them or even bother discussing them until the game is released. There is no game, therefore there can be no guilds in game and so there is no need for the space until then. -- aspectacle

05:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew we'd talked about this before... That was over a year ago wasn't it? -

06:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Much older than a year ... ancient history. Try Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Article_retention_2007-12-24 and the (short) discussion on that page. It might have also been discussed elsewhere. -- aspectacle

07:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that we wait until we get a good amount on information as to how guilds work. The last thing we need is people porting over their guild info and then having a massive tweak to its structure every time we find out something new. --Xu Davella 10:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's wait till we have more info. But please, let's not wait till it comes out. Maybe once we have a release date. --Moto Saxon 13:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We may not know a lot about GW2 guilds, but we know the most important parts; they will exist, and you can be in more than one guild at once. Stuff like max members, guild halls etc are not essential to know at this point. A LOT of GW1 guilds are planning to move over to GW2, and a LOT of guilds are already recruiting for GW2. We already have several guild userboxes at the wiki as well as guild pages located at people's user pages, so IMO now is the time to give them a framework to work with, before it becomes a total mess that we have to clean up later. That said, it could be a rudimentary one. Like, only allowing userboxes and a short template for region, background, and contact.--Lensor (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Please can we create this now? Lensor is right. We'll have a huge mess on our hands if this doesn't happen soon.--

Necro Shea Mo 00:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we will have a mess and it will be really annoying! --Angelkiss

01:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. No matter how guilds will be implemented in GW2, there still will be guilds. So there's still need for Guild Namespace.

Glastium | talk 02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno about everyone else, but I'm seeing some consences for creating the namespace. (Only <Insert diety>, the Sysops, and the Buerocrats (However you spell that. <<) Know how much trouble that'll save me.)--

Necro Shea Mo 03:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

We also do not know whether guilds are documented in the game itself yet. I say we wait still, at least until either; a. The information about guilds has been covered in-depth by ArenaNet in a blog post(s). Or b. The amount of guild pages on this wiki becomes near-unmanageable (which I do not foresee happening anytime soon). If guilds are listed in-game, what would we gain from half-arsed, community-based copying of any such lists? For now there is (still) no need for a Guild namespace. - Infinite - talk 08:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if the game documents guilds, there is just no way that it will be able to offer the depth of user-generated information possible here. Stats and such, sure, I imagine an in-game feature will be superior for that since it can take the info directly from the game. But individualized layouts, banners, forums, links, images, guild rules, recruitment policies, history etc? I do not see it. I therefore think that a guild namespace still has its place on the wiki no matter what. Of course, if ANet offers in-game tracking of guilds, that will be enough for the vast majority of guilds. Leaving the "big and famous" or plain "ambitious" guilds to make pages at the wiki. Which would, imo, actually be a good thing. Also there is the whole deal with userboxes and categories which would work so much better if there was a proper framework for them. Finally, even if we do not create the guild namespace right now, it is not far off. So it is anyway high time to start preparing with policy discussions etc.--Lensor (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the namespace at this time, but if anyone is keen on building the framework around guilds, I think that starting a project would be a good move. --Xu Davella 13:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Problem with that is that the GW2W has no policy protocol, but instead it has P&P. Since there is not even any consistent documentation on "unofficial" guild pages on this wiki, we can't start discussing grander scale until we have discussed smaller scale.

What must be included to qualify as a proper guild article? What formatting will the guild category have? What template will be used? Are templates mandatory or optional? Must we cripple the wiki with maintaining player-provided information and check activity like on GWW? Is this viable for a game that will inevitably be a lot more popular than the original GW? The questions go on for hours.

If guilds are recorded and displayed in-game, I am actually more inclined to say we should keep ambitious guild pages in the leader's user space and under their personal supervision, instead of on any guild space. If by any chance leadership changes, there is always the move option. I very much doubt ambitious leaders would even have to worry about changing leadership in the first place, but I digress.

Either way, the big question is not how; it is "why?" Why "document" guilds on the wiki (information that is only a guild's accessory and other than the basic mechanics that come with it, unrelated to the actual game)? Why burden the wiki's contributors with official "documentation" of others' guilds, fixing their mistakes and adjusting to follow P&P? Guilds can promote themselves on forums, in-game, via other fansites. But until specific information amongst guilds is even worth registering on GW2W, I don't believe we should introduce a guild space and inconvenience ourselves with such, regardless of how much effort leaders may put into their guilds.

If there are any important guilds that are persistent in their status within the game can be documented in main space (so not even guild space), as a form of official recognition (if they really deserve it, for instance, the Zealots of Shiverpeaks in the original Guild Wars). But the existing guilds that have no such status? Do we really need to document those? I think they can keep that creativity within their user space, in my very blunt and honest opinion. - Infinite - talk 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with that, guilds are player organized and more of a personal thing than an official thing, therefore i think they do belong on the individuals user page. Jnew

15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Those questions are exactly what we need to discuss, but in an organized manner. I strongly disagree that guilds are just a personal thing though. There is a very large category of guilds that are not "ZoS-famous" yet they are well known in the community and there is a definite public interest to have them recorded. I dont know, maybe it is a difference in perspective. You guys see guild pages as something for the guilds themselves, whereas I see guild pages as something for the community. I just believe that people, seeing a tag in game, should be able to check out the guild without having to whisper them for a link. *shrug* --Lensor (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Infinite. Notable guilds (for whatever criteria we come to later for what counts as notable, not necessarily ZoS-famous) can be documented in the mainspace, while other guilds are fine left under the purview of userspace. If the latter set of pages fall into disarray or become outdated, I don't see where that's anyone's responsibility but the guild members. As a courtesy, it might be nice if someone set up some sort of basic framework for such userspace guild pages (an infobox, a recommended formatting guide, categories), but making it clear that these are only recommendations: anyone who wants to set up a guild page in their userspace is free to do so however they want, as long as they don't break any general rules (e.g. NPA, copyvio, etc). It's ultimately on whoever's userspace it's in.

Mainspace pages for notable guilds, by contrast, would belong to the community at large rather than the guild in particular (the same guilds would be welcome to have their own userspace guild pages too, if they wanted). We document as we see fit to benefit wiki readers, informative and neutral. I don't really expect any of these pages to pop up until release for the simple reason that they need to at least exist in-game first. A list of significant guilds per world (assuming guilds are generally correlated to worlds) could also be included on articles for each world, and/or a "List of notable guilds by world" page (with a cross-world or world-independent or whatever section).

I really don't want to see the pseudo-user/pseudo-main hybrid guildspace that GW1W has, where the entire community is left holding the bag for hundreds if not thousands of people's personal 2- to 10-person pet guilds that they make one half-hearted attempt to make the page and then leave it to rot, except to come back a year later (if ever) and complain that it was deleted. - Tanetris 16:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) In my opinion, Guild Namespace can be fully user-maintained, which means the user who created that page can add, modify, and delete and content as they want, and these pages are not counted as authorized, just as the User Namespace. The reason why I prefer a Guild Namespace out of the User Namespace is that a guild is more often managed by several ppl, rather than a single user. It's just not suitable to manage a guild info within someone's own page, just like using your own twitter account as your company's. Glastium | talk 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that GW1W guild system is not really ideal... But that does not mean per definition that a guild namespace in GW2W is a bad idea, it all depends on the setup. Or maybe a system like what what ~~you~~ Tanetris propose would be the best for GW2W. Personally, I would favour a less strict Guild namespace, coupled with more main space articles on notable guilds, just like Glastium suggests. Regardless of the path though, we will still need templates, category setups etc. --Lensor (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Every guild has a leader, and users are free to edit in each others' userspace as long as they have permission. If a guild particularly wanted, they could even make a sockpuppet account specifically to host the guild's page. Who can then edit and maintain that page is up to what the hosting user account says, that's all. It's about having someone to take responsibility for the page; outside of the user namespace, all pages are by default the responsibility of the community, and as part of the community, I don't want responsibility for the vast majority of what would likely be in a guild namespace. A guild is not an identifiable entity within the wiki, so there's no way to say "Oh, you have a problem with that guild page, just contact the guild" the way you can with a user. If there's a guild namespace, it reflects on the wiki as a whole, which means stricter standards, less freedom for individual guilds to express themselves how they want to, and more work for the community at large. Everyone loses.

I agree that GW1W's system working poorly doesn't necessarily mean that a guild namespace here is a bad idea, but it seems like the entire conversation is based on the assumption that GW1W having a guild namespace and guilds being in GW2 means that having a guild namespace here is a good idea, or even a necessity/inevitability, which it doesn't either. A guild namespace was an attempted solution to the lack of guild documentation on GW1W; it's not the only possible one. - Tanetris 18:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing that contacting a guild is harder than contacting a user. In the contrary, since a guild often has multiple managers, as you can contact each of them, thus it should be easier.

Also, Guild Namespace in GW2W can totally be different to which in GWW. The system is not inspired/based on theirs. We should define, in my opinion, Guild Namespace from the perspective of User Namespace, and no, it will not be the responsibility of the entire community. This is what I meant.

Glastium | talk 19:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I want my guild to have a presence in many areas, a website, forum, facebook, wiki etc...making it easier for members to connect in however they want. The issue of having it in my own user space is that i dont want to direct traffic to my user space, but to the guilds. As Tane suggested, I would be fine creating a new "User My Guild" account if that is a acceptable. --Moto Saxon 20:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From the perspective of the wiki, a guild does not exist. The wiki software does not track members of a guild; in fact if whoever set up the guild page (assuming that person was a member, which we don't really know) either leaves the guild or leaves the wiki, there may not be anyone on the wiki who's in the guild at all. By contrast, a user is always a user, and there are tools specifically set up for contacting users, such as user talk pages and the "E-mail this user" function. We can tell quickly and easily if a user is still around the wiki by checking their contribs. Unless we set up extremely restrictive rules on who may create guild pages and how they must be maintained (which would, again, create work for the community in terms of monitoring if nothing else), I don't believe it's possible to have that level of accountability for a guild. It doesn't matter how many people are involved if we don't have a reliable way to find them. - Tanetris 21:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

For me it seems like an actual "guild project" would be a good idea at this point. There obviously are many points of view, so I think we kinda need to have a proper structured discussion, so that we are "ready to go" when ANet does publish that Guild blogpost. Which, by all accounts, should be before the new year (seing as closed beta starts then). Time flies. --Lensor (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to maintain guild pages in Guild Namespace? Is it really a problem if a guild page doesn't get updated for months? Can't we just leave them there, and only delete after very long time (from 9 months to 12) has passed since last edit on that guild? Mediggo 07:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If we do that, it might as well stay in users' user space, where they would have more freedom. The issue I have with granting guilds their own namespace is because they then become a staple on the community at large, as not maintaining such a space would be more detrimental to the wiki than not having the name space at all. As they say; if you do it, do it right. The bigger issue is still that many people view the official wiki as some form of an official forum, which is obviously not the case but paves the way for community-oriented projects (such as guild "documentation"). If we are to document the game, the Guild space is absolutely unnecessary. - Infinite - talk 07:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about if it was possible to leave the guildspace like userspace (not maintained by community, but users who create/edit pages) except not tied to any user specifically. Not all guilds have just one leader, many guilds prefer some kind of "first among equals" leadership and other such reasons which relate to leadership. Free formatting, as long as it doesn't really break anything, and no malicious content like offenses against other guilds or PA stuff.

*sigh* Well, it was an idea, but it doesn't really seem like a good one after pondering about all of this. Unless there's an in-game function to "Create your own guild page on official wiki!" there's really no need for the space, I guess. Mediggo 08:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That gave me a minor case of inspiration. Is there a possibility of a guild tab on user space, somewhere next to the discussion tab? It would still be a new name space (User guild:) but it would be part of the user space. It is common practise here to alter user space of others with their permission (or even to fix up broken formatting or dead links without) and this would present easily navigated, personal, in-game information documentation to a far smaller part of the community and not burden anyone but those who intend to be involved. - Infinite - talk 08:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Something like this?

That'd be nice actually (maybe next to the discussion/talk page tab would be better as Infi mentioned) but I don't know if it's possible to get that (and doubt IF we're going to get that if it is) --

The Holy Dragons 08:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

For reference; something like [[:File:User Infinite Guild Tab.jpg|'''this''']]. - Infinite - talk 11:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be neat if all users had that tab to link to the guild they belong in, but not sure how that could work with multiple guilds. This kind of thing could really be useful if there's more social guild features (that's where it's going at least, with out-of-game guild chat and all) and linking to outside game. Mediggo 11:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

make that button link to a list of guilds you're in? --

The Holy Dragons 11:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Leaders could use the linked-to article about their guild (in case of plural, this page will function as a portal for subpages in this name space) and/or link to guild(s) they are a part of (heck, maybe even just a redirect in case of singular). - Infinite - talk 12:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

A drop-down list? :P Is this even possible? Mediggo 12:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

yes it is. (just takes a hell-lot of a coding)--

The Holy Dragons 12:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sorry for the massive move, but this really belongs here more than Talk:Guild since it concerns the entire wiki (rather than simply Guild), and is more likely to be seen by more users. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as my opinion on the discussion: afaik the most justification we had for the guild namespace on GW1W were solicitation/recruitment and documentation of guilds who were high on the GvG ladder or featured by ANet. For the latter I could see reason to create a page for the same reason as we create pages for popular builds or strategies (ala gw1:Perma Shadow Form, gw1:Faction farm), although I still don't support it. However, for the former, I don't see any good reason. Where will the page be linked to? A user page or two? In my experience, the only way that I manage to reach these pages is if they show up on RC or the scarce user main page I end up visiting. If you are just using it to document your guild's members for contact, you could as easily do so with a free-hosted website or forum.

Given some justification for using the wiki to advertise, I might support the creation of the namespace, but it seems entirely unnecessary. --ஸ Kyoshi

17:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It gives a single point-of-entry for people seeing a tag in game and wanting to know more about a guild. Again, I see guild pages as being useful for the community first, and individual guilds second. --Lensor (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never known anyone that used that method to look up guilds. I always use Google (that is, if I even care). --ஸ Kyoshi

19:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

shrug* I use it all the time, although granted mostly for allied guilds these days. Google is an effort. Press F10 + click link is super fast (and I do assume GW2 will have at least as functional an game-wiki connection as GW1 does)--Lensor (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I feel that a guild namespace isn't really warranted. I see a lot of distinctions between "notable guilds" and guilds that aren't and I feel that notable guilds could easily be summarized on one or two mainspace pages.

In another line of thought: the GWW guild name space is a maintenance nightmare. It requires near-constant patrolling and is a major time- and effort-sink. If people wanted to have guild pages, they could do so on their userpages, thus relieving the need to patrol them. Aqua (T|C) 21:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling GW1W guild namespace maintenance a "nightmare" is pushing it imo. I would know, having done loads of it. That said, it was hardly ideal. Although, even if we do go with the "guild pages in user space" approach, we should still come up with recommendations, templates, userboxes and a category three. --Lensor (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Please see [[User:Infinite/Sandbox/Guilds|'''here''']] for an opening draft of my take on guild pages. - Infinite - talk 14:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I like Infinite's idea. That looks like it might just work... +100 points for infinite. Cake anyone?--

Necro Shea Mo 05:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read.
The current version of this page can be found at Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal.

Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 4

What's a spoiler?

Referencing and blog posts

Community collaboration

Order of Professions in main space

Feedback

Guild Wars 2 Wiki new logo

Logo Summary 1

Logo Summary 2

Guild Wars 2 Wiki new logo

Logo Summary 2

Logo references

Type A: “Classic”

Type B: “Cut-off”

Type C: “Profession-reveal layout”

Time for trying to get a consensus

the favicon

We're getting close!

Closer...

Let's end this (maybe)

headbg.jpg

Headbg references

Missing skill icons

Names, trivia, skills and GW

Guild Wars 1 influences

Builds

Proposed Locations category tree

Template's turn

Lore-articles from blogs

GW2 Fanday

Skill lists

Source: namespace

Upcoming features

Page Topic

Guilds

Navigation menu

Search