Talk:Main Page/Archive 1

First post

oh yesh. But besides that, are we allowed to edit this yet? o.O --Lou-Saydus 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not much to edit, is there? While the current admin base is grandfathered here, we don't have any policy or formating to adhere to. Or much in the way of material. The Movement of the World would quyalify, I guess. But I think basic structure comes first. Backsword 19:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ya, we need to set up the whole policy and formatting stuff... but before we can do anything not related to this wiki, where should we get info about gw2 (except guildwars.com)? - Y0_ich_halt 19:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would assume we are going to be using the basic structure of the old wiki as it is already developed and in play. And i might add, a mighty fine wiki layout. ps. can i be admin? *big puppy dog eyes* --Lou-Saydus 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, this is a huuuuuge project, but I think we'll have a lot of fun with it :) Knowing where to start is always the trickiest part! We'll help in any way we can, so don't be afraid to let me know if you need anything (that isn't information about GW2 :-p) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

will the game be fun? XD - Y0_ich_halt 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

and i'll start by transfering some basic templates if noone has a problem with that. - Y0_ich_halt 20:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Niiiiice -FireFox 20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm glad this site is started so soon. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

There are a few articles on GWW that could be ported right over to GW2W that either are about what we know about GW2 already, sorting things out of Guild Wars 2 for example, or copying over Sylvari entirely, and articles like Charr and Asura that will obviously apply to GW2.

Question: How do we interwiki link to GWW?

That aside, we can get some policies straightened out, work on some formatting and the main page (though obviously those are going to be subject to change when we find out what info we're actually going to need to present), play with userpages, etc.

I'd like to suggest, btw, that at least until GW2 is a lot closer to release, we keep our sysops and bcrats synched with GWW's. There's not much reason to bother with separate elections when A: GW2W's population is only going to be a subsection of the GWW population, and B: There shouldn't be much for bcrats or sysops to do here. - Tanetris 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

gww:blah? -FireFox 20:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Tried that. As you'll see if you hover the red link there, doesn't work (so far, at least). - Tanetris 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[[w:link]] doesn't work here either, so it probably just needs to be setup. --Valshia 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it worked :p -FireFox 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ya, just wait until Emily reads this, i think they'll get it fixed then. - Y0_ich_halt 20:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep! I see :) I'll pass this along riiight now! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay. :) Happy me for the GW2 wiki. Thank you Emily! *bubbles* --Aspectacle 21:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki tech requests

As with the GWW, if there is anything that you need me to mention to IT (such as figuring out what's going on with interwiki linking, which I'll do right now), please feel free to mention it on my talk page. The holidays are coming up, so I know most of us (including IT) will be out of the office until the new year. I'll be flying around and traveling myself, but I'll be popping in frequently to make sure everything is going well here. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening Statements

(taken from GWW) and was written by Emily Diehl

---

Hello everyone!

We're excited to let you know that we've opened up the Official Guild Wars 2 Wiki, and it's ready for you to jump in and build, as content becomes available. I'm sure that many of you remember the way we launched the current Guild Wars wiki, but for those of you who weren't there when the doors opened (or for those of you that may need a refresher), here are answers to a few questions you may have :)

Why is the wiki so bare and empty?

Since we firmly believe that the wiki is to be community-run, we didn't want to set up the look and feel of the new site for you. Since half of the fun of moving into a new place is arranging things for the first time, we felt that providing as blank a slate as possible would be more fun for everyone. When I moved stuff over, I just moved core legal disclaimers over to make sure they were in place before the site launched. The rest is up to you to decide.

Why are you launching this site so early?

As we continue work on Guild Wars 2 we will eventually start releasing bits of information about the game through interviews, magazine articles, and other outlets. We'd like to make sure that you guys have a good place to put that stuff when you get it, without having to move it later.

Are devs going to be able to talk about Guild Wars 2 here?

Unfortunately not. Until the game goes live, we'll be unable to comment on any Guild Wars 2 related topics. While folks like Gaile and I will be around on both wikis, please keep in mind (and help us to emphasize as much as possible to other users) that we're not going to be able to spill any beans about the game. We may use the existing system to share some information prior to launch -- such as the Dev Updates or community team visits -- but for the most part devs won't be providing new information for a long time to come.

Who's going to be a Sysop/Bureaucrat on the new site?

To start, we've automatically grandfathered all Sysops and Bureaucrats from the Guild Wars Wiki over to the Guild Wars 2 Wiki. We're assuming that you'll want to hold your own elections for this new wiki, and that there may be some varying opinions about whether having Sysop/Bureau status on one wiki should automatically grant it on the other. Since we don't want to set any policy, we'll leave this to the membership to decide, and will leave the timeframe of this decision completely in your hands.

Does my current login information work on the new wiki?

Yes, the log-in information is linked between the two, although things like rank and userpages will have to be established on both sites individually.

Since the new wiki is not populated with any information, has no written policy, and is very bare-bones at this point, we do not plan to officially announce its existence on our official site at this time. If you're reading this page, you're likely a current Sysop, a current Bureaucrat, an extremely active Guild Wars Wiki contributor, someone who loves to comb the recent changes list, or someone who has noticed the link off of a Sysop or Bureaucrat's talk page. In any case, it will be folks like you that will be able to build this new wiki from the ground up and make it into something that will ultimately become the resource for Guild Wars 2 information.

As you all build this wiki, you can have confidence that we will do everything we can to support all of your efforts on the site, and to help promote and contribute to the wiki (when the time comes).

As always, you guys are awesome. We're all thrilled to see how this new wiki will evolve as time goes on. If there is anything that we can do to help out, (short of providing information on the game ;)), please let Gaile or me know!

---

--Lou-Saydus 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Why are you launching this site so early?"

C'mon, you know it was partly to beat the other GuildWiki to it :P

-SirVenom

That's kinda the point, to have everything here rather than GuildWiki, they do own the game ya know. --Lou-Saydus 17:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a case of ArenaNet vs. GuildWiki. It is a case of ArenaNet wanting to get a wiki for their second game up and running. And yes, it is their game.-- br12 • (talk) • 17:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Guildwiki wouldn't want to make a GW2 wiki anyway. Guildwiki existed first, so when ANet (perfectly reasonably) established their own, the people who felt that everything should be on the official wiki moved over there, and those who, like myself, felt that it would be more convenient to keep everything on the one with the most established base stayed on Guildwiki. ANet was pretty clearly going to set up a GW2 wiki, so the Guildwiki people wouldn't want to make a competing one anyway, as it would defeat the purpose. Hashmir 19:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Editcopy

I have created Main Page/editcopy. You may want to apply that when possible. --brains12 • (talk) • 21:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll play around a bit tomorrow if nobody does before me. - Y0_ich_halt 21:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

guildwrs2wiki.com

Is avalible? Anyone care to register before link sites do? RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would you care if a link-spam site gets it? — Skuld 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

They've got it... Meh IDK why, just would have been cool RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 11:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Favicon

WTB Favicon ~ SCobra 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we have one now. And it's some sort of... flame..thing. -- br12 • (talk) • 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, too. I'd prefer the GW2 globe things, but whatever. Maybe it's Magdaer or Sohothin's blade. Calor (t) 00:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't notice that the favicon is sort of a GW2 logo. The orange things are split by a number 2. -- (gem / talk) 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at it the other way..very neat. Calor (t) 00:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So basically it's an orange circle with a white 2 in the middle. -- br12 • (talk) • 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I totally didn't notice it had a two in it and now I do it make much much more sense. Lyra Valo 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Never noticed it either... O_o It's kinda cool--- -- (s)talkpage 21:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else think it looks a lot like the Girl Scouts icon? —Tanaric 08:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Only Tanaric could think that. And it could, I suppose if you looked at it the right way. Calor (t) 15:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Firefox

WTB Firefox search engine ~ SCobra 23:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you can find him over there --Lou-Saydus 23:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

He meant the search engine, which is automatically added and allows searching through that small cool search box in Firefox. poke | talk 10:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's there. You just need to click the site selector tab and scroll down to add it. --Valshia 18:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Groovy, done! RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone look into reducing the size of the search engine icon? It's like twice the size of my other ones and looks kinda funky on the list. - HeWhoIsPale 18:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates, etc.

As far as things like Templates go, should we simply be importing the important ones from GWW manually or are there plans to import them wholesale at some point? *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

we need a lot of plug-ins and add-ons first, so we can probaly start after the holidays when Anet's IT staff are back ~ SCobra 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is anything critical that you guys need before the break, let me know on my talk page and I will see if IT can expedite the installs so you have what you need before we take off. I think all of the extensions should have been ported over, but I think some (like ParserFunctions) weren't enabled. They are looking into this now, and will get those ready in the near future. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I would import on an as needs basis for now, no point importing redundant templates etc. --Lemming 00:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet. They'll be needed in the near future, I expect. Calor — talk 00:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...we'll need a welcome template for sure. — ク Eloc 貢 07:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best if everyone stops trying to anticipate needs. If we base things on anticipated needs, we end up reimporting the whole of GWW. —Tanaric 07:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

exactly. i started with importing stuff like clear, ri and ec, because it's obvious we need them. then there are the policy and delete tags. my question is: what templates that require parser functions do we need anyway? - Y0_ich_halt 22:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GFDL

This and GWW are under the same license, correct? And that means we can c/p info needed from there to here, right? Just wanna make sure.. Calor — talk 23:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes but this is a gw2 wiki what could possibly want to copy from the other one? ~ SCobra 23:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

General info on the races, movement of the world, etc. Basically what's being done as we speak. This wiki came after GW2 info was released, so some GW2-pertinent info was added there. Calor — talk 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All of that will be subject to change though... --brains12 • (talk) • 23:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why we have a edit button ~ SCobra 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How to Help

I believe the article should be handled sometime in the near future as more people come to visit the GW2W, but find themselves at a loss as to how they can help out (such as myself). I'd do it myself, but I'd rather not jump into such things without discussing them first and angering the Powers that Be. --Cjad the Nord 00:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say whatever "powers that be" are around here, they have "been" for about 4 hours now, so they are mere toddlers ;-)

Or in other words: What a new wiki needs most is edits, so don't hold back. --Xeeron 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I'll admit, there's little structure to the wiki. All positive contributors are seen as equal, at least until reconfirmations and all policies go through. My first edit here was at about 530 this evening, eastern, about 3 hours ago. Just edit and fill in the redlinks. Calor — talk 01:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Before we start...

...adding content, I suggest we concentrate on policies first. I see the first ones working on userpages or even content pages, but I think we have enough time to make policies first. poke | talk 09:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, but other people are saying content before policy, see other talk pages for info. RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 10:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If we put content before policy, we'll have to change the content around when we figure out the policy for it. Might as well work the policy out before we make too many articles that will have to be updated later. -Auron 11:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

/agree rasie point on Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Starting_out

RT fails at signing. /agree with auron though. --Warwick (Talk) (Contr.) 11:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy doesn't dictate content. Don't confuse content with formatting. Similarly, the argument of "we can't do X, it'll mean changing Y later" sucks. It's a wiki. Things change. We've got to come to terms with that -- there's no way to avoid it. Even if we get styles and formatting and things like that figured out in a void, we'll have to change it later -- we don't know anything about GW2 yet and we will be wrong.

In order, this is my list of importance:

1. Content, content, content.
2. Foundational policy -- what our goals are, what we intend to build, what we specifically want to distance ourselves from.
3. Guidelines about existing best practices -- not policies generated merely because no other policies exist

Ideally, we shouldn't have any policies at all beyond foundational ones. Policies on the GuildWiki were really guidelines in the GWW sense, and they worked much better.

—Tanaric 16:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that there can't be a huge amount of info atm, its not going to be a huge amount of effort to change stuff if its formatted badly. Lord of all tyria 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

ya, formatting stuff won't be neccessary until gw2 is out anyway, since there's not much to keep in conform formatting. - Y0_ich_halt 16:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Tanaric. Content first. We can simultaneously work out the primary policies like copyright, content scope, offensive material too. Formulate other policies as situation demands and formulate guidelines as content forms. -- ab.er.rant 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Fresh Start

Just out of curiosity, is this wiki going to follow the precedent set by the official wiki, or will it be adopting features similar to the original guildwiki?

A little of this, a little of that, and a little of something else. Calor (t) 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It will be a bit more like GWW I think, also just because of the user database linkage. But the details are not given yet, so just wait :) poke | talk 16:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If we yell enough, hopefully we can make it more like (but not exactly like) the GuildWiki. :) —Tanaric 17:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's hoping.Bob fregman 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Links

Hey, while looking at some pages i thought: wouldn't it be better if we could link all the red, or incomplete, links that belong to GW1 to an already existing page from GWW\Guildwiki? (for istance, the Kormir page that is kind of incomplete compared to the same page in another Wiki... --Ricky 22:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but i beleive there is a copyright issue that prevents us from doing that.Bob fregman 22:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not link to GuildWiki. We have a copyright issue with them. That said, it is possible to link to GWW. However, we will be using interwiki links instead of using something like this. By interwiki links, I mean [[gww:Kormir]], with "gww:" being the interwiki link. We just need to wait until those links are set up by ArenaNet first though.-- br12 • (talk) • 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I don't like the Do not link to GuildWiki thing at all, it is like saying that it is a bad site or the like, i thought this wiki would have helped cooperation between the 2 wikis =( And btw, does that mean that I can't link to Guildwiki on my userpage?? --Ricky 23:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't copy from GuildWiki (unless it's only your own contributions and/or contributions duel-licensed under GFDL). There's nothing wrong with linking to it, though for mainspace articles I think linking to GWW is generally "better". No offense to any GuildWiki users intended, and I know GWW is not always as complete as GuildWiki, but it's easier on users to keep things consistent, GWW is under the same license and the same hosting, and we can always expand any GWW articles we need to link that need expanding.

That said, you are absolutely free to link to your GuildWiki userpage or any other GuildWiki page you want. - Tanetris 23:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought linking to it was effectively the same thing as copying it. -- br12 • (talk) • 00:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No problems^^ --Ricky 00:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Gwiki+Guild Wars Wiki

I saw this link on both Guild WIki and Guild Wars wiki, did they two both agree to make one Guild Wars Page?--FireTock 18:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that pretty obviously better for both communities and the game? — Edru/QQ 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it happened like this. Emily Diehl posted the link for GW2W on the admins' talk pages on GWW. People from GWW and GWiki saw the links, and sorta merged over here. So, right now, this is the main wiki for Guild Wars 2. I'm not sure if GuildWiki will make their own version of it, but this is ArenaNet's (GWW's) wiki for Guild Wars 2. -- Brains12 • Talk • 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe they will, but wikia might try to make one anyways. Lord Belar 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

They are pretty dumb. Armond 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikia? Lord Belar 21:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, they would be if they tried to make a GW2W. I guess I can't really say they're dumb now, as I have no evidence, but whatever. Armond 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikia bought GWiki from Gravewit, and that pissed a lot of people off. And what would they call the new wiki? Guild2Wiki? Calor (t) 21:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Guildwikia2? Lord Belar 22:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

/voteforBelar. Armond 22:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Copypaste that into an RfA? :P Lord Belar 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The link on guild wiki links to this site. 68.90.194.239 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, isn't that the point? Calor (t) 01:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This got over-discussed, imo. — Skadiddly[슴Mc슴]Diddles 04:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What's in a sig... Calor (t) 04:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Custom designed signatures from the Grinchypie Institute of Manly Personalization [GIMP]. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴƿıę 04:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy

I think that there should be a link to the Policy section on The navigation menu-thoughts?PheNaxKian(T/c) 12:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2#External_links

Just wanted to note that this wiki is linked on Wikipedia. Seeing as some wanted the release to be not that public, and that the link was deleted from GWW's main page, do we want that link on Wikipedia? -- Brains12 • Talk • 19:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's supposed to be the artical(spell checks being gay with this word) about GW2 on GWW not here, but i would think it'd be best to take it down if it's not wanting to get released to the public yet....PheNaxKian(T/c) 19:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, but I'm sure someone will go along reverting every anon edit on RC sooner or later. Armond 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

So make an account. Lord Belar 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was reverted and added back in within 5 minutes. It looks like a discussion will need to be started over there in its talk page, otherwise I suspect that good intentioned people will come along and continually re-add it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably. I've had a registered account there for a bit, I'll poke my head in on the discussion and explain that "The wiki is up, but not running yet". A minor lie, but probably for the better, else a bunch of anons come here adding GW1 info or junk. Calor (t) 22:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter that the link is there? The GWWiki and GW2Wiki are the most comprehensive sources (yes, I am biased :) of GW2 information on the internet. Comprehensive on what little information there is around anyway. Do you think the publicity will do that much harm - aside from showing there isn't very much information about the game around at all? Because I support having the link there, I'm hesitant to start the discussion there, as I currently agree with the state of the page. --Aspectacle 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. It now links to the GWW article on GW2. Lord Belar 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I love how you went through all that trouble just to see that there's a link at the top of the GWW article to the article here....PheNaxKian(T/c) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is? Shit. Oh well. Anyways, it wasn't much trouble, I just removed one number from the link. :) Lord Belar 00:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You modified the link, then someone else removed it entirely, then someone else re-created the link directly to this wiki. It's an enless cycle. It should be brought up on WP's talk page, otherwise this is going to be an endless cycle. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Corran raised the issue to Emily's page on gww. In summary, she says no censorship is required from them on the wikipedia side of things. Eloc's re-added a link pointing directly to the gw2 wiki - if it is removed again I will revert and start the talk page conversation. --Aspectacle 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - that didn't take long. :P --Aspectacle 23:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn, missed this conversation when it was posted. That Eric Sanholm has a rather over-inflated sense of his own importance, IMO. Inserted a standard bit of snograt withering text. Git. --Snograt 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

His first comment was pretty sour wasn't it? I don't pick fights over a little link with someone who likes wiki law quoting and suffers from an irrational dislike of wikis without noticing he's posting on one. As soon a beta arrives that link is so going back. :) --Aspectacle 21:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I complained to the annoying fellow a bit more. Calor (t) 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that guy's a dick. Lord Belar 21:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea..I know I am.. :p Calor (t) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading WP:EL, I'm forced to agree with his comments based on WP's policies - and I've posted my comments over there. From what I can interpret, the key points from that policy are: "Links normally to be avoided ... Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." With the GW2W having under 100 edits per day, and far fewer than that being actual content improvements, I can see his point - active editors are a pretty small pool of users here at this stage.

But based on this interpretation, I do think we should be able to link to the GW2 article on GWW - that wiki has a much more active community and should meet WP's requirements; and that article has a prominent link to here, so this wiki would still be reachable indirectly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has too many policies. Fine. Calor (t) 19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, Wikipedia

From GW2 wiki talk page: "This article was nominated for deletion on 8 March 2007. The result of the discussion was Delete." Lord Belar 23:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it was deleted at that point because the only source was a mention in the Inquirer article. A redirect to their Guild Wars article was put in its place. Then, a few days later, the PC Gamer article was released, and the article was created again.

Still, the delete notice on the talk page over their is confusing. It should be cleaned up or clarified somehow. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it just makes you think they need someone like wizardboy. :P Lord Belar 23:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The people over there hate removing any content, including any tags. Notice how every article has about half a screen of tags before any discussion? Calor (t) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Algorithm for Special:Random

Seems a bit funky. If click it, read a page, create the talk page, and hit it again, I get that page again. I think... -- Armond Warblade 22:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive wiki eh?

awesomeness, by clicking Random Page i got back to mai page in 9 clicks --Clouddyl 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick, create more spam pages! :P Lord Belar 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was fun with only Main Page and Editcopy. And <10 pages. Calor (t) 21:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage

When are you guys making a Main Page for this wiki? Death Sligher 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

When there is something to have a main page for. Lord of all tyria 20:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What is there to put on there right now? A link to all our pages? Nay... we need more info before a good Main Page can be developed. Calor (t) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

set up a link to raptors talk page on the mainpage, that would be epic --Virus Angel 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Or a link to ban socks? Lord Belar 22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

lulz --Virus Angel 13:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A temporary main page would be nice, its says there's over one hundred articles to read, so make a page linking them. Would be nice to read them. 118.92.201.219 23:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:Allpages provides links to every article. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but that won't inspire people to read the site. You're killing potential contribution by not providing a reason for people to stay. Find some good content and feature it on there, and you'll find you get a lot more readers and contributors. GreenReaper 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There just isn't any reason to be here, really. Everything here is either from interview, guesses or the interviews themselves. OH, and some back ground lore, which you're probably better off at GWO Wiki anyhow. --- -- (s)talkpage 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, that's not a reason to not improve what we have. I'm drafting something up on the editcopy; links to articles of interest, the main bits of lore (like Movement), that sort of thing. -- Pling \ talk 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

New logo?

Is it just me, or is the main logo in the corner a new image? If so, looks cool. Although, a better background header would be nice too (like GWW has) :P -- pling | ggggg 16:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. It looks good :) poke | talk 16:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. It does look nice, though. Calor 19:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)♠

who changed it? - Y0_ich_halt 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That image is one which is set up in the wiki configuration files. So someone at Anet would've had to have done it. --Aspectacle 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I love it, blends in very nicely! -- (Tribina / talk) 16:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed it.  :) I thought the old one looked a bit awkward. I hope, hope hope to have time to create a full Wiki skin that looks kick-ass one day soon. We're working very hard on GW2 imagery and branding internally right now, so I'll probably be in a better place to help flesh out a Wiki skin in a couple months. I'll keep you posted! Reagan

Do you mean you want to change just the background image/skin thing, or make it look something like WoWWiki (i.e. the colour of the foreground, text, links etc)? I'd prefer the default monobook, keeping it similar to Wikipedia and GWW. Sounds good though, so I won't judge before I see, and great job with creating the logo :) -- pling | ggggg 21:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although I can't take credit for the GW2 logo, that would be our Art Director Daniel's work. I just created the variation you see on the masthead now, because I felt that we needed a savvy solution for using it on a background other than the heavy, scratched metal.  :) To answer the other question... I'm not sure how immersive the Wiki skin will be. Probably not AS tweaked as the WoW Wiki layout. I am of the school of thought that a Wiki should "look and feel like a Wiki", for the sake of usability and familiarity. I would, however love to offer a skin (or skins) that would add a visual flavor and richness for those who'd like that sort of thing.  :) Reagan (how do you add a time stamp??)

Ah I see, I'd like to see how it (they) turn out. (4 tildes, ~~~~, to enter whatever is in your nickname field in your preferences plus the time stamp. More info ;)) -- pling | ggggg 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! Reagan 21:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

GuildWiki (The other one)

How do they have the same layout as the official wiki? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Jad (talk) .

Because you use thesame skin on both 'Wiki's? --- -- (s)talkpage 08:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nearly the same skin, we both use modified versions of monobook, the default MediaWiki skin. -- Gordon Ecker 10:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See also: MediaWiki. -- ab.er.rant 08:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

GuildWars 2 Pets

I just think a more advanced pet system is needed. In GW1, you just find a pet you want and tame it. Period. I think you should be able to feed pets, too. I mean, say I just got a half-eaten carapace, but I don't want it, and the price is too low to sell it. I could open a special pet inventory (this means you could also buy special pet armor and have your pet wear it)and drag it there. The pet would eat it, and gain a 1% morale boost.I also think you could like, ... What I mean is that, say I wanted a flamingo but I wanted it to bond to me,I could find a flamingo nest and get an egg. Then I would go someplace to hatch it. Then you would see a clip of it hatching. Once it hatches, it would be lvl 1.(from level one to level 5, I think that when you fight, it should go hide in a nearby bush or something)I also think that it should grow bigger every level you raise it.(For mammal pets, you could find a cub or pup or whatever.) -MoasRule

gw1:User talk:Gaile Gray/Guild Wars 2 suggestions would probably be a better place for something like this ;) -- pling | ggggg 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a sweet idea ! -Duffer

Sounds a lot like every other MMO ever made! Nah screw that idea its too typical of the genre. - :) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:79.77.82.222 (talk) .

Message head

the blue message should say "Guild Wars 2 Wiki will be down" :P - Y0_ich_halt 12:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice#Site Maintenance - blame Poke :P -- pling | ggggg 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Lore VS Equality

← moved to Talk:Lore#Lore VS Equality

Dear Arena-Net,

I can't think of a more appropriate place to put this, so I elected to put it here. The end result I'm hoping for is for lots of people to read it and for it to get inside Anet as well.

Dumbing Up Gaming Please, read it, pass it around to anyone you know. If you have way of contacting anyone inside a game studio, please make every effort to get it to them and ask them to pass it around inside the company. Thanks in advance.

P.S. if your lookin for my user page, look me up on the othe GW wiki page. I will be putting up links shortly

P.P.S. The links are up, I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on this.

--Wolf 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with that. Anet said the they thought Guild Was was getting to complicated. But I don't know any one who thought that way about guild wars until Anet mentioned it. I personally thought the variety of skills and some of there circumstantial effects made for a more in depth gaming experience. I never thought the game was too complicated. In fact I thought the 8 skill system allowed for simplicity where it was needed and depth where it count. I also found that with there current in game system it would allow for allot more variation in both professions and environment.--Yozuk 06:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why on earth did you guys start up this site so early? I mean.. It has completely died.. ^Teo^ 00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

To set everything up nicely so we can start right away, once more news leaks out. Saves us from having to do everything from policy-making over page design to actually adding content at the same time. I guarantee you, the page is only dead because there has not been any new info about GW2 for months. Once the game is out, this will burst back to life. --Xeeron 14:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok.. But I still think they could've waited a year or so :p ^Teo^ 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Easily. -Auron 01:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

And besides, they could've kept it a secret :p ^Teo^ 11:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, It's not like we don't have ANY info about GW2, and It's good that we have a head start on getting articles ready for real information, so that all the info we get will be up as fast as possible.--70.71.240.170 02:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye out, anet might release new info on the game in the form of stealth wiki updates by the dev team. --Lou-Saydus 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it; they'd probably want to make as big an impact as possible and link to their info from the main gw site. They're not keeping back so much info just to release it and have no one notice. -- Pling \ talk 23:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

GWW crash.

It appears the orginal wiki at [1] has suffered a crash/rollback/w.e. Yet this ones still loading normally...werid. 96.53.213.93 01:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...now it's redirecting me to the Guild Wars support page every time I try and go to the wiki.-- Shew 03:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.guildwars.com/support/networknews/default.php:

Official Guild Wars Wiki Maintenance - November 4, 2008
We are currently performing emergency maintenance on the Official Guild Wars Wiki. We apologize for the inconvenience.

-- Gordon Ecker 03:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Make This Game Dial Up Capable

Dear Arena Net, Please make this game able to be played on dialup. Ive got like 40 friends in my community that play GW1 on dialup. Im not able to get DSL or anything like that where i live. So please please please, im dying for this game to come out and able to play it. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.161.65.240 (talk) .

This isn't the place for suggestions. See http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/ArenaNet:Guild_Wars_2_suggestions/Miscellaneous. -- Gordon Ecker 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think they have stated that they will make it dial-up friendly. Better suggest it at the link provided by Gordon, however. Never hurts to suggest.