Talk:Main Page/editcopy/Archive 3

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Next step: colors
if most of us like this structure, we may start step 2: colors. (step 3 will be categories and content). -- Itay AlonTalk 05:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I personally like the green color (its not too bright, too "bubbly" or too dark)... I say we can rule out all reds, yellows and blues, which leaves us with mostly intermediate colors...any ideas, or do you like the greens i use in the Structure? Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 05:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Changing the sizes of the images could work, you could make some subtly smaller or larger. Would take some trial and error.--Corsair@Yarrr 05:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment, the image size I chose was just to give a nice large image that wouldn't strech too much (the way we would achieve is by making image much smaller :S which wouldn't solve anything after it reduced past a certain point). I'm sure someone nows some wikicoding that can be used to fix it. Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 05:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Already fixed the Images for the boxes to line up correctly on Aqua's page. Ariyen 06:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Guys, I think that what we have is fine. Want to know why? We don't have enough information to fill out the entire page! I'd rather have what we currently have than what's been put on the editcopy, or any of the userpage versions I've seen. Why? Because most of the boxes are empty. It looks far better with the two empty columns on the side with complete boxes than with nearly every - if not every - box being half empty. Maybe when we have stuff to actually put up, it can change, but not now. It is not "time to change." -- Konig/talk 08:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sry about all the mess. User:Itay_Alon/Main_Page. -- Itay AlonTalk 09:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Among the current options, my favourite one is the one currently on Aqua's page (which by the way looks awesome, great work people). I like how the green is vibrant enough to avoid making the page dull while not garrish enough to hurt people's eyes. I would be fine with changing it to the same shade of blue (or even yellow if you people would like that), but I would rather avoid anything with less saturation (since something closer to gray would make the page a bit dull, IMO) or with more saturation (since then I think the color would be too intense). Erasculio 10:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Eras here. The green doesn't offend but it isn't too dreary either. Not to mention it's probably my favourite colour, and the layout of the page, with the different pictures etc. seems to work well. (I know we're discussing colorus but I just thought I'd throw that in there.) Let's just get a consensus on that colour then. ;) --Odal talk 10:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I like this green too, it's why i take him as example for the structure. Are we really agree with something so fast? -- Itay AlonTalk 14:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree, the current green is nice. Like it has been said, it is not too dark so as to take away from the page, nor is it too light to give a sort of bubbly effect to this game. I also have no objections to the structure. I disagree with the comment that there are too many blank spaces. I feel that structure lets the reader actually find what they are looking for at a quick glance without being to crowded (relative to the amount of articles currently published) Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 14:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the current layout that has been designed, however I have some issues with the profession silhouettes, for me it comes out like [[:File:User Naut Example.PNG|this]] and it looks rubbish. Perhaps resizing the images to one straight line? --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 14:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC) we want this, or not? I'll leave the current main page edit copy up for awhile. If any one is grievously opposed to it, please mention it here. Otherwise, we have a new main page :D ... Cheers Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 14:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I stil say an orange/Gold/yellow colour is best, like my design, i mean, not my layout. just the colours. User:Neil2250/Main Page --NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that I have seen those colours somewhere they are classic, but let's create something new. In regards to Naut's comment, I too have a similar effect. When I maximize my window it's fine, but then it is is there a way you can make the images more static, so they stay in place, but will perhaps alter in size relative to the width of my browser? Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
1, i say we keep it thin. 2, No, they stole my idea, see? --NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 16:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whose idea it originally was, those colors are in use already by GWW. Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 16:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) In addition, addressing Naut and Venom and anyone else who has problems with the string of images: I am not quite sure if there is any way to fix it...If anyone knows wiki coding that causes images to resize as the browser size changes, please edit the pictures. Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 17:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you know that we can fix it? just add min-width (css). -- Itay AlonTalk 17:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Done ;) -- Itay AlonTalk 17:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It looks worse now, it just scrolls off the screen making it look offputting. Tbh it looked better just smaller. --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 17:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have other idea? (I don't want to change the images size yet). -- Itay AlonTalk 17:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already voiced my opposition to the proposal, as have others. It seems to be going ahead nonetheless, even though it looks more like a userpage than the front page of the official Guild Wars 2 wiki. Discussing ideas and putting together proposals is fine, but I'm slightly worried that some are ready to actually implement it. pling User Pling sig.png 19:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Pling, look at Wynthyst's User Page Templates, then look at the main page of GWW (they are almost IDENTICAL)... anyway...we're still discussing what content is needed (evidently we are keeping the green...) Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 19:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Um.. NO, the main page looks nothing like most of my userpage templates. I like the current green, the one on Itay's propoal is too bright. The green was chosen originally because it matched the artwork and color scheme of the GW2 website. Please keep the colors muted and in that same range. I would like to point out as Pling has, that there is opposition to the proposal. Unlike Pling however, I am going to say that it should NOT continue until the opposition is resolved. That's how this wiki thing works. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 04:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, not continuining it is ignoring the opposition to the idea of not continuing; and not implementing a proposal due to trying to please those who oppose it is failing to please those who are for it. Consensus does not mean unanimity, nor does it mean stalling a discussion until it dies down without anything being ever achieved (as often happens on GW1W). Erasculio 05:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, continuing the work should continue after it there is a consensus on changing it now. So not continuing due to discussion on whether there should be a continuation is not ignoring the desire to continue. At the very least, the discussion on whether or not there is even a need for changing the main page should not be ignored, as it has been thus far. -- Konig/talk 05:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think many were wondering why there's no actual main page up and that there's a "place holder" in it's place. I think that's what got many working on an actual main page. Also, I believe that many would prefer an actual main page to a "place holder" as this is an actual wiki and many things are in progress for gw2. That's what I've gathered from the discussions I've seen here... I could be wrong. :-S Ariyen 07:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we'll vote between the two greens after part 4. I cannot stop anytime when someone thinks different, so we'll vote about it later. -- Itay AlonTalk 08:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Step 3: content

See more: User:Itay_Alon/Main_Page#Step_3:_categories_and_content

This time I want to change it, and reorder the categories. In my opinion, Guild Wars 2 (category) much more important than Gameplay. -- Itay AlonTalk 17:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It SHOULD NOT be Guild Wars 2, media is fine, but Guild Wars 2 is the (not surprisingly) name of the wiki. Plus its not Guild Wars 2, it is the MEDIA released that pertains to it... The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aquadrizzt (talkcontribs).
I think we should have a link to character creation and Weapon. I also find the lore section to be... lacking - that is, there will be too much white space. Perhaps add in links to Timeline, Category:Lore, and have a section titled "Tyria" with links to the various regions (Ascalon, Charr Homelands, Crystal Desert, Depths of Tyria, Kryta, Maguuma Jungle, Orr, Ring of Fire Island Chain, and the Shiverpeak Mountains). Also, the "Cultural Diffusion in Contemporary Kryta" is not promotional. A better term for those three would be Official Documents, or the like. -- Konig/talk 21:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Again, I like the current page proposed by Aqua. I think there are some guidelines we should follow:

  • Avoid a section named "Guild Wars 2". As the IP mentioned above, that's redundant - the entire wiki is about GW2 anyway. Besides, such a name is not really descriptive, since anything could fit within such a section.
  • Avoid linking to almost empty articles from the main page. Now that we actually have content to link to, using the main page to showcase articles that have next to no information is a bit of a waste, with only a few exceptions. The same applies with articles which content is just a copy from GW1W or articles which we don't even know if are relevant to GW2.
  • Prepare to expand. We know Arena Net will release more news very soon; for example, they have mentioned upcoming articles on equipment, on voice acting, and of course on the other six professions. The page layout needs to be ready to accept more entries without making a mess such as the one on the current main page.

So taking a look at each section...

  1. Gameplay is IMO the most important section among those three. All the big announcements recently made by Arena Net are about gameplay, and so the topics the have the most information about are covered here. The only two weak articles on this section are the two PvP ones, but considering how PvP is such an important part of GW2, I think we have to mention them anyway.
  2. Media is another important section, considering how the screenshots and pieces of concept art are among the most sought pieces currently available of GW2 content. The books and the suggestion pages are not really that important, but I think they could stay there for now.
  3. Lore...Is just a placeholder, really. The only thing important enough to be on the main page is the "Movement of the World" article, since it describes how the world of GW1 has changed in order to become the world of GW2. Everything else is basically a placeholder, as there's nothing else that important on the lore category right now. Still, this section is important as it gives us room to expand the main page later, when the above sections become too full. It would be easy to merge the suggestions, the "Movement of the World" article and the "Elder dragons" article on a miscelaneous section later, in order to expand either the Gameplay section or the Media section, and the articles currently under the Lore section are placeholders good enough (it would be stupid to link, say, to the Crystal Desert article, since it's just a copy of GW1W content with content from the Movement of the World about a place which we don't even know if will be relevant to GW2 or not).

Erasculio 22:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't have enough content to expand anything and Phen is right, people just want to stretch the main page to full window size which creates allot of white spaces on high res and widescreen. Looks really ugly and unprofessional. I think the current layout is best for now and the sections are relevant. People who visit this wiki are mainly going to be intersted in lore to make speculations and understand what the game is about, read news and finally create new articles. --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 23:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
"Avoid linking to almost empty articles from the main page."But don't avoid linking to pages we know will be expanded in the future. Which means any article; just because something isn't large now doesn't mean it should never be on the front page. Take Lore for instance, right now, it is small but that's only because we don't know the full lore of GW2 and once we know at least more if not all (e.g., after release), then we can expand the article and since the article's purpose will be to act as a general lore information page, it should be at least an article on the main page - should any lore article be on there (which they should; as per below).
"Lore...Is just a placeholder, really. The only thing important enough to be on the main page is the "Movement of the World" article, since it describes how the world of GW1 has changed in order to become the world of GW2." Uh huh, so the entire storyline, what makes the world what it is, is unimportant? Lore will be added later on - or should. At least its main articles. Even if you don't find it important doesn't mean it isn't important.
In short, right now, we don't know enough to expand the main page. It's all fine and dandy if we prepare for the format and color, but we cannot accurately create a new, complete, main page. For points brought up by Erasculio ("Prepare to expand."), and what I said in the first paragraph. Again: It is not time for change. -- Konig/talk 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
"But don't avoid linking to pages we know will be expanded in the future": we can link to those pages in the future. As always, Konieg, you are too focused on the corner of the GW2 universe that matters to you (iow, lore) and ignoring everything else. There's not enough content regarding lore to add many lore articles to the main page; we have, however, far more gameplay articles than we had when the main page was created, so many that they are extremely cramped in the current design, which wasn't really created with the goal to last this long. Between how the current page currently looks bad, and how GW2 is now routinely being the focus of both the players and the media, now is the time to replace the main page with something better, something which both looks more organized and professional (unlike the current placeholder) and is capable of being expanded later to fit everything we may want to document here. Or would you really rather wait until months after the release of GW2, when we finally have documented everything, in order to make a proper main page? Erasculio 00:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not focusing too much on just what I like most about the game. In referring to the incomplete articles, I also meant articles like weapon, character creation, and well every page on this wiki. I'm sorry Era, but every page is incomplete and "small" in comparison to what we'll have, so kicking out articles just because of such would mean we'd have next to nothing on the main page except news. As to "Or would you really rather wait until months after the release of GW2" No, but closer to release, when we have more information so we know how many articles should go on the main page, so that we can scale boxes accurately, and have the boxes holding accurate information (that is, what box holds what kind of links). -- Konig/talk 00:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Considering the difference between half empty articles and articles with a significant amount of content, it's not hard to guess which should belong to the main page now and which shouldn't. The rest of your argument fails to consider how the layout of the main page does not need to change in order for it to expand; as I had already pointed out above, the proposed layout allows for expansions without creating such a mess as the current page has. The idea that we need to have an unorganized and ugly main page until a final design is settled is silly; by such logic, this would have been GW1W's main page until last week, when its latest design was implemented. Erasculio 01:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Itay's talk page

moved from User_talk:Itay_Alon/Main_Page

OCD, the curved edges look good, if you notice them :L. However the boxes are too empty, and the colour is horrible D:. And perhaps remove the bold from the top banner? --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 18:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't work on colors yet, I'll do it tomorrow. -- Itay AlonTalk 19:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Bravo. I feel like there is a race to redesign this page and the rest of us are judges. This page now appears to be better organized and has less empty space that the actual main page. Keep up the good work, can't wait to see the finished product Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Horrible! Too much like GW1. We don't want to "copy" them do we? I think something totally different should be done. Ariyen 19:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a reason for why we decide use GW1 structure, he is most useful and clean. I'll work on it later (school><), however I don't think we need something too different (I learn web design).
I'll try to think about other structure after I finish this design. -- Itay AlonTalk 05:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Version 1 is much better, for people without widescreen and its symmetrical, all in one line rather then 1 at the bottom. --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 12:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) your boxes don't line up right.. X-/. Ariyen 06:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


i personally like the green (obv), i dont think the reds work well, and the default colors are just too bland. The cyan mix I presented seems to be too intense for some people...I think greens are the way to go. Not too intense, not too eye popping, but not to "gumdrops and fairies." Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 05:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


Needs to be brought as discussion on main page, then agreed upon, then implemented on the mainpage edit. As that's how consensus works. Ariyen 18:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Oh and we don't "vote" that's for Elections and Sysops over on gw1... It gets no where when there's just voting and no one is able to implement their expressions. Ariyen 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you Erasculio, but maybe you need to like the pages as well that it came from? just a thought... This was for Italy's talk of his "implements" that well I disagree with. Ariyen 18:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you seen the "moved from" notice at the beginning of this section, with a link to Itay's talk page? Erasculio 19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
My name is ITAY, without L!! -- Itay AlonTalk 19:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


OK, from what I can tell, the only thing that the proposal has different from the current main page (in terms of layout) is that you made it the full width of the screen.

My issue is this: on larger resolutions the current suggestion looks horrid. The empty space created with this suggestion is far more noticeable, than the empty side bars (which personally I had no issue with) (I think I will, in fact take a screen shot so you can see what I'm talking about). I specifically mean: the space between all the "wiki" information and the GW2 logo (considering they're left and right aligned respectively, so they have a huge space in-between, which is noticeable because of the text, and the image). The "articles of interest" also leaves a horrible amount of unused space (given every thing's left aligned, and there's not that much there, over half the box is "empty".

Personally I'm quite happy with the current proposal, and don't mind the "side bars", it makes the page friendly at a larger range of resolutions (specifically larger ones). So my suggestion would be either have some sort of side bar (chances are there's a nice image floating around that would work nicely), or make the main page use fixed/absolute dimensions (for those of you who are unsure, that means making all the content a specific size, instead of scaling with the size of the browser/screen resolution).

I'll also say i've looked at peoples suggestions. I though some of [[User:Ariyen/Main_Page|them]] could be OK with a couple of tweaks (colour choice the main, but in terms of layout I like them both (though the second needs to lose the grey border))

/rant. ~ PheNaxKian talk 20:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

[[:File:Phen editcopy spaces.png|screenshot]] of the spaces. ~ PheNaxKian talk 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the layout we have been discussing is [[User:Aquadrizzt/Sandbox/Main_Page/v1|this one]]. Since it's still being discussed, we haven't moved it here. Erasculio 20:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Border has been dropped, anyone is free to edit the main pages on my user space. I didn't say anyone could steal the layout design it's self... That's disrespectful, without asking. :-P Ariyen 21:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The correct design is not from your layout. I did version 3 (base on wikipedia layout) and than I got an idea to create the last design. you may see them all in my userspace. -- Itay AlonTalk 13:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
About edit your page, someone used your templates, so when I tried to fix some bugs I edit them (only after that I got that I edit 2 other people user pages, and sry about that). -- Itay AlonTalk 13:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Blah, there is no "correct" design really. What I was asking is for like say game play, media, etc. on the left side to be on the right side and the official news and wiki news on the left side. I tried that but the boxes are out of sync :-( Can you please help? (Am looking into the wikipedia columns, tables, etc. and while I might have the idea to fix. I know that one box will be in on another and that's yet another trouble I run into...) :-( Ariyen 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Done (User:Ariyen/Main).-- Itay AlonTalk 16:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My Opinion

Green is Ew, empty-Stretch-space is bleah and Neatness is Nice. im saying we need a nice (light) Blue or Yellow/Golden colour (mabey shades of brown?) for the current main page. i realy like the current format it has, mainly because the other ideas have been terrible.Anyone agree?--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If each person makes an entire subsection only to state his/her opinion about the topics being discussed above, this page is going to become a mess in a very short time. Erasculio 22:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
How about we vote then? o.o, i say it just needs a colour change.--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 22:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
You've been saying it needs a colour change for a while now. Why don't you then create some colour samples for us to view that don't look identical to the GWW. Brown is generic and bleak. I'm all for seeing something in blue, just not some baby boy blues. Feel free to put forth a colour selection that we can actually view. Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 23:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) My opinion? I think we shouldn't change anything. At all. Not until we have a LOT more information. -- Konig/talk 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

And the other thing that would make this discussion a mess in a very short time is the repetition of the same ideas multiple times in different sections. Erasculio 00:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Would it be better if they were being repeated in a huge wall of text? Now you can see those ideas and see which ones are repeating and which ones are original which is a good thing. ^^ --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 00:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


Put gameplay, media and lore sections at the top and News section at the bottom and reduce image size to ~120px. That way you get rid of ugly white spaces that are in abundance on this page. --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 23:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If each person makes an entire subsection only to state his/her opinion about the topics being discussed above, this page is going to become a mess in a very short time. Erasculio 22:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Stick to topic. I make a subsection for my suggestion which doesnt match any discussion that has taken place above. Honestly, white spaces in infoboxes look terrible which could easily be avoided by changing their placement. =/ Also, subsections actually prevent this page from becoming a mess where everyone ec's each other and some valuable suggestions are lost because a pair of morons decide to settle their scores in a nitpicking contest. ^___^ --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 23:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, too many subsections only catter to people who think their opinion is more important than everyone else's, and thus waste valuable contributors' time as they ignore everything that had been discussed before and force the repetition of arguments that had already been discussed (see the comments about where to place the News section above as a good example of that). Some humility is nice once in a while. Erasculio 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Nah, it just prevents walls of text from appearing. Walls of texts are bad and make people tl;dr good ideas. Regardless, this is irrelevant to the topic. --Super IgorUser- Super Igor logo.png 00:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sorry for not joining in on this discussion (8 hour power outage :(...) anyway. It seems to me that almost no one is discussing the proposal that Itay, Ariyen, Erasculio and myself are putting forward and are instead discussing what is on the edit copy now. They are NOT THE SAME THING! People are commenting on the blank white space on the current page HERE! The proposal significantly reduces the blank white space in most areas... Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 02:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"If each person makes an entire subsection [...] this page is going to become a mess in a very short time." - If each person makes an entire new main page draft (with minimal changes), this page is going to become a mess in a very short time. Oh snap! It already happened... Does anyone actually know about which idea most people are talking about? And why do people still create new copies of copies of drafts with color X changed so slightly that my monitor isn't able to see the difference? Seriously, either you create a completely new draft, with real changes (!), or you discuss an existing draft together. But the way you do it now, is completely stupid, especially when Person A shows a single page with six different settings. poke | talk 07:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I open section for each step, it's really hard to follow this discussions. anyway, after we work on structure, we made something that a lot agree with, and because we want the new main page this year, we continue to the next step, colors. after a lot agree with green, we started step 3 that talking about the content. the last step 4 is the little things like images and cleaning the HTML, and start after step 3.
See also: User:Itay_Alon/Main_Page -- Itay AlonTalk 08:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Um, if you look at the discussion on that Main page of mine - there's several that aren't for it. So I don't know where you got that "everyone" agrees with green from. All I know is that Aqua suggested it, but many from as I said my talk, here and I believe your talk are for the current color. Might have to discuss what color people wants here, instead of several places to confirm a "correct" color. Layout has been picked, but there's another version of that same layout meaning no one said they were for the gameplay, etc. to be on the left side nor for the news to be on the right side. I think an option of both views of those two columns switched would be nice... and we can get consensus on that before moving to the next step which is discussing "here" of what to have on the main page, not other talk pages. I don't like jumping around and would really really prefer it all on one page. that way consensus can be "clear". Ariyen 16:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I know that not all of us agree with Aqua color, it's why I told to WYN that we'll vote between two greens after part 4. About the layout, I created it, Aqua improved it by colors and images, and a lot of people like it. We can change the order, but I'm not going to stop all the work because of it (we can talk about the order and the content in the same time). -- Itay AlonTalk 16:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


You all fuss... I created this here. It's Aqua's version, but more so the way I feel would be viewed. Opinions? Fixing to use current colors for another view of how it'd look as I like the current colors better. Ariyen 03:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Added in some more colors. Ariyen 03:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I actually still like Aqua's version more. Some small details make it look more professional (such as the boxes being aligned, the images not cutting through the sections' titlebars, and etc), and the colors from anything other than the first entry are too dulled down into either gray or white; they simply lack enough saturation to give a good impression. Erasculio 05:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I prefered Images to blend rather than stick out like a sore thumb, one of the good things about gww's design that I appreciated. Not to mention that having it stagnant like you're talking about, screws up a computer that uses lower resolution, etc. (size wise) So, I considered all of that and what I felt would cat people's eyes. Most right now would rather learn about the "news" - The Official news than to search for things on the wiki it's self. Hence, the swap. It can be swapped back later. I did fix the other one, but this one is being a bit more "picky" in not wanting to line up right - something a coder can easily fix on that page. Secondly, seems like a couple of people like the current colors, compared to the awful green (which I used, but decided to bite my tongue and not refuse to use it.) I wanted to show a possibility of a few colors. Small details of her's like the images being out there so blandly does not make it professional as I have seen too many wikis with a similar design in some way or another. A main page needs a little spice to make it appear more towards gamers and less "professional". If I wanted professional, I'd go to wikipedia. Aren't we about a bit of "creativity" or are you trying to kill that, by going to a more professional bland look? Ariyen 06:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Added in Aqua's version but with Main page colors and also added in that same version with main page colors and the images on the left side are blending. It took out some of the white spaces when I did that. Ariyen 06:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think Aqua's version has a lot more "spice" than yours, due to his better use of colors (which received a strong support some sections above, on the color section). Being sloppy for the sake of being sloppy (with boxes that are not properly aligned and images intruding on the title bars) isn't really something we should aim at for the main page. Plus, your action of removing Aqua's version from the edit copy was detrimental, since, as poke mentioned, people don't know which version we are talking about. Erasculio 16:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't help agreeing that the main page must change asap, because it truly has become a complete mess which simply lacks both basic principles for the main page — a somewhat well-looking design as the first, welcoming glance at the site (and possibly even at the game and community) and lucid, well-arranged set of links to continue. I find the proposed designs fairly intuitive and lucid, contrary to this horrid... thing. From Ariyen's list I most like version 1 - news at the left and links at the right, although I'd align it as in Itay Alon's version (middle is in the middle when zooming in/out and top and bottom edges are aligned to each other). Not too much nor too little whitespace, small presentation of ArenaNet's art in the 13 images of races and professions, clearly set sections and coherently organized links — I simply cannot see anything wrong preventing the use of this design.
As for the colours, imho all greyish or brownish shades are bland, so I'd either stick to Itay Alon's/Ariyen's version 1's
dark sea green
or try something even less grey,
towards the teal
even more blue,
or rather go for a yellowish shade,
like this lime.
As for the content, I'd base it on Ariyen's, that is a box for Gameplay (but with Weapons in Game mechanics and Character creation, perhaps in Player vs. Environment (or Game mechanics as well) and, as the time comes, also adding Achievements, Armor (and other things that would fit) to the mechanics section too); a second box (The game, Media & information, Media & FAQ, or something better), there also must be a link to FAQ, we cannot just delete it from the main page; and a third box, Lore — I'm not sure about writing out all the Elder dragons, maybe just a link as a group would suffice, but I'd also add Gods of Tyria, perhaps even Spirits of the Wild and Eternal Alchemy, and definitely organizations like Destiny's Edge or the Orders.
I'm sorry that most of the things I said were already mentioned like a million times, but I simply wanted to add my opinion. The problem is, there will always be someone who doesn't like it and who'll whine and say this is horrible or that we should keep it the way it is, but I personally believe that the sooner we change it the better. Newcomers will thank us later. · LOQUAY · 12:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way for the Logo (whatever it turns out to be) to remain at the top of the page...but the Navigation, Search, Support and Toolbox panes to move down the left hand column as we scroll down. So that they are always on the screen?13:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're asking Book. @Loquay, I'd like to have the coding like what Itay did on Aqua's but oh well didn't work and I tried the next best thing I could. Ariyen 14:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
he means make the panes on the left hand side (the Nav, search support and toolbox) "float" (think the little note saying "don't disscuss" on the GWW AN). I believe you can by editing your monobook.css, though I can't think how atm. ~ PheNaxKian talk 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


Apparently, we're all "confused" Italy wants to say it's the lay out on his page as supposidly discussed here and there. While the page it's self has been picked. The categories, etc. I feel are in the wrong place and I am working on two layout shapes to go for the main design. For now, the main page edit should reflect this only AFTER the layout is completed, not before - that way CONSENSUS is clear and decided. The Colors are not picked at all and I would like this to be DISCUSSED before the main page edit is messed with. I am reverting only because there is no consensus as two obvious people are blind to see. If reverted by one who is not really involved in all of this. I would back down from my aghast as I am irritated that we have one who's wanting to rush instead of going by steps and taking time to pick a layout that most would like, that would include.... colors , category arrangement, what's to be listed, image view (which is better), etc. None of that is actually completed. I am going back to what I aim for. Right now, this new "layout" that is on the edit page as I agree with Konig, Super, and the others on my talk page... it's UGLY. It still supports an unfinished main page and would not be appealing, until fixed. I'm talking about the white spaces more than anything that neither Italy nor Aqua have bothered to fix. Ariyen 18:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As poke said above:
""If each person makes an entire subsection [...] this page is going to become a mess in a very short time." - If each person makes an entire new main page draft (with minimal changes), this page is going to become a mess in a very short time. Oh snap! It already happened... Does anyone actually know about which idea most people are talking about? And why do people still create new copies of copies of drafts with color X changed so slightly that my monitor isn't able to see the difference? Seriously, either you create a completely new draft, with real changes (!), or you discuss an existing draft together. But the way you do it now, is completely stupid, especially when Person A shows a single page with six different settings. poke 07:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)"
So instead of making fifteen versions in your userspage, ignoring the discussion here and using comments made about other designs as if they were meant for your designs... Discuss it in a single page - here. If you would like to change the currently proposed layout, change it here and then ask what people think about it, so everyone knows what you are talking about. Otherwise, we will have more people confused about what is happening. Erasculio 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, you're not reading are you? I explain what each version is and where from on the page, showing the possibilities of the changes, trying to find something that'd suite most as far as a layout, instead of just picking one and going with it. You know, options, many options for many to choose from, not just a few. there are 'styes' of layouts within layouts, etc... Are you understanding now? We're at 2. we've picked the main layout 'style'. but not where what goes where exactly and that's what I'm in the process to show. you and Italy are the ones seemingly to be impatient and in a hurry to put up a new layout that's not really agreed upon. Most have hushed, because everyone is going on anyway and not stopping to really 'discuss' anything.
The reason and I'd like to hear other's opinions, but what are your reasons for trying to implement a new page now? what are the reasons for those wanting to keep what we have and waiting? See that's the two main sides at the moment. Some don't like what's being proposed aka Super Igor, etc. Some do, but we all have differences. If we get together on a page and implement different versions instead of creating multiple pages. we can narrow down as to what version really suits best. So far I've noticed two, mine and Aqua's. It was only you and Italy who went forward with Aqua's, ignoring everyone else. Until we get past step two. I will continue to revert your vandalism as that's what i see it, because there is no consensus and you're just vandalizing a page that no one has agreed upon. whether you like it or not. I think we all should work as a team Erasculio and I've not seen that from you all that much. I have seen you have issues with Konig and a few more. Stop making this an issue and deal with the problems at hand. 1. let's let the Users decide and Italy as I saw and fixed on your page (we don't do voting). I honestly am not the one taking it everywhere. That does not mean I can't participate and help, but I am tired of you two pushing when the issue as I have mentioned have not been resolved and this of course is going to get worse instead of better. let's work at this one at a time as it does take time too... Now the first thing I'll do and plan on doing is the layout (shown originally done by Aqua), then reversed. See which one we'd like more. Then show the images on both done in two ways. I've fixed the images to go with different sizes on my main (where I'm editing) I plan to do this on the others as this code would help the flow better as one had mentioned on Aqua's talk. I take notice and I show it. I'm not trying to be hostile, but I do wish that we wouldn't have few who are pushy, when we haven't even gotten through the first two stages. once settled, then I'd say we all an discuss here of the colors with the page picked being displayed by then. Images can be changed and should be last resort. After colors, we can choose what to be viewed, changed and then after that the images can be talked about. Once everything is settled and fixed on the main page edit and not else where... I feel we could move on and notify an admin that it's ready to be displayed. Any agreements/disagreements? have I hit the nail on the head of the problem? (that last question is at Konig, Poke, and others who haven't participated much.) Ariyen 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
"If we get together on a page and implement different versions instead of creating multiple pages. we can narrow down as to what version really suits best": which is exactly what you were not doing. If every person who joins this discussion begins making new pages, no one is going to know which page people are talking about. I don't know why you are not willing to listen to me or poke about this, and willing to ignore how we already have examples of users thinking parts of the discussion were about the wrong pages.
I don't know about you, but considering how confusing it has been to have each user having his own page with his own version, I would rather have the community working together on a single version - this one - until it becomes something everyone agrees with. Between your complains above about how people would be stealing your designs and your willingness to call anything you don't agree with "vandalism", I'm not sure you are suited to this kind of colaborative effort, but I hope the other users will edit this page until we reach a consensus here, in a single place, and finally find something that pleases everyone (instead of trying to make one hundred designs that only please a handful of people each). Erasculio 18:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not blind, and it was not me who edited the editcopy. I just updated the contents of that page to avoid misunderstandings. Also, I'm sorry if it seemed that I was running, but I work in steps, and I just do not delayed when there is consensus that the choice is one of two green colors. You saw what happened when we spent too much on the structure? This created anarchy and the inability to follow new offers and updated versions. I'm not saying we were fine, but I do not think people know the situation at all, mainly because of the mess which created on the conversation. Currently we can revert the page editcopy as before. And slow down if we work too quickly. -- Itay AlonTalk 18:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
In addition, we can back to step one. -- Itay AlonTalk 19:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
@Eras, I'm not listening to you anymore. You're being Irresponsible, Irrational and not solving anything here, you just added to the talk, instead of us solving our issues you created more.. @Itay, I did not see "consensus"... I just saw issues of so many against this and so many for it. I do agree in to let it continue and pan out, but that'd just create the issues. Only thing is this. We need to settle these two questions first. What are your reasons for trying to implement a new page now? what are the reasons for those wanting to keep what we have and waiting? If we can solve and get consensus for the go, then I'd say let's take the layout and show the two possibilities - the reversal of Aqua's that you did for me comparing it to Aqua's and see which way people would like more. Then how to place those images should be either second or third, I'm thinking third and the colors second. So let's do this... Ariyen 19:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Reason for Implement

To the public: Please answer the following question, without haste or negativity (As given above and I appologize for). For those wanting to implement a new page. "What are your reasons for trying to implement a new page now?" Do the rest of you agree or disagree? Ariyen 19:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The current main page does look too much like a placeholder. While this mostly works for now, more and more information is being given to us (particularly the demos at PAX and similar). As such, we need something new. However, I acknowledge that it is difficult considering we don't know what to plan for (any new mechanics or something). Therefore, we need a new page but we need to leave ourselves some room for adjustment. I have no ideas on how to do this, unfortunately. Shadow Runner 19:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Repeating myself, but since some people would like to see repetition...Problems of the main page:
  • It's inefficient in how it uses space: the page has two large empty columns by its side, while keeping all text cramped in the middle column with little space between sections. A design with less unused space leaving more room between sections would be better.
  • It's badly organized: the "Articles of Interest" section is a mess, listing things which do not make sense together (lore articles with trailers? Elder dragons between professions and mechanics?) and generally done at a time in which we knew far less about GW2 than we do today.
  • It's upside down: it talks about the wiki at the top, while placing news about GW2 at the bottom, making people scroll to find about the game. Considering how GW2 is actually more important than the wiki, the news section should be at the top, and the notice about the wiki at the bottom.
  • It's ugly: the current page was made more as a placeholder than as something meant to be pretty. The current images being shown were just thrown into the old layout, instead of being part of a planned concept. With GW2 being showcased by the media on a monthly based, and with the influx of users coming here, it looks extremely unprofessional to the wiki to have such a bad main page.
  • It is a placeholder: sooner or later we will have to redo it anyway. Might as well be now, when Arena Net is focusing so much on the newer game.
How to fix those problems: by making a new layout, one not meant to be a placeholder. Which means...
  1. Planning ahead. Content was added to the current main page without any sort of organization, since it had not been created to last this long, or to be a real page. Any decent article meant to be a main page needs to have features allowing it to be expanded in an organized and planned way, which is easy to do - it's just a matter of creating a pattern which allows expansion later on. The option, of course, would be to keep the main page as a placeholder until after release (since only by them we will have documented everything), which would look not only ugly, but also unprofessional.
  2. Making it beautiful, not only functional: the current page had no intent of being pretty, since it was just a placeholder. Any new layout should aim to be beautiful, too. The main page is the face of the wiki, it has to leave a good lasting impression.
  3. Making it organized: less cluttered text in the middle of large empty areas. Text can be spread over a larger space while relying less on purely empty areas (such as the ones currently seen on the main page) and more on images and other methods of keeping the page balanced.
  4. Using common sense: we have some articles which are currently almost empty, so it doesn't make sense to showcase them on the main page. In other hand, we currently have plenty of content to be displayed at the front of the wiki; with a minimum of planning, it's easy to keep only the almost complete articles on the main page while leaving ways to add more later on.
And to the concern about having to do this entire process again, once more content is released: that's the difference between having a placeholder and a real main page. We will have to replace the placeholder; we won't have to replace a main page, even one made right now, as long as its layout has ways to be expanded into whatever we need it to become. Erasculio 19:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, we don't have enough "proper" information for the main page. The things you want removed are necessary and the things you want kept/added are not. We have some articles that are okay, but the rest are not enough to be able to be viewed on the main page, plus lack of information gives me strong concern that if we create a main page now and with more information coming, we will be back here at stage one going through all of this again anyway. Trying to make room add, redo, refix, when we should just wait. (I did say people could agree/disagree. :0) ) Ariyen 21:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There is only one reason to change the Main Page, the same reason there is to change any other given page on the wiki: To make it as good as it can be. Similarly, the only reason not to change it: it's already as good as it can be (e.g. we have somehow actually created the perfect page, or far more likely no one has yet come up with a way to make it better). The Main Page as it currently is, or as any of the given proposals would be, may be expanded and tweaked, or even thrown out and replaced with something radically different, as we get new information and new users. This is true at any given point in a wiki's lifespan. If you were to come up with a design for GW1W's Main Page that was completely different from how it is now and you could get consensus that it's better, it would be implemented.
If you think the current Main Page is good, or the current Main Page is bad but none of the alternative is better, so you want to keep the current Main Page, fine. If you think the alternatives could be better, but don't want to put in the work yourself, fine. If you want to actively stop people from attempting to create better alternatives, that is downright anti-wiki (read as: not fine). - Tanetris 23:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
@Ariyen: "we don't have enough "proper" information for the main page" and "but the rest are not enough to be able to be viewed on the main page" are empty arguments as we already have a design in which pages with plenty of content are enough for the main page. Erasculio 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so you want to add in crap that isn't really "main page" worth as to me it's more sub content than anything and take away bases of a wiki aka Faq, news, etc. to put up what? More Lore? Information is key and it's lacking which is bad right now for a page. and you said that gww had a placement? No, it didn't. If you look at the history of the main page, you'd see that it was also still in works, before the current style that it's using today. To me the old style I saw was a place-mat that lasted for a long while, until someone designed a worthy page featuring enough information that's being used. Are you refusing similarity and pushing for what a page that'll need redoing/a complete make-over that's not necessary and can be worked on over time (until many are settled with a good display/page)? Ariyen 00:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"so you want to add in crap that isn't really "main page" worth": no, we refused your design. Feel free to point which links currently on Aqua's page you would call "crap", though.
"and take away bases of a wiki aka Faq, news, etc": I believe the rather large "Official News" would make it clear that news have not been removed from the main page...Are you paying attention to what you are talking about?
"until someone designed a worthy page featuring enough information that's being used": which is exactly Aqua's current page. Erasculio 01:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not calling her design crap (unless you are?) I'm calling what you're wanting to ADD (suggested and she disagreed with) a bad idea. Read before getting hot-headed and stop taking things out of contest, you're bad enough as you've messed up the previous discussions and made all that more confusing. I'm not talking about Official news, but removing FAQ, which to us belongs on the main page, isn't that a little nutty? I think so. It should stay and not blend in with other "titles", if possible. I thought you'd preview before you edit to make sure it looked correct - had to fix the dot that was removed more than once, so the books would not blend together. Ariyen 02:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"I'm calling what you're wanting to ADD (suggested and she disagreed with) a bad idea": which, interestingly enough, is nothing; if you haven't noticed the links I have mentioned multiple times, I would be very happy to implement Aqua's design exactly as it is right now. Again, are you paying attention to what you are trying to talk about?
"but removing FAQ, which to us belongs on the main page, isn't that a little nutty?": considering how I haven't removed the FAQ from the editcopy, I do have to wonder what do you think you are talking about ("nutty" indeed, I guess).
"I thought you'd preview before you edit to make sure it looked correct": ironic from the person who has failed to preview before making comments here, making me correct your indents. Please pay more attention next time. Erasculio 02:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Nothing says that I have to add addition space in my reply back. I placed back the removed faq from your last edit. Also, the faq was an example after that first line that you took out of context. Do you take everything out of context just to be an *bleep* or do you even understand half of what's going on? I doubt as you'd understood that the conversations that you have derailed (not me) were more so to the point if we even need it not. A disagree or agree with what one said, not to pick things out and degrade it all as you have done. I agree with what Konig has said, but not with you nitpicking out a few comments of his and mine. Have you not realized that decent discussions and conversations are usually not like that? or are you 'trying to be another carebare that we don't need as I'm only seeing you being hard headed and not backing down. Just go take a cold/cool bath and cool it with a more of a sensible head on your shoulders and less of an (bleep) please. We don't need your harsh attitude and that's the only reason why I'm being a *bleep* (well a major one :-P) . So, I just hope you don't respond back and give others a chance to express their opinions. I can strongly imagine why they don't, you and me. Ariyen 02:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Reason to keep current

To the public: Please answer the following question, without haste or negativity (As given above and I appologize for). For those wanting to implement a new page. "What are the reasons to keep what we have and wait?" Do the rest of you agree or disagree?

I hope we know that what we have is just a "place holder" and not really a main page... anyway, please discuss. Ty! Ariyen 19:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Not enough information to create the new page. In addition, we create future problems when new information gets out and we had to go through the whole process again to change the page. -- Itay AlonTalk 19:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree and think we should wait until the game comes out or enough information to really play with. I was noticing this when creating a layout, which I think the temp holder could look better, but it's just not enough no matter what right now. Ariyen 19:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The biggest two reasons have been stated (not enough information and we don't know how much information we'll have in the future). I disagree with Ariyen with the waiting until the game comes out - it should be a placeholder (and tbh, I like the placeholder more than every suggestion thus far) until shortly before the release (which we'll know when to change the main page when they announce a release date). A reason that hasn't been brought up already, at least in this section, which goes somewhat into Era's point on which articles the main page should link to, is that the most important pages (when the game comes out) may also be the least filled. To Era, this means those least filled shouldn't be put up - I frankly agree, we shouldn't put up mostly empty pages on the main page, but I disagree with removing the links all together just to warrant the main page to be updated. Instead it should be the other way around - we wait to update the main page when we have more filled out pages. This, I believe, is why we had a placeholder page in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong).
Furthermore, in the future there may be decisions to implement new features to the main page (such as GW1W's Featured Article project, which I think should carry over to this wiki), so if we wait until shortly before the game is out (the latest, imo, that the placeholder should be replaced), then there may be fewer changes to the main page in the future.
That said, I do not disagree with planning the design and color of the future main page, so long as it is not implemented (but do note that planning the content of the main page, at this time, to me is silly; except for possibly the box/section titles). -- Konig/talk 21:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to Konig, I was thinking a featured page up top, related moved to above the wiki but below the official information. 3 boxes on each side actually, but anyway I'll get to it at a better convenient time. I just don't like the current as far as the boxes go, but I do think that we can have a good main page, just not yet and I didn't mean when the game came out, but closer to that time frame with at least good ideas in mind. Ariyen 22:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
@Koenig: "we wait to update the main page when we have more filled out pages" is redundant; we already have enough pages filled for a proper main page. And stating that "in the future there may be decisions to implement new features to the main page (such as GW1W's Featured Article project, which I think should carry over to this wiki)" goes against your argument: GW1W did not need to have a placeholder until they decided to add the Featured Article project, rather they had a good main page and eventually added more content to it. Such is the idea behind a proper, well made main page: to allow for the introduction of more content without having to redo everything. Just as was done in GW1W (you didn't see a big discussion about redoing the entire main page just to fit the Featured Article section), we may do here (you don't need a big discussion about redoing the entire main page just to fit a couple more articles, as long as the main page is something well done, unlike the current placeholder). Erasculio 00:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Era, your argument of bringing up the GW1Wiki is moot because GW1 existed before the GW1Wiki was made. There was never a need for a placeholder on the GW1Wiki like there has been (and imo still is) a need for this wiki. Bringing up the featured article project is not going against my argument just because the GW1Wiki had a set main page before the project; it actually neither harms nor helps the argument by much (which is why it is a minor point), but it would be easier to have it in mind when making the main page from the get go should we want it. As to "we already have enough pages filled for a proper main page" - this is incorrect as there is a lot of white space, which will be filled out in time but we cannot fill it out now. So that in fact supports the reason not to change the main page now. As it is, there is no white space within the boxes, and extending the placeholder boxes will just add onto the white space. Until we have more articles to fill in said white spaces, it shouldn't change. My point is there isn't a need to add in more articles as it is, at least not in a way that will make the current main page terrible looking, but there will be in the future; however, with the current idea there is plenty of white space within the sections which doesn't look that good in comparison with the current version of the main page. -- Konig/talk 00:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"your argument of bringing up the GW1Wiki is moot because GW1 existed before the GW1Wiki was made": which is actually irrelevant when you consider how GW1W's main page was changed to have more content (such as the Featured Article section) after it had originally been created without having to redo the entire page. Whether GW1 came after or before GW1W doesn't change the fact of how it's possible to add more content to a main page without redoing it completely; therefore, the argument of how this page would have to be redone again later is moot.
"there is plenty of white space within the sections which doesn't look that good in comparison with the current version of the main page"...which has lots of white spaces itself. The current main page not only has plenty of white spaces, but it's also cluttered in its middle section, badly organized and ugly; even if Aqua's proposal had as many white spaces (and it doesn't), it would at least solve the other issues, making it an improvement over the current design. Erasculio 01:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that everything is here...

...And we can actually do what poke suggested above, and discuss the layout in a single place, so everyone knows what we are talking about and everyone can implement desired changes to see what people think about it, I believe we may continue the discussion.

  • Layout: I like the layout currently seen here. It has a decorative feeling which is required for the main page, while allowing text to be read easily between two large columns, without the cluttered text and large empty spaces seen on the current main page.
  • Colors: I like the green currently seen here (which is the green at the editcopy page right now). I think it's better than the more dulled green at the main page yet not garrish enough to blind people.
  • Content: from what we see here, I don't agree with a fair number of points:
  1. The Weapons article in Game mechanics is a bit out of place - currently it's way too empty to be in the main page. A few weeks ago Arena Net mentioned an incoming article about equipment, so I think we should wait until then and, once said article is released, add a link directly to an Equipment article.
  2. The Character creation article in Game mechanics is also out of place - it's under PvE, while it applies to both PvE and PvP, plus the article is currently very bad, since we don't really know much about character creation yet. The article itself isn't written very well, either, so I don't think it deserves "main page status".
  3. The "Related news" box. I would rather call it "Media" and remove the two first lines ("Guild Wars 2" and "News • Frequently Asked Questions"). There are already too many sections about news on the front page, so having a "Related news" box (and a News link within said box) would be redundant. Besides, having a section named "Guild Wars 2" is redundant - the entire wiki is about GW2 anyway.
  4. The "Lore and history" box. I think its name should be shortened to "Lore" (since history is a part of lore, and shorter titles work better, IMO), and that we should remove the Religions and Organizations sections for now. Both are currently too empty to be showcased on the main page; this is just too small to be linked from the "face" of the wiki.

What do you people think? Erasculio 19:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick to the questions first, before you go off the deep end, Erasculio. Ariyen 19:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Not really, thank you Ariyen.
I would ask people to make changes to this article when trying to change the layout in order to see how something else would look like, and to keep all comments here (as opposed to discussing changes on an user's talk page) so we may use this page for its original goal - a colaborative effort by everyone in trying to build a main page that actually suits everyone. Erasculio 19:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that's your choice, but read above at the questions. the things we're trying to settle first, before jumping to a new "layout" etc. we're trying to get consensus on it being there or not. So, how shall we make chances when we're discussing if it should even be changed. Ariyen 19:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
When I saw this topic for the first time, I asked why we should replace, and some people knew answer that there is a consensus, as for that to be different from GW1W. Now it is clear to everyone that this situation does not exist, otherwise the conversation was slipping so much about this issue. -- Itay AlonTalk 19:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree with Ariyen...Character Creation and Weapon are not really a) placed well and b) main page material (yet.) I think that as an important part of the game, the organizations should stay up...Lore and history needs to be shortened to just Lore. We cannot remove FAQ from the main page, we just can't... Other comments as necessary will follow. Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 20:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition, to replace the "Guild Wars 2" section under "Media" why not make it "Question and Answer," we could have FAQ, Warrior, Elementalist (grouped into single page for Profession Q+A), Traits, etc. Just a thought :D Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 20:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
That sounds good Aquadrizzt, but I'd like to see something other than Media used for the books, etc. (I love reading books more than I do playing a game, but can't due to not enough time (heh, take more time to read than I do to play a game)). Ariyen 00:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
That Guild Wars 2 link (when linked twice in a page) seemed unnecessary, if one doesn't like wording, please reword it better. Ariyen 01:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
For the records, the word Media does include "Print media", which includes books. Erasculio 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
And also for the records, instead of insisting on a bad idea ("Game Related", "Related information", "Related to the game" and etc), it may be a good idea to discuss the issue first and see if someone else has a better idea. Erasculio 01:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hm, same goes for you in reverting back to the exact same word constantly insisting every other word was "bad".... Isn't that 1rring for you multiple times more than me? Seriously, Media is a worse idea than the first two I placed up tbh. It's too bland, too non-professional. And here you wanted professional? Hrm. You're being a hard one, "Mr.Grench." Ariyen 01:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
"insisting every other word was "bad"": considering how your repertoire is mostly limited to "Game Related" and "Related to the game", it's hard to not insist on how all your options are bad. You may make subjective claims as much as you want about "Media" being "bland" an "non-professional", but there is a very clear and objective argument against your options: everything on the wiki is related to the game. Therefore, anything could fit within a "Game Related" section, making such title something very nonsensical for the main page. Erasculio 02:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
All I'm seeing here is hot air. Not much you're saying is beneficial either. Ariyen 02:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Ariyen, you shouldn't justify your actions with "But he's doing it too!" because that's not an excuse. Don't let this get out of hand. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 02:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. it's irritating when this is said "We cannot remove FAQ from the main page, we just can't..." said above by Aquadrizzt and ignored by Erasculio. I too agree to it being there. So removing information that more than one states it to be there is vandalizing that page. Is it not? Ariyen 02:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering how long it's going to take for you to realize I haven't removed the FAQ from the main page. Erasculio 03:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hm, how about you do a prev. (over to your last version) and see where it's "at" and tell me if you find it? I didn't see it, when I looked just a moment ago.Ariyen 03:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
As much as I love dropping myself in the middle of these conversations, the second FAQ link at the bottom of the official news section took me some time to spot. It might be a little misplaced because it is not official... -- Aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 03:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The FAQ is a bit misplaced anywhere, IMO. Ignoring Ariyen's "Related Material" (which, as explained above, doesn't make sense), the FAQ has no good place where to be in that page. Since we are linking to the "News" article from the "Official News" box, and said "News" article is not limited to official news (if that was the intention, it would be better to link to the "ArenaNet Blog Posts" article or the " news" article, both of which have only official news), I think that's a suitable place where to keep the FAQ for now. Do you have a better idea of where we could place it? Erasculio 03:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This is starting to turn into more of a conflict than a discussion. May I please ask that you all take a step back from this discussion for a bit and return to it later. With the rate it is going it is escalating past a mere disagreement. --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 03:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think Erasculio just needs to cool it. Your I don't like Any name you place instead of media arguement is getting old. If others don't like it or like it, let them speak, but quit reverting back to Media as that's not giving others to view possible replacement for it and it's less repetitive (we don't need Media on there more than once. it's in game media). Ariyen 04:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Green is ugly and unprofessional… You guys don’t see this.. How?. Stick with grey or gold. Less conflicts later imo. --NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 07:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Colour is a problem that is easy enough to fix, but the community seems to want this colour, and I for one think it is a good colour. Neither ugly nor unprofessional. --Odal talk 11:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, colour is what matters while being easy to fix. Also, as much as people love a certain colour, we should go with one thats nuetral.aka: Gold or Silver.--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 11:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a fairly neutral shade of green and most people seem to want it from what I've read in the colour section. --Odal talk 12:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the OLD green is much better. the new one is unprofessional and ugly. -- Itay AlonTalk 11:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I like the current green on the main page (not the edit copy) over the new green. It seems like a more professional color. I don't like the new layout too well, because the more you place there. the longer it'll get and you'd have to scroll. More than anything, I don't think we need the profession pictures or the main name photo - if it's going to be used up in the corner. Nor the top welcome as it is now X-) Have one in mind, but I don't know in creating it as Aqua did start from one of my old ones and not completely on her own. Ariyen 16:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I changed the old green, until we'll receive the decision to change the green from the original main page. -- Itay AlonTalk 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a break

I'd suggest pausing these discussions for a few days, as Phndvndhnzdnzvnvn also said. I think the large discussions, the large changes, and the 500 proposals being made in such a short time are making tempers flared and people fed up; it's detracting people from joining in with productive input, and it can't be nice for non-regular users to see. This talk page certainly is bearing the brunt of that, as is the main page editcopy; the negatives of the discussion are far outweighing any positive for the moment. There's no urgency in redesigning the main page. pling User Pling sig.png 12:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Love the impeccable spelling of my username ;-) --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

After the break

Now that our break is over, back to the discussion. From the layout currently at the main page, I think we could...

  • Remove the Weapons article from the Gameplay section. It's too empty right now for the main page; and Arena Net mentioned how they would release an article about equipment in GW2 relatively soon. IMO, it would be better to wait for said article and then link directly to an "Equipment" article (which would itself link to the Weapons article).
  • Remove the Character creation article from the PvE section. Character creation is relevant to both PvE and PvP, so that article being where is currently is doesn't really make sense; plus the article itself is currently rather bad, mostly repeating information mentioned in the other articles already linked from the main page.
  • Rename the "Related materials" section. Everything in this wiki is related to GW2, so anything could fit under such section. The section itself is a bit of a mess, though, since it has game media (screenshots, concept art, trailers, the books), the GW2 suggestions which are currently within the GW1W, and the FAQ. I think we should rework that section a bit, although I'm not sure how. Any ideas?
  • Rename the "In-Universe Documents" section to simply "Documents"; the current title is too big, and it's jumping on the page due to how it's black, while most works are in blue.

What do you people think? Erasculio 23:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't think we should remove any of it or rename any of it. It's all fit and dandy and no one else has had a problem with this during or after the break. My only problem is that the Faq is too close to the other. I am thinking it should be moved to the wiki area... Other than that. I'd say leave be. Ariyen 23:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, civilized conversations and opinions must be had.
  • in regards to removing weapons, I will disagree. While I do agree that there is little information and it is an "empty" article, they are quite relevant to the game and should have a home on the main page with or without full information
  • in regards to character creation being associated with PvE, I agree. The current format may imply that creation of a character is solely reserved to a PvE environment, and we do not want that interpretation to affect people's decisions.
  • Yes, related material needs to be reworked, currently it looks like a section that is all the junk that didn't have a home before
  • agreed, in-universe is unnecessarily when documents will do just fine
  • in regards to structure, I feel that the "official news" section should be beside (perhaps on the left) of the wiki news section. Move the lore and the "related material" section beside gameplay.
(edit conflict)Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 23:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Venom, I didn't understand what you mean in your last point. Would you like to have the "Official news" to the left of the "Wiki news" and the "Gameplay" section below the "Official news", with "Related material" and "Lore" below "Wiki news", to the right of the "Gameplay" section? Erasculio 23:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) 1. For now I say leave the weapons article. A lot of things on this wiki are going to be empty until more information is released, and after the release of the equipment article they're planning, we can replace it. The information is still pertinent, important, and of interest to those looking for an overview of this upcoming game, as little info as there is at the moment.
2. As long as you leave it somewhere in the format, I agree. For the same reasons stated above.
3. Rename to "Miscellaneous info", maybe? I dunno how important organization is for miscellany, but I'm open to ideas as well.
4. Maybe "Lore documents," though just "Documents" is fine with me. Could link to a category including such documents (or a list, for viewer friendliness) from the title if the blue would make you happy. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 23:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
sort of, it just seems that information has been built in a vertical style with "information" in the left column and "news" in the right column. I feel the structure should be more a horizontal one, with "information" in sections in a row and "news" in sections in a row underneath. I agree that the presented material should stay in little section boxes as it is (ie. 'gameplay', 'official news', etc), it is neater this way, and easier to find objects Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 23:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, could you make a main page of your views to show what you're after?.... Just don't want it to mimic gww1. Ariyen 02:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot, I attempted to rewrite the current code, but I would need to write the page myself in it's entirety (I have a thing with working on code from someone else), which I do not have the time for right now. So I suppose it is fine Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 03:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have made some temporary changes, so people could see them and share opinions. Take a look here:

  • I have split "Gameplay" and "Character" sections. Since the "Related materials" section felt like it was just a miscelaneous mess, I have tried to expand on the bit of gameplay we have the most information about, the characters themsevelves.
  • I have moved the FAQ to the "Gameplay" section, placing it at what is probably the first section people will see. I have also added the recently-announced Activities to the "Gameplay" section, and removed "Character creation" from below PvE. I have kept "Weapons" as part of the "Game mechanics", as discussed above.
  • I have moved Books to the "Lore" section, and renamed the "In-Universe Documents" section to "History", since we have a History category and that's what those documents are about anyway.
  • I have created a Character section with all information currently available about characters: professions, races, playable orders, personalities and the accomplishments which have just been announced.

I have undone the changes so we may discuss them (and hopefully avoid an edit war) while being able to show you people what I would like to do. Thoughts? Erasculio 22:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole thing should be redone in some ways. I think Related materials (what all is in there that is) should be between official news and wiki news. And a box for featured page should be above the Gameplay. I don't think gameplay should be used for the materials and Character for the in game stuff. Gameplay should be for in-game and another more suitable word for the related items to the game it's self and not "media" please. Hmm, how about "Specials"? o.O I'm trying to think up a uniqueness that would be better than "media" that you'd probably see on many "typical" wikis and to me seeing media gets old really really quick and to me, you'd want a main page to attract, not draw away people. Ariyen 00:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the green that is on the current mainpage to the one that is being proposed. I also don't like the proposed layout, it's way too much like GWW (which I hate btw). I would rather see a more stylized layout if you are going to change it from what it is currently. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 04:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean with "stylized layout", Wyn? It's a bit hard to work just with a "I don't like the proposed layout", when most people in the discussion are actually showing the changes they would like to see. Erasculio 12:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Just throwing my opinion in here: I really don't like the color scheme currently on the edit copy.-- Shew 15:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Why? Keep in mind that we are discussing trying to reach a consensus, iow a compromise between people in order to find something which pleases everyone. Just saying "this is ugly" is not going to help us do that - if no other reason is given, we will just randomly change the color scheme without moving in any direction.
For example, I don't like the green currently on the main page because I think it's too bland; the color lacks saturation, which makes it too close to gray, and I believe the main page should have a more vivid color. I would not be opposed to changing to any other color (blue, yellow, whatever), as long as it was a bit more intense than what we have now. Erasculio 22:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Several have stated that they like the old green over the new. The old green is more "Professional" looking and fits to a wiki better than the new green that I'd expect to see more on a website. I do agree with the others in that the new green is pretty much hideous looking and hurts my eyes to look at it. I prefer a color to not be so "vivid" to hurt someone's eyes and to not out-stand from the words. You'd want the words to show, not blend behind colors as how else is someone going to know the title if they can't see it? Ariyen 08:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
If many people share similar feelings regarding the brightness of the color, we could try something in between, such a pale green closer to white than to gray. It would not have the problem of being too "vivid" nor would it be as bland as the current green. Erasculio 15:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

{::::::::Read all over this page and "count" those that like the old color to those that like the new. Ask those that only say they dislike the new or old color, what color they would like, not why as it's already explained. Make it more like a discussion, instead of going after people as you just have. Thanks, I'm gone for a while, until the sysops can deal with you or you deal with you and your issues over this mess. Ariyen 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you should leave for a while under your own volition. No one is going to take either argument seriously, as both arguments are sounding like personal agendas more than a collective of thoughts. And I don't want to hear any rebuttal on this subject, as it would appear petty and full of excuses. Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 18:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I just popped in to see what's happening and I see is all this drama again and the game isn't even out yet. What's going to happen when the game comes out and all these ideas turn into a drama shit storm? Everyone needs to cool down and think about everyone's preferences, not just your own. Personal ideas and preferences are nice and dandy, and they belong in the userspace not in the main space. Gauge what the user base needs/wants, and build ideas upon that, not from what you personally want/need. As venom said, everyone needs to take a 4 day break "minimum". --LaniaUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 19:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re-opening the Logo discussion

After the archived discussion regarding the current GW2W logo, I still feel strongly towards changing/having it changed with the updated GW2 logo. I have redesigned my old logo (which was plain wrong due to gamma settings) to a more blending logo for the wiki, found here. I want C&C on it and valid arguments why the early-stage (current) wiki logo should stay. Thanks for your time. - Infinite - talk 01:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the new logo should go in place of the old one. It is the real logo of Guild Wars 2 and I don't see why we shouldn't be able to use this logo. Ariyen 02:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The dragon looks cooler than the planet, so I'm for the dragon. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 02:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to put my logo up for discussion, as it has become popular in people's personal CSSs. It can be found here: File:User_Phnzdvn_Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_Logo_Orig_Font.png. I designed it to blend well with the current wiki background and have some depth. I personally prefer it to Infinite's version. --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 02:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I like them both. I like the fullness of Infinite's and the sharpness of Phnzdvn's. How about a combination? I think that'd be cool. Ariyen 03:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Ariyen. Though Phnzdvn's version lost some spine(sharpness) of the dragon there, I guess that could be fixed... Not to mention that I like the current logo as well, as it reminds me about Populous: The Beginning, which is an excellent game[/random]. Ge4ce 05:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I like yours as much as mine to be frank, though I choose to blend it in with the default wiki lay-out we have here, so that we did not have to massively alter the lay-out with CSS. Though I'd like to see your CSS, I'll scout around for it. =] - Infinite - talk 08:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: I honestly had expected the GW2 globe logo to be flattened onto the background, rather than a transparent version of it (as to why I designed mine including background). I'm all up for your version now that I've seen it in preview. =] - Infinite - talk 08:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally I would prefer to leave the decision about the logo (& favicon btw) to ArenaNet alone. poke | talk 11:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I would defer to ANet if they want to decide it, but I think it is worthwhile to discuss the logo here. After all, it is closely related to the overall wiki layout, which is a wiki (and not ANet) issue. --Xeeron 13:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Xeeron.
Poke I see where you're coming from, but can you honestly claim to know ArenaNet have intentionally left the logo instead of merely forgetting about the usage of one image while busy designing the largest game they'll have ever created? If you don't know for sure, I must contest the relevance of your point. ArenaNet making an oversight is not reason enough to decide the Logo of the Wiki. In fact, it's not a reason at all. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
+1 agree for new logo.--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 14:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
My biggest issue with the current logo (and I am most likely repeating myself here) is that it is not consistent with other Guild Wars 2 related websites, including the official. Having a different logo could make some think the site isn't official or that our content may be outdated. I just want consistency to avoid confusion. If we decide to put a new logo up via CSS and Arenanet does decide that they want to design their own in the future... I wouldn't have much of a problem with switching to their design (unless, of course, its absolutely hideous). --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 16:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Did they design their logo for gww? Or did a player? My thinking is player from my researches that I had done over a couple months back, but I just wonder how the gww's logo came about? If knowing that... would the information help us with this logo? Ariyen 05:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
ArenaNet designed all logos (and favicons), yes. Also we get a new official logo soon, maybe along with something else. poke | talk 16:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Click for big image.

Lookin' sexy to me... User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 16:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
My reasoning for not liking it is that it still looks too... flat. It looks likes the flat logo that has just been raised of the background a bit :-/ --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 16:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I like Infinite's logo better, because it looks fuller and not "flat" (It has more to the body), but more so Infinite's reminds me of the image that like the image ANet uses on their websites... Also, Phnzdvn, your image is just too skinny for so many of the lower resolutions, browsers, etc.. :-S Sorry. Ariyen 19:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have tested it on several resolutions and it looks,for the most part, the same... so I don't understand what you mean by "too skinny". --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Infinites has more detail in the way of the middle part of the number 2 being wider, than your's... Like for example your's to me resembles this 2 and his is more like 2 when both together could be more like... 2 ... Kinda the only way I can describe it. Ariyen 01:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I, tbh, like Phnzdvn's logo better (Darn your hard name!). I even use it in my .css. --Naoroji User Naoroji Golem - Green.jpg 11:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Thanks for the support, but I'll need to fix the little part in the top right first. Other than that, I'm happy you guys like my logo. =] - Infinite - talk 10:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC) EDIT:NVM, the logo is pasted on there disregarding the 155x155 resolution, it should be fine. :) - Infinite - talk 10:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Uploaded a new version of the example image A F K uploaded, which has my logo in its original resolution displayed. - Infinite - talk 11:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem being, of course, that you can't just photoshop something for the skin, and my image showed the way the software displayed the image.
I have to say I can't think of a way to manipulate the size at which it is shown. Can you?
Your image may look nicer, but I'm not convinced it's more accurate in any way; quite the opposite. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 21:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Try copying my .css into your own skin! =] ( /User:Infinite/monobook.css ) - Infinite - talk 21:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
After reviewing both logos, I would say that I prefer Infinite's, logo. Yes, it may appear duller, but it also appears strong and full. I have had the opportunity to incorporate it into my css and I like it Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 04:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
i also like infinites logo. just put it on my .css now Vald [Citation Needed] User Valdimir newsigicon.png 04:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Colours are a pain! You can't select anything too dark because then the font behind it isn't visible and we don't want anything too light so as to make it bubbly and polite. Since we appear to have children among us (whom shall remain nameless), I would like to keep colour discussions civalized. This means no attacks on a person. If you agree with a colour selection, please feel free to comment as such, if you do not agree, this is fine but feel free to propose a selection you feel would fit the style of this wiki.

  1. A background of (#667777) isn't bad when mixed with a boarder of (#664455). Looks like
    Articles of interest profession
  2. or you could try background of (#008888) and boarder of (#002299), looks like
    Articles of interest profession
  3. or you could try background of (#CC2222) and boarder of (#664400), looks like
    Articles of interest profession
  4. or you could try background of (#CC9944) and boarder of (#997700), looks like
    Articles of interest profession
  5. this was one proposed already by aquadrizzt
    Articles of interest profession
  6. I pulled this off of ariyen's proposal page
    Articles of interest profession
  7. this is the one currently applied to the main page edit copy
    Articles of interest profession
  8. for comparison, here is the one from GWW
    Articles of interest profession

{edit} added links to colour pallets to compare, keep in mind that most links will currently be on a white background Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 19:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The red should be tested 'round with, it's GW2's main colour. (Though slightly darker.) But it clashes with links... - Infinite - talk 19:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My preferences are going to be something light, and neutral-warm colors. I like aquadrizzt's color scheme (with two shades away from green) as well as the original GWW color. I also like the "background of (#CC9944) and boarder of (#997700)" if it was a shade lighter. I definitely think we should stay away from something dark like the red which invokes a hostile vibe, and cool colors like blue, purple or green shades which feel depressing or too calming. Lighter, warm colors are more inviting IMO. --LaniaUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 19:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My favorites are Aquadrizzt's scheme and the paler green color. Red should be avoided for Lania's reasoning and the fact that it makes links blinding. --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 19:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
One thing about style I want to mention is that the artwork for GW 2 does use a lot of grays, greens, and cool, dark colors which gives it a dark, heavy feel to it. That is fine for art work for a game, but I don't think we should base the color designs for the wiki based on the GW2 art, since replicating that feeling on a wiki isn't conducive to creating a nice happy user base :-). I think maybe an idea for a color scheme could come from an idea for a main entrance area (foyer or any room that connects to the front door) of a house you want to sell, what kind of impression do you want to make for your potential buyers? --LaniaUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 19:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The fourth down or Ariyen's imo. They're not too bright/dark and don't have terrible contrast, like the red one. They look serious, if you get me. --Odal talk 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
5,7 or 8 imo. 6 The top 4 are way to "colourful", I'd prefer a more pastel colour (not as hard on the eyes, generally easier to read what's ontop of it), 6 is kind of in-between, so i'm undecided, but i'd prefer it if it were a shade lighter. ~ PheNaxKian talk 20:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So I think so far, it might be safe to assume that nothing too vigorous should be selected, no reds or deep colours. Personally, I'd like to steer away somewhat from golds/browns as these are too similar to GWW, but this is just a personal preference. Also, anyone know what Dark Sea Green and Dark Green are in a hex format? I also added numbers to the above pallets for easier reference Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Here's a website you guys can use as a color reference. Back to real life crisis and taking my break for 5 days or so from the mess it's self. I may do some things in my sandbox, but I like 7. 6 is actually Aqua's proposal. Ariyen 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

9. Thanks Ariyen, always good to put names to values ;), usually I'm looking at this. Would this green combination be better, or would it be too light now? A background of (#B5EAAA) with a boarder of (#348017). Looks like
Articles of interest profession
Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 23:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually like it, despite my dislike for green. It's a nice warm green color. --LaniaUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 01:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Not a bad color, but I'm hoping it's not one that gw1 has used... like say for wintersday. :-p I'd like to stay away from using their colors, if possible. Oh, and you're welcomed Venom. :-) that site I've used for my colors. Ariyen 01:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, just checked. It's not been used on wintersday (yay), So I don't see a problem with this one. It's not too "vivid", yet something I'd say that'd be considered "professional". :-) Ariyen 01:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Since there are tons of combinations we can discuss. How's this light(sky) blue+dark blue border? Which is also one of the few last colors you could perhaps consider. Seeing how purple, pink, brown, grey-tones and many variation in those (lila, violet etc) will not be used:
Articles of interest profession
Ge4ce 05:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
IMO Ge4ce, its too eye popping... (Also, I don't like "my" color scheme (which is Neil's) and i ditched it quickly in favor of "Ariyen's" (which is actually mine...)...Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 05:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
That green is definitely the best I've seen. It is warm, as Venom said, but it's not too in-your-face, like the blue just above me. I don't like that blue. --Odal talk 08:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Most like number 7 ("this is the one currently applied to the main page edit copy"). -- Itay AlonTalk 12:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) How about...
Articles of interest profession

Articles of interest profession

Articles of interest profession

Last in this msg...
Articles of interest profession

and this is not a bad site. here. --Ariyen 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the fourth one (in the above comment). It combines the right level of maturity with warmth, and I (personally) don't think it is too in your face, and it isn't bland. As for the other ones: the first one seems too much like the normal GWW main screen (IMO). The second one I think is a little too flashy and in your face. Third one is too grayish. Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 02:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
After testing it, I think it is too eye popping... :(... ill post my idea in a little...swimming is calling... Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 02:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought i'd link to here and here. it's a list of "pastal" colours and their hex values (unfortunately no names/RGB values for those who prefer them), personally, i'd say ignore the top 3 rows of each table (roughly), and any of the remaining colours wouldn't look too bad. ~ PheNaxKian talk 10:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Going upside down:
  • 1 is too gray, IMO. I think the main page needs more color.
  • 2 is a bit too dark, would make the main page too heavy.
  • 3 is red like my suggested layout, but people hated it, so...
  • 4 is still a bit too bland, but it's the best of these first four.
  • 5 & 6: I like those.
  • 7 is too gray. I would rather have something with more color.
  • 8 could work, too, although I liked 5 and 6 more.
  • 9 (Venom's design) is a nice one, too.
  • 10 (Ge4ce's design) is slightly too bright.
  • 11 to 14 (Ayren's designs) are all too bright.
So far, my favourites are 5, 6 and 9. I wouldn't shy away from using slightly darker colors in order to keep saturation with less bright color, such as...
Or even...
Erasculio 17:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
15 and 16 are too blue. I prefer Venom's color and the original editcopy color the best. Ariyen 18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Eras, but the two you just suggested are far too bright imo. --Odal talk 19:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

except with borders of your choice (I suggest darker+more saturated versions of the respective backgrounds). I think people are thinking a blue/green colour, so that's why i chose these. ~ PheNaxKian talk 19:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A8CFFF is by far my favourite. --Odal talk 19:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
A8CFFF is way too much like GWW regular main screen (see here for color]) Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 03:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The GWW's color is ACD for their background in that link... I like 93BF96 out of those, but my favorites are as I have said above. Ariyen 04:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
For me out of those, A8CFFF and 93BF96 appeals to me. yeah, Seems like everyone is leaning towards a blue/green color. --LaniaUser Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
#93BF96 is the only one I like out of those. --User Phnzdvn sig.pnghnzdvn 19:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem with blues is that it'll be difficult to capture the atmosphere of the game. I am leaning towards one of those paler greens as well. I do like the looks of 93bf96 as wellVenom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 23:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I too like the combines the needed "warmth" with the "professionalism" Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 02:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

still much more like number 7, but #93BF96 is also nice. -- Itay AlonTalk 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Glad to see the new design does do good on a resolution of 1024 by 768... Which is the only rez I can use on this screen of my desktop... Wish laptop didn't fail. O well. Thx... Oh and the color that's being chosen so far looks good here as well. Ariyen 17:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I still like Venon's design up there (design 9) more, but #93BF96 looks good, too. Needs some kind of border, though (I agree with PheNaxKian's suggestion for the border color). Erasculio 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay I added in the main page edit color, Venom's color, and the 93BF96 color to this page with a suggested design here. Can take the current design and place it there. Feel free to edit that page and change at will. Ariyen 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Somewhat ironically, now that I have seen how both colors would work, I like the 93BF96 color more. I only wished it had a different color border, like the #348017 Venom used for his border (only for the title boxes, not for the main boxes). Erasculio 23:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Changed over on User:Ariyen/Main. Ariyen 06:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ariyen. The first color scheme on Ariyen's page is perfect, IMO. Erasculio 18:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've got up a proposal for a new layout there with Konig wanting a featured page, which I do support. Things can always be rearranged, but I just feel that'd be helpful on all resolutions, etc.. As for me on this desktop per gww their layout overlaps via the resolution that I have to use here and the current words "The comprehensive Guild Wars 2 reference written and maintained by the players for the players" are the only ones that overlap. I've got an idea to fix that sentence. Ariyen 19:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The colour that I proposed is really awful. I like #93BF96, as does appear most people. I think the inclusion of a feature article page is a good idea. Good job Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 21:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the second line from "The comprehensive Guild Wars 2 reference written and maintained by the players for the players." to "The comprehensive Guild Wars 2 reference written and maintained by and for the players." in proposal 1 on User:Ariyen/Main. Thoughts on the changes on that page? Any improvements needing?... Please feel free to changes, etc. I won't bite. I like seeing other's ideas, etc., too. Does help with a conversation/discussion. :-) Ariyen 05:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Do we have consensus on the color (the one seen on Ariyen's first design), or is someone against it? If everyone likes it, I think we could change the current editcopy to have that color, finish this section and begin a new section to discuss the layout. If someone doesn't like it, we could discuss the colors a bit more. Erasculio 10:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to chime in on this one when looking at the first design by Ariyen I do like the background colour of the boxes and put a vote in favour of it. But what I'm not sure about the border colour I would go with something a little more subtle. --RaGingIMP 10:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ariyen, I fixed the link in your post, you missed an 'r' and it was redlinked. If I understand correctly ragingimp, you are saying the shade differences between the 2 greens are to much.
here is the current one:
Featured page
could always go something like
Featured page
Featured page
Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 12:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I like the 3rd one of those (1st and 2nd are fine too) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 12:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, considering how they'd look on more than just one border. I like the first one as it'd help with each title. the third one for the top title though. Ariyen 17:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Just my 0.02, but I like the current proposal, colour and border. Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 17:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually like the third best but that isn't too surprising after my earlier comments. The reason I lean this way is because I think it gives a slicker look I like pages to be slick personally, its also a bit more subtle which I also like. But at this stage we are just splitting hairs and wouldn't be unhappy if the first were used so it may just be best to get some votes and then run with it. --RaGingIMP 19:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have changed this page color's scheme to the one on Aryien's page so more people would see what it looks like. It appears that for now people agree on the color scheme, at least; if on a few more days no one has any major objection, I think we could close the color discussion and begin the layout discussion. Erasculio 12:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh tried to stay out of this discussion filled with walls of text, but the design looks good and the colour really adds to that. Also on Eras comment, what's wrong with the layout >.> --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 13:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that anything is wrong with the layout, but it lacks a sort of symmetry. Ariyen's new design does have the symmetry that I, personally, enjoy. Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 13:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Normally, I'm all up for symmetry. But I think that this is quite good, quirky maybe :P. Prefer it much more to Ariyen's design. --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 11:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
My changes on the layout was to include the featured page that in the Archive that a few - two I believe, not sure, but that it was wanting to be included. The current one seems to have no room for a featured page and I feel it would be cool as well to show some pages to help out users as I do feel that being helpful on gw1 and I really support that idea. I do like the current idea, except for the facts of no room for a featured page and I only moved around a few boxes to include it. Boxes can always be changed up, but having more boxes on one side than the other wouldn't look right imo. I tried looking at each box and the size to get an idea of how things might look. Up for any change ideas though. Also changed the sentence in the top box to fit a resolution that I'm forced to use on desktop (atm, fussing with that ... thing) and I figured it's a resolution that many might still use. Ariyen 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if this was mentioned before, but the huge whitespace in the "official news" section is pretty ugly. - Mini Me talk 19:04, 19 July 2010

Screenshot? Ariyen 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
See here. - Mini Me talk 21:52, 19 July 2010
Looking at it again, "Related Material" and "Lore" have a whitespace at the bottom as well, but smaller, and "Wiki News" has a whitespace as big as the one in "Official news".
It may be caused by my resolution, though. - Mini Me talk 21:55, 19 July 2010
it's your resolution. I don't notice it on my desktop, but I do on my laptop. ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I work on quite a high resolution, and there's a LOT of white space for me [[:File:User Shadow Runner Mainpagescreen.png|as seen here.]] Shadow Runner 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)