Talk:Main Page/editcopy/Archive 4

Layout

Well it appears that the colour discussion is nearing a close, and before it gets off topic, I thought it would best be prudent to start a new topic specifically for the layout.
In regards to the empty whitespace, I also have it but only about half of what you see. I beleive that may be caused by your resolution mini me Venom20 22:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it the same issue with User:Ariyen/Main ? Ariyen 00:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is bad, Ariyen. The current editcopy looks okay though.. poke | talk 08:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But many are having issues with the spaces in the current, making that be bad imo and flawed. So, I prefer to see suggestions, not negatives Poke. Negativity is not discussion worthy nor does it get anything done. Ariyen 08:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@Phen: I actually see them on my desktop (1440x900) too. My laptop's resolution is 1366x768. - Mini Me talk 08:42, 20 July 2010

Oh, and the whitespaces are the same size on both of my screens. I tried fixing it but the code confuses me :( - Mini Me talk 08:43, 20 July 2010

yeh sorry, i put it the wrong way, i notice on my desktop (1680x1050) but not my laptop (1280x800). The problem is, there's white space because there's not enough information in the box, compared to the box (at larger resolutions. The boxes are set to scale with resolution as well, so they just get bigger you see). The only way to fix it would be to mke the boxes have a fixed size, and have a bars down the side which expand with size (which I believe is why people are wanting to redesigning the main page (not liking the sidebars). ~ PheNaxKian talk 10:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen, if we keep coming up with new suggestions for the main page, we will never finish here with over nine thousands of different proposals. Your proposal is rubbish, having a featured article section (wth?) and actually there is much more whitespace than on the current editcopy. Plus, instead of having new and new proposals, just already stick to one overall layout. Optimizations, especially in whitespace balance, can always be made (=later!). Plus making it near perfect now makes no sense given that we have a small fraction of later actually relevant pages displayed on the main page. poke | talk 16:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Poke is right, so let's just use this one. Whitespace isn't really that bothersome, tbh. - Mini Me talk 17:23, 20 July 2010

@Poke, Konig suggested the featured page in the archives of which those who saw, liked, so your wth is pointless and worthless, because you fail to research or read even the archives as that's the only thing I added to the layout and moved the columns as I did to create a less big mess (like if you have 4 on one side and 2 on the other, of course it's going to look ugly.) Of course the boxes can be fixed sizes as they are, but we need to fix them to the low resolutions that some use so you don't have overlaps on small screens, etc. You don't want ugliness like that, but whatever you want to assume with bad faith writing... I'm going afk till you guys wake up and consider all suggestions that most had ignored in previous discussions that's archived. I can quote what was said if needed, but surely it's not that over-looked... Oh and since Mini Me, you're saying that as well - I mean agreeing with Poke, I'll be right back with the quote asking for that featured page box add-in that Aqua and all the rest of us missed.

"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." Ariyen 17:36, 20 July 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." Not even sure if Erasculio was against it or not. Ariyen 17:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There aren't enough proper articles that make having a "featured article" box worthwhile, tbh. - Mini Me talk 18:10, 20 July 2010

When I look at the layout I don't think we need an identical number of boxes on each side, in fact I quite like the asymmetry. What annoys me is that the total lengths of all boxes in each column isn't equal. All I think needs doing is to make sure both columns are the same length and it'll look great. On the subject of featured article I like the idea but don't think its useful yet as there's nothing good to put there. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is the page for the latest profession release.--RaGingIMP 18:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Ariyen, I did not read the archives, and I directly ignored any discussion on this talk page for a longer while, because people like you were ignoring my advice in the beginning and kept inventing new and new proposals that cluttered everything. Fact is however, that we are probably years away from being able to even think about featuring articles. As well as we are months away from having a near completely main page with all important links. As such it makes no sense to think about everything now and especially it makes absolutely no sense to think of everything that is decided here as something fixed. If someone comes up with a good idea a week after we have finally agreed on something, then we simply do it. And if we have enough content to maybe think about featuring complete and good articles, then we might can do that. poke | talk 19:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is good to pay attention to everything, if you plan to participate. :-) Anyway, mine isn't for the current or not, but later on. An Idea so to speak. :-P Anyway (again), I like the current, but we need to figure out what the height and width that'd be needed - not in percentage (or maybe percentage might work better), but in whole. I don't think we need our page to pass the resolution of 1024 by 768 at least. I prefer us to keep from having some users scroll vertically as well as horizontally. Ariyen 19:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"I prefer us to keep from having some users scroll vertically as well as horizontally." ...this, also many wiki's have a featured page box. I think it is a good idea. Also, we are maintaining quite a few pages, over 1.5 years worth if it changed daily, see here Venom20 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but do you really want to feature a page like this? Seriously, there are a lot of pages but most, if not all, contain very little information.

Having a featured article is nice, we have it on GWW, but this wiki is simply not yet ready for one. - Mini Me talk 20:07, 20 July 2010

Venom, articles are featured because they are nearly perfect, well written articles. This simply doesn't apply to this wiki yet, and it will take a very long while until we are at a point where we have enough pages to start such a thing. Even on GWW we are rather running out of good articles.

Ariyen, I don't think so. One doesn't have to read everything just to have a right to comment on something. And actually given your first comment within this section you didn't make your proposal look as if it was for "later on". poke | talk 20:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Given your point Poke. Aren't pages viewed once a month in the Featured Page article, anyway? We do have several good articles that are view worthy now and I know we will have more articles like that before the game comes out. We have plenty for a featured article and we will have a lot more once the game is out. What does it hurt to have a section for featured article now? Why so against that? They've announced Ranger, Elemental, and Warrior and there are a few more pages good enough for a front page. No doubt there will be more. I have not seen a valid point against it other than "empty" or half full articles. I've done mentioned 3 and I'll mention more - Movement of the world, etc. Yes there's a link to them on there, but I have seen wikis advertise pages that do have a link on the main page. I can understand, because a lot would think that all articles don't have enough information yet. Not all, but some don't have enough and there are a few that do have enough to be featured and more are changed with more information being added and some are complete enough to be shown. Ariyen 03:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it would best to refrain from featuring articles for a while still. Yes, there are feature worthy articles - we can even use the official articles like The Movement of the World, The Ecology of the Charr, and Cultural Diffusion in Contemporary Kryta - but not enough to have a good amount of well written articles to keep us going. I could imaging us going for about half a year before repeating (this is thinking with going at 1 article every 2 weeks like the GWW). As an active participant in the GW1 featured article project, I'd like to get at least a whole year's worth plausible with that kind of rate - the most optimal rate being 1 article a week with it repeating after a year or two. Right now, I think it's a tad bit too early for such a set up. Maybe after the books come out, and we get much more information (assuming all 3 books come out before the game). -- Konig/talk 03:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I dislike how the concept art is used in the boxes. They take up a lot of space and with smaller icons more can be fit. Also, I'd like to add that I think we shouldn't change the main page until much closer to release with a lot more known about the game (I'd at least like to have all professions released before we change the main page). That isn't to say I'm against discussion however. Just making note. *btw, for in the long run, I like Ariyen's version* -- Konig/talk 03:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Hmm, this is all quite fair. It is true that there is little information that we have all documented. Perhaps we should implement the current format until the pages present a most complete picture. By the sounds of it, the consensus is to leave it in the current format. I will vote for this. Venom20 03:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping the current main page (note: main page, not edit copy), I don't see anything wrong with it. The only issue people had was the white "sidebars", all the new designs seem to be doing is shifting the white space from one area to another. That said, I wouldn't mind if people wanted to change the colour, but neither do i thin that's necessary either. ~ PheNaxKian talk 11:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to implement the current editcopy, and fine tune it as we go. Since the main layout (the idea of using boxes with those pieces of concept art) appears to have been accepted by enough people, and the same applies to the current color scheme, I think we could implement it (considering how, even as it is, it's a large step above the current main page) and then discuss new ideas (such as the implementation of a Featured Article box) as we go. Isn't that how we make most articles? We don't wait until an article has been completed before it's made, we begin with what we have and change it as discussions are made. Erasculio 21:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The key point is that the main page isn't a traditional article. It should never be half-assed, and the placeholder isn't such, but the edit-copy is. The fewer edits on the main page, the better. At least wait until there's less white space, as that seems to be the main motivator in changing the main page and, quite frankly, all the edit copy does is make it prettier by using race concept instead of profession concept and shifting the same amount of white space around to make it look like less white space. There's no need to change the main space, and it isn't a traditional article like you related it to, so there's no real reason to change the main page. That's how I see it at least. But it's fine with me either way so long as it is bearable. -- Konig/talk 22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"It should never be half-assed, and the placeholder isn't such": not really.

"but the edit-copy is": not really.

"The fewer edits on the main page, the better": not really.

"as that seems to be the main motivator in changing the main page": not really.

"and shifting the same amount of white space around": not really.

Regardless, since Konig mentioned he's fine with either main pages, does anyone oppose using the edit copy instead of the current main page? Erasculio 23:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see a sync. Due to the present one being dreadful. :P --Naut 23:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Konig and Phenaxkian. I think the current main page should stay until we have a better edit-copy. Not everyone agreed to the current edit copy - it was put up by majority vote as an example to settle arguments and show what we were talking about, but at the time did not include all suggestions, which makes it half-ass finished. Also, by archives more than anything - the majority did not want this as a main page and I still feel that standing. I don't know who all is assuming that the edit copy should be the main page. However, I do agree with others that it should be changed, but the time is not yet. I don't see these discussions hurting. It'd help us add more to an edit-copy that most could agree on. I prefer different images and I think we should wait a little bit until more images are available. I only see many images as teasers and not main page worthy as they are just concept art. Also, I think we should wait until we get some more information to place to help an actual main page look better than even the placeholder or edit copy looks. The editcopy - I feel should be treated like an article, not the main page. Not until things are mostly settled and agreed upon. Ariyen 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

My two cents on the proposal of changing the main page to the lay-out of the editcopy; both versions look terrible on wider resolutions. We do not have enough articles to put the editcopy lay-out to good use. I say leave it until further notice. - Infinite - talk 00:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"IMO, this page looks ugly and somewhat unprofessional. It manages to feel both empty (with the large empty spaces by the sides) and cluttered (with so much information condensed on a few sections), not to mention we know far more about Guild Wars 2 than we did when this sketch of a main page was done. --Eras"

That to me sounds like the whitespace was a motivator in changing this...

@Infinite, I'm not sure what you're classing as "wider resolutions" (do you just mean widescreen in general, or larger resolution?). Both my laptop and desktop are wide screen (1280x800 (16:10) and 1680x1050 (16:10) respectively), and I don't see an issue with the current main page (though, personally I don' have an issue with those white spaces to begin with), but certainly when on my desktop, the current editcopy has noticeable whitspace, and because it's in the middle of the content, it looks horrible.

In any case i feel i've strayed off topic. To answer Eras. question, i'm opposed to implementing it as it stands. ~ PheNaxKian talk 09:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@Eras: I don't mind which page is used, but I prefer the edit copy above the current main page. - Mini Me talk 11:49, 22 July 2010

@PheN, That is exactly what I'm referring to. It's my main reason to oppose to changing to the edit copy. (Aside from the lack of articles.) - Infinite - talk 12:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I do believe the majority is against this change, so far. Let me see of whom I'm counting and let you be the judge... For the change we have Mini Me, Eras, and Naut. Against it we have (I'm going to refer myself in 3rd person) Ariyen, Phenaxkian, Infinite, and Some what Konig (who seems to prefer the Main Page over the edit.) Not sure on Poke, Raging, and Venom and others. Ariyen 18:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like a change. Even just for the sake of making it not feel so stagnant. --Odal talk 18:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Change for change's sake sounds like a very bad idea to me. I rather visit a stagnant lay-out than a chaotic, everyday-changing lay-out. (Mildly exaggerated.) - Infinite - talk 18:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for change. Although I do like the idea of a featured page box, I agree with the fact that presently it is not the time for it. I will vote to leave the edit copy as is, and replace the main with the current edit copy. Venom20 19:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Infinite, you don't want to change the main page often a lot - just to match the edit copy that is being worked on - agreed on for a real main page. I prefer the place holder until we get more information to place on the edit copy. The white spaces look uglier on the edit copy than the main page. Why upload something that'd just look worse on a big resolution? (Need to find the px size to fit on a size of at least 1024 by 768.) Ariyen 20:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna vote against the current change the way I see it the current editcopy is not ready and because the main page is special and editing is harder I suggest working on it longer, being patient and getting it right is the most important thing. As long as its ready before release it'll be cool so again not yet.--RaGingIMP 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The new size makes me sidescroll, but I am not running fullscreen, so that's the problem Venom20 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It will make me sidescroll on desktop, but trying to compensate and not have it be too small for the big resolutions some use... right now it's at 1000px - trying to go by resolution size, a bit. 800 had it looking like a skinny one and mor white space than needed. Ariyen 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) By all means, do this however buy me a new monitor first! :D. Yea, sidescroll is just. Uggghhh... --Naut 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If we make this current editcopy viable for all (smaller) resolutions, I give green light to changing it. - Infinite - talk 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I just really don't see why we need to rush into changing this now, if we put more time into it it could be so much better, why rush, patience is a virtue after all.--RaGingIMP 21:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That better? Ariyen 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's brilliant on all resolutions now. =] - Infinite - talk 00:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That is SO much better. -- Konig/talk 00:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad, I could help. I changed/tested it all on my page first, before moving it (the sizes) over to here and did several previews. I think this one is plausible now, until we get enough pages, etc. to add in the featured page. Did any of that cure any white spaces? Ariyen 02:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That is great and even looks good on higher resolutions as well. @RaGingIMP if after these two months (or so) of discussions and arguments, we didn't change the page, I would be in greatly annoyed :-P. --hnzdvn 02:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It cured white spaces altogether, you're amazing. :) - Infinite - talk 03:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, I thought part of the reason for changing the main page design was to get rid of the blank side margins? Yet the blank side margins make a return, and now they make the content look worse than before - the boxes are half the width they were before, and images take over a third of each box, so there are very few words in each line. The content in the news box looks the worst. If you think the main page looked cramped before, it's doubly cramped now. You even have to scroll further down to see content at the bottom. pling 15:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

^ what Pling said. ~ PheNaxKian talk 15:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Layout this blends with is 1024 if you use bigger - of course you're gonna have white spaces on each side, when using bigger. this is the only way (that I know of, using what we have) of trying to fit on most resolutions that most computers - laptops basically use and some desktops that are newer use to get rid of white space, etc. If you go lower, you'll have vertical scrolling, but you won't have spaces. I do have space, but it's not hardly bad at all. If I go bigger with the px as you saw above - you get complaints of scrolling. If we do percentage as it was, there's issues there too of white space. Either we wait till we get more images and things to place on this page, or we go with what most want... Ariyen 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with pling 100% here... the white space makes no sense. At my resolution, the white space is quite... thick...:-/ --Lania 18:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What's your resolution? 2. the main px is at 900 right now. I can go between 1000 and 900, but I'm considering changing it to 950. though not 1000 to keep a good many that use the res. I mentioned from scrolling. Am gonna work with things to see what'd help. Ariyen 18:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it the way it was... I'm using 1280x800 on my laptop and 1650x1050 on my desktop. The reason it looks bad at a higher resolution with the previous design is because there isn't enough information on there to get rid of the white space. As the release date gets closer the amount of info will increase, and it will make no sense to set a rigid infobox width later on. Even if we agree on a design I doubt it's going to make it to the actual page so making the editcopy pretty or not pretty for the sake of editing doesn't make sense to me... --Lania19:01, 23 Jul 2010 (UTC) 19:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Using percentage? See the newest below of my thoughts. :-S gonna have complainers if we do the percentage as it was, because of white space in the boxes. I'm not sure what can be good. Ariyen 19:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think we should just patiently wait for more content to put on the wiki since the page is just going to look funny no matter what layout we use with the bare-bones information we have there. --Lania19:25, 23 Jul 2010 (UTC) 19:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that would not solve the issue. If we had so much content on the main page that someone under a resolution of 1.000.000x1.000.000.000 had no white spaces (which were a massive source of complain above), then the guy using a resolution of 8x8 would have a page so cluttered it would be next to impossible to read anything. The fact is, the current main page already "looks funny" - would we like to improve it or not?

Replying to Infinite's quote above: the white spaces were a reason to change the main page. "A". Not "the", or even "the main". I have already elaborated more than once the reasons why the main page should be changed, I won't bother repeating what's on the archives of this same discussion.

Which is actually why I agree with Aryien's idea (nice work, by the way, I would never have thought of that myself). It solves most of the problems the current main page has (the only main issue it doesn't solve in my opinion are the white spaces), while solving the complains about huge white spaces people under very high resolutions were complaining above (my resolution is of 1280x1024, and the previous layout had no considerable white space; if people would rather aim for a higher resolution, though, go for it). Erasculio 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On a side-note, the part about the white spaces, with the quote; that wasn't me anymore. (That's the message I'm getting from your reply.) - Infinite - talk 22:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On this desktop - I use 1024 by 768. The whole layout on editcopy, I have to scroll vertically. While on laptop, looks fine... (I can upload screen shots of that one). If we do percentage - We're gonna have to find one that'd work where most can agree on. As this px solves some issues, but creates it for others on their resolutions. It seems to me that it is obvious that no matter what we do, we'll still have white space, due to lack of information, etc. So, let's try to compromise? Don't forget this - if you haven't noted or whatever, but the boxes side by side are sharing 50% of what the main size is. to keep the vertical even. The horizontal... which is Height and might can be fixed, but would be not easy, unless we have even boxes on both sides. *cough* ... Anyway, the spaces next to the words in boxes cannot be solved, unless we have more information (might work, not sure), but I don't think any information would look good centered or going from right to left with image on the left side... Ariyen 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

With white space I refer to the lack of content within the table, not around it. As long as no one has to scroll horizontally, it should be fine. - Infinite - talk 23:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we just wait? this is the equivalent of drawing blueprints for a structure where the construction location, budget or purpose hasn't been communicated to the contractor. We are essentially trying to predict how it should look in order to accommodate possible information that will be released. So, we should wait until more information is released so that we have more articles, then start drawing up a layout that will make sense in response to the information. --Lania3:00, 24 Jul 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw in my data: I have a 800x480px screen resolution with a unlimited virtual resolution and that whitespace looks horrible. poke | talk 10:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how much white space (or rather yellow space) do you people see on GWW's main page? I'm curious about how it looks like under resolutions such as "File:User_Shadow_Runner_Mainpagescreen.png" that one. Erasculio 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much the same, which is highly annoying and protesting there didn't seem to do much. I think it looks unprofessional on wider resolutions. This is why I opted the main page's change to Ariyen's design, which leaves a lot of off-set white, but at least neatly fills the tables out with content. That makes for a nice compromise and we can expand once we have enough articles to link. (The point I've been making for about a week straight now.) I just don't see any objections (myself) as I've tested first-hand that Ariyen's design voids scrolling horizontally. Scrolling horizontally makes the main page feel extremely amateuristic, whilst vertical scrolling is seen almost anywhere.

EDIT: Itay altered the editcopy, so you might want to check back on Ariyen's design in history here: [1] - Infinite - talk 14:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Bump; I dislike a tl;dr discussion which has not yet reached concensus nor has resulted into action. Read my proposal above to the "in-table white space" problem. If anyone would oppose to that solution it's likely to be because of the out-table white space. (For which they forget to check the lay-out on smaller resolutions.) - Infinite - talk 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I dislike a tl;dr as well, but it seemed like talk went to Itay's talk of his Main Page versions, changing the whole thing up again. I had gotten fussed on by this, but anyway as stated over there, I don't see any of those solving the issues either as I saw much white spaces even still. We should work as a team on the design picked out, only to add a box (for featured pages) when the time comes as it was requested... Instead of creating new designs/layouts, etc... This is annoying and is not team work on where we are at now. I'd like to see answers to Erasculio's questions on those who complain. I'd like to see what we can do to compromise with size, etc., and get this design on the actual main page - eventually. Ariyen 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't think it's possible to create a design that both has no white space on extremely high resolutions and doesn't look cluttered on low resolutions. GW1W's main page, this wiki's current main page and the current editcopy would all have a lot of white space on some of the high resolutions mentioned here; Wikipedia's main page maybe wouldn't, but it looks cluttered even on my resolution.
I think our best option is to reach a compromise - something with almost no white space and not cluttered under the average user's resolution, but with more white spaces on higher resolutions and a bit cluttered on smaller resolutions. IMO, Ariyen's proposal is as good as it gets regarding such compromise. Erasculio 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, as Era said, there is no "one size" that "fits all." Sizes that work well for low resolutions will appear incredibly sparse on high resolutions, and sizes that work well on high resolutions will be cramped into oblivion on low resolutions.

Secondly, as to a previous suggestion of doing something with pictures in the title bars (GWW Main Page), pictures as complex as the white background race concept art (current pics) do not look well on high resolutions (see my attempt). The reason that it works so well is because the images are relatively simple, with little to no white space. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 18:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What can we agree on here? or is this going to stall out again? Ariyen 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would hate for this to stall out; we've spammed RC far too much to not do anything...I am sorry if this doesnt work on very high or very low resolutions, but (from previous comment) there is NO one size fits all, large resolutions will have white space, low ones will be cramped and in the middle ones look normal. Noting that colors have been resolved, are there other sections that we want to include. (Also, for the record: the left and right sides are carefully balanced, when you have a specific number of news articles (I think its around 6 or 7) it lines up, otherwise, the right side will be too long or too short. So: are there any suggestions other than adding white space to the edges (which would just increase white space on high reses btw)? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 03:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a version for adding in the featured page and I'm leaving it alone on my user space area until we get enough articles, etc. that'd be good to display. For it, the news article would look good with about 5 articles I think. Far as space, we could have it fit to a resolution that's between the lowest one uses here (that we know of) and one that one uses the highest of here and try to get a page to look half way decent in between... Just a thought. Ariyen 19:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I only see the main page about once a month, but as this looks a bit better than what we have now, I'm fine with it going up. Manifold 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My resolution is 1680x1050 and this version looks perfectly fine to me. Yes it has white space, but it isn't extremely awful. Can we just put this up and end this, seemingly, indefinite discussion? --hnzdvn 19:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ranger Concept Art

Well I personally find it annoying how it's just floating there.. could we have it cropped like on the original main page but highlighted so it fits better :3. --Naut 00:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

it' too high or something, doesn't fit with the other two, perhaps a resize? Venom20 01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I put a mask over this one, tested it out on the main page and it fits quite well. click --hnzdvn 03:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I wouldn't mind using that image. Ariyen 04:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks better, good job Venom20 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

New design

i actualy quite like it, though i still say the colour is a bit too green, Other than that im thinking that the new box is a bit crowded, how about we remove the picture from it?--Neil • 12:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Disreguard that, it makes it look worse.--Neil • 12:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer different images to these layouts to help with the boxes, but it seems like we don't have much choices with current editcopy layout. I prefer more information, but we don't have that and that's really the big problem with the white spaces in the boxes... I think.. If we had the width be 75% , etc. we're gonna have white spaces in the boxes. I'd say center the stuff in each box, but then that wouldn't look good either. Looking at other wikis there are some that have spaces down each side... It's annoying really X-D to try to find something that most to all would like. Ariyen 19:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

My, my, doesn't that look brilliantly shit! I prefer your slim design, Ariyen. The one where the table is centered and with a fixed width, as it's UNIVERSAL to all resolutions. I don't get why people on the Guild Wars wikis think universal designs are a bad thing. - Infinite - talk 04:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Necro

There's no difference between announcing a class via a demo at a convention and writing a blog post. Announced is announced, even if they spell it out in our Cheeriosalphabet soup. Manifold 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, here is proof. Reaper of Scythes** 17:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. Necro is confirmed to appear in-game, doesn't matter if it's announced on website or not, we're here to document the game, not the website. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that on twitter. Bad lagging. It's just something like that yes - but other off the wall site... I'd consider hear-say. We do document the game, but the game is not out yet so we have their website, twitter, etc. to go by. So that's redundant wording. :-) Ariyen 17:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes the necromancer has been announced and indeed demonstrated. But the methods chosen are unique to the last classes that were released. Since there was no "Introducing the Necromancer" on the official website, many people are considering this to be less official than what we are used to seeing. This must be taking into consideration as well. I myself view this as an unofficial release to an official class. Venom20 18:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think it has been taken into consideration. Hence, why I wasn't into having it on the editcopy. Ariyen 18:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your claim is that ArenaNet putting a profession into a gameplay demonstration of the game which they present to the public, among other previously confirmed classes and having announced ahead of time that they'd be including a 4th profession from the game.... is unofficial? - Tanetris 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically, yes. I'm saying that much of the information about a necro has been gathered from a demo then translated into english from german. As we all know, there can be slight discrepancies when translating. I'm saying that the class itself is indeed official, but much of the information about the class is unofficial. Some things can be taken at face value (for instance, the necro uses an focus). An official release can only result when an Introducing the necro' page presents itself on the official website. This article can then be comparable to other classes in release fashion (in regards to viable information). Venom20 21:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ariyen, you realise that people have actually played a Necro, in-game at the Gamescom demonstrations? --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Venom, people played on english demos too. ShadowRunner 21:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I saw a few pictures. But most of the screencaps and demos that I have seen are in german, which doesn't bother me much as I have a small understanding of the language. That's why I said that much info was translated. I'd love to see more english stuff, no offense to the germans, it would just make my life easier ;) Venom20 21:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize that, but my views still kinda go similar to what Venom said. Necromancer may be official, but we don't know as much as those at gamescon does or as much as we do about other professions when they are announced. Ariyen 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

CLEAR! Bzzt...Restarting Discussion

Several people (myself included) would hate for this to never turn into anything because no one pays attention to it anymore (including a vast majority of the main contributors to this particular discussion in the past). As no one seems to quite agree as to what is be done...are there any changes people would like to see implemented? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 16:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I will cast my vote into the pond. I choose to implement it. I feel that, although we do not have as much information as we would like to have. This edit copy it easier to read and it's pretty Venom20 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: User:Itay_Alon/Main_Page/Step_1. -- Itay Alon • Talk 17:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The layout that everyone is proposing to post to main page is -> this one right? (with the exception of adding in necromancer). Ariyen 20:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not the current one? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 20:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well does the areas that were changed from px size to % size move? (images look funky, etc. with different screen sizes?) If not. I'm for this one. If so...I think we should stick to the px to not cause problems like that... Just something to consider... Ariyen 20:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Also this :   <!-- Blank page !--> was there to have a space between Frequently Asked Questions and Game media - for better looks... not to look blended together (with them being at the same 'level'...) I prefer to see it added back for that purpose. Ariyen 20:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

On the whole I don't care either way. I like the proposed design, but I still prefer the current main page and see no reason to replace it. ~ PheNaxKian talk 20:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support implementation of the proposal. --Xeeron 11:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I also support the implementation of the proposal currently on the editcopy. --hnzdvn 18:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

+1 ShadowRunner 18:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

/signed · LOQUAY · 18:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

+Support current page layout--Neil • 19:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to implement the current page as well. Erasculio 10:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

/signed --Odal talk 10:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Either way, it's much better then the current main page. I would like to see it implemented. :) --Naut 13:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Looks a lot better now. Reaper of Scythes** 17:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes quite (such an amazing bday present :D...good job everyone.) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

makes wiki look a lot better!--82.95.139.103 07:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Size of mainpage

Can someone shorten it a bit. It is a annoyance to use the bar at the bottom to see a simple word that might be lodged in the side.--Emmisary 23:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I made the bottom box a bit smaller (here on editcopy), does that fix the issue for you? --Xeeron 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its much better, you try to make it take the entire space of the page like gww but its fine like it is now too.--Emmisary 15:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Professions

Should we group the confirmed professions towards the logo? Or leave them in their respective positions? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Towards the logo. Reaper of Scythes** 17:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't seen this before my edit. Towards the logo, IMO. Erasculio 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know...I think that we could make it towards the logo. Just wanted to get a couple more opinions. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fourth'd. --Naoroji 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Towards the logo now, then when all have been released, put them in their right positions. --Naut 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Width

Does anyone object to the current editcopy? The only difference with the current main page is making it use 100% width up to a certain point (1300px, which corresponds to 85% of the article area on 1680x1050), instead of uniformly 85% width. The long and short of it is that it looks the same on 1680x1050, makes use of the blank whitebars on each side to not be so cramped at lower resolutions, and makes the whitebars bigger so everything doesn't get so stretched out at higher resolutions, thus the same or an improvement for everyone (unless you love whitebars at low resolution or hate them at high resolution, I guess). I've poked some people on IRC to double-check that it works as intended at various resolutions who have all been positive about it, but I don't want to implement it without giving people a chance to comment here. - Tanetris 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Erasculio 13:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it does good. I've not had any problem with the laptop. Ariyen 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. --hnzdvn 01:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:News

I think too many unimportant entries are being added here. Minor blog posts, link roundups, photos: these aren't significant enough to put on the main page, and they also drown the more important news entries like profession announcements. There's no need to duplicate the news page on the main page, just as there isn't a need to link to every article in the other boxes. Anyway, there's already a link in the nav sidebar to news, so it's always present.

I'd also like to remove the grey captions (e.g. BLOG, ARTICLE): they make the dates start in different places for each entry, they're made redundant by what the line actually says, and I think it's more important to document the event itself rather than the method ArenaNet uses to announce it. pling 18:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This has really confused me. You bring this up now? Not during the proposal, etc... ? I'm curious why it was there if there's a "link" in the nav (which always has been).... So, I'm very confused by your statement here...Ariyen 06:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could replace it (the news section) with some sort of news blotter like in the arenanet news page http://guildwars2.com/en/news/ instead of the "featured" content displayed on the homepage? -- epo Man 07:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Only thing I prefer is to see the dots disappear. The month then the day, leaving off 2010, unless it's between let's say 2010 and 2011. So far, it's just within this year showing and I don't think we need to know what type it is. Perhaps a dash between the dated and the description or a dot between them... Ariyen 07:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"You bring this up now?" - I don't think anybody is required to bring up an issue at any special time. Pling now feels that way, so it is totally fine to voice the opinion now. That's a basic concept of wikis, that you are able to discuss anything at any time. poke | talk 07:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I was confused...why it wasn't sooner. But yea it's here. So, I don't think it's pointless to um go at me like that - not very user friendly poke. Anyway, here's my idea on the template news. Ariyen 07:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me whilst I'm "being bold". - Infinite - talk 17:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Things have been different for while after my altering the template's general formatting and I have seen no objections. I think it's safe to remove the non-included information in the future altogether. (To clarify, this is the information inbetween (and including) the <!-- --> .) - Infinite - talk 08:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I support that. Ariyen 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the official Guild Wars 2 Wiki, the comprehensive Guild Wars 2 reference written and maintained by the players.

do we really need this? every website out there doesn't have a welcome banner and it just makes the page unnecessary large.--- Zesbeer 21:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"Every website" might not have one, but it is common on wikis. Anyway, it's important to show clearly that this is a community project as opposed to an ArenaNet one. pling 22:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

ok but how it was before was fine and didnt add a pointless huge bar to the top of the page.--- Zesbeer 23:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

well i hated how it was and i dont know if this wiki has a be bold policy like the other wiki but i went ahead and changed it.--- Zesbeer 00:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I dislike the new "Welcome Bar." The text is too big, it generates unnecessary white space at the top and, it makes the actual box worse. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 19:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the old way better. It sorta highlights/boxes the profession images. --JonTheMon 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What Jon said. Same goes for the GWW change. --Xeeron 22:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

i like how you had no problem with it when it was that way 4 edits ago. also Aquadrizzt the text isnt any larger then any of the other topics on the page and i would argue that the other way makes the page bigger. - Zesbeer 06:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Four edits ago on the main page is before we completely changed it...and no, it wasn't the same then either. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 02:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

yes it is the same because i copy pasted that code and changed the wording.- Zesbeer 02:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point, that was on a completely different layout, and therefore looks wrong with the current one. Its almost the same as having a userpage all one set of templates, except for the nav bar being a different template. 12:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

except for its nothing like that its the exact same color as the rest of the headers and has the same font.--- Zesbeer 04:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Your latest version almost has a double header for those first two boxes, which doesn't look good. Putting the welcome above the pictures makes that a header for the pictures, then the headers for the boxes are single. --JonTheMon 15:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And now it makes it look like we're missing content...as there's space between "Welcome..." and "News" and Gameplay" Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 16:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I preferred the old way better. The titles and/or headers had a pyramid-esque look to the page which made it look quite nice. Venom20 16:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween

Discuss. Myself, Eive and Aqua have already been discussing this here, here, here and sort of here. This would be a temporary theme, up for about a week (taken down ~nov 1). Please discuss. Venom20 20:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

*Puts on manly judge voice* No objections. Eive 21:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

+1 Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 21:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it really required to make the main page look "Halloweenish"? The game isn't out yet and stuff, feels a bit... Weird. (Great comment of mine to return from slumber.) - Infinite - talk 21:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. Eive 21:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think you are going to get a considerable lot of support before Halloween ends, but anyway, I don't really oppose it. I only think you need some kind of notice so people realize it's just a Halloween theme, instead of something permanent; just stating "Happy Halloween!" at the top box would be enough, IMO. Erasculio 22:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't much see the point as I don't think anyone's really going to see it. And I'm pretty much in agreement with Infinite. But you should go ahead particularly as you've done the hard work already. :) -- Aspectacle  23:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it required? no, but it's fun to do. I also don't object if we throw in a happy halloween somewhere. But in regards to no one seeing it, according to the stats, the main page is the most viewed page that we have. There are 5.5x as many views at the main page as there is to the second most viewed page (Sylvari). Venom20 01:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) There is a Happy Halloween in the title bar. "Happy Halloween! Welcomet to the Guild Wars 2 Wiki! The comprehensive reference written for the players by the players." Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 01:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now, it doesn't really look very "holloween"ish. Everything just looks black with some orange highlights, like the text and borders. I think what's needed are more holloweenish images and logos like pumpkins, candy corn, witch hats, etc etc... but right now, there isn't any so we could use the GW1 images as a placeholder until GW2 gets it's first Halloween. And then someone can store the Halloween editcopy in their sandbox, replace the images with GW2 images when GW2 gets their first halloween, and pop the halloween theme back in here. --Lania 16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with using GW1 images is that it isn't the same game. It happens to be made by the same company, but it's just images from a different game. This Halloween theme doesn't have any GW1 images for that reason (hence the blackened normal images). This is just a sophisticated theme for a game that isn't released yet. Venom20 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like that it's hard to distinguish which professions have been revealed (because all the images are black), the transition from orange text/borders on black background to blue text on white background isn't kind to the eyes, and the images in the boxes aren't easy to make out. It doesn't look very halloweeny (or "sophisticated") to me, either.

That said, I rarely look at the main page, so it won't really affect me personally. However, it's still important to think how other users will be affected. pling 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this theme is really ready to be displayed... In addition to what I and pling said, it just also looks kinda ugly... no offense ^_^. I guess it's better to wait for GW2's first halloween so that we have usable images. --Lania 17:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We're open to additional constructive criticism. :) Eive 03:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Added my 2 cents on Aqua's page of what to add that I feel would help and what other images to change. I think it'd do better after those changes. Em, btw, it's "halloween"ish... not what was said above... :-) Ariyen 05:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I had these sitting around. yay? nay? 'cause I'm gonna tag em for delete else. Venom20 21:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

We don't need to be archiving Main Page topics, unless it gets big in kilobytes, etc. I would rather see the other discussions back on here. Than Archived, until actually needed to be archived. It's better to have discussions out that could still be active, until too big to post. 72.148.31.114 20:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Which of the active conversations are you referring to? The ones that haven't had a post since august? Or the Halloween theme one? The only one that might be considered active (last post was just over a month ago) would be "Welcome to the official Guild Wars 2 Wiki, the comprehensive Guild Wars 2 reference written and maintained by the players.". If there is a matter that you wish to discuss, feel free to begin a new section. The archive is there so that inactive conversations may be viewed. Unfortunately this varies according to a person's definition of inactive. Venom20 20:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

edit: I just thought of something. Are you referring to this editcopy that you posted on? or are you referring to the actually main page discussions which are actually located here? Venom20 21:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to this edit copy. There was no need to archive discussions, even if dead. Only times to archive Main page / editcopy discussions is when new ones start. I've seen this enough times on gww since I joined there. 72.148.31.114 02:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a good reason, for the following reason. If I didn't archive them, and we just kept editing until we had a problem, then we would *eventually have a problem*. My reason was that dead conversations are dead, and do not need to sit there waiting to become potential problems. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 04:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That is so silly and dumb. Old discussions don't become problems. They are archived, when we have new discussions. So your reasoning for archiving something that was not needed nor necessary yet, is not really a reason. For instance, Halloween could still be a topic discussed for next year. Since, it didn't happen for this year (as I had figured). I was going to voice an opinion, but you had already done archived. So, why waste my time now to mention it? I'm not going to. I took a leave only coming to voice an opinion here and there. I had saved a thought on notepad to post, but whatever as it's archived. So, yea I have a problem with things being archived that are not "problems" and do not "eventually have a problem". I wouldn't of minded if one article was left over and then archived later when new articles started. I just minded when the page was completely clean and I couldn't voice an opinion as to what to keep in thoughts for next year, etc. on Halloween. Basically even have answered Venom... Whatever, it's all done and over with. So, yea... I brought this up to actually make that noted in so many respects, but more so general than specific. 72.148.31.114 08:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As per the Halloween argument, when we get to Halloween *next year*, we can begin to discuss what we want to do for it. That Halloween discussion should not be up for a year nor would it be helpful next year. And if we put off archiving forever, are you saying they would still not be problems, because my argument is, if we don't do it when the discussions are dead, and we keep having new discussions, eventually it will get up in pg KB...which is a problemAquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 14:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying to archive what can be archived and to leave the last one there, until a new discussion started. I don't see it hurting to stay up a little bit longer, even considering a few, including me, who may have ideas that they may want archived for people to look at when they discuss next year. I'm not saying keep it up all year long. I'll give an example... Look at editcopy of gww. The discussions last year of Halloween was done and settled, even ideas that were posted, but not used on the main page, until the following year. The only changes made was one color - from orange to green, (despite it was not clear which was wanting to be used more). Images suggested from previous year, etc. was used. So, see even discussions after Halloween was made that year, but it was not really archived until about December or more-so when a new discussion was started. Is any of this understandable at what I'm trying to explain / say? As totally empty pages on like say this main page editcopy... I feel can scare some contributors away and we'd like to show that there's been activity. After all content on the talk of pp is not archived, despite the ability to change, add, etc. and I am glad of that. I feel similar should apply here - archive what can be archived, but leave an article behind to show that there's activity here and this talk has people that have posted recently, even if it's fully a month or two old, since the last post. I feel that'd give incentive to want to start a new topic, etc. 72.148.31.114 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The conversation was, in my personal opinion (and in the opinions of many other wiki-ers), dead. You had more than 20 days to post whatever you wanted to on that discussion. If you *had* posted, I wouldn't have archived it. I also don't see why you are making this big show about this. If you want to talk about next year's Halloween, by all means start a new topic. Why you feel that it is necessary to insist that my archival of a dead and time specific discussion was incorrect/not necessary/blatanly wrong is beyond me. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This really doesn't matter, to be honest. The discussions were all old, so who cares? This is a non-issue; let's not waste any more time with it. pling 17:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Dead", I'd rather see others opinions.Also, really I feel that your decision was incorrect? I don't. I just feel that if it was me, I'd left one "dead" discussion, until a new one started. That's all I'm stating/saying. I'm only doing such to help welcome new users/editiors to feel like they can start a new discussion and people would contribute than to wonder if it'd go anywhere. It could have been added into the other archive when a new one is started. I don't think it could have hurt to have stayed up a bit longer. There was "no problem" and to assume there would have been is only speculation. I'm just saying that to archive main type pages... I'd take in how other pages, etc. are archived, especially very similar pages like over on gww, etc. look at the history of it and see if anything is "blank", if is. I apologize and I'll refrain from trying to help make things a little better and more beneficial. @Pling, Actually it's to get an idea of how we'd like actual main type pages archived and how it'd appear, etc. to the public. I for one am not for blank pages at all, even if discussions are dead so this to me was and is needed. I'm just saying a little activity, even if dead. May have warranted some who have not hardly been visiting a chance to post. Sure, they could start a new topic, but same topic archived in same archive? That would seem moot point and harder to find. Thank you. 72.148.31.114 17:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that there's no need to archive if we're not running out of viable space on a page (isn't that the point of archiving?) but I don't see the need to have made such a big deal about this. --ஸ Kyoshi 19:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I would like to point out that actual problems are handled by our Sysops, archiving can create problems, instead of solving them. I should know from my Talk page and I was hoping people like Aqua would have learned from that.... Archiving for the "sake of archiving" or some other excuse is no excuse. There was absolutely no need to archive every single page and I had understood some where... I don't recall where, but anyway... Weren't discussions recommended on sections on talk pages to be up at least a month before archiving? Or archived if getting too big? If so then I'd say that some of this was done prematurely with out a real reason or cause and so that's why I started this. I'd like for us to find a consensus on Archiving with main type pages and how to handle them, etc. so that all would be and are on the same page... Starting with this talk, or shall this be moved to a better location for archiving talks? (despite that the alarm to premature archiving was started here)... 72.148.31.114 07:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say probably PnP talk, or maybe general formatting. --ஸ Kyoshi 07:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ty, can you move it there? I seem to lost my login info... -.- 72.148.31.114 08:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably just better to make a new section. No need to move any of this since it's concerning a specific instance. --ஸ Kyoshi 14:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wintersday

Okay, this is coming up this next month... Anyone have any ideas for this or should we do a Wintersday here? Ariyen 17:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason specifically not to, but I don't have any ideas besides general red-green-white. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No reason to change the lay-out until the game is out. Other than that, read second part above. - Infinite - talk 18:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's frivolous, but nothing is happening right now. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more-so of adding a few images like a mistle toe, etc. Not in place of the others, but up in the corners of each title... Similar to my butterfly on my User:Ariyen/Userboxes, etc. Ariyen 20:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We can be fairly sure Wintersday is in GW2 in some form, so I wouldn't oppose a few generic decorations. Keep it very minor, though. 09:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Felix, I like your sig - it's wintersday... but you spoiled sported me :-( I was hoping to blast across the screen with those colors "felix is great!" (kidding!). Actually, I was thinking of color changes and a few additional images. Nothing big. Ariyen 17:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Hasnt felix always had that sig in GW2W...? o_o ) --Neil • 19:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It always reminded me of some sort of fiesta christmas. Venom20 21:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It reminded me of Felix's general awesomeness...BACK TO THE SUBJECT MATTER: i think that Ariyen's idea of a minimally invasive Wintersday would be good. :) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 22:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually did create this signature for Wintersday, back in 2008 maybe, but I liked it so much that I've kept it ever since. 22:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

is great. is lovable. is our favorite Sysop. Love this Wintersday. How's that? (Kidding!) Actually, I'll be working on my idea of a Wintersday version here in a bit. :-) Ariyen 00:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Change the icons on the main page and I think we'd be set. And maybe the welcome header thing. --ஸ Kyoshi 00:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, what I'm thinking might be liked better, but I'm having a hard time finding a gfdl transparent Mistletoe... 72.148.31.114 02:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind that either. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Fixed it up. Any ideas or changes? Ariyen 17:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The pixelly red-white against the green is not doing it for me... Maybe if you could get high res icons, instead of those pixeled candy canes. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 18:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(Double commenting) In addition, the edits you have made cause the (previously functional) profession picture line up across the top to now become split. Something as important as that either needs to remain the exact same or be changed to meet the theme, not just screwed up. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 18:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed that little issue. I'm gonna look up some other images to replace those two, as I do agree. Kinda looks like it clashes. How's that? Ariyen 19:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the mistletoe image, though using it for all of the icons seems a little boring. I'd suggest against adding more from the icon site you used until we get a second opinion on whether the licensing is compatible, but it's a neat source if we can use it. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm thinking mistletoe for the top greeting and I'll look to see what I can use for the others. Ariyen 20:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The holly looks ok, but its bright green does clash a bit with the header colour as you suspected Ariyen. -- aspectacle  20:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like a mirror of the holly and maybe brighten the color up a little... Ariyen 20:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Love the 'lil santa hat, lol. Overall it has a festive look to it, but it's still clean, I likes, I likes. 21:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, what do you all think now? Ariyen 23:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I like it. --ஸ Kyoshi 01:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The one thing I would change, which I will shortly, is the location of the amazing Santa Hat. I'm going to move it so it completely covers that corner. Unless anyone has a problem with that of course. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 02:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I resized the tree to 80px. It looked too small at 60px... Ariyen 04:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

See colors in the top box for my suggestion: here. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 19:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

implied statement

I'm fairly certain that the edit here, is an implied statement. I don't think it is necessary, but that's just my opinion. Venom20 20:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily implied, what if things had nothing to do with GW2 or GW? Therefore, it would belong there not here. Not that I think that that thought process is logical but still, should remain, its not hurting anything... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 23:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking that a minimal approach would be easiest. for example "does the information pertain to GW2?"

if yes --> you are in the right place

if not --> please move it to GWW

After this, it no longer pertains to GW2W, and though it may sound rude, it is no longer "our" problem. Anyways, that's how I thought about it when reading it. It's not a bad edit by any means, which is why I didn't revert it. I justed viewed it as extra info that may not be needed and wondered if anyone thought the same thing. Venom20 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think Guild Wars needed to be mentioned in there. Most should already know or check out that gww is for all the Guild Wars games and not Guild Wars 2. It was already stated clearly, but I felt that the person didn't either pay enough attention or realize that fact, when the added in a phrase that basically says the same thing. Ariyen 00:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't stated clearly; the original phraseology assumes that users are clever enough to realize that GW2 stuff goes here and GW stuff goes on GWW. That's the very definition of imply. Still, if something is added that doesn't belong here or on GWW (such as the Coca-cola example used in the edit summary), then it's obvious vandalism or silliness and that user will be dealt with accordingly. I don't think it's necessary to state that things not related to either GW2 or GW1 don't belong on either wiki. --★KOKUOU★ 00:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a slight rewording, something like;

As a general rule, if something isn't relevant to or doesn't exist in Guild Wars 2 it does not belong here, but may belong on the Guild Wars wiki.

which remains short, but removes the implication that all non GW2 stuff should go to GWW even if not GW related Thering 03:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it may not be stated "clearly", but the sentence there should be enough that makes sense. If someone can't see that Guild Wars 2 stuff goes here and Guild Wars 1 Stuff should go on gww... Then they should ask. I don't think we need to change the sentence, because someone can't understand (which is rare) with what's there and get the same understanding that hey gw2 stuff goes here! gw stuff goes on gw! and that other things goes else where like a forum, social site, etc. Ariyen 03:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I gave the above example as a compromise between the people who don't want it to be long winded and those who don't want it to be ambiguous. Wikis work by consensus, which means that everyone agrees - which is not the case at the moment. Instead of ignoring or sidelining something which people don't agree on, you need to find something which people do agree on. As it currently is written, there is no consensus agreeing with the sentence, and therefore it needs to change. Also, please don't just say "it should remain the same because anyone who doesn't understand it can ask for help" because, firstly, noone wants to have to explain it if they don't have to, and secondly, it starts a slide down a slippery slope where we don't make things at all clear because we expect people who don't understand to have to ask for clarification. Thering 12:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Note: As a general rule, if something Guild Wars-related isn't relevant to or doesn't exist in Guild Wars 2, then it likely belongs on the Guild Wars Wiki, not here. < Those Italics. - Infinite - talk 12:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I like what Infinite has. It's to the point and easy to understand and a lot better written than what was up there. Infinite, can you please post that to the editcopy? @TheRing, um most of those comments were based on the edit by Rhonin Soren, not what was originally up there, which is what I reverted back to... It was to keep from having redundance. People who get confused with this, should look at the history of the edit copy and read the sentences (original, Rhonin's, and Kyoshi, (mine was only going back to original. I didn't "change" anything, like I know I've been accused of)... I like Infinite's, because it's better than the original and to the point. The original, being the second best, because it's still better understood and less likely to get someone confused... 72.148.31.114 21:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow i totally forgot i even did that. It seemed as a no-brainer to me but apparently not. i do have to admit my formulation was kinda confusing but i think the present solution is the best. I didn't like the original because like he said "we assume users are clever enough". they're not, trust me i know Rhonin Soren 15:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Instead of...

← moved to User_talk:Ariyen