Talk:Main Page/editcopy/Archive 7

Alfa-R's v 3.0

So after a week and looking at the mini subject where we stand this main page design seems to be have the majority be hind it and i am fine with that can we now move the discussion into nit picking this design? so we can get to a end point? or do people want to come up with more designs?- Zesbeer 05:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm fairly aloof in this discussion, but I see no consensus (or majority) for that - or any, really. Truth be told, that's my least liked design. The heading color feels bland, the heading design is worse than the others, the central column feels out of place without a background, and the top sentence seems overly prominent. I prefer either the current main edit or Aqua's merge example (though I'd prefer a different header color). The headers are more artsy, matching the GW2 theme, the top sentence doesn't span the entire page, only issue with the current main edit (other than possibly choosing better icons) is that the Guild Wars 2 icon isn't really necessary, and for Aqua's, other than color, only thing I dislike is the middle column's lack-of-background/filling. Konig/talk 05:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Any particular colours you'd prefer, my friend (if I may call you that) ? A F K When Needed 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that we aren't quite close enough to consensus to call it yet. However, I would say that we are at least a step further, in that we can definitely say that it's down to Alfa-R's and Aqua's designs. Let's have a little more critique and refinement of those two (especially a fix for Aqua's for chrome) and then see what we can decide. --JonTheMon 15:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of providing critique, then: Yes, Aqua's and Alfa-R's designs both seem excellent. Aqua's suffers from both being very busy (red/white/blue/black contrast!) and having too much whitespace in the bottom corners. Alfa-R's design is very easy on the eyes, but the plaintext on top is just plain ugly, and it seems less in theme with the game than aqua's design. -- NilePenguin 16:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@NilePenguin: The design that I'm currently suggesting is not on the editcopy, it is this one, which can also been seen in this image. Aqua (T|C) 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Might I suggest changing the editcopy to one of the two proposals which are under consideration? Or even both, one below the other, to avoid conflict? By the way, the blue background behind the subheaders doesn't seem to be working in this proposal. Looks great otherwise though. Might want to change the second "news & updates" header to "featured article" as well? -- NilePenguin 17:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Aqua, would it be possible to get a screenshot of your design with the wiki navigation frame as part of it? I like both designs at the moment, but I feel that my ideal would be a bridge between yours and Alfa's. Alfa's appeals to me in how it has a sort of cleanliness and order to it that I'd like to see a bit more of in yours, but I'm not sure if that would be mitigated simply with the wiki frame on screen. I also know that it's a draft version, but just in case I hope we can see some refinement of the headers in later versions--namely with the text centering and not having the Feature header be truncated on its right. As for the interior space, my personal preference tends to keeping it clean. Thanks for the continued efforts. Redshift 17:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this design already ment to be a merger of the red design and alfa's? I'm with Konig on this one, it looks great, though I'm not sold on the icons (square icons sticking out of painterly blue background), and it still needs some refinement (header backround doesn't work for me, the background images stick out too high, stuff like that). -- NilePenguin 17:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Alfa-R's v 3.0 OR User:Aquadrizzt/Sandbox/Main Page 4

Alfa-R's v 3.0

• Alfa-r
• Angelkiss
• Glastium
• Infinite
• Itay Alon
• Kio
• Kokuou
• Mediggo
• Noxx
• Redshift
• Shew
• Zesbeer
• Naut
• Ee

Aqua's design

• A F K When Needed
• Aqua
• Eerie?
• JonTheMon?
• Konig?
• Lhimez?
• Mattsa?
• The Holy Dragons?
• Venom20?

Alfa-R's v3.0 Revamped

• Leonim

Other

• ?

Trying to narrow it down. Please add your name to the appropriate category. (we can discuss nitpick things latter lets just settle on one or the other and then move on from there) - Zesbeer 02:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, it's still too soon for a straight up-down vote. Hold up. --JonTheMon 03:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Zesbeer, please stop trying to force the discussion to move along. We are clearly not ready to move on yet. That and both of our designs are not fully finished nor compatible yet. Aqua (T|C) 03:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

how much longer do you want this conversation to go 4 months 12 months? 3 years? also its not a up or down vote you can pick other and present another option.- Zesbeer 04:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the desired length is 2 days. At this point in time, it'll probably take a couple of weeks to finish the refine and critique phase, and since we're basically down to 2 designs, our efforts and thoughts are going to be more focused. Now quit being hasty and pessimistic. --JonTheMon 04:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Zesbeer, I for one appreciate your lists and having a rough guide of how relatively popular each of the two main designs is. The designs are mostly having their code optimized, getting checked for compatibility, and stuff like that. The designs seem rather final by now. It's possible such a list will show that the contest is already effectively over, which could save time and effort being spent on the alternative.

That said, there is a distinct lack of urgency as Jon has mentioned, so I wish you'd stop guessing for people as frankly it's beginning to grate. If people have a preference and wish to have their voice heard, they'll ensure it happens. Guessing reduces the accuracy of your own lists (effectively making them invalid) as well as making the whole thing feel rushed when there's certainly no deadline to add oneself to such a list.

Just my $0.02. A F K When Needed 05:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What are people's preference regarding the actual layout of the sections? Prefer Alfa's 6 equal boxes or Aqua's bigger featured and news sections? Agreement on that may help focus efforts.

In my opinion, Aqua's flows better, assuming it'll fit into smaller resolutions. Eerie Moss 05:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

They're both fully compatible with all commonly used resolutions (and even go beyond the call of duty, in that regard...). :) A F K When Needed 05:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@AFK When Needed, I didn't guess for anyone. I simply copy pasted this list from above list.- Zesbeer 06:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the 6th box on Alfa's. If we ever find we need another box down the road we could ditch the Lore box and re-purpose it into what is needed. The Featured Article/News boxes seem a little short tho. Would like to see it expanded to maybe 5 news points tall. More space for more news (in case of a busy news week?) and the larger size would allow the Featured Article section to have a more expanded intro into the article or an image related to the article. Still not a big fan of the "Welcome to the wiki" part on either tho. 06:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"I simply copy pasted this list from above list." If a list already existed , then why make another? And yes, please stop rushing/being hasty. Has the game been released yet? Did I miss some urgent memo on the necessity to get this out there? Venom20 15:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Winter is coming. - Infinite - talk 15:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The North Remembers. (This whole page is tl;dr, perhaps clean it up for cleaned-up-look-sake?) Ge4ce-Talk-Contribs 15:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) OMG, Zesbeer is a White Walker!!! This all makes sense now. To the South!! Edit: I'm going to retract the White Walker comment because I don't want to be offensive. Although I wouldn't mind being one, they sound fearsome. Venom20 17:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the design from Aqua. I can't read the headlines. They are in a white font with some greyish frame on white background. So I can just see, that there is something but can't read ist. Is this just me? Balwin 18:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to use the CSS from Aqua. It is known. Alfa-R 18:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It requires special css coding to view the headers properly. Or you can look at this. Aqua (T|C) 18:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else want to join the Zesbeer hate train? next stop Public-crucifixion-vil, I am not trying to rush anything as i have already stated the only thing i am trying to do is move a stagnate discussion along and narrow down the options so we are not discussing this until the end of time. but i see that i am no longer welcome on this wiki so latter.- Zesbeer 20:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

While I don't hate you, and I doubt anyone does, I believe that, with the point we're at now (down to two forms and refining them both), a month and a half is far from too long time, especially since this design (though not content) will likely last well past release of the game. What is stagnant is the discussion of rushing thing - in other words, by trying to further the discussion you're making it stagnate. Konig/talk 21:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Konig; rushing does stagnate a conversation. I like the two current concepts however as we know, one of them (it may not be any of the two as what they're currently in), if I may be so bold and suggest a temporary upload of each for one week but also have a "Complaints" box for some input. After the first week, the other goes up, after that it will be back to the original and perhaps we can move on from there? Luke.out 04:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, sorry to add to the little mayhem ;) but I just added a revamp proposal User:Leonim/MainPage/3 on Alfa-R's design (lets say v3.1). The global layout, but ever more the feel&look (icons, text images à la GW2 and spotty/stroky backgrounds) denoted lot of great work there, work that I like obviously. Yet it seems it lacked some versatility to position current and newer sections, and some "templatability" : it stands slightly optimized (except for the graphism side : one icon and its associated text are placeholders). As for the contents themselves, we can save a debate on my modifications and personal preferences for a later date (I need to check the backlog on the current discussion more thoroughly for once). Anyway, have a nice day. --Leonim 12:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I decided to check back here after this have cooled down. Well they appears slightly more than cooled, but you get the picture. I ckeched Alfa-r's and aqua's current proosals and found them to be shockingly similar. It appears that the current ideas have merged together, which is certainly a good thing. Now it is just a matter of fine tuning them (thick/thin headers, placement of boxes/portals, number of boxes/portals, etc). Based on what I can view from this computer (~9 years old, 1200x800 resolution) I am leaning towards aqua's solly on the fact that I personally prefer the condensed/confined look of the material. That being said, I am still against using CSS or the main page, so that would need to change, IMO. I'll need to check things out when I get home to my newer and more appropriate monitors. Venom20 05:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For the Welcome to the wiki at the top of each, I like having it just be plain behind it like in Alfa's. Since both are using that same GW2 font logo, could we add the wiki into that image? As it is now feels to me like "Welcome to the Guild Wars 2..............wiki". Doesn't have to be the same font/color, just part of that image/link and the same size as it. Could remain black and put the brackets around wiki like was done for the wiki main image in the upper left of the wiki.

This section is getting long. We could make different sections for different fine tuning points like Venom said just above me since the two designs have merged to similar designs. Then we can keep the smaller stuff separate and sorted and anything major can continue in this section? 04:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Tie-breaker

This merges the best of Alfa's and Aqua's proposals, has no visible (to me anyway, and I check on many screens and browsers) issues with display, has the best mix of content, and basically exists because I want a new main page to start working on April Fools'. You guys have been halting my work on that since forever, and although productivity is fine, life goes on too, and our current main page is horribly outdated and needs to be replaced. Is there ANY serious objection to this mix of proposals at this point, save details nitpicking? If not, we can push this mix live for now and carry on with things, whilst everyone here finetunes an actual new main page, because it clearly needs more time.
You could see this as forcing a decision, but it is merely a temporary push looking at what is viable to be pushed live now. Aqua's design has header issues on certain browsers and Alfa's doesn't. Aqua's sections content tends to be superior, but is mostly the same on both proposals. I only mixed working design with working content and urge the wiki to at least pass this push whilst the discussion and changing continues. This discussion needs to stop being 100% detrimental to the current wiki; we have a certain standard we can and should push live. - Infinite - talk 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

/signed (for push while discussion continues) Venom20 19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 19:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. Ge4ce-Talk-Contribs 19:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. pling 20:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Redshift 21:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree "(for push while discussion continues)". 22:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've already stated this elsewhere, but +1. Aqua (T|C) 00:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 from me too. Alfa-R 06:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks nice. Go for it. Balwin 08:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Eerie Moss 09:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to the whole discussion, but I must say light-blue backgrounds for menus don't work for me. It's a wiki about GW2, I would expect the main colors to be: white, black and red...--The Evanescent 10:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed one thing: I don't think it is necessary to have Lore, Elder Dragons and Religions in both PvE and Lore sections, something more akin to Alfa's PvE section would probably be more helpful. 11:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@The Evanescent This was discussed already. Previous editcopy had read headers, but was rejected by the majority for being too aggressive (Look at the official site, red is one of the main colors but it never gets lots of space, it's used for highlighting links mostly). Also, mothership headers are just plain text on white bg, but this king of design was rejected here, that's where blue headers came from - it fits with the bg images. I'd also like to note that color can be changed quite easily if needed. Alfa-R 11:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Alfa hasn't proposed the latest page yet, but I'm agreeing with some of the menu/link refining that he's done for the pages. For further discussion/refinement:

• Game basics: Does Emotes merit its own link? I would first have the broader 'Chat' instead (though we don't have a page for that, it seems). I would also suggest retaining Leveling here under Characters.
• Gear and Inventory: Would it be too much of a stretch to change Currency to Rewards and include Experience? It's not specifically Inven, but the three just seem so packaged. I'd also support the inclusion of Account Vault at the very end.
• PvE: Is there a way to make the Personal Storyline link more explicitly 'Tutorial/Getting Started'? I feel like there needs to be a link that is pretty transparent in being 'this is how/where the game starts; click me' within this section on the main page. Including Crafting here is redundant (but Harvesting should be kept). I'm honestly not attached to having the 5 cities take up so much real estate--I'm more in agreement with some of Leonim's selections where an Exploration section with Locations/Zones, Waypoints/Travel, Skill Challenges, and Points of Interest sublinks would be ultimately more useful for the playerbase.
• PvP: Way out of my league, here ;).
• Lore: I'm not sure how varied these storybooks/codices are, but they might warrant an entry here. Also might consider a Media section to provide space for those randoms like the novels. (Well, mostly the novels.)

Sorry for the wall o' text. Happy Saint Patrick's. Redshift 12:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The new editcopy

Two things that force me to object to it as it is in that diff:

1. The hideous font in the section headers (i.e. "Featured article").
2. The lack of side-scrolling on smartphones, as seen [[:File:User Infinite Main Page Smartphone.png|'''here''']].

Elaborating both points;

1. The font makes the whole thing look amateuristic, even with the beautiful aesthetic in place. The font is a massively detrimental factor in this otherwise beautiful design.
2. The smartphone issue is one I've been addressing for quite a while now and (as it turns out) rightfully so. I am all for a beautiful design that functions on all imaginable resolutions (though I'd still contest backdrops fading in from the sides on wider resolutions; fully content-respecting and thus not appearing until about 20px away from the sides of the main page design and with a beautiful fade as we've seen Alfa produce before), but if it doesn't actually fit on 800px wide displays (or tilting the screen to a 1200px wide display and still not fit due to the content coding) then things will need a little more work. It's a minor fix that is going to make it all that much more perfect.
   You can call me a nitpicker, you can call me a troll, but the display is the prime function of the main page. If it can't be displayed properly, we should not push it live.
   

So all in all; change the header sections font and code a minimum width div to correct scaling on 800px-wide displays (and horizontal smartphones that surpass that width, due to most smartphone browser software issues). If that is done, and optionally the backdrops are coded into it for the widest of displays, then this will get my support. - Infinite - talk 12:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

and then it will almost become my main page proposal, won't it? Totally agree on what you've written btw. Alfa-R 13:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

the other thing that makes me worry is content size. It's a whole lot of hard to navigate information Alfa-R 13:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Needless to say, the follow-up edit makes me wholly oppose. - Infinite - talk 14:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but I find this version to be taking Alfa's one and making it infinitely worse. Unlike the original one, which I currently consider to be close to perfect, this one has awful section headers, it is too big and unwieldy, it is chaotic and cluttered with useless and redundant links for this kind of page (many of which are either red links or lead to the same page several times), the quoted welcome banner is pointless, it lost the artistic background, it is not centred, it does not scale properly... Simply said, I do not understand a single one of these changes and continue to support Alfa's layout. 16:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still following this conversation and I, too, am not sure that these latest changes are adding value to what was a focused design. I appreciate how thorough it wants to be and it's useful in not forgetting some topics that should be there, but I think it's trading off a lot of accuracy, user-friendliness, and aesthetics that isn't being paid off. I'm not sure that this version is ready in comparison to the other previous proposals. Redshift 17:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I also have several issues with it.

1. Aesthetically speaking, the space is abysmally divided. The profession section in the middle splits the page into two (I thought it was two proposals stacked on top of each other...).
2. I'm on a 1920x1200 monitor (which, I'm pretty sure, is one of the bigger monitors out there) and I still have to scroll to access over half the page. Which leads me to...
3. There is way too much content. The main page is supposed to offer quick links to important sections. I would prefer a portal system to this if we truly need this much content on our front page.
4. The quote irks me. A lot. "YAY! We quoted ourselves on the main page." Makes it feel very insincere to attribute to quote to us directly.
5. Assuming that the wiki is designed to be a useful reference for players, then the main page should have almost solely links to things that players would want to be easily able to find. I doubt there is any quest that says "what is the third word, in the second sentence of the third paragraph in the Dwarves section of 'The Movement of the World.'" Sections such as lore which, here, was given a prime place at the top of the page, in the end, aren't really main page material. A small handful of links in the PvE section is fine, but giving lore a top spot (among the most visible sections) is not working for me.
6. I for one believe that upon game release "news and updates" will be replaced with something like "game updates and major events". This page has both, which I feel would make it incredibly redundant later.
7. No main page should ever need a table of contents or "quick links". Ever. Call it whatever you want, it still is completely unnecessary. Of course, given the length of this page, they become a necessity. In future designs I hope they won't be present.

Aqua (T|C) 20:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, that's why this new design is there for : to stir things and points at other directions and some symptoms of the current wiki state. I think it will help get the best in the end.

That main page is heavy, and I totally agree it should NOT. Meaning that this wiki WILL get bigger than the previous GWW (as an analogy : the in-game maps), so theme portals will be necessary IMO.

The contents are there for the taking, numerous, feature-rich, difficult to summarize without being dismissive and equally mattering to the different type of players. And this wiki is dedicated to Guild Wars 2, which is not only a game but also a thriving universe in itself : immersive lore and story are at any corners (suffice to video-walk in any major city to get the feel of it, and it starts right at character creation to not let go the gameplay at any time). This wiki is indeed for players, not gamers-only : this is a large scope. Which leads to the conclusion that the order on which information is presented matters quite alot when there are no table of contents (or quick links, which is the same, presented differently).

As for quick links and long pages (the latter which I dislike as much as the next guy) : You can check [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal on Wikipedia for the quick links, and as a reminder, almost none of the intro pages of the mother of all wikis can't fit in any actual screen resolution. I could point to the Guild Wars official website, but it will be redone soon. As I wrote above, something should be done about it, and I think it is the use of portals (I seem to be insistent on the point ^^ but am totally open to other solutions about this tricky problem).

About the news and updates : game updates, festival updates (same as world events?), community events (server-wide only) and naturally ANet will continue to blog about GW2 and inform players after release. That's a lot and that's only the bread and butter for any player wanting to stay on par. News, updates and events should probably be merged, but so far this wiki doesn't have such articles, so this proposal reflects it. As it reflects other elements of the current state of the wiki (sometimes lacking, sometimes excellent).

Smartphone I can't test (a shame hehe), thanks for pointing to it. Later, I will work on a workaround, without falling back into the problems of the previous design.

There are many other things to say and improve, but none of the proposals are near-perfect, that's for sure. Especially when the whole game hasn't been unveiled yet, and strive for a very high quality... through a lot of iterations and the occasional scraping. This wiki creation should reflect what the Manifesto and the GW2 philosophy is all about.

It took me a lot of time to compile (and I choose the term carefully) this main page proposal, but I never wanted it to become the main page : to spring new ideas, yes; to show some potential alleyways, indeed; to point out inner flaws (both here and in other proposals), totally. If you understand that statement and what it implies, then you are well under the path of the reflection about how should be the main page and the structure of the wiki behind... As I would say : with each helping stone, the result will not only be great, it will be amazing. :) --  Leonim _{[talk·contribs]} 14:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Part 2

as I stated on alfa-r's page the things i don't like about the current design are as follows:

• The welcome header looks very bland one way that fixed this was Infinite's concept design which used the same image text that the headers use right now.
• The dotted borders also look bland and do not fit either remove them or replace them with images like the ones found on the main site
• The blue headers don't really match the logo another color would be nice (my pref is gray which is what the main site uses alot)
• The feature project section should not have been pushed live. it was there to be temporary because we have not even started it for one and for two we dont have enough correct up-to date information to start it.

- Zesbeer 22:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"blue headers don't really match the logo another color" Blue is an arbitrary color that people generally like. Grey would make it look too bland IMO.

"feature project section should not have been pushed live" It's a placeholder; it will be used eventually. We would have to shuffle everything around if we removed it now. Aqua (T|C) 22:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

so how long are we going to have a placeholder with a article that dose not fit the non existent guidelines for a feature? until release? also as noted above I am not the only one who feels that way about the headers. also i said gray is my prefrenace not that it had to be gray i would love to see some options of different colors. orange would have also worked(seeing as they have that in the logo) - Zesbeer 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My issues is in the header backgrounds - I don't like blue (or maybe it's that shade of blue?), but that's minor, and the "paintstroke" attempt is, imo, bad as it is way to flat - the tops and bottom are perfectly straight. I think a little rigidness to it would make it much better.

@Zesbeer: If you're worried about the "non-existent guidelines" and so forth for the featured project, you can remove the placeholder by starting a featured article project (I will be more than happy to scour around for some better written articles, though tbh everything is under a "subject to change" basis atm). Konig/talk 22:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@konig i would love to get the featured project going i just dont think we are there yet 90% of the info on the wiki i bet has changed and until we can start nailing down stuff down i dont think we should try and nominate pages. that said i do think we could start a out line of what we want the feature project to be but that is another discussion for another page.- Zesbeer 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know the design was to be changed so that was a surprise - i just recently started to cooperate on the wiki so i get lost sometimes. I like the cleanliness but the watery blue looses the connection with GW2's red and the starting page needs a clear header. Not sure if people want to find a featured article first moment they land on a page where they simply want to find info first. Graphic designer/painter so if you need help with anything, just ask. Ee 08:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem but a useful place to check is the requests for comment section of the wiki. it was posted there for about 3 months. thanks for your input.- Zesbeer 08:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Palette proposal

Not that the current colours are very pleasing to the eyes, I'd still like to propose a change to the main page colour palette (main page itself, as well as the navigation).
Here is a quick mock-up of what I had in mind and has received support off-wiki. This obviously means nothing so I'm putting the mock-up out here. Any thoughts? - Infinite - talk 21:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably still prefer the currently used blue, but I guess this could be a viable alternative in case of large enough disapproval, definitely more so than the blood red or shades of grey. I'm not sure if I like the recoloured icons, however, they seem rather... lifeless, for the lack of a better word. 22:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

+1 from me, but I still think that it should be a color that anet wants it to be. ie anything found on the official website.- Zesbeer 22:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Stéphane asked me to propose this after I had already proposed it, implying his support from either an official or personal perspective. - Infinite - talk 22:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no qualms with that tan. /signed. Also, I mean to disrespect to anet, but this is a wiki made by the players for the players. Thus, anyone from anet should have an equal say in what is displayed, no more or less than anyone else. Just an opinion. Venom20 22:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I know that venom it just seems to me that anet has a vision for what they want anything gw2 to look like. and it would not harm anyone, to just go on Stéphane's talk page and ask him what colors they would like us to use.- Zesbeer 22:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I like Infinite's proposal, except for the recoloring of the icons. Xeno talk 00:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) ArenaNet has a vision, but that does not mean that we have to either follow it to the letter or even utilize if we don't wish. They host the server and pretty much leave the rest up to us. As Venom said, their opinions should be weighted no differently than anyone elses'. Aqua (T|C) 00:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the color change for the header strokes, but not the color for the top and behind the wiki logo outside the page area. With this, the cool blue matches and blends in with the background images while the warmer colors with the headers brings out the actual page more. (Also blued some of the icons so they were not so flat.) This also gives the blue people some of their blue while putting the new color on the main page (which I think the new color make the headers easier to read). 01:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Infinite, I love everything except the actual colour itself. :P

I love what you did with the icons. I love the colour across the top of the page, including around the logo. But I just wish you did all this using the already chosen blue, or just about any other colour. The one you suggest just doesn't do it for me; I'd prefer something more vibrant. A F K When Needed 13:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Infinite's color is better than the blue, but I feel it can be improved more. Likewise, I think the header shapes themselves should be less straight (to match GW2's style more). Konig/talk 15:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding on to what has already been said, I don't like the tan wiki background. The blue adds some similarities with the main page background images. How about making the header strokes redder? That way the two main colors, red from the logo and blue from the background images, would be emphasized rather than adding in a new color (tan).-- shew|make 15:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It's kind of a terrible prospect to note that every detail about it has been -1'd or +1'd by the collective feedback. This should be a good discussion. :P - Infinite - talk 16:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@Konig headers shape is straight because each header consists of 3 parts: 1st is a solid color rectangular block element with variable width (0 px on really small resolutions), 2nd is an artistic brushstroke ending right where the 1st one ends that has fixed width, and 3rd is the one with decorative spots, blots and strokes on the left, overlaying the other two. That was the only way I found to make them work with very different resolutions without any problems. Using artistic strokes without rectangular part will either end with image-stretching (I believe that's what Aqua's design does), or will require lots of smaller strokes combined in a similar way to how I did it. 1st option will make headers look ugly on certain resolutions because of image stretching/shrinking on one axis only, 2nd is really hard to do and will make main page quite heavy too. That's how I came over this headers style, and I think that sharp edges is a small sacrifice for a lighter design that will look decent on all resolutions. If you have other ideas on how to do headers, I'd be glad to see your thoughts. I'd also like to note, that this (blocks having variable width, and thus height too) was the reason I used dotted separators instead of artistic borders from the previous bloody-red editcopy.

Now on the color. I've always thought that a black-on-white headers is the best option, as this is how headers are done on the mothership (It was my original proposal, but you can find current design done this way here). Header backgrounds were added by popular demand of other wiki participants, and this shade of blue was chosen because it has certain support from bg images, but is still rather bright. I've also experimented with colors prominent on the official site (red and ochre), but they looked alien on this page (they were not supported by anything else), that's why I had dropped that versions and stopped on the blue one. Now, I really don't like this recoloring proposal, but for other reasons. It looks lifeless to me, as it's the very same dead-autumn-leaf color all over the page. The whole point of strokes was to highlight headers, and this design fails at that in my eyes, because the color is overused. Alfa-R 18:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@Konig I'd also like to add that the other reason I used this header style is that it has certain similarities with infobox headers. I was even thinking to propose an addition of similar paintstroke ending for infoboxes' templates. Alfa-R 19:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@Alfa-R you could do the same thing you did with the headers with the dotted separators you have a top and bottom image and then a one px middle image that you use as a filler. @the color issue, we should try a few different color options and see what we like best. blue just dose not work for me for gw2 when i think of gw2 i think of red black orange yellow when i think of blue i think of gw1w.- Zesbeer 20:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Alfa-R about the color. I think the Icons do need some kinda of color scheme as the colors do seem to clash a bit, but making everything tan/brown does make it look quite dull. I would like to keep the blue but change the color scheme for the icons to match the rest of the design. The problem with trying to match the wiki color scheme with the GW2 main site's color scheme is that the colors don't translate well into a wiki format. Blues and greens just tend to work better for wiki formats because other colors like blacks, reds, orange etc are too harsh. Yellow isn't harsh but would require a dark background to off set that, leading the entire design to look dark. Many game wikis do tend to try to match the "game colors" and the majority of them look pretty ugly and uninviting like the wow wiki and aion wiki etc. --Lania 21:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that that reddish-brown background behind the wiki page is from his personal css and doesn't have anything to do with the main page proposal itself. Also if I may add, the lore icon in the tanned proposal may need slightly more saturation. It is almost black/white. Other than that, I still approve. Venom20 21:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the navigation (including the headbg image and the recolouring of the wiki navigation border) is part of the proposal. - Infinite - talk 21:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@zeesber, that would be adding a whole lot of extra markup for almost no effect.

@everyone. Lania actually made a good point. Not only color itself, but the way it is used is important. Adding red (or black) headers won't make it look more like the game site, as red is used there in a very different way, specifically to highlight links only. Nor will it make it look like the game itself, as red is used there in combinations with dark colors, and the whole feel of it is very different. Alfa-R 21:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh it is? Hmmm, I just thought that was part of your usual screenshot. In that case, I'm unsure if I like it. I'll need more time to consider. Venom20 21:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I think both the tan colour and the background look more guildwarsy than the current blue. Have to add though, the monotone and dull icons make the entire thing a lot worse. The icon for PvE still looks good, but most others are incredibly bland and even require you to actually gaze at them to see what they represent. The brown outline seems to clash with the red background though, and personally I feel that colouring it anything other than grey or black will makes the site a lot less clean looking. -- NilePenguin 21:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@Alfa-R the effect would be it not looking like trash. also this is a wiki its a collaborative possess and you have to realize that now that you're design is the main design its not yours anymore but everyone's to change. @infinite I loled why are people still using MonoBook my counter proposal is to switch the default to Vector.- Zesbeer 21:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning for sticking to monobook is actually based on the aesthetic, which is complementary to the game. It's a personal choice, though. Monobook just remains the standard, hence the navigation proposed uses it still. - Infinite - talk 22:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@zeesber You are starting it all over again. Calling others' work a piece of trash is definitely a good way to communicate. If you read what I've wrote, then you'll find out that I don't like blue headers myself, headers were added by others demand (including yours, among others) and color was changed to blue for the same reason. Also, I support vector change. Alfa-R 22:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@Alfa-R i was referring to the dotted lines not to the headers.- Zesbeer 22:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The first part of what I've said still applies though. Alfa-R 22:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I also use Vector, and would love to see it become the default skin. A F K When Needed 23:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So you said "I'd also like to note, that this (blocks having variable width, and thus height too) was the reason I used dotted separators instead of artistic borders from the previous bloody-red editcopy. " to which I replied "@alfa you could do the same thing you did with the headers with the dotted separators you have a top and bottom image and then a one px middle image that you use as a filler." to which you replyed "@zeesber, that would be adding a whole lot of extra markup for almost no effect. " to which i replied "@Alfa-R the effect would be it not looking like trash. also this is a wiki its a collaborative possess and you have to realize that now that you're design is the main design its not yours anymore but everyone's to change." so please point out to me where the first part of what you said here "@zeesber You are starting it all over again. Calling others' work a piece of trash is definitely a good way to communicate. If you read what I've wrote, then you'll find out that I don't like blue headers myself, headers were added by others demand (including yours, among others) and color was changed to blue for the same reason." applies? or what i am "starting again" ALSO the name is ZESBEER not zeesber- Zesbeer 22:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for that, Zesbeer. You are slowly becoming hostile, that's what I meant when I said "you are starting it all over again". This have happened in this discussion before. Now, can we please close this topic and return to Infinite's proposal discussion. Alfa-R 22:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

also I wasn't intentionally becoming "slowly" hostile I was being blunt to what you said, as to why I wanted to change from the dots.- Zesbeer 22:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please take it to a talk page (@Alfa-R and Zesbeer). In regards to the .css, to the best of my knowledge, it does not matter what skin the user has. The common css is common.css. Thus it doesn't specify a skin. So it really it a personal preference. I too prefer vector, but the skin should not play a role in deciding the design. Venom20 23:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Maybe we should split this up into three different subsections: one for the background behind the wiki page, one for the header colors, and one for the icon colors.
Infinite's and Mine I just took Infinite's and edited the colors (btw I posted this above but reposting it here since I am going to reference it). (1) I like the headers so I didn't change them. (2) Now if you look at both of these, the blue background on mine I think doesn't draw as much attention as the redish one on Infinite's. I think either could be better if the saturation was low so they were more grey with a hint of w/e color, or turn the opacity way down, so they draw as little attention away from the page as possible (which is why I don't like that on Infinite's). (3) If you flip between them you can see I added some blue into the background of the icons. I left the foreground on most of these the same color as Infinite's because I thought it was good, but as other people have been saying the icons on Infinite's are a too lifeless/flat. The only ones I changed the foreground with were the Lore and Wiki Community since they became pretty black and white like venom said. I just added a redish color to those foregrounds to fit a little with the headers and also in color theory cool colors (the blue) naturally recedes into a background while warm colors (the red) move into the audiences vision (another reason why I think the redish background needs to change).
tl;dr I like the headers, icons need a little tweaking, hate the background. 06:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I am liking the blue/yellow/tan of yours, Mattsta; I'd support the addition of blue and the saturation increase as you've done. The color scheme of it is a nice reference to some of the interface screens we've seen in-game, and I do agree that the warm pink/reddish top is a little too 'present' (though it's not unappealing, just we're more aware of warmer colors). Redshift 11:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have grays and faded colors to seem painterly. Grey can be used a fair bit, but there need to be distinct splashes of color and the icons and headers are definitely not fulfilling that. So, again, painterly, not dull. --JonTheMon 13:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I really like a touch of blue you've added, Mattsta. Still too desaturated for my taste though, but definitely an improvement. Alfa-R 16:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to echo Jon's concern and my issue that I stated earlier in a different way. The GW2 game it self is a very colorful game using a wide spectrum of colors for world. The UI uses a lot of browns, tans, yellows, and other earth tones for a specific desgin as it helps offset the bright colors in the world. You can't just take one element of the game like the website, UI interface, or art design and make it the "theme" color for the wiki... the medium is very different, and like Jon said, it just becomes dull. I want people to look at Daniel Dociu's artwork, as his painterly work was the core concept for GW2's "look". When you look at his work, most of his artwork has a core palette of colors, with a smattering of offsetting colors to give it balance. I do like the blue headers but like I said before,there really isn't much to offset the blue, making it look monocromatically blue, or just too blue. If we go with Tan or grays that color needs to be off set with other brighter colors to make it not look monochromatic. I think Mattsta's idea is a great start but yeah as Alfa said, still needs more color. --Lania 16:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You talk sense. Also, if blue seems "unguildwarsy" that's something we're going to have to deal with at least a bit, considering that there's always going to be plenty of blue on a wiki (links etc). On an unrelated note, is it perhaps a good idea to push the current editcopy? Just for the better featured article and the better links. -- NilePenguin 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree on pushing live again. Only updates since the last push have been fixes/updates to links and the updated featured article section.

As I understand it, the only thing here that will affect the wiki outside this page will be the wiki background since it is the background for the whole wiki. The icons and headers wouldn't change any colors on other pages (Aqua has a wiki talk for nav/infobox colors [[Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_talk:Color_schemes#Wiki colors|here). That said about the background, the focus for the main page should be the links followed by the headers which organize the links. On our current main page with the blue headers, the icons draw a lot of attention imo. I don't like Infinite's icons but I like the idea of unifying their colors so they aren't clashing as much. As for the painterly effect, we still have the backgrounds on the side, the headers still have the paint splashes, and the icons still look like little paintings. Changing colors doesn't change the painterly effect. Changing colors can make something more dull which we should try to avoid, but at the same time we should try to make them too interesting as what we are changing is not what this page is for: welcoming ppl to the wiki and navigation with the links. 03:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the reason I like the Infinite's headers isn't because of the color but the contrast between the header and the header background. If someone comes up with a good or better color that has a good contrast then I might go for that instead. Also why I liked the current blue over the old red header ideas as well. 03:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Use the same teal color, maybe a bit lighter, for title backgrounds as well as the wiki page bg., andhave the icons smash out of that. Next revamp maybe pick a small comittee to work out 3 decent proposals and put it out there on a public poll. Would save a lot of time, no? Anyway, just jumping in and it's a hard to follow discussion, so ignore my contribution if it doesn't make sense :-).Ee 08:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) what if we didn't change the icon colors but just the headers to the tan/yellow that Infinite suggested?- Zesbeer 22:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While waiting for this to return to the forefront, might I suggest doing a live push again to clean up the the actual links and subsection organization? The links in the current mainpage are now redundant and out-of-date, and I feel that the edit copy is in a state to supersede that. Redshift 11:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome banner

I think it looks awe-full, could we change it to match the text of the headers? (like how Infinite had it here) maybe reduce the size- Zesbeer 23:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We can, but as we don't have access to the font, but rather to individual symbols' glyphs, this is a lot of work to do, as letters are to be aligned and kerned manually. Alfa-R 09:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

well Infinite, already had it coded so we could just grab his copy or we could line up each word and make that a image instead of making each letter line up or just make it one big image...- Zesbeer 22:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Look at the word welcome for example, each letter's vertical position is different (even though Infinite obviously tried to align them, and did a lot there, I've seen the 1st version with glyphs used as is, and it was a mess). Kerning is even more disastrous, e.g. the has almost a full space between t and h, and it's everywhere throughout the welcome banner. Aligning a sentence that big is a lot of work to do, I've spent almost an hour for each header on the main page (but that's including serching for letters) — and they are like 2-3 words long — and they are still far from perfect.

The best solution would be to somehow upload Aspire font family to the wiki to use in both main page nav-blocks headers and welcome banner (and probably even in level 1 headers throughout the wiki, that could become a nice touch). Now I have a question: I know that the font is proprietary, but is there a way to get the font from Anet or, more likely, to buy it? Alfa-R 15:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"We probably won't [continue to] use the font above (called Aspire) – Stephane". I don't think we should use Aspire and should instead leave it as is for now and then switch to Cronos or Eason when the time calls (when Arenanet changes their gw2 website perhaps). Aqua (T|C) 16:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree on leaving it as is then. Alfa-R 17:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

why dont we try what it looks like now instead of waiting? The asset kit says in the graphic design guideline "Use Eason Pro for headlines and body copy. do not use the inline caps version of eason unless it will be used at very large point size. in most cases, display caps should be used instead." so I actually think we should make the switch now seeing as the asset kit already suggests that you use it.- Zesbeer 07:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zesbeer here. There's little reason not to use the specified font if we can. I assume our having not done so already was either an oversight or they updated the information in the kit. 08:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we have the named font to use on wiki then? Alfa-R 08:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I dono, but I am sure we could get it or ask Stephane and get it.- Zesbeer 06:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

summary, pls?

There are many pages of text that deeply discuss how we got from our old home page to the current one. It's all a bit lengthy and over whelming and I have only read tid bits here and there. So my question is, is this the final version? If it's not, and I wanted to submit a proposal, what guidelines were decided upon during the lengthy discussion? --Moto Saxon 03:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well imho we didn't really decide on anything, a admin just came by and pushed live something that the majority of people liked. But they took no time to look at the discussion or even consider if the links or banners or overall design was something everyone agreed on (I thought it still needed work but its impossible to get anyone to agree on anything...). But feel free to come up with your own style if you have time. I will note that we did come to the conclusion that there was no use of having the images of the professions, or the gw2 logo because they were redundant. We also tried a few iterations of brush strokes because one kind of goal that we had for the re-design was to make it more in the style of gw2 and its website and ui. Also keep in mind to make it rez friendly (ie 800x600), that was a big sticking point.- Zesbeer 05:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the gist of it was that we had a long exploratory phase (some here and some here and a lot in-between), which eventually gave us a couple of designs we could narrow down to. At that point, we had some refinement. After a ~2 week break, some additional refinements were made, along with a compromise, and a new proposal was put forth that was agreed upon. --JonTheMon 12:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Reinventing Main Page

new Main Page screenshot

Mobile version

Since the current main page went live, I was thinking of different possibilities to improve it, and the solution I came upon as a result is actually something unexpected: we may need a new mainpage design (layout on the other hand is rather stable and unquestionable as of now). The reasons (for why it wasn't done earlier as well) are as follows:

Feedback collected on the previous design from community.

Main Page is very different from the rest of the wiki.

ANet are starting to use a black-white-red color scheme more actively, they've even removed those blue backgrounds we are using now from the official site and twitter. Also, ANet aren't using previous font (Aspire) anymore.

As a result, the whole style of their site is also becoming different, which is seen on a pre-purchase page.

We finally got a couple of red images appropriate for use in wiki design.

and some others minor reasons.

So, ladies and gentlemen, I'm presenting you my new Main Page proposal. It requires a custom CSS though, and prefferably vector skin, so I've uploaded a screenshot of how it is supposed to look like.

This design should be more in line with GW2 style guides, it should (I hope!) cater to those who thought that previous design turned out ugly/unrelated.

new infoboxes and navbars

I'd also like to draw your attention to reason #2: current Main Page looks nothing like the rest of the wiki. That's why I'd also like to propose a couple of changes to the overall wiki design, so that it better supports the Main Page. This changes are concerning infoboxes and navbars mostly, and switching to vector skin as a default one, though with a couple of changes to it. You can find some examples in my sandbox (again you'll need the CSS) or on a screenshot to the right.

Changes for Vector skin in case you are interested are:

different font for headers and captions;

shadow for the main content block to make it look like as if it lays on a gradient bg.

different style for categories navigation on the bottom of the page.

This will also require an implementation of Aqua's navbars, while infoboxes would be usable as they are now.

That's all for now, looking forward to your feedback. Alfa-R 18:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

So there's a lot of stuff here, so I'll address each party individually.

Main page: when I first saw that you put another main page design up, I literally thought "oh no, not again". However, I really, truly like it, and with a couple of minor changes here and there, I think it would be perfect. (Minor aesthetic changes and maybe a little more glamour).

Changing from monobook to vector: I am absolutely adamantly opposed to having the wiki default be vector (and I know I'm not the only one.) That being said, you could also be using vector as an example (Common.css/js affects all skins), so I won't say too much if that's not what you intended.

Nav bars: I have been pushing for the update a long time, but I don't like the step taken back with the sliding the header up to the top. The space in between the color background header and the top of the infobox adds a bit of uniqueness and an artistic component to the infobox/navbars. I am kind of leaning against implementing the official fonts everywhere, but I'm not sure about that yet.

Adding the sub shadow to the page: I'm not really sure how much I like the idea, I think it's fine as is.

I will have more thoughts, I'm just organizing them right now. Aqua (T|C) 22:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

@alfa-r LOVE it. i really do love it and will be changing my css now. (on a side note where did you get the background images I want the Asura image...) @aqua why are you "absolutely adamantly opposed to having the wiki default be vector"?- Zesbeer 22:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

There *is* a solution to the different skin changing difficulties (as that will never reach consensus, I foresee). I'm not sure, though, but I believe the common css can be split to work on different skins (or something similar). This needs confirming, though. At the very least I am pretty sure that all the personal css's can be designed at a whim.

Anyway, my stance;

When the previous designs were made, I was never under the impression that a skin change was going to be made. I'm still not, but I digress. With this design, however, I feel vector compliments the main page (and with different approaches on the infoboxes to be more official site-y) completely. The official site's theme has changed drastically and it only makes sense for us to do so, too.

I look forward to the tweaks done for this design and its final implementation; it's brilliant. - Infinite - talk 22:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: A great start to make the infoboxes more in-line with the main page would be to have the headers turned into gradients. Just a mental note I felt like sharing. - Infinite - talk 22:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel the NPC infobox and storyline navs can be improved, other than that looks good. Especially the main page one (looks good, that is). For the two issues I pointed out, it's more of their layout/function rather than their design appearance, so I won't comment too much on them (one word this: cluttered). Konig/talk 02:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@Aqua To make myself clear about CSS: i'm proposing three things here. They are

Changes to common.css to allow for a new mainpage, infoboxes and navbars that include shadows, colors and gradients mostly. This is an integral part of the new design.

Changing default skin to vector.css as it compliments the main page so much better than monobook.

Changes to vector.css (stated above, fonts, different bg and main content shadow mostly) to make it look even better with the new main page/navs. All other skins will remain the same, with no fonts, additional shadows etc.

All of this changes are to be considered separately. E.g. we may end up with new main page but with no changes to default skin and vector tweaks. Also, what's wrong with vector being used en masse?

@Zesbeer that pictures are from the artist's blog, unfortunately I don't remember who the artist is. I have them on my HDD though and can upload them to the wiki.

@Infinite you are absolutely right, gradients on headers are better. In fact, they were always there, I've just messed up with their opacity so they became unnoticeable. Fixed that.

@Konig infoboxes and navs are shown for their look here. Content is already discussed on the respective talk pages (including by you) and will be whatever is decided upon there, that isn't something I'm proposing here. Alfa-R 09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

@alfa-r would you please upload the asura one?, also is there a way to fix the white gap?- Zesbeer 09:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Zojja and Eir are inseparable =) Also, what gap? Alfa-R 09:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh, white gap under Eir and Zojja art? That's fixed already. I've made it less linear, should look much better. Eir and Zojja are waiting for you here. Alfa-R 09:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

yep that was the gap I was talking about. its too bad about Zojja.- Zesbeer 09:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can always do a conjoined twins separation surgery for them. Also, update vector.css pls, some tweaks were made (additional shadows on main page and in infoboxes). Alfa-R 09:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"infoboxes and navs are shown for their look here. Content is already discussed on the respective talk pages (including by you) and will be whatever is decided upon there, that isn't something I'm proposing here." I'm aware, that's why I said I won't comment. Otherwise I'd have made a paragraph. Konig/talk 09:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Making it short: I really like the new main page design. I would make a few changes (the fonts are the official ones, I guess? I'm not too fond of the font use in the headers, but if it's official...; the Rytlock and Caithe images that are part of this set are incredibly pretty, I would rather use them than the Eir and Zojja image, but this is a small issue for me), but it's very nice, and it's a very astute design, great work Alfa! The mobile version wouldn't work on a phone; links are way too small. Would work on a tablet, though. Erasculio 10:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen a Rytlock one, can you upload it? Caithe is great, but she has really dark bg in the corner because of her white hair, it looks out of place. Links are the same size they are on a current main page, and they are indeed small. I'll look into that. Alfa-R 11:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

there is a rytlock one out there some place i have a t-shirt from pax with him on it.- Zesbeer 12:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely beautiful. Great use of whitespace, and in this iteration I feel that the whitespace actually compliments the design due to colour and design choice. Excellent job!! In regards to vector, I agree that it does compliment this design due to a more rigid design. Therefore I would agree with a change to that skin as default. Monobook users can always change their preferences anyways. Also, although not set in stone, I will stand up and applaud the colour vibrancy of those infoboxes. Finally someone who designs something without the use of wash out. My only issue, if you'd like to call it that with all this, is the headers in the infoboxes. They seems plain. Of course this is just an initial observation. After looking at them for a longer period of time, I can already find their simplicity growing on me. Venom20 15:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Headers were updated already. It was an oversight from my side (made gradient overlay too transparent). Check out the stylesheet to see it. Alfa-R 15:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am too lazy to keep up with the modification of my .css for this project, so I will need to remember to check yours often. I do see what you've done there and can picture it. Good job. I will, for the time being, rely on your .css and screenshots to view shis project. Venom20 15:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Vector.css was slightly changed, update if you are using it please, or main page won't work (infoboxes and navbars should be fine though). Alfa-R 15:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

So, my first impressions of the new main page proposal is: unified, but dull; too many greys. As for monobook->vector, I don't really care, except that it seems that vector is a lot harder to modify and maintain. --JonTheMon 16:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've updated screenshots with the most recent iteration. Check them out if you are not using the css. Alfa-R 16:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think those screenshots are excellent!! We should use 100% use those! -Fabian 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Using Alfa's custom css, and thanks to Aqua, I can see the new look myself. It looks incredible, well done Alfa! I had not seen yet such sharp versions of those concept art pieces, they make the page look really great. The only thing that is bothering me a bit is the font for the headers (Featured Article, News & updates, etc) - since it appears to be in all caps and is using a rather blocky font, it looks a bit too big. But this is a small thing, the main design itself is great. Erasculio 20:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw the section title and I was trying to stay away from this since I thought we were starting over, but I really like this. Is there a reason why Eir and Zojja are higher on the left side? Eir made me lol in that mobile screenshot. Don't know what to think about the red links. Looks really nice with the whole page but wiki red links are usually a bad thing. 22:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I am with Aqua about that space between the top of the infoboxes and the colored header. It doesn't have to be a very big space imo, but I thought it was a really cool touch for such a minor thing. Would the red links be a wiki-wide change or just the main page? 22:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually retract my comment about the white space above headers. The new infoboxes look awesome. Aqua (T|C) 23:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Reset indent (1)

"current Main Page looks nothing like the rest of the wiki. That's why I'd also like to propose a couple of changes to the overall wiki design, so that it better supports the Main Page." I'm not sure I entirely agree with that - yeah, the main page should look like the rest of the wiki, but I don't think the entire wiki should be changed so the main page can look pretty. It's just one page, a portal to content, not the centre or focus of the wiki.

Wiki design: I personally don't like the font of page headers, the 3D-ish look of the page border, the shadows behind the page border and infoboxes, and the fact that the wiki background depends on how large the page is. I'm not a fan of colour gradients. The design is almost a distraction from the actual content. However, I do like the basic main page design/structure - the images either side of the boxes, and how the boxes and headers are aligned nicely. The box header design on the main page and infoboxes looks ok (might be better without the gradient). In moderation, parts of the new design are alright, but right now it's a bit "too much", particularly the wiki-wide design. pling 23:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I do think the new infoboxes look awesome, and now that I look at it again the white space probably wouldn't look as cool with the new style since it is not just a solid block of color anymore and wouldn't fit as well with the main page. So I guess forget what I said before about the infobox and white space. And I don't mind Eir/Zojja being higher, they just seem a little too high (it looks like the top of Eir's head is the highest sitting thing on the page). Maybe just bring the top of Eir's head even with the top of the featured article bar.

While you guys are in the css, how about removing the Main Page           header line/section thing off the main page with body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading { display:none } 00:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Reset indent (2)

2 variations of infoboxes

(Reset indent) I've moved Eir lower, as Mattsta suggested. Also, gradients direction was reversed. You can see the result to the right together with a margined headers variant. More changes are coming today (hopefully). Alfa-R 10:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I really like this design a lot, especially the modern feel the gradients and the shadows help create. It suddenly looks much more like an actual official site for GW2 rather than "just" an unofficial fan project. I would even agree with changing the default skin to vector despite never liking it much, since it certainly looks a lot better with this design. I'm not fond of the header font though, but I guess it would be alright since it's in the official design guidelines. I'm also not sure if it's a very good idea for red-coloured links to be active on the main page but inactive anywhere else; I'm not saying active links can't be red under any circumstances (they definitely look much better on the main page than the blue ones), but the design should be cohesive across the whole wiki – the question is how to clearly mark the inactive links then? Grey, perhaps? Regarding the boxes, I don't really care which one to use, but in my opinion the ones with the space look a bit better with the icons in the infoboxes, because they aren't off-centred. At any rate, and this should apply whether or not this design will be accepted, the icons in the infoboxes should only be used where applicable (that is for skills, weapons etc., for which the infoboxes were originally designed). It doesn't really make a lot of sense to have "missing icon" locks for zones or NPCs, does it? Last but not least, if we go with using gradients, lists (for skills, traits or whatever) should probably be slightly changed as well in order to make the design cohesive. 12:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually liked the former gradient more (the one seen in the screenshots at the top of this section). I have the feeling that Eir was appearing to be too high on the page due to the two notices at the top of the edit copy; had this been the true main page, her head would have been at a good height. Erasculio 12:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell a difference in any gradient, what should I be looking at? And thanks for that screenshot Alfa, I don't really like the white space now that I see it compared. And Noxx, the icon in the infoboxes has been discussed but has just disappeared most of the time as a 'we have ideas for uses but have to wait for more info on stuff' kindof thing. As of right now I think it is more of just a placeholder so we don't forget it until we can set up/finalize a couple of ideas (like having it be the merchant icon that floats above the merchant npc for those npcs). 18:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Infoboxes are now capable of changing their colors based on profession and race (seen in my sandbox with skill infoboxes only, as it required template changing, but same can be done for other infoboxes - like traits one - if needed). Same for effects: boons, conditions and general effects have different infobox colors now. Also some recoloring + a test of list changes for Noxx (should be seen here after updating). So feel free to update your vector.css and visit my Sandbox. Alfa-R 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@Alfa-r have you thought of using cronos for the small fount? also something that is missing from the vector design is the clock.- Zesbeer 23:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added Cronos for testing purposes. Also, do we really need that clock? Always thought it was redundant. Alfa-R 11:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I love your design for the main page and userbox, love the gradient effect it look more professional and stylish. But I have two small problem about your vector.css . First as stated by Zesbeer, the absence of the clock. I kinda miss the clock, I felt it was usefull to check the current time for event that happen on special occasion in game and out. Second, the logo of GW2 in the top left corner of the page. the logo seem to be surround by a big pointless white block, wouldn't it be better if it was transparent? Because atm it is overlaping the shadow line of the page and there is no transitrion between that box and the grey of the navigation bar. Note I have no knowledge in that zone so I dont know if it is possible. Tech Wolf-Talk 14:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it's supposed to look like I believe you are using IE. It has poor CSS handling and I haven't done that part at all yet. Alfa-R 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Reset indent (3)

In some sense echoing Jon and Pling's opinions, the grey headers on the main page proposal is too thick, too gray, and too overbearing. Can we make it more like a splotch of gray instead of a big gradient bar? I was thinking something along the lines of the GW2 main website menubar like this top-nav.jpg. Also is it possible to do something like that with the infoboxes too? and make it kinda borderless.--Lania 20:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

infoboxes

lighter headers

That is hard to do with variable width table. Gradient can be lighter though (20% lighter on a pic). I don't quite get the infobox point, sorry must be sleepy, but I can say that I've reworked them slightly today to be not so dark (daze and poison ones are still in process). Alfa-R 21:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I meant was like the design on the current main page where each category doesn't look like it's closed inside a box. Now it looks more unified, but it does look more sterile and lost it's "free-flowing" look of the current main page. I'm sorry, I don't think I'm being very clear :/. But I really do like the 3D look of the headers. --Lania 22:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@alfa-r i like the design much better with the cronos fount, also the clock dose a few things besides what tech wolf said, it also alows for you to clear cache on the site. via clicking on it. and allows for a good meet up time and good for timing events.Edit: proof that there is a rytlock version someplace, on facebook. - Zesbeer 22:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish we had a full version of Rytlock (sigh). I've introduced vector and poke's clock to each other, they are getting on quite well. You'll need a custom .js for vector though. Alfa-R 15:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Links shouldn't be red. Blue links and red links have important meanings on a wiki - blue links show a page exist, red links show a page doesn't exist but needs to be created (usually). Having red links on the main page purely for design reasons and not for any functionality reason muddles their meaning and significance. (If you have to change the link colour at all, make it something that isn't red.) As you said, we want to be consistent with the rest of the wiki. pling 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

vector restyling

@pling That is actually smth I'm concerned about myself, I just haven't found a better color yet, and a lot of standard blue doesn't look good on this page. Also, with the latest changes to vector.css the wiki now looks like on a screen to the right. Alfa-R 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

i like the new logo but where the brush stroke stops is bothersome, and i dont like what you did with the theme. so ill keep my css as it is now.- Zesbeer 23:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pling, though the red links are matching the design of GW2-related website, they are not suitable for a wiki : you may want to shift the palette to another main color (ideally one that goes well with the blue and red links, like an aqua green, no pun intended) while keeping the monochrome gradient. The brush effect is nice but the text contents of the featured article should be in normal/plain font (you can check content pages on the official website for reference). The rest is nicely done.

I'm not a fan of the proposal for infoboxes, first because they look bland, and second because the current ones works well for me.

Finally, I wish the admins would update the contents of the main page already, it is becoming rather urgent. The design and colors are important but not vital, while an up-to-date content is essential to a wiki (and its main page even more). --  Leonim _{[talk·contribs]} 18:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That is actually something I disagree with almost entirely. Links will be redone, as I've said I just haven't found a better color scheme as of now. On the rest:

The whole point of this proposal is to make wiki look more in line with other official sites which are getting new identity. Mothership site still has an old look, but you can clearly see on any of the recently launched sites (pre-purchase site and forum), as well as in a game patcher, that the fonts used are now exclusively Cronos for main text and Eason for headers. The same is true for colors, red is now extremely prominent on all of the sites (they've even removed blue backgrounds that were the inspiration for the current main page from the site), and the pieces of artwork used are already quite a signature of the game's style. Alfa-R 19:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually like the red links. They are a darker red than the one seen in links to pages that don't exist; and if there is one page in which we should be allowed some artistic liberties, it's the main page of the wiki. Since the colors for GW2 involve red, and red headers would look to flashy, having dark red words is probably the best solution. Erasculio 11:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there will be a lot of confusement because the visual circumstances on the 'create this page' bright red links are very different from the main page darker red links. --Ee 12:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Reset indent (4)

(Indent reset) Ok, lets talk about the new style of official sites like the forum. You'll notice that despite a lot of (the so-called darker) red links are used for navigation purposes, still outgoing url links are blue and visited links purple to conform with worldwide consensus (see W3C recommendations for what I mean).

On a wiki, blue, purple and red links are that kind of matter, you can't change this just for the look. And I should remind you as welll that the "red links" definition has a special meaning in wiki context, just like "special pages" and other terms.

Are the modifications we discuss here really just for the main page? Because I just tried the Vector CSS as appearance for the whole site and part of the CSS try to deal with that as well. Not bad, but first thing that catch the eye in a disturbing way : the space between lines (interlining?) is not fitting the wiki structure at all. Though it does a fine job to improve readability on RSS-friendly pages like the textile-based (simplified markup language) forum, a blog or a presentation website. Wikis are of different natures, and i may repeat myself, but content and functionnality comes first, while presentation is a tool to highlight those in a good way, not the other way around.

Second, the shadowing boxes are nice, but doesn't cut/separate content with the same crisp effect as a simple outline, maybe because they are on too many sides : it is always difficult to convey impressions, but it is the same tackling problem as the infoboxes, to a lesser extent.

Anyway, do what you must, the achieved level and dedicated work behind those proposals is impressive and appreciated (especially when trying to separate data from presentation), but for months now, it has been all about visuals. It was well and fine when the game was in the making, but now that accurate content will flow, it would really be better for everyone if there would be a split in the editcopy between proposal for contents and visuals (btw only for the main page?). --  Leonim _{[talk·contribs]} 12:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"still outgoing url links are blue and visited links purple to conform with worldwide consensus"

• Except that on the forum's main page, and its sub-forums, this is absolutely and utterly not the case. There isn't a single blue link on the forum's main page and its sub-forums. Worldwide consensus is fine and all, but we're not the world. It's not law to keep links blue.

"On a wiki, blue, purple and red links are that kind of matter, you can't change this just for the look."

• This is a main page; a portal to the rest of the website. It isn't required to be kept in the same colour scheme as the rest of the wiki; uniform appearance can be accomplished via templates (of which there are also new proposals). The links on articles that are not the main page will remain in their standard colours.

"the space between lines (interlining?) is not fitting the wiki structure at all."

• I'm going to request an example here, for I am not exactly sure what the complaint is (or I'm not seeing it (browser differences due to prototype phase?)).

"Wikis are of different natures, and i may repeat myself, but content and functionnality comes first, while presentation is a tool to highlight those in a good way, not the other way around."

• The Vector skin change doesn't affect the content. The infoboxes proposed are still exactly as clear (if not clearer and cleaner) as they are now. The functionality is also left untouched. The closer we approach the official aesthetic, the better (as long as the wiki doesn't suffer from it, which it currently doesn't (with the planned alterations taken into account)).

"the shadowing boxes are nice, but doesn't cut/separate content with the same crisp effect as a simple outline"

• The shadows can be decreased in radius, which I personally prefer. It compliments in some areas, but it's not necessary and the official aesthetic also doesn't use shadows. It's something I'm currently on the fence about.

I feel people are clinging way too much on sacred rules that were established years ago by some people. It's not dictated we follow any set off-wiki consensus to heart. In fact, the more consensus we forge here, and only here, the better. It's about us, not about them. - Infinite - talk 14:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

@Leonim I beg your pardon, but how comes so that typographic conventions universally applied to text (including even scientific publications that are purely content-driven) suddenly stop working for wikis? Also, how is wiki different in its content from any other text-based site, and how is my proposal affecting that?

On a side note: I'm planning an overall font size and leading overhaul to make it more readable (and even less wiki-like, I'm afraid) and some other changes. Alfa-R 14:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I love this page and overall infobox concept and demand to know when it is going to be implemented. While I see that the red links might be concerning, I'm not especially worried because someone has to instinctively know that a wiki with a front page that looks like this isn't going to have links to missing content on the front page. :D -- aspectacle  15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in agreement about the red links on the front page with infinite, aspectacle, alfa, and others. There is no reasonable expectation for the front page to have null-content links, so for the front page, I don't think it matters what color the links are. I still think the grey headers are still too big/overbearing but I can live with it. --Lania 15:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's my overall impression: The new design looks more modern, professional, and seems to fit better with ANet's current themes. I'm in favor of it, esp. b/c it has a good mobile implementation. However,

• I never use vector as a theme b/c, for me, it wastes too much screen real estate with larger font sizes on the left and top navbars; please don't force me to use it. I also want to keep the clock (which also controls the cache-refresh)
• I support the idea that this wiki can establish any conventions it chooses, but I see zero value in making active links red (I think it's a design mistake by ANet to have done that with official GW2 sites). If we violate that well established design, why not also use ALL CAPS for official names or a special font for skill names?
• I think the grey headers are a bit too tall and too dark relative to the rest of the page (that's a minor quibble).

In case it's not clear, I'd prefer to see the the overall design implemented sooner rather than later; we can address my quibbles (and most others) later. Good stuff, Alfa. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a danger in making the wiki look too much like the official sites: we look too official. Letting readers know we're just players like them is important, and one of the ways that can be done is looking distinct from Officialness and looking, for the most part, like other wikis that people will be familiar with - Wikipedia being the most prominent.

That's my general thought on wiki design. My specific thought on this design is that it's ugly. I also think the functionality is misrepresented by the design - if you're going to distinguish between active tabs (i.e. the one you have open) and inactive tabs (the ones you can click to change where you are), the active tabs should be "pushed in" and inactive tabs should be "pushed out"; you've got them the other way round. Links on the main page are inconsistent, not just with regards to the rest of the wiki but within the main page itself - the featured article and news boxes have links in red, the others have subheadings in red and links in black. Of course, the rest of the wiki uses blue links everywhere. Font: way too big, particularly headers; the current font uses the screen space more efficiently. It's also quite jarring to go from the page text to the edit window text - the page font looks too.. thick? I don't know how to explain it, but it's not nice. It's even weird to go from the page text to the text in the browser (like the bookmarks or tab labels). This new font doesn't look appropriate for large blocks of text like we see on the wiki.

I do like the red splurge on the top of the wiki, though - it looks great. pling 15:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"we look too official"

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

No? - Infinite - talk 16:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

For those concerned about having to use Vector: I'm using monobook and the current proposal is looking fine for me. I doubt people would need to change if they don't want to.

I would like to see this implemented sooner rather than later, too. There are a few things I'm not fond of (mostly the font size at the headers), but they're small things I'm willing to compromise. IMO, this new look is very fitting for the official wiki, making the look consistent between all the GW2 sites. Erasculio 16:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, these headers are also inspired from the official site, but they only use it sparingly, for links on the bottom, or in areas where it's not overbearing. I think it's having 3 of those big, thick, gray headers, with big text in a row that makes it look kinda ugly. --Lania 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[[:File:User Erasculio main page.jpg|This]] is what I see when using Alfa's design with the .css linked at this page under Monobook. Works nicely, for those worried about having to change to vector; I don't plan to change any time soon. Erasculio 18:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Infinite, that's only one line on one page (even if it is the main page) - the design of the wiki on the rest of the wiki all over the wiki will have more of an impact to newbs who don't realise it's an open wiki. We already have this problem as it is; officialising our appearance will only make it worse.

Since we're talking, as I said, about the design of the wiki as a whole, I don't wish to push this change through for the sake of pushing something through. I oppose most of the changes, and others are also showing problems with it. pling 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "official" design would have to be accompanied by a clear, noticable message across the entire wiki to point out our community-run status. We just have to find out how it would be best to do that, really. - Infinite - talk 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

@TEF, you can add the clock to vector if you look at Reset indent (3) subheader you will find a link to add the clock to vector.- Zesbeer 23:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) On the subject of link colors. I don't care if its arbitrary or that it was decided a decade ago. Link colors mean what they mean and shouldn't be screwed with. Also, the header bg image is way overdone and makes the content look boxed in. EDIT: The link colors on the main page are fine, because they aren't /the red/ that is associated with red links. Aqua (T|C) 00:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My 0.02 on the proposed changes

I am sorry, but there are too many sub-topics being discussed on this page (tl;dr) and I thought it would be better to collate my thoughts in a single topic.

• Main page design

I believe that this looks fantastic. Of course I am talking solely about the main page here. A small issue presents itself when zooming out, the issue being that the right-most dividers disappear. More to see later on why I was zooming. The red-coloured links also irked me slightly in the beginning, but I got used to it. This is probably due to the fact that as wiki-users, we are accustomed to red link = page not there. I feel this change's aesthetic purpose outweighs the functional one, for this page alone.

• Vector changes

• Panel gradient

I'm not a fan of the gradients (in the side panel). It looks alright, but IMO it is a bit too much. I could agree to a lighter solid colour (shade? of grey). To be clear, when I say lighter, I mean in contrast to the white space of an article. Not too sure where to put this, but I currently do not dislike the shadow created along the boarders, only the continuous gradient.

• Tab gradient

This looks quite alright as it is segregated enough from the panel gradient. I approve.

• Tab placement

I also approve of placing the tabs/search midway along the top boarder.

• Colour splash along top

Not my favourite, I also place this in the over-the-top category. That being said, I have greater concerns and could eventually live with it.

• p-personal

It's essentially what I already use (except for some different colours). So this I like :D

• Fonts

Strongly dislike overall

• Main page headers

This is essentially the only location I like the new proposition. I like all the font selections for the design. Good job.

• Font sizes

This is my greatest concern. Everything is entire too large. It reminds me of those big button phones for fat fingers. In order to view the page at normal size (as in the current font sizes) I need to zoom out twice (ctrl + 2 mouse wheel). This makes font size appropriate on the main page and on the side panel for links, but wreaks havoc when it comes time for editing, as that font is now 2 levels too small. If this newly proposed design were to go through, I'd like to see font sizes matched (between current and proposed).

• Font choice for articles

I'm currently not a fan, I find it too rounded and bubbly. But is something that a person can eventually get used to (so long as the size is appropriate).

• Font choice for edits

meh, it's an editing font. Seems alright.

• Infoboxes

No complaints here, push live.

I may have more thoughts, but I can only stand the fonts for a small length of time before I need to revert my .css so I can browse the wiki as I normally do. I even went and took screenshots so that I can compare without needing to use them. TL;DR version: everything is either livable or approved except for the font sizes. Venom20 18:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If possible would you mind investigating the sidebar/interface part of the wiki with my monobook design and mention whether you like it... I believe I have fixed several of the issues you had brought up before you brought them up. :P Aqua (T|C) 20:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

@Venom I've addressed some of your issues in vector.css with today's font overhaul, you may want to check it again. Alfa-R 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

@Venom, I asked to use those founts because in the official asset kit for guild wars anet requests that we use those founts. when setting up a fan site. - Zesbeer 23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It is suggested, not mandatory, that we use the fonts. Aqua (T|C) 00:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

that's true, but one of alfa-r's goal was to make it as official as possible. - Zesbeer 00:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

hmmmm, the font isn't that it is horrible, I personally feel that a square text suits the wiki better. Again that being said, I don't hate the rounded text, i'm sure that people (like me) will just get used to it over time. My biggest issue is with font size, but alfa has indicted that some issues have been addressed. I will change my css when I get to my computer later to test it out. I don't think updating my css using my phone would go well. Venom20 01:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

well i hope you get used to it fast because Guild Wars 2 Forum uses those founts.- Zesbeer 02:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)