Talk:Main Page/editcopy/Archive 9

After all this is implemented...

...should we consider (rss) feeds for the official wiki and facebook pages on the front page? Or a "feeds" page maybe, including any other official feed like maybe patch pages etc? --Ee 16:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Eugh. Please don't encourage the facebook page. They're being a lot more nasty then usual. (Facebook, not ArenaNet) Illiander 16:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Implemented

Welcome everyone who was caught competely off-guard by these changes. Remember that just because it's implemented doesn't mean your ideas and feedback aren't still encouraged and appreciated. Discuss. - Tanetris 06:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I like it! It's pretty and very GW2-ish. However, the grey footer background that doesn't scroll really gets to me when I'm scrolling a page, I find it very distracting. So my only suggestion at this point would be if we could stick that to the bottom of the page rather than the window. purple llama 06:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree to 100% with purple llama. It's totally awsome, but please make the grey thing at the bottom to be at the bottom on the page, not on the bottom in the window.213.114.122.218 06:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's different, we can judge this after we get used to it. I liked the old one better, but I suppose that I'll like this once I get used to it.-- Sagi 07:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I like this pretty well overall. It definitely is a move forward, which I think is appropriate seeing that we are moving to an entirely new game and leaving GW1 and its wiki pretty much behind us. I do agree with leaving the grey footer at the bottom of pages rather than it scrolling with you. Also, I'd personally prefer if the rest of the background (the white part) was just a little bit darker to make the actual page stand out a bit more. ~ Bow | 08:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I find it pretty beautiful. Can't see anything wrong with it. Gnarf 10:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Much nicer,really good job. Jnew 10:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Very slick, very nice looking. Well done wikipeople. --Regent 10:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I allowed to nerdgasm? --Elven Chaos 00:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks great; its so simple yet stylish. Was quite surprised actually. -Riviriel 05:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Like it!! --Lumenil 10:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The only thing bothering me is that, in Monobook under Firefox, there is a gap between the "page", "discussion" and etc tabs and the main content. The gap shows the red background from the GW2 icon at the top left... It's rather ugly. Erasculio 11:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've checked FF and see no gaps. Have you cleared cache after removing personal css? Which version of FF are you using? Alfa-R 11:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I get double clocks :/ But other than that, great :) - anja 11:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Firefox 12.0, [[:File:User Erasculio mind the gap.jpg|here is the gap]]. I have tried clearing cache and emptying my own monobook.css, but neither works. Erasculio 11:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Headings look pretty terrible. x_x Mediggo 11:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Anja you have to clear your personal js, it adds the second clock.

@Erasculio I'm using FF 12.0 too. Have checked from my other PC — everything is fine. Do you encounter the same problem when logged out (i.e. when no custom css is used)?

@Meddigo What's wrong with the headings? Or you just don't like the font? Alfa-R 12:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I do, as seen [[:File:User Erasculio mind the gap 2.jpg|here]]. Works without issues on IE, Chrome and Safari, though. Erasculio 12:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for testing. Fortunately, that should be easy to fix (though I'm not sure about the nature of this bug). Alfa-R 12:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Aqua Alfa has fixed my issue :-) Erasculio 12:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Aqua of Alfa? If Aqua, then what did he do? Alfa-R 12:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I just registered to extend my sincerest thanks and appreciation for the work you guys have put into this Wiki. It looks absolutely stunning and does justice to the aesthetics of Guild Wars 2. My one and only criticism is in regards to the navigation background (BG_gradient.jpg). It strikes me as too bland and generic in an otherwise highly stylised and hand-painted look. I would strongly recommend replacing it with a 25% transparent background with multiple brush-effects (see the sprite navigation bar on GW2 main site). Thank you again! OneArmedBandit 13:10:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I greatly enjoy this new design; it looks, in a word, fantastic, and fantastic is worth getting used to. A slight thing--I don't know if this is the same or in the same vein as headings, but the page topics could stand to be a little more delineated from the rest of the text, whether through size or some other means, to anchor the top of the page. It feels a little like I'm starting at the middle of the page at the moment, and that is strangely disconcerting. Redshift 13:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

EC I have taken the liberty of archiving the lengthy discussion leading up to this implementation. Please find it here for your convenience. Redshift 13:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I don't like is how all of the tabs are connected now. I do like the rounded edges, but I wish there were 2-3 pixels between each tab (page, discussion, edit, etc.).-- shew|make 14:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I dunno why but when I use firefox I get a white background only and a grey box at the bottom. I removed my .css and .js as stated for normal use and it worked on IE but not for FF no idea why. Tech Wolf-Talk 14:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Your browser probably hasn't pulled the new version of the site CSS yet. I think Ctrl+F5 is the "clear cache" command for Firefox. —Dr Ishmael 14:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Odd I had to do it twice but it work now thanks (I always keep forgeting clearing cache). Tech Wolf-Talk 15:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I dislike it. I liked the last one Much better. The old one was a lot more like the game, it kinds felt like it was an extension of the game but this new one feels far too clinical (more straight lines and hard edges and stuff) if that makes any sence. Titan Crow 15:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Four issues: the font size for body text is a lot smaller than it used to be, the headers don't stand out enough, typography 101 all but requires that headers should be sans serif, and someone should define a new class=STDT to match the new skin. The front page is otherwise great and this reskin has the best background logo of any of the GW wikis. Even though I strongly prefer those four things to be updated, I am in favor of the redesign. 75.36.182.188 15:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The font size is exactly the same as the default Monobook: Chrome says the calculated font size for a <p> here is 13px, and at GuildWiki it's also 13px. —Dr Ishmael 16:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Section headings/headers look just silly. I already gave an example of Fear, where headers look terrible when they're used a lot and on any other page where a rather unique effect can be caused by multiplay professions and skills. Another example is Blind, where stage 1 and 2 headers don't get bolded but stage 3 (====) does (thought the listing of skills looks otherwise alright). I think that it is a lot more confusing than how headers looked like in old style and it doesn't really make sense that are virtually same sized and subheaders become bolded. Mediggo 16:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For comparison, Might looks much better. The issue can perhaps be solved by using headers more intelligently, but then we have a new problem in that formatting lists of skills and effects like these becomes a bigger hassle. Mediggo 16:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were going for the changes described in Talk:Main Page/editcopy/Archive 8#Lets put it to a test (namely to the tab bar)? Well, either way, I've changed my personal css, but I was just wondering why it wasn't in the global as well. Also, the sitenotice font size needs to be increased, it's too small atm. pling 17:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't what the default Monobook:Chrome does, I'm using Firefox 12 and body text is a lot smaller. It looks nothing like GuildWiki. 75.36.182.188 17:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Just messed around with my default font in FF and that's affecting what I see for both GW2W. Should my default be able to override the style here if I haven't required it to do so? 75.36.182.188 17:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The design was done so that if a person changes his personal font settings, everything will rescale. This was made for people with sight problems (e.g. those who usually use increased font size) to be able to work with the wiki comfortably. This is a normal practice; if someone changes her font size, it should affect web pages, don't you think so. Alfa-R 18:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@75.36: I checked with Firefox just now, where I haven't modified the default font settings at all, and it looks exactly the same as in Chrome, so it must have been your Firefox settings overriding the wiki's CSS. —Dr Ishmael 18:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks pretty bad in my opinion. Trying to be more flash and style than just a regular wiki. If I wanted to look at crap wiki's i would go to the wikia websites. The Headings are so fat and the gray is overwhelming and like 20% of the page height. Was this design just made for people who use ipads and need huge things to see, or perhaps the blind? Only positive so far is that you got rid of those annoying background images behind the link text. Guess people must be so bored with nothing to document and they need to make pointless change for the sake of pointless change. Old style was much more professional looking I think. But I guess my complaints will be shouting at the wall.

Second what that Unsigned guy just said. Titan Crow 18:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I must admit that overall the design looked better on paper. One more thing about headers: Hall_of_Monuments#The_hall_in_Guild_Wars – italics look stupid. I feel like I have to take a second look at each heading to confirm that I'm actually reading it. Mediggo 19:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some people need to be able to choose their default for their own legibility, but I have checked, "allow pages to choose their own fonts." That is respected at most other sites, but not here. It's not just FF. I also find it hard to read body text in IE, even though I have not touched IE's settings at all. (And headers look just as bad there.) 75.36.182.188 19:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Things I support:

• Kill the heading font.
• Monobook tabs restored to either normal size or closer to it.
• Monobook tabs either discretely separated (as normal monobook), separated into groups (see [[:File:User Tanetris tab layout grouped.png]]), or in one chunk that does not take up the rest of the page width (see [[:File:User Tanetris tab layout chunk.png]])
• Footer changed back to bottom of page instead of bottom of window.

Things I'm just as happy with either way, so don't take my lack of support as objection:

• Rounded vs square corners
• Anything involving gradients

All speaking personally for myself. - Tanetris 20:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Definitely get rid of the heading font, it's pixelated to the days... -Xu Davella 22:50, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the new look, It's very professional. In regards to the grey border at the bottom, I like how it follows the screen. However I think that it would be better to have the red border at the top follow as well, really if the whole sidebar stayed so it was like the article was sliding up over a static background, I would be very happy. Not sure how practical that is, but there's my two cents. As far as the articles go, I REALLY like how they look now. Anyways, yeah Go Go Gadget Signature --Indigo121 22:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it definitely looks more "wiki", but a lot less "Guild Wars 2" if that makes any sense. I do like the clean lines and minimal use of colour in information boxes, but I can't help feeling it doesn't have the artsy feel of the game; I.E colour transitions are too stark and contrasting, lines are too defined and "cut". It makes more technical sense to have it like this, but I think I'd prefer more a more visual and artsy feel; the plain white and red are a bit too angry and distracting Darke 23:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself I really like this new look, it feels much more like part of the game to me than the previous look. On the raised concerns:

Tabs & footer: I do not see either of these as a an issue, and would be happy either way.

Headings: I kind of like the idea of a heading font, but I must say on a few pages it does look weird so.. try a differently different font or just kill it.

Corners & gradients: I think this is mostly a matter of taste, but personally I love rounded corners and extensive use of gradients!

Note that I use the monobook version. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The headings font is not very nice, and the rounded corners and the gradient in the tab bar are so last decade. Other than that, I like it. --Nullptr 23:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why people keep saying rounded corners and gradients are so last decade where windows xp, vista, 7 all have and use both.- Zesbeer 05:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Loving the new look myself. A bit more consistent with the style of the game, by pulling in that art. Would be nice if we could get heading backgrounds to match that same painted feel.... Torrenal 13:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Things that I would like to see change (other than Tanetris' list, which was most of mine):

1. Scale down the side bar text to regular size, it looks bulky and other languages is borked on the higher font size.
2. There are a lot of things that bork on Opera (and presumably Firefox, given that Opera generally behaves identically). These include table styles, some nav bars and the occasional gradient.
3. Also, wth is with the header gradient thing? It's just distracting and disrupts the flow of the page when you accidentally mouse over it (and, if we were going to do that, I would advocate for something a little bit more... painterly than a #FFF, 0 to #333 75 gradient). Aqua (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

My list:

• There is too much space between the sidebar sections. I've reduced .portlet margin-bottom from 1.66...em to 0.5em, but 1em would probably be fine.
• The breadcrumbs in #contentSub are spaced too far from the #firstHeading. Either remove the #firstHeading margin-bottom or give #contentSub a negative margin-top to compensate.
• Agree with Tanetris and Aqua that Monobook tabs should look like tabs, not like Vector. I actually like the larger size, however, because they're easier to find with the mouse.
• Agree with Tanetris and others that the footer should not float. It's especially odd when not quite scrolled to the bottom of the page and the page content is partially covering the footer.

And could someone explain to me what is so horrible about gradients? They don't bother me at all. The header-hover ones are a bit odd, but only because of the hovering aspect, not because they're gradients. —Dr Ishmael 15:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking I like the new design overall. The main page looks cool, I like the round corners and the overall layout etc. What I liked from the previous design was the 'paint strokes' background of the main page headlines. The current plain dark gray areas are not so impressive, but would still fit the overall design of the main page. What I don't like is the font of the headlines/sub headlines from all the normal pages. Here I really like to see some sans serif font. Balwin 16:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I do like this design, don't get me wrong, but the previous one just had a more "Guild Warsy" feel to it. The painterly style to it just sold it for me. Also, the GW2 Official Wiki logo in the top left corner looks quite pixelated. Pretty minor things, but I honestly prefer the previous painterly design. ~ ♥ Kailani! ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 02:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I dislike the header color change for skill infoboxes, it removes the consistency from skill pages. And because the ;,: bar is still a dark teal, it looks really bad with any profession except necromancer. Aqua (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It isn't dark teal from before, it's light gray now. You need to check your custom css. Alfa-R 17:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else thing the main page looks tacky or disorganized by having two background pictures - the watermark in the top left corner and then the artwork? I understand the concept of having "windows" and using organizing them one in front of the other, but it gives me a bit of a headache to look at. 22:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Section Break

It might be a combination of using Opera, custom stuff and a standard large font, but the top toolbar is detached on my end.[[:File:User Ezekial Riddle GW2W broke.jpg]]. Note: I've checked it with FF and it works fine. I just prefer Opera. --Riddle 06:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed my theme to Vector and it works better now. I guess Opera doesn't like Monobook. --Riddle 06:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

make sure you are clearing your cash Opera: clear the cache in Tools → Preferences, and i think that is a bug that alfa-r is already addressing as stated above.- Zesbeer 07:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Clearing the cache does nothing for monobook. --Riddle 08:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's odd. I'm running Opera with monobook and its working fine. Aqua (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the new design. Normal I don't like design changes. But that's because normally design changes go too far and make a page (sometimes) more pretty, but less usable. Both are important. But form should follow function, and this design looks nice, is understated, fits with the look of GW2, and is an improvement on separating site content from article content. Very nicely done! --Mooseyfate 15:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

i didn't like this skin Uzanshay 10:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Every Page should have the "Other languages" box

Oh god this skin is awfull. i'm trying to translate the word here "druk"(dutch) it feels packed like someone stuffed 15 fat americans into an elevator. removing the back image on the main page will help because now it feels like: "yo dawg, we heard you liked frames, so we put a frame in your frame in your frame in your tab so u can look at a frame, inside a frame inside a frame in your tab." and put the header (page, discussion, history,...) to the left RhoninSoren 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The discontinuity between serif headings and sans-serif body text is distracting. Please use only one font (preferably sans-serif), and the skin will be fine. redomen 08:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with this font usage. In fact, it's quite nice. Particularly with the grey bars, and the spacing. Simple but clear. Good contrast. Having header font different than body copy font is a widely used professional technique. You wouldn't want to use two different sans serif fonts unless they showed significant difference. The general rule of thumb is not to go above 3 font faces. But that doesn't mean you NEED to have 3 fonts either. And the number of acceptable fonts can very based on how many size, weight, color, tracking, color, case, etc. changes you may have. Personally, I find Serif screen font annoying to read at under 14px, so tend to reserve it for header text unless specifically requested otherwise. --Mooseyfate 07:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Mobile view even more difficult now

Still looking for a mobile version of this site...the new look makes it even harder to view the wiki on a phone :( Wynterarwynrose 21:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have had no problems on either my phone or tablet. can you grab screens and explain your issue a little more?- Zesbeer 22:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not really anything you need a screenshot for, it's the just page is huge and doesn't work well on small screens. The page becomes squeezed together and it makes it hard to navigate. I wouldn't know how to provide you with a screenshot of my phone.Wynterarwynrose 23:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

take a photo with another phone, camera, or put your phone on a scanner ;) Rudhraighe 23:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

On iPhones, you can take a screenshot by pressing the 'home' and 'lock' buttons at the same time. It saves to your photo roll. I don't know anything about other phones, sorry. —Dr Ishmael 23:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

there are apps that allow you to do so.- Zesbeer 23:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm on android, I just figured out there is an addon for the browser I use that let's me screen capture the page. http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:2012-06-03_19.58.55.jpg as you can see the whole page is squeezed together and the screenshot is a little forgiving because I can't actually see the whole width of the page when I'm looking at it nor the length. There is a mobile extension that could be implemented, I'm not sure if it's the same one they use ok wikipedia, but it would at least make browsing from mobile devices easier. The one I found is Extension:MobileFrontend on the mediawiki website. Wynterarwynrose 00:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the extension used at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation sites. (They are currently working on integrating this functionality into MediaWiki itself, but it won't be in the version we'll be upgrading to.) It sounds like all you have to do is include this extension into MW, and it will generate links between the "mobile view" and "regular view" on all wiki pages. For a small investment of server-side work, you can also set up the cache server to detect device types and automatically redirect to the proper view. I'd say this is definitely worth installing. —Dr Ishmael 01:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm really against installing Wikipedia's mobile extension here. The reason is that I'm against any kind of mobile view that leads to a massive loss in functionality, which is the case with almost all of them. In Wikipedia's mobile version, an user loses access to most of the wiki links: talk pages, watchlists, preferences, my contributions and any kind of editing are all turned off. The only way to access those is by going from the mobile site to the full site. I really don't think all those losses are worth the slightly better view given by the mobile mode. Erasculio 01:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

agreed with Erasculio, i also think that alfa-r might have a fix. but realistically i think the lowest rez that he had in mind is 800x600.- Zesbeer 01:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, if it's just an option and you can still access the full site if you choose, what is the issue? In the end you're only making it easier for the people, who would be in the majority, to quickly look something up. The few who might want to edit the site can easily scroll down to the bottom of the page and click for the desktop version. Wynterarwynrose 01:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, how many people (besides Infinite, but he's special) are going to do anything on their phone besides browse? And as Wynter pointed out, there's nothing stopping people like Infinite from accessing the full version of the site. The tangible benefit of the mobile view is that it skips loading most of the CSS/JS, which is a HUGE savings in bandwidth. —Dr Ishmael 02:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Me, for example. Keep in mind that we can't even browse properly - the lack of access to the watchlist or even to talk pages is a huge problem. Instead of settling down for a heavily flawed solution now, I would rather try to find a better solution even if it takes some more time. Erasculio 02:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

One could argue that it's not flawed it's just not what you want. While it may not be the answer to everyone's problems I think it would benefit a great many more people, than it would not benefit. Generally when somebody wants quick information, the mobile version of wikipedia serves the purpose very well. It makes the information easy to view and fits it quite well to the screen. Chances are if somebody is accessing the wiki via a mobile device they are doing so because they need the info while they are playing the game and not because they are looking to contribute. The whole point of a wiki is to share knowledge and why should that knowledge not be easy to read on the device one chooses to use. Again I argue that there will be a lot more people who just need to quickly look something up using a mobile device then there will be who want to edit it and use the full features, as I pointed out before nothing is stopping users from accessing the full site should they want to. But for the majority who just want easy access to information quickly the mobile view works well. Wynterarwynrose 02:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not productive to have the same discussion in two places at the same time. Would be better to move this here. Erasculio 02:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was a discussion going on there, I've been checking that page for days now with no change..lol. Wynterarwynrose 02:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely edit more with phone if it was less frustrating. Right now editing with a touch screen could be compared to editing with PC on 640x480 res and high sensitivity ball mouse. I don't think bandwidth is that much of a problem – everyone here where I live have unlimited bandwidth (monthly fee only) for pretty much any system you can think of, but that could be different from country to country, obviously. Still, I think usability should come before cost, since not being able to edit properly would result in more bandwidth use anyways. Mediggo 06:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mediggo Your feedback would be much appreciated over here http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_talk:Requests_for_technical_administration#Mobile_accessibilty where we moved the discussion too :) Wynterarwynrose 07:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to reply here to Dr ishmael's comment about editors on phone. I'm pretty sure anyone participating in the discussion ultimately realises that idea of editing wiki on mobile devices as seamlessly as possible has great potential. At this time, I can't add anything useful technical information to the discussion going over at the page you linked (btw, you could always use internal link), so I'll just steer clear from now on. :) Mediggo 07:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Skin v 1.1

Screenshots

Based on comments above (thanks for feedback!), I've made some modifications to the skin:

• Replaced red header with a gray one. This will help users to better focus on page content;
• Made page background darker, and borders and shadows lighter, again, for the same reason;
• With the removal of red bg, tabs can now look like tabs once again;
• Made footer scroll with page on big pages. When page height is smaller than window height, it will still stick to the bottom, so that it never positions at the center of the window;
• Wiki logo is colored once again, ANet logo at the bottom is now white, so that it doesn't draw attention that much;
• Left panel gaps are decreased, heading font is now sans-serif;
• Headers from lvl 3 to lvl 6 are returned to the look they used to have, Headers 1 and 2 (those with lines) are still using serif font, but were made larger to improve readability;
• Margins before headers were increased to help structure pages better;
• Other small improvements.

Overall, this update is aimed to made page content more relevant, and UI less noticeable.

You may see how it looks like now on the screens (to the left). If you want to try and see how it works, you can copy my monobook.css and monobook.js. Your help with testing is most welcome, since I alone cannot check it on every single browser and configuration (everything works fine on Chrome, Safari, FF, Opera and IE for me). Also, please, feel free to share your thoughts on the new iteration of the skin here. Alfa-R 23:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

do you have a vector screen as well? its ok kind of bland for my tastes but ok.- Zesbeer 23:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall assessment, those are good improvements.

• I kinda liked the red splash in the corner, but I can understand how others might find it distracting. I could also easily swap it back in my own CSS if I really wanted to.
• The headers are much better. The increased margin alleviates my concern about the headers getting buried between the tables of [[User:Dr ishmael/List of guardian skills|my new skill list design]] and makes it even easier to navigate.
• I would prefer that the Monobook tabs always show the tab outline/background, like the default skin, instead of being transparent when not "active".
• Anchored footer is awesome.

Thanks for your continued work on all of this. :) —Dr Ishmael 02:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

One problem with the footer, now that I've actually installed the JS: when loading a page that is shorter than the window, the footer "flashes" at the default location (end-of-page-content) before the JS moves it to bottom-of-window. I've seen similar things done where the element in question initially loads with "display: none", and the JS only switches it to "display: block" or whatever after adjusting the position. I don't know how well that would work here, but it's just a suggestion. —Dr Ishmael 03:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No need to go full monocrome to pull avoid pulling attention away from the content. Green or brown can let you keep some color without drawing attention too strongly. Still, I like the new look Torrenal 04:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

with some reflection on this i think this is too soon. we have been on this style for almost 48 hours i would like to see more feedback before we jump to changing it again.- Zesbeer 04:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why, but the changes have really messed up my User pages. Not sure if it's the line spacing, or the graphics.--Enda - talk 04:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the red splash. Was there someone complaining about the red? Your changes make it seem quite dull. -- aspectacle  04:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll toss in more support for the red splash. I liked it; didn't find it distracting at all and was surprised to see it gone. Personally thought it was a good anchor/counterbalance for how right-weighted in color the pages tend to be due to image/infobox positioning. Redshift 04:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the red splash is a keeper. It's a nice contrast that doesn't overwhelm the page. --Riddle 05:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

@Doc That's how it was done initially, but Tanetris has noted that in this case users who have js turned off won't see footer at all. Alfa-R 06:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I support keeping the red splash red. @Alfa How about a fallback <noscript> tag? ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 08:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to HTML/php to edit tags, unfortunately. Only CSS and js. Alfa-R 10:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

@Zesbeer, yes, there is a vector version (my css + js).

@Aspectacle (and everyone else). There a very few pople who don't like red heading, indeed; but on the other hand, many people said that they don't like the new look, so I've tried to make it closer to classic monobook, while retaining some artistic features in bg. Dark header also doesn't work well with separate tabs, and there are people who don't like current solid block tabs heading. Anyway, changes can be done, and that's what this discussion is for. Alfa-R 11:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think gray splash will make for better default, any registered user can still change it to their liking, no? Gray/white is much calmer, and I already missed the original logo. :) Good job with those section headers and everything else, too. Hopefully this can be implemented soon. ^^ Mediggo 11:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I must say that I really don't like this new version. One of the main reasons why I so love the current design is that at the first glance it looks like a true extension of the Guild Wars 2 websites. It is different enough to immediately indicate this is not yet another unofficial wiki(a) site, when you look at it you instantly know that it is about GW2 (even more so than the blue brush strokes design before that, in my opinion), while still being functionally identical to other wikis, so that wiki veterans should have no trouble whatsoever working with it. That is certainly not an easy thing to achieve, but I believe the current layout nails it down (almost) perfectly. And the longer I am using it, the more I happen to love it.
Now, while there are some touches in this versions I have no problem with, such as the footer sticking to the bottom of the page, bigger headers and slightly darker page background and footer, the GW2 feeling and its charm is gone. I no longer see the official GW2 wiki, I see a wiki that just happens to be about GW2. In fact, all these changes have achieved is a 180° turn back to a design that is almost identical to the basic old monobook (GW1W). We might have easily just left it at that.
The red painterly header with the white logo is the cornerstone of the design; it is an essential feature of the page for the distinctive GW2 look, just like in the official forums. It also corresponds nicely to the red used in the images on the main page. The links bar on the top of the page with the slight gradient (that is used in table headers throughout the whole design, might I add) and curved corners in contrast to the red background was also much more aesthetically pleasing for me (of course, aesthetic opinions are by nature completely subjective); this one just looks bland and old. (However, I would personally probably prefer to group them [[:File:User Tanetris tab layout grouped.png|this way]].) I also don't really like mixing the fonts for the headers (although I can understand they can look somewhat pixelated on low-resolution screens, so I could agree with it in the end). I would certainly agree with limiting their usage in pages like Fear, though, there's almost twice as much headers as actual info on that page.
So, to wrap things up, what are we left with? Monobook, with an inconspicuous cloud-looking texture in the background, left toolbar sections separated by lines instead of boxes and slightly different footer. Wonderful. I honestly think that this change would be a step day's walk backwards. 13:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Have to voice my preference for the red streak as well, which concurrently means that a tab style like Tanetris' would be more viable than having the links simply hovering over the background.-- shew|make 15:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I find good and not so good things with this new proposal. I really like the changes with the fonts for the headlines. And making the background slightly darker is also a good thing for me. The changes of the header are twofold. Changing the logo back to the more original color schema and the background of the header to some other color is a good idea, but compared to the current version it makes the page looking more dull (like already mentioned). So at least for the main page we would need some other colorful dots (and I'm still for the 'painterly brush strokes' for the main page headlines). And I like the current round corners and the tabulator design more than the more trditional layout you would go back with that proposal. Balwin 16:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I prefer v1.1 to the original. The L1/L2 serif headers are still distracting. Thanks for doing so much work on this. 75.37.22.191 17:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

red is back

I have made a quick edit to return red heading and add Tanetris' tabs. It still requires some adjustments (FF doesn't display bottom border for tabs correctly to me), but I've decided to show you how it looks like so that you can tell whether you like it or not. Alfa-R 20:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks great here! —Dr Ishmael 21:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Was very happy with the previous vector proposal with custom css (the one before implementation), and now its images are all gone. Bleh. --Ee 05:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hooray, the redhead is back! ...However, I'm not too keen on the grey background. This might be a trick of the eye, but it looks very grainy, and there's either a real halo or an illusion of one with the left hand text. Also, combined with the way that the header *just* touches the upper-right navbar and is cut off, the look loses a little bit of its polish and cleanliness that it has for me currently with the white. If we need or would like a grey background, what if you layered the red heading on top of your previous 1.1 cloud background? Redshift 08:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is in my opinion much better. @Redshift: I think the halo effect you talk about is simply down to jpg's low image quality. Also, the upper-right navbar will always cut into the background in low enough resolutions, there's not much you can do about that. 09:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, good point about the image quality, thanks. With regard to the navbar: I realize that cutting into the background is going to happen :). That much doesn't bother me--I think more precisely I feel like the manner in which it happens can be improved. Currently, the white version is very cleanly cut and shaped at the intersection. The grey, on the other hand, makes it just so that the left edge is visible without defining a shape and the navbar bottom 'slumps' into the wider space. In a design that's very attentive and clean, that little bit is jarring...but maybe it's just my sensitivities acting up :). (I realize how ridiculous this all sounds, sorry.) Redshift 13:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I also much prefer the red streak over the grey one. It's not distracting at all, and it's very recognizable "GW2". Otherwise, the update looks great. Keep up the good work :) -- NilePenguin 17:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in on the headers. The serif font is difficult to read. They look blurry.--Naskapi 03:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

what internet browser are you using because i have no problem reading.- Zesbeer 03:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Might it be that you are encountering the same screenshot image-quality concern I had? Redshift 03:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually after doing some tests with different browsers, it seems it is just the font itself. I can read the headings fine as well, but the serif style just makes it look grainy at large sizes.--Naskapi 11:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

By large sizes you possibly mean low screen/monitor resolutions? If that's the case, I could say the same. Mediggo 12:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Figured it out... its odd. Was looking at it on an XP computer. At work today and checked on both Win7 and Ubuntu under multiple browsers and does not look grainy at all.--Naskapi 19:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I must admit I did not read the entire wall of discussion above, but I did read far enough to see you had issues with the sticky footer and JS. I am not sure if it is fixed in recent versions, but there are many CSS-only solutions to sticky footers, that still go to the bottom when the page gets too long. See this for example. — Rhoot 10:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, NPC infoboxes with icons look off. See Muireall for example. — Rhoot 10:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of css-only sticky footer, but this kind of solution requires changing page layout (adding divs to html for example), which, as I've said above, I cannot do here.

NPC icons work fine, the reason is that icon in the example given have really big transparent margins on the left and top. Icons should just be cropped to work appropriately, as right now margins on them are all different (e.g. File:Karma_armorsmith.png has regular margins), and no matter how you position them, some will look off. Alfa-R 10:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes of course, it didn't occur to me to look at the markup. Silly me. Anyway, what I meant with the icons is that they shift the entire contents of the infobox to the left side of the infobox. In case it doesn't do this in your browser, [[:File:User Rhoot Muireall infobox.png|this is how it looks to me]]. — Rhoot 11:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that. It's just NPC infobox being done differently from other infoboxes with icons, should work now. Though there is an extra padding under the image now, but I'll remove it in the next update. Alfa-R 11:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that looks a lot better. :) — Rhoot 12:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) These changes (along with some other) were implemented today. If you were using my CSS, clear it, please. Alfa-R 23:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Page, discussion, edit, etc. tabs are quite broken for me. 1280x1024, should be newest Firefox. Worked fine before changes. Mediggo 07:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nvm, looks like you just fixed it. :/ Guess I just failed to Ctrl-F5 properly. Mediggo 07:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Frecking awesome like this.

I adore the fresh & clean look. Frecking awesome job well done. The discussion page could be better organized though. Wall!--Silverleaf Don't assume, Know! 01:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a wiki talk page with an extremely active discussion. Did you seriously expect it to be organized? :P —Dr Ishmael 01:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Completely random comment 1.5 months later, but just today I realized how well the top banner synergizes with the official forums. And wanted to point that out. So, um... yeah. :D —Dr Ishmael 16:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wiki Layout Needs Improvement

Okay, at first I was almost compelled to rage about how awful and aesthetically distasteful the whole thing is. Well, after collecting my thoughts and restraining myself, I instead decided it might be better to not lash out at the design in such an unprofessional manner. I'll just let you know of the problems I have with my very first glimpse at this new design and we'll just see whether you think their valid points or not and whether I'll decide to never use this wiki again without my stomach turning.

Sorry, but I can't help being a bit contemptuous. I'll get right to the point now though! The new look is like algae floating atop a murky pond of disjointed concept art. There's next to nothing that cohesively anchors the design. See that nav-bar to the left? How could you miss it after all... but anyway. That thin little gray line that extends the length of the page. Not enough separation! It's a line, but it really blurs the design together, if you understand my meaning. I could see this design looking a lot cleaner and actually legitimately resemble Guild Wars 2 art aesthetics if it didn't have such unclear and undefined separation across the entire page. From consequence of such thin lines of separation from one part of the design's content to another... the concept art displayed on the page looks hacked to pieces by the actual functional space of the page, everything almost appearing to set on top of one another. The grey header bars that categorize different game information for easier reference are nice, but they have perfectly straight line edges that also cut into the concept art behind it. These grey bars would be better if they were perhaps faded and had effects similar to what is below the GW2 logo above the nav-bar, except inverted with white instead of red splotches.

Further question has to be raised on the concept art all together with the rest of it. It makes one ask why this piece should be there. There's no good reason for it, you can't discern anything concrete from the art with the majority of it hidden, it's only for those who have seen the whole piece already, or those who have some warped appreciation for the real reason the concept art was chosen. Being as it is, all I can conclude that reason to be is that it was simply chosen based on the colors used in it. A bad choice in the end in my opinion, which is... the correct opinion to be honest, unless you can somehow rework the concept art to better intertwine with the rest of the page that is, which I somewhat doubt, but could be possible.

In fact, the concept art is the biggest root of the problem here. Just imagine if it wasn't there. It would be so much cleaner looking, although... still somewhat non-cohesive if you ask me. Ah, and just for your information, I have never really tried participating in a Wiki community and know little about Wiki in general, but I felt really compelled to log in to an account I had created and at least let my negative points be noted. I hope this was posted appropriately, if not... that's too bad. Thanks, sincerely, Grenic 01:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

a lot of effort and time was put into making this layout and design. and all the elements come from gw2 pages for example when you buy the game seen here https://buy.guildwars2.com/ and the forums.- Zesbeer 02:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure — after reading your rant — whether or not you refer to the main page design, or the general site design. It would seem you're unhappy with both of them though, but they sort of blend together with your post. Regardless, I have a note about the concept art: If you maximize your browser window on a 1920x1080 screen (which is common these days, especially among gamers since they tend to be technically capable), you can actually see more or less the whole pieces. Now personally I don't maximize browser windows ever, but the vast majority of people I know do.

The only other issue you seem to have with the entire layout (even though you spent a great deal of words on it) is the fact separation of content is being done by a thin gray line. Regardless of whether or not they are pretty, this is a web page with dynamic content and thousands of pages. All of the content is added by users directly, no moderation or restructuring unless another user takes it upon himself/herself. We are more or less forced to have straight borders, since they can be generated by the browser itself. The design has to function with that limitation in mind. And personally I actually find the straight edges soothing. — Rhoot 07:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Effort is irrelevant and implies I should tack on some sentimental value to it. Which is just stupid. Also, that's fine Rhoot, regardless of the fact that one should have designs that are more functional and still aesthetically don't look like garbage across multiple resolutions that are still IN FACT widely used. I mean... regardless of that, anyway. Now, it's okay... Since it's my problem, not yours. If it only effects me, fine. I simply won't use the Wiki here. There are alternatives. I really wanted to make my issues apparent to the self-delusioned. Not that that counts for anything since I've decided to get pissed off at this point. Enjoy your soothing lines though man! Because, for the life of me, I can't imagine how any line such as what is on this page could be considered "soothing", but you must have some special appreciation that is beyond my comprehension. Thanks for the time it took you to read this. Grenic 08:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Grenic, thanks for making an account to share your concerns with us. Typically we won't make a change on one person's request without some constructive alternatives provided and then agreement to the change from other contributors.

Another possibility is that if you don't like aspects of the current design the wiki allows you to personalise the skin to your taste, I know several people do this and many would be happy to guide you on how to make changes. If this is too much effort for you I hope those alternatives you mentioned work out for you. -- aspectacle  15:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as clarification, I did in no way mean to belittle your opinion. You are very free to express it, and share it. I was merely countering it with my own. — Rhoot 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I just want to say, that I can't agree with the OP. All the problems he point to are no issues for me. I really like the current design, both the main page as well as the normal pages. There are always some minor things I would like to change, but this is always a compromise between so many subjetive opinions. Overall this is a very good looking wiki. Balwin 17:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with some of your points Grenic, the venom with which you express them is completely unwarranted, and does nothing but belittle otherwise valid points. I don't know how you expect to have your opinion valued when you lace it with such poisons as those, not to mention the attempt at decontextualizing others' comments and opinions in order to indulge yourself in some good old-fashioned self-victimization, and the projection of delusion onto said posters. Indeed, such conduct hurts my eyes, not to mention the fact it strikes me as the contemptuous pretense of a contrarianistic would-be art critic, intent on nothing more than pigeon-holing certain aesthetic qualities and burning the metaphorical birds of others. I see no relevancy of your comments outside of the aforementioned valid points, and can only assume they are something unto which one is supposed to attach sentimental value, which, as you rightly say, would be 'just stupid'. If you do however take some solace from ranting over-zealously about the front page of a wiki you already claim to have alternatives for, then I commend you, Grenic, and can only hope you did appreciate most specially the time you spent conducting said rant! Have a nice day :) Darke 02:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A lot of great stuff, but hurts my eyes, too

I generally like a lot of the recent design changes here, with two notable exceptions:

Strongly dislike

• My monitor does not support higher resolutions, as suggested above, so I see almost nothing of the concept art on the main page. It's clear it's meant to compare to the official site, but I just see a few splashes of color.
• The top level headers actually give me a headache — I don't understand the font choice; it seems out of character with the rest of the site (plus: it's an odd design choice to choose serifs for top level headers...without a compelling reason to break the standard of non-serif).
• The headers for the left navbar look faded out compared to the rest of the navbar. They seem to be unsure of whether they want to be part of the navbar or not: I recommend making them bold or nearly invisible (if the goal is to de-emphasize them).

Love

• The darkgray background for the main page section headers is great. It makes it easy to navigate without slapping your eyeballs.
• The background splash and logo look terrific. Makes the site look modern, like GW2, and yet doesn't distract at all from content.
• The new {{STDT}} is generally fantastic. Tables are easier to read. (I think it needs a few more variations for general content, but that's a minor quibble.)
• The new infobox style is also great, with the exception of the serif header (again, sore nose against pristine face).
• There are a lot of nice color choices that make it easy to tell the type of article / table you are viewing at a glance. (Green for NPCs, Purple for locations, ...)
• The use of icons/tango icons across the site also makes the site easier to read, navigate, and absorb content at a glance.

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Home Instance

Can we get a link to that somewhere on the main page? Thanks!

weapon hands

Wow, I'm actually discussing the content of the main page, rather than the formatting! :O

Anyway, I'm questioning the usefulness of having links to main hand, off-hand, and two-handed (which goes to a category o.O) on the main page. The articles linked hardly contain any information at all, and the pertinent information can be found on the weapon article itself in any case. To me, these links seem like a waste of space currently. —Dr Ishmael 14:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I just corrected one of the links since the lack of hyphen in-game was discovered not too long ago. IMO the articles have potential for vast improvement, like providing summaries in lines of damage, control and support. I made a userspace article about weapon comparisons some time ago, so if there're no objections, or support for reducing the articles to redirects, I could get to expanding them right away. Mediggo 15:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The hyphen is still depending on the content as described in the formatting for it. I didn't see the game divert from that formatting, personally, but screenshots are always welcome. Still I advise to stick with the current formatting due to it being correct language-wise. - Infinite - talk 15:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I also feel that way as long as the articles are not expanded. - Infinite - talk 15:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Concept art?

Hello, I would just like to know if it would be possible to re-instate the link to the concept art gallery somewhere on the front page? I might be a minority who thinks so, but I feel the concept art is such a huge part of GW2. Of course, I have no idea where it should be put under. I don't know. I just feel a lot of new players might miss out on it, if they don't know where to find the gallery. And I know that this wiki is boasting a huge gallery of concept art. Anyway, I just miss the link, but if I'm the only one who think's so I guess I'll live. :) --87.72.75.174 15:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Should Biography be on the front page?

Is there a reason why Biography should not be on the front page? Rudhraighe 02:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

add it to the edit copy.- Zesbeer 05:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Rudhraighe 15:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove Edit at News?

Would it be a good idea to remove the edit link under the news section? It seems like it could attract vandals or troll-like edits from those with such intents, and those that want to edit it will know how to or figure out how to. I've done it to the editcopy. --David 16:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

not really the news page is semi-protected so they would have to make a account and log in to troll/vandalize it. also we haven't really ran into that much trolling or vandaliz-ation on that page.- Zesbeer 17:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It seemed like it was prone to abuse, but i've reverted it. Thanks Zes.  :) --David 17:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

no problem, I am glad I could help a fellow David out.- Zesbeer 19:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad link

The link for Trading in the main page is wrong. The link points to Mail. The right one is Black_Lion_Trading_Company. --Koki 07:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Vistas

Nipped on here to add Vistas to the map section, and see someone pipped me to the post. :) When (and who does) do the changes get made to the live main page, though? Elwynd 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Release countdown?

Should we have a release countdown of some kind on the front page? Back when Warhammer Online was about to launch, I did a progress indicator for the front page of Hammerwiki and while it was certainly not up the graphics standards of this wiki, people were pretty happy with having the information readily available. I would suggest both having the dates listed for launch and pre-release, as well as a timeline or other progress indicator with marks for both those milestones. --Gentlecow 18:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There's one on guildwars2.com, why do we need another one? —Dr Ishmael 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

...there's a description of the warrior class on guildwars2.com as well. --Gentlecow 19:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But that is hardly comparable to how the wiki documents warriors. The countdown would be exactly the same, there is no point in copying it. - Infinite - talk 19:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly wouldn't need to be the same, and that's the point. You're thinking inside the box. Pointing out that another site has a countdown is disingenuous at best. For one thing, if "someone else is doing it" was a reason not to put something on the wiki, we shouldn't be doing anything in the first place. There's other wikis, after all. But even if that wasn't enough, the point is that we can do much more. Have countdowns to both pre- and release. Have multi-timezones covered. Have an article about what the countdown means, a FAQ about head start (what does it mean? who can enter? where do I check if I have access? what if I don't have my physical game copy?), a world clock to show where the game launches in your time zone. Etc. There's tons of stuff that *could* be added, and be helpful to newbies and veteran MMO players alike. I'm not saying we need to do all of these things, but I'm saying it's something to consider. Not just dismiss because the official site is doing it. --Gentlecow 22:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well that actually answered my question as to why we need one, as opposed to your glib comment above. —Dr Ishmael 22:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As per Dr ishmael, that comment was a lot more insightful. - Infinite - talk 22:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see why there couldn't be a countdown timer on the main page, so if someone's willing to work on it, it should be put to use. Mediggo 00:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There were/are countdown timers for GWW's holiday finale articles, but I think they required that the page be uncached, which might not be ideal for the main page. pling 01:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seemed glib. I should have presented the case better in the first place. --Gentlecow 17:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we include a countdown on the front page, I figured there might be a need for a place to answer the questions I hinted above. So I started a FAQ. --Gentlecow 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Pets

What about adding a pets link just under summoned allies in combat area or with the characters part? I get it is a Ranger only thing but it made the Guild Wars wiki home page so did not know if it should be here as well. --RocketshipVirus 16:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

They are already there; Summon - Infinite - talk 17:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Negative, after going there you have to follow to the see also section to find Pets. Not trying to start a fight just thought it would be a good suggestion. --RocketshipVirus 00:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think you were trying to start a fight, really. :P I am just wondering why the ranger profession-specific mechanic would deserve a special link, because there'd be 7 other professions dying for the same attention. - Infinite - talk 00:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The 7 other "allies" aren't nearly as integral to their profession, though. Just commenting, I don't care either way. —Dr Ishmael 01:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point Infinite, guess I was just comparing the two wiki pages. Makes sense why it made the Guild Wars page cause anyone can have Ranger as a second profession but only select characters can have it in Guild Wars 2. Oh well, it was an idea. --RocketshipVirus 13:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I do argue that the other mechanics aren't allies, but I still don't see the need for a special mention of pets as a direct link on the main page. At most we'd have pets and illusions on the main page, which probably looks a little biased. I do love rangers, though (and am ashamed to admit that they got shafted on their bows yet again). - Infinite - talk 14:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Gear and Inventory section

I would like to revamp this section. Some articles there barely hold any information and aren't neccessary to understand the game. I know what a two-handed weapon is, and if I don't know the weapon article will tell me. Some really interesting informations aren't displayed at all. So here is my suggestion: Update: see below. Thanks for your feedback - Yandere 20:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Items

▪ Consumables ▪ Miniatures

Equipment

▪ Weapons ▪ Armor ▪ Accessories

▪ Town clothing ▪ Gathering tools

▪ Dye ▪ Starting equipment

Upgrade components

▪ Jewels ▪ Runes ▪ Sigils ▪ Gemstones

Inventory

▪ Bags ▪ Vault

Crafting

▪ Recipes ▪ Materials ▪ Transmutation

Trading

▪ Marketplace ▪ Vendors

Currencies

▪ Coins ▪ Gems

In my first draft I missed some stuff like the gathering tools, I also added Token to the PvE section, since it is a typical PvE reward. - Yandere 14:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

you are commenting on articles for a unreleased game. on top of that i would much rather see the pages that are there right now fleshed out with information then just tossed aside.- Zesbeer 06:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I know very well what I am commenting on. The articles that I "tossed aside" could be flashed out. Perhaps there are and will be relevent information you couldn't find or fit into the main weapon article, but at the moment that is simply not the case. This is a wiki, this is always work in progress. And at the moment, the articles I suggested provide the most complete information about the topic "Gear and Inventory"; at least imo. Will this change? Most certainly! Perhaps I will be the one who suggests the two-handed weapon article for the main page in two years, but at the moment there is simply nothing relevent to find there.

Some other articles aren't listed on the main page, but are an integral part of the item system of GW2 and this wiki. Perhaps not in two years but today. So they should be on the main page. That's why I'm suggested this overhaul, to presend the best information we have today. And in 2 years I will probably do so again. - Yandere 15:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Game is out now. Can we make with the revamp so that newbs like me can actually locate things? Is there somewhere I need to vote or something? --Philoponeria 14:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It is more or less admin decision what part of the edit copy makes it to the main page and when... So just we have to wait. ^^ - 15:14, 24 September 2012 Yandere (I forgot to sign this one Yandere 14:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

Achievements

The Achievements pages need an improvement. Currently, the page titles are "Name" then "Tier 1- Tier x" in the various achievements. The issue is that in the Tier 1 column where there should be a value, has the description of the achievement as well as the value for Tier 1. This makes the page look awful. In the columns it should have the name of the achievement in the first column, the description or how to get the achievement in the second column, and then the rest dedicated to the values at which the title is reached. This would be a much cleaner and better way to display the achievements.

Also, putting an "x" before each value in the table is redundant, as it is implied. MusicPulse 12:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

feel free to fix it. this is a wiki after all and if someone disagrees with you they can revert and leave a reason on the talk page.- Zesbeer 01:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Zes, you obviously missed the revert war. I agree that the 'x' is extraneous, and combining the tier 1 number with the description is confusing. As the other user noted, however, you will need to change this on all of the Achievement pages. —Dr Ishmael 03:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I was told that I should present my argument here and wait for a consensus. Not much more detail than that was given. MusicPulse 16:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

yes i did miss that, any how this is the wrong page for this discussion the achievements talk page is were this should be taking place.- Zesbeer 17:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Halloween

so we need to come up with a design now so we can discuss it for a month.- Zesbeer 02:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The official forums link

I purpose that we move the official forums link to either be apart of the navigation bar on the side or move it down to wiki community because it isn't news but it is a helpful link (if we do add it to the navigation maybe we should also add a link to gw2's official site, and support site.)- Zesbeer 12:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Stephane had suggested we incorporate an intra-domain navbar like the main site and the forums already have, but I don't know how/if we're going to do that or who's willing to work on it. —Dr Ishmael 23:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A navbar is usually not so har to include. I am not so sure how the source code of the media wiki looks like, but on the place where the red backdrop for the wiki logo is included is the palce where I would put such a nav bar. And nav bars aren't excatly hard to programm. - Yandere 00:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw that discussion Dr ishmael, and I think we should just link it under navigation on the side bar along with a link to the main gw2 site + community news site, I moved the link to the community part of the main page for now because it at least fits better down there. and will remove it from the news section as soon as it gets changed. on the non edit copy. (also it seems that discussion has stalled.- Zesbeer 23:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Account Medals

This should be an entry on the main page as well - right under game basics on the side of "titles". Account medals don't always share a title or an achievement, but if its important enough to be on the character select screen, I think it should be included.A Liability 07:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion of adding Tips

I really don't want to see that on the main page unless someone takes a butcher knife to that article and cleans it up. It's a good thing that nothing else links there, because - no offense to the original author - it's not mainspace material. Vili 点 15:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree.

In general, I say we need to stop adding things to the MP and instead look at pruning it - it's already bloated enough that I can't find what I'm looking for half the time, so I just use the search function. It should be an index to the primary general topics of the wiki, not a full index of everything. Example: upgrade components. Do the subtypes of that deserve links on the main page? They're too specific, in my opinion; just link to upgrade component and let the user drill down from there. —Dr Ishmael 16:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Oi the tip page is aweful! And why is cooperation now linked? That doesn't go anywere. I would revert both changes.

The thing with the upgrade components, yeah I agree that was perhaps a bit overzealous from me to put the subtypes also on the page. But anyway the Gear section as it is right now isn't really good either. - Yandere 00:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That was only an example, the first thing I noticed when I glanced at the page. Both "Game basics" and "Gear & inventory" need some major condensing. —Dr Ishmael 00:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this could work for game basics:

Running the game

▪ Controls ▪ User interface ▪ Worlds

Character creation

▪ Playable races ▪ Professions ▪ Biography

Characters

▪ Attributes ▪ Skills ▪ Traits

▪ Achievements ▪ Non-player characters

Combat

▪ Damage ▪ Effects ▪ Support ▪ Combos

▪ Summoned allies ▪ Dynamic level adjustment

Cooperation

▪ Guilds ▪ Influence

Glossary

I put running the game first and deleted the game mechanics link, because this category is not really helpful and really messy, at least imo. I also added world because it is more a pre-character creation thing. I added archivments to character and deleted title, because they are always bound to archivements. I deleted personality because it is pretty much useless in the game and you also get there when you choose your biography. On combat I put boons, conditions and control together to effects which is the head article for these three terms. Cooperation now links to party, because it is the basic form of cooperation and squad is gone entirely because it is a really special thing which doesn't need to be addressed on the main page. The glossary I kept because I think the idea of a glossary is pretty good, and this cat isn't as messy as Game mechanics which basasiclly the same purpuse on the front page. So what do you think? - Yandere 03:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Items

▪ Inventory ▪ Vault

▪ Consumables ▪ Upgrade components

Equipment

▪ Weapons ▪ Armor ▪ Accessories

▪ Town clothing ▪ Starting equipment

Crafting

▪ Recipes ▪ Materials ▪ Transmutation

Trading

▪ Marketplace ▪ Vendors ▪ Coins ▪ Gems

On this one I am not so sure as about game basics, but this is probably a pretty good condensed version, I mainly removed Dyes and minitures because these things you will find pretty quick about Trading for example. I removed slavaging and gathering because the material atricle gives a good explanation how you get these things which include salvaging and gathering. I removed the sub-pages from the upgrade components, you can find these under upgrade components. I put inventory to item and removed bag, becauseit is pertty simipar to the inventory article. And at last I cutted down currencies and added coins an gems to trading. I think it looks quite good. - Yandere 04:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we reduce Playable races to just Races? It's under Character creation, so the "playable" part is pretty well implied. Otherwise I think you've done good there. This isn't directly related to the main page, but for Dynamic level adjustment, I noticed last night that when you hover over your level in the bottom-left, the tooltip says "Level scaling." Since we usually prefer terms actually used in-game over terms used in Anet blog posts, I'm thinking we should move that article to the simpler name, which would also reduce the volume of text shown here.

Trading links to the BLTC, which isn't a good header for Vendor because they aren't related to the BLTC at all; I don't know how to fix that, though. (EDIT: Maybe move Vendor up under Items?) Marketplace redirects to Trading Post, so I'd replace that with the actual name. I would link to Gem Store instead of Gems, and instead of linking to Coin, the Vendor article lists the different in-game currencies, so is a link to Coin necessary? —Dr Ishmael 12:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Since we are at condensing anyway...

gear and inventory
Items ▪ Inventory ▪ Vault ▪ Vendors ▪ Consumables ▪ Upgrade components Equipment ▪ Weapons ▪ Armor ▪ Accessories ▪ Town clothing ▪ Starting equipment Crafting ▪ Recipes ▪ Materials ▪ Transmutation Black Lion Trading Company

pvp
Overview ▪ The Mists ▪ Glory ▪ Activities Structured PvP ▪ Conquest ▪ PvP rewards World vs World ▪ Home server ▪ Orbs of Power ▪ Power of the Mists ▪ Supply ▪ Structures ▪ Siege weapons

pve
Overview ▪ Personal storyline ▪ Home instance ▪ Dungeons ▪ Dynamic events ▪ Meta events ▪ Karma ▪ Token World Map ▪ Renown hearts ▪ Scouts ▪ Skill challenges ▪ Points of interest ▪ Vistas ▪ Jumping puzzles ▪ Asura gates ▪ Waypoints ▪ Zone Locations ▪ Black Citadel ▪ Divinity's Reach ▪ Hoelbrak ▪ Lion's Arch ▪ Rata Sum ▪ The Grove Bestiary

lore
Overview ▪ Timeline ▪ Languages ▪ Religions ▪ Stories and Texts ▪ Elder Dragons The World of Tyria ▪ Tyria ▪ Cantha ▪ Elona Organizations ▪ Orders ▪ Destiny's Edge Books ▪ Ghosts of Ascalon ▪ Edge of Destiny ▪ Sea of Sorrows

I realised that Black Lion Tradng Company pretty much covers all parts of the section exept for vendor, which I moved to Items. So probably it is best just its own point.

The pvp section was also a bit messy because all structures were listed separately. That is pretty much cleaned up now.

The pve section is a bit odd but works ok imo. I mainly removed the World article because it is mostly Lore and also stand in the lore section.

The lore section got also a bit of a clean up. I removed the names of the edler dragon, since the articles about them aren't that great and don't provide much more information than the elder dragon article itself. I removed the Lionguard from the organisation because they really don't stand much out. Destiny's Edge and the Orders are way more important and prominent. The Mist was listed two times once for lore and once for PvP. Well, it is more about pvp and the redundancy on the main page isn't really necessary.

And the only reason that I made the whole stuff expandable is that it wouldn't be such a monster post. - Yandere 14:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I usually prefer using "the World of Tyria" instead of just the World because, to some, it may mean everything in the game world including the Mists, etc.. I think there could be little room for Pact besides Orders and DE there, but unless that article is suddenly expanded, it doesn't offer that much information, but its importance to both personal storyline and world storyline / lore cannot be denied. I think that the order PvE content overview should be: Personal story - Home instance - dynamic events - meta events - karma - dungeons - tokens, to keep dungeons and tokens related and to place dynamic events before dungeons because they are essentially side content (my reasoning for that is that they're not part of the main pillars of GW2 gameplay which are events, storyline, combat and pvp). You're doing excellent job btw. :) Mediggo 14:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

BLTC works good like that, I think.

For WvW, Home server is just a redirect to a section on the World article, so that doesn't seem very useful there (the main WvW article should cover that aspect anyway). Also, Power of the Mists is no longer an actual "effect" that you see in your effects monitor, so I'm not sure if that link is very useful, either (again, that should be a prominent section of the WvW article). I know that really pares down the PvP section, but we shouldn't keep non-useful links just to fill up space.

PvE section: I mostly agree with Mediggo's ordering of the Overview section. I don't think a link to Meta event is necessary; instead, we should update Dynamic event to cover them better (currently it only mentions "Meta event" once, without even a description of what they are). Linking to Scout seems a bit redundant, since all they do is mark the hearts on your map, and they're introduced to players immediately after the tutorial. I'm thinking about splitting the World Map section like this:

pve
Exploration ▪ Zones ▪ Asura gates ▪ Jumping puzzles Map completion ▪ Renown hearts ▪ Skill challenges ▪ Points of interest ▪ Vistas ▪ Waypoints

I don't have a detailed opinion on Lore, but it looks fine how it is. —Dr Ishmael 14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

So I think we got game basics and gear pretty much down. 3 more to go.

pve
Overview ▪ Personal storyline ▪ Home instance ▪ Dynamic events ▪ Karma ▪ Dungeons ▪ Token Exploration ▪ Zones ▪ Asura gates ▪ Jumping puzzles Map completion ▪ Renown hearts ▪ Skill challenges ▪ Points of interest ▪ Vistas ▪ Waypoints Locations ▪ Black Citadel ▪ Divinity's Reach ▪ Hoelbrak ▪ Lion's Arch ▪ Rata Sum ▪ The Grove Bestiary

lore
Overview ▪ Timeline ▪ Languages ▪ Religions ▪ Stories and Texts ▪ Elder Dragons The World of Tyria ▪ Tyria ▪ Cantha ▪ Elona Organizations ▪ Orders ▪ Destiny's Edge ▪ Pact Books ▪ Ghosts of Ascalon ▪ Edge of Destiny ▪ Sea of Sorrows

pvp
Overview ▪ The Mists ▪ Glory ▪ Activities Structured PvP ▪ Conquest ▪ PvP rewards World vs World ▪ Orbs of Power ▪ Power of the Mists ▪ Supply ▪ Structures ▪ Siege weapons

PvE like this? I agree that the dynamic event article should be updated to incoporate meta events better. I thought about deliding it because the fist sentence in meta event is "a meta event is a dynamic event which..." the problem is that dynamic event doesn't lead to meta event properly.

I added the pact to the Lore section and named it the world of tyria. I thought about adding the pact since it is a major plot point, which is introduced in the personal story. But it is hard to get information on the thing, because you have to have some level 60+ chars to experiance various aspects of the pact.

I think the Power of the Mists is one very intersting part of WvW. I would like to keep it. - Yandere 16:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

pve
Overview ▪ Personal storyline ▪ Home instance ▪ Dynamic events ▪ Karma ▪ Dungeons ▪ Token Exploration ▪ Cities ▪ Asura gates ▪ Jumping puzzles Map completion ▪ Renown hearts ▪ Skill challenges ▪ Points of interest ▪ Vistas ▪ Waypoints Bestiary

Additional thoughts on PvE I changed the Exploration to explorable zones insted of the Explorer archivement. Basiclly because explorable zone is - at least for me - the definitve article about exploration. Also I deleted the diffrent cities and added the city article to exploration to have a more cleaned version. The location article isn't really needed anymore and is reached pretty simple from other articles anyway.

I think this is a pretty good update for the main page and probably makes things easier to find.- Yandere 11:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Very good job with this. Go ahead and update this editcopy with these changes, and we can leave it for another day or two for additional comments before implementing. (You may need to poke me about that because I'll probably forget by Monday >.> ) —Dr Ishmael 14:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the front page became a lot smaller! I will have my poking stick ready on monday. ^^ - Yandere 15:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming

Upcoming changes and features isn't linked to by anything. On GW1W, the main page was essentially the only thing that linked to it, and it was a popular page. I'd like some more eyes to go over it, perhaps improve the reference tags, and have it linked somewhere on the main page. Manifold 23:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

if you didn't notice my change on your watchlist I added the link.- Zesbeer 01:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, great. Manifold 02:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Current Events

The Guild Wars 1 wiki has a section on the main page with the list of current events (day/week/event) on in the game. I'd like to suggest something similar for GW2wiki that had the current monthly achievement requirements, any special events (such as wintersday), and a countdown or time-converter link to when the monthly achievements will reset. One of the common issues we've been seeing is that people assume that the monthly will reset at midnight in *their* timezone instead of at midnight GMT and are caught out because they hadn't quite finished it when it reset. This information really should be shown prominantly somewhere (ideally there would be a countdown shown on the achievement page in-game, but since it's not there...). People are not checking the achievement pages to find this because they haven't realised that they should even check. 202.173.181.249 02:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)