From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Time to change Userbox Icons to the tango icons already in use here?[edit]

Isn't it about time to streamline the userboxes for the professions with the tango icons already in use throughout the site? I'll just take the Elementalist userbox as an example. The tango version looks way more polished than the current "purple" flame that hardly said "Ele".
Elementalist This user is an Elementalist.
The same could apply to the race userboxes (just add the map symbols of The Grove, Divinity's Reach etc.) to give them a uniform look - but that's a topic for another discussion page --Gorani 13:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Alternatively, you could code the infobox template to do both (i.e. a parameter which defaults to the tango, but can also make it the in-game icon.)
Also, that icon is somewhat dated, and once the game is released, I'm sure we can get a much more elementalist-y icon. Aqua (T|C) 18:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Much like GWW's userboxes — even though the tango icons are amazing — the fancy in-game icons deserve some attention, too. As per Aqua, I am sure we'll have a more fitting version of those icons in time; these current ones are extracted from footage and only some are touched up to fit standards. Either way, I oppose changing the icons to the tangos, but strongly support a parameter to display tangos instead. - Infinite - talk 12:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[edit]

I really don't agree with this change. It abolishes overviewing of Profession mechanics in detail entirely and I don't think having high res versions of profession tango icons, which we can already see everywhere, helps describe professions in any way. The previous version provided, in my opinion, perfect summary of what each profession specializes on, what their unique mechanics are and what kind of weapons they can wield. I agree that some reshaping is needed, perhaps combining previous sections of List of professions and Profession mechanics, but having large versions of very simple images that can be viewed almost everywhere on the wiki are just waste of space to me. Mediggo 12:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Mediggo. While large icons are nice, the new page arrangement makes is "difficult" to browse. Being one of the pages I visit more often to get directly to professions' skills, having to scroll down is a tad annoying. Darkever 17:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I felt the previous page unnecessarily listed the professions twice and went into too much depth about the mechanics of the profession on a page which should only be an overview. I'm happy to drop the images if you don't think they add anything. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 15:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the information presented in previous version could have been organized much better. Perhaps there should be a separate page for Profession mechanic? After all, it is a major part of gameplay and profession distinctiveness. Mediggo 19:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Well an individual profession's page discusses their mechanic and there are pages devoted to each mechanic already linked to from this page and most of the description of the profession on this page is still about their special abilities and their distinctive style. I think a new page would just be duplicating it again? -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 21:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Semi-related, but this page looks absolutely horrendous on higher resolutions... It might look fine on smaller ones, but if we're going to have 200px tall icons, there better be enough content to avoid having it be white space. Aqua (T|C) 02:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Was going to nix the images based on the feedback any how. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 02:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


I removed the list of prof mechanics because it looked rather bad, and because professions and their mechanics are already explained and because profession mechanics for thieves and warriors, for example, also include initiative and adrenaline functioning. I forgot to add attributes there, though, so I'll get on it now.

I also dropped all section headings by one to get rid of horizontal lines and edited the header section/summary a bit because profession is the choice which determine available skills, weapons, armor, etc. and not the other way around. The former version implicated that if I grab a gun I immediately become a damage dealer or gunner or such. Mediggo 11:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I added the Compact Profession Icon Table - because as someone who plays mainly one profession I've had a hard time recognizing other professions in WvW, and needed a compact recognition table. This seemed like the appropriate place to add it. SomeGuy (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Revenant[edit]

While it's true that most of the time content is listed as it is and not how it will be, this page held all of the future professions of GW2 ( before release as well. I would argue that even if Revenant isn't included in the main list, it ought to be listed below the eight already existing professions in the same manner that Factions and Nightfall professions were listed on the GWW . I may be wrong though. - Qubicneter (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually came here to agree with you in the talk page, but on my way here I realized that there's a major differences between this and then. The game is released and people come to this wiki, listing Revs in any other way than this will confuse new players. When GW2 was unreleased I was on the wiki alot and we listed everything, but everyone also knew that this game wasn't out yet. --AdventurerPotatoe 00:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I have added the Revenant under a Planned Professions section. This way it is listed on the page, while being clearly marked as an upcoming feature (as opposed to an existing one). -- Xhed 00:05, March 26, 2015 (UTC)


The professions on this page are ordered alphabetically, but on pages that list skills from different professions (like boons) we seem to generally order them the way they are ordered in character creation (or at least, I got that impression a long time ago and re-order them when I see it lol), which is W/G/Re, R/T/E, N/E/M. Shouldn't this page be ordered the same way? --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)