Talk:Running

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Not just speculation, but it's an article dedicated completely to a GW1 mechanic and what things may happen when the game is released (which we can't really predict to the extend that's being done here). Doesn't belong here at all. -- Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png 15:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree on deletion. Currently has no meaning at all for GW2. ge4ce 16:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
There are speed boost skills in GW2 so running (an action performed by using skills in GW2) is completely relevant. --Next Top Runner 17:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Speed boost skills != porting players to another area using speed boost skills. The page currently talks about GW1 running, potentially similar mechanics in GW2, and racing (which are, respectively: irrelevant to this wiki, speculation, and both). You even say that running would be under a different name (if it still exists in some form at all) so if it's relevant at all (and we won't know until the game is released) it will belong under a different page title. For now there is nothing relevant.
Also, don't remove delete tags from a page until consensus has been reached on deletion; the tag doesn't mean it's due to be deleted, but that it's due to have a sysop look at it and decide (partly from the discussion here) whether it should be deleted. -- Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png 17:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe the swiftness boon article already covers or will cover the speed boosting skills. This article could be changed to cover running in the sense of sheathing weapons to move slightly faster. Not sure what else would be said but I think it would be better than just outright deletion.99.1.41.126 17:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Reminds me of when KH copied all of those pages from WoWiki. Anyways, as of now this has nothing to do with GW2, and we have no reason to think it ever will. So I say delete. EiveTalk 21:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
@99: That mechanic is probably called sheathing. If running is to be defined for is game, it'd be more accurately described under a "movement" or "speed boost" article. -- Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png 03:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol its not going to be called movement fuck wit runing to a place is called running and its relevent to guildwars 2 ,how can you say its not when its not out you fcking DH,s .Srry about the lanaguage but all the silly things ive seen people write above just annoy me. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.158.246 (talkcontribs).

It's more speculation to say it is going to be in the game than that it isn't. And you clearly didn't understand what I was getting at.
And the grammar hurt me more than the insults, so no apology necessary. -- Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png 00:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please, refrain from using language like that. It is completely uncalled for and no one here did anything to earn your ire but follow the rules. Now, as I'm sure you can see by the giant image in the top-left corner, this is the Guild Wars 2 Wiki, notice the 2 in the title. This is not the Guild Wars 1 wiki. As of now we have no reason to believe running will exist in Guild Wars 2, thus why we shouldn't have a page for it here. EiveTalk 00:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree on the delete. The whole page is one giant hive of speculation. Thering 01:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well well u going to delete it and who knows that there is going to be running in guildwars 2.why would u delete it if you dont know , im all fro the other guy that said the insults ,his right why are u making it such a big deal. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.184.88.120 (talkcontribs).

"why would u delete it if you dont know" because this is meant to be a wiki of things that are known. Speculation does not belong on mainspace articles. If you would like to speculate about something in GW1 that should be in GW2, you'll need to keep that on talk pages or in forums. I agree with the deletion. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 21:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There are more pages which are on the edge. There is a change it will be back in the game, but there is no evidence for it right now. I agree with the deletion. Thereby, how difficult is it to re-create the page when there is information about the subject? -- Cyan User Cyan Light sig.jpg 09:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Deleting a page isn't the end of the world, since it only takes seconds (if even that) to recreate a page. I think this should be deleted pending GW2 release. --Riddle 14:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
/agree. The page can always be remade at a later date if running turns out to be a viable... thingy... in GW2. Right now, the old "running" that we know of can't exist since you don't map a whole party somewhere just by running there i.e. it's a persistent world. ShadowRunner 07:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow im a pro runner myself running is definetly going to be GW2 no need for deletion.Hmm when i come to think of it , i need to make a guildwars 2 wiki account and help some time. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.20.239 (talkcontribs).

Hi i reckon its shouldnt be deleted, by reading the info on the page there is no reason why running couldnt be possibe, hope i help =D The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.20.239 (talkcontribs).

No reason for this to be here... I also agree with deletion. I might agree with a page dedicated to the actual action of running (e.g. pressing w on the keyboard) although I think that would be more suitable for a movement page really, maybe with a redirect. speaking of which, would someone like to make a movement page as a game mechanic? -- User RepoMan sigimage.pngepo Man 00:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I also agree that it should be deleted, it even disobeys(sorry if it's spelled wrong)it's own rules, first using a quote from Eric Flannum where he says that the type of GW1 running most of the article describes is not possible, then saying that this quote means that someone can run to a waypoint and thereby unlock it for all his partymembers, then it goes to saying that you might be able to guard players on their way to a waypoint. This isn't just speculation, it is badly made speculation.The Slayer 08:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought speculation pages were always deleted. Ariyen 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
My goodness, is this still here? ~Reez 00:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the 3rd time this article has been made and deleted... Aqua (T|C) 00:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Ignoring the fact that I'm baffled as to why people would make an article stating that the topic of the article cannot be done in GW2, should it not be better to redirect this, rather than constantly remake? I would suggest redirecting to "movement speed" as - assuming there's a source to the statement by Eric on the current version of the page - there will be speed boosts, and we know well that there will be cripple, so both speed boosts and snares will exist in GW2. -- Konig/talk 01:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
An article on movement speed... hrm. Well I'm assuming you're talking about swiftness, can we redirect it there instead, for the time being? --Xu Davella 02:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) x2 (with no one, then with Xu) Or we could delete it and protect the title... Aqua (T|C) 02:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Well if you protected it, someone would need to unlock it if we ever had a need for a real "Running" page for GW2 later... could it just be set as a redirect first, then protected, with the talk page able to talk about getting it changed if/when changes are needed? Deleting doesn't seem effective here... ~~ User Kiomadoushi sig.png Kiomadoushi 04:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
What sort of content did the previously deleted articles have? Were they all similar to this one? --Xu Davella 09:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Running is not relevant to GW2 as party members no longer zone with you (afaik). Until someone conclusively proves party members do zone along, this article needs to be deleted and this page protected. - Infinite - talk 09:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

don't see a point protecting this yet, it's not like a deletion every six months is overloading our plates. -Auron 12:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)