Template talk:Professions nav

I'm going ahead and doing it but we all have revert. I will move this Guardian to a "Upcoming" section. Reasons

• It is confirmed as a profession
• Not yet confirmed to be playable
• No info until Thursday
• Will stop revert wars from soilder to unconfirmed based on word choice.

- Lucian Shadowborn 0:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just like with the Ranger, we only added its profession class after confirmation. (As Konig pointed out on the Guardian talk page: I jumped the gun on claiming it *was* the second soldier.) :( - Infinite - talk 00:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's understandable man. I could count times I jumped the gun but I rather not... seeing how it was more than 15 times I believe. - Lucian Shadowborn 0:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just soooo freaking obvious but, but, but yeah. :( - Infinite - talk 00:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I know! haha. It'll be updated on Thursday. Infact, I have a feeling you're going to update it. ;) I just can't wait till Kodan are released to be the 1st confirmed additional race added. - Lucian Shadowborn 0:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll end up reverting the article to my last-first version and update from there if I could. I probably won't make it in time, though. I am happy enough having the page origin at my name, though! :3 - Infinite - talk 00:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

---

Professions
Scholars	Elementalist• Necromancer•
Adventurers	Ranger• •
Soldiers	Guardian• Warrior
Unconfirmed	Mesmer

Does that look better? - Lucian 4:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer it as is. TBA means TBA, grey circle is ambiguous._╺┛prʘcess.executıʘn_┗╸06:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Or possibly this._╺┛prʘcess.executıʘn_┗╸06:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Prefer as is. Mesmer looks lonley and TBA is needed, no need to put a circle of "any" when you need to put TBA anyways. -- Konig/talk 06:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Links?

What's the point to make links on Soldier/Adventurer/Scholar, if those pages provide almost no additional info to what is already in the navigation table? Alfa-R 14:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone is unaware what the classifications depict, they can click those links to understand more. I do agree however, that those articles should be expanded in the future. - Infinite - talk 14:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Clicking on a link doesn't provide more information on classification, all the info is already in the navigation bar. When I see link I expect to find additional info when clicking on it, and here I see a page that has even less info then the navigation bar itself. It's somewhat illogical and confusing imo. I'd leave those articles for sure, as we may get some new information but I'd remove the links for now. Alfa-R 15:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but, where do you read from the nav that Soldiers wear heavy armor (for instance)? It just says guardian and warriors classify as soldiers, not what that actually means. That is why the links are there. - Infinite - talk 15:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: merge the armor type with the profession type. I.e. Light Armor + Scholar -> Light armor or something like that. That way we can put up armor galleries without having to do it twice. Aqua (T|C) 17:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather have it Light armor + Scholar = Scholar cuz the armor is depended on the profession type.--Icyyy Blue 18:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That makes lots of sense imo Alfa-R 19:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You cannot be serious.

Mesmer. Unconfirmed. What?

Okay, two options.

1) We also add Commando and Shadowmancer in the section Not Real. We also have a separate section for Novels Only or a similar Unplayable section. No; I'm not joking.

2) You guys wake the fuck up and remove Mesmer. Because that's being an idiot and wiki-lawyering to get away with nonsense.

We don't put up information on wikis that violates an NDA. We don't put up information that we get by hacking their website. So we don't use logic and throw around stuff that's "probably true". I don't give a flying fuck if you have a recording of Jonathan Sharp talking in his office about "how cool it is to play Mesmers in Guild Wars 2 and how they're his favourite profession and he's looking forward to the reveal of same". Take your wiki lawyering and go back to GWW where people put up with it.

Oh, and yes I did say a big boy word. Get over it. At least I keep my nonsense out of articles. Feel free to come talk to me about it when you can say the same. A F K When Needed 16:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this has to do with NDAs, but we don't put violations up because we're not allowed to. NDA violations are a bit different to logic, anyway. Also, this has got nothing to do with wiki-lawyering (or GWW). Also also, there's been discussion ad nauseam about the mesmer on Talk:Mesmer/Talk:Professions reveal. pling 16:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If we keep mesmer in this nav, we should change that section to non-playable professions and add the other professions found in Guild Wars 2, if any. As it stands, the mesmer is merely a non-playable profession found on NPCs and monsters. It does *not* belong on this nav. - Infinite - talk 16:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) NDAs are semi-relevant. If we were allowed to, would we? It's not professional (neither is my edit above, but alas), it's not morally right, and it's simply a bad idea. Much of this can also be said for putting a guess on an article and saying "there you go!". We should stick to what ArenaNet / Demos of the game / (some day) the game itself tell us about Guild Wars 2, and leave guesswork where it belongs; blogs, user space... hell, even on talk pages. But not in a damn article.

Also, if possible, I would favor the attentions and sentiments of those happy to discuss templates, as opposed to the spam-generating individuals to be found there. A F K When Needed 16:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So, is this a wording issue ? As infinite says, there are NPCs Mesmer in the game — the Ascalonian mesmers and Queen Jennah at the very least. So would you want to change "unconfirmed" into "maybe playable, maybe non-playable" ? Because putting it under "non-payable" is as much assumption as putting it under "playable". We know of neither way. Hence the "unconfirmed" — we know the profession is around, but we do not know exactly what type it will be. -Alarielle- 18:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What we do know was not reflected in the nav with that wording, so we should find out whether we want to have a special section for not-yet-confirmed-as-playable professions. Until then I decided it is best off removed. In my opinion we do not need to include "possibly playable" professions in this nav, as the profession article covers only the playable professions. - Infinite - talk 18:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not bringing in speculation, but I will say that anet has confirmed every profession to be playable or non playable except the mesmer and dervish. I would feel fine putting those two in the unconfirmed box. See this page for more details. --Moto Saxon 18:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Are there still dervishes in Tyria in Guild Wars 2? In the lore, I mean. If yes, we should indeed treat them at the exact same level as we should be treating the mesmer; professions which exist in Tyria but are not (confirmed as) playable. If not, the mesmer is the only profession we know of that is not confirmed as playable, yet still an existing profession in Tyria. Again, restating the "the profession article covers only the playable professions" part of my previous comment. - Infinite - talk 18:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention of them in the books, at least. Also, while i'm perfectly okay with the Profession article covering only playable professions, the navbox should link to all professions article, IMO. -Alarielle- 18:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nav bar wise, There should be two. playable professions and non playable professions? For this playable profession nav bar, I am fine with including the unconfirmed options as there are only a few at most. I guess, basing the possibility of a profession on lore alone does not hold up as well as when Arenanet actually says "it will" or "will not" be a playable profession. I may be wrong, but it is confirmed to be one of the remaining 6 professions, and arenanet has specifically stated that 3 of those 6 will definitely not be playable. That only leaves us with 3 unconfirmed options -- the mesmer, dervish and paragon. Again, these 3 last options do not take into account lore. even if some of these options seem silly, they are still officially unconfirmed. --Moto Saxon 19:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So I would either include these 3 or none at all under the "playable professions" nav bar. --Moto Saxon 19:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If the lore for Guild Wars 2 (note, the present lore for Guild Wars 2, not the backstory-lore like on the guardian article) covers a certain profession that has not been confirmed as playable, they count as non-playable professions. If, however, the present Guild Wars 2 lore does *not* have a mention, the professions do not belong on the GW2W at all. That said, we only need to determine whether we want to link to *all* confirmed present-time Tyrian professions here or just the playable ones. - Infinite - talk 19:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

So is that the reason that the Mesmer was on here in the first place? Because it is the only returning profession left that is mentioned in present day lore? It is basically the only profession that met both critera of having been mentioned in present day lore, thus making it a viable article on this wiki AND it is a profession from the original GW, making it a viable 8th profession choice? --Moto Saxon 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why it was on there in the first place. I assume the reason was as Alarielle put forth. - Infinite - talk 19:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well whatever we decide will be changed with in the next 4 months when it is revealed. So I particularly don't care. --Moto Saxon 20:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) "I am not bringing in speculation, but I will say that anet has confirmed every profession to be playable or non playable except the mesmer and dervish. I would feel fine putting those two in the unconfirmed box. See this page for more details." - Not sure if serious.

My position on the matter is that the Navbar should be for confirmed, playable professions. Only.

It is not a wording issue. It's a "Mesmers have not been confirmed, they're currently as relevant as Commandos" issue.

Sure. We can have an article on all known professions in the Guild Wars 2 universe. No problem. But for things like professions navbars, we need to stop letting the Mesmer Crusaders that have created the same conversations again and again here vandalizing the wiki; intentionally or otherwise. Two archives isn't much, you say? How many discussions were moved off that page? Why does it even have one archive when an unconfirmed profession is of no significance? This is bloody ridiculous. A F K When Needed 20:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then. The issue is whether or not this is a "playable professions" nav or a "professions" nav. I honestly think the navbox should include all confirmed in-game professions, playable or not. But that is up to debate, I guess. -Alarielle- 20:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We've no idea how many that could be. A la Wowpedia, I'd be satisfied if there was two navbars; one listing only playable professions. If we steal that concept from them, we should probably similarly at least auto-hide one, too. A F K When Needed 20:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

a nav bar with ALL professions could get to huge. for now, just playable is fine. AFK, i was serious. anet has confirmed that the last profession is a returning one, and they have confirmed that it is not the assassin, monk or ritualist. and when i say confirmed i mean they actually said "X profession will not be playable". So of the 6 possible options, 3 have been confirmed as not playable, that leaves 3 unconfirmed options. And that is not speculation, nore do those facts need to be debated. --Moto Saxon 06:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not saying those unconfirmed must be on nav bar, but mearly that i would not object if they were because of ^ what i just said. --Moto Saxon 06:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

why not keep it just like it is atm... it's fine and it won't take too long till the next prof's release.. --The Holy Dragons 06:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but isn't it a wee bit late to be having this discussion? The last consensus was in favor of it, simply to stop people from going "why is the mesmer not on this nav!?" Fact is, having the mesmer on there is speculation, no matter what changes you guys decide to make just to keep it exclusively on there. --Xu Davella 08:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"AFK, i was serious. anet has confirmed that the last profession is a returning one, and they have confirmed that it is not the assassin, monk or ritualist. and when i say confirmed i mean they actually said "X profession will not be playable". So of the 6 possible options, 3 have been confirmed as not playable, that leaves 3 unconfirmed options. And that is not speculation, nore do those facts need to be debated."

...you are sure that you're serious, yes? Don't want to think it over one more time?

"that leaves 3 unconfirmed options" -- ONE of which is on the navbar. "that is not speculation" -- The other two "unconfirmed options" would like to have a word with you.

Logic leaps. At least Xu gets it. I guess I'm the only one who has a problem with doing something stupid for no reason other than to appease stupid people. Remove it. Protect it. Say why on the talk. Hell, then maybe even protect the talk so the reasonable explanation isn't lost in the shitstorm which follows.

"Hurr durr NPA" -- having speculation on an article, on a wiki, is stupid. A F K When Needed 09:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Bottomline is; this nav links only the confirmed playable professions, is thus perfect (as it currently is) and needs no change until the 8th profession is revealed. - Infinite - talk 09:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You just had to, eh? Okay, now it's perfect. - Infinite - talk 09:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I felt it was approriate. Sorry for messing your bottomline. Mediggo 09:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mesmer is finally gone eh. That took forever.... Venom20 13:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The genesis (Obligatory section break)

I just noticed this conversation this morning and I would like to clarify why I put the mesmer on this (Not that it particularly matters in the current state). Way back in the day, when Ghosts of Ascalon was not even publicly released, I read an article from massively that mentioned that the necromancer and mesmer were explicitly mentioned in the book. I noticed the necromancer was under "unconfirmed" in the professions nav, and I figured that the mesmer should be there too, due to its being similarly mentioned in the book. I added the mesmer to the professions nav, alongside the necromancer, and also created the Mesmer page with the massively article as its foundation. There was neither hacking nor secret bugging of the ArenaNet staff involved, and I tried my best to keep an open mind about the mesmer reveal. In short, I put the mesmer under Unconfirmed back when we had little information about it, when we had only three confirmed professions and with the mind that it would probably find its way into the game some form, considering its mention in GoA. It wasn't an outright assumption of "THE MEZMERS IS PLAYABLE, OMG!"

Given, that was over year ago. I'm glad to see the necromancer had such a speedy release, and I hoped the mesmer would have soon followed. I never anticipated that ArenaNet would have held us this long in regards to profession reveals, nor the exploding of the mesmer page and its associated talk page. --Riddle 16:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment here. Makes sense. --Moto Saxon 16:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

New Nav Design

This is as good a place as any to discuss this. Aqua has created some marvellous new navs which are more akin to the styles of our infoboxes. You can see them all in his sandbox or mine. There are slight differences between the two as I tweaked his design. In order to see them correctly you will need to update your .css (monobook or vector, other skins will need to change urls) to reflect Aqua's or mine as we used different naming conventions. For those of you who do not want to update you .css, I have included 2 screenshots of the navs as seen in my sandbox. Not discussing colours at the moment, what are you opinions on the designs of the navs. Venom20 13:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't like how it looks, but regardless, the small infoboxes work. The big infoboxes, however, look too confusing. The current Effects design looks a lot easier to understand (and the icons make it significantly better looking as well). The Skill types infobox looks hard to follow.

And for the records, Venom, you have added two copies of the same image, the one showing your version. Erasculio 14:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahum. Aqua coded them into CSS, but the aesthetics are by my hand. Just saying, because a lot of my designs are associated with other users these days. As for the lay-out of the content, some of them are surely outdated and should be tweaked. I commenced redesigns on Aqua's sandbox yesterday and intend to continue doing so. - Infinite - talk 14:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I like them. Very streamline. I just like to see change from the original guild wars wiki. This is a new game and thus, by my opinion, needs to have a newer look. Love the changes thus far. - Endeavor 18:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

alignment

that whitespace between the icons and profession names looks terrible.--Relyk ~ talk < 15:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Making them right-aligned on the left of the profession names also looks horrible. Moving them to the right side of the profession names would make the icons look not-horrible, but putting icons on the right of anything (except for currency) looks horrible. So it's going to be horrible no matter what with the current right-alignment of profession names. If we ditched that, it would look better, but there'd still be whitespace. —Dr Ishmael 16:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

New nav symmetry

...is absolutely horrendous! That bottom line is awkward to say the absolute least. The crazy amount of white space on the left compared to the amount of the right makes my eyes sore and my brain cringe. Can we at least chop that bit off completely until something can be done about it? Since this is an aide to navigate professions, is it really needed? Venom20 22:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you rather have something similar to this (at the bottom)? G R E E N E R 22:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the nav itself is indeed nicer to look at (in regards to symmetry), but it terms of optimization, a horizontal nav makes better use of space on a page. But yes, in terms of visual appearance, that one on Noxx's page is superior (to me at least). Venom20 23:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the false "centering" for now, as an iterative solution. —Dr Ishmael 00:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)