Talk:Guild Wars Glossary of Terms

Do we need this?
Not wishing to rain on anyone's parade here, but doesn't the Category:Abbreviations and Category:Lore lists already provide this information? --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 03:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess it does, but wouldn't it be good to have it all in one unified section, rather than having to click all of the links on the Category page? But this would turn out to be one hugely long page if all of the GW abbreviations had their own definitions. --Teh Cannon 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll fix it up. And ill change it froma Dictionary to a Glossary of Terms.Fire Tock 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I vote to wikify this page as much as possible.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikify?Cool Bow 23:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * wikify--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 23:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

K guys, i got a long list of more words. Ill put them in up to GvG (going in order of where I type them in the list)then can someone put int he last few?
 * Charracter,Platinum,CHarr,Quest,Mission,Town,outpost,run,solo(farm),item,materials,proffesions (As a list),trade,GvG.Species(as a list), weapons(as a list),King Jalis Iron hammer, Pet, Resurrection,Dp,Death,PvE,PvP,minipet. Thnx--Fire Tock 23:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

K done with my half.Fire Tock 00:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only see down to I, what's wrong?--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]igathrash Talk^Cont 00:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why'd you delete all of the ones i added in?Fire Tock 00:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't they are still there if you hit edit, you just can't see them... o.O--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]igathrash Talk^Cont 01:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh you didn't, sorry. I can only see down to I to but if you got o edit it it goes down to Z.Fire Tock 01:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

K just added in a few more definitions.Cool Bow 05:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How many terms do we put in here? For example, Tombs is the tomb of the primeval kings, but searching Tombs takes you there. Should it still go here?

I say we put in...Around Everything?Fire Tock 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw Cool Bow, I think the Glass arrows picture is too big.Fire Tock 16:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Names
Hey guys, I was thinking. I know that we can spot what the name is by it's category and it has : after it, (my idea) but what if we made all of the words bold? I was looking at the E category and i saw Energy and the description then i looked down and the next line was really confusing, i didn't understand it. Then i noticed that the second line was another word. So maybe we should make the names of each word bold so that people don't run into that same problem again.Fire Tock 02:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"See also" vs direct explaination
Some entries simply have "See also" to an article. My question is, when do we use this "See also" and when do we provide an inline explanation? Just about every single terms listed here has their own article. And if they don't, they probably should. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe "See also" should be used when the explanation of a term is long and complicated, more than a simple entry of a few lines. For example, to explain "WTB" is short and easy. But to explain "Balanced" is a bit more difficult. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 06:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Spolier
hey, Guys i was thinking, I just added in DoA to the Glossary and i thought this was a big spoiler to people who whavent completed Nightfall. So maybe we should add in a spoiler to the top of the page but saying....Fire Tock 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How does that spoil anything in prophecies, factions and GWEN? it's got nothing to do with them. but I agree that it's spoiler. Spoilers should get a small section at the bottom, like the skill aquisition of Hundred Blades. Oh, and by the way, what it says at DoA is not correct, you've already defeated abbadon, and simpely continue to whipe out his generals.--El Nazgir 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm so arry about the abbadon thing. Forgot. But also i'm guessing there will be spoilers. So just suggesting ahead of time.Fire Tock 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm. I ran out of ideas and time. Someone please save this. Just because i created this doesn't mean you can't work on it.--‎ Fire  Tock  14:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll put it on my list of things to do. Which means it will get done. Eventually. :P [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ty--‎ Fire  Tock</tt>  14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ALRIIIIIIIIGHT!!!ON THE MAIN PAGE! YEAH! Go Fire!--‎ Fi</tt>re</tt>  To</tt>ck</tt>  00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WWT, WWS, WWB
I learned that those meant willing to not wanting to, very minor difference but if someone is bored it wouldn't hurt adding, if I did it someone would just delete it :( Lost-Blue 22:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't see many people saying willing to buy a tormented axe though--[[Image:Chris1645.JPG]] 22:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do.. Lost-Blue 22:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would you say willing to buy as opposed to want to buy?--[[Image:Chris1645.JPG]] 22:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Want to buy sounds like your selling it, Want to buy some gum, lol and I persoannly think wanting sounds rude like, I want it now, as opposed to willing, I am willing to take it now, and i just say willing. Lost-Blue 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh i get what your saying and now you mention it, it does sound kind of rude but WWT is still not commonly used in game.--[[Image:Chris1645.JPG]] 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was WTT, WTS, and WTB. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Bold
I say that not just the blue links should help out but we should also bolden the bord. Gets kind of confusing after a while. I dont know if i already said this though.--‎ Fi</tt>re</tt>  To</tt>ck</tt>  14:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ill do it anyway. May not finish.--[[image:"Burn Baby Burn!".jpg|19px]]‎ Fi</tt>re</tt>  To</tt>ck</tt>  14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * nvm, doesnt work, looks too bad anyways.--[[image:"Burn Baby Burn!".jpg|19px]]‎ Fi</tt>re</tt>  To</tt>c<tt>k</tt>  14:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

abbreviations
aside from the fact that I've never ever liked this article or saw the merit of the article (its a crappy version of Category:Glossary and may be less accurate). I think that abbreviations should either be a separate page or not included. Abbreviations are not glossary terms, they are short for skills or other entries in the glossary. Additionally, they sometimes don't match up with the actually definition of the abbreviation (several abbrevs have multiple meanings and only on is presented here). So i think we shouldn't have abbreviations. And I think that if you add something to the glossary, please read the actual glossary definition first!&mdash;<font color=#ff44aa>♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I share the exact same sentiments about this article as Jedi. On the other hand, the specific technicality can be fixed by renaming the article to "Guild Wars Glossary of Terms and List of Abbreviations".  The people who supported this article just want one single super huge mega gigantic big page listing everything whose meaning someone might have a question about. -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 23:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that this page was meant as a quick-reference for users encountering terms in the game. It is far easier to navigate through a list of dictionary-like definitions instead of sifting through a category, and not every term or abbreviation warrants its own article. In essence, I disagree with Jedi in that it should work the other way around: terms and abbreviations should form a centralised list, and only the notable entries link to in-depth articles. The "glossary definition" is not always consistent with how the respective abbreviation is used in-game by players, but that can be fixed by editors watching the page. Having one list with simple definitions, with additional links to articles for further reading, is incredibly useful for new players. --[[Image:Scottie_bow.jpg|19px]]  Scottie_theNerd  (argue)  06:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Scottie. I think if people need a quick reference for terms encountered in the game, typing in the search box and hitting Enter is the fastest and best way.  I see the merit of this article only for people interested in browsing through the whole thing not specifically looking up any term in particular (which does have merit). -User:PanSola (talk to the [[Image:follower of Lyssa.png]]) 10:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Searching up a term is not a quick-reference. That's the long way of doing things. It works -- that's why we have so many articles and disambiguation pages regarding common terms and abbreviations. The factor to consider is usability. You might not use the glossary yourself, but another user may use a glossary as a first point of reference -- and there are some terms which do not logically link or redirect to what current usage refers to. The wiki has plenty of quick-reference pages: missions, quests, weapons, skills, items, capture locations. Why not a quick-reference for terms and abbreviations? Users can use the search to find the definition articles just as they can type in a skill name or quest name; but many users make better use of the simplicity of a quick-reference page that requires minimal browsing and simple explanations. That's where the merit of having this Glossary on the main page lies. It doesn't hurt to have both ways of finding terms; and this quick-reference page links to the in-depth pages for further reading. --[[Image:Scottie_bow.jpg|19px]]  Scottie_theNerd  (argue)  13:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My main complaint of having just a Category:Glossary is that it tends to scare off new users as unfriendly and unprofessional. And as someone said, not every important term has its own article, and therefore this is the more inclusive method. Personally, the only reason I ever worked on this project was because it was replacing the old very outdated lists, so it was more of a maintenance task. Maybe those other old articles shouldn't have existed in the first place, I dunno. Never thought about it really. I do agree with Jedi that it seems a separate article for abbreviations may be in order, as the proportions are growing rather large. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 11:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)