Talk:Guild Wars Prophecies

Move Request
Guild Wars Factions is a product for sale. Factions Campaign is the content of that product.

Guild Wars is a product for sale. Prophecies Campaign is the content of that product.

Nowhere is there a "Guild Wars Prophecies". I'm fine with it used as a disambiguation between "Guild Wars" the product and "Guild Wars" the overall game. But it shouldn't be the official term for either the product or the campaign. -User:PanSola = 24.7.179.183 19:19, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * I think it is not a big deal as long as we leave redirects. But I think it might be confusing on the long run if we use a different naming scheme for campaign 1 than for all following campaigns. -- 19:23, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * In that case how about we uniformly use campaign names for every... um...Campaign? as opposed to using the product name for campaigns 2+, but using a made-up name for campaign 1 which fits the naming convention of other campaigns.  (Talking about consistency eh?) -24.7.179.183 19:39, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * Ok, got a different idea. We have an article for the campaign, and one article for the product.  Before release, everything is vague, and campaign redirects to product.  After release, a lot of info originally on the product page cease to matter "300 new skills, 100 new monsters, etc etc".  At that point, meaningful stuff about the content moves to the Campaign article, whereas the product page has basic info like release date etc. -24.7.179.183 19:53, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Bump. Currently I am leaning towards the uniform naming scheme of "use Campaign names ("Prophecies Campaign" & "Factions Campaign") for articles about the playable content, use product names ("Guild Wars" & "Guild Wars Factions") for articles about the buyable merchandise". -PanSola 17:33, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree. That sounds like the logical solution to me. Xiong Chiamiov 18:07, 21 April 2006 (CDT)


 * there are tree periods considering prohecies, the one before factions was part of the package was just "Guild Wars", the second part, introduced when factions came part of the package called "Original Campaign (Prophecies Campaing)", and a third part, which is the current status, called "Prophecies Campaign", note that this is based upon in game information at the so called area selection screen! ;) 194.151.136.153 18:50, 26 April 2006 (CDT)


 * also something to note is that Anet is referring it as Original Prophecies Campaign on their europe website (look at the right ad) 194.151.136.153 18:50, 26 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I also think that referring to them as 'Prophecies' and 'Factions' when talking about the campaign, and then 'Guild Wars' when talking about the whole product. This will reduce ambiguity and also allow far more flexability when subsequent campaigns are released. Plus its less of a mouthfull! - User:Neon 01:30, 4 May 2006 (GMT+1)


 * I agree with PanSola. "Guild Wars Prophecies" is not an actual product, it was simply called "Guild Wars".  When discussing the playable content, then "Prophecies Campaign" (or "Prophecies campaign") is the more accurate description to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:19, 15 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Seconded. &mdash; Galil  21:45, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * "Guild Wars Prophecies" is now an actual product, available in the online store, and I strongly suspect that the next production run of campaign 1 is going to say Prophecies on the box. I'm in favour of using Guild Wars Prophecies to refer to the product, Prophecies Campaign to refer to the campaign and Guild Wars to refer collectively to all campaigns / products, with a note on Guild Wars and Guild Wars Prophecies about the renaming when they decided to let people use any campaign as a standalone. -- Gordon Ecker 21:41, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
 * They've been refering to the original as "Guild Wars Prophecies" on the official guildwars.com website since just after the release of Factions. I have no problem changing our naming scheme if and when they officially change the product name of the original.  Until then, we should keep our current naming scheme. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:19, 30 August 2006 (CDT)