Talk:Main Page

Links in captions
I think on the main page there should be no links in captions, strictly, otherwise it starts looking messy and people who are not familiar with the site may loose overview where to find the important things. For example: The main page currently says: Bosses shouldn't be a link here, really. -- 15:39, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * ""Green" Weapons & Items – Unique gear dropped by certain bosses."
 * Well, I would changed it in the edit copy then.... If people disagree with you, they'll change it back.  :)  --Rainith 23:03, 17 February 2006 (CST)

First Featured Article
We're going to be testing the waters on our partnership with GWG. What I need from you fine people is some suggestions for what to have as a 'Featured GuildWiki Article' on Guild Wars Guru. Nominate! Gravewit 16:00, 12 February 2006 (CST)
 * Damage. We got original GuildWiki research done on that, beyond SonOfRah's famous results. It's a pity to see so many ppl still using SonOfRah's results (some of which aren't exactly correct) as the ultimate treatise on Damage in GuildWars. -PanSola 16:06, 12 February 2006 (CST)
 * Grawl (Species) is also a good article. Animal companion too.  --Rainith 16:09, 12 February 2006 (CST)
 * Damage is a good article, but not the one I would suggest to first time readers. Animal companion is a better example of standart guildwiki articles (but if we go with that, stick a picture in it and update it to include the spider). Some other articles to think about:
 * Guild Wars: Factions - being changed a lot, but very good information.
 * Unique items list - well 1 million viewers cant be wrong.
 * One of our mission articles. Usually very well done and helpful. --Xeeron 05:55, 13 February 2006 (CST)
 * I like Damage but it's a bit arcane. I'd probably vote for Animal companion as it contains lots of interesting information that many people aren't aware of, I think. It may need to be protected shortly after it goes gets featured, however. Shandy 18:45, 13 February 2006 (CST)
 * Scams is a good one. --FireFox 23:53, 13 February 2006 (CST)
 * I'm going to be sending off a list of the next few Featured Articles, so keep the suggestions coming. Gravewit 06:04, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * Unique Items Quick Reference? I find it more useful than the Unique items list. -PanSola 06:06, 19 February 2006 (CST)
 * Team_-_Barrage/Pet_(Tomb_Ruins) is a quite recent and very well done article in the builds section. --Xeeron 20:00, 21 February 2006 (CST)
 * Although I am very happy that you see something I wrote as a "well done" article, I personally would be against adding this sort of farming-intensive builds as featured articles. (Yes, I have come around to your side with regard to whether this build is a farming build or not.) The argument is simply that these sort of builds promote some of the worst practices in the game -- absurdly inflexible teams that spread like kudzu and essentially force out all players not belonging to a strict role. Before the wiki promotes such articles to featured status, it has to ask if it is OK with the mentality that team farming builds promote. 10:55, 27 February 2006 (CST)

My recommendations (more to come):
 * Storyline
 * Thunderhead Keep (Mission)
 * The Dragon's Lair (Mission)
 * Trainer Locations Table
 * Getting started
 * Team - Minion Factory and Team - IWAY

Soliciting Comments
Discuss here. Gravewit 01:22, 11 February 2006 (CST)


 * http://gamewikis.org/blog/2006/02/11/in-which-i-discuss-a-partnership/#respond
 * The requested URL /blog/2006/02/11/in-which-i-discuss-a-partnership/ was not found on this server.
 * :( I like the sound of a forum in GWG though :) 02:50, 11 February 2006 (CST)
 * I fixed the permlinks. Comment. Gravewit 04:18, 12 February 2006 (CST)

Charcatar(sp) encoding messed up
' seems to have turned to â€” on all pages.. ahh and â†? on the diff pages should be left arrow :( 02:59, 11 February 2006 (CST)


 * Yeah, I'm not sure what the heck that's all about. I'll have to check it out after work. Gravewit 03:09, 11 February 2006 (CST)

The disappearence of special pages
So.. I go to check the category and page link pages, but special pages seems to have been wiped: Special:Specialpages. Erk. 03:43, 13 February 2006 (CST)

Uploading Files
I tried to upload a file (a correct file name version of Enfeebling Blood) and I got the following 'internal error': Could not copy file "/var/tmp/phpKEmZWj" to "/home/guildwiki/public_html/images/0/0c/Enfeebling_Blood.png".

Any ideas? Shandy 23:25, 13 February 2006 (CST)
 * Still having this problem. Shandy 21:00, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * Still still having this problem. GUYS?! Shandy 22:12, 21 February 2006 (CST)
 * Go post on gravewits page or something, how should we lesser mortals know :p 23:08, 21 February 2006 (CST)

talk page
Wasn't there once talk about giving Main Page/editcopy its own talk page? Was that idea shot down? --Barek 22:53, 14 February 2006 (CST)


 * Bump.--Xeeron 07:08, 19 February 2006 (CST)
 * Main Page's talk page is be about what goes on with the main page, and editcopy is about illustrtating what ppl want to see going on the main page, so what is editcopy's talk page going to be about? -PanSola 07:12, 19 February 2006 (CST)


 * Discussion of proposed changes? Users can give different examples instead of multiple copies on the article page.  69.124.143.230 07:30, 19 February 2006 (CST)

Fourth Area color (see Main Page/editcopy )
It looks like there's some requests for a different color in the fourth square. Personally, I'm not sure why some people have a problem with two reds next to each other. Personally, I'm not opposed to the idea of a fourth color if someone can come up with a decent looking alternative, I just really dislike the look of the yellow square. There's got to be a better option than yellow (I think the two red looks much better than the yellow). Lets discuss rather than starting an editing war back and forth on this. --Barek 22:53, 14 February 2006 (CST)
 * I second the request for a color other than yellow. Especially that yellow which looks really washed out and very much like a pale urine color.   --Rainith 00:35, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * Dont request, suggest please ;-)
 * It looks very strange with the small squares having different colors, but the big ones not. I am not set on yellow, just put up whatever color you feel looks better. Oh and I dislike the red most out of all colors on the main page, but I guess that is just differences in taste, hehe. --Xeeron 00:42, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * There are two blue boxes as well, not all the smaller ones are different. To me, there is a method to the current colors.  The "What's New" information is one color, the "New user" boxes are a second color (including the how to contribute box), and the general game-play information boxes are a third color. --161.88.255.140 00:45, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * First off, that was my suggestion, my suggestion was "not yellow" I don't know how much clearer I can get. :P  That said, I tend to agree with 161.88, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  --Rainith 02:33, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * Hmmm weird bug would not let me post here yesterday, tried several times. Basically I disagree with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", this is not the wiki way, but since I seem to be the only one wanting a different color, lets drop the discussion, not important enough to spend time on it ;-) --Xeeron 19:34, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * Ack! Needs another color! --FireFox 06:05, 16 February 2006 (CST)

I'm fine with either 3-color or 4-colork, I can see the logic for each case. BUT, let's not have both of the big areas be red. It hurts my eyes. I suggest red for What's New (the color for alert); green for game basics (friendly color), and either the blue or use two different colors for the bottom boxes. -PanSola 22:34, 16 February 2006 (CST)
 * I like it! --161.88.255.140 05:09, 17 February 2006 (CST)


 * Updated w/Pan Sola's color changes. Post gripes about the change here.  :P  --Rainith 05:22, 17 February 2006 (CST)

What's wrong with yellow anyway? Some people seem to freak out if yellow is put as a background on anything. --FireFox 04:13, 19 February 2006 (CST)
 * I personally don't mind it, but since there are so many other ppl complaining I make sure to emphasis that I didn't use it for my edit on the editcopy... Perhaps ppl have problems with a particular shade of yellow?  Not really sure. -PanSola 06:07, 19 February 2006 (CST)

Question
Is there any way to do a good search around the site when you don't know the name of the article??? --Tizzy 00:59, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * Special:Search. What are you looking for? :p 01:02, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * Originally came looking for a list of the ascalon quests, then accidentally started looking for you :p --Tizzy 10:19, 15 February 2006 (CST)

"GuildWiki search is disabled. You can search via Google in the meantime. Note that their indexes of GuildWiki content may be out of date." Thats the wonderful results of my search =p It sucks, this could have all the information in the world yet it woul dbe impossible to acess to it due to no search engine... --Tizzy 10:20, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * Actually, now that we have this super-sweet server, can we re-enable the mediawiki search engine? 148.177.129.212 20:58, 15 February 2006 (CST)

Foreign language wikis
Could wikis in foreign lanuages be added to this (e.g. a german wiki) or would the german fans have to make an own wiki?
 * You can take all the info and translate it I think, or do you mean like de.guildwiki.org? pansola did some translations for things in chinese, im not sure though 212.225.32.211 19:07, 15 February 2006 (CST)
 * No I mean like at Wikipedia with links to the article in other languages on the left and an own wiki for each language, not just a translation.
 * So in other words something like de.guildwiki.org right? -PanSola 05:20, 17 February 2006 (CST)
 * Right.
 * Concerning foreign language guildwiki you may want to check this thread at guildwarsguru. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 08:18, 19 February 2006 (CST)

User Interface Category
Would contain articals such as Hero Window, Weapon Set, etc... Yes? No? Thoughts? --FireFox 06:03, 16 February 2006 (CST)
 * I think there was talk about that at some point. For the life of me I can't remember where or when it was though.  It seems like an ok idea to me tho.  --Rainith 05:23, 17 February 2006 (CST)


 * It does exist: Category:User_Interface. --Karlos 07:33, 19 February 2006 (CST)

CORPG
Quote from the GW FAQ:

"Rather than labeling Guild Wars an MMORPG, we prefer to call it a CORPG (*Competitive* Online Role-Playing Game). Guild Wars was designed from the ground up to create the best possible *competitive* role-playing experience."

The emphasis around the two uses of the word "competitive" added by me. Pay attention to the last sentence. "designed *from the ground up* to create the best possible *competitive* role-playing experience." (Again, emphasis added) -- 10:21, 25 February 2006 (CST)


 * Yet, at the same time, it's arguably more Massively Multiplayer than most MMORPGs, given that there is no hard-and-fast separation of people into different servers (heck, you can freely play with people from North America, Europe, Korea, and now even Taiwan and Japan!). So, while all of the adventuring is instanced, the actual "lobby" zones are more MMO-ish than most MMOs. So, hmm, go figure. i feel like they're mostly using CORPG to try to distance themselves from some of the bad reputation of MMOs. This is just as silly as when Blizzard said that Warcraft 3 was whatever strange genre they first claimed it to be, in my opinion. Plus, "CORPG" is a really inconvenient term since it's way too close to "CRPG", which has been used to refer to computer RPGs in general for probably over a decade now. (Also, me doing Tombs or Nolani Academy or Frost Gate with several other people is not really Competitive, so the name does't fit there.) ... Err, why did this come up? --130.58 10:33, 25 February 2006 (CST)
 * It relates to his edit at Main Page/editcopy where he changed "cooperative online RPG" to be "Competitive Online RPG". --Barek 10:47, 25 February 2006 (CST)


 * Thats funny. While my friends would compare it to WoW and such I would say "Even though it sells as a MMORPG Guild Wars is a CORPG". While you CAN play with anyone else in the world, unlike WoW and such, you are limited to very basic gameplay aspects. That and the fact that this game is basically a PvP game with a linear storyline wrapped around it makes me call it a CORPG more than anything. If it weren't for the fact you could group with other people I would call RPG mode Single Player mode, because thats what it's closer to being when you compare it to other MMORPG's and actual RPG's. I think its funny how ANET tries frantically to do things to help PvE out now that they realize more people are attracted to the no-monthly-cost aspect than they thought. When it comes down to it, I would play any other MMORPG before I would play Guild Wars if all I wanted was the PvE element and I know numerous others who feel the same about that. Anyway, im done ranting. :P | Chuiu 10:54, 25 February 2006 (CST)
 * I've found that a lot of time spent in an MMORPG is actually time spent wishing that other people would go away (e.g. in the classic "monster camping" situation that was the standard for many years) rather than time spent being with them. Then again, a lot of time in MMORPGs is spent wondering how the hell they qualify as "roleplaying" games in the first place, too. =) So I guess the only parts of the "MMORPG" term that make sense to me are "multiplayer online game," really.
 * Urk, apologies for being so off-topic that I don't even remember what it is. But, sure, if ArenaNet says that the C stands for something and we use the C in our description, the C should stand for what they say it stands for. I agree with that. --130.58 11:03, 25 February 2006 (CST)


 * Hmm, am I the only one strongly *in favor* of the linear storyline? I prefer a good linear storyline over a non-linear mixture of "get me A from B and kill monster C" quests any time of the day. Unlike many other games, guildwars has a storyline that is actually worth following. --Xeeron 00:33, 26 February 2006 (CST)
 * No, I like it, too. Quite a lot, despite the occasional corniness (the occasional corniness does actuall enhance replayability, though: hard to take things seriously on your third or fourth run through the missions, but it's fun to joke about things like the "Temple of Tolerance," viziers being inevitably evil, or Rurik's silly demise). I also think GW is more "massively multiplayer" than most games because I can play against Europeans and Koreans, get to watch the big decisive guild battles as they happen, and occasionally remember who wont he tourney and restored favor a week after it happens. Despite the fact that it's all instanced. You don't run into people in certain situations, true, but all the servers are interconnected and I've never hated someone just because they're "taking my spot". --130.58 03:38, 28 February 2006 (CST)

Placement of Guilds
For me, this belongs very much under game basics. It is something that every player will be confronted with early on, the article is adressing "newbie problems" like "how to get a cape". Furthermore, I fail to see how a guild is directly related to characters. --Xeeron 07:45, 1 March 2006 (CST)
 * I guess that I can see both arguments on this one. To me though, game basics are more related to terminology, interface questions, and intro guides.  I could argue that both "Guilds" and "Game Mechanics" should belong under other blocks as they are beyond 'how to play' category.
 * On the other hand, if guild is under game basics, then maybe professions should also be moved to that block? That's a fundamental question that new players will face long before they even consider joining and/or creating a guild.  For that matter, nearly everything under "Character Skills & Gear" and "Gameplay Types" hit fundamental questions that could go under "Game Basics".  By this method, we only need two blocks; one for game basics and one for what's new. --161.88.255.140 07:59, 1 March 2006 (CST)