GuildWiki talk:Frequently asked questions

Add more! --Fyren 15:24, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I really don't like the italics and quotes around the questions, is anyone opposed to me removing them?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:43, 27 September 2006 (CDT)


 * No problem - I added them, but have no objection to their being removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 27 September 2006 (CDT)

"The GuildWiki" vs. "GuildWiki"
I'm a little upset that Skuld edited my usage of "the GuildWiki" and stated that it was wrong. I've been calling the GuildWiki "the GuildWiki" since its inception, and I've seen other editors use the same grammatical construct. We certainly aren't "the Guild Wars wiki." &mdash;Tanaric 13:23, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I prefer GuildWiki. --Fyren 13:45, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Same here, although I have seen both used interchangeably. Technically we're not "The" GuildWiki, as there's now guildwiki.de, guildwiki.fr, etc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:49, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
 * "The" doesn't imply that there is only one; it implies a specific one. More to the point, it's grammatically incorrect to say "I read book" or "I read wiki." Were there only one GuildWiki, you could make an argument that GuildWiki was our name... but there isn't. It's what we are. Just like the Wikipedias are referred to as objects, I believe we are too. I've got no problem with people who choose to use "GuildWiki" without the article, but, since I wrote the vast majority of policy on the GuildWiki, it stands to reason that using "the GuildWiki" in policy articles is standard, and I'd like to put it back in that form. :) &mdash;Tanaric 13:56, 2 October 2006 (CDT)
 * That's a really poor argument. You wrote them that way so that's the way it should be.  You know better than that, heh.  --Fyren 14:01, 2 October 2006 (CDT)


 * The book anaology is a good argument. I guess that I've always viewed "GuildWiki" as our name rather than than as an object description.  I've never viewed it as a problem to be a name shared by multiple websites because just as multiple people have the same name, so do multiple websites in different countries.
 * While I prefer "GuildWiki" over "the GuildWiki" ... in the end, I guess it just doesn't matter that much to me and I can see the argument on both sides. So, I'll let others decide and I'll just follow along with whatever everyone agrees to use. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:05, 2 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I generally refer to us as "the GuildWiki", unless I'm typing in a hurry ;) I see no problem with us using both "the GuildWiki" and "GuildWiki" interchangeably.


 * I was also a little bit upset that the page had been edited in this way, mainly because the edit summary seemed quite harsh.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:49, 2 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Fyren, I'm glad you can tell when I'm joking. :)


 * I also have no problem using them interchangably, I was just angry about how it was changed. I'm changing it back in this specific instance because of that, and hopefully this will never come up again. :) &mdash;Tanaric 16:56, 2 October 2006 (CDT)

Adding Images?
I personally still have no idea how to add/upload images to the wiki.. So, how do you? Aarkshark 10:17, 11 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Add [[Image:image name.jpg]] to an article, show preview/save page and then click on the red link. Or click on the Upload file link in the toolbox on the left.  --Rainith 16:11, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Ah, thanks for that :) Aarkshark 18:03, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

Server Issues
First, I would recommend a section of the FAQ on server issues. After the recent period of frustrating server problems, it is likely on the minds of many. It is also probable that other server issues will happen again sometime, it's a fact of life. Now would be a good time to make this page the go-to resource for that frequently asked question. At the very least, a pointer to some server status information would be great. However, I don't know of any such page. Is there one? Second, HOORAY NEW SERVER! Things are working fantastically for me. :) Third, I didn't have a clue what the problems were until that message at the top of the page was added. What were they?--Ender A 06:48, 16 November 2006 (CST)
 * The old machine wasn't fast enough to keep up with the number of users we have; we were CPU-bound. If you have some specific questions you want on the FAQ page, post them here.  I suppose making Server status or something like that wouldn't hurt.  --Fyren 06:55, 16 November 2006 (CST)