GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.




Moved to GuildWiki talk:Fansite Status#Miffed

GuildWiki Search for Firefox

Just my small contribution. I edited the original search bar for GuildWiki that was bugged for some months.

Please check it and if there are any problems, do let me know.

Thanks. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyre (talk • contribs) .

Chapter structure

I have seen that several people have started splitting content/renaming categories/categorizing articles. Please read the appropriate discussions, votes (for example: here and here)! I see that we are already having 2 different systems (Category:Prophecies_Campaign vs Locations (Prophecies)), something we should avoid and we wanted to avoid. It is frustrating to see that after weeks of discussion, people just go ahead and create their own (possibly incompatible) structure anyway. --Xeeron 20:22, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

I striked the location thing from the task list when I noticed that all locations were categorized somehow. I didn't notice that people had used different systems. I will add a note to the task list. Stupid me. I striked the quest, not the location task. :D --Gem-icon-sm.png 20:37, 4 April 2006 (CDT)

Does GuildWiki favor

I notice lots of links to preorders to have been appearing recently, mostly for the preorder package for Factions. (See, eg., Template:Ch2.)

I hope Amazon is paying us (= the site admins) for the advertising. F G 04:26, 6 April 2006 (CDT)

I posted this question earlier at User talk:Gravewit, as he's made two of the inserts that I've seen here and here. I also commented on his page that I have an pre-order, and the order status shows "Delivery estimate: May 4, 2006 - May 6, 2006", which pretty much makes the benefit have having access 24-hours early pretty useless. --Barek 04:30, 6 April 2006 (CDT)
I just noticed the "Buy Factions" link to amazon in the navigation box. My guess is GuildWiki gets referrial money if ppl buy factions from that link? -PanSola 18:12, 9 April 2006 (CDT)
Yar. Basically trying to figure ways to make more cash for pimper servers without being obnoxious. If there's a better one out there, I'd switch for sure. Gravewit 18:42, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

(Potential?) last call for comments/proposal modifications for skill boxes!

GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills/Skill box. Latest changes were all minor twinking of existing proposals, including better cell-formatting introduced by Cloak of Letters (and adopted by most other proposals), and clickable skill-stat icons for proposals that don't have text labels for the skill stat and takes you directly to the article of the corresponding skill stat (requested by Karlos).

If within 7 days of this posting there are no more major changes to the skill box proposals or comments that suggest some ideas that would involve a major chage (or introduce new proposals), the whole thing will enter a 7-day voting period (so the soonest this issue will be settled is 14 days from this post). -SolaPan 2006 April 6th, 4:31am PST (as opposed to the messed up server timezone that thinks it's right now 20:28, 6 April 2006 (CDT))

Just a reminder that it's about 1 day left until all the proposals are locked down and we enter teh voting phase. -PanSola 16:46, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Image Upload/Delete bug resolved!!!

Let's celebrate!!! -PanSola 10:32, 9 April 2006 (CDT)

Yay! — Stabber (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2006 (CDT)
Good to see that.... but what is up with Recentchanges now? I'm not seeing any recent changes that I've made there. I don't have it set to hide my edits either.... --Rainith 21:30, 8 April 2006 (CDT)
Edit - and I'm having to refresh to see changes that I make to the pages too.... --Rainith 21:31, 8 April 2006 (CDT)

About the new captcha

Can you stop it from triggering on internal links? — Stabber (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Okay. Gravewit 19:54, 12 April 2006 (CDT)
Thanks a mil! — — Stabber (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Is the second server added yet?

or did MySQL just get fixed sufficiently so that it's deemed safe to edit things again? -PanSola 05:22, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

User language ability classification

Hey, I just wondered what it was about and if there were any prerequisites to put something like this on your user page:

en-4 This user is able to contribute with a near native level of English.

(Because I'd like to add some to mine. ^^_) --Nilles 08:10, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

There are no prerequisites; People just add them to show which languages you can use to communicate with them. Some (Stabber) also have a little fun with them. You could lie as much as you like or do what ever you like, but I added mine to show what I truly understand. Go ahead and put them on your page if you like. You can find more info in Wikipedia:wikipedia:Babel/Levels and in Wikipedia:wikipedia:Babel. I suggest not to use the original Babel template, but something like my boxes (copied from Stabber). --Gem Gem-icon-sm.png 10:44, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
Well, I made A master babel template to encourage uniformity with color coding and so we don't have to each mess with the formatting code... -PanSola 12:51, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

Seeing new advertisement links

Are the ads at the bottom of every article new? Maybe it's a difference between Firefox/IE, I never noticed this at home - but I'm forced to use IE at work.

Anyway; the side banner ads never bothered me. But the ones at the bottom of the article are really intrusive, as they show within the white boxed area that contains the article. I guess they wouldn't annoy me so much if they were in their own box; but within the same box as the article is just distracting. -- 11:21, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

Point taken. Basically I'm trying different ad tactics. Some of them might be annoying, but those will go away. I was thinking along the same lines as what you posted here (breaking them into a box below the main content) but that kind of breaks the layout on longer articles. I'll see what I can come up with. I might be sizing down the google ads, too. Gravewit 11:23, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
This seems a fitting subject to place this in. I was looking around and either it has been taken out, or I can't find it. Does GuildWiki still accept donations or has advertisement money squelched that plan? I like the GuildWiki idea and want to see it around for a long time. With new expansions and information coming out about the game, server load is going to be taxed even more and, God forbid, this place shuts down because of insufficient funds. Thanks and hope everyone had a Happy Easter. --Gares Redstorm 11:52, 18 April 2006 (CDT)
We're making more on ads than we did on donations, so they're just not necessary anymore. Gravewit 15:01, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

Skill Box voting BEGIN!

GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills/Skill box

Voting will close 2006 April 26 (Wednesday) 6:01 p.m. PDT, (2006 April 27 Thursday 1:01am GMT), exactly 6 hours before the Factions Head Start begins. This is 8 days, giving a buffer considering potential server downtime.

You are strongly encouraged to re-review each proposal again even if you have viewed them before, as changes might have taken place that might have changed your opinion (such as the fact that icons are now clickable to take you to relavent articles the icons represent)

Don't procastinate your votes!

-PanSola 19:14, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

What happened?

An hour without any edits? GuildWiki wasn't under read-only mode was it? What's going on??? -PanSola 00:00, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Someone clearly set up us the bomb. — Stabber 00:22, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
It's you !! I'm still here too, but not for long, only half an hour left till I knock off work for the weekend w00t! --Xasxas256 00:31, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
We were taking out Zigs. -- Nilles 09:18, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Congratulations, GuildWiki

We now have exactly 5,555 articles. This marks a milestone of some sort, I am sure. — Stabber 13:12, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

It only shows me 5,535. But at this rate, we could be at 5,555 by 5:55am on May 5th. :-) -- 13:23, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
Although, with Factions coming, I would expect us to be well beyond that count by that date. -- 13:27, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
Hmmm, I see 5,556. --Rainith 13:28, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
Hmmm, a difference of counts. On Special:Statistics, it shows 5,556; but on the Main Page, the help section shows 5,535. Odd. -- 13:31, 21 April 2006 (CDT)
Nevermind - looks like it was just a caching issue on the Main Page. Did a purge on the Main Page, and now they sync for me. -- 13:58, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Task: document popular 3rd party utilities

I am backing down somewhat from my hardline stance on Talk:GWFreaks, I think we should document some of the following utilities, as I think it will improve the quality of the information a reader can expect from a site (us) that claims to be the be all and end all of Guild Wars info.

  1. The Edge
  2. GWArcane (working link needed -- is this even used any more?)

Comments? Flames? — Stabber  18:25, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

Never heard of GWArcane. I have heard of The Edge. That's all I can say because I never use 3rd build softwares, only voice chats. -PanSola 18:34, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

Our reputation is going down the toilet

I've been seeing comments like this one crop up in a lot of places. Have we managed to make a name for ourselves as a site full of mistakes and misinformation? — Stabber  16:35, 26 April 2006 (CDT)

As he stated himself, its a Wiki. It can't be helped if false information gets out there. If the people who frequen here were more like those on a forum the wiki would be filled with misinformation, speculation, lies, and propaganda. | Chuiu 17:18, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
Also this post. | Chuiu 17:20, 26 April 2006 (CDT)
I think the original poster on guru was taking a stab (pardon the pun) at "Wiki"s in general. Note he didn't say "I'm surprised GuildWiki got something right". I think the poster is of the mind that wikis in general have lots of mistakes and misinfo. -PanSola 04:09, 29 April 2006 (CDT)

Naming suggestion for the GW - GWF problem

Since i notice all over the pages a non-concensus about the naming of the original guildwars, now factions has arrived, I suggest we use the same formats as aNet is using on their european website (check the ad on the right), that would be

  • "Original Prophecies Campaign" for the original Guild Wars
  • "Guild Wars Factions" for (obviously) Guild Wars Factions

Alexanderpas Monk Talk 16:59, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Strongly oppose the first choice. We already have standardized on Guild Wars Prophecies. — Stabber  17:03, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
Strongly oppose the "standardized" Guild Wars Prophecies, see Talk:Guild Wars Prophecies (suggestion of separation of Buyable Product and Playable Content). When more than halve of the links to it are from redirects, you can't call it standardized anyways. -PanSola 20:27, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
In that case strongly oppose inconsistent naming schemes. Either both should be "X Campaign", or both should be "Guild Wars X". Inconsistency breeds confusion and nothing else. — Stabber  20:29, 27 April 2006 (CDT)
I believe we SHOULD use the different names to refer to different things, and I believe the Product and the Content are different. 99% of the time we would be concerned with playing or owning the playing or owning the playable content. In rare cases do we concern with the physical product, which gets talked about in a different context entirely. The "product" reference would be the super-OOC things like "The American preorder of Guild Wars Factions Collector editions had a blah blah blah". -PanSola 20:35, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Skill Box format, Last Chance for dispute

The voting time has passed, Hybrid 6 got a majority even before considering secondary-votes. Last chance to dispute before massive change takes place. -PanSola 04:11, 29 April 2006 (CDT)

No dispute, but it seems like there is a lot of work ahead for my pet robot. — Stabber  04:54, 29 April 2006 (CDT)

Armor naming convention

I'm somewhat confused about the new armors. Since the look depends on the crafter which sells you the armor, do we still distinguish between e.g. a Harbinger's Exotic Raiment and a Shaman's Exotic Raiment? Are they just called "Ritualist" armor, if so, what about the actual "Ritualist's Exotic Raiment"? Is this info already somewhere in here? Is there a decision? I'm so lost... --Nilles 12:54, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

See GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Armor. The "Ritualist's Exotic Raiment" is of "Ritualst's Armor" (aka basic) function type and "Ritualist Exoctic Armor" art type (to distinguish from Assassin Exoctic Armor art type). -PanSola 12:57, 1 May 2006 (CDT)