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



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 Wolfie sig.jpg (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.--Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg (Talk) (Contr.) 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikify?Cool Bow 23:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

wikify--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?--Gigathrash sig G.jpgigathrashTalk^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--Gigathrash sig G.jpgigathrashTalk^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 BowGlass Arrows.jpg 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?Incendiary Bonds.jpgFire TockIncendiary Bonds.jpg 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw Cool Bow, I think the Glass arrows picture is too big.Incendiary Bonds.jpgFire TockIncendiary Bonds.jpg 16:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


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.Incendiary Bonds.jpgFire TockIncendiary Bonds.jpg 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 Follower of Lyssa.png) 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. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 06:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


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...----

Warning: The following text contains spoilers relating to the plot of Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, and Eye of the North.

.Fire TockElementalist 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 TockElementalist 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.--"Burn Baby Burn!".jpgFireTock 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 Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ty--"Burn Baby Burn!".jpgFireTock 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ALRIIIIIIIIGHT!!!ON THE MAIN PAGE! YEAH! Go Fire!--"Burn Baby Burn!".jpgFireTock 00:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


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--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?--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.--Chris1645.JPG 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was WTT, WTS, and WTB. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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.--"Burn Baby Burn!".jpgFireTock 14:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

ill do it anyway. May not finish.--"Burn Baby Burn!".jpgFireTock 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
nvm, doesnt work, looks too bad anyways.--"Burn Baby Burn!".jpgFireTock 14:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


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!—JediRogue 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 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. --Scottie bow.jpg 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 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. --Scottie bow.jpg 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. Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 11:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Alright, here's the inventors opinion. I invented this when i (and my guild/freinds not knoiwng making ppl completely clueless) was tired of not knowing what certain abbreviations like zomg (my friend didn't understand that it was just like saying omg but different, he thought it had a completely different meaning) meant. So i invented this and found the deffinitions to help ppl who had the same probelm. That's why it was orrigionaly named The Guild Wars Dictionary, but other people encouraged me to put in everything into there. (also i like this 'cause it looks easy to read and convinient) So then i changed it to the Guild Wars Glossary of terms. So, it's like an easier to read version of Guild Wiki in my opinion is what it turned into. So delete it, fine, but at least the orrigional idea for this was better then Category:Glossary. And all i wanted was a page that just had the slang. What Guild Wars Players said and did. Just a very easily accesible paper of just Guild Wars Words. But i have to admit, what ot is now is definitaly a lot better than what i imagined. (jeez i wrote a lot, btw, i think this counts as spam).--Spam King Sig.gifSpamKing 01:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I've seen it a lot by now, but it's not in here, and I have no clue what it means. Anyone know what it is?--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 08:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

16 Smiting Prayers, 16 Protection Prayers. For 600/smite teams. Felix Omni Signature.png 08:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah. I'll add it.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 09:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GZ: "good zone"[]

Didn't it come from "gratz", which came from "congratulations"? I've never heard of "good zone" before.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 11:19, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Neither Have I -- F1Sig.png † F1© Talk 14:54, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. ComradeSanders 14:56, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
Everytime I've seen it, it meant "gratz." Oddly enough, the definition (a way of saying congratulations for good drops or increasing in level, etc) is accurate. --Macros 15:11, September 9, 2009 (UTC)


Ally: Anything that isn't trying to kill you 10 awesomepoints to the one who wrote that! :D Fleshcrawler Soban 23:05, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


Hey, I realize that perhaps I'm two years late to the party, and similarly realize that I'm coming close to breaking my non-contribution promise, but this page was unceremoniously copied from something I wrote and others edited a long time ago.

It's terribly uncool to post it as your own work, FireTock.

So anyway, I'm fixing your mistake (and copyvio) by mentioning that I started this article in 2006, and that the content of the original post is written by me and a couple other contributors. You can get the full history if you're interested.

Tanaric 00:50, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

small thing[]

Either the ally description is wrong, or the note about the quest Straight to the Heart is wrong. It says Grentches only start attacking when they are within earshot of Snowmen, or when they are attacked. This is because they are neither Allies nor Party members. So, a grentch is no ally but it isn't trying to kill you... Fleshcrawler Soban 18:27, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Hmmn. Not a small thing, imo. My short story: let's leave it for now.
Long story: Lots of things (see table below) don't try to kill you and are not counted as allies for the purposes of skills affecting allies or attributes affected by allies. However, when players use ally in-game, they seem to mean: green dots not listed in the party window that fight with the party. That's more specific than they don't try to kill you. On the other hand, the current phrasing is easier (and more fun) to remember and won't steer readers far away from a more accurate (and longer) technically correct description.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:34, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Ally, Foe, Other?[]

I've added this table to compare those things that don't try to kill you. I am sure I have gotten some details wrong; feel free to correct any mistakes.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:34, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Tries to kill
Toon Description Compass Examples Notes Classification
Foe They try to kill you Red dot Gray X.png Gray X.png Foe
Does not try to kill
Toon Description Compass Examples Notes Classification
Party member Listed in the party window Green dot Players, heroes, hench Gray X.png Party member
Pet Charmed animal companion Green triangle Mister Bo Jingles Affected by some party affects, but not all Ally
Foe-to-be Not attackable until triggering event Green dot Some charr in CoF Can't be attacked (yet); ally is counter-intuitive term Empty.PNG
Party window ally #1 Listed in the party window; fight with party Green... Mhenlo in Nahpui Gray X.png Ally
Party window ally #2 Listed in party window; annoy party (no fighting) Green... Shandra in SoO Ally (for Paragon energy); nothing for other purposes Ally
Mini Miniature pet No dot Mini Polar Bear! Ally ; cannot be interacted with. Empty.PNG
Accompanying Non-party NPCs NPCs that follow party; not listed in window Green... Ghostly Heroes in crystal dez Not affected by skills (foe/party) Empty.PNG
Non-accompanying Non-party NPCs NPCs that do not follow party Green... Non-chosen in the Wilds Not affected by skills (foe/party) Empty.PNG
I took the liberty to change the notes on minipet, I am quite sure they are not affected by Leadership..
Anyways, the table looks good, I like it :) EM Signature.jpg ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:57, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
According to GWW: "The game treats Miniature Pets as allies: they are affected by skill effects ..., they boost skills that increase in power through the number of allies within range (e.g. Leader's Comfort), and they contribute to energy gain due to Leadership. Like many allies, minipets cannot draw aggro. (So, gonna change it back in the least for now.)   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:39, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
I know ally is indeed a counterintuitive term for foe-to-be, but they often are allies in terms of the game mechanics (as per Cold as Ice) until becoming hostile, and as you can cast spells that affect allies on them, I would say it's worth noting that it is counterintuitive but still true in a certain sense. Nwash User-Nwash-Eyes.png 18:49, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, thats strange, on this wiki it says: "Although they are ignored by Leadership, miniatures do count as an ally of the owner's party for many skills and can be hit by AoE effects." Well, seems like I will have to test this myself again :P EM Signature.jpg ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 22:22, December 25, 2009 (UTC)
So, I tried it and it seems like the other wiki is wrong. Did someone say "again"? EM Signature.jpg ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:37, December 25, 2009 (UTC)