Talk:Main Page/Archive 1

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

we should talk about how to organize the wiki.

Hi, I'd like to help with the Wiki (I was thinking of starting one myself, but someone pointed this out), maybe we should start by getting as much detail as possible? It can be easily tidied up in the future. Maybe just a note of places, characters, items? - LordBiro

I say, start putting in some information, get it formatted how you want it. The raw information is more important than the formatting at the moment, sure.

- Phil

What if we had our own Column section were anyone can add and write their own guide. -Cirdan

How do you mean? Of course you can write a guide for anything you want. - Phil

I've been thinking about this over night, and I've been looking at the documents that exist on this wiki at the moment, and they aren't very wiki-like. I think this is because there are lots of guides, but not many facts, as you'd expect to find in a wiki. A way to improve this would be to create different types of stubs (which I'm going to try and do now), such as:

  • Location stubs
  • Item stubs
  • Skill stubs
  • Profession stubs
  • Character stubs (for NPC's like Rurik etc.)
  • Mission stubs
  • Creature stubs
  • Monster stubs

Then we can go through the documents that already exist on the site and change any potential article text (i.e. the word Prince Rurik, Orison Of Healing or Ascalon City) into a link to an article. Since the article doesn't exist yet it will link to a blank page. We can then replace those blank pages with stubs. I've started making stubs, and I'll start listing them in Stub Templates. - LordBiro

Birdo: Excellent. I started doing this myself with the skills. - Gravewit

We definately need to get some kind of structure to the main page. Perhaps we'll do some kind of split column like a lot of the other mediawiki-based wikis do., etc.

Hey guys, I turned on image uploading. Use it wisely. - Gravewit

flooded recent changes! sorry![edit source]

Hi Guys, I've been linking to all the skills and locations from the elite skills location page, and I haven't been setting "this is a minor edit", so I've pretty much flooded the recent changes page, sorry about that! - LordBiro

No problem. Re: formatting: I've been adding bits and pieces (started setting up the Mission Guides section) as I've thought of stuff. Should definitely feel free to "fix" information into a better format, especially mine. ;p -nunix/rood

Hehe, I think I'm going to have to go through some of the things I've "stubbed" :)

skill stubs?[edit source]

How do I add skills to the skills catagory? -Cirdan

re: skill stubs[edit source]

hi cirdan, i've been meaning to write how you expand on a stub, but haven't got round to it yet :)

if you edit the page you'll see that there's a line that says {{Skill-stub}}. Leave that in for the time being, then put in any information you like about the skill! One you're done, if you think you have enough information then put in the line [[Category:Skills]] to include it in the Skills category, and take out the bit of text that says {{Skill-stub}}. This will remove the article's "stub" status, and put it into the Skills category :)

alternatively if you don't think you have enough info on the skill yet then you can leave the {{Skill-stub}} there :)

there's no real harm if you do either, if someone disagrees they can easily modify it in the future :)

on another note i've been thinking about whether we could make greater use of templates for some articles. Wikipedia use templates to add information to pages in a standard way. For example, if you look at the pages Beaver and Woodpecker you can see they both have the same little box on the side, the template for which can be found at Taxobox. This would be really useful to have on details about all kinds of things in Guild Wars, most obviously the inhabitants of Guild Wars. I think using templates might help bring together a lot of the pages in this wiki!

- LordBiro

using templates[edit source]

Ok, I gave this templates thing a go, the results can be seen on Resurrect, still working on cleaning it up a bit :) The skill template is pretty useless really, just a small one to test if I understand templates properly :) but still will be useful in tidying up pages - LordBiro

PS. just looking, wikipedia does this in a slightly different way. If i have time tomorrow I will improve on the template so that it can be more easily customised.

Awesome! I like where this is headed. ~ Gravewit

Hi[edit source]

Hi all,

This is Isbot from I found your page because you link to an article written by one of our authors - The PvP guide by Standard AI. I like what you are doing with your site and think you have some good ideas.

I was about to link to your guide to not getting scammed as part of my hint of the day but as I have quite a few regular site visitors I was a little concerned about sending a bunch of people here due to how easy it is to edit and/or change your pages. If this is your format and you are sticking to it with a the more the merrier approach then let me know in this space or via email and I will do my daily hint as planned. If you wish to change security or don't want a bunch of visitors coming in like that then let me know that as well and I will not put up a link to your site. In that case if the person(s) who wrote the scam guide would like to submit it to our site we would love to have it simultaneously on our site as well as this one because I think the information needs to be out there. I personally have never had anyone try to scam me in a Guild Wars trade but I don't doubt that it is happening. You might want to add what the reporting procedures to Anet are if somebody tries to scam you.

Thanks again and I too am working on skills, armor etc lists would love to have more data...

Good Gaming,


Hey isbot :) nice to hear from you! It's up to gravewit, the owner of this wiki, to decide whether you should link to this site, but I don't see any harm. We are currently working on standardizing a lot of pages, but I don't personally think any more people viewing this site would cause a problem. Like I say though, I would wait for a response from Gravewit :) - LordBiro


Re: the scam guide, it was ripped from one of the forum sites (though I can't find the original link which should be cited). I think the wiki is a great place to distribute information like that. If someone places something inappropriate in, the people who observe changes (I do myself) will tweak/remove it.

Re: the skill taxonomy, this is a great format!
-Adam Skinner-

Thanks Adam :) I'm thinking of putting a brief guide up on how to use it properly, so anyone can add one easily. It's pretty straightforward though as I'm sure you've seen :) just a case of getting all the skills in now!

I think maybe we should start making use of the community portal since this place is getting a bit crowded ;)

Anyone who wants to link here is more than welcome to. I've made Adam and Biro sysops, so you guys can help keep the riff raff out if need be! ~ Gravewit

Oh, and by the by, if either of you wanna join up and do some quests or joing my guild, send a whisper to Rojhaz Gravewit. ~ Gravewit

Hey Gravewit, thanks very much :) by the way, if you want to contact me on Guild Wars my name is Lord Biro ;) hehe - LordBiro

Skill Images[edit source]

Hey Gravewit, I noticed the Necro images you uploaded, they are really good quality :) where did you get them from? - LordBiro

From the official site. I ran them through photoshop to cut down the filesize (they were originally jpegs. ew.). It was a pain in the ass uploading them all one by one, that's for sure. Gravewit

ah, fantastic :D i'll get working on some monk skills then ;) good stuff gravewit, i had no idea this minisite existed!!! - (this was meant to be me...) LordBiro

The fansite kit has them all in .docs, but if you open the file up in Microsoft Word and just Save As... HTML, it'll output to an HTML file + folder full of the seperate images. Nunix

Just as a not, I uploaded all the monk skills, but some of them had apostrophes in the file names, so you have to reference them like this: [[Image: Zealot\'s_Fire.png]] - LordBiro

Other Wikis[edit source]


My guild and some members of the Guild Wars Guru community have been working on a wiki as well: . There is no need for more than one wiki, so I'd like to consolidate. Since your site doesn't require namespaces, it would probably be best to move everything here. Any objections or other ideas?

Problems will very quickly arise if multiple wikis pop up, each with their own format and contributors. It slows the progress of everyone. Are there any plans to advertise this and assimilate (or be assimilated by) other wikis across the web (assuming more exist)?

Tanaric 20:39, 18 May 2005 (EST)

I'd suggested as much on the GWG forums. I think it's a great idea to consolidate the GW wikis, regardless of where they're hosted. Adam

Hi Tanaric, yeah this sounds fine (Gravewit is the owner, so it's his call, but i'm farily certain he will be ok with this), i can see how having to use a seperate namespace would be very annoying! I really like your wiki. It seems to have some good guides :) will be good to see them 'merged' with our existing documentation! Although I notice that you seem to tend towards large articles rather than smaller ones, and we have been trying (in most cases) to do the opposite, i.e. a page for every skill, rather than one for simply monk skills or necro skills. I suppose this could have something to do with the namespace though!

Practically speaking, can we assume that it's OK to simply copy and paste any content across, making reference to original authors where necessary? And will a number of editors be moving from your wiki to this one? If so we should perhaps focus our time on completing documentation on standard formatting to avoid any confusion.

As for other wikis, I had planned on starting my own, as I couldn't find any Guild Wars wikis on google. There might well be other wiki's out there, but I don't know how to find them. I think that it's fairly safe to say that if any other Guild Wars wikis do exist they wont be as large as this one, and as long as we make it clear that any information from other wikis is greatly appreciated then I don't think we need to worry about it too much. - LordBiro 22:24, 18 May 2005 (EST)--

I just did a search for wiki on GWG and found the posts you referred to Adam, good stuff :) nice to see you've been advertising ;) hehe.

Adam: Yeah, sorry, should have given you credit. Your comment on GWG was right on the mark, and I'm trying to make it happen.

As far as permission goes, editors here may copy and paste articles, may reformat them, may do anything. In essence, everything Guild Wars–related on the Tanatopia wiki should be treated as if it was hosted here. Reformat it, restructure it, and move it over. I'll make a similar announcement on the Tanatopia wiki: right now, the community supporting it is pretty disjoint compared to this one, so it shouldn't make much difference to them where they're posting. A transitional page for style differences would be good—I haven't read much here, and I haven't written anything here, so I'll leave it up to one of you to write. :)

I only ask that when you empty out a page, throw a link to the corrosponding page/index/category/whatever here, so the users can find the information they're looking for. I'll add an announcement to my wiki telling all my contributors to hold off for a few days, or to come here.

I unfortunately won't be able to do much for the next few days, as I'm boarding a plane to Germany in just a few hours. I'll get as much done as I can.

Tanaric 20:22, 20 May 2005 (EST)

CSS messed up?[edit source]

is it just me or does the css look like its been altered? for some reason the article box is overlapping the sidebar... if anyone wants to edit the css i believe they can create a new stylesheet and modify that, and then once it looks correct replace the existing one with that :) - LordBiro 22:24, 18 May 2005 (EST)

Yep, it's definitely changed. However, I don't know CSS at all, so.. hopefully someone else can tweak it. Nunix

Well it looks like the Monobook.css file has been changed (I think) which is seperate to the one at MediaWiki:Monobook.css (I also think). So I dont know if we can change it! hehe :) - LordBiro 05:52, 19 May 2005 (EST)

Clarifying CSS[edit source]

Just to clarify, to modify Monobook.css, rather than touch anything in the css file itself you can simply add some CSS to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. - LordBiro 03:56, 19 May 2005 (EST)

RE: Merging, Et. Al.[edit source]

I see no problem with adding your stuff here. I welcome more content. It's a community effort.

Especially since "merging" is just a matter of where you decide to post content, so.. not like you need a special badge or anything. It's just, you know, a wiki. ;p Nunix

Yeah, we definitely need to get more of a solid game plan for how things are going to be organized. I think Skills are a pretty good example of how we should have things work. Templates are good. But we surely need to get things sorted before this gets bigger than any of us can contain. So, I am open to suggestions, more :Talk page threads would be useful. Gravewit

The Front Page / Credits[edit source]

Why is the front page protected? I'd like to add the pre-Searing guide to it, as I think it's valuable for new players. Secondly, why is the Guild Guide credited to Gravewit? While I respect the fact that he wrote the original article, there have been other minor editors. Furthermore, I am loathe to add my own insights, as they would be credited to Gravewit on the front page. Perhaps there is a way to tastefully, publically thank Gravewit for his work, but wiki really doesn't lend itself to this sort of thing. —Tanaric 02:33, 25 May 2005 (EST)

You make a fair point Tanaric, the reason the Main Page is protected is to avoid vandalism. Ideally there should really be a template from which the main page takes its content, which is not protected, which acts as a halfway house between having a protected main page and a non-protected one. I believe this is what wikipedia do.
As for credits, I agree that articles should not really be credited in such away. Perhaps a "featured contributor" might be useful... but that might not have the desired effect :) I don't know the answer, but I do agree that crediting articles to one person (statically) when several people have contributed is not very useful. It almost persuades people not to carry out minor edits, since they won't get credit for it. I know that's taking this to extremes, but I'm just making an elaborate point. In summary, I agree. - LordBiro/Talk 03:44, 25 May 2005 (EST)
I see you removed your credit Gravewit, good stuff :) LordBiro/Talk 05:54, 28 May 2005 (EST)

1) re: credit: pretty sure this was simply a matter of one person writing the bulk of it, posting it, and then some edits slowly trickling in. 2) re: guide: the link has been added, but it VERY SERIOUSLY TREMENDOUSLY needs to be broken up into component articles and sub-articles. It's way too long right now. That's my project for the weekend if no one else tackles it first. ;p Nunix

Photics' Wiki[edit source] has launched a wiki. You can find it linked from the homepage. To put it bluntly, it's not very good -- whatever software they're using pales in comparison to MediaWiki (no category support means they're maintaining indexes by hand!), and there's very little unique content.

I posted angrily there, but... uh... I might have been a little less than diplomatic. Seriously though, a move so shortsighted and anti-community from somebody who is supposed to be a community leader bothers me.

Anyone have any plans? The exposure Photics' wiki will get just by virtue of being his will greatly overshadow ours. Yet his wiki platform sucks (registration required, even!), and seems a grandiose self-promotion. Tanaric 07:01, 5 Jun 2005 (EST)

I don't know, are we getting the address out there? Advertising on forums, 'cetra? I know I don't do a lot of posting elsewhere.. although a gamefaqs board post would probably be a good start. I'm not -really- concerned about "competition" because it's really a case where if one site's clearly got more/better organised info.. people'll go there. Also, need to absolutely submit it as a fansite to the community listing; I think mostly that means just pasting the ArenaNet logo all over the place? Nunix

Yeah, I mean, we've done a whole lot of work here (especially everyone but me!), I'm not worried. So long as you guys keep doing the awesome work you have been, we've got no problems.

I think more grass-roots advertising on some boards is good (that's what I did when we first started, and I'm sure the regulars here found it via guild hall or the other big site), but it also means we've gotta be more vigilant in keeping the spammers and assholes out of our nice little resource.

Now that we're pushing 300(!!) articles, I think we're just about ready to submit to the GW fansite listing. I'm still working on the site logo, but it's coming along. There will most likely be a domain soon, also. Gravewit

I'm quite concerned about this as well, for the same reasons as those listed above. I think we should continue to push this site as hard as we can. I suggest we start a project detailing what needs to be done for us to fall into the Official Fansite and Elite Fansite categories on I am sure we are capable of it, we have a team of very dedicated admins, and an increasing number of involved editors. And overall we haven't had to deal with very much in the way of vandalism or anything.
Gravewit, could we perhaps share ideas for logos on a specific page? Would be good to see everyones ideas! :) LordBiro/Talk 10:47, 5 Jun 2005 (EST)
Oh for sure. Any ideas or mockups or whatnot are welcome. How about GuildWiki:Logo or something similar? Gravewit
Sounds good to me :) LordBiro/Talk 11:46, 5 Jun 2005 (EST)

What happened to merging? I took a look over there and they're updating and generally wikiing forward. --Fyren 21:12, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)

They never agreed to merge Fyren. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 21:19, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)

The only wiki that merged with GuildWiki, to my knowledge, was my guild's. We provided GuildWiki with the pre-Searing guide and the Massive Item Listing. Though, now that I think about it, I don't think any of the other editors came here besides me. They weren't too happy about the merge, probably because I didn't give them a say in the matter. :) —Tanaric 22:28, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)

That's a shame Tanaric, is there no way you could persuade them to help out here? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 23:52, 29 Jun 2005 (EST)
At the moment they're just a skill, quest, collector, and enemy listing, so it's not a huge loss. Has someone asked if we can use their content? --Fyren 00:11, 30 Jun 2005 (EST)
Biro: Erm... probably not. I linked to GuildWiki all over our guild's wiki (...), but the motivation kinda died out when I moved the content here.
Fyren: It's a huge loss because it's a division of labor. However, since all this stuff is property of ArenaNet, I'm pretty sure we could take it all, no problem. Any lawyers in the crowd? —Tanaric 01:13, 30 Jun 2005 (EST)
As far as I can tell from what (I think, heh) is their change log, they've got two people and a couple others that have done a little in the last month. --Fyren 01:28, 30 Jun 2005 (EST)

Fansite Status[edit source]

In order to determine how we are doing with regard to applying for fansite status I've created a GuildWiki:Fansite Status page to discuss how we are doing. Please have a look and get involved :) LordBiro/Talk 08:12, 7 Jun 2005 (EST)

ease of use[edit source]

So, I mocked up the "new contributions" and "add a new skill" articles (see the green box on main page) to assist with what's being talked about above re: name-recognition; specifically, making how-to-contribute information very easy and simple to find and parse. It's wiki! Works best when lots of people come in and do stuff!

Are these enough, what needs to be improved, 'cetra? Also think about if anything needs to be significantly reorganised: are the main page article links the RIGHT ones, or should things be tweaked? Things like a link to all our style/formatting guides should be on front page, I think. Stuff like that. Nunix

Hey Nunix, I was just thinking, a How to Help page would be useful. It could tie everything together. Start by saying what needs doing, then quickstart guides such as your "how to write a skill in 30 seconds" and then more detail about standards. LordBiro/Talk 11:46, 5 Jun 2005 (EST)
exxxxcellent! Made sure that got into the help-box on Main Page and tweaked stuff in that section a little. Still needs some work.. the article's a great start! Nunix

more restructuring[edit source]

I tweaked Main Page a bit; we had links to the same article from different places, links to articles which were depreciated and no links to the NEW article, stuff that was completely unused and could be folder into something else, etc.

  1. "Featured Guides" is now "Quick Links". This is completely an ease-of-use box for things that people would probably want to get to right away and that might normally take several steps to get to but that you'd want to access to easy. And since we're avoiding "Long Guide Pages" the previous box purpose didn't quite seem appropriate. ;) They can just be found In-Depth.
  2. "Maps and Locations" are gone. Some of it got moved into Quick Links. Most of it actually, I think...
  3. Some stuff - especially in General and In-depth - was moved as a link into a higher-level article (collectors, specifically, got done this way; probably others).
  4. Renamed "Help Us" to "Helping Out"; I don't like "Helping Out" that much (primarily because we have a "How to Help" article and I hate re-using words so close together like that), but we should probably get away from language that suggests standard "site admin" stance. It's wiki! We want strange people to come in and type a few lines! Anyone have nicer box heading?

Better? Worse? Meh? Nunix

I like it :) Good stuff! LordBiro/Talk 08:20, 7 Jun 2005 (EST)

'Jargon' vs 'Slang & Terminology'[edit source]

Currently 'Slang & Terminology' is a [:Category:Slang & Terminology|category], but the main page links to 'Jargon', which does not yet exist as a category. Should we change the main page to link to slang & terminology or move the documents from to jargon? LordBiro/Talk 08:23, 7 Jun 2005 (EST)

Ahh, didn't know about the other category! I'd just change the main page link then, and make sure it's an active category. Nunix

Ads[edit source]

So, how do you guys feel about ads? I was considering sticking it in the bottom left, under the toolbox. A single google ad, or possibly a "your ad here" type of thing, so we can have more control over what goes there. It would be the size of the toolbox, not much bigger. This will be used to pay for more hosting space, of course, and the domain name. I'll keep full-disclosure on anything that comes in. Nobody's going to be getting rich off this, of course : ) Gravewit

I feel very strongly against ads. I would gladly pay to help with the server costs rather than use ads. LordBiro/Talk 02:56, 8 Jun 2005 (EST)
Maybe a tip jar donations bin thing. I'm not sure. It'd be a fun experiment to see if a free (and awesome) guide like this can grow and sustain itself without getting bloated and ad-riddled. Gravewit
I second Biro's statement. Tanaric
No, I agree that ads are a bad thing, unless done extremely carefully. I do think a tip jar might be nice. If this thing were completely self-sufficient, I'd take it as a great victory for gamers everywhere. Who needs Prima! This would also allow me to accelerate the switch over to it's own dedicated hosting, seperate from my own site, and give email addresses, which might be nice. Gravewit
So toss us a tipjar, or your email address, so we can send you money. :) Tanaric 03:08, 11 Jun 2005 (EST)
I think the "tip jar" might look better if it more resembled the link on the hrwiki main page. LordBiro/Talk 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (EST)
Well, I've done my good deed for the day. It'll at least register the domain name (I recommend , as they're cheap and have always given me great service). Tanaric 07:03, 13 Jun 2005 (EST)
Already done Tanaric (well kind of), see Guildwiki talk:Domain Name :) LordBiro/Talk 09:24, 13 Jun 2005 (EST)

Search Box[edit source]

Is there any way to change the search box so that is acts like a normal search engine instead of acting like Google's "I'm feeling lucky" button. For example, if you search for "elite" you get sent to a useless stub page instead of getting a list of all the pages related to "elite".

yes there is. instead of clicking the "Go" button, usethe "Search" button instead. pressing Enter will by default use the "Go" function. Nuble 16:07, 10 Jun 2005 (EST)

If you type in 'Elite' and get taken to a stub Elite, then think about redirecting this page to something like Elite_Skills_Location (which I'm doing now). This way in the future people won't be so frustrated :)
The reason the wiki acts like this is that searching through a database is intensive, and so it will try to avoid having to perform a search if a page with the same name as your search term already exists. Afaik all MediaWiki sites use the search function like this. LordBiro/Talk 21:41, 10 Jun 2005 (EST)

Is it really using that much cpu power? This is the opposite of the expected behaviour of a search box. One of the tenets of good user interface design is to never surprise the user. This might seem like a trivial problem now, but as we fill up the Wiki it will only get worse. Consider: "Shield Stance", "Illusion of Weakness", "Echo" versus "Arcane Echo", "Smite Hex", any of the "Energy ..." spells such as "Energy Tap".

Redirects only make the problem worse. "Illusion" redirects to "Illusion Magic". This hides spells like "Illusion of ...". Will we redirect "Earth" to "Earth Magic"? Then say goodbye to easy searching for "Armor of Earth". I know this probably seems silly to most of us. However, we are the people editing the Wiki. Of course we know where to find things. The problem is first-time users. People are impatient and quick to judge. One or two failed searches is all it takes to make someone decide that the wiki "sucks".

Well, in fairness, if you search for something, it stands to reason that you are looking for what you searched for. If you search for "Elite", odds are, you're looking for information on "Elite", which would be on Elite. 99% of the time, this is what the user wants. It is exactly the expected behavior. You can't expect the search function to make up for a user not knowing what they are looking for. Searching for "Elite skills", on the other hand, turns up just what you want. Remember: Go takes you to the page if it exists, Search performs a full text search. This is a Good Thing. It's like Google's "Feeling Lucky" button. Gravewit

"Redirects only make the problem worse." In that case do you think it would be better to remove these redirects? This is a serious question. The reason Illusion redirects to Illusion Magic is (I think) because someone moved Illusion to Illusion magic some time ago. Since Illusion means nothing really, how about just deleting the page?
On another note, try going to wikipedia and "searching" for "guild". You are not presented with a page showing all articles containing the word "guild" (if you press enter in the search box), but rather you are taken to the page Wikipedia:Guild. You don't see many people saying that wikipedia "sucks" ;P I really think the search box is low on this wiki's list of priorities. LordBiro/Talk 06:04, 11 Jun 2005 (EST)

Fansite Status[edit source]

We discussed earlier the steps that need to be taken to ensure that the GuildWiki can qualify for Fansite Status. I've started GuildWiki:Fansite Status to formalise these steps. They are taken directly from the Guild Wars site, so please don't edit the 1st level in the list, but feel free to add sub-levels, as I've started doing already :) LordBiro/Talk 23:26, 11 Jun 2005 (EST)

Clean URL using .htaccess[edit source]

Please look into using a clean URL. I think you can do this with .htaccess.

Current URL


Clean URL


Adraeus 09:37, 14 Jun 2005 (EST)

Yeah, it can be done. I don't think it's a big deal atm really. works, which is good enough for me :) LordBiro/Talk 10:18, 14 Jun 2005 (EST)

IE Display Error[edit source]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, or whether this is the best place to do so, but the bottom bar (with the CC license, MediaWiki logo, and ArenaNet logo) floats over the text in IE 6.000.2900.2180... . I use Firefox at home, but at work I'm required to use this browser.

Some CSS/rendering bug also makes inputs very difficult to select -- their clickable area is reduced to 1 pixel or so. Tanaric 18:21, 15 Jun 2005 (EST)

  • Hi Tanaric, I've just opened up IE, and yeah I have the same problem. There are so many css entries in the html that I'm not going to begin to diagnose the problem, but since wikipedia doesn't have this problem it's probably a change that gravewit's made that has had some adverse effect. So I think this is really up to Gravewit ;) LordBiro/Talk 20:55, 15 Jun 2005 (EST)

Well, if it's IE 6 I'll look into it. But that's as far back as I go, in terms of trying to make things work. IE 5 can suck a fat one. Gravewit 02:00, 16 Jun 2005 (EST)

Can't seem to find the problem here. The CSS is totally fine, so it must be some IE-specific bug. That makes me want to work on it A LOT less, but I'll continue the search. Gravewit 10:40, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)

Uploaded screenshot to Image:DisplayError.PNG. I don't know how to merely make a link, instead of including it here, so I'll leave the honor to someone else. :) Tanaric 15:48, 17 Jun 2005 (EST)

There is a div <div class="visualClear"></div>. The CSS at work on this is .visualClear { clear: both; }. This is used to make sure that the footer clears both the left and right hand columns. It obviously isn't working :) Since this works on Wikipedia, could the changes to the GuildWiki stylesheet(s) be rolled back, at least temporarily? I don't want to think we are alienating the majority of web users (despite being disgusted that they use IE ;P). <LordBiro>/<Talk> 09:21, 18 Jun 2005 (EST)
"rolling back" the css will be tougher than I thought, but I will give it a try. Also, as a side note, according to my traffic logs, half the users to the wiki use firefox. That makes me smile. Of course, the other half use IE. But still. Gravewit 04:32, 21 Jun 2005 (EST)
Wow :D that's a huge proportion! Good stuff GuildWikians! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 19:16, 21 Jun 2005 (EST)

A workaround: change the skin when you must browse with IE. I'm using Cologne Blue until this is fixed. —Tanaric 22:18, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

News Czar[edit source]

One of the requirements for an elite fansite is up to date news. I reckon we need a News Czar here on the wiki. Someone to update the Current Events and Community Portal with fansite news, and so on. Gravewit 02:55, 16 Jun 2005 (EST)

We'd probably need to move some of our front page stuff out of the way and include some news there. Otherwise, it'd be too hidden to be worthwhile. Tanaric 02:57, 16 Jun 2005 (EST)
I don't think we need someone with a specific role in this capacity; it's fairly easy to copy and paste any new news from the site to this one. I've added my input to this discussion on the GuildWiki:Fansite Status page.
I also think we should take steps to get the GuildWiki listed as an official fansite before we stress too much about elite status. This is an important issue and should be discussed, but it seems to me that, while we currently seem to meet the requirements outlined in GuildWiki:Fansite Status for official status, we haven't taken any steps to get the wiki listed. Perhaps GuildWiki:Fansite Status/Official Status Letter would be useful? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 06:07, 18 Jun 2005 (EST)
Created a draft. Look over it, edit it, trash it, whatever. I'd like to see this listed, as, as far as we've gotten, we've still got a ways to go and more help would help. --Kathryn Maulhammer 16:58, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

Usage[edit source]

Wow, folks! We're on pace to push 5 gigs of graphics and text through the wiki this month. That's a lot of free info! We're averaging about 40,000 pageviews a day. Most impressive fellows. Gravewit 11:03, 21 Jun 2005 (EST)

Archives[edit source]

I moved a lot of dead conversation to the Talk:Main Page/Archive 1 page. This page was getting a little too large (34KB). —Tanaric 01:21, 30 Jun 2005 (EST)

How to Request Article Deletion[edit source]

I made the delete template based of Wikipedia's deletebecause. I don't think that we need a voting system for deletion yet like Wikipedia. I made the template since there are some pages incorrectly named like (my) "Caravan In Trouble" and a correct version, "Caravan in Trouble," exists with content. Wikipedia has a "candiate for deletion" category which I removed, someone can readd that to the template if they think it's better, but the below seems sufficient.

So I guess the way to go about requestion deletion is to add {{delete|<reason goes here>}} to the top of the article that should be deleted, leaving the content otherwise intact. Merge content into a properly named article, if there is one. Check to see if anything links to the article and fix the links if necessary.

Anyone can look at

to see what's been flagged. Admins would look there, check the reason given, see if there's reasonable dissent on the talk page for the article to be deleted, and delete the article, wait for more input, or remove the delete template.

GuildWiki:Criteria for deletion is just a placeholder right now. Feel free to edit it or the delete template.

As always, I vote against any unnecessary complication... just delete the page if it's unneccessary. —Tanaric 05:25, 1 Jul 2005 (EST)
Because admins have to do it, unless I'm horribly wrong. --Fyren 05:39, 1 Jul 2005 (EST)
Didn't realize they had locked it down. In that case, I think they should unlock page deletion. How is deleting a page any more harmful than wiping it blank via an edit? Both are easily revertable in the cases of vandalism and overzealousness.
Don't listen to anything I say. I figured everyone could delete pages in MediaWiki, because I could on my installation of it... on which I'm an admin. The other wiki software I've used in the past let anyone delete. —Tanaric 21:30, 1 Jul 2005 (EST)
I don't think you can undelete pages (at least as a non-admin). I can't see the histories of deleted pages. I don't know if it's recoverable like usual vandalism. All these things are why I did this. If I'm wrong, then I would agree it's unnecessary. --Fyren 21:41, 1 Jul 2005 (EST)
Admins can undelete pages and restore the entire edit history. It is completely recoverable. If there were a way to configure MediaWiki to allow all users to delete, I'd like to see it happen. I'm sure Biro will argue with me, though. ;) —Tanaric 21:44, 1 Jul 2005 (EST)
Lol, not at all! I don't mind anyone being able to do anything, since admins can easily rollback changes and block offenders. However, I'm not sure it's possible. If anyone finds out I'm sure we could suggest it to Gravewit. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 22:09, 1 Jul 2005 (EST)

Locations on the main page?[edit source]

Can we please add a link to the locations list (this article) in the main page in the same section as bestiary and henchmen? I think people need to find locations a lot more than they need to figure out runes or henchmen. --Karlos 05:52, 6 Jul 2005 (EST)

Good point, although Category:Location stubs is just a stub category, meaning it contains incomplete articles. The real location category is Category:Locations and is nowhere near as full! I think what really needs doing is to put those stubs into one of the following categories:

  1. Cities (the big golden hexagon icons)
  2. Outposts (the small golden rounded hexagon icons)
  3. Missions (the shields)
  4. Arenas (the big red hexagon icons)
  5. Explorable Areas (such as Regent Valley)
  6. Hall of Heroes Areas (i just copied this from my original post on Category_talk:Locations but I have no idea what I meant by it initially... anyone else...?)

Once we've done that we can link to a more complete locations list from the main page. Even a category of stubs in the correct structure (i.e. you click on locations, you click on cities, you click on ascalon city and get a stub) would be better than what we have. If you want to get to it straight away then thats great. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 07:44, 6 Jul 2005 (EST)

Wikipedia[edit source]

Just wanted to mention that somebody added us to the Guild Wars Wikipedia article. Good call, whoever you are; I was heading there to do it myself. :) —Tanaric 03:33, 7 Jul 2005 (EST)

No problem. --Fyren 04:06, 7 Jul 2005 (EST)
Wub Fyren! <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:42, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)

Anyone else find Guild Wars getting slightly boring?[edit source]

Makes me wonder how long I am going to play this game/will I ever have a life? :( 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)