Talk: Main Page/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Signatures

I just made my user page. I've been using wiki's for a while and signing but... I see people that sign and have like a little picture next tot heir signatures. How do i do that? All i can do is Fire Tock 06:45, 23 September 2007 (CEST) or Fire Tock 06:45, 23 September 2007 (CEST). I can't get it to be RIght next to my name.Fire Tock 06:45, 23 September 2007 (CEST)

First off, you should upload whatever picture you want to use under the name of "firetock-signature.jpg" or something similar, so you can link it to your userpage "#REDIRECT [[User:Fire Tock]]". Then, edit your signature (see preferences at the top right), to say something like -[[User:Fire Tock|Fire Tock]][[Image:firetock-signature.jpg]]. Lastly, make sure to check the "raw signature" checkbox in preferences, right below the textbox where you just entered the signature. –Ichigo724 15:55, 23 September 2007 (CEST)

Ty it works.Fire Tock 18:02, 23 September 2007 (CEST)

can some one add the norn tournament to this site. ~ IP Adress Person

We're planning on making a category for those ~ ʑʌɱʌɳəəɺɨɳɳ(contribs) 04:31, 28 September 2007 (CEST)

Man that would be so great if pvx implemented like a "Sort by proffesion" column so that if we want a build for ele we clikc on "Elementalist" and it gives us all of the buildsKlomi 15:14, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

We sort of do - the links on the main page are sorted alphabetically, so just look for the Es. The only ones that share a first letter are the Monk and the Mesmer, but it's fairly easy to tell them apart. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 17:51, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

We also have a page for each profession type with a list of that professions builds. However those pages list all builds, good, bad, and untested, rather than only good. єяøהħ 19:02, 4 October 2007 (CEST)

Spelling

In the news section, the link Main Page leads to Main page, not Main Page. This leads to a broken link. Please change. Dragnmn talk 23:33, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

Uh... which? -Auron 23:38, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

Resolved. *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:29, 6 October 2007 (CEST)

new build layout

like it. - Y0_ich_halt 21:47, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

I prefer the old looks moar. --84.24.206.123 21:48, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

its needs a picture for no profesion slots or maybe its just the one i looked at idk(maybe my crap comp too)§Ω☼Vorrax☼Ω§ 21:52, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

and it should say "any profession", not "no profession"... - Y0_ich_halt 21:55, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

no i ment that where it should be any proffesion where the proffesions picture thingy(shield for wars flame for ele etc.) theres just an error box thing where theres no picture to load or something like that but its probably my computer(since its crap and cant load anything)§Ω☼Vorrax☼Ω§ 21:59, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

Takes some time to update skin and no profession thing is a small error in one huge update. gcardinal 22:08, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

nothing wrong there for me o.O - Y0_ich_halt 22:09, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

like i said its prob my crap computer and yeh i guess the huge update thing is bound to have problems just pointing it out though§Ω☼Vorrax☼Ω§ 22:20, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

Personally, I don't really like the use of #F0F0FF for the background-color of the <pvxbig></pvxbig>-tags. It looks really, really faint to me:

random text	← #FAFAFA (currently)
random text	← #E0E0E0 (comparison)

I do like the new icon for this wiki though! --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:47, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

It all depends on the user screens, and most gamers don't have the light/brightness level of monitors at max so all colors below #E0E0E0 looks almost as they was white. There is always people with old CRT or who hit Auto-Detect on brand new 21" LCD and connects with old VGA cabel from 386. Both on my screen at home, at work and on my laptop colors looks as they sould look. However if to many people are having problems - we can change. gcardinal 20:24, 15 October 2007 (CEST)

While i love the new design i have one question to ask-about the links-now all the stuff on the build box goes to the offical wiki (which is fine) however does that mean that all of the [[GW:blahblah|blah]] tags now go to the offical one or are they still the unofficial one?PheNaxKian (T/c) 23:01, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

when i did it went to the official for me§Ω☼Vorrax☼Ω§ 23:09, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

k i'll do a quick test here then before i go for the night. elesPheNaxKian (T/c) 23:12, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

Wow... wiki looks so modern now! Me likes. — Abedeus 23:26, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

Absolutely love the changes, great job. — Hyperion` // talk 00:13, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

Skin

PvX wiki got a new makeover.. I like it :D -ДтL™ 23:55, 9 October 2007 (CEST)

The new purple of visited links is kind of bright, but I guess I'll just have to get used to it. I like the rest of it though. :D Lord Belar 00:17, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

yeah, me loves, too. finally we have a totally unique layout. - Y0_ich_halt 13:59, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

I would have preferred that they added the new skin so that you can choose between the old one and new one in my preferences, but instead they did this over the old one, and I prefered the old one...but anyways. RustyTheMesmer 01:56, 15 November 2007 (CET)

Watchlist

Is there like a way to make it so you can be notified if any builds are moved into say "Great AB"

cause I tried watching it and all I get are when someone changes something like some text on the actual page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brood Star (contribs) .

That's all you need to do, and just watch for notifications that the testing tag is changed to a great tag. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 05:08, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

There's no way to be notified whenever pages are added to a specific category, as far as I know. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 06:46, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

Pages are only added to a category when the content of that page is added to include the code that adds the page to the category. No, you can't watch a category to see when pages are added to and removed from it, but you can watch a page to see when it's added to or removed from a category. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 06:51, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

Guildwiki

Why have we abbandoned this site that is so obviously cool to GWW? --- Ressmonkey (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

Move to Wikia. Gcardinal is rather upset at the move and feels morally opposed to Gravewit for this reason. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 04:30, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

I have absolutely no idea what you just said, but I think it has something to do with that the original maker of this site doesnt like Guildwiki's source which it draws from, like the Microsoft Foundation Code, but for wikiperia. Either that, or I know nothing at all... --- Ressmonkey (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

Guildwiki:Wikia Move <- It is of questionable legality, because Gravewit is making money from essentially selling that which he does not own. Gcardinal doesn't like that. --Wizardboy777(T/C) 04:46, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

Wow, where have you been, man? The Wikia move is the talk of the wiki community right now! —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 04:47, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

and not only on the inofficial one... - Y0_ich_halt 13:58, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

So the site (PvXWiki) has kind of become independant from originally being a fork of Guildwiki. I say this because all the links now seem to go to GWW instead of them going to Guildwiki.--§ Eloc § 15:37, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

That's only partialy true while all the stuff centered around the build box thing links to GWW if you use the [[GW:blahblah|blah]] it still goes to the unofficial one... so maybe that needs changing?PheNaxKian (T/c) 16:56, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

afaik someone's going through and changing all [[gw: to [[gww: that's the link to us - Y0_ich_halt 17:09, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

we've a;ready had this conversation here, and Hhhippo has said that changing the link is as quick as hitting a button (post before last), so we wouldn't have to go round changing them individually, we would jsut change the coding to make [[GW: go to th official wiki instead of the unofficial, hich would change all the links all ready made....(i think) PheNaxKian (T/c) 17:58, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

Sorry, I'm kinda a noob, but which website is GW and which one is GWW?Panda Man 06:08, 5 November 2007 (CET)

GW is GuildWiki, GWW is Guild Wars Wiki (official Wiki). *Defiant Elements* +talk 06:12, 5 November 2007 (CET)

Logo

Love the new logo (and some of the new layout >_<)PheNaxKian (T/c) 18:06, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

Poll: Linking to the Official Wiki

I'm conducting a simple poll (all I want is a simple yes or no -- discussion can go on elsewhere), regarding whether we should switch the "gw:" prefix so that it links to the official Wiki rather than GuildWiki. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:41, 10 October 2007 (CEST)

Support Switching Links:

• — Hyperion` // talk 00:53, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• --§ Eloc § 01:57, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• agree with frv (Which was Wikia should not receive any traffic from us.)- Y0_ich_halt 15:54, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• — Skuld 16:54, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• ۷ïεדИǺмЄŠЄ. 08:27, 14 October 2007 (CEST)
• gcardinal 20:05, 15 October 2007 (CEST)
• (your signature here)

Oppose Switching Links:

• —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 23:51, 10 October 2007 (CEST)
• Lord Belar 23:52, 10 October 2007 (CEST)
• –Ichigo724 23:56, 10 October 2007 (CEST)
• ▲в®ỉ₪ 07:54, 14 October 2007 (CEST)
• --DarkEnzanArikado (talk*pvxcontribs) 00:15, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• Antiarchangel 02:02, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• -Auron 02:15, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• — Skakid9090 03:20, 11 October 2007 (CEST) don't like wikia but GW > GWW atm for info.
• -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 03:39, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• --- Ressmonkey (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 04:15, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• Dragnmn talk 15:23, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• Shido 17:48, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• --Mala 18:28, 12 October 2007 (CEST)
• I don't like Wikia much, either, but GuildWiki is still a much better resource than GWW --Wizardboy777(T/C) 02:43, 16 October 2007 (CEST)
• Entoros 21:55, 24 October 2007 (CEST)
• Skill descriptions are much better on unofficial wiki. GWW is missing the discussions and much of the notes, which are really helpful. Irkm Desmet 13:24, 26 October 2007 (CEST)
• No wai, the info on guildwiki is much better! --mangleD(T/C) 20:51, 4 November 2007 (CET)
• Linkin Park 21:07, 11 November 2007 (CET)
• Darkstone Knight (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2007 (CET)
• frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 21:15, 13 November 2007 (CET)
• Riff 04:17, 14 November 2007 (CET)
• Devintomb1 +talk 16:01, 15 November 2007 (CET)
• Victoryisyours 21:58, 15 November 2007 (CET)
• Swiftslash \\ (contributions *sandbox) 23:38, 15 November 2007 (CET)
• Grobie 23:01, 19 November 2007 (CET)
• --‎FireTock 15:25, 8 December 2007 (CET) The only thing I like about the official wiki. Is the armor info, and the recent updates come so quickly. That's it. Other then that, it has no info about anything, and it's not as old as the orrigional Guild Wiki.
• [Kumpeet.talk.contribs] 15:55, 8 December 2007 (CET)
• Guildwiki has more discussion and information. I would go with Guildwars Wiki if it had the kind of discussions and information. It just isn't as established as Guildwiki.--Relyk 03:28, 11 December 2007 (CET)

Neutral:

• §Ω☼Vorrax☼Ω§ 23:55, 10 October 2007 (CEST)
• ʑʌɱʌɳəəɺɨɳɳ(contribs) 04:05, 11 October 2007 (CEST)
• Both are decent, the offical one is alot better organised and layed out, however the Guildwiki one contains much more helpful information. --Peter 20:44, 16 October 2007 (CEST)
• – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 22:09, 24 October 2007 (CEST) Suggest to wait and see where the GuildWiki community will find it's new home.

Comments on the above poll

While most of the community may be at Guild Wars Wiki, GuildWiki has much better skill articles than GWW as of now. Antiarchangel 02:02, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

Guildwiki just has better talk pages. :) See gw:Talk:Defensive Anthem. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 02:14, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

Consolidating our links to all lead to one wiki might be nice, but the ability to use inter-wiki links for both Guildwiki and GWW is very important. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 02:14, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

On a side note, we would still have an inter-wiki link for GuildWiki, we would just redirect gw: to GWW. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:06, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

In that case, consistency ftw. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 04:13, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

someone go neutral im lonely lol§Ω☼Vorrax☼Ω§ 02:31, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

Goodwiki versus Ginormously Gay Wiki has been a hot topic before (see /Archive 4). Most of us come from Guild Wiki and have an attachment to there. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 02:58, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

And that attachment is why I feel so betrayed by it now, hence my leaving that wiki and my support for this poll. Wikia to me is like one giant troll. And you know what the templates say; don't feed them, make 'em starve (by forsaking their wiki). I don't particularly like the official wiki either but it at least hasn't sold out. — Hyperion` // talk 03:42, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

To be fair, how can you sell out if you always have been owned by a commercial entity? --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 03:46, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

Yeah, Official Wiki has been sold-out since the moment it was conceived. I would rather Wikia than ANet. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 03:48, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

Logic:

1. Gwiki has more info, when GWW has more info we can link there.

My 2 cents. — Skakid9090 03:49, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

(edit conflict)Edru: Well yeah true, but you know what I mean. I will rephrase; Guildwiki has sold out, therefore I now prefer official wiki. If someone is linked to Gwiki from here and clicks on an ad there, Wikia gets money (inadvertenly because of here). I don't like that idea. And on the plus side, the official wiki's skill pages are a tad flashier, lol. Grinch: Why would you rather Wikia get money than the maker of the game we are here for? — Hyperion` // talk 03:53, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

I understand why we don't want to link to GuildWiki, but why change the prefix over it? Besides, there are some pages where GuildWiki, unfortunately, does things better than the official wiki, so there may be times when it's appropriate to link there. See PvX:IWL. Outdated, but the spirit is appropriate, I think. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 03:56, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

Because Wikia has all sorts of wikis I use. Anet doesn't get money for their wiki (they lose money, remember? No ads) so if they shut it down, they would have more money to spend. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 03:57, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

Point taken, but there's no chance it'll be shut down. And Armond I think if we were gonna link to the official wiki but didn't change the prefixes then we would have to change every previous link made with the gw prefix to gww. Which would take a ridiculous amount of time. I think that logic does prevail for now though, and Skakid gets teh winrar. As IWL says we're not allied with either and just want the best information. — Hyperion` // talk 04:01, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

The point of changing the prefix is so we don't have to go through each and every single page on this site and exchange gw: for gww: or some such. We'd still have an inter-wiki link that redirected to GuildWiki, we'd just have to come up with another. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:14, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

Tbh I'd be willing to take the time to go through the builds to see what articles need to switch to what. If we want to link primarily to GWW from now on, cardinal or hhhippo can make a bot for it - no point in making the linking procedure counter-intuitive. It's confusing as hell for new members and difficult for the rest of us. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 21:00, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

I would be firmly opposed to such a bot running. Authors of a build can link to whichever wiki we want; there is no "primary" wiki. We are, now, a separate entity, and shouldn't really care about either one too much.

Those of you who think GWiki is bad just because of gravewit's sellout; I find GWW to be a hell of a lot more obnoxious. It has the current resident idiots and even the idiots that managed to become sysop (quite a number of these, scarily enough...); those people alone are enough to chase me away. Add on to that the pointless policies and the "anet-can-do-no-wrong" crowd... and you get a really shitty place :/

But all that nonwithstanding... the thing we should be looking for is content. We aren't trying to boycott GWiki or favor GWW; we're trying to link to whichever site gives better info on any given topic. If it's Gwiki, that's fine; if GWW has more content on the topic, that's fine too. We really shouldn't spend any time bickering about this. -Auron 00:30, 12 October 2007 (CEST)

"If we want to" being the key phrase. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 02:30, 12 October 2007 (CEST)

/agree, well said. — Hyperion` // talk 04:08, 12 October 2007 (CEST)

Soo... is this vote just gonna sit there or are we going to change something?! I'd rather have the PvX wiki link to skill pages where I can learn useful things, such as how GW:Spirit Light "sacrifices health before healing", instead of knowing that GWW:Spirit Light is "Useful for hybrid Restoration/Communing users." --Emeralddragon2 05:24, 4 November 2007 (CET)

I think we can agree that the majority don't want to switch links, I don't think we can really keep the pool up any longer.....PheNaxKian (T/c) 21:24, 12 November 2007 (CET)

Ratings

I haven't been able to rate builds for a while... but now that i can, am i able to rate builds that i make?Fire Tock 05:09, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

I'm sorry. I mean am i aloud to?Fire Tock 05:10, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

I believe you can vote on your own build as long as it is not biased. If you give it a 5-5-5, for example, you should back it up with good reasoning. ۷ïεדИǺмЄŠЄ. 05:19, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

oh ok thnx.Fire Tock 05:20, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

Next featured build

A/D Shattering Assault, its been getting a lot of popularity in gvgs because of its unblockable combo, and it seems to be the build thats could change the metagame.

Sugestions

i think that somwhow u should put a place into the builds to armor template, i think it would be easy to creat, and it would be very usefull

and my suggestion is: in "recent ratings", put a link next to the build name that links directly to that vote. - Y0_ich_halt 23:36, 11 October 2007 (CEST)

Standard Equipment Templates

Someone with PvP experience should make templates similar to Template:Monk Equipment, I think they'd be very helpful because too many builds just say Standard Casting Sets or the like. — Skakid9090 18:18, 13 October 2007 (CEST)

Link to gw.gamewikis

I think we should have one, since now gwBBcode links to shitty gww. ~~ Napalm Flame >=] (talk)·(contributions) 18:55, 13 October 2007 (CEST)

I don't know the specifics, as I really couldn't care less which wiki we link to, but we have some moral objection to wikia or something. Ibreaktoilets 19:04, 13 October 2007 (CEST)

You mean like Infuse Health? --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 19:59, 13 October 2007 (CEST)

Ratings (Again)

I just fixed up one of my builds that was voted unfavored, but i dont know how to get rid of the orrigiaonal ratings. Can anyone help me?Fire Tock 17:20, 14 October 2007 (CEST)

to get rid of your own ratings, go to the rating in question and click delete. only admins can remove other peeps' votes. ~ ʑʌɱʌɳəəɺɨɳɳ(contribs) 19:33, 14 October 2007 (CEST)

K thnx. Wtb rating remover admin for Build:E/A Fists of Energy

Interesting Links

I always see some intersesting links on peoples builds or user pages that link to some article they just made up. i'm making a humorous build, but i want to know how to make those articles with the made up items or skills on them. Can anyone help me?Fire Tock 03:15, 16 October 2007 (CEST)

Humorous build? You wouldn't happen to mean fists of energy, part II would you? :D Seriously, just make whatever it is you want and put it on a userspace subpage, and link to it there. Lord Belar 03:25, 16 October 2007 (CEST)

Lol no, it's not another FIsts of Energy, and also, yes. I know what to do. I just don't know How to do it.Fire Tock 03:43, 16 October 2007 (CEST)

Here. Lord Belar 03:45, 16 October 2007 (CEST)

Lol@all red link post. Lord Belar 03:45, 16 October 2007 (CEST)

Disclaimer Link

The link that says "Disclaimers" at the very bottom on the page links to a blank page (PvXwiki:General_disclaimer) --Peter 21:14, 16 October 2007 (CEST)

Noobie/New Charracter Section

hey i just got a great idea. What if we add in a section in the PvE area for Non-Elite SKill builds? Usefull for New players or people that are too poor to but tomes and too lazy to cap the skill.Fire Tock 04:45, 19 October 2007 (CEST)

PvX:WELL - The wiki isn't here to teach people how to use nooby builds. We're also not here to work around you being lazy (which also encompasses poor, because farming isn't hard, it's just tedious). If you can't learn enough from here, Guildwiki and GWW to be able to swap out an elite for a similar non-elite, then you're probably hopeless, tbh. --Wizardboy777(T/C) 05:04, 19 October 2007 (CEST)

(edit conflict)PW:WELL. That'd solidify our reputation as a joke build site. — Skakid9090 05:05, 19 October 2007 (CEST)

I thought it already was solidified... :/ Lord Belar 05:23, 19 October 2007 (CEST)

Yeah... no... we're not gonna do that. Besides, anything works in PvE, and anything works in low-level PvE. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:07, 19 October 2007 (CEST)

Me/W build idea

Hey, I wonder if a build with Illusionary Weaponry would work.. I've mixed something together here... for Me/W It uses a Totem Axe and IW together with Flurry and then some other skills for energy management. And if you get too low on health then it's Distortion. Here's the template: OQFDAWwzGhArL4DoIDpAGA. Sadly I only have Prophecies and EoTN, so I don't have all skills... Please someone try it out and try and make it better!!!!! Chath

See Build:Me/W Illusion Slasher. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 13:20, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

.... Awwwwww..... And here I thought I had gotten such a good idea:P Chath

New Attribute/Title

Before i say what i'm going to say let me say this... I'm sorry i'm constantly talking on this discussion page in case any of you are kind of mad at me, I look at this archive and see, wow I've wirrin alot so my fellow Amercians/whatever you are, I'm sorry...And that's all i have to say. Ok, Now to say what i wanted to say in the start but couldnt say becaused of that speech i sayed... What if we added in another attribute for titles. Lets say a EoTn build comes out but most of it's skills are from the asura rank. What if you wanted to know how far you need to be in the title to use it properly. Like the gloom farmer would look like this...

<pvxbig> [build prof=e/a firema=12+1+3 waterm=2+3 energy=6+3 shadow=11 Lightbringer=4][Shadow Form][Death's Charge][Glyph of Sacrifice][Meteor Shower][Bed of Coals][Frozen Burst][Flame Burst][Flame Djinn's Haste][/build] </pvxbig>

• Note the Lightbringer rank on the bottom.

• Or Like a said before Lets say a EoTn build comes out but most of it's skills are from the asura rank. What if you wanted to know how far you need to be in the title to use it properly and it looked like this...

<pvxbig> [build prof=ele/any energy=12+2 EarthMagic=12+1+1 Asura=6][Air of Superiority][Mindbender][Summon Mursaat][Energy Blast][Earthen Shackles][Magnetic Surge][Ward of Weakness][Ward Against Melee][/build] </pvxbig>

• See how you have the rank but it doesn't show to damage on the skills.
• ?Fire Tock 18:10, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

the below suggestions won't be implemented, because it's too much work to get the title on the level you give, or if you set it too low, you can't lower it. pve skills should not be used in a way that their title level matters. but i would indeed like to have a different display so you know roughly what dmg/etc. you will have. - Y0_ich_halt 18:15, 20 October 2007 (CEST)

Neat idea, but no, title ranks aren't scalable. The best you can do is use the "@x" function (for example, [Air of Superiority@4]) to indicate the minimum level. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 03:19, 21 October 2007 (CEST)

Featured Trial builds?

I had a thought (shock horror!) why don't we have like a featured trial bilds section, so people can get thier trial builds more widely known and get advise on them before putting them into testing. Thoughts? PheNaxKian (T/c) 01:22, 23 October 2007 (CEST)

could someone maybe program some sidebar for the .css that lists the oldest builds in trial, testing, whatsoever? - Y0_ich_halt 17:30, 23 October 2007 (CEST)

Lost Build

I submitted a build by the name Me/P Fragile Paragon, did someone move it or did you do a server rollback? Anyway it just disapered, Id like to know what happend to it--√iktor 01:10, 26 October 2007 (CEST)

Take a look at the deletion log (here). I'm afraid it got removed. ۷ïεד • t/c 01:18, 26 October 2007 (CEST)

(Edit conflict)I PvX:Welled it. Would you like a copy in your userspace? Or you can put it back if you want... probably shoulda waited a little bit. ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 01:19, 26 October 2007 (CEST)

There ya go. ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 01:19, 26 October 2007 (CEST)

Skill Linking

Perhaps there is a way to make the linking from skill templates user configurable? So the links could go to GWW or GuildWiki depending on a configuration setting. I really hate the lack of additional info for skills on GWW. Irkm Desmet 13:30, 26 October 2007 (CEST)

Yeah I agree with that, Maybe when you click on a skill link then you get a page that pops up and says "Would you like to go to gw: or gww:?" And whichever you click on then up comes the skill at the website you chose.Fire Tock 02:05, 27 October 2007 (CEST)

Doesn't that solution slow down the process of examining a skill bar by a lot? Imho another solution is required. -- (gem / talk) 10:05, 27 October 2007 (CEST)

I say put it in preferences or something. If that is possible, which I think so... ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 15:17, 27 October 2007 (CEST)

We are going to host our own skill database. 193.215.6.253 08:26, 21 November 2007 (CET)

Untested Builds

I know builds are put on the main page to attract attention, but there should be at least some standard of quality. To give terrible builds attention irritates me, for consequently, builds with potential remain in obscurity. Maybe it just affects me more because I've got a build I'd really like to showcase. What's the protocol for getting builds on the main page? Shogunshen 21:44, 29 October 2007 (CET)

Just put it up once the previous one has been categorized. - Krowman {{sysop}} 02:59, 30 October 2007 (CET)

=0. I didn't know we could? Cause the main page is protected. How do you then? Shogunshen 03:02, 30 October 2007 (CET)

Click the little 'Change current featured builds' link. --Wizardboy777(T/C/Sysop) 03:03, 30 October 2007 (CET)

ahhhh. Now I see. Danke gut. Shogunshen 03:15, 30 October 2007 (CET)

Untested Featured builds

Is there perhaps someway of making it so you can't switch a build unless it's been vetted or up for so many days? I ask because my build was only up for 2 hours and i wouldn't feel right just changing it back.....PheNaxKian (T/c) 17:19, 31 October 2007 (CET)

Equipment?

I ahd a thought. Could we not get a subsection for equipment or something (mainly unique items)even if it's just like a little table with all of the items which link to where ever we're linking to now.PheNaxKian (T/c) 20:56, 11 November 2007 (CET)

Most people just use PvP equipment... and anyway, it's not hard to look up what some mod does on GWiki, or even choose your own equips --Mala 18:47, 12 November 2007 (CET)

Main Page

I think it would be easier if the table was by proffesion. The general categories would be a proffesion (ex. Monk, Warrior) and next to it would be the Great, Good, Other, and All categories. If you clicked one of those categories (Great,Good,Other,All), it would come up with a page that would be divided into all the different categories like running, farming, Hero battles, ect. This layout would be easier if you were looking for builds for a certain proffesion.

Usually that wouldn't be the case however; I find the current layout much more convenient. — Tycn (talk*pvxcontribs) 08:39, 21 November 2007 (CET)

watchlist

every time i open my watchlist, an error message saying 'The document does not contain any data' or something like that pops up. is that only my browser or do you have that problem, too? - Y0_ich_halt 15:57, 21 November 2007 (CET)

seems to be resolved... works fine now. - Y0_ich_halt 23:07, 21 November 2007 (CET)

New content

This new content project sound like a big one, so i was wondering if there was anyway me and other users could help out in anyway?PheNaxKian (T/c) 17:07, 21 November 2007 (CET)

Not at the moment no. I assume much of the actual work will be done via import of database dumps. Presumably, users will then be responsible for keeping the information up-to-date, but I don't think there's a lot that can be done at the moment (although I don't know for sure). *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:46, 21 November 2007 (CET)

I only ask because it sounds liek a big project and i'd like to help out with big things, so they're quicker etc. but nvm then i guess PheNaxKian (T/c) 23:04, 21 November 2007 (CET)

I'll be sure to contact you if there's anything that can be done to help. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:06, 21 November 2007 (CET)

Thanks =) PheNaxKian (T/c) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (CET)

Please, please make it easy to get from the PvX Skill Database to the GWW and Guildwiki ones. Perhaps two links in each article could be provided. I still do not understand the rationale for this change. I have seen no discussion on this change, if there is one please point me to it. Otherwise, could someone explain what advantage do we get from duplicating the whole thing a third time? Irkm Desmet 13:49, 22 November 2007 (CET)

We've discussed it before. It's largely a contingency issue, a little bit of convenience, and little more reference to certain builds. Users will be able to search builds according to the skills used and features like that that aren't endorsed by either of the other wikis. That's what is in the works. - Krowman {{sysop}} 21:35, 22 November 2007 (CET)

I think it's a good idea-i mean this way we won't have to wait for GWshack to update skills will we? GC or Hippo can do it instead (this is what i'm understanding though i'm probably wrong =S) PheNaxKian (T/c) 23:12, 22 November 2007 (CET)

Heh, I think they'd be too busy to deal with it. That said, I'm sure certain people will take up the mantle anyway... -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 07:19, 26 November 2007 (CET)

Oh thatd be great! Some of us that normally don't contribute can ^.^--Shadow Sin 04:36, 27 November 2007 (CET)

WYSIWYG editor

An other maneer to get more visitors would be to provide a WYSIWYG editor such as WikiEd. Many people are wiki-frightened because of code. This is only an idea (I don't know very well PhP/Java), I know that this would mean to write additional code to WYSIWYG the build template wich would take some time. --Ttibot(Talk) 14:52, 25 November 2007 (CET)

TO tell you the truth I know nothing about wikicode and i manage to get around fine on this site. You can just copy what others have done or use the templates. --Peter 20:50, 7 December 2007 (CET)

The Link Switching

are we or are we not switching links? Majority of the community wants to stick with the unofficial yet i have seen many skills that link to the official wiki. Could someone please clear this up? Riff 10:42, 2 December 2007 (CET)

The question was whether the "gw:" prefix should be changed such that it redirected to GWW instead of GuildWiki. We didn't do that. However, the skill bars do redirect to GWW, and you can use "GWW:" to link to the Guild Wars Wiki. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:25, 2 December 2007 (CET)

but one of the reasons the community is against switching links is because of the lack of notes and discussion on skills. Riff 18:03, 2 December 2007 (CET)

just make gw go to unoffical and make gww leads to official :P--«º¤¥Ω☼Vørråx☼Ω¥¤º» 22:31, 2 December 2007 (CET)

That's how things work now... *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:49, 2 December 2007 (CET)

i'm so confused Riff 01:04, 3 December 2007 (CET)

It's quite horrifically simple.

Things that link to gw.gamewikis.org	I'll eat you all	Things that link to wiki.guildwars.com
Links starting with "gw:" (e.g. [[gw:Stunning Strike|]] is Stunning Strike)		Links starting with "gww:" (e.g. [[gww:Stunning Strike|]] is Stunning Strike) The pictures in skill bars on build pages.

—ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 21:33, 7 December 2007 (CET)

OH NO YOU WON'T. –Ichigo724 21:39, 7 December 2007 (CET)