Talk:Main Page/editcopy/Archive 1

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Talk:Main Page/editcopy.

Cleaned it up and made it look kinda pretty with some table formatting. Look ok? — Jyro X 22:04, 7 February 2007 (PST)

EDIT: Also added a game updates section. — Jyro X 22:08, 7 February 2007 (PST)
Anyone have any thoughts about how this looks at different resolutions? It looks good at 1280x1024, but I don't know about lesser resolutions. (And I don't want to dork around with changing mine right now, if no one else checks I'll at least be able to see it at 1024x768 tomorrow at work.) --Rainith 22:18, 7 February 2007 (PST)
Looks fine to me on both 1024x768 and 800x600. — Jyro X 22:22, 7 February 2007 (PST)

I moved some stuff around to make them feel more related to the section heading they're under. Ab.er.rant 23:14, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Sync'ed, going to bed now, please play nice.  :) --Rainith 23:19, 7 February 2007 (PST)
I prefer a polished "GuildWiki" version of the main page. It was and is a good start for the huge amount of information in a wiki like this. BigBlue 03:52, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Better Campaign Images

Can someone of ANet change all (campaign-)images to same height and width? Thx! BigBlue 07:16, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I've aligned them both ways in the table, not sure if it matters now if they're not the same size as its a white background. — Skuld 07:29, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Can we have them in chronological order of release also? :/ - - BeXoR 07:29, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Done. — Skuld 07:32, 8 February 2007 (PST)


I'm not sure how it'd be done for Prophecies, but I think that it'd be pretty interesting to feature the A and Rt in the Factions banner and D and P for NF. It'd obviously have to be small. I think that it might also make it too cluttered, though. There should probably be a small banner or something that links to the official GW site too, even if it is obvious. Pae 19:05, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Update Notes

I think we can "copy" the way GuildWiki presented the updates (latest first, right side calendar, automatically archive, Guild Wars Wiki Notes). Can anyone program this - i have not enough WikiProgramming experience. BigBlue 07:35, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Main Page Layout

I don't think there would be anything wrong with having a distinctly similar layout to the one found on GWiki. The GWiki layout was taken from the Wikipedia layout. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 12:41, 8 February 2007 (PST)


The 3 chapter sections are actually kind of nice. I think that may be a layout improvement over gwiki. However, the rest of it isn't laid out well at all- way too "busy". I'm no lordBiro when it comes to useability but I'll say my piece anyway:

  1. Updates and News. Axe the archives. Let pages hold their own archive references. That method may be a little confusing, but once you are used to it, it makes sense everywhere. Pushing archive links outside of a page is clutter, especially on the main page.
  2. The 3-2-3 data layout is too much. I prefer gwiki's 4 boxes (5, but the 5th is wiki related and not GW related).
  3. As such, I would combine "Exploring and Adventuring", dropping the subsections for items that are linked "per chapter" at the top of the page (no need to duplicate links).
  4. Speaking of wiki related, the front page needs a "community portal" where people can go to look for information specificly related to this wiki. Policy, FAQ, User Questions etc.
  5. "About ArenaNet" - not really directly relevant to GW. It's more meta-information, much as "about wiki" is meta-information. This stuff is fine, but it isn't why people come to the wiki and should be put at the bottom, like gwiki has it.
  6. The page needs more visual separation (the cheap way out is to use boxes like gwiki. creative people solve this problem differently all the time though).

Thats off the top of my head. The design of this page should roughly correspond to the way data is laid out as well in terms of namespaces and subpages /skills, /quests, etc. Properly designing this at the same time data is properly laid out will be beneficial to the whole process. (Just playing with this stuff here User:Oblio/Sandbox but hopefully that kind of illustrates what I mean by layout. I'm not good with formatting though.) Oblio 15:17, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I think you made a very important point there Oblio; the way in which the main page is laid out will influence the way in which new users expect the wiki to be laid out.
To go through your points:
  1. I agree; links to archives are best only on the pages that they are archives of.
  2. I have trouble looking at the main page at present, you are right, it is too crowded.
  3. That makes sense, although I do think that to a certain extent that Exploring and Adventuring might appeal to different people, so perhaps this is a useful place to make a distinction? I'm not sure.
  4. The Guild Wars Wiki:Community Portal has not been touched so far, but I think it's about time it was started.
  5. I think we should have a sentence describing what this project actually is, and link to ArenaNet from there.
  6. I was thinking of coloured boxes, but now you have inspired me to think a little harder ;)

LordBiro 15:56, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I just remade the front page using some tables, its nothing fancy, just thought I'd see how it looks: User:Scourge/Sandbox#Mainpage. I put it in my sandbox because I didnt want to stuff up the editcopy :P Feel free to do whatever with it -- Scourge 18:44, 8 February 2007 (PST)

And you keep saying you don't know what you're doing! That looks really good. ;) - - BeXoR 18:49, 8 February 2007 (PST)
It was huge series of mistakes that ended up in that ;) lol -- Scourge 18:52, 8 February 2007 (PST)
It's very nice, and a LOT easier to understand than the one that's on here now, and it looks better than Guildwiki as well. Nub 20:36, 8 February 2007 (PST)
It looks more defined(?). I'm wondering if a hr could be added just above the campaign info like QuickBannerEdit.gif.
I could only get it to be just below the campaign images. ~ File:GeckoSprite.gif Pae 23:44, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Check again now, is that what you were thinking of? I tried to make the HRs only 250px wide and centered but it didnt work :P My HTML resources have been exhausted -- Scourge 00:11, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Shouldn't : <hr width="250px" align="center" /> work?
Personally, I've never been a big fan of having campaigns listed in a horizontal row. It just doesn't scale well. If you list them accross, what happens when the fourth campaign is added? The sixth, and seventh? Even at four, some monitors may not show them all without the need of scrolling. I would much prefer something that's designed from the start to scale well with future campaigns, rather than needing to redesign with each new release in order to make everything fit. That's a large part of why GuildWiki's quick access links are layed out the way they are; scalability to easilly add both campaigns and professions without the need for redesigns of the layout. --Barek 09:16, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Policy Section?

Since I'm guessing that a bunch of people will want to do something with the wiki when it's official, shouldn't there be a section for policy right on the main page? Maybe navigation too, just so that it can be quickly referenced. Pae 18:53, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I think you're right. I also think that it would make a lot of sense to heavily advertise the "how to help" section. We want people to be able to see what they can do to help from the minute they get to the wiki, this way we can try to make sure that those first edits are genuinely helpful, and not just well intentioned mistakes :) LordBiro 03:45, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Hey!... I resemble that remark.  :) --Vladtheemailer 08:07, 9 February 2007 (PST)

From scratch

I think modifying the Main Page to make it look and work better is an uphill struggle, and I think it would be best if we started from scratch.

Which areas do you think are post important? Personally I feel that, at least for the present, How to Help is going to be the most important are of the wiki for us to publicise.

Here is my list, please feel free to add anything else in the place at which you think it is important, but bear in mind that this list is ordered for a growing wiki, not an established one! :) LordBiro 03:59, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Importance of subjects on the Main Page

  1. How to help
    1. List of tasks and guides on completing them (probably somewhere like community portal?)
    2. Formatting articles
    3. Policy articles
  2. Character info
    1. Skills (always going to be the most popular articles!)
    2. Professions
    3. Attributes
    4. Titles
  3. The World
    1. Continents
    2. Missions
    3. Locations


Wow, I'm kind of not with you on that. From a "user needs" point of view, I would think we would want.

  1. What's new
    1. Game Updates
    2. Gaile Talk (that one is nice to have front page, IMO)
    3. Current Holiday/Special Event
  2. Encyclopedic Information
    1. Skills
    2. Items
    3. etc.
  3. Basic Beginner Information
    1. How to Move
    2. What's a Pet
    3. Weapons and How they Work
    4. etc.
  4. Meta-GW information
    1. Information about Arena Net/ NC Soft / Whoever else gets in the list
    2. Information about the Wiki <=== This is where stuff like your #1 goes.

Basicly, I'm assuming that most users of the wiki already MOSTLY know what they are doing in GW. They came here to check to see what is new. Or if not, they came here to check the attribute range of Expertise, see what "IWAY" refer's to, check the stats of Urgoz's Longbow or something similar. Some people come here to help them learn the game, but I think they are pretty rare. EVERYONE who comes here should have the opportunity to learn how to participate, which is why the Meta-GW information gets on the front page, but I really do think that data layout should be based on usability (not that we can do a study or anything).

The chapter icons and subsections at the top don't really fit into the data flow quite the same, but I'm loathe to ditch them as they have intrigued me as a UI element. :) Anyway, executive summary: Layout information for ease of reference, not for encouraging participation. Our clients are people who want information, not editors (people who want to edit will learn either way). Oblio 09:45, 9 February 2007 (PST)

To be honest, I did not really look at this from a "user needs" angle. I think you are right in that I should have, but at the moment my mind is a little too focussed on directing new contributors as opposed to helping new readers, and really I have got this back to front; we should help readers first and direct new contributors second. LordBiro 10:25, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I wasn't thinking about the "pre-production" time period at all (that is, now). I agree that it may be useful to start with a main page that highlights contributions and then transition to a main page that highlights end users. Now that I consider it, that is a very good idea. We really need to hammer out policy before we start populating content meaninfully... I don't know how long that should take but I'm a little worried about it being too quick, or too slow (that is probably a sign of insanity). Regardless, I want to back off on what I said. I may be right eventually, but I'm not correct now.Oblio 10:37, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Layout

I've been working on a layout - it's not finished yet though. The current version has changed the last column of the table into a sidebar. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ifer .

That looks x2 than the current incarnation of the main page. And x5 better than the mess we are seeing on the edit version.--Drekmonger 05:28, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Finished a second version of my layout, incluiding the links as I would organise them. -- Ifer 07:17, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I prefer the way it is currently, without colours. It looks more professional than the Guild Wiki, although the campaign image headings may be contributing to my bias there. Joseph 06:39, 21 February 2007 (PST)

3 tiered main page layout

Mixxing layout elements from wikipedia, the old guildwiki and Ifers idea above: User:Xeeron/mainpage --Xeeron 11:32, 9 February 2007 (PST)

The layout with 3 columns is a bad idea. Many people would have a tough time viewing the whole of the main page due to monitor restrictions. Plus, even the people with large enough monitors would have trouble viewing all the lines of text on the main page. Two columns is definately the way to go here. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 11:55, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I disagree that 3 columns is necessarily bad. There is a huge amount of space that is not used to good effect in Xeeron's example. LordBiro 13:11, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Filled in a good bit of the unused space: The descriptions were still missing. We also can always recreate the old 2 tiered guildwiki main page, was just giving some new options. --Xeeron 16:17, 9 February 2007 (PST)

MY EYES

That notice 1. hurts 2. doesn't belong on the front page and 3. isn't policy yet. - BeXoR 12:40, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Stubs even go on the top in wikipedia, its always that way, it isnt a policy. How does it hurt? Why doesnt it belong, everyones putting stubbage on the bottom. User Blastedt sig.jpgBlastedtGuildWiki page 12:43, 9 February 2007 (PST)
It may be the norm on wikipedia, but it's not set in stone here yet. See here for one reason why. The bright red background is painful to look at, and frankly it's ugly too. If we put that information on the main page, then we would need a notice that says sign all talk page comments, use lower case, and so on for every policy on editing. That information will be accessible from "how to help". The main page is a portal, not the place for information. - - BeXoR 12:48, 9 February 2007 (PST)
The main page is not the place for making announcements like these, where they are accurate or not, and this notice is not accurate. There is no policy stating where stubs should be within an article. LordBiro 13:25, 9 February 2007 (PST)
We did for the testing weekend, lolz >.> User Blastedt sig.jpgBlastedtGuildWiki page 13:27, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I think you're forgetting where you are. :P - - BeXoR 13:50, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Guildwiki's layout was cute, but...

I, for one, would like to see the multicolored mainpage *not* take over here. Or, at the least, it should use a narrower range of colors (compare to Wikipedia, for example: green, blue, purple are pretty close to each other). — 130.58 (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Why not? I happen to like the colors very much. -- Ifer 10:01, 10 February 2007 (PST)
The non-colored main page is not easy on the eyes --FireFox Firefoxav.gif 10:03, 10 February 2007 (PST)
The layout and colors were fine for GuildWiki. But, even though there are many similarities, I would prefer if the main page here could be visually distinctive. This is a different site from GuildWiki, and it should look it with new layout and/or new colors. --Barek 10:08, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Agree! I think the design of the present editcopy is good enough. But the horizontal chapter images are too high. I prefer smaller images, smaller font, a smaller bar. The point of interest is still the navigational links under this "chapter bar". Can anyone change this? BigBlue 10:20, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Additional note: We can point out several links or (pve/pvp,basics) "boxes" of the main site with a gray backgrounds. BigBlue 10:23, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I said it above, but I'll repost it here as it's relevant. I've never been a big fan of having campaigns listed in a horizontal row. It just doesn't scale well. If you list them accross, what happens when the fourth campaign is added? The sixth, and seventh? Even at four, some monitors may not show them all without the need of scrolling. I would much prefer something that's designed from the start to scale well with future campaigns, rather than needing to redesign with each new release in order to make everything fit. --Barek 10:45, 10 February 2007 (PST)
With some relevance to Barek's comments, I've drafted an alternate layout for the main page at User:LordBiro/Main Page. It's not finished yet, but the idea is that it is scaleable; both in the sense that it will work under any resolution (without either wasted whitespace or squashing the contents of boxes together) and in the sense that no matter how much information you add to it, it will cope. Let me know what you think. LordBiro 11:01, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I agree with 130.58 - I was immediately impressed when I first saw the main page layout without colour. Muted colouring may work much better, but not the colours of Guild Wiki. The logo here is well conceived too. Joseph 06:43, 21 February 2007 (PST)
What we have now is a confused mash of blue, red, and black lines. You can't get away from color on the web, and you shouldn't want to. (Though I don't disagree with the use of lower color ranges than gwiki, or perhaps keeping things to section headings like wpedia). Besides our bad overall page layout, we still have questionable ordering, and we lost gaile logs in favor of archive links? Still a lot of work to do here. Oblio 07:55, 21 February 2007 (PST)
It defiantly needs some color... Otherwise it just stabs me in the eyes :P I would say at least make the boxes a grey or something. Doesn't have to look just like the Guildwiki but it could at least not stab my face :P--Saji-Kun 18:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I like the color. The color definitely improves the readibility of the page. But we need to becareful on choosing the color. Some color are really a pain to the eyes. I suggest baby blue. Lightblade 20:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Ok, I applied the color on the temp page. Look much better now. Lightblade 21:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
One word ... yuck. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Yuck, also blech, blarg, and ugh. --Rainith 21:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey! Even the boxes on wikipedia is colored, and it's in the same color that I used. What's why "yuck"? Lightblade 19:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
The seafoam green and white colors you used make me think of the Tums bottle that has the mint flavors in it. Personally I don't think the colors work at all (maybe for an 'Under the sea" wiki devoted to the Little Mermaid, but not for Guild Wars). --Rainith 21:59, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
To me, the color choice is less than ideal, and the checkerboard use in every other box is distracting. If color were added, I would rather see something just in the titles such as what Aspectacle proposed at User:Aspectacle/Sandbox. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:03, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Main Page replacement pages so far...

Ok; so now LordBiro, me and Xeeron have made something up. Time for constructive criticism!

I have basically taken the old main page, and resized the news and the top bar. After that, I recategorised the links and inserted the GuildWiki coloring.
Xeeron used my 2-and-a-half column idea, redid the links and inserted the Guildwiki coloring style.
LordBiro has worked on a completely new, more scaleable approach. Scourge has worked on a 3x3 colorless table(incluiding the current top bar).


Discuss. -- Ifer 11:45, 10 February 2007 (PST)

I'm not sure whether we should keep the top bar or not. It looks ok now, but you have to remember tht Guild Wars Chapter 4 is coming out later this year, which will probably mean that the content of that top bar is going to be significantly cramped. --Dirigible 11:55, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I know... it looks good at the moment though. Following the vertical alternative (the way the quick access links are done) won't work this way unfortunately. I have given it some thought, and decided to leave it this way for now. It makes the page look a lot different than Guildwiki ;)
Perhaps with the help of Anet's graphic artists we can cramp a fourth one in to buy us enough time to get this wiki known, after which resembling Guildwiki won't be as bad as it is right now. -- Ifer 12:06, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I like Ifer's. It's more on the two-column side rather than a three-column format like the others. Of course, that right-panel should be removed. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 12:24, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Put in the old guildwiki site as well. We can do something new, but we dont have to. If we decide the old main page was best, we can always recreate it. --Xeeron 12:54, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Good call. I personally want a slightly stripped version of the GuildWiki main page, which does not look confusingly similar. Of the four options presented, I like the layout of mine and Xeeron's equally, and I like my own link categorisation best. -- Ifer 13:10, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I like Xeeron's, though I think it's a bit crowded at 1000px width (I'm assuming nobody viewing the site will really use less than 1024x768). The current standard actually looks great at 1000px width, so maybe there's just a way to put boxes around that layout? — 130.58 (talk) 13:01, 10 February 2007 (PST)


I <3 Xeeron's. User Blastedt sig.jpgBlastedtGuildWiki page 13:21, 10 February 2007 (PST)

I think Xeeron's is too crowded. Xeeron, when I said earlier that there was too much white space I was really suggesting that you could use that space to make the "sidebar" wider, but instead you put text next to every link. I think it would be better to have less text and a bigger sidebar. LordBiro 13:34, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I might make it a tad bigger, but the main layout idea behind the proposal (blatantly stolen from Ifer) is to have different font sizes to distinguish between contents. Mainly did it because I disliked the old guildwiki categorisation, so I tried to make 3 big groups (world, equipment, character) that are thematically close. --Xeeron 13:53, 10 February 2007 (PST)

I don't like colours. And what about Scourge's idea? I thought his was nice. - BeXoR 17:15, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Scourge's idea is great. Please add the links done so far in editcopy and it's perfect. Good color theme! BigBlue 00:14, 11 February 2007 (PST)
I think Scourge's is ideal at the moment. — 130.58 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2007 (PST)
Scourge's is certainly the least controversial, and something similar could be implemented, at least until a new design is decided upon.
As I mentioned above, I do think it's important at this early stage that we go to some effort to direct new contributors, making a "How to help" link prominent, at least temporarily. LordBiro 06:59, 11 February 2007 (PST)
In Scourge's proposal, I would scrap the 6th box (the Arenanet one, we are not a wiki about ANet, but about GW) and move the content of the 7th (bottom large) box in it's place. That would make better use of the free space there and place How to help more prominently. --Xeeron 07:09, 11 February 2007 (PST)
I agree, I find the "helping" part at the bottom to not be noticeable enough. This became apparent to me when I noticed some users complaining they could not find any policy information on the front page of gwiki. - BeXoR 07:16, 11 February 2007 (PST)
I copied Scourge's main page, and made some changes that I think are necessary based on the sentiments above. User:LordBiro/Main Page/Scourge. LordBiro 07:25, 11 February 2007 (PST)
Yes, that's perfect. I seem to be in the minority, however, in that I actually prefer to have the nice, pastel shades of the other versions. I like my colours :) --Snogratwhisper 07:31, 11 February 2007 (PST)
Looks great! - BeXoR 07:54, 11 February 2007 (PST)
Thats really good. But: I think we can delete the "ANet" part. It doesn't fit well in the main page - and gamecredits etc. can also be viewed on the guildwars.com and arena.net sites AND on the wikisite "Arena Net". BigBlue 07:56, 11 February 2007 (PST)
In lieu of deleting it, what about putting them all on the one line instead of four dot points? - BeXoR 08:01, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Reset Indent:
User:LordBiro/Main Page/Scourge does look great and the change is good from the original, as Register/Policy/How to Help is better for users the higher up it is. Colors were used on GWiki and I know this wiki is trying to distance itself from it, but as the content is there and in fine form, some color would set it off. I also, and I believe it has been mentioned before, that they 3 campaigns listed at the top will become unwieldy once more campaigns are listed. The links underneath each logo is listed under the PvE section as well, except the Maps, which can be added if wanted. So there is a redunance regarding those links. I suggest doing away with the logo part as when the fourth comes out, style will be an issue to fit that fourth logo in there. — Gares 08:08, 11 February 2007 (PST)

User:FireFox/Main Page/Scourge Biro - Biro's version + a light gray background for eye ease --FireFox Firefoxav.gif 08:10, 11 February 2007 (PST)

In a similar vein, User:Snograt/Main Page/Scourge Biro Firefox - just to make the point that I feel the "About ArenaNet" box is too obtrusive. If it were possible, I think it would be ideal to give this blurb the same status as the GFDL box at the bottom of every page - small, unobtrusive, un-editable, but there. --Snogratwhisper 08:40, 11 February 2007 (PST)
I don't think it's a matter of distancing itself, it's more about find what is best without relying on the old ways of doing things. I definitely do not like the grey background. It makes it look muddy/dull/dirty for lack of a better word. If white it too bright a background for you you can always change the default in your browser or turn your brightness down! I can't get rid of the grey! :( I prefer the clean, white look. It's refreshing and easy to read, and hasn't succumbed to any whims of fancy, colour-wise. Adding a campaign at the top wont be too hard, as you can just shrink the images. I think it's a good idea to have the different campaigns there anyway, as new users looking for information will only know the name of their game to start with. - BeXoR 08:42, 11 February 2007 (PST)

*sigh* I'll say it again. I think putting the campaigns all on one row is short-sited, as it mandates having this conversation again when the next camapign comes out. It just doesn't scale well. If you list them accross, what happens when the fourth campaign is added? The sixth, and seventh? Even at four, some monitors may not show them all without the need of scrolling. I would much prefer something that's designed from the start to scale well with future campaigns, rather than needing to redesign with each new release in order to make everything fit. --Barek 09:02, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Another try, User:Dirigible/Main Page/Scourge Biro Fox, same as that of FireFox, minus the top bar with the 3 campaigns.
Yet another, User:Dirigible/Main Page/Scourge Biro Xeeron, same as the above but with Xeeron's colors instead. I think they're pale enough to not be considered fancy, yet not as plain as pure white. I think this one is the one I like more. --Dirigible 09:07, 11 February 2007 (PST)
I did some testing, and at 128px with small text, 4 campaigns on one line doesn't look that bad. However, if Guild Wars goes sticks around for a long time (ANet did suggest this to be a long term venture), then 6,7,8,9 campaigns quite possibly will become unwieldy. — Gares 09:14, 11 February 2007 (PST)
depending on the size of the campaign logos we could just add a second line once we get to chapter 5 and do 3 or 4 per line (centered for the line with less than max of course) --FireFox Firefoxav.gif 09:29, 11 February 2007 (PST)
I am 100% against a gray background. But I can understand there might be functional use behind using colours. At the moment though, they're just being used for aesthetics, which is purely subjective. - BeXoR 09:34, 11 February 2007 (PST)
Well I just made another main page but then I realised that LordBiro had already done it :P I prefer the "helping out" box at the bottom because you can have a long description without it cramping the smaller boxes in the columns. -- Scourge 16:34, 11 February 2007 (PST)
User:BeXoR/Main Page. Down with excessive dot points! And I fixed some spelling and grammatical errors, incorrect links and excess code. - BeXoR 22:12, 11 February 2007 (PST)
Not bad! — 130.58 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2007 (PST)
Very nice indeed, that has my vote :) -- Scourge 22:25, 11 February 2007 (PST)
Well, I was very bad (*g*) and put BeXoRs design on Main Page/editcopy BigBlue 06:08, 12 February 2007 (PST)
User:Dirigible/Main Page/Scourge Biro Xeeron is my favorite so far, but all are superior to the current version. (actually the colors and box layout of that version with the bullets removal and corrections of BeXoR's version)--Drekmonger 06:38, 12 February 2007 (PST)
It seems to me that your primary concern is that it is coloured. - BeXoR 06:42, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Layout makes more sense to me, as boxes that are probably going to stay short are on top. The three campaign images are MIA, which imho is a good thing, and the colors do improve the appearance of the page. I also dig the about a.net banner at the bottom.--Drekmonger 06:53, 12 February 2007 (PST)

(reset indent) "and the colors do improve the appearance of the page" - purely subjective. I think the colour are a tired concept, overused and even tacky. And logically ordering information so that it is easy to read and makes sense is more important than adding a couple of lines to boxes. I hadn't noticed the anet thing was removed though. I'll admit that the images aren't a necessary aspect though. - BeXoR 07:02, 12 February 2007 (PST)

It's tired and overused because it works. Proper information layout is primary, visual separation of sections is secondary. Anyway, I think Ifer has the best general layout (sans the right bar). Oblio 10:01, 14 February 2007 (PST)

made some changes to page layout, re-organize some content, it would be nice if we simplify a litle more the main page, what you think about new layout? - Supermax 02:20, 22 February 2007 (GMT)

You should copy that page layout to a sandbox page in your user space, then we can look at it and decide what we like and dislike about it from there. Kaya-sig.png kaya 21:28, 21 February 2007 (EST)
Ok, moved the lay out to here Main Page Layout, now waht you think about it??Supermax 02:40, 22 February 2007 (GMT)
I'm not sure I like the layout as much. I see a lot more dead space than in the current version. Good ideas though.Kaya-sig.png kaya 21:54, 21 February 2007 (EST)

I like Xeeron's alot, but would like to see the bar at the top. at least until chapter 4, then we can see about removing/resizing.--Coloneh 02:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

The client

I have add Using the client under Game basics, the page is curently into my name space but it give a idea of what could be there. it miss alot of command argument and more info can be added. i have also linked a guide about runing guildwars in wine for linux users. let me know what your think. --Bob 10:31, 12 February 2007 (PST)

There's already an article about command line parameters here: Command line. We should probably link to that from the "Using the client" page you made. Otherwise the articles look good to me tho. Def nice to have them here. Maybe will try running GW from my Gentoo box one of these days! :) --Dirigible 10:38, 12 February 2007 (PST)
I would rather see the system requirements worked into the actual game articles (ie: Guild Wars Prophecies, etc) similar to how is done in the info box on Wikipedia.
We also already have an article on Command line, so references to that should link to there where those parameters can be fully documented.
That only leaves the Wine content. I'm torn on that. On the one hand, it's useful information for part of the game playing population. On the other hand, we're not a technical support site for either WINE or Guild Wars. Right now, I could go either way on keeping it. --Barek 10:44, 12 February 2007 (PST)
I think a page about the technical aspects of running Guild Wars is not a bad idea, to be honest. System reqs, command line switches, guides to running it on other operating systems, they all seem to me as useful information to have, and that page would serve as a centralised location for that. --Dirigible 10:57, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Please note, that wiki visitors are ALREADY using GW. I don't think this is necessary to be on the main page. Better add this informations to the Prophecies etc. pages. Command Line was described good enough in another wikiarticle. And the linux/wine informations: put it into a special articel, linked from every campaign article. My opinion: Delete Link BigBlue 11:01, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Not necessarily. The wiki can also be used by people who don't play Guild Wars as a resource to familiarise themselves with the game before purchasing it. It can also be used by researchers who are reviewing the game. And I know people that use GW and couldn't play when NF came out because the system requirements changed. - BeXoR 02:50, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Moving over?

This current version might be very different from what we will eventually have, but at least the last 10-15 versions all look much better than the current main page. --Xeeron 07:25, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Bump. The discussion about new main pages seems to have died down, but this intermediary version is still much better than the current main page. Plus, it is getting actual news now. --Xeeron 05:28, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Synced. LordBiro 05:46, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Weapon mod

Can we get a more formal, less ambiguous term? "Weapon mod" could be interpreted as meaning either upgrade component or unsalvageable bonuse. -- Gordon Ecker 19:33, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Weapon upgrade? - BeXoR 19:57, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Weapon upgrade and upgrade components arent the same thing. Weapon upgrade is a type of upgrade component, as are runes and insignia, but food is an enhancement, as are upgrade components. - BeXoR 00:14, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Updates, News and Community

I propose a change of the following to the Updates, News and Community Section,

Latest updates
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
More...
GuildWars.com News
Gaile News
Gaile/Frog Talk
Special events
Fansites

note:

  • Removal of the uneeded 'Archives:' bullet and show the actual archives bulleted under 'Latest Updates'. (I think it just reads better, and saves room).
  • Changed the 'Latest News' link to 'GuildWars.com News'
  • Added: Gaile News and Announcements (currently Gaile logs, renamed for clarity) and a link for Galie/Frog Talk

Also can News and Community be capitalized, Thanks Kaya-Icon-Small.png 10:12, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Hey Kaya, I agree with most of those changes, but I think "Official resources" probably isn't going to be very useful. I also think "Gaile News and Announcements" is a little long. Either "Gaile News" or something similar would be preferable to me. This is a subject that should probably be discussed in Talk:Gaile logs, since it is specific to that article. LordBiro 11:30, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I agree with LordBiro, and I also question the value of the "Gaile/Frog Talk" section. The only way to validate that page would be with screenshots, which would mean either large numbers of uploads here, or relying on other sites to track those and mirroring their content. --Barek 11:33, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I think Gaile alluded to the fact that she wanted to start using that link as a place to unify her communications to the various forums (Talk:Gaile logs#deleted). Thats a little different than the "gaile-frog/in game screenshot talks". I think that there is a lot of merit in having a prominently linked area for more official communication (regardless of which format it comes in). Oblio 11:38, 14 February 2007 (PST)
'Special events' 'Official Recources' & 'Fansites' Came from the page here, I just left them cause that's what was here. I do agree that 'Official Resources' wont be usefull since this is the official wiki  ;) I changed 'Gaile News and Announcements' to 'Gaile News' But that kinda needs to be put into the official page or the pages were creating here and not just in my post. And the reason for Gaile/Frog talk is #1 because Gaile herself mentioned the desire to have a place where we can log those and #2 cause it is good information. But like Barek mentioned, it might be diffucult handling those. I guess we could just upload the screens here and list it as a project to convert them to text, then once that's done, delete the screens.  :\ I dunno. Kaya-Icon-Small.png 12:53, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Maybe we could rename Gaile News to Dev Update (same as thread titles for Official Dev Updates). I actually will get on board with uploading the pics for Gaile Logs, along with summaries. I am not sure I want to do transcriptions so if anybody wants to do that, they can start on that as soon as I get done with uploading the pics. I'm also thinking of hosting the pics on my imageshack account, unless somebody has a better idea? Zahra 13:36, 14 February 2007 (PST)
There's no reason to bother with Imageshack for that. Might as well use the wiki to upload the images as well, Special:Upload. --Dirigible 13:39, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Wonderful, I did not know this function existed! (Yes I am new to the wiki world as an editor) -- Zahra 13:47, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Gaile Maile & Frog Logs - there, I said it again. :) --Snograt whisper 13:43, 14 February 2007 (PST)
lol :) I'm against the idea of "dev updates". Gaile might also decide to talk about community projects, which would mean the title was not accurate. LordBiro 14:51, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I agree... Maybe we could go as far as calling it "Dev News" But my vote is still for "Gaile News" Maybe we should get their opinion. Kaya-Icon-Small.png 15:16, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Works for me. But I'm not sure what "Official Resources" are, exactly. --Gaile Gray 01:08, 15 February 2007 (PST)
I removed it... it was just there to confuse us ;) Kaya-Icon-Small.png 07:19, 15 February 2007 (PST)
I like these changes, is someone going to go ahead and implement them? --Indecision 01:10, 22 February 2007 (EST)
I like the changes, too. I spend less time using the search engine if I know where to go. ;) --Gaile Gray 16:30, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Synced the main page with the latest version of the editcopy. --Rainith 16:58, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Capitalization of Headings (only on Main Page)

(This is totally separate to the discussion of blanket format here: Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/General#Capitalization_of_section_headings)

I would like to see capitalization of titles on the main page - either the German Method (every noun) or Large Words (> 3 letters) - as it would look far more professional for the Wiki. See this link here for comparisons and examples. What is everyone's opinion? Joseph 06:53, 21 February 2007 (PST)

I like the German method. Also, many of the headings already incorporate that style ("Gear and Equipment"), it'd take minimum efford to adjust the rest. ~ dragon legacy 02:48, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Food

This does not need a main page link :P — Skuld 09:03, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Everyone needs to eat. ;) — Gares 09:20, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Food as an Enhancement? Vlad 19:41, 1 March 2007 (EST)
I took it out of the main page and not the copy back then. — Gares 20:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Merge into /Main?

When is the next merge of this editcopy onto the Mainpage? And could someone at least include the "game update per month" links to reflect the current month? -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 18:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Visibility of upcoming stuff?

I've added another little table to add some visibility to the information we have about the major upcoming guild wars changes/releases. The lead in text is kinda lame (I couldn't think of anything better). Please revert the change if it isn't appropriate to have that sort of stuff there. --Aspectacle 02:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

"Coming soon"? Hard Mode and Gwen maybe, but GW2 isn't due until 2008. I say we leave that topic until a few weeks before release. ~ dragon legacy
It doesn't have to say coming soon - use your imagination. Even I said I thought the lead in words were lame. :) I like finding out about these upcoming Guild Wars things and thought some links could be a good enhancement. --Aspectacle 05:43, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm really, really bad at wiki tables, so can I just request that someone at Automated Tournaments to the upcoming section? =P MisterPepe talk 15:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Logos

Those of us using Smurf's guildwars.com skin are set on fire and run over by the Guild Wars logos with the white bg's on the main page. Could someone with Photoshop grab the PSD files for each campaign here, here and here, add transparency and resave them as .png? They could then be put on the editcopy and sent to the main page when it's ready. Thanks in advance! --Santax 14:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

As I've mentioned throughout this wiki, I don't have readily available access to photoshop at present, but I believe from memory that the Guild Wars PSD files cannot easily be converted to a transparent version. Someone might say otherwise, or produce something when they read this, but if it is difficult to produce transparent versions then I recommend asking Emily or someone else to get involved with this. LordBiro 14:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Logo for Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, all should be transparent. --Dirigible 15:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Great stuff, thanks Dirigible ^_^ --Santax 15:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I guess I remembered incorrectly then ;) LordBiro 15:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
No no, you were remembering perfectly fine. It was the hardest thing I've ever done! It was worse than fighting a bear while carrying a bucket full of cement up a hill in a hot summer day! --Dirigible 15:44, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Santax, I'm reverting your change of the logos in the campaigns header bar. I think the logos I uploaded are more suitable than those of Emily's, since she must have forgotten to turn off the atmospheric effect layer when she saved the PNG files from the PSD ones. Here's what I mean:

My version: Guild Wars logo.png and Emily's: GWPropheciesLogoLarge.png

The red fog might look good on the guildwars.com website, but it looks just bizarre on a white background like here on the wiki. --Dirigible 00:11, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Remember, some of us use Smurf's skin, and I'd be a lot more comfortable using the official logos than ones that greatly differ and are essentially fan-made. --Santax 02:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what you mean by "essentially fan-made"? These are the exact same pictures as those of Emily, simply with that atmospheric effect layer disabled. --Dirigible 03:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
That atmospheric effect layer is basically the difference between the logo being official or not being official. The logos have always had that effect, even on a white background. The logos we use curently, no matter how you dress it up, simply aren't the Guild Wars logos. --Santax 04:40, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
But.. but... it looks a bit silly for all but the handful of people using the guild wars www skin. Surely the default ought to take precedence for appearance? Plus the original jpg uploaded by Emily didn't have the bloom - your argument of officialness doesn't really hold water. GuildWarsPropheciesLogo.jpg --Aspectacle 04:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree that it looks better against a white background without the red haze. As for "official" vs "fan-made"... didn't Mike O'Brien state that he wanted this wiki to have a design distinct from the Guild Wars website, and that he hoped that we would be able to design as much of the wiki as possible without ANet's input? That's essentially what has been done with the logos here. User Fox.jpg Fox (talk|contribs) 04:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes he did, Fox. Personally, since I don't use the GuildWars.com skin, I find the image without the bloom to be considerably more attractive. If the bloom could be changed to white instead of red/pink then it might look better on a white background. But at that point Santax might still claim that the image is "fan-made". LordBiro 08:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
"That atmospheric effect layer is basically the difference between the logo being official or not being official". Good god. Here's what the in-game logo looks like:
In-game GWNLogo.jpg
Notice anything? No fog. Give this argument a rest already. The PSD file comes with unlocked atmospheric layers for a reason, so that they can be disabled when not needed. They could extremely easily have just merged the layers, and that would have been it. But the layers are unlocked. --Dirigible 13:30, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Skills

I think that the Skills section should be changed to a directory of the skills instead of explaining what skills are. I think more people want to have a quicklink for skill directories, as they already know what skills are. Valhallan 16:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a link to the skill list on the skill page. A person who already knows what they want to look up can always type it in the search bar. Having the skill page on the front is helpful for new users. - BeXoR 22:51, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
I have to agree with the both of you, and slightly more with Valhallan. It is most likely that the majority of the visitors will treat GWW as a (quick) reference. I suggest we either make a cheatsheet section or a section for first time players. Duh, there already is a Skill list proposed on the editcopy... --MarkL 10:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Yea I put it on the proposed edit section. I started this for discussion. I can see how having the explanation page helps, but I believe that more people will be coming to GWW as already at the very least mildly familiar with the game. If there is a beginner's guide on the main page, I think it should be in a separate section. EDIT: After looking at the main page again maybe a quick reference section should be started instead of a beginner's section.--Valhallan 12:41, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
The skill list has been merged with Skill. —MarkL User MarkL Heart.png (talk - contribs) 18:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Main page layout - take 2

Now that lots of stuff that needed be done right away and up front has been done, it might be a good idea to re-visit the main page layout. The current layout was only installed as a stop-gap measure while we are busy. The question now is: Is everyone happy with the current format? The old proposals can be looked at here. --Xeeron 12:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

For the time being I'm happy with it. Although, I feel something is missing. Perhaps it's a bit too clean, hardly any color besides a lot of white and a fair amount of blue/purple. It feels clinical and not yet fun as playing the game. —MarkL User MarkL Heart.png (talk - contribs) 14:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. A revamp of the main page appearance would be great. --Dirigible 14:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh no one likes my front page anymore :'( ... I'm in favour of it being revamped/redone, It was only a temporary solution and to be honest it looks ugly :P -- Scourge User Scourge Spade.gif 20:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Another possible option; User:Aspectacle/Sandbox using the infobox style and colours. I feel that it's missing something - I'll see if I can put my finger on what "it" is over the day. --Aspectacle 23:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
No need to tap every color from the rainbow. Just one or two should be plenty. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't ruling out that "it" could be part of "shit" either. :P The multi-colour is a bit full on, I agree - So I've changed to a more sedate scheme. Hopefully the colour won't get too much in the way of the idea. :) --Aspectacle 00:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I think your current version looks good. - BeXoR 00:33, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I like the single-color header version. It breaks up the page some without adding the distracting carnival feeling that I got from the multi-color version. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:21, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

While I dont want to steal Aspectacle's proposal its attention, we should maybe not start at the back of the discussion. Some points we might discuss first, before getting to fine-tuning the proposals:

  • How many boxes do we want on the main page?
  • Should the boxes be distinguished by color?
  • Do we distingiush by campaign on the main page?
  • What are useful "headers" by which to sort the main page layout? --Xeeron 11:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not too concerned about my work being in vain. I'm not entirely certain that the page needs a major reengineering in terms of content. Talking to your points:
  • 3 boxes across is nice, but if you did a design I loved with 2 I would support that. I'd prefer the page to fit in roughly a window without too much scrolling.
  • Colour in the page is desirable, but this should be a small complimentary set, rather than rainbow. I'd prefer the front page to maintain a distinctive style from guildwiki.
  • I think that there is too much common or duplicated content to effectively distinguish by campaign. Although if you can work it out where you don't clutter the page too much go for it.
  • I think that the titles on page are fine, but will think on this a bit more for some other structure because I'm sure there are other options.
Things I'd like to see, or have considered; ways to bring interesting or current game information to the attention of site visitors. Perhaps bring interest to a fairly plain page by utilising a variety of background images similar to those seen in Lord Biro's skillbox draft.
If you have an good idea of what you think would work you should sketch it up and post it. It is easier to work with examples than words. --Aspectacle 22:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I've seen a nice userpage (User:KaYa) that could provide a nice framework. I especially like the little icons in the title bars. Colours could/should be tweaked though. —MarkL User MarkL Heart.png (talk - contribs) 16:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Damn that's a pretty page. :) I wonder what it would look like with all the links on the mainpage atm? --Aspectacle 19:59, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Similar to what Kaya did, do you guys think that using a simple border bottom/right dropshadow would make the page pop more than the colors? It might be something to test. --Emily Diehl 14:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I think her use of cool looking icons over-lapping the edge of the title boxes has more to do with how the page pops at you ... the shadow effect is secondary to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I've done an update to my sandbox. I've taken a few ideas from kaya's page. Please note that may of the images I picked look substandard for the task, and in some cases not appropriate for the box they're beside (aside from the present which looks good) but I didn't want to update/make pngs for the task so just used some from around the site. I may put effort in later. --Aspectacle 19:02, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Great idea! Just one note: replace WoH with the GW symbol and the panda with the red arena symbol. This should be the new Main Page! BigBlue 19:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
The idea to use icons like on Kaya's userpage is great. It clearly distinguished the boxes without the need to use different colors. Apart from the two changes above, the 6th box should have a symbol as well. Maybe a question mark or something that stands for wiki-community. I would also replace the "We are maintaining 5,064 articles!" with "Community" (or "Wiki"), because it is not a good header (it can go somewhere inside the box). The current Update, News and Community could become Updates, News and Events.
One thing to discuss is the big huge GW logo on top. While I dont find the current 3 logos much nicer, they are useful. Is there any possibility of turning them into mini-boxes with campaign related links which would fit to the look of your example? --Xeeron 20:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Problem being with the design that it looks frighteningly awful in IE6 (no png transparency support - boo!). So unless someone comes up with a scheme which allows those floating icons to have a fixed colour background on various different page sizes the idea isn't really a good one. :( Thanks for the icon suggestions thou, I can't find them on the site at the moment so I'll see what other feedback I get before putting effort in to create them here.
I quite like the one big icon (perhaps a bit big?) but I can put all three back in again if you like. --Aspectacle 20:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought someone had found a way to make PNG transparencies work in IE... Biro asked about it and someone (Smurf?) responded. I'll have to try to dig that conversation up somewhere. --Rainith 21:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Found it here. Not sure if this will help you with how you want to use it, but there it is anyway.  :) --Rainith 22:06, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
That looks very cool Aspectacle. :) - BeXoR 02:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Looks damn good, Aspectable :-) Thanks for the effort! —MarkL User MarkL Heart.png (talk - contribs) 13:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
PS. Should we replace the current Main Page/editcopy with Aspectable's sandbox? —MarkL User MarkL Heart.png (talk - contribs) 13:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Damn, that's a mighty fine frontpage, Aspectacle :) --SnogratTrigsig.png 16:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
<ri> Thanks everyone. Although full praise to Kaya because the image idea came from her page.
My primary concern is the appearance of the page in IE6, where each of the images has a white or grey background which interferes with the background of the section headers. If not for that I'd have copied it across already (so others could play with the colours and fix up my hacky styles. :)
I've changed the page and added in a few options which I think give us better appearance compatibility with IE6 (I don't think they look better) because on the front page of a site like this I feel I can't just say 'stuff you' to all those on IE6 - no matter how much I want to tell them to upgrade their browser and ignore them. :( Methinks the 'Game basics' section looks ok.
Another option is to use css and background images for each of the headers on the page to give "the right look". The trouble being that it makes it more difficult for those using other skins, or those designing skins to have a good look for the main page for their skin.
Any thoughts? Because if you all say "ignore IE6" I'd be happy to do so. :P --Aspectacle 19:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I really like the "Updates, news and events" box, with the thin underline. And just ignore IE6 ;) -- Scourge User Scourge Spade.gif 19:36, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Methinks we should ignore IE6. If they are going to be diffcult and won't upgrade, then they would probably not contribute to the well-being of the community anyways. I think we should make as much stuff on the front page directories as possible. you would WAnt this page, in a graphic organizer sense, to work like a top down page. you can get to as many articles as possible, without using the search bar. JibjabmanFile:Jibjabman-sig.png 23:48, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I prefer the PVP/PVE boxes - the look is reminiscent of the infoboxes used throughout the site. As for the images, that's an unfortunate downside. I would hope people would switch browsers, because IE6 is pretty crappy. I know several people browse the wiki from work and don't have a choice though. - BeX 01:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
If we can't use images with alpha blending on the main page, does that also mean we can't use them at all (on the whole wiki)? I'd say that not using images with alpha blending isn't an option. —MarkL User MarkL Heart.png (talk - contribs) 16:41, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
My concerns aside I've added the modifications to this page as they were. I'm going to upload a new version of the first image which doesn't have the shadow cutting off and a cleaner, white background version of the Guild hall symbol. The design is now the wiki's to change, so please do so! --Aspectacle 19:18, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Synced the main page with the edit copy. This does raise the question of should we protect the new images used on the main page to prevent them from being vandalized? I believe so, but that would preclude Aspectacle from uploading new versions. --Rainith 20:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Also another question, is there any chance that the campaign logos can be made somewhat smaller? --Dirigible 20:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I thought I'd have a few more days to fix up those images! :) If you're happy to leave them unprotected for a little while I'll see to the new versions tonight. I hasn't really thought about image protection. I'll make new versions of the images used elsewhere in the wiki so they can be tidied without worrying about the effect on the other pages they're in, and named so they can be completely changed without changing the main page - so "pvemainpage.png", "pvpmainpage.png" that sort of thing - I'll do that now.
As to campaign image size, I do like the images to be fairly large. I felt they were far too small before, now the image now takes up the same amount of space as the image + the links to mission, storyline &c from before. You could reduce down to ~200px and still retain much of the look I was wanting. --Aspectacle 21:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
I like the idea of different names for the images used on the main page. I'm leaving the images unprotected for now (and honestly, I only thought about the vandalism issue after I changed the main page). Post here once you've got the final images you want uploaded and I or another admin will get them protected.  :) --Rainith 21:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Rainith could you remove the line breaks between the notoc and the first div. It's ugly creating white space. - BeX 00:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Please protect the images. I could muck around lining everything up, but honestly I have the attention span of a gnat so I'd rather do something else now. If people want to change the images they can change the edit copy by putting in new names for the images to show what they look like and then an admin will have to upload the new image over the top of the mainpage image file. --Aspectacle 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Images are now protected. --Rainith 12:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Main page layout - Width

As i said in Talk:Main_Page the campaign image side by side is too large. I have put Nightfall on a second row. maybe it could be centred below both previous campaign? (i dont know how to center it tho) --Bob 20:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

How about a simple resize of the images as mentioned somewhere above - I think that would have a more pleasing visual effect. What resolution are you trying to get them to fit across in? --Aspectacle 20:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Was going to mod my comment to add this suggestion. I think the entire page should be scalable below 800px width so 2 page can be see side by side whit the average resolution(1280x1024?). --Bob 21:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I jsut set them to 190px, look more resonable. what you think? the Prophecies logo need a workout as it native resolution dont match the other logos. --Bob 21:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I've up'd them a little, and reduced the height of the table they're in. I'll upload a new version of the vanilla Guild Wars logo which has less white space which will help with the sizing and portions at lower sizes too. Otherwise, yup looks ok. --Aspectacle 21:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Even whit Prophecies logo at 200px like the others it is 5-1px too large i think. Using firefox on win32 maximized 800x600 i get a bottom scroll bar. Removing the cell spacing of the logo box fix that. --Bob 23:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I wasn't clear enough. I will upload a new version of the prophecies logo which has less white space which will change the dimensions of the first image and decrease the minimum size of the page. This will also clear up some oddness apparent from having too much white space and putting different sizes for each of the images to get them to appear the same size. Tweaking the size is not helpful until this is done. I will upload a new version later today (Sydney time). --Aspectacle 23:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Once more the main page has become a scaling nightmare. Each time it get fixed, someone feel like making the logos bigger then before. But worry not, it the last time i complain about it; i give up.. --Bob 21:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Christ I switched to 800 x 600 and you can only fit like 10 words on the monitor at once! Horrendous - I can't imagine any website looking good in that resolution. I think the main page would be the least of your worries. Even with the logos smaller, the tabular content is still going to give you a horizontal scroll. - BeX 01:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Add Hard Mode

Add a Hard Mode link to the main page Atma 05:09, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Resync?

The editcopy looks quite stable now. Resync? —MarkL User MarkL Heart.png (talk - contribs) 14:38, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

You beat me to it, Mark! Do you guys think the main page is good-to-go for the front page yet? --UserEmilyDiehlStar.gif Emily Diehl (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
If everyone's happy with this version of the editcopy I'll resync it :) I'll wait a few minutes just in case! LordBiro 15:02, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, well it looks fine to me, so I am syncing :) LordBiro 15:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
*cheers*! --UserEmilyDiehlStar.gif Emily Diehl (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Guild Wars 2 Logo on Main Page

Am I the only one that thinks it would be a good idea to pop up a Guild Wars 2 logo that links to the appropriate wiki entry on the front page? Afterall, Eye of the North is up there, and this wiki's GW2 entry is probably the most comprehensive listing of known information - seems a shame for it to be shoved away in a dark corner. ~1337-n00b 04:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Why adding a logo for a game that will be released in above two years? Besides we have a link on Upcoming changes and features --BigBlueMonk 20.png talk 06:42, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Icons

I have added prof icons for each class to the main page edit copy. There are a couple of reasons.

  • It introduces new people to the wiki instantly to the icons we use throughout
  • It allows link to each individual profession from the main page which is very useful, having to go through the profession link at the moment seems a little long winded to me.
  • I think they look nice.

well that's my take, what do you think? --Lemming64 12:31, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

It might seem surprising, but I don't really like it. I can't verbalise exactly why, lol, but it doesn't sit well with me. LordBiro 12:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I think I agree with LB - rather than simplifying things, it seems to clutter up the page (though the icons do look nice in general, I'm not a big fan here). Of course, I've never been good with formatting, so take that with a grain of salt =P MisterPepe talk 12:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
I like them, and I can't really argue with Lemming's logic, but they do need a bit more formatting. I stuck in a simple line return - nothing fancy but I think it gets rid of the "cluttered" feeling. They're certainly not mandatory, though. ~ 1337-n00b 23:10, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
to be honest i don't really like them sitting there. It cluters the place up and if you click on the proffesions link above it, it has the icons on that page next to each proffesion. So in my opinion I think the proffesions link should be enough. --File:User Wacked 1 Link Sprite.gif Wacked 1 12:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Pro deletion --BigBlueMonk 20.png talk 13:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Color revert

Firefox, feel free to disagree with different colors on the main page (I would disagree with these colors as well), but you should bring up the point here on the talk page instead of reverting right away. That was clearly an edit which intended to improve the main page, not vandalism. --Xeeron 09:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I liked the new colors / idea behind it. --BigBlueMonk 20.png talk 13:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I also liked the colour change. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 04:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was ugly and poorly executed. - BeX 07:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page/editcopy/Archive_1&oldid=1078916"