Talk: Main Page/Archive 4

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.

Visability for abandoned builds

People can find trash builds more easily than they can find abandoned builds. Put a link on it on the front page above trash? Or leave em alone? Shireensysop 10:39, 25 September 2007 (CEST)

I vote to make them separate, as trash implies the build is pretty much terrible. Abandoned just means it was an idea that was never quite finished, for whatever reason. Besides, I think I know more than anyone just how many abandoned builds there are (lol). They all probably deserve their own section in case anyone wants to look for inspiration on unfinished ideas. Podank 10:08, 26 September 2007 (CEST)

I've put a link on the main page. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 20:16, 26 September 2007 (CEST)

Norn fighting Tournament builds?

any idea if this kind of section could be added?

We might once GW:EN comes out, but for now, we don't know if they will add more builds or anything. ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 16:30, 25 August 2007 (CEST)

Only if someone makes a monk build. ;D —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 15:52, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

Use the new Elite pet forms. Or go Mo/Rt Spirit Spammer. Asdfg 15:53, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

My Mo/R Prepshot tbh. Ibreaktoilets 15:54, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

There's a monk build on my user page that I used to get the crown. My friend did a 55/SV build and he said that worked, too. --Wizardboy777 00:03, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

We need builds that work for solo occasions, like the Norn tournament, especially against Bison. 132.204.104.171 20:05, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

I'll be running a Siphon Strength assassin with horns of the ox, mending touch and reverse hex — Skuld 23:49, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

Restarting discussion. Do we or do we not want a NFT category? It can be added quickly with relatively small amounts of hassle. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 00:48, 20 September 2007 (CEST)

We are good 'nuff I think... that one Any/Rt is plenty good. ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 21:08, 20 September 2007 (CEST)

What about our friends the Warriors and such? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 23:47, 20 September 2007 (CEST)

Grenth's Balance, Dolyak Sig, ripostes, shield bash etc — Skuld 00:18, 21 September 2007 (CEST)

Make a build and upload then please. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 00:32, 21 September 2007 (CEST)

I used Build:X/X Common Sense — Skakid9090 00:34, 21 September 2007 (CEST)

Not everyone can use that. We have to cater to all sorts of retards in addition to those who can use common sense. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 00:36, 21 September 2007 (CEST)

Purging out-dated builds

I was thinking we should have a section on the front page for builds in need of re-evaluation, I recall something similar for the Old Guild Wiki. --Hikari 01:44, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

Meh, take it as it comes. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:21, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

I recently went through all of the stubs and trial builds and marked all of the old ones as abandoned. Now just to see them deleted... Podank 13:21, 22 September 2007 (CEST)

Skill Icons

shouldnt we make a redirect to coresponding page on guildwiki ??? frankly i could do it if ya all dont mind ?? Iwan13_talk 12:28, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

We can't. Redirects can't go outside of PvXwiki. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 15:02, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

We should prolly list the pages at least. You can click the icon then click the link on the icon page to get to GW. ‽-(єяøהħ) ^{no u} 22:54, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

There were several redirects to gwiki, last I checked Special:Listredirects. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 23:31, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

They do not seem to work properly, though. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 23:32, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

Ya, they are redirects but the act like ... non-redirects? ‽-(єяøהħ) ^{no u} 23:34, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

They work to a degree. You have to spell them exactly correct, for them to redirect :P. Small bug. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:36, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

Den hao cum nun ov dem werk? ‽-(єяøהħ) ^{no u} 23:50, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

Some of them do. Wrong thing perhaps? bbcode does redirect I know. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:54, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

BBcode is set differently. ‽-(єяøהħ) ^{no u} 23:57, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

PvXcode just links directly to the Gwiki page for the skill. The redirects do not work properly to guildwiki. See --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 23:58, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

yeah but it has a link to wiki at least .. even thats something Iwan13_talk 01:13, 2 September 2007 (CEST)

All the links are messed up...

Title. I'll post on GCards talk. ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 17:16, 1 September 2007 (CEST)

I can't seem to add a link without it being red and not going anywhere, so how do i avoid that without not putting links on?Fire Tock 17:12, 2 September 2007 (CEST)

[[gw:link|link]] for links to guildwiki. –Ichigo724 17:29, 2 September 2007 (CEST)

I don't completely understand but i can try.Fire Tock 18:50, 2 September 2007 (CEST)

no, its [[gw:link|]], don't use redundant code — Skuld 19:05, 2 September 2007 (CEST)

So, we should leave the "gw:" in articles? I fail to see the point. –Ichigo724 19:29, 2 September 2007 (CEST)

No, adding a single bar (i.e. | ) will cut off the prefix automatically so that [[gw:link|]] will simply display as "link." *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:55, 2 September 2007 (CEST)

Ah. –Ichigo724 00:22, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

PvX Code?

Is it not working right due to new gwen skills? Because im not seeing this: [[1]].....(bottom image) you know, the thing where the information square pops out when you hover your mouse over the skill...--Theupstandingbob 19:45, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Can you give an example (which build), and name your browser? Works fine here. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 20:46, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Sorry guys, it was just me. Re-installed Mozilla and everything worked fine. sorry for any confusion =].--Theupstandingbob 20:52, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

this seems weird to me

why is it that only alliance battle and GvG have a link redirecting towards guild wiki? if you want links to the rest of the categorys, ill post them here...- Bob --> Complaints || DROB HSqrd || Trash Here Plz 01:08, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

First, you can't edit the Main Page. Second, those links aren't to GuildWiki, they are to various Portals, such as Portal:AB. *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:10, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

ahhh i see. i was just assuming. well then, is it possible for me to make a portal on TA or HA? seeing as I am the master of both j/k ;). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theupstandingbob (contribs) .

The HA Portal has already been started, see here, although it needs some serious work. As to a TA Portal, I'd talk to Grinch before starting a new one, since he's unofficially in charge of the creation of said Portals. *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:24, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

well seeing as im not to good with formating/syntax (or html...) ill just work on the HA portal.- Bob --> Complaints || DROB HSqrd || Trash Here Plz 01:33, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

In terms of the formatting/syntax, you can pretty much simply copy/paste the coding from another Portal. *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:38, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

id rather not. im already working on a killer article on the HA portal =]- Bob --> Complaints || DROB HSqrd || Trash Here Plz 01:43, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

I talked with Grinch about this the other day (somewhere anyway) he doesn't want anyone to start the new portals until the other ones are a bit more completed-so if you fancy giving a hand look on the 3 or 4 portals there are and see what you can do-still a lot of red links and probably a lot of stuff to be added (though on the guides portal there is in all fairness a hypothetical infinite amount of things to be added, with guides for just about anything.) I'd also like to point out there is a HA portal made (the mainpage for anyway-don't think there's a lot of content)-so if some admin or whoever does could link it like AB and GvG =) tar muchly.PheNaxKian (T/c) 21:45, 6 September 2007 (CEST)

thats cool and sounds reasonable, ive already started puring my knowledge into the HA portal and plan to make the portal a "mini-project" between me making builds.- Bob --> Complaints || DROB HSqrd || Trash Here Plz 00:22, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

Portals are added as the main page becomes cleaned up and ready for primetime. Some articles need to be added into the HA portal before it can become a workable, usable sub-main-page as Portals were designed to be. My idea for Portals was just that: a sub-page with a link to guides that works in both putting the builds stored on this website in perspective and as an introductory guide to the realm of a type of gameplay. Also, each portal will have a custom color scheme, so if there are requests for which portal wants to be done the fastest, let me know on my talk page. Currently, PvE is in the workshop. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚〛 01:19, 7 September 2007 (CEST)

EotN skills arent linked to attributes

see smiters boon and smite condition on Build talk:Mo/any Smiter's Boon Monk — Skuld 10:31, 9 September 2007 (CEST)

PvXwiki:Admin_noticeboard#Smite_Condition –Ichigo724 16:54, 9 September 2007 (CEST)

non-55 Primary monk that causes damage

I REALLY NEED ONE OF THESE SKILL TEMPLATES, CAN SOMEONE POST ONE UP? I THANK YOU IN ADVANCE

CALM DOWN. And no monks don't do damage. ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 01:12, 11 September 2007 (CEST)

What's all the yelling about? Anyways, you can do with a Monk what you can do with pretty much any primary casting profession. Some of the Smiting Prayers can be useful; a combo like Smiter's Boon and Reversal of Damage with a bit of energy management somewhere can help. I wouldn't recommend doing it in a team of non-henchmen/heroes, though, as people tend to get a bit... upset if you're not healing them and you look like a Monk. - Vermain 01:19, 11 September 2007 (CEST)

I mean... you can make a Monk damage build if you like, I think we had an "acceptable" Monk Smiter at some point, and in PvP, you can run a (somewhat gimmicky) Smiter's Boon Monk. *Defiant Elements* +talk 02:00, 11 September 2007 (CEST)

You can create a damaging build with anything, really. If you're going to do PVE, almost anything works (although you might have to hench it, admittedly). I could probably make a decent Mo/W for PVE, in fact. - Vermain 10:02, 11 September 2007 (CEST)

Build:Mo/Me Signet of Removal Smiter is somewhat damaging. Wouldn't work outside of GvG and maybe HA, because elsewhere in PvP there's not enough organization and in PvE, you'd be useless because no one bothers to run physicals for damage there. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 14:12, 11 September 2007 (CEST)

Fixed name of this to less yellness. Єяøהħ 15:03, 11 September 2007 (CEST)

Mo/W w/ Axe

Is There a Mo/W Build That Does Damage With An Axe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.200.29 (contribs) .

Why would you possibly want to be an Mo/W doing damage with an axe? I cannot conceive of a single scenario... *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:53, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

Oh, there's a good reason for everything. Simply put, because you can. But if you're looking for a build that can actually accomplish anything, I would suggest not using a Mo/W. Because they tend to suck. What with taking twice as much physical damage and all. --Wizardboy777 01:15, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

I think I've seen a 55 build with an axe, although I don't recall if it was any good. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 01:24, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

I wouldn't really recommend using this with any human players, as everyone will probably yell at you a lot, but if you're in it purely for the enjoyment:

Attributes would probably be something like 10 + 1 + 2 Smiting Prayers, 8 + 1 Protection Prayers, 12 Axe Mastery. Pre-cast Strength of Honor and keep Judge's Insight up constantly. Use Castigation Signet for more damage and energy management (as JI can easily suck up all of your energy doing this). Use Flail when you can and spam Eviscerate and Executioner's Strike. The axe skills aren't set in stone, mind you; alter them as you see fit. Use Shielding Hands if you start coming under heavy fire to take some pressure off of your Monks; again, you can also replace this with something like Guardian if you know you'll be facing heavy melee. Damage is surprisingly good. I gave this a shot on the dummies and you can do nearly Warrior-level hits on the 60 AL targets, and the armor penetration helps against more heavily armored foes. Play it like you would an Assassin. Don't be stupid and stick around in the front if thirty things are beating on you. Use Shielding Hands and back off until someone else has drawn their attention. - Vermain 05:18, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

or SoR+BS+axe for tanking lulz. –Ichigo724 05:39, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

Or go /E and take a dual attune nuker. Sadly enough, I've found that to be the best option. Tycn 08:59, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

Ah, but he didn't say he wanted a Monk that does damage with dual attunes, did he? Sure, it's not the easiest row to hoe, but you can certainly have fun with it, and it can work, if you're careful.. If it doesn't work out for him, there's plenty of other options. To be honest, almost anything is viable in PVE; I finished the entire Prophecies campaign with a N/W. Was it tough at times? Yeah, definitely, but it was a hell of a lot more fun than standing there spamming Spiteful Spirit over and over. The only caveat is that the standard random grouper usually isn't interested in anything other than a fairly standard build, but that's what henchies are for, right?. - Vermain 10:42, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

I sort of assumed that he would want to deal damage, and axe definately isn't the way to go. I finished Prophecies as an E/R with Fire Storm as my only ele skill, so yes, anything works. It's just a matter of whether it barely scratches the surface and the other 7 players are doing all the work, or that it makes a signifigant contribution to the party. Tycn 10:51, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

The damage isn't bad, though; at the very least, it's roughly at the same level as a Warrior, and at the best it works better than an average Warrior against higher-armored targets. You trade some of that for survivability, sure, but a smart player won't let that be a concern for them. - Vermain 11:07, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

At least run Triple + Cyclone >< Tycn 11:19, 12 September 2007 (CEST)

Is there a possible way to make build page? It would be really helpful. TY!:)

Yes, there is a possible way. ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 02:31, 13 September 2007 (CEST)

There is also a possible way that I will WELL that before whoever does so blinks. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 02:38, 13 September 2007 (CEST)

Unless I get to it first! And 24.15.200.29, please sign your comments either by hitting the signature button in the editor (it's second from the right) or by typing four tildes (~~~~). And please, don't write in bold. --Wizardboy777 03:53, 13 September 2007 (CEST)

I'm fairly certain you're not a sysop and as such can't WELL builds. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 03:55, 13 September 2007 (CEST)

I put the build up on my userpage if you really want to look at it. That's about as far as it'll go as officially appearing on the wiki. - Vermain 07:39, 13 September 2007 (CEST)

just an idea

I personally think there should be a link where you can post builds that need to be vetted. I mean, the testing links are great and all, but i've seen builds that have been in there for months and months. Im thinking it could say something along the lines of "Vet These Builds" or soemthing. Just and idea.--- Bob --> Complaints || DROB HSqrd || Trash Here Plz 02:58, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

That's actually why I designed the Featured Builds, ahem, feature. >.< - Krowman {{sysop}} 03:16, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

yeah, but you have to wait 7 days before you can post a new one...and its not a guaruntee that you'll get it.--- Bob --> Complaints || DROB HSqrd || Trash Here Plz 03:57, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Um, you can replace the featured build every time the previous one gets vetted. - Krowman {{sysop}} 04:22, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Change links to GuildWiki to point to the official wiki?

I propose changing all links that point to GuildWiki to point to the official wiki instead. (Easy method: change [[gw:article name]] to point to the official wiki article instead of the GuildWiki article)

Reasons:

• The official wiki is the one used in the in game help system and promoting that wiki over GuildWiki will help a larger amount of the player base.
• GuildWiki has now been illegaly, against it's non-commercional license, sold to Wikia. This wiki should not support an action like that.

What do you others think? Gem 22:41, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

It doesn't matter what's happening in GWiki, as long as it has a better database (which it definitely does). GWiki can have midget porn on its front page for all I care, but if the content is sound and there's no impact (aka, midget porn in this example), then we might as well keep using GWiki. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 22:43, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

It does in some areas, but in others it doesn't. Also, supporting the official wiki would probably help fix the areas that it is lacking in. If everyone keeps saying that GWiki is better because it has the article x better than the official wiki, the official wiki will never be better when everyone keeps returning to GWiki. The first point of my post is the important one. Improving that wiki should be a nice side product of the change here. Gem 22:51, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Are you the same Gem as the one with the Pic of a gem in their sig? And I don't really care wither way... ~~ frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 22:55, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Yes, if you'd taken the time to click my user page link, you'd noticed that I'm the same guy. Gem 22:56, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

I have kind of mixed feelings about such things. On the one hand GW is better than GWW(official) because of the difference in the times of creation, as such GW has more content, and as such always will. But the official one has close ties to A-Net, as such it may have a bit of information that GW doesn't, but to be honest i think that GW would still be the better choice of the 2. As for the moving of GW to wikia (Wikia move) the legality of the move is still under question, there is some evidence to suggest that it MAY be an illegal move (because wikia may be classed as a commercial organisation) however i think it's fair to say that both parties involved there would have checked through such things, and seen if it was legal or not (i think it's fair to say they're not complete fools (i'm putting it nicely)), as such to say that their move is illeag is questionable, however i don't see any reason even if it is illegal not to continue linking to it, just because the moveing of it may be illegal, shouldn't affect the content (well what's already there anyway....maybe stuff that needs adding if people leave...). Basicly i say stick with GW for the time, if it starts to go down hill (which at the moment looks like a definite) then make the switch to GWW.PheNaxKian (T/c) 23:00, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

There are links from both existing Wikis that link to this wiki. However, I would prefer linking from this wiki to the official wiki, solely on the fact that it's linking to the official wiki. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:03, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

LOL intresting thought-makes sense-would still prefer unoffical though =)PheNaxKian (T/c) 23:04, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

But GWiki has a link to us on the main page. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 23:08, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Ok guys, stop discussing the legality of the transfer. This is merely about the linkage on this wiki.

Although GuildWiki does have better ocntent on some of the older features of the game, the official wiki seems to have a far better coverage of anything published after the start of the wiki. Also, the most important every day articles are more or less the same on both wikis. Isn't it the new stuff that most people need to know more about? Anyone who has played the game for very long will know about the odler stuff, the newer stuff which is the part of the game where most new builds are aimed at is better at the official wiki. Isn't this a good reason for the change?

Also, as far as I've understood correctly, you guys are willing to continue this project with GW2. GW2 will have an official wiki from the start and it will most likely be the only wiki for that matter. Why not start now instead of later on when the GW2 wiki is started? -- (gem / talk) 23:10, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Beacuse you'd have to wait for the offical wiki to catch up, when GW2 comes out then there will be another Unofficial wiki, it may not be better than the offical one, but someone will make one, maybe the people over at GW maybe not, but there will be-i can guarantee itPheNaxKian (T/c) 23:12, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Because GWiki is better now. Maybe when GW2 comes out, we'll link to GWWiki. However, right now, the links to Guildwiki are purely for skills and not for "Dungeon XYZ". —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 23:13, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

What "GWiki is better"? Just because it has more content in terms of quests/missions? The only pages that we link to are Skill Pages, Attribute Pages, Profession pages, and policy pages. Those are the pages that we should be lookig at. The GWW is far more organized and professional when it comes to all 4 sections, and has a much more streamlined template system that make their pages, simply, look better. So really, looking at the issue again, GWW would be the better place to link to. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:20, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

True that it's mainly skills and atts. we link to, however i know there are various other things we link to as well (quests, items etc.) so what if we compramised-changed skills and att. to the offical (have something like [[GWW: and everything else links to the unoffical?PheNaxKian (T/c) 23:23, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

I disagree about GWW having better skill sections. It might look better but that's not really the case in terms of actual content. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 23:39, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

True i guess, that's a fair point, but i think for the most part the only diffrence between the skill pages on the 2 is usually somethink like trivia (e.g where the name perhaps comes from) and maybe the odd bug or something (of one exists)so they're really about the same content wise IMO, so i think GWW would be a better choice for skills as it looks more profesional.PheNaxKian (T/c) 23:43, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

I support switching to the official wiki for most links, as they have much better information concerning new stuff and more detailed or as good information about most of the things we'd be linking to. In addition, once GWiki gets moved to wikia, it may very likely take forever to load, like the rest of wikia. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 23:44, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Did you even read up on what was happening with that? GuildWiki will have it's own servers away from wikia, so it will not change how fast it loads. Next time study up on what ur talking about. Kthnx.--69.47.207.100 20:31, 22 September 2007 (CEST)

/agreePheNaxKian (T/c) 23:45, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

We don't link to anything "new." We link to skill pages and profession pages, which Gwiki has done a better job on. -Auron 23:52, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Actually, we only link to skill pages. Our profession links already direct users to the official wiki, as I have already pointed out here. - Krowman {{sysop}} 23:56, 14 September 2007 (CEST)

Well if the proffesion link to the offical i think it would make sense to link attributes and skills to the officail one as well, i think it's safe to say there's very little diffrence in those articalsm and as such it makes sense to go for the more profesional looking one, and perhaps one that isn't currently going through turmoil atm, (no offence to the regular GWikiers but it seems to have come to a stand still over this whole move thing)PheNaxKian (T/c) 00:06, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Stick with Guild Wiki. The official wiki really sucks big time. % of skills there with no discussion, trivia, notes, ect = many. This wiki is from and IS A FORK of guild wiki. it has ALL THE GUILD WIKI builds. this wiki essentially jacked all the builds from guild wiki, and now you want to "ditch" them and go to the offical? Guild Wiki Community > offical. I mean the offical dont even document error numbers (IIRC) lool (PS how the fuck do i put in a link for my sig??? i made one...but i cant add it in pref...) --Bim 00:11, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

(look at my talk page for sig help =D) Yes we know that the offical wiki doesn't have any triia or disscussion apges blah blah blah (soz) but were not really bothered about that stuff as much IMO i think it's mainly what the skill is, and any bugs/glitches/problems there may be, granted that the disscusion pages may be usefull, but i know for a fact that they're VERY VERY rarley updated by anyone. As for builds-we're a build site-i think we'll manage, also there are plenty of places that builds come from-not every build on here will be posted here first, someon will have seen it on another site and made a version here, it happens. As for error codes-we don't need them we're builds and guides related-nothing else.PheNaxKian (T/c) 00:16, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

The average noob comes along and doesnt understand the mechanics of *SKILL HERE*. Links to offical? o wait no fucking help there gg... links to Guild Wiki , OMG LOOK AT ALL THIS INFO I KNOW HOW TO USE SKILL NOW IM NOT NOOB.... Guild Wiki trumps all. ill check out your page for sig stuff -Bim 00:18, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

If you're insinuating that the average nub is that illiterate, then wth would he be reading through not one, but two wikis? /sigh - Krowman{{sysop}} 00:21, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Lol are you kidding? incase you arent the discussion is about the pages the skill links to. ill put a scenario up. Noob sees new crazy mesmer build. He dont understand wtf *SKILL HERE* does DESPITE the fact he sees the descrip. (exapmle can be mantra of i forget... that one that makes shit recahrge faster) it says 50% but when you look it means 1/2 time (the descrip is inaccurate) clicks link, sees guild wiki, viola he understands... -Bim 00:25, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

(edit conflict)(too much indent)It's not going to make a diffrence which site a noob goes to-a noobs a noob, and neither of them particularly explains the mechanics of a skill, they ahve a discription, the table of stats at what ranks in atr. etc. they both have that, GW then has some trivia, that's just where the name comes from for the most part, so i don;'t think it makes much of a diffrence (man my views changed from the first post on this topic >_<)PheNaxKian (T/c) 00:23, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

PvXwiki is not an elitist website. In fact, we are just the opposite because we are a wiki. We get the worst trash on Guild Wars and are lucky people such as Auron and DE spend time here instead of dumping this place because of its open nature. If noobs are what 99% of our userbase is, we should cater to them. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 00:29, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

I differ on that point. We're here to improve people (their builds specifically), not help them maintain a perpetual state of nub-ness. :) - Krowman {{sysop}} 00:32, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

KROWMAN i hope your kidding lol. your a funny man... BUT IF YOUR NOT... BY KEEPING GUILD WIKI LINKS NUBS = NOT NUBS b/c guild wiki pwns all Bim 00:35, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

People come here for help with their builds, not to celebrate their nub-ness in a like-minded community. That's all there is to it. Please, try to argue a little more rationally. - Krowman {{sysop}} 00:37, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

On an unrelated note, stop capitalizing every other word you use, it's disruptive and serves no actual purpose. *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:38, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

If they don't understand the skills, they can't very well grasp the concept of the build and then become not-noob, right? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 00:38, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Yes, Bim, please stop typing in all caps. And just saying 'GuildWiki is better' over and over again while dissing other people isn't an effective way to argue. --Wizardboy777 00:41, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

you people make me laugh. do any of you have disorders? let me explain what i say... the links to skills in this wiki go to guild wiki. The skill articles on guild wiki are uber amazing. They explain ANY discrepancies in the skill descriptions, and explain the mechanics. If a noob does not understand something what do they do? they click on the skill link. If it leads to the official wiki they will most likely still NOT understand. If they end up on a guild wiki article they get all the info they need + amazing talk pages. why dont YOU argue more rationally... i have not even see one of your points -Bim 00:43, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Actually, let's do it. [[gw:etc]] should remain the interwiki link to GuildWiki, and we should put in a [[gww:etc]] for GWW. I don't want to be unable to interwiki link to GWiki; making [[gw: default to GuildWarsWiki would do such a thing. -Auron 00:45, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Tha's what i suggested.... i think it's the best plan really, that way everyone's happy (ish) but then what would the links on skills bars go to? would that still be GW?PheNaxKian (T/c) 00:48, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

That's a good point. However, we need an official stance on the wiki that the links are usually linked to. -- (gem / talk) 00:50, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

For everything none skill/prof/atr.? i suggest normal wiki (unofficial) for that....PheNaxKian (T/c) 00:52, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

We don't need an official stance. All of the built-in links (i.e., from the bbcode skill/profession icons) would link to GWW. For anything in the article, it's author's preference. -Auron 00:55, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

It should be [[guildwarsofficialwiki:]] to discourage users from linking there. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 00:56, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

No need to discourage one or the other wiki. Let the author decide if there wont be any official stance. gw: and gww: are perfectly fine. -- (gem / talk) 01:00, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

/agree with using official wiki Rawrawr Dinosaurdark fails 00:57, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

IF YOU USE OFFICIAL WIKI, YOU'RE SELLING OUT THE MAN! To be honest, I've always thought of ANet as being mischievous mice. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 01:00, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

(edit conflict)/agree with offical for bbcode etc. but still hvae GW for artical links and author choice (offical should be [[GWW: (lol Grinch)PheNaxKian (T/c) 01:01, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Seriously, GWW is evil. The community is shit, the articles are poorly developed, and Guildwiki does a better job on skill descriptions. Barring that, I'll resort to irrational analogies that'll NPA [[guildwarsofficialwiki:]] so far into the ground, Gaile will be crying! BWAHAHA! —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 01:15, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Things GWW is:

• Ruthless Rascals
• Vicious Villains
• Malicious Monsters
• Dastardly Devils
• Heinous Hacks
• Terrible Tyrants
• Hellish Harbingers
• Facetious Fiends
• Amoral Antichrists
• Pompous Pricks
• Gelatinous Jerks
• Painful Parasites
• Barbarous Bastards
• Loathsome Louses
• Crass Cockroaches
• Fraudulent Farces
• Disdainful Demons
• Arrogant Asses

Things Gravewit is

• Crafty Criminal
• Swashbuckling Swindler

Make your choice, you Boisterous Buffalo you. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 01:24, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

You left out Wikia, since they're going to be the ones owning Guildwiki soon.

I'll do it for you:

Things Wikia is

• Laggy loaders

I don't know what else. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 01:39, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

I've never had a single problem with Wikia's servers. Also, GW's server will still be a seperate entity. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 01:42, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Are these guys serious? They're just randomly attacking everyone without any arguments. Calling gww or gw evil or someting else doesn't help this discussion at all. -- (gem / talk) 01:46, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Look above my awesome list. I presented my rationale in a clear, concise fashion. My awesome list is merely icing on the cake or muffin or whatever you like your icing on. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 01:48, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

How does calling the official wiki 'Terrible Tyrants' or 'Hellish Harbingers' help this discussion? To me the list looks like a direct attack against gww with no apparent reason, nothing more. -- (gem / talk) 01:51, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

It contributes to the discussion only slightly more than this discussion of whether it contributes to the discussion(poetry provides perfect assistance to ascertain any answer). --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 01:59, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Poetry? Perfect peace. You may call me P. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 02:02, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Oh, yes, and how could I forget? They are Nefarious Nazis. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ〚ŞƳŞŌƤ〛 02:13, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

So is anyone going to actually create the gww: linkage? -- (gem / talk) 02:20, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Only Gcardinal or Hhhippo can and they do things at their own pace. Give it time but as one last-ditch effort, don't do it! —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 02:28, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

The man above me is right. GWW is full of lame losers and fugly fools..... dont go there. actually do go there and you will agree with me and magrin... GWW is shit --Bim (talk|contribs) 02:36, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Have you ever noticed that it's mainly the same guys at GWiki and GWWiki? I'm not sure what it is that you guys have against GWW, but it must be something that I'm not aware of. Anyway, I'm surprised that stuff like you guys are saying above is tolerated here. I guess separating the builds from everything else was a good thing for those who werent after the builds. -- (gem / talk) 02:49, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Hardly. Those people have become bitter old salts (much like myself after just a month and a half or so of being a sysop). The Guildwiki contributors that we all used to know and love are unrecognizable today on GWW compared to their former, glorious selves. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 02:53, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

I think perhaps this discussion should return to the merits of the official wiki's skill page content, and leave this discussion of the userbases of the various wikis. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 03:04, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

No, seriously, over my dead body. i will DoS attack pvx if we link to the official(yes i know how to do it, but no i wouldnt really =b). guildwiki is just... better. it was there first! I will never forgive anet for making their own. GWW is full of mostly fugly's (to use other guys word) as well. guildwiki represents a community gettign together and making a database to help, gww is what? a company coming up with another way to regulate content. I cant stand the fact that so many jumped over to gww, its such a betrayal. 03:39, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

IN addition, i support gravewit fuly, and am very happy wikia is taking over. they've done nothing but good on the runescape wiki, for instance. grinch said it perfectly. contributing to gww is just selling out to the man!. 03:41, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Almost everyone here needs to put on a little more maturity in discussions like these. There is no harm in having separate [[gw: ]] and [[gww: ]] links. There may be specific instances where the user wants to link to the official wiki over the unofficial one. While I also look unfavorably upon the GWWiki, I acknowledge that my beliefs don't deserve to stifle any other user's choice about which wiki he/she would prefer to link to. Out of necessity, we may have to link to the offical wiki in the near future (license breach of the sale of GWiki content could mean that the content is lost when the servers are transferred to Wikia and they can't post that content), so at the very least, the ability to link to GWWiki could act as a standby option. Encouraging one wiki over another on the grounds of being populated with "Swashbuckling Swindlers" or "Amoral Antichrists" is irrational. Just be pragmatic; there are times when someone would want a simpler way to link to GWWiki, so why should they be prevented from doing so? Neither one has to be encouraged over the other (though I suppose one could argue that it is advantegous to link to GWiki because it requires one less keystroke). Really, this isn't like the 'teaching creationism' debate where one side is using the argument of "Be fair, tell both sides of the story and let students decide what they believe" to gain leverage they wouldn't otherwise have (clearly, I am against the teaching of creationism; it's comparable to telling kids 1+1 can equal either 2 or 11 and letting them decide which to believe in). - Krowman {{sysop}} 06:56, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

and this matters...why? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 07:02, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Convenience, for some. Necessity, imo. If GWiki becomes unavailable as a skill database, it would be nice to have the ability to link to GWWiki already in place, so that our site doesn't have to suffer unnecessarily. - Krowman {{sysop}} 07:04, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

"I remain optimistic".=). You disagreed with my IP(though the talk i'm having with auron right now has changed my ip's ideas), krowman, but i believe guildwiki is gonna do just fine. 07:12, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Sorry, didn't recognize that as you. I will try to address by name if I have anymore discussions with you there in the future. To clarify my point, I am not concerned about a loss of information or restricted access to it at this point, it is the breach of license, which is wrong all of itself, but it also creates the potential for the these obstructions. As well, it is unethical that he is making money off work that other users performed, and by violating the license through which the contribs were made, illegal as well. - Krowman {{sysop}} 07:25, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

"Sorry, didn't recognize that as you. " when one makes an unpopular proclamation one is happy to see what you just said. and i just got irc-pwned by auron regarding the entire matter, so i realize how right you guys are, but lets not drag this any farther into pvx or i will hang myself for bringing it here. 07:29, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Meh, all I suggest is that GC and Hhhippo work on something to convert all [[GW: to [[GWW: just in case. Otherwise, this is a minor priority imo. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 07:06, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

/support. 07:12, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

I don't. All of the built-into-bbcode redirects can be made to GWW automatically, the rest of them need to be left alone - the authors of each build can choose whether or not to interwiki to gw or gww. -Auron 07:17, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

even better idea. as long as theres flashing lights saying "gww sucks donkey nuts" when you have to choose. 07:27, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

What is the rationality behind that? - Krowman {{sysop}} 07:30, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

Guildwiki was here first. gww is full of tools. we are linked more to gw than to gww. gww sucks.15:48, 15 September 2007 (CEST)

as far as i have seen, no one has made a good point (besides the list! =]) beyond, "Their templates look preeetttyyy..". There is no HUGE difference in info between the two, so lets just let sleeping dogs lie and keep guild wiki as our current provider.

Exactly, no good arguments for keeping the GWiki links in the official templates have been presented, so why not make the change when there are, even if theymight be minor, reasons to do the change? The change is easy to do and doesn't require much effort. -- (gem / talk) 03:07, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

GWW looks cooler, so we should link there AMIRITE??? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 04:00, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

This is the dumbest discussion we have ever had. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:04, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

All of the discussions here are stupid. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 04:49, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

If there's no good arguments to keep the links, and no good arguments to change them, why would we change them? No work vs. work. Which one would you take? Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 04:39, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Oh but there are many arguments for the change. Official wiki = prettier. Official wiki = official and supported by the in game help system. Official wiki = will also have an official gw2 wiki from the beginning of GW2. Official wiki = not in the hazard of being unaccessible sometime soon. -- (gem / talk) 05:07, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

"Official wiki = official"lol! and its not prettier. and go away. 06:25, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

As a matter of fact, I will. The community here is crap and not welcoming at all. It's good that we got rid of you guys when the builds split in to their own wiki. -- (gem / talk) 12:00, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

Opinion, GW has a better community, good point, it most likely will go on as it has for the last two years or however long it has been in existence. Now, GW has a better community, which helps the upkeep of it. GW has at least a year and a half of discussion more than on GWW. GW2 will probably be better on GWW, but until that time comes, if that time comes for this wiki, as it's not sure whether this wiki will have GW2 builds on it, then we can change it if need be. But if the only advantages are better looking (I actually prefer GW), and a game that won't be out for another year or so, why do needless work? Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 05:14, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

The most important point for all to consider is the possibility that GWiki could become unavailable in the near future, and we have no 'back-up plan' in place for such an event. - Krowman {{sysop}} 06:01, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

I think they would into every possibility before moving the wiki, but then again, there are some stupid people out there. Can you give me a link to see the discussion about the move. I like the idea of a back-up plan, but make it so that all GCard or HHHippo needs to do is hit a button and all gw: turns into GWW interlinks. That would require a lot less work, as after that, it's a matter of personal preference. Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 06:16, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

[2] It functions as a portal to all pertinent discussions. - Krowman {{sysop}} 06:19, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

A note on the technical side: Changing the definition of interwiki links is indeed as quick as hitting a button. At the moment, both gw: and gww: link to Guild Wiki. We can easily change gww: to point to the official one, but we should check if gww: is used already and where it is meant to link. If Guild Wiki should move or disappear, we can easily modify the gw: link to point to either a new location of Guild Wiki or to the official wiki. Changing the links in pvxcode if needed should be a piece of cake as well. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 12:09, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

good. Petty squables over which wiki is better (though i realize i was one of the more outspoken in the argument) should take a serious second fiddle to our wikis functionality. If the need arises, we should have the ability to "hit that button" and go on building. I hope you guys do it as a precaution. Its more work for you guys though =(. 02:24, 17 September 2007 (CEST)