Talk:Guild Wars Factions

Moved info
I moved the information from Guild_Wars to this page and removed the advert/wikify templates here. It seemed inappropriate to leave well-written information that was pertinent to this article over there and also (hopefully) solved the advert/wikify problems. F A  E  03:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

CE Shipment Delays
Should add controversial issue on the the delay of Collector's Edition (CE), which affect globally. Gross 13:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Violation
I removed the Two Factions section due to copyright violation. It was copied word for word from the Preorder booklet, which I was could verify because I have a copy of it as well. All official lore is copyrighted to ArenaNet. I'm keeping the screenshots here for insertion when non-copyrighted information about the two guilds is added to the page. F A  E  06:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Build Information
Hi, to the person who added A and Rt build information to the page with specific information about which weapons and skills to use. I felt that the information was based on personal opinion and hence not appropriate for the page. If you have information on generic builds run by many ritualists and assassins you could perhaps update the builds page with Assassin and Ritualist information? ; Character Builds in the Guild Wars Universe -- Aspectacle 12:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Gothic / Emo
Would 68.48.158.244 please stop changing gothic to emo. Gothic means more in real life than just the social group, it is (or was, it dates from the middle ages) a whole artistic movement in architecture notably, of which the Kurzick cities, landscapes and people are reminiscent : very elaborate, very codified and strict, like the kurzicks themselves. Emo is a modern clothes and music trend that cannot be reproduced in a medieval / pre-industrial world like Guild Wars. SmegEd 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Critical Response
To aid Factions being more notable I think the Critical Response section should be expanded on :). Some possible things to add:


 * GWF being nominated for a BAFTA award for best multiplayer (http://www.bafta.org/site/page413.html)
 * GWF winning an award for best multiplayer (http://www.demmx.com/demmx/awards/2006.jsp)
 * Mentioning of GWF helping increased the number of GW players to 2million+ (http://au.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/guildwars/news.html?sid=6152907)

Well those should be starting points. Plus all the reviews that were written :). I may have a look when I get more time, but don't hold your breath :P --Rambutaan 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Okay, I've uploaded and added a couple of pictures as requested to improve quality. Please re-organise them in the article as you see fit :) --Rambutaan 20:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Special Events
I'm usually the last person to act like a deletionist, but I just wanted to see if I could get a consensus on whether we should remove the Special Events section? I mean it doesn't really conform with the other Guild Wars articles plus if we decided to list every special event that came up (e.g. Wintersday and Halloween events), the list could start getting pretty long (not to mention the section is bordering on becoming too explicit/trivial on the events - I'm referring to the 250 Jade Wind Orbs mention...). I'm happy to take back my suggestion if someone can provide a good reason to keep it. Otherwise, if there aren't any objections, I'll remove the section (or at least abbreviate the information somewhere else). --Rambutaan 05:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm a big deletionist. ;0) I don't think that each of the events need to be detailed on this or any page. I would like to see it removed, especially the details like jade wind orbs. --Aspectacle 21:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I haven't received any objections (plus I've given a couple of days for people to comment), I've decided to remove the "Special Events" section for the following reasons: (1) It appears to be too technical, (2) Special Events are already mentioned in a paragraph in the main Guild Wars article (and that's all that really needs to be mentioned) and (3) it does not conform to the format that the other two chapter articles employ (i.e. they don't have any mention of Special Events in them, so why should Factions)? --Rambutaan 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Clans
how do u make a clan?


 * Wikipedia talk pages are not a chat site or a forum; neither are Wikipedia articles instruction manuals. Take your question to the available online manuals or a relevant wiki such as the official one. Eric Sandholm (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of new professions
Please, let's not have screenshots of characters wearing Guild Capes. I'd rather we took them off. Plus, a female assassin is much nicer to look at than that awful looking male. Also, not having all your armour dyed the same colour is a nono.
 * Well the name of the game is Guild Wars, so I see no problem with the screenshots showing guild capes. I agree with having one male and one female on the page.  I would rather have the male assassin shown rather than the male ritualist, so again I'm fine with showing what we have now.  As for color, there's nothing wrong with mixing colors, many players do it.  You and maybe your friends/guild may have personal preference to a single dye color - but it's not a "nono". --161.88.255.139 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The focus should be on the profession's visual appearance only. Capes should be kept off and dye should be its default color. It's best to make it straight to the point, and focus the reader's attention on what they look like in a universal setting. I'm not saying that capes and mix dyes do not occur in Guild Wars, but it's best not to have that stuff influence the most important aspect, which is what the profession looks like.
 * The cape is behind the characters, it's not an issue, nothing of the character appearance is blocked - complaints about guild capes are much ado about nothing in my opinion.
 * Characters are allowed to dye their armor. If someone wants detailed images of what different armor looks like dyed and undyed, they should go to a fan-site.  Wikipedia is meant to give only a high level overview of what exists, and dyable armor does exist in-game.  Again, I don't see the point of making an issue about it - the appearance is still just as clear, just another color. --71.227.151.51 (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Capes are fine. They are not removable in PvP, which is the core of the game; therefore, they are arguably essential for an encyclopedic overview. It is hardly "most important" on Wikipedia to place these game sprites on pedestals for all to admire&mdash; leave that for the fans(ites). Eric Sandholm (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gw031.jpg
Image:Gw031.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Greek/Fillipino/etc references
The Luxon have nothing to do with Greeks & Filipinos. Whoever posted they respected "strength above all else" is completely ignorant of Greek culture, whereas why is Filipino even mentioned? Also, changed references of the hair style to "East Asian." Medieval era male Japanese hair style would be a shaved front with a knot tied in the back, whereas post 17th cent. 'Manchu-era' Chinese hairstyle would be a shaved front with a long pony tail end. The hair style with the knot at the end with no shaved front is representative of ancient Chinese, Korean, etc hairstyles.

Intranetusa (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Canthamap.jpg
Image:Canthamap.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear BetacommandBot, please tell your botmaster that this image can be deleted whenever he/she wishes as there was really no need for it in this article. Thanks. Eric Sandholm 10:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Professions
Can a ask that we put all the professions in not jut the new ones. It would be a good idea to put the European Guild Wars site European Site* DragonLK (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is unnecessary to duplicate content in other articles when a simple link suffices. Same with redundant links to official sites that duplicate the majority of their content. Eric Sandholm 13:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It may save having to go to a differant page and regarding the website thety are differant. May we consider puting Play NC or Arena Net they are not needed but may be usefulDragonLK (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's external linking policies are that the link set must be minimal, meritable and appropriate to the subject of the article. Play NC and ArenaNet don't qualify -- the first because it's just the online marketing wing of NCSoft, and the latter because it is more appropriate for ArenaNet than the Guild Wars articles. As the EU site is a copy of the main guildwars.com site (and is linked therefrom), one link suffices. Eric Sandholm 15:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Still the other proffesions are welcome are they not? DragonLK (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)