Talk:Guild Wars (video game)

message: I re-added a criticism which was removed because the removee stated that there was no citation and the aledged problem had been fixed anyway.  I think that the more appropriate action to take in this case would be to request a citation be found to show the problem existed rather than removing it all together.  Many reviews were made prior to the fix being made, so it would have been a valid criticism of the game at its release as so would be suitable for this page. --Aspectacle 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: criticisms

message: I don't have any particular objections to the move.  This article, more so than the other campaign articles, is pretty weak.  The argument for split was fairly weak so it always feels a bit vulnerable to me to being merged back into the Guild Wars article because the only thing which isn't shared with other campaigns is the plot!
If the move goes ahead consider adding in the other professions too because half of the reverts to the 'main' page will be people adding the other four professions in (this has happened before).    Perhaps duplicate the profession information; put the profession name for the main page and details on the campaign? --Aspectacle  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If such a move would happen, it seems like the main Guild Wars page would contain the "core" aspects (such as core Professions, major PvP areas) with links to the main page from each of the campagin pages. If this would be updated, I would not object this move. Ivynn Hammersong 01:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: suggested profession move

message: :Image:Guildbox.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added fair use to the image. --Aspectacle (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Guildbox.jpg

message: Who is the composer? --TudorTulok (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Composer of the music? Jeremy Soule. Ivynn Hammersong (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  composer?? 

message: Someone added some text about a player named "underworld barbie" and unrelated information about the player. I removed it. (Signed - A wikipedia reader)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.107.201.103 (talk) 08:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More vandalism 

message: This article should definitely have a criticism section, but not one drawn almost exclusively from the Tom McNamara article (http://uk.ign.com/articles/2005/05/11/guild-wars), whose review is horribly one-sided and whose criticism boils down to Guild Wars being "not WoW". For example, McNamara lists the limited skillbar of 8, routinely being outnumbered by mobs, and the level cap at 20 as gameplay problems, but in fact, these are defining elements of the deep strategy inherent in the Guild Wars experience and are what differentiate GW from its mega-competitor of the era: WoW. I find McNamara's article a poor basis to weave GW criticism around. The GameSpot review of the time would be a much better foundation: https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/guild-wars-review/1900-6123628/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhpop (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  current criticism section 

message: Hi! Checking the wiki site for Guild Wars, , it states that Guild Wars is a Competitive/Cooperative Online Role Playing Game. It further states that it is named this way, instead of an MMORPG, because it is different to other MMOs. However, it is also clear that they view the game as an MMO - they constantly refer to it in terms of "other MMOs of the time". Even though we don't normally regard wikis as reliable sources, and this is a wiki that can be edited by anyone with an account, it seems that there may be room to question if this is an CORPG or MMORPG, but either way it is still regarded as an MMO. In addition, the prizes it was given as an MMO, and the wealth of secondary sources describing it as an MMO (or even as an MMORPG) suggest to me that MMO remains the way to go. Accordingly, I've reverted the recent changes. - Bilby (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  MMO, MMORPG or CORPG