Guild Wars Wiki talk:About/revision

Content Update/Revision
I believe this page is in serious need of revision/updating. Anet originally created it at the beginning of this wiki to address some questions they knew people were going to have. That time is long since past.-- Wynthyst 21:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I expected a nice proposal now ^^ But ok, I agree with that and will think about something :) poke | talk 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Content Proposal
Please list here any proposals for content.

I would like to see a clear mission statement, and possibly a clear description of each namespace and their intent/purpose. I feel that most of the information regarding GuildWiki should be removed (archived into FAQ history possibly?) since it all became irrelevant when Wikia took over GuildWiki.-- Wynthyst 22:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I put some basic stuff in, please expand it.--[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wynthyst 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll start expanding some things. -- [[Image:User indochine dsk tree.png|19px]] Indochine  talk 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I very much condensed this into one subsection. Describing the exact purpose of the template namespace is a task for the metawiki documentation, not really for the Guild Wars Wiki About page. --Xeeron 11:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree Xeeron. The list of namespaces and a brief description of each is information that I think would be helpful and I believe should be easily accessible. I won't revert it though without more input. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course a list of namespaces with description is helpful, but this is the wrong place for it. Think about the people who will visit the "about" page: Most likely these are persons without any idea of what GWW is. If you want to find out what GWW is about (is it a forum? a place where ANet advertises their products? some site where you can order GW gold?), how helpful is a line like "The Template namespace contains all page templates, like the infoboxes that are used on NPC and Item pages, along with the associated talk pages." going to be: Not helpful at all.
 * That stuff belongs on a page for more experienced users who either know GWW or wikis in general and want to know how stuff works here specifically. --Xeeron 14:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wyn.. I think that it's better to have a brief description on what the namespaces are - not every user will know or think to look at a comprehensive Mediawiki documentation. If I was new to a wiki, a brief description of the separate parts is something I'd look for. -- [[Image:User indochine dsk tree.png|15px]] Indochine  talk 15:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Implementing
I would like to suggest that the removed items from the current About page be moved to a section of the FAQ covering GWW vs GWiki. I would also be interested in comments regarding the changes that have been made, are they acceptable? Does everyone agree with revising this page? There hasn't been much comment, or input, so I'm not sure I can consider it having any sort of consensus.-- Wynthyst 15:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have my full support :P -- [[Image:User indochine dsk tree.png|15px]] Indochine  talk 15:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the current version, but what do we do with the information that's being removed? See my earlier comment above about moving the removed content to the FAQ.--[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 15:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good start
Hi guys! I just wanted to pop in and say that I think this is a great start. As I mentioned on my talk page, I'll discuss the update with folks here and see if there is anything specific that we should look into adding to the page. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * More good news! -- [[Image:User indochine dsk tree.png|15px]] Indochine  talk 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Namespace Detail Level
Xeeron thinks the content/structure section should be very concise and only consist of Main, Guild, and Arenanet. However, like my edit note said, the lack of certain commonly-used namespaces (user, image, category) is bad here, where it should be spelled out and policy links should be. --JonTheMon 16:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Xeeron has a good point that we don't need to go into elaborate detail on the namespaces in a general About page. Perhaps something like Xeeron's paragraph, with a link to, say, Help:Namespaces which would have details on exactly what each namespace is for, what policies apply to each, etc? I'm writing something up now... I'll toss up what I've got so far, but it's by no means complete. Thoughts? - Tanetris 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should there be policy links on the about page? We already have a perfect page with all policies described at GWW:POLICY. Of course it is good to have such information, my question is: Why have it here?
 * On a minor side note: I separated my edits into 2 parts to have the typo correction first and the controversial edit second, I am pretty sure you did not mean to revert the first one. --Xeeron 19:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... in thinking about the About page, it probably would be better to be concise than verbose. However, if we're going to have a separate page, we need to have a better description, 'cause "Guild Wars Wiki Content" is too vague. I'd say a short description that states information on the wiki is separated, a quick example (user namespace), and a link would suffice. So, double or nothing.
 * Oh, yeah, I'll redo that edit. --JonTheMon 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Opposition
Anyone have any opposition? I don't. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical Information Regarding GuildWiki
Ok, it would be good to have that information somewhere on the wiki, particularly the FAQ page. But, does all of the information need to be on the FAQ page itself, or just linked there? Is there sufficient information to deserve its own page? --JonTheMon 15:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I took all the information regarding GuildWiki and made it into a page here that could be made it's own article linked to the FAQ. --[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 08:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea Wyn :P Just add a section below namespaces for GuildWiki information and I think this revision of the about page is good to go! -- [[Image:User indochine dsk tree.png|15px]] Indochine  talk 21:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think GuildWiki needs to be mentioned on the About page at all to be honest. Having the information available via the FAQ should be more than enough.--[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 21:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm against. It only serves to promote notions of rivalry. As for history, that's nothing we need to do manually; that's why MediaWiki provides the history function. Backsword 05:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any harm in it having it's own page for reference linked to the FAQ. The questions do still come up from time to time, and having to search through page histories to find it isn't really productive.--[[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon.png | Wyn's Talk page]] Wyn 07:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On using the MediaWiki history functionality vs having it's own page: the history functionality isn't user friendly. For the average user who comes here and wants to know the difference, they wouldn't be able to find it.  Leave it as its own page.
 * On linking via FAQ/About/both: I'm inclined to just link it from the FAQ. The about page is about GWW, not about GWiki. "What's this site about?  Why is this site talking about a different site?" But I'm not greatly opposed to having it on the about page. If we do decide to put it also on the about page, maybe make it more vague like "History of Guild Wars Wiki".  I dunno.  Just kinda thinking aloud. --JonTheMon 13:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week....
It's been a week since I bumped it on the RfC, I have sent a note to Emily asking for any last minute changes (though it can be edited later). I believe everyone has had their say. Is it time to move it over? I believe the historical information is ready to be linked to the FAQ. -- Wyn 09:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 11:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)