Talk:Test Krewe

Suggested move to Guild Wars Test Krewe/Guild Wars Live Test Krewe
Should this page be moved (and have a redirect link to) the Guild Wars Test Krewe page to keep in sync with the Guild Wars Live Team page? --  Lacky 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe perhaps even Guild Wars Live Test Krewe as per http://www.guildwars.com/community/test_krewe/ - It's called the (Guild Wars) Live Test Krewe there, and also when Regina announced it, she also called it the Guild Wars Live Test Krewe. It seems that "Test Krewe" is just an abbreviation/slang for it. -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] Lacky 05:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Kaisha 06:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A reason behind your thoughts would be appreciated. ^_^ -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] Lacky 08:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * it sounds lame? - Auron 08:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Before Requesting for Comment, you could of just tagged it with the template and then wait for more input... ~Celestia  09:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] Lacky 09:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly see why we have to. The name is shorter, it still gets the point across. I'm not even sure if its Anets "official term" for the test krewe. Redirecting that long of a name doesn't seem like it would do much either. Leave it, imo. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png Wandering Traveler  14:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Kaisha 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "Live Test Krewe" for the move? Kaisha 05:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] Lacky 05:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it sounds terrible. GWTK is the only really feasible move, except I haven't seen evidence that we need anything other than "test krewe." Don't fix what ain't broke. - Auron 06:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was broke, however, AFAIK, we document stuff from in-game and from the website, and as stated above, the official website called it the (Guild Wars) Live Test Krewe. It stands to reason that this should then be represented how it is on the website. -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] Lacky 08:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's common practice to call (or at least keep a redirect) articles the way they are most known. (damn Google) "Guild Wars Live Test Krewe"(1580) appears to be the official name, as per the GW website, and prefered over both "Live Test Krewe"(1) and "Test Krewe"(206). Just move to GWLTK and redirect everything else there?--Fighterdoken 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections? -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] <font color="#0104C6">Lacky 21:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, move it. Kaisha 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, moving now.<font color="Black"> -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] <font color="#0104C6">Lacky 22:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.<font color="Black"> -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] <font color="#0104C6">Lacky 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you decided to just ignore the people who did not want the move in the section above? Take both sides of the argument, not just your own. Let's look at it this way: [emphasis added] (which I changed a neutral statement and suggested you tag the article with a tag). You then tag the article for a move. Personally if you are going to ask for community input, wait longer than one day, thirteen hours and thirty-six minutes time difference between that of the move tag being placed and the move being made or to not be so harsh, wait longer than one day, seventeen hours, and forty-four minutes in the future. <font color="#bb00bb" size="3px">~Celestia 14:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * January 17th- You asked the community about their opinion and two people gave them. Both said no.
 * January 17th- You Request for Comment in what appears to be because you don't like the responses because the RfC's statement is "move to a better name"
 * January 17-18th- More input given. One "oppose" and one "supports". One appears to change sides to pro-move, so now (including you) the argument is three to two in favor of the move. Now this is just rough because it's about consensus and not "votes".
 * January 18th- You ask if anyone objects. You then move the article after no one objects, and one supports, in the one hour and thirty-six minute time frame.
 * ^I realised all of that above and I had thought it all over before I did it, however I personally do not think there would have been any further input from anyone. But oh well. I did originally plan on waiting, however when Fighterdoken commented, and with what he commented, (I felt that) there was no more need for a consensus to be reached, because as stated above, we make the article as documented from the website/in-game, thus I felt the move was in order anyway. Even so, what's done is done.<font color="Black"> -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] <font color="#0104C6">Lacky 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So fuck consensus, fuck letting people comment, and when they do, fuck listening. Also, fuck their opinions because it's in the past. I like your style, Lacky.
 * If you think it came across any other way, you're kidding yourself. - Auron 15:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * would you like to see the two seconds it takes to move the article back? Erasculio  15:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Auron & Erasculio: That's not what I meant, and you both damn well know it.<font color="Black"> -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] <font color="#0104C6">Lacky 15:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lacky, shut up and stop giving shameless replies. You did it in full knowledge that there was enough opposition to disqualify your proposed move as a "consensus" out of sheer hubris. Pika Fan 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, Lacky, that's exactly what you meant. Want to know how I divined that bit of info? You moved the page. You moved it despite there being several opposes, and when one of the opposes voiced their opinion on your hasty move, you acted like it didn't matter because it's in the past. In fact, you came straight out and said it. Unless what you say and what you mean are completely different things, I'm afraid you've lost me here. - Auron 15:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright fine, whatever, I don't really care anymore. I'd say let's drop it, but them I could almost guarantee that would lead to more crap, but anywho, whatever. I would make some points but to be honest, I just can't be bothered anymore right now. Want to move it back? Fine, go ahead, I don't care, I am just trying to document stuff as is official, but clearly it doesn't matter what I think (as usual).<font color="Black"> -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] <font color="#0104C6">Lacky 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Trolls are what matters here, obviously. Kaisha 15:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with the move, as the wiki has always documented the official name(s), or closest to official name(s) of the the respective article(s); but the way you went about it was extremely shoddy. You decided to post a shameless accusation of others ignoring your views, but you were the one who ignored the part of the community who disagreed with you. The wiki works on community consensus, might I remind you, which you have just went ahead without getting that. Stop playing your guilt trips and perhaps people will take you seriously. It takes two hands to clap, if you want your "thinking" to matter, start treating the opinions of others seriously. Pika Fan 16:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's moved. Get over it. Kaisha 17:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So if I vandalize, people should get over it and ignore as well. Great logic there. Pika Fan 17:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway... if I recall, we don't always just follow what's official. Similar to how we say in Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/General "There is no need to follow in-game capitalization where it does not make sense", we could say that there's no need to strictly follow official titles when we think some other title would be better. Personally, I've only heard it called the Live Test Krewe (the LTK) or simply the Test Krewe. -- pling 17:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * GWLTK, while long, doesn't make no sense. We can simply give the official name, then redirect commonly used shortforms/abbreviations to the page, or just make a small note about what people tend to call it. Pika Fan 17:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regina calls it the Test Krewe 320539825092 times (here)- where is everyone else getting their "offical" statements from? – Emmett  17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you type "Guild Wars Live Test Krewe" over "Test Krewe" casually? No, I am sure you won't, but it doesn't change the fact that it is an official name. There are also already links you have simply skipped across above, it must be quite stupid for me to expect people to actually read. Pika Fan 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Get over it. No one wants to hear whining. Kaisha 18:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except the URL and the page calls it "Test Krewe" 3 times in total vs. 1 GWLTK. Silly me, it must be quite stupid for me to expect people to actually read. – Emmett  18:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Many books, articles and papers use the "official name" of the topic/article/artifact at the start, then go on to use the short forms of the "official" name especially when it is long. @Kaisha If you are not contributing to the argument, nor plan to, please remain silent and not make irrelevant remarks. Pika Fan 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Furthermore, nobody cares what the official name is. GWW is barely controlled by ANet. Really, all ANet does on the wiki is manage copyright, and this is not a case of that. (If Regina wants to chime in that calling it the Test Krewe is unacceptable, she is most welcome to- but we all know that's not happening.) We are not bound to simply repeat information endorsed by ANet- we are free to document any content that is deemed of encyclopedic value to the wiki and which does not violate international copyright agreements. We are not bound by what ANet may have wanted, but instead by what is. ANet may have never intended a variety of bugs to be included in the game, yet it would be a severe absence if this wiki did not cover it. In short, this wiki is not bound to cover what ANet thinks should be the game content, but what the community shows is the game content. The words that the gw community knows and recognizes is Test Krewe- there is no reason to call it GWLTK just because it's "official". I'm not saying a redirect from GWLTK to LTK/TK would be unacceptable, but to call it something other than what the community commonly uses is ridiculous. As Auron stated above, stop trying to fix something that's not broken. (added in after edit conflict- GWW is not a book or published form of anything, it's a bunch of players informally documenting a game.) – Emmett  18:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because I agree with the move does not mean I disagree with the converse. You have clearly taken my intention out of context. I was merely pointing out that it is correct for the page to be name as it is now. I did not mention a shred of the converse.
 * I didn't ask GWW to document the game like people do with books. Again, you have taken my point out of context. I was pointing out that Anet was probably following the style used in many formal writings in which they state the "official" name, then go on to use shortforms or more commonly used names. I have NOT once stated nor implied that GWW should follow the style of writing used in books.
 * You are better off telling Lacky, or an actual someone who thinks the wiki should be documented like a book.Pika Fan 18:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you all are okay with the move. Why is there whining going on? Things happen. Does it matter how it was done? I have noticed with my few days of being here of a few moves done similar, without such a fuss or whining. I think this should be done similar to the game and the site, not with what people type in their talk or how they speak of it. I am done with this discussion as I have a class to get to. Kaisha 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) ....except I gave reasons against using GWLTK and you did nothing to refute them. gj. – Emmett  19:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I don't have to. Just because people rarely call AB in it's long and so-called proper form does not automatically mean we should document it as AB instead of Alliance Battles. If you have problems with the naming, please feel free to revert it instead of telling it to me on grounds that consensus has not been reached. I am not the one who moved it after all. Pika Fan 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that you do have to refute them, because ^ does not apply at all. If I were arguing that the page be named "TK", you'd have a case. Not now. (Also Alliance Battles is referred to in game, TK is not.) Furthermore, I'm not talking specifically to you, you just happen to keep replying. :P – Emmett  19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Kaisha 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Kaisha 20:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Emmet, a quick google search (may have been too quick, though) shows that there are far more instances of "guild wars live test krewe" than just of "test krewe". Also, a good example of "official naming" instead of "common naming" here in the wiki is that we use Defender of Ascalon as article name, instead of the more commonly used (and more lenghty) Legendary Defender of Ascalon, which is just redirected.
 * Concensus on this wiki has always been to use the official name (regardless of how ridiculous it is) and use redirect for all the alternate names. If you can prove that GWLTK is not the official name, then i would support a move back.--Fighterdoken 19:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Except it is applicable, both examples are relevant as a clear parallel. GWLTK is referred to in the main site, then TK is used more frequently because of its convenience. Now, Alliance Battles is referred to in game, then AB is used more frequently by pretty much everyone because it's so much more convenient. Furthermore, you have been directly replying to my comments after I replied to you in your first reply, please don't feign ignorance because your comments are clear for everyone to see.
 * Now let's make it clear, just so you don't twist my words or take my points out of context again. I do not disagree with the page being called by its shorter and more commonly used form. I do agree with the page being called by its official form. Feel free to treat the former as neutral and the latter being support.
 * There are already many instances where the "official" term that no one ever uses is documented instead of the mostly used term. Those are precedences that are already set and used since the start of the wiki. Pika Fan 19:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Fighterdoken Good example you got there, as I have never heard DoA being used instead of LDoA until you pointed it out. Pika Fan 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Fighterdoken, that is the case about (L)DoA but it is not true for Vanquisher, Cartographer, Guardian (title), Allegiance rank and most likely other titles that I am too lazy to check, which all have informal titles. So there is precedent for both. So, since there is no clear precedent, I would like to refer you to my post/Pling's post/Auron's post, and I would like to further note that there is no clear proof that GWLTK is any more official than LTK or TK. Additionally, having GWTK on a wiki about GW seems fairly redundant. – Emmett  20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * - What about Guild Wars Live Team?<font color="Black"> -- [[Image:User_Lacky_Blue_Paw_Sig.png|15px|link=User_talk:Lacky|My Talk]] <font color="#0104C6">Lacky 09:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the move. More were for the Guild Wars Live Test Krewe. More were against this move as well. We have someone, who cannot count. Kaisha 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tl;dr skimmed most of this, and nowhere have I seen the simple solution of redirects. Either move it and redirect this page to it or leave it. I don't think this has to be that hard, guys. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png <font color="#D2691E">Wandering <font color="#D2691E">Traveler  17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The various ways are already redirected to this page. -- Cyan [[Image:User Cyan Light sig.jpg|19px]] 17:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't about "various ways", but the real place of where this should be. I don't think "Test Krewe" is it. Kaisha 17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to what links here. We have and had a bit more linked to Guild Wars Live Test Krewe (not including user talk pages). Kaisha 17:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They're both the same thing, they both get the same point across. If they're already redirected, why are we even having this conversation? Either title gives people access to the exact same bloody information. --User Wandering Traveler Sig2.png <font color="#D2691E">Wandering <font color="#D2691E">Traveler  17:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For "correct" documentation. You don't want misleading information to think that it's actually "Test Krewe", when it's "Guild Wars Live Test Krewe". It's for "formal documentation", not "lingo" or "common" or "casual". Kaisha 18:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirects are just so wonderfull! If you search for Test Krewe, you'll find this. If you search for Guild Wars Live Test Krewe, you'll find this too. Isn't that great?? But however, it doesn't make any sense to move this, even for correct documentation. Just because you can find it on both ways. And misleading information? If there are various ways to say it and there are people who use various ways to say it, why is something wrong or good then? Besides, is there even an official name? -- Cyan [[Image:User Cyan Light sig.jpg|19px]] 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since, you seem to be blind. "It's common practice to call (or at least keep a redirect) articles the way they are most known. (damn Google) "Guild Wars Live Test Krewe"(1580) appears to be the official name, as per the GW website, and prefered over both "Live Test Krewe"(1) and "Test Krewe"(206). Just move to GWLTK and redirect everything else there?--Fighterdoken 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)"
 * I'm so glad you've read the page and realized that everyone agrees with you, eh kaisha? – Emmett  20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I pay attention to Policies and Guidelines. However, Let's ignore the "official" thing. "So fuck consensus, fuck letting people comment, and when they do, fuck listening. Also, fuck their opinions because it's in the past."
 * People can find the information on both ways. I see no problems and it seems you are the only one who sees a problem. -- Cyan [[Image:User Cyan Light sig.jpg|19px]] 20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Before a revert war and a wtf chain starts here, can we just drop it? Since there is no concensus on either name, please just stop moving as you please.--Fighterdoken 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC) ] Is that enough information for the "official name"? Cyan, read the naming over in formating then. Kaisha 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Why is a move still needed? -- Cyan  21:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Cyan, then why do you have a problem with me suggesting again? It is "prudent" to have the title the official name, because it makes more sense, is official, and the other things above that others have said that you have ignored, asking me the dumbest questions possible. Please read all of the above, before you jump in. Kaisha 21:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I read always before I comment, thank you. Go ahead and suggest it again. But, all who search for it can find the information in the current situation. If they search for Guild Wars Live Test Krewe they find the information, for Live Test Krewe idem. All because of the redirects. So there is no need to move it. I seems you just don't realise that. -- Cyan [[Image:User Cyan Light sig.jpg|19px]] 21:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * [http://www.guildwars.com/community/test_krewe/ "We're no longer accepting applications for the Guild Wars Live Test Krewe."
 * Did you even read what I said? The information can be found on both ways. Oh and this: "Anyway... if I recall, we don't always just follow what's official. Similar to how we say in Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/General "There is no need to follow in-game capitalization where it does not make sense", we could say that there's no need to strictly follow official titles when we think some other title would be better."

Excuse my language, but for fuck sake. Of all the worthless crap to argue over, and I've built a whole wiki career over arguing about stuff that doesn't matter... and this whole topic makes me question so much about you guys. It has an official name, make the main document that and then give redirects, just like you do with skills, with staff members etc. All this worthless, waste of space arguing for what? And most of you people, from sysops to wiki users wanna be taken seriously? <font color="Black">000.00.00.00 21:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC) . Why? Because Fighterdoken speaks on behalf of the whole community and he's word is consensus? "Make it "official" and more like a wiki is suppose to be, not selfish, pity, whining mess." If you want it to stop, stop flaming the fire. Look at the the earlier posts ("No" to move and "Agreed" to leaving it as "Test Krewe", and then agreeing to moving it) you're jumping all over the place. Also just to point out, "an admin who went against consensus moving it back" , simply having more "votes" does not constitute a consensus being reached. Also the fact that it was admin has no bearing over the matter. <font color="#bb00bb" size="3px">~Celestia 05:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC) yet you are still talking about numbers for and against which is is much more like "A vote is an individual's act of voting, by which he or she expresses support or preference for a certain motion (for example, a proposed resolution), a certain candidate, a selection of candidates, or a political party. ~ Voting" where a majority carries the decision. So what exactly are you trying to say? That because there are 3 people for and 2 against that is consensus? That is not consensus, that is a majority (I haven't actually counted the numbers here btw). Also, Kaisha, your position seems very ambiguous, as you were firmly against the move when this was first proposed, but you have been vehemently defending it since it was reverted by Auron, so which is it? -- Wyn  talk  07:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I and two others have shown the official name, but many seem to whine wanting to back to a "common" name, that other wiki pages aren't like. I thought wiki was to document "official" names and information. Not what we "want". I only see selfishness and whinings ever since it was originally moved. Also, an admin who went against consensus moving it back, when he had two to three not wanting it moved back. I say move it and leave it. Make it "official" and more like a wiki is suppose to be, not selfish, pity, whining mess. Kaisha 23:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I am 100% you didn't read the page because the fact that it's the official title is disputed more than once. 0/10. Also stop acting like vote counts are consensus, because they're not. –  Emmett  23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this turned out interesting... First off, I never was opposing (or supporting) the move, it was merely moving after such a short time was ridiculous. Seriously one and a half hours after asking if any one objects, when you could see people did, and you moved it. Even after tagging it for a move and RfC. As for "I did originally plan on waiting, however when Fighterdoken commented, and with what he commented, (I felt that) there was no more need for a consensus to be reached"
 * I would like to add that imo, trying to tie this discussion to Guild Wars Live Team and moving that page with zero discussion at all was badly done. Just because one is documented with the full name, given the history of the GWLT and the fact it's been consistently referred to that way since it's beginning, does not mean the other needs to be as well. They are two different entities, and thus do not really merit that level of consistency.
 * As for this page, my first preference would always be with the name as it appears on gw.com, however I have no serious objections to leaving the short version with a redirect from the longer version. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  07:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some information: The official and full name seems to be "Guild Wars Live Test Krewe". However, internally the only name that is used is "Test Krewe" (and very rarely "Guild Wars Test Krewe"). poke | talk 10:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen "Guild Wars Test Krewe" as the most commonly used term - aside from simply "Test Krewe." Personally, I think we should put it to the official name, "Guild Wars Live Test Krewe," simply because it is the official term and, while might not be the most commonly searched (that's what redirects are for right?) it is, in my opinion, the best sounding article title for this. Just my two cents -- Konig / talk 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus and Voting tell me what's different? I can tell you, voting is what we do on elections. There's no voting here. We have 3 now agreeing to the new name. With the first move it was two, then you had people to fuss and one moved it back without consensus. So, if you think I don't know consensus, then I ask that you read those pages and see for your selves of this. There is no voting here, but people's thoughts and that should count as a consensus, not a vote as that would demeanor the voices of those who were and are for the move. Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 07:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And your point? "stakeholders are brought together (often with facilitation) until a convergent decision is developed. If this is done in a purely mechanical way it can result in simple trading—we'll sacrifice this if you'll sacrifice that. Genuine consensus typically requires more focus on developing the relationships among stakeholders, so that they work together to achieve agreements based on willing consent. ~ Consensus"
 * my "vote" is for guild wars live test krewe, that is how it is on the sign up page, that is how it is in the announcement.- [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 11:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really feel strongly (anymore? at all? who cares? etc) about this. Test Krewe with redirects is fine, Guild Wars Live Test Krewe with redirects was also fine. Minor issue, somewhat already resolved, advantage of moving page/continuing discussion < advantage of status quo. -- pling User Pling sig.png 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Wyn This is no voting and I changed my view with researches of the name and your formatting guidelines. Are you saying that I'm not allowed a voice? Are you denying a community member a saying? Is that not fair or right? Kaisha User Kaisha Sig.png 00:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just trying to clarify things. You were opposed to the move and then suddenly you are not only for it, you are moving another unrelated page that you seem to feel is somehow tied to this. You also seem to be using contradictory statements to justify your position, while claiming that others have no understanding, or are clueless. You ask someone to tell you what is different between consensus and voting, and I was trying to do just that. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]]  talk  01:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

who's the part of it?
is it anyhow possible to determine which players, or gwguru (or any other big site) users, are test krewe members or one has to hope to see someone directly stating it in one of the posts? furthermore, is there any way to contact the test krewe without the need to pursue fragmentary information scattered through guru? Drk 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible for each member that he/she confirms to be a member of the TK. However there is no and there will never be a list with all people. Also note that Test Krewe members are not representatives of the community, they especially don't contribute to it based on what the rest of the community thinks. Each member was elected on personal experience etc. and only the personal opinions of the members should count for any discussion. In that way no one inside of the TK will listen to any appeals, and nobody will tell you anything from inside. So there is really no need to know any member or to know methods to contact them. poke | talk 20:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not possible for anyone outside the krewe to have a complete list of the players in the krewe, though many players are open about being on it. ~Shard  [[Image:User Shard Sig Icon.png]] 02:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Will it ever open back up?
It's like the developers don't check the feedback space or bug reports, and I know that some people probably got bored of GW or have left, so their account in TK is now dead space. Missed it the first time, wish they'd start round 2 to get in. Previously Unsigned 01:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Test Krewe was really just a PR stunt, there's no need to run it again. [[Image:User_Felix_Omni_Signature.png]]elix Omni 01:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The TK is still active, there is no "dead space." And it wasn't "just a PR stunt." -- Konig / talk 01:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of members has changed a few times. I don't know if/when they will need more people, but I would expect them to continually bring people in every now and then as long as GW1 is running. ~Shard  [[Image:User Shard Sig Icon.png]] 03:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Should there be some sort of mention that recruiting of PvP (specifically GvG) players was done through player fansites (specifically Teamquitter) and not email signups/invitations as was done for the PvE portion of the TK?--TahiriVeila 05:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)