Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal

Archive

---

Feb–Jul 2007
Aug–Sep 2007
Oct–Dec 2007
Jan–Mar 2008
Mar–Mar 2008
Apr–Aug 2008
Volatile pages
Aug-Sept 2008
Sept-Oct 2008
Nov-Dec 2008
Jan-Feb 2009
Mar-Apr 2009
May-Aug 2009
Sep-Oct 2009
Nov-Dec 2009
Jan-Jun 2010
Jul-Dec 2010
Jan-Jul 2011
Jul-Dec 2011
Jan-Jun 2012

When to link to GW2W

It's been common practice to link to articles on GW2W using {{{gw2w}}, even if the two articles have nothing in common except the name. I propose that we end this practice and only link when there's some reason for visiting the other article, besides the coincidence of names.

Generally speaking, Lore and Location articles are usually good ones to link, e.g. to compare Lion's Arch with Lion's Arch or Glint to Glint. In contrast, skills in GW2 usually are completely different from those in GW1 (and often the names are simply typical RPG/MMO-style names, e.g. it's misleading to link Wild Strike to Wild Strike). (And yes, I think we should do the same thing at GW2W.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any case where "the two articles have nothing in common except the name" and they're linked, please point to one?

Regarding the question, I would go the same route GW2W uses for linking to GWW - same topic, regardless of name change, except in the case of pure mechanical things such as skills which, if a need to link is required (some people would say yes due to the reference and legacy of GW1 to GW2, however I do not think that GWW needs to link to GW2W), can go to trivia instead of a box that mostly gets in the way of articles formatted like skills are. Konig/talk 17:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I linked above: Wild Strike has nothing in common with Wild Strike except the name, which is probably used by dozens of RPGs/MMOs. It's as meaningless as saying Mhenlo shares a name with Mhenlo Park, CA. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well in that particular situation, Silver Edge is wrong - it's shared topic, not shared name (e.g., Ventari's sanctuary and gw2:The Grove). See original comment. Konig/talk 02:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I phrased my suggestion poorly. I am saying that, on both wikis, we should only link articles when there is a meaningful connection. Normally, the coincidence of having the same name doesn't meet even our minimal requirements for trivia, so it is both unnecessary and misleading (in my opinion) to link the two Wild Strikes (or any other skills for that matter). This would be a change to current practice for both GWW and GW2W.

I agree that we should link articles with dissimilar names, but similar topics (V's sanctuary and the Grove, in Konig's example). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Finished with Event NPC's

Atlast!, done ^_^, Wayfarer's Reverie NPC's should be fully completed. -- Thon Ghul|Talk 18:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What to do with skills that were removed from the game?

As in September 13, 2012's Lightning Orb (PvP)? Yoshida Keiji (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say slap the removed/historical content tag on them and note in the trivia with the skill revision history that there used to be a PvP version. I'm pretty sure this isn't the first PvP split skill removed from the game so there's probably a precedent to follow though. Toraen 18:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

{{historical content}}, and update {{historical content nav}}. If anything else needs to be done, just look at the history of the already removed PvP skills. Konig/talk 18:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, skill articles are not my specialized field and while helping the Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Skill history, I found no guidance. I thought there were precedents but couldn't recall one to track down. Does the wiki keep a record of all removed skills? Will check these two templates now to see what is tagged by it. Yoshida Keiji (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

List of removed skills. Konig/talk 04:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Lore articles and GW2

So something I've been curious about is how we want to treat articles about historical lore gleaned from GW2 that is new or contradicting to GW1 lore that's relevant to the articles - e.g., in GW2 we learn that the Bloodstones weren't made by the Gods of Tyria but instead the seers, leading to Magic, Bloodstone, Gods of Tyria, Lore, and Abaddon (if not more) presenting information now known to be "false". Should the new information from GW2 be added to make sure folks don't get confused when comparing the GW1 and GW2 wikis' contents, or should be keep them separate to show "this is what's presented in GW1" (which is something we can show via contents of the article itself anyways)? Personally I'd rather update it since its all the same lore - and of course only the topics brought up already in GW1, rather than going into new topics (for example, I wouldn't update jotun with lore gleaned from GW2 unless relevant to the contents already on that article, which to my knowledge would only be the basics like "their an ancient now-fallen race"). But what are others' thoughts? Konig/talk 06:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

While its nice to be able to update the trivia, I don't really see the information from gw2 as being the same lore - so I don't think the information from gw2 should overwrite the gw1 lore.

However, provided that we denote something similar to "based upon happenings in gw2 it turns out ... " etc I think that would be fine. (e.g. based on all our gw1 sources we think the bloodstones were created by the gods of tyria - but in gw2 it is revealed that .. ). I'd hope that it would be possible to look up an article on some-lore-related-stuff and find both bits of lore. --Chieftain Alex 10:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I see this as classic case of The World is Flat, every moron knows that! vs. The World is a Globe, its scientific indisputable reality! type situation. So I'd say address such discrepancies as you would in real life. ^_^ --Falconeye 08:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this wiki should foremost document GW1 and not worry at all about what GW2 says. Even within GW1, there are contradictions between what two groups say -- we usually learn the "complete truth," but not always; sometimes there is no independent confirmation. Who's to say that people in GW2 really know the truth? There seem to be cases where GW2 NPCs have forgotten things that they would know if they read GWW.

Perhaps more importantly there is the practical matter that we shouldn't require that those editing GWW be familiar with GW2/GW2W. In effect, my opinion is that GW2 does not provide "canon" for GW1, even though it is clearly canon for the "true" history of Tyria. (I think that's the same as what Alex is suggesting above.)

So, my suggestion is that we modify the {{gw2w}} and it's corresponding GW2W template to offer a different phrase (and perhaps slightly different image) when information is in conflict. For example, something like:

"GW2W has an article about this with a conflicting view."

"In GW2, we learn that there is more to this topic than can be found in Guild Wars -- see the relevant GW2W article." (and this one could even point to a different article, if the names weren't identical)

In other words, if GW2 tells us more or something new, let people read GW2W to learn about it. 75.36.177.0 00:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure we should go that far - GW2 is simply a different product, and shouldn't be documented (at all) here on this wiki. GW2-specific lore and discoveries will be documented on GW2W, and that's really the only place it belongs. Trying to run back to GWW to fix up a page or link to a new page every time some tidbit comes out that retcons something GW1 had is just going to lead to headaches. If we put in a template change, we're basically expecting people to stick around updating the links on gw1 until gw2 dies. -Auron 05:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What I was trying to say above was, a) add a gw2w template to the lore page in question. b) denote it with text if you think its significant. --Chieftain Alex 10:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"GW2 is simply a different product" It is a different product, true, but it is the same story, same lore. Regardless of the game the lore comes from, it affects both's stories. Looking at all the comments, I think a simple bullet point note on specific articles that I'm referring to (those which would (seemingly) conflict with the lore presented on GWW's pages) would be best (since all such pages - conflicting lore or not - would have the {{gw2w}} tag anyways). Konig/talk 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Feedback portal

The Feedback portal was originally created so there would be a place from which ArenaNet could take fan ideas and implement them in their games. Now, however, ArenaNet has stopped implementing any new content to the original Guild Wars, and ideas for Guild Wars 2 are being given at the Suggestions section of the GW2 forum. Considering how the Feedback space was never an optimal solution to the problem it was trying to solve, and how it has been now made something between useless and redundant, I think it's time we shut it down.
I suggest deleting the Feedback portal. It would be closed right now, so no new entries would be added there, and it would have a sign telling contributors that in one month all content will be removed. The users who want to do so can actually move their content to their userspace, since licencing doesn't really matter anymore. Erasculio 03:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

→ moved from Feedback talk:Main#Time to prevent new articles

The GW2 suggestion links should already point the GW2 official forums. Bug fixes for gW1 are supposed to be posted on the forum. And now, we know that anet has no plans to do more than fix bugs, unless they can sneak something in. Even though the Feedback space is rarely used these days, shouldn't we prevent people from accidentally creating new articles in it? No reason anyone should assign ANet the rights to their ideas if ANet is already saying GW1 won't use those ideas. 75.37.21.148 09:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

To some degree I understand your point, but there are some flaws in the logic. First any wiki is pretty much an open system and with the exception to a few pages (such as the Main), there are no "lock outs" that would prevent or omit people from voicing their ideas to improve Guild Wars. Especially if they used their namespace. The second flaw is assuming ANet is going to do anything they say or plan to do. Never say never is my personal idiom on this point. John said one thing and did another, countless times before. To my understanding, people are returning to the original Guild Wars and others are buying new accounts to experience it for the first time. This could lead to a demand for more content, so those cancelled plans might be revived for the need to make more revenue from these players. Lastly the notion that any idea posted on a wiki or in a public forum has "rights" one way or the other. It is out there for anyone to snatch up for their online game regardless of the intended use. --Wendy Black 11:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah but Wendy the previous feedback space, ArenaNet:Skill feedback, got moved to a namespace which regular users cannot edit so this isn't without precedence.

However, they might have to think about the consequences of locking the feedback namespace because they use it to put the game updates in (e.g. Feedback:Game updates/20130516). (we could start putting these back in the main namespace and then it wouldn't be a problem tbh), then they can lock the namespace via Manual:$wgNamespaceProtection. -Chieftain Alex 12:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

(I've moved these conversations to the community portal so we don't have the same conversation going on in multiple places) -Chieftain Alex 13:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think we need to lock the namespace; after all, each user’s personal feedback space still belongs to that user and should be always changeable by them—even if there is no longer any real purpose. I’d just suggest to put a big notice on the feedback portal pages so people creating new things know that there is probably no point. poke | talk 14:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Consider that there are many excellent/thoughtful feedback articles worth keeping (even if only for references), and that would cause me to "cringe" should they be deleted. There is no guarantee that the contributors of these articles are currently aware of this setback by Anet, nor be able to archive/move them within given timeframe (such as "90-days", or until GW2-anniversary) should a deletion-route be taken. These folk's passion for the game and desire to improve upon it and to discuss their opinion should not be "swept-under" lightly. --Falconeye (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There isn't much of a point in keeping a Feedback area in which no feedback is taken. Keeping it under the idea that it does no harm to have something pointless is more or less the same as saying we could have articles that don't have anything to do with GW1, since they would be harmless. We should just delete the Feedback area; comments that someone wants to archive can be archived in the userspace of those involved, although I doubt they care if they have left this wiki. Erasculio 23:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

My two cents: While ArenaNet has stated that they hold no current intentions to expand Guild Wars, in the future this may change. It's unlikely, but possible. Along with this, ArenaNet's exact wording is "we'll no longer be releasing any new content for the live game except in support of automation" - this means no new quests and the like, but not necessarily things like altering how henchmen work (as one simple example), as this isn't new content but rather changes to existing content (same goes for skill balances and the like). This means that only a degree of the feedback space is useless to ArenaNet. Furthermore, the feedback space gives users an outlet for their ideas on how to improve Guild Wars - while ArenaNet says there will be no content, that doesn't mean players will stop trying to convince for new content. Besides, if the feedback space is removed, you'll still have folks making their suggestions in the user space.

So why put more work for those maintaining the wiki in removing something that would still be used, as well as remove the opportunity for ArenaNet to use players' ideas (both old and new) which isn't "new content"? There's little to no benefit in the end, since all you're doing is redirecting where the suggestions go. Konig 01:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, I am still a noob at how the wiki functions in certain areas. I too have made my contributions to the suggestion pool. Do I think they will be implemented? No, I didn't even believe it would get read the day I suggested it. But it is out there, just in case some wise developer wants to be a sport and make a bold move. I have also placed my personal thoughts and ideas on my user space, such as the many nameless places in Guild Wars. However I have no delusions that John or anyone else will implement them. --Wendy Black 02:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Erasculio, you've said your point already. Why repeat it, dear sir?

Repeating what Sir Poke said, "put a big notice on the portal pages". Locking won't help prevent creation of said pages any where else. It's best to leave things, until ArenaNet wishes otherwise. - Rodan 24.51.181.85 02:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No Lockout nor Deletion is my opinion... MystiLefemEle (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't support deleting a single page, no matter how bad the idea. I do support locking it down so that people cannot create new pages. The Feedback space was created to organize suggestions and to give ANet legal ownership of the ideas. ANet now says they have no intention of doing anything with these ideas. Do we want to make it easy for people to lose their rights so easily? If ANet changes its views in the future, we can reverse whatever is done now.

However, hardly anyone uses the space. Four editors in the last month, no new articles, and very little on the talk pages. Perhaps the best approach is making things easier on those who maintain the wiki. Nothing fancy, just a pop-up reminding people of the official GW2 forums and that current plans for GW1 do not include content changes. 75.36.181.48 19:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like putting a notice on the main Feedback page (Feedback:Main), on a few of the subpage lists (e.g. Feedback:Guild Wars suggestions) and perhaps a note on the suggestion creation box on user's feedback pages (i.e. {{Feedback user createsuggestion}} ) would be enough to warn users that their feedback will not be looked at. (summary: no locking, no deleting, just a warning) -Chieftain Alex 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A notice is all that's needed and would be the best way for "making things easier on those who maintain the wiki", imo. Konig 20:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)