Guild Wars Wiki talk:Article retention

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Talk page content 2 Deletion of builds 2.1 Player events VS builds 3 Builds 4 New draft 5 Guild Wars 2 5.1 New draft 6 Update 7 Rename to Guild Wars Wiki:Content 8 Guild Wars novel trilogy

[edit] Talk page content

I propose the addition of "no removing talk page content" to this policy. -- ab.er.rant 06:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this change. - BeX 06:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving must be allowed. And disallowed content, such as copyright violations. Otherwise, yes. Backsword 08:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- Gordon Ecker 08:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. I prefer the wording to include "archiving is allowed". --Xeeron 11:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"You are not allowed to remove content from talk pages except for archiving purpose. Disallowed content and content which includes copyright violations should be removed immediately." poke | talk 11:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What about moving content from one talk page to another, more appropriate talk page and marking it with {{moved}}? -- Gordon Ecker 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gordon brings up a valid concern. Much of this can be covered by the formating guideline, but some inclusion here is warrented so that sysops can ban vadals and the like. How about this?

==Talk pages==

Exists for the purpose of discussing the topic of the article and the article itself. Existing content should be left as is unless it violates policy. Moving to a more suitable page, such as archiving, is allowed.

Backsword 01:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't have any explicit guideline on removing vandalism from talk pages. If a new page is created with vandalism, we are allowed to delete it, and given enough discretion to determine what is and isn't vandalism in doing so. Should the same rules not apply to talk pages? I can elaborate further if needed. - BeX 04:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, and personal attacks, should always be able to be removed, IMO - it doesn't really matter whether it's stated or not. Ale_Jrb (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bexor - I think the wiki could use a discussion about whether to remove vandalism from talk pages or not, and what is or isn't vandalism. Erasculio 12:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

BeX, currently anyone can remove or add anything to talk spaces as we don't have a defined scope for them, thus there is no such thing as vandalising them; that is, as far as policy goes. We have a rather clear paxis for what we consider suitable content. The goal here was to define that for policy, in order to avoid the sort of conflict we had on various talk pages and the admin noticeboard. There is also the issue of user talk pages who are partly covered by the user policy, which cuases some problems. Backsword

There is no need to explain the obvious to me. I was trying to provoke discussion about perceived talk page vandalism, not wondering about whether we have policies that define legitimate (and illegitimate) talk page content. And the purpose of my comment was so that the result of the discussion could be included into a revision of this policy. Like Erasculio said, a discussion about this would be beneficial, rather than just restating the intentions of this section. - BeX 16:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One personas obvious is another hidden assumptions. 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

On a perfect world, i would like to have a policy stating that "Talk pages content must be related to the asociated article. Talk pages content not strictly related to the asociated article can me moved to the proper talk page. Talk pages content can be archived when deemed appropiate. Vandalism on talk pages, or content from them that fails to meet other Wiki policies (such as GWW:NPA) may be removed without need of being archived.", but... --Fighterdoken 22:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If my talk page would only be about me, it would be very short. :P Nah, on a more serious note, I don't think it's needed to be stated in a policy. A bit off-topic should always be ok, and we move stuff around quite often already. (A policy may only be needed in a world that's not perfect. In a perfect world everyone agrees anyway ;) )- anja 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That guideline leaves plenty of room already actually. An user page is related to the user, so if the user likes pumpkins, he could talk all he wants about them on his talk page (or even on a halloween-related page, but not on Talk:Mending unless he gives a goooood reason for it). The problem i see is not really what we can put into pages, but that when someone thinks something shouldn't go here or there, people start arguing about talk pages content being untouchable (and i think we know the vocal minority rules the world). --Fighterdoken 06:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As you say, in a perfect world we need no policy. As it is, I think there is general agreement that a guideline will suffice for most purposes. Especially once we get a revert policy. However, there are still vandals and other abusive types around, and a need for SysOps to handle them. With the system we have, something is needed in some policy document so that SysOps can point to that when protecting pages or blocking. Backsword 10:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of builds

I have tagged the following articles/categories for deletion:

• B/p ranger
• Beast Master
• Shock warrior
• Starburster
• Touch ranger
• Guide to making a build
• Category:PvP example builds
• Cripshot Ranger
• Infuser
• Lineback/Linebacker
• Barrage ranger

All these consist entirely or to a huge proportion of information about builds, which according to this policy we do not retain. Given that the discussion at Guild Wars Wiki:Policy/Builds has died and the policy shows no sign of being accepted anytime soon, they can also no longer be justified as examples for a certain policy proposal or temporary exceptions. If you know of any build related articles I missed, please let me know so I can add them here. --Xeeron 21:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that in the current effective policies, these articles are not 'allowed', I do not agree with the deletion of these articles. My main reason for this: quite a number of voices on Guild Wars Wiki:Policy/Builds said that first the important stuff should be addressed in policies before the builds policy should be scrutinized. Hence the discussion on that page may seem 'dead', I don't think it is.

Personally, I also support Guild Wars Wiki:Policy/Builds as it is written right now. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I second CoRrRan's views on this matter, the Builds policy is not "dead" in the "unable to gain acceptance" sense, it is on hold due to mutual, if implicit, agreement by most of those who were pushing it. The proposal is still active thus in this case I think it better to err on the side of allowance until that is resolved. The discussion was positive in tone when it was put on hold thus I don't see a reason to push for their deletion at this time. Rather, if you believe the issue to be important ask on the proposal page if there is still interest in including builds on the wiki or if it should be marked as a fail proposal there and then, if it does move to failed status, then push for the deletion of said articles. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that line was meant that strictly. If we were to take that serious, we would delete all skills articles as they are build components and thus information on builds. I don't think anyone would seriously want that. The way I've treated it has been on the line of 'no specific builds' rather than 'nothing related to builds'. Backsword 11:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the builds policy is currently not discussed, but there is no prior example giving evidence that it will be passed soon. Meanwhile, the above articles are still violating this policy. If you feel that the builds policy will be enacted in a timely manner, how about giving an approximation of when that will be and I'll be happy to remove the deletion tags and put them back up at the end of that period. --Xeeron 15:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how you define a build. I consider the articles in question to be definition articles for party roles, some of which happen to contain detailed build information. I think we should just trim out the prohibited content. -- Gordon Ecker 04:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me, Xeeron? You were one of the people who decided to table it temporarily. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That edit meant that I did not dedicate any of my time to the build policy for a bit. I hope it was not understood as "noone should discuss this for now". The reason I out on these delete tags was that I did not deem it likely that the build policy will be enacted in a reasonable time frame, making the articles disallowed under GWW:CONTENT. --Xeeron 15:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wished I had time to make that policy into effect, except I'm swamped @ work. I so do not want to 'lose' those articles. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The list above has links to all the articles so they can be easily restored if the situation on build content is resolved. They aren't lost. :) - BeX 06:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Player events VS builds

I tagged Oktoberfest for deletion. — Skuld 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oktoberfest is an player event that has been acknowledged by ArenaNet, and IS allowed on the wiki. it should not be tagged for deletion, just so you can make a point because the pages above have been tagged Fall 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Shock axe is a build which is acknowledged by ANet (hello, premade templates, articles showing you how to use it on guildwars.com?... The above pages should not be tagged for deletion because.. theres no reason for them to be so. — Skuld 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that may be the reason for them being tagged for deletion instead of speedy deletion... Don't we have like three days for discusing if each article deserves or not to be deleted and the reasons as to why or why not on their OWN talk pages? No need to vandalize other pages just to make a point, even if it is a valid one. --Fighterdoken 22:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a deletion tag. Anyone is allowed to add deletion tags for a good reason. Vandalism is something veeeeeeeery different... — Skuld 22:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not realy. Adding a deletion tag because you think the article must not be here is fine. Adding a deletion tag to a somewhat random article just because you want to make a point is vandalism (i mean, it would have made sense had you tagged every community-hosted page, but...)--Fighterdoken 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oktoberfest is 'acknowledged by ANet'? Nope. Just because Gaile says that she'll try to be there, doesn't make it 'acknowledged by ANet'. In contrast: Mursaat Rally IS an 'acknowledged by ANet' event, since they took the time to introduce Mursaat at the event.

However, consensus was reached that we would allow player events to be mentioned on this wiki, so deletion of the article will not take place. (Gonna have to find that discussion somewhere...)

And having Skuld tag Oktoberfest for deletion is NOT vandalism in my opinion either. He does make a point there, and takes one page as an example. Personally, I find Shock warrior much more important than Oktoberfest. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 22:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding a delete tag to a valid article, for no reason other than to throw a tantrum about another article's impending deletion is vandalism in my opinion.--Pyron Sy 23:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is wrong. He tagged it for deletion because he thinks it should be deleted. That alone is enough to warrant tagging the article. If he was acting in bad faith, he could have done a bunch more to show his displeasure at people wiping all mention of builds and making this wiki worse in the long run. -Auron 07:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "The above pages should not be tagged for deletion because.. theres no reason for them to be so." - our content policy says they are meant to be deleted. Isn't that a reason? As for the Oktoberfest article, there's nothing in the content policy which disallows such articles. If you believe something is important enough to stay on the wiki, then work on making sure it stays. - BeX 04:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Builds

Allow write-ups on the mechanics, history of the build, possible changes over time, and why it is no longer used (As most historic builds have been filtered out of the meta). This is a wiki, and not having articles on famous builds in general is a huge mistake. -Auron 07:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How would you distinguish between "Historic" and just normal builds? -- scourge 07:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

An article on 55 monking, for example, would be historic, whereas an article on the specific 55 monk build used to farm colossal scimitars from first city would not. Touch Rangers, invincimonks, burst sins, shock axes etc are all historic builds (played extensively by thousands of players) - and will be the ones most likely searched for on a wiki. While we shouldn't list specific bars (where avoidable - it's pretty hard to not give specifics on stuff like shock axes, when every skill has great utility and must be mentioned), we can definitely give a blurb about it and how it's changed over time (and maybe even a section about why it isn't in the meta anymore - most historic builds have fallen out of use for one reason or another). -Auron 07:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New draft

I don't really have time to do this myself, but this policy needs a rewrite.

• The "information we always retain" looks a bit out of date and I'm sure is missing other stuff we've kept
• It has no mention of player events
• It refers people to a policy for historical content that doesn't exist (historical content is being kept at the moment, and we have a template to tag content with)
• It disallows all information on builds while the build policy is stalled in discussion (whereas other topics are not disallowed despite having no policies or exclusions, etc for them)
• The part about fansites tells us to visit Talk:Fansites
• I think it needs a mention that you shouldn't use Talk: pages to try and sell your items (omg, it has happened)

As I said, if I had time I would fix this up myself but I've been busy IRL. :) I'll try and do this unless someone else gets to it before I do. - BeX 07:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, this would be a good thing. As usual, User:Noone has gotten right on it. Backsword 05:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guild Wars 2

Will we be making an amendment to this policy now that GW2W is up and interwiki links are working? Ideally, we don't want to be keeping any Guild Wars 2 on GWW when it would be better on GW2W. Any thoughts? --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

"Content specific to Guild Wars 2 will not be kept here -- instead, add the content to the Guild Wars 2 Wiki. For content involved in both games, only document the parts existent in Guild Wars here." ? —Tanaric 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Coran Ironclaw 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Need something explaining the use of interwiki links? "In the case of linking to articles on GW2W, interwiki links should be used using the code [[gw2:Article name]], where gw2: is the interwiki link."-- Brains12 • Talk • 21:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Or should that just be kept to Help:Editing? -- Brains12 • Talk • 21:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should ever link to Guild Wars 2 Wiki. The information can never be relevant beyond mere similarity. —Tanaric 01:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Because people will come here, looking for information on things about gw2, like sylvari. -- Coran Ironclaw 05:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also it is likely that GW2 will have reappearances of GW1 content, whether that is locations, creatures, or character descecdants, etc. - BeX 05:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New draft

Since this policy is outdated in several parts, I wrote a new draft at Guild Wars Wiki:Article retention/Draft1 to deal with all issues. Apart from some cosmetics, this is what changed:

1. Updated the part about builds to reflect the passing of the builds policy
2. Updated the part about fansites to reflect the passing of the fansites policy
3. Removed the part about the historical content policy, since we have no policy and none seems forthcomming, while at the same time we have a huge and growing amount of historical content (check Special event)
4. Inserted the part about GW2

Note that unlike 1&2 which simply remove outdated phrasing, 3 is a real change in policy: Up till now this policy says we do not retain historical information, while in fact we do. With the changes, historical content would not be mentioned (neither as stuff we always keep, nor as stuff we forbid). --Xeeron 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

This needs an update... "The key word in the above paragraph was "current." Outdated information and one-time events (hereafter collectively referred to "historical information") will be dealt with through a separate policy. ", "Guild Wars Wiki does not retain information phrased as facts about the future", "Our policy on fansite information is currently being discussed at Talk:Fansite." That's just generally skimming the page. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, it does need an update. What do you propose we change in it to what? — ク Eloc 貢 03:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been true for almost a year now. See my comment to BeX. Backsword 11:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Skimming through Xeeron's Guild Wars Wiki:Article retention/Draft1, it looks fine. Shall we adopt it first and then see to updating it further if necessary? -- ab.er.rant 06:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor question about the draft. Would then linking to fansites on articles be prohibited? Specifically, i would like to refer to LDoA, where the link actually ends pointing to a place where there is more information available than what would be healthy to hold in such article, so removing them could induce people to start adding more guides and tips and garbage in general (even though the talk page has proven to help in preventing that).--Fighterdoken 23:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The fansites link should point to list of fansites. -- Gordon Ecker 02:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How would the structure for pointing references in the example given here work? I was thinking on something along the lines of "More information on this can be found in the ((list of fansites | insert fansite name here))", but since the reference would be too vague, probably it would be better to just remove the reference altogether. After all, the fansites list only points to main pages, not specific sub-sections of each fansite, and i don't think it would be good to break it for allowing different sub-sections to be shown (even if allowing that could be an alternative).--Fighterdoken 05:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Gordon was referencing the link on the draft, but I could be wrong. As for your example, I wouldn't think there is a problem with linking to an ArenaNet-recognised fansite (e.g. the Pre Searing one). Of course, it wouldn't be a good idea to link to a 'personal' website (such as the hfff thing we had a while ago) from articles, but just the "big" ones that are on the list. The draft doesn't specify whether linking to such is prohibited, just that having information about them is (other than List of fansites). -- Brains12 \ talk 13:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is why other subpolicies are linked rather than summarised. I suggest the draft is changed to link to the fansite policy instead. Backsword 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a full rewrite, with the process involved, but given that being unlikely, this is a clear improvment. Backsword 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, can we move this draft into effect now? Backsword 07:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This hasn't gotten the attention I hoped for, but as everyone who has bothered has been positive, I say we give it a week and if there is no objections, we implement. Backsword 08:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No objections here.-- Gordon Ecker 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename to Guild Wars Wiki:Content

IMO we should consider renaming the page to Guild Wars Wiki:Content, as it governs both which pages we keep and which content is specifically allowed or disallowed within pages (for example no dynamic price information). -- Gordon Ecker 01:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, the name is a bit misleading atm. - anja 07:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Calor 01:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--People of Antioch 02:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same thought a while back (but couldn't be bothered). One thought I had then was that just "content" may be problematic, as it sounds as a portal or listing of some sort, this being the project space, so I thought the perhaps "content policy" or "content scope" would be preferable. Backsword 08:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guild Wars novel trilogy

At PAX, a novel trilogy taking place between GW1 and GW2 has been announced, which falls on the border between GW1 and GW2. How should we handle this? -- Gordon Ecker 01:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Have it on both wikis, imo. Since it relates to both games, and isn't specifically tied to one of them. - anja 07:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Examine the content and the wikis' respective goals. Since this falls in between both games but has nothing to do with either in some sense of directness, they're not vital. However, having them couldn't hurt. --People of Antioch 07:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We "handle" it by acknowledging that the books exist but we do not acknowledge the contents of those books, since they will be irrelevant to the game. I don't look forward to having to say "this paragraph is game lore but that that paragraph is book lore". -- ab.er.rant 13:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Guild Wars Wiki. That is Guild Wars lore. Need I say more? Calor 14:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

How is game lore and book lore not related? Some of our lore writings comes from books too. Those the come with the game, yes, but still books and not in game. - anja 15:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Anja and Calor on this one. -- Salome 15:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We already document things like The Battle for Kyhlo, so I don't see how the books should be any different. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not exactly in favor of duplicating all the story pages on the wiki. Links to those pages as background material on Guild Wars Prophecies would have sufficed, but that's another issue. I'm not sure we're all on exactly the same page. From your question Brains, are you basically implying that we should be wikifying word-for-word all of the novels? Another point for us all to consider is that the novels deal with the transition from GW1 to GW2. We seem to have already settled on leaving most of that to the GW2 wiki, not here. And finally, they haven't even decided on the author yet. It's really premature to be even thinking about it now. It's like that discussion on how we should handle GW2 wiki. -- ab.er.rant 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait a bit closer to the books' release to make a final choice on what we are going to do about the books, but imo; they should be on both wikis --Shadowphoenix 16:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... although I do think they should be on A wiki, i'm not sure it should be on both. As the events that transpire in the novels will take place after the events of GW1 has ended, thus they will primarily serve as background lore for GW2 building on that contained in GW1. SO although I think they are wiki worthy, I am also kinda leaning to them being a GW2 wiki article rather than a GW1 article, but that's just my opinion. :) -- Salome 16:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant that if our current process is to document that kind of lore story, we should continue it for other such stories. Of course, I agree that we need to wait and see what the content of those books are in order to decide which wiki to put it on, but I don't agree that we shouldn't be documenting them (taking into account their size and content) considering we document things like Movement and the page I linked. If we decide to get rid of those things, then I'd oppose documenting these books too; I'm for being consistent in what we document. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is digressing, but the thing is, I just don't think this policy mentions that we retain external lore stuff. External gameplay-related stuff, yes, but not lore. I just didn't care enough about it to lobby for their removal, since being able to have wiki-links sort of gives them some usefulness. -- ab.er.rant 08:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The mention of canon in the "information we always retain" section could be interpreted as applying to all official lore. -- Gordon Ecker 08:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I think people are jumping the gun here. Unless they have sources I don't, we don't know enough to make an informed decision. Let's just wait until we know more. Backsword 08:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)