Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 6

The Horn

Is it just me or is The Horn a bad joke that really doesn't deserve to be listed on the community portal? Just because someone makes a user page doesn't mean anyone else cares. It is not wiki news, its immature, its almost devoid of content, and what content it does have is easily found on better pages.--riceball 22:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a lighthearted take on some of the week's news with a little extra "stuff" on the side. I have to agree that the second edition was slightly inappropriate, but the first edition got some positive feedback from a number of people, so yes, people do "care". Not everything has to be serious and always on-topic. -- Brains12 \ Talk 22:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked I thought this was a wiki about Guild Wars, not Facebook. If the goal is to make something that actually provides something new and worthwhile about the game (like The Scribe), I am fine with it. I do not require everything to be super serious, but I do expect things be more about documenting the game instead of some lame attempt at social interaction that can be done elsewhere. Whats to stop anyone from listing anything on the community portal then? Should I list each of my irelevant user pages to it as well?--riceball 23:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you take that off you need to remove the thing about pets and birthdays too as they are equally irrelevant. --Lemming 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Can i? :) (i mean, i am one of those who would gladly add a "GW related only" line to the user pages policy).--Fighterdoken 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I know im not going to remove it. I can't speak for this community is, whatever it is. I just thought this place should be more relevant to its purpose, and not some High School Musical sort of place.--riceball 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I agree, this is a documentation site, not a forum/facebook as you mentioned. Whilst community spirit is good I think such things need to be kept to word of mouth on ones own userpages rather than posted on the community portal. Lets see what everyone else thinks before acting though. --Lemming 23:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparing it to High School Musical is going a tad too far don't you think? It was, to me, quite a weird comment to make, so much so that I can't actually think of anything to say to that....

I think I'll go with whatever you decide, I'm not bothered either way, but I would like to say that The Horn is relevant to what we are doing and playing, Guild Wars. I agree though about the birthday and pets things, so I wouldn't mind to see them go or moved to the talk page. -- Brains12 \ Talk 23:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I had the same ideas as you did, Riceball, but I don't care whether or not it stays. The arguments from both sides are valid, and I can see either choice working out fine. Calor 23:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to everyone who thinks the community related subjects should be removed. Each of the things that were added to that list are community related, and in such should be on the community portal. From my perspective, each of the projects that I have added to the community portal are to better the wiki community (the horn is as well). If this wiki was to turn into a place with nothing but rules and no community based actions, I would most certainly leave as a user. Everything does not have to be so serious all of the time and that is the overall point of these community related events/projects. If you think that I would be one to idley stand by while the community aspect of the wiki is nothing but rules and regulations, you have gotten something wrong. I think that each and every community related event should be posted on the community portal; you are basically saying that we should strip the community fun from this wiki riceball and I most certainly do not agree with you. If you would like me to explain further just say so. --Shadowphoenix 23:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is the number of things that have gone up lately that detract from items that are pertenant to the running of the wiki, the community portal to my mind is meant to be a place for wiki related news that effects the community, like a new version of wikimedia, or a new sub wiki (eg gw2) opening up, a new namespace (eg. guild), things like that. There is a happy medium here somewhere I am sure, and I agree that the place should not just be rules and regulations there needs to be some perspective about what the community portal should be used for. --Lemming 23:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it either stays here or a new page gets created for actual community related events. I find this entire discussion to be an outrage to the wiki community. --Shadowphoenix 23:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to give a look to the archive, when the purpose of this article in particular was being discussed.--Fighterdoken 00:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The wiki community projects that have been placed on the community portal are to help better our wiki community, yes this includes every single user on here. Yes there have been a major increase in community related project in the past two months, and I admit to contributing to that and it is something that I am not ashamed of. The fact that someone is wanting to remove the community related projects from the community portal makes me very frusturated. I am sorry but I will in no way support removing these articles. Oh, and Riceball you said, "Just because someone makes a user page doesn't mean anyone else cares"; that is completely untrue. We are not just making random userpages then posting there link on the community portal, we are making well thought out projects to better our community. Obviously people cared when I came up with the Birthday List most users, even some of the most seldom active users, have added their name and birthday to that list. I am outraged that this was even brought up! --Shadowphoenix 00:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop taking this personally shadowphoenix, this is a discussion on what this page should be used for, not an attack against you. --Lemming 00:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this wiki is going backwards. I remember, and everyone should, the image this wiki had among players only a few months ago. I know, I felt it, and I know many more did, as I know it has been criticized while building GW2. Being prefectly clear, sometimes you feel this community has something up its...you know? It's just too uptight. LOOSEN THE **** UP!reanor 00:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I am not saying that it is an attack against me. I know that this is not an attack against me, but it does frusturate me that this was brought up. Why everytime I actually stand up for something I am told I am taking it to personally, or "it is not an attack against you shadowphoenix"; I do not see it as one. The discussion is about the content of the page and that was exactly what I was talking about. --Shadowphoenix 00:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"I am outraged that this was even brought up!" was what triggered my comment. I am sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick --Lemming 00:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have said an outrage to the wiki community, I just didn't want to sound like I was repeating myself. --Shadowphoenix 00:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (Edit conflict) As a compromise, how about a subpage for the less Guild Wars-related and more user-related? That should keep the things on this page more important to the wiki and Guild Wars side of things, which Riceball and Fighterdoken to name two feel it should be, yet keep the sole community- and user-friendly "projects" on a public page. Yes, this page is called the Community portal, but obviously it was set up, or wanted as now, for the important notices. -- Brains12 \ Talk 00:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Imho I like it the way it is. I just think user projects should go on the very bottom, while more important notices at the top. That's pretty much common sense; but I feel that as long as the important stuff gets more presence than the fun stuff, then I'm happy. But I think the fun stuff - the horn, birthdays, etc - should get a presence more than just a subpage. MiraLantis 00:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no problem with listing any community-related things here as long as this page still remains clear (still looking for a translation for "übersichtlich" :/) and those things do not hide important wiki discussions. Maybe an additional (sub) heading for those projects would be good. poke | talk 00:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MiraLantis, in fact when I posted my first project I put it near the bottom but it was moved by somone else :P. I also think poke is on to something. --Shadowphoenix 00:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, user-projects already have a place on the Project page, so moving them there should do the trick instead (maybe just a small note about recently-created projects, while leaving the whole explanation for them on the projects page). Regarding the Horn... unless it becomes something the community can participate into instead of a "Lol" page (something along the lines of a focalized discussion page), i am not sure if even in a sub-page would be a good idea.--Fighterdoken 00:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Also poke übersichtlich in english is clearly. --Shadowphoenix 00:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with poke. MiraLantis 00:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I started the project inviting ppl to join (and hoping they would). If I am still the only one doing it by the next release I might just drop the thing.reanor 00:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind helping out with it :o) --Shadowphoenix 00:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize you wanted contributions. I thought about that early on - that it'd be fun to occasionally toss things in it, but I didn't know your "vision" for it, if you will. I'll see if I can be humorous sometime in the near future for you.

Also, uebersichtlich may literally be clearly, but I feel like it misses part of the point. It needs to be an overview, succinct.. uncluttered. Something to that effect is how I thought of it. - THARKUN 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a good middle way. The community portal was quite rarely used, so I am sure a few more items wont hurt. On the other hand, we don't want a free-for-all "visit my cool page" link repository. Its value to the community depends on editors sticking to putting only the important stuff up there. Which does not mean no community projects! I feel that a project that gets tons of editors to participate, like the birthday thing, is important, since, yes, this wiki also depend on having an active community of editors which feel happy here and enjoy their time at the wiki - otherwise they would not contribute.

So I'd like stuff like the horn to stay, however those who put that up should keep in mind that the page is one of the most prominent on the wiki: Be short, write news in third persons, not first person talk page entries, and only report stuff that is already developed, no "I'd like to do this" type of posts. --Xeeron 11:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Internets is Serious Business.- Vanguard 11:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I love the horn, minus its tendency to be a bit too racy... I think if that could be toned down just a bit, it would receive wider acceptance. -elviondale (tahlk) 01:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Just remember it's not a foreign entity. You can contribute to it, add your view, and give it your tone. Just do it.reanor 02:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe along with community projects, we could highlight some individual things that we need - a few images needed, etc. People click on what needs images, etc and they're like... WOAH. But highlighting a few a week might get us some more help... and some more editors. MiraLantis 02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User pages/chat dont contribute very much either, so we should trash those (with the exception of admin pages perhaps). userboxes are even more useless, we need to ditch those. any images currently uploaded that arent used in actual GW articles are also unneeded. If we are going to do this, I vote doing it all the way....(see the path this takes?)--Ryudo 02:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, too bad it doesnt follow. Too bad its also not what I meant. While I dont understand these inane attempts at being social, I wasnt saying they should be prevented. I just think they should be more a word of mouth thing. Didn't think the community portal was for some personal pork projects that have almost nothing to do with guild wars. You dont need to worry, my opinion that GWW is supposed to be more about documenting GW than being Facebook is in the minority it seems. I do think Userboxes are retarded though, would have no problem removing them from the site. Its curious just how people need to advertise aspects of themselves so often. Everyone becomes walking billboard, yet seem to be just as empty as any commercial you see on tv in the end. But perhaps I am ranting :P --riceball 02:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

TBH if user pages, user talk, userboxes, the portal, and all non-wiki related images were to be banned, I wouldn’t bat an eye, because I personally don’t care about them all that much. I think that user pages and user talk, with the obvious exception of pages like gailes, are nothing but an unneeded load on the server, and draw away HR that could better be used towards bettering the wiki. But this is a community portal, apparently the "community" feels the need to seem special by everyone making, as you said, bulletin boards, long chat rants, welcome messages (cough cough) etc,etc. As far as I’m concerned, this is nothing more than a long line of projects/things people do when they have way, way too much freaking time. So yeah, it can go either way as far as I care.--Ryudo 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you only care about game content, and couldn't care less for the wiki community, WTF are you doing posting here?reanor 03:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Working under the assumption that the community is supposed to be about documenting a game called guild wars could lead to someone offering up the point of how there seems to be a growing movement to doing things that dont fit into that. So a discussion can be had on the subject. I understand you are taking this somewhat personally, which is why you probably have kind of hot and cold reactions based on whether someone agrees with you or doesnt, but your hostile (WTF) attitude really isnt necessary. I have a different view than you do of what exactly the community should be about. Thats it. Try not to think you speak for the community, or that your view is THE view of what the community is. Neither of us know, nor does anyone on this site. Thats why its a discussion on a talk page, and its also why I didnt change anything myself.--riceball 04:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This user would take video games over people any day!

Userboxes are For the Lulz.reanor 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yah, lulz... at policy breach XD. Now seriously, i think that, as long as the Community portal is used only to display projects (even personal) that require puntual attention, and we leave aside starting projects (RFC is for that) or personal lol-pages, things should go fine. In that regard, the Birthdays page still could use a bit of screen-time for a while (not much, though, since it looks pretty stable now), but the pets project is still too green for being displayed (as the creator said, is not even sure if it will keep going), and the Horn still needs to pass through some development before it can be really shown on what should be a front page.--Fighterdoken 04:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Im posting here ereanor, because I saw an interesting conversation and figured id give my 2 cents. But seriously, you cant deny that this wiki is seriously out of hand compared to many other game wikis, or wikipedia. I dont really mind the conversations on article pages, in fact, I think they are rather productive. Even user talk is sometimes productive. But when I see peoples user pages filled with images, text boxes, links to other pages they have created, often times one for each character they have filled with things like lists of all the builds they use, all the skills they have/want, background RP stories, achievements, HoM stuff, lists of items, complete with fancy coloring schemes and screenshots of their character, and a front page filled with about 50 userboxes, I cant help but think "wtf, do these people not have a job or anything? Between work, school and my girlfriend, i dont even have time to play guild wars and other games as much as I want, much less design/maintain something this intricate." Now, Anet is the one (I assume) that pays the server fees, and if they dont mind everyone of the thousands of people that have accounts on here making userpages that probably are breaking 1/2 a gig (which really does add up) then I guess it really doesnt hurt. If people REALLY do have that much free time, and REALLY have nothing better to do than turn their wiki page into a sort of mini myspace (which I hate by the way) then whatever, doesnt hurt me. Doesnt make me wonder any less about it though...--Ryudo 05:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ayo! This user is tired of using technology.

Look at it this way, they like doing it, so just live and let waste life.reanor 05:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

anti-social much?. We are not taking this personally, unlike you we care about the Guild Wars Wiki community. Like Ereanor said, "If you only care about game content, and couldn't care less for the wiki community, WTF are you doing posting here". If that is all you care about, then stop using your GWW user account and come to the wiki when you need to look something up. And the whole thing about getting userpages and such removed is a bunch of crap, every single wiki that I have been to has userspaces. I do not understand why this is becoming a big deal. The wiki community is just as important than any of the articles on this wiki. If you want this wiki to be a boring place, with nothing but rules regulations and nothing but Guild Wars content what do you think would be left of the amount of users we have? How many contributers do you think we would have? This is honestly a a odd conversation to be having. --Shadowphoenix 13:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The wiki is near complete. GW2 is coming and i doubt Anet will continue with GW1. So it doesnt really matter there wont be a lot of users left. Not to say that thats what i want ~ SCobra 13:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgot. I'm with Riceball here, if you want to start a project for users do it at Wasteofmytime:Mysonotfunnyproject name space or something. This is a place i come to to see how i can help out, not to... waste my time, or whatever your goal is with these pet/facebook projects ~ SCobra 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, cant believe how many people are getting pissed at me. Im not asking to delete all of those, where did I say that? All Im saying is that I dont care either way. Are you seriously that pissed off at my lack of caring about other peoples userpages?--Ryudo 14:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No I am pissed off at the lack of caring about the community >.< --Shadowphoenix 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well thats fine then.--Ryudo 16:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should adopt a What GWW is not policy to make it clear to people that we are here to document a game.GWW is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site(copied from WP) ~ SCobra 17:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We understand that, but what is a community ran site, if there is no actual community running it? --Shadowphoenix 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also if that policy is adopted I will in no way support it. --Shadowphoenix 17:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I have already said most of what I wanted to and don't want to repeat myself. However can I ask that this continue civilly without anyone getting pissed of at each other for expressing an opinion whatever it may be. --Lemming 17:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok, so going back to the topic... any idea of how to filter the content that goes on the Community portal? I would like to have some stablished rules (not a policy or guideline, though), but if nothing else, should we just discuss the merits of each topic on the talk page? In that regard, i think we already came to a point were The Horn and the pets project are in doubt so, what would be a good course of action?.--Fighterdoken 20:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people have suggested using the Project subpage, and not the main community portal page I believe. That could work, but I think organization is an important part of a wiki. So I would suggest a new subpage for social projects, to seperate them from actual projects about documenting the game (getting images, drop rates, etc...).--riceball 21:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We already have a project page, user projects can well be promoted there. Of they are projects. I think a different heading on this page separating user/community topics from game related topics is enough. This is a community portal after all, not the project portal. It brings me to an interesting question though.. Would topics about policies on user conduct (admin, election, NPA etc) fall under the user heading or the game heading? For you who want a separate page for "user topics", would you put policy things there too? Since they don't contribute to the main goal, content. - anja 22:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Community Portal is one of the few links on the navigation panel, and I like how its actually a collects different areas like policy, projects, requests for comment, etc... To me the point of the community portal is to act like a bulletin board to help the "community" who are documenting the game to see relevant and important/new information in an easy and organized way. It should be a major page, that shows major changes in the game, or changes in the wiki. Thats why I kind of think this place should add a "social" section to seperate projects like "the horn" or "hey, I have a pet" or "What did you eat today?" from actual projects like collecting drop rate data that are more to the point of the site. So people who still want that social stuff can have it, just out of the way of relevant information. Things like elections are about the community and how it functions, so I would think it fits here. Isnt NPA handled by the Admin noticeboard? Policy is already part of the community portal that also an easy to access link, and I would think policy is important to the role of documenting the game, it provides a structure.--riceball 22:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am probably fixating on the concept "project" too much here. I keep using it because I see projects like the horn and the pet thing front and center on the community portal. They should be tucked away in the project page in whatever subsection that fits. Which I do believe they are. My point is that they really have no place being on the frontpage.--riceball 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You're overreacting. The Horn is supposed to be press, and it is not intended to be my subpage (as I have already said), so it was a good idea to advertise the issues in the portal, as it would be an expression from the community. So far, it's not working very well, so it's very likely that it won't appear in the portal anymore. More personal projects come and go, so they'll never turn the portal into clumped hell. This is not an actual problem, so I'd hate to see a few ppl's concerns end up creating more community pages than we need, since it's very important that we only need to check one place to stay informed. BTW we need to archive the talk.reanor 23:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What I see as real press is something like the Scribe, something that talks about the meta in pvp. I dont seen any plan or direction with the horn. Its like those high school zines or whatever they were called, pseudo papers that were more for the people doing it than anyone reading it.--riceball 23:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The Scribe is dead since November last year, and has a different style and aim. I see a plan in The Horn, giving players the chance to produce free press for their community (with views and oppinions than The Scribe, ran by Anet, can't give), about what unites them, wich is GW. May be it's like a high school paper, wich I don't see as a bad thing, or may be not, but it's definitely better than doing nothing, and attacking those that do.reanor 00:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we are back to discussin The Horn's merit, i have to say that i though the first issue was a great idea, being a way to concentrate the opinion of the wiki userbase about several current topics (yeah, even Cynn's... clothing was discussed after certain patch), and i think if the idea had expanded from there to include a bit more of the "community view" about hot topics it could have been a good article to display on a front page like the Community portal, but the second number of the Horn was dissapointing, leaving just the concise description article to be noted. Maybe, instead of just allowing items to be posted right into the page, we should block it in the same way as the main page, with new topics having to request it's inclussion on this talk page so we can discuss merits on a case by case basis (maybe a 24 hours limit for discussing), and display them for a week only (unless a good reason for extending the time exists). Sure, it's more work for the sysops, but let's have them do the dirty work XD.--Fighterdoken 01:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm for putting stuff like the horn on sub-page and then show the subpage here. ~ SCobra 08:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Let's do something like what WoWWiki did. Let Guild Wars Wiki:Community Portal be for wiki related stuff and we have another page for non wiki-related stuff where you can bring up stuff like this, such as Guild Wars Wiki:Village Pump or Guild Wars Wiki:Heard at the Water Cooler (the latter wasn't meant to be serious :P). My opinion is that community related stuff doesn't belong on this page (despite the name), but I'm also of the opinion that we should have some page related to not so serious community stuff. — Galil 09:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a separate page would be contra-productive to the idea of that page. The page would be to inform other users that there is some kind of new project or whatever. This works on the Community portal as this page exists since the wiki start and many users have that page on their watchlist. But a new page would be alone and there would only be a less range of users who know about that page; so the "News" won't be read by the most people. poke | talk 17:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it went without saying that a new page isn't on anyone's watchlist until people add it there. ;) Also, I was thinking along the lines of having a link to it in the nav bar. There needs to be someplace where the community can discuss whatever IMO. Before someone says anything, I am aware that it isn't "for the goal of the wiki" and as such (arguably) "doesn't belong on this wiki" but I don't see why we have to stick to purely informative articles. I'm willing to bet none of your bosses have issued a "no joking policy" at your jobs, even if the joking doesn't really serve the purpose of the job (unless you're a comedian :P). Having a page dedicated for things like The Horn and other community projects would be a good way to centralize them IMO. — Galil 18:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, seeing as people were discussing removing these kind of links from the Community Portal, I don't see how it would be counter-productive to move them to another page instead of removing them completely. — Galil 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

And it's not counter.productive to keep them either.reanor 02:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with poke in that splitting those items into another page is a little different from deleting them outright. They automatically receive less views. Just split the news items into "serious news" and "not-so-serious news" sections, since treating them equally appears to be the primary issue. I also don't quite understand why we have to keep this page "serious" or "formal" simply for being a very visible page. We're not catering for professional clientele... we're catering to gamers. I don't think it'll stop people from joining this wiki if they see the horn, the pet project or the birthday list; in fact, I think the opposite is more likely to happen. -- ab.er.rant 07:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So can we just make a ==Community Fun== section or something, so I don't have to see this endless debate over nothing anymore? Backsword 07:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there actually a problem with the current sections? poke | talk 14:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Spam on community portal. — ク Eloc 貢 03:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG !!!!!!1!!!111!!!!!!11111!1reanor 05:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The short and long answer to that is: No. --Xeeron 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wiki personality test

This is a community website, and not primarily a platform for your entertainment. Like all tests of that kind, this one would rather fit a tabloid than a News page. Because of the recent reverts, I kindly ask the author to put that article where it belongs: Category:Humor. ~ dragon legacy 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know that that is necessary; in my opinion, it's just fine without a category. But I also agree with the reverters in that it is a private project and should be prefaced with the user's name who started it (Shadowphoenix in this case). I don't think that's a problem, just a statement of fact: she started it, so it should be her project. Unless, of course, she's Queen of the Wiki and can then use the Royal We... ;) - THARKUN 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"royal we"? we talk like this all the time, why does anyone need to give our way of speaking a name? - Y0_ich_halt 20:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In need of a team meeting?

Is it just me or does this place need a team meeting? :P I see so many attitudes and opinions being thrown around causing needless drama. This person leaving, that person leaving. And there isnt enough documenting the damn game! And I dont really see many people trying to bring everything together. Wikis are supposed to be about discussion, consensus and being civil I thought. But it seems like a lot of questionable things go around happening unchecked, especially on how civil people are with each other. And I think thats the most important part. Because without it, the other two things are less likely to occur. I think it would be wise to find some kind of way of addressing these issues with the active community. There is a growing sense by some that there is a double standard here for those held in high esteem. That some people get away with murder (hell, a few, namely Auron, are basisically celebrated for it) while other users get bashed because they might be a little overboard and in the minority of the popularity contest. I see tons of people saying "well so and so did this, and it was worse, so whats up with me being punished?" Its a valid question based on the state of things in my opinion. Its not good for the community either.

I think this place needs to reflect on what it lets go and what it doesnt. I saw a poll on here asking whether or not "you are pathetic" is an NPA. A poll to DETERMINE whether or not calling someone pathetic might not be friendly. If you call a person pathetic, that should be an obvious NPA, its completely unhelpful. If you tell someone an action of theirs was pathetic, its not NPA, and "might" be helpful. One is directed towards the PERSON, one is directed towards the BEHAVIOR. But the simple fact this crap goes on is part of my point. How does a place like this even get like this? This place needs to get on the same page in my opinion and start to look back and the policies it has, and get that consensus thing going again. Maybe take stock of where the community is, and where it needs to be headed. If you want there to be good faith, you need to protect that faith. It shouldnt be about who you are. I think people need to treat everyone here with more respect than they tend to. I dont care if the person acts like a dick to you, it doesnt justify acting like a dick back. That is the wrong culture to have here. And sadly, I think if something ends up happening here like I think it might, that kind of culture might become more pervasive here. Because how can the community be held accountable to acting civil with each other when some in possible authority thinks being civil is overrated and unnecessary.

Hell, maybe this is going on somewhere and I am too out of the loop to know where it is. Maybe no one cares or maybe I am over thinking this since I do tend to just get bits and pieces. I just dont like what I see here, and thats coming from someone who isnt even invested in this site at all. So I can only imagine how others who care more about this place feel. At least, I hope they would. Is this even the right place to say any of this? Eh, it says "community", and I am too tired from my ranting to think if it needs to be somewhere else :P--riceball 04:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Really wise, I agree with him. --Myria83 04:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll throw my hat in. I think this might be a good turning point for the community. This kind of issue will not go away. Sure, it'll go away for a little while after the heat dies down, but it will resurface with a new face(*user/s*) and we'll be here all over again. I support this idea, but I don't have any specific plan of how to really execute it. --People of Antioch 04:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems things here go back and forth over the same issues. When I first came here, the problem was policy dogmatism, then it was the perception of the sysops function and it's relation to that dogmatism, and now it's policy dogmatism by non-sysops users who function like sysops? I mean, come on ppl! That is not progressing, we are degenerating.reanor 04:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Granted I probably should stay out of this being new and all, but since I have an opinion on this and maybe being new here gives me a different perspective then someone else. Anyway, it seems to me that most of the "drama" exists because some people are doing anything but making constructive edits that document the game. This is not a social networking site, nor is it a forum. Those exist and I'm sure anyone who is looking for that can go there for socializing or subjective opining, or head in game, hang out and chat in one of the towns. As an example, what is the point, and more importantly, how is it a priority given the real work to be done here, to keep track of editors' personality types, birthdays, etc. If any wikia becomes about the editors and not about the content...well it won't be a wikia when that's done.--Inspired 05:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't this been explained before? (im obviously bored by looking through archives and contribtes lol) Well from what I understand, it helps keep this wiki some-what alive (quoted from vangaurd, and someone else), a sense of community is a nice thing every once in a while (also quoted from that somebody else). I think we can find a balance between the two, dont you guys? --Myria83 05:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it has. The problem is that we are a bit too "community-open" for the taste of grumpy users (like me), and a bit too "community-restrictive" for some others (let's say, SP). On the other hand, we are too "serious" for some users (like CA), and too "relaxed" for other users (Auron). We were born as community open wiki by Anet, and without a clear guideline from them we came to a point where concensus and community appreciation means nothing, and the most vocal users end impossing their point of view on all matters. A "Jungle" law were some users feel themselves compelled to eat rabbits if they want to survive, without realizing that rabbits can live happily by dedicating their time to document the wiki instead of socializing.

I would love if we could go the dictatorship way with something like "If it is not strictly GW related, don't post it. Only content-related discussions here, all the rest on fan-site forums", but that would mean killing the wiki as it is now and having to start all over again. It could prove to be an... "interesting" experience, but i seriously doubt many of the current people would want to work on a wiki like that.--Fighterdoken 05:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. I'd rather we let different users indulge a little in whatever is their fancy than deny them the fun outright. If users find it dull to be here, they won't contribute. A little indulging is not harmful.

@Inspired, it is incorrect to say that we give these priority; it is just exposure. We don't restrict people from posting news regarding GW-related projects but not many users actually make use of it, relying instead on others to use the watchlist or RC instead.

@riceball, it would be nice if you could state what would be the agenda for said meeting. As you said, there's so many different attitudes, I doubt the outcome of said meeting would be very useful. If you've been here right from the start, you'd observe a strange "evolution" of the nature of complaints. Right at the start, many users did not the like the strong discretionary powers of grandfathered sysops from GuildWiki. So they labored to tone down their role. When they got to a point where sysops were quite restricted, complaints and rants started flying in that sysops are useless and not doing anything. So as a result, we took on a change of mindset and proposed to give back discretion to sysops. And now we are getting complaints and rants because users don't trust our discretion, believing in their own opinion that we should ban or not ban whoever they think should be banned or not banned. Growing pains perhaps? Is it really the wiki community as a whole? Or just a select few users on both sides?

If sysops started banning people left and right for borderline infractions, we'd be hearing cries of "abuse of power". If we banned only the more disruptive ones, we'd get "double standards". If we ban only the really problematic ones, we'd get "not doing anything". The only thing we can do, like what Tanaric and Armond did recently, is to try to explain. If users don't or refuse to get it, and refuse to use proper channels for change, then we should refuse to waste any more time on that user, take whatever verbal abuse they find the time to throw, and move on. -- ab.er.rant 06:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I know that since I started contributing here I have noticed somewhat of a change; granted that's only just over 6 months; although that could be partly due to my being solely dedicated to the game content side and rarely even going onto talk pages at the beginning and only maybe 3 months ago did I start delving more into the community sections like talk pages, etc.

As to what Ab.er.rant mentioned in his last two paragraphs, I've found you'll more or less always find people complaining like that in most community related things (can't think of what to call them at the moment), although normally it's found more in things like forums rather than wikis since those are more about the community whereas wikis are normally more about documenting something; in our case the Guild Wars games. Having said that, personally I'd prefer not to completely remove the community aspect from the wiki since as someone already mentioned it would end up as a more boring/dull place and we could end up loosing some contributors/potential contributors. Although having said all this I wasn't able to follow the recent events as closely as others may have; partly due to having had less time to be able to come here and thus missed where some of it took place during the last few days; so I can't really comment too much on what happened. --Kakarot 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have always thought of GWW as a work place, while finding GuildWiki to be more focused on the community aspect. With time, and especially after the wikia move, some emigrated from GW to GWW, the GW community grew thin, and it's community aspect became even stronger. On this end, inmigrants, and old GWW users as well, faced a cultural collision, and the way I see it, that's the source of our conflicts.reanor 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read every single word in this discussion, but I'm glad Riceball has brought up a topic I think all of us have had in the back of our minds for quite some time. There's too much whining and complaining at each other about user behavior. Frankly, so much of it is trivial. In real life, are you going to run to the teacher or the police or mommy because someone called you pathetic? I think not. Be slightly annoyed, fine. Don't slip your small burden on the backs of the entire community. This type of thing can't be dealt with via policy or injunction. This can be dealt with by yourself. Policy can't tell me "Don't QQ" and "Don't be mean". Auron and Anja (taking two users with contrasting styles here) are two valued users. Auron goes about things his own way, Anja hers. Policy can't change their ways. Only they can. The real purpose of the wiki is to document the game, and discuss things. Everyone here should take a step back, and think for a minute: Am I doing things the way I should be, or am I merely antagonizing and burdening people? Calor 18:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Antagonizing a disfunctional system might be the way we should be doing things.reanor 19:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't argue that at the moment, but antagonizing people is not the right thing to do. Calor 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All attacks need to be taken in context, saying for example "you are pathetic" is an outright case for banning, or not, is not the correct way to look at anything, this is why the no profanity policy fell apart, because everything has context. --Lemming 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe everyone has to be realistic and admit there will never be a perfect system. I get that there is probably some weird evolution that goes on from being too heavy handed to becoming too light handed an back again. I am ok with that. But I do believe the double standards should be lessened. From my time here, it really does seem like this place works as cliques of haves and have not. And my biggest issue is with the sheer lack of respect people toss around at each other (maybe cause of those cliques). Yes, we can debate issues and not agree and think the other person is stupid and wrong. Thats easy. But there needs to be respect still. Its sad to see Izzy's page full of IP edits or Shard going "you fail, quit your job". It is totally without worth. I am not here asking for a "no sarcasm" policy, nor am I looking for people to not swear. But people need to stop being suck jerks to each other.

Its probably wrong of me to keep coming back to Auron, but I think he is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with this wiki. And I can easily say that, even with admitting he is probably right most of the time. The way in which he goes about it sometimes, can be very wrong. A person can be blunt and direct and tell it like it is without being a dick. Being right doesnt justify being a dick. But he gets away with it for various reasons. And I think it needs to stop. Maybe I am a carebear for thinking these things, but I dont think so. I really think the best way to foster the strongest wiki is with a group of people who work more with each other than trying to score impressive beat downs. The whole eye for an eye ends up leaving us all blind sort of thing.

So what I meant with the team meeting thing, would be to kind of find some way as a group that everyone could kind of find some points of commonality. Some sense of direction and to really think about what this wiki could also do without. I dont mean get rid of the social pages like the pet thing or whatever. Yes, I dont understand them, but I never said get rid of them.

I just think even if the average demographics of a computer game might be 13-25 year old immature boys, it doesnt mean this place needs to be a culture of jerks. And I think it would be good to try to get on the same page as a community now, before this culture could grow and possibly chase away or alienate more of the average users.--riceball 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. However, I think the only way we can realistically expect that to happen is if we enforce policies like NPA without admin involvement. When admins start banning people for minor violations, the banned users just get mad at the admins. When no one says or does anything about it, then it becomes accepted. But if a significant portion of the community makes a point to respond negatively to any violations, then it's much more likely that the behavior will stop. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Being right justifies being a dick, don't you watch Dr. House?reanor 00:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I laughed irl there. And it's House, not Dr. House. But that's a TV show, and this is the internet. And intarnets r serius biznez, so back to the topic at hand. Calor 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Even though it was a joke, it does bring up a point still. Does House seem like he functions well in communities? No. He is basically a great team of one. But that is only good on TV shows and somehow its supposed to be good for the Army. For a place based on debate and consensus, he would destroy the system in reality. There is a reason why this place is getting as much drama as a TV show though.--riceball 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Dr. House for spanish speakers. Anyway, House it's not a team of one, he works with a team for a reason, and actually has an overall beneficial effect on the whole community. May be the reason why this place is getting so much drama is because it's lacking some proper Auron-style bitchslapping. He has been absent lately, you know?reanor 04:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on that response I think this is less of a joke by you, and more that you actually think House could actually work like that reality. House is a great show, but there is no possible way that could ever happen in the real world. It can on TV, since the people who write the scripts already know what will happen going into it. Cant believe I needed to say any of this :P--riceball 21:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I propose we implement this into our current list of policies. --Shadowphoenix 04:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First, is it possible to change the name from the immature name it currently has to something more like "Respect other Users", "Respect the Community" or "Be Civil"?

People seem to complain about its subjective nature. While at the same time many people seem to be pushing for more admin discretion lately. Puzzling eh? Admin discretion is by definition subjective. Ironically I was against the blind admin discretion in that sitution. In this case it wouldnt be blind, it would be directed towards improving the overall culture of the wiki. Though I imagine some could say the admin policy was doing the same, I just thought it was in the wrong place.

Some people seem to have said being an asshole is just necessary sometimes. That this policy is trying to subvert conflict and thats not good. I dont think it is, debate by nature is conflict. I do not expect people to always agree, I do not expect people to always get along. Debate should continue. But this policy would be more about still respecting others while you debate. You attack the points, not the people. You contribute worthwhile points, not points without merit simply because you are trying to manipulate people. You can be blunt and direct without being a jerk. Its sad when you see people talk about themselves being "honest" when they are being a jerk to someone. They simply were lazy in their words, or likely wanted to hurt the other person instead.

The definition of a dick seems to be decent in the policy. But I do think the whole point needs to go away from the concept of "dick" or "jerk", and more towards the point of the behavior it wants to prevent. Which is why I suggest we change the name of this policy. The name kind of dooms it in my opinion. If someone is right about an issue, they dont need to be an asshole. If someone is being an idiot, let them be an idiot. Maybe they are having a bad day. Maybe they misread something (like 70% of all communication is non-verbal, so there is a one reason why the internt is so prone to misunderstanding). Maybe they are ignorant of the issue, moreso than they thought they were. It happens to us all. So what is wrong with that? They are a user, care, and shouldnt feel bad about trying to be involved. It doesnt mean we need to accept anything they suggest, just respect them. Are we not all supposed to be relatively equal here? (outside of the elitests who think their poo smells better) Ideas are not all equal, but the people should be.

People are prone to self-serving biases. People are also prone to thinking themselves more special than they are. This sometimes leads them to acting like elitest jerks to others. So as an overall culture, I think we need to weed those traits out. It would lead to an overall better wiki in my opinion. And a policy like this might just help. If you can get past those who have a vested interest to QQ it because they dont want to respect others.--riceball 21:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Unfortunately, the problem with the proposed policy is that it can't be implemented to accomplish anything. In its definition, it states: "...by trying to...", and thus, it's application is determined by the intent of the suspected "dick" which leaves her as the only one able to determine if she is indeed being a dick. And its doubtful whether she cares if she is actually a dick. And if you remove intent from the policy...well then most of us are subject to being accused of being a dick at one time or another by being right if that results in inferiority being felt by the person who was wrong. Possibly resulting in: the dumber I am = the bigger dick you are. On second thought I vote for the this policy :-) -- Inspired to ____ 22:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

See, I dont think it can go that way, especially if we are to assume admins are admins for a reason. No matter what they do, a person can pull out the subjective card. "Oh, I didnt think calling you pathetic was NPA, sorry, I somehow used it in a different context" :P And I also do not believe its a question of the dumber I am, the bigger the jerk you are, even if that is a typical path the situation can take. While many issues can be gray, you can also use evidence and reasoning to kind of weed out those situations. At least, admins are supposed to be doing that, its their job to.--riceball 22:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

ADDED It seems there was such an attempt at Be Civil a while ago, and it failed because people felt it was already included into NPA. Which from reading it seems to be true. I think what this comes down to is the use of NPA, and maybe even the name itself. I think people tend to lock into the literal "personal attack" part. That they can remain as disrespectful to other users as they want, as long as they dont go blatant NPA. Based on Admin behavior, that perception seems to be right for the moment. To me, the whole double standard thing comes up here, where users in favor get away, while users who are not, dont. So again, this all comes back to the whole team meeting thing. I would like to see admins start to come out with the users and start to get some consensus as to how these things should go again. Maybe its time for the current consensus to evolve to something else now. --riceball 21:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your last statement is very accurate. It's true, we haven't talk much about what's our current consensus lately. At least, here we are at Community Portal talking about it, so we're going somewhere. I just hope it won't turn our search for consensus into some kind of poll. We're facing diferent opinions, but that doesn't mean we can't talk ourselves out of this situation. For one, I like trusting in our admins rather in our policies, and beyond every argument that has already been brought about it by myself and others, I guess the important point now, learning from this wiki's experience, is realizing we can change our admins a lot more often than our policies, and that counts for something.reanor 02:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dev Journals

I didn't know where this suggestion/idea/comment belongs. Hopefully this is the correct place. Anyway, I noticed that quite a few devs are keeping journals on the GWW, but they are in their User pages. Could there be a link on the front page to a Journals page, with links to the Journals? I find that there is good news in the Journals, and it is probably as beneficial as Gaile Talk and stuff was. Thanks for considering. --Ravious 18:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this belongs at Arenanet talk:Portal? --Shadowphoenix 18:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's fine right here. — ク Eloc 貢 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Either the ArenaNet portal or possibly in News. The CP is more for wiki matters than game matters. -- ab.er.rant 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for protection

Should we create a centralized location for protection and unprotection requests? -- Gordon Ecker 07:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The admin noticeboard..? --Rezyk 07:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboard has worked fine until now (since protection is mostly raised on massive vandalism cases), so i see no reason for creating a special place. Also, admins can always check the respective category if they want to do some cleanup on protected articles.--Fighterdoken 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, that's what the noticeboard is for. -- Brains12 \ Talk 11:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As the others have said the Admin Noticeboard has been fine so far for this, but one thing I was wondering, is there a category for proposed pages for protection? I had a look in Special:Categories but couldn't find anything, something like Category:Requested protection or similar would work. --Kakarot 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is one. Maybe it could be created together with a non-invasive template for pages that don't require immediate attention (like a user requesting protection of its own page), but not sure how useful it could prove to be.--Fighterdoken 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it need a template, seeing as only sysops can protect pages just adding it to a category like the one I mentioned might be sufficient. Having said that though including a template might help with discussion regarding the pros/cons of protecting a page, and as long as it's not overly invasive; maybe something similar to the stub template would work; I don't see any problem with including one. --Kakarot 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, it does not need it at all i think, but using a template avoids spelling mistakes when setting the category, and is easier to point. I was actually thinking in something like {{image needed}} instead, since it does not change the page, only adds the category.--Fighterdoken 18:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh right got mixed up with what you meant, yeah either would work although yours might be better. --Kakarot 18:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fighterdoken's idea, something that could place it in the category without disturbing the page. This is a good idea, it would help out the Sysops a bit :o) --Shadowphoenix 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A comment on the noticeboard would be much better. A page requiring protection occurs once in a blue moon -- even less than blocking users. It needs to be done far far less than deleting pages, which is why I don't think having something like GWW:DEL will be useful for protection requests -- a new request doesn't ping a watchlist. The noticeboard does, resulting in a quicker response. -- Brains12 \ Talk 21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the admin noticeboard is alot more likely to bring it to my attention at least. - anja 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Brains replied with what I wanted to say. -- ab.er.rant 06:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus: Requesting protection mostly means that the page is vandalized; so how do you stop someone from removing the category then? So what I want to say: Noticeboard is good and enough. poke | talk 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

page view statistic

i don't know whether this came along w/ the wiki upgrade or not, but i just noticed that the page view statistic is missing from the bottom of the page. was this removed on purpose or was it accidental? --VVong|BA 19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd, I'm pretty sure it was working yesterday. --Kakarot 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also really missing it. Is it a bug or simply the new MediaWiki version 1.11? —ZerphaThe Improver 19:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Aww lame, it's gone. I enjoyed seeing how many hits I got on my User talk page, lol. — ク Eloc 貢 21:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed seeing it on almost all pages. Can't we get it back? :( —ZerphaThe Improver 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It might be best to continue this discussion over at this page as it has already been reported to Emily using that discussion. --Kakarot 13:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with vandals

I've come online, and all I'm seeing on vandals' talk pages and users' talk pages is rubbish about waffles, sticks and other food oddities; "amusing" vandalism; "entertaining" vandalism; "fun" vandalism and revert wars and other inappropriate discussions. Frankly, it's pathetic.

Whatever happened to simply reverting something, posting it on the admin noticeboard, and leaving it at that? Instead of having ridiculous conversation about waffles and bacon? (And it's not just this occasion either, this new "waffle" craze is annoying, but at least it's bearable.)

I suggest we take a look at a policy on GuildWiki (one that I've previously said was unnecessary because of active admins and the noticeboard; however, it seems highly appropriate at the moment) and keep it in mind for another occasion of persistent vandalism. That's not to say I want to add it to our foot long list of policies, proposals and drafts, but perhaps we should give it a read. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You might be right, while fun is always welcome at the wiki to keep up the community, in the last days it got a bit too off-topic. We don't need such a policy, but you're right, reading it might help. poke | talk 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Poke, although would point 3 under details be applicable to sysops since we do sometimes give warnings on the persons talk page; for example using this or this? (only two I could find at this time) --Kakarot 15:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Those warnings are usually given out after one or two minor-disruptive edits. Continuous vandalism or disruption typically ends in a block. Anyway, I didn't really want to go into the specifics of each point, just that it is something worth looking at. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do have to admit that the discussion on the vandal's talk page spiraled out of control (I was expecting it to end with my final comment, hence why I didnt comment again); but I don't think this requires a policy or anything. We could refer to that policy at times; but imo this is being blown out of proportion. --Shadowphoenix 16:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

To make this clear: Brains did not say that we need a policy, and as I said I don't think that we need one, either. The only point is that reading it might give some idea about the situation. poke | talk 16:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. While first impressions may give that idea, that policy is not about the issue Brains is having. Backsword 05:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What Poke said. --Kakarot 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok sorry I misunderstood. --Shadowphoenix 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Brains is right, this is a wiki, and serious stuff happens here. Though I participated in the revert-war (though not violating 1RR, as per obvious vandalism), I made little faces in the comment box. I think we could all do with a fresh coat and be a little more serious in our very important work here! ;-) On another note, I also feel, really, really bad I missed this line in the Admin notice board:

Always avoid a revert war with the vandal; it is far better to wait until an admin has a chance to intervene.

--People of Antioch 02:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of 1RR: The bunch of us reverting was wondering where all the sysops were. We saw Gordon in RC making edits in a few places, but I suppose he missed the vandalism. So the bunch of us kept reverting while waiting for Gordon to ban the vandal, and, well, he never did. This isn't to place any blame on Gordon, but simply to point out how things got out of hand on RC.

I suppose, by and large, I'm guilty of "Not quietly dealing with vandals". In retrospect, I probably let my actions get a bit out of hand, but let me pose a question: What does the wiki lose from a handful of users making the best out of a bad situation? Sure, perhaps it's not 110% professional, but many people use the wiki as more of a social vehicle rather than as a source of information. That said, the wiki is gravitating towards socialism rather than professionalism, as seen with Shadowphoenix's projects and the talk pages of certain users. So this wiki isn't exactly the pinnacle of professionalism. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that, on this wiki at least, dealing with vandals humorously accomplishes the same as reverting them quickly and quietly. Nothing is lost by a handful of us enjoying ourselves while reverting vandalism. After all, when life gives you lemons, why not make lemonade? Calor 03:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Though, I feel like I have learned something out of this (I feel like a little kid! ^^) in that revert wars, even when correcting vandalism, can be (and for the most part) bad. I think if we left it alone, it would have quieted long ago before. I apologize for that, and for not reading the lines of "Always avoid a revert war with the vandal...". --People of Antioch 03:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny how the one time I get time to actually play Guild Wars instead of spending time here is the time something like this happens. --Kakarot 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Calor, I remember times, when people came to my talk page to post issues that should be posted on the noticeboard instead.. When you see there is an admin active, but he is working on something other and not looking for vandals, just ping him by posting on his talk page! poke | talk 08:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not deter a vandal by posting comments like 'oh if you keep doing it, we'll keep reverting and we'll have a jaunty time doing it' (not a quote, but effectively how those comments sounded). You do it by ignoring them. If a revert is required, you simply undo without the quotes, the unnecessary conversations on the vandal's talk page and in response to the vandal himself. What do you lose by not ignoring the vandal? You lose time that could be spent adding/maintaining content to the wiki; you waste your own time by encouraging revert wars; you lose any chance of deterring that vandal. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I didn't get a degree in criminal psychology. Anyways, I apologize for any mistakes I made, and Brains, I'll keep that advice in mind for future situations. Calor 18:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

help reverting something.

I reverted the edits of 96.233.14.33 on User talk:Gaile Gray/Guild Wars suggestions because he was editing other peoples comments. Changing them into crap no less. Clearly vandalism. However, he later reverted my revert. Right now I can't revert that revert because "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits." Can anyone "manually" revert the thing, plus remove his later comments (that also don't make sense) and give him a time out? (i.e. ban) — Poki#3 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's clearly vandalism, GWW:1RR does not apply. But you're right to stop. It's best to avoid revert wars with vandals so that they'll get bored and go away instead hanging around reverting for the heck of it. In the meantime, notify admins on the noticeboard. -- ab.er.rant 08:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they were more asking about the technical aspects of it, Ab.er.rant. Poki, you can just go into the history and click on a date/time to pull up the code of the page from that revision - then just copy out the relevant part, click the Edit tab at the top to pull up the current version of the page, and sub back in the proper text. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Hmm... I seem to have missed the 2nd part of Poki's question... either I'm going blind or it's too bloody hot to concentrate. We're hitting an unprecedented level of heat these past 2 weeks. -- ab.er.rant 13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was in a lot of parts of the talk page, and there where unfortunately normal edits right after that. I didn't have time to vert through it at the time, so I left this note. After I came back I actually saw a revert war between a vandal that ended up protecting the page against anons _^_ Anyway it's over now. — Poki#3 14:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I went in and I think put it back to the proper comments but a number of times after finishing Igot an edit conflict and had to restart. Was about to do a full protection just so I could sort it out without ecs but since Anja had already done a semi it ended up that that was sufficient. --Kakarot 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Weaponsmith nav

Hi guys/gals, I was surfing through the weaponsmith pages today and I got to thinking; why don't we add a nav to each of the Weaponsmith's pages? It would allow an easier navigation through the weaponsmith pages. I have created a rough draft template here of what it might look like (but it does need to be fixed up a bit). I do realize that we have the lists of weaponsmiths, but I think with that plus this it would call for much eaiser navigation. So what do you guys/gals think of that? --Shadowphoenix 20:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, nav bars are always handy, but maybe order them by region for easier finding which is where? — ク Eloc 貢 23:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by campaign --> Region --> Specific area --> Name of weaponsmith. That's just me. You can cross out the Region though.--People of Antioch 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't see a reason why people would be interested to jump from one weaponsmith to another.. Interesting for visitors is where they get what weapon but with a simple name-navigation they would have to check all pages. Pages like List of Prophecies weaponsmiths (F/N/EN) are more helpful for visitors. poke | talk 08:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I was thinking about making it for people who need to get information on multiple weaponsmiths (maybe they need to get several different weapons, or they are finding something for a friend, etc.). I just have always found that the navs make it much eaiser to navigate through the pages. It couls also be helpful for people who do not know about those lists and just go to the weaponsmith's page. --Shadowphoenix 15:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"maybe they need to get several different weapons" - still a list with all weapons is easier to use than browsing through all pages. And wouldn't it be better to improve those lists and link the lists from the Weaponsmith pages? poke | talk 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with poke. A weaponsmith navbar would be useless and redundant with the categories that we already have. If I'm searching for a weaponsmith for a particular weapon, I'd be searching for that weapon first, which means it's best to ensure that weaponsmith links are added to all the weapon articles. It's like skills. Having a navbar for skill trainers is pointless. If I want to search for a skill trainer, I'd visit the skill's article, not sequentially clicking on skill trainer names in the hopes of finding the one I want. -- ab.er.rant 02:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What should we categorize...

→ moved from Help:Ask a wiki question#What should we categorize...

... community event images as? Many of them contain ArenaNet images, so I though the ANet or screenshot tag would do. Then I realized that most of these images have been edited to such a degree it might not warrant that. I'm speaking specifically of the images that have been in Special:Uncategorizedimages for a little while. --People of Antioch 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Make a new category "Community event image"? It's pretty annoying seeing them sit in there all the time. -- Mini Me 17:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If they're derivative works, and still contain easily recognizable elements of something that would be tagged as {{arenanet image}} or {{screenshot}}, they should be tagged the same. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What about ones like this where we can tell it's a GW helm, but it's mostly user created; or even this in which I can't really tell what's in the background. Also, what about the concise/traditional arrows or the various screenshots needed for support? --People of Antioch 17:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The background of this image is a screenshot from Lion's Arch by the looks of it. --Kakarot 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The concise/traditional arrows could just be left uncategorized, or if you'd prefer not to have them show up on Special:Uncategorizedimages, create a template form them, something like {{wiki image}} or the like. For the others, if it contains GW content, tag it as such. It doesn't matter whether it's "mostly" or not, if it contains things that would be recognizable as copyright. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make that template to get the experience out of making it, but what (if any) licensing would go with said wiki image? Or, can we just scrap that idea and place it under Special images (because if we made wiki images, a whole bunch of images would have to then be re-categorized). --People of Antioch 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Any image not otherwise licensed is GFDL, as per Guild_Wars_Wiki:Copyrights. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on something in my sandbox, that look okay (besides the lack of image and color)? It was based on the {{user image}} template, which was much simpler to edit. --People of Antioch 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks okay. I'd probably use a different wording, since technically every image uploaded here is used on the wiki. :P I'd opt for a message that's more information about the fact that the image is playing a support role... hmm. Maybe something like "This image was uploaded for use in wiki content for utility purposes" or the like. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not another tag please.. Imo not all images need to be categorized.. The community event things just show up because they are not ANet images but they are simply images used for articles and so they don't need another tag.. poke | talk 18:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually poke, I'd say that a category for utility images makes sense. They're not uploaded for userspace, but they're ones that people might still want to locate easily, for reuse. Please don't fob this off as "not another tag please". That said, PoA you might consider tagging them as {{GFDL image}}, since that's the same as used by the Tango icons for the professions and such, which serve a similar purpose. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, a little unclear there, Aiiane. Which images should be tagged? --People of Antioch 18:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For images like those on community event pages, or on any other article, I would say: Please no category; otherwise we would also have to tag all other images that we use in some article.. For those utility images, a lot of them are already tagged in Category:Special images but I don't think we need always a template for that, simply add the category and it is fine.

Btw. {{GFDL image}} is the most useless template ever on a GFDL wiki :P poke | talk 18:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It makes the licensing explicit, which is handy for people who are just browsing through images. It also categorizes images which might not already be categorized, which is useful, as it's easier to highlight images that haven't been paid attention via Special:Uncategorizedimages. You might disagree, but your word is not law, and it doesn't hurt you to have it exist. "otherwise we would also have to tag all other images that we use in some article" - no one is forcing you to categorize any image yourself, nor does the existence of a category immediately obligate anyone to fill it. If you're opposing adding something to the wiki merely because it is work, then I guess we should just stop adding anything to the wiki at all, because that's work as well.

@PoA, I was suggesting using {{GFDL image}} on the ones like concise/traditional, etc. instead of using a new template. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Which leaves the original item: the community images. Is it simply okay to use {{screenshot}} or {{arenanet image}} for that? --People of Antioch 21:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is what I had said a while ago. :P (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? "because it is work" - I never said that, I just said that when we add a category - for example for images we use on articles, which would be for example the images for the community event articles - then we have to use that category for all images we use on articles, not only those, that are not already in any category. I don't oppose because it is work, as I know that a lot people - including me - work from time to time on such monotonous things (Calor for example :P); but adding another category with 1000+ images doesn't help anybody. Then leaving the images out of any category is fine.

The thing is that I don't like redundancy, but adding categories to only some of the images which would fit into that category, just to "highlight images that haven't been paid attention via Special:Uncategorizedimages" is really redundant. Especially as I see no need to pay attention to uncategorized images..

"It makes the licensing explicit, which is handy for people who are just browsing through images." this is a GFDL wiki; everything which is not ANet content, is GFDL, so why do we need to make licensing explicit when there is no other choice? poke | talk 22:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Explicit in the sense that someone who has very little knowledge of the wiki, but clicks on an image, will be informed immediately of what terms they can use it under - without having to know about the licensing link on the bottom of the page, which is both a) not all that specific and b) small. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One advantage is that explicitly tagging GFDL images is that it distinguishes verified GFDL images from images with unknown license information, which could be either ArenaNet images, GFDL images, public domain images or non-ArenaNet, non-GFDL images. -- Gordon Ecker 06:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Drop research

Does someone have an idea on how to interpret the information gathered in all the various drop research and salvage research tables? I can't remember who started it but we should at least try to make use of that information rather than having users just keep adding to it and not really amounting to much. -- ab.er.rant 03:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

By converting the raw data into percentages then putting them into a small table under "items dropped"? Calor 03:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been interpreting the drop research as observed drops from specific enemies and after so many entries (no specific number, just whenever a pattern is observed), I update the acquisition section. I observed the following drop patterns for weapons:

• Core weapons drop pretty much anywhere (ex. Ball Hammer).
• Some weapons drop anywhere in one or more campaigns, but not all of them (ex. Barrel Hammer).
• Some drop in a specific region (ex. Jade Hammer).
• Some drop from a specific type/affiliation (ex. Summit Hammer).
• Most caster weapons drop from caster enemies with the same profession. If the weapon can drop in different attributes, the attribute will usually be random (only somewhat certain about that), but still match the profession.
• Some caster weapons seem to only drop from non-casters (ex. Bo Staff and Raven Staff).
• Martial weapons can drop from both casters and non-casters.
• I haven't done the dungeons enough times to get an idea what the chest drops are like. Each dungeon chest seems to have its own special skins (ex. Frog Scepter, Aureate Blade?), but can drop a bunch of other skins.
• I think the Zaishen Chest drops most skins, but I'm not convinced yet that it drops all skins.

For trophies and salvage items, I use the drop research to figure which unit types drop which items. Some can drop from all types, but some drop from specific professions. There really isn't any consistency to it, and each campaign seems to do things differently. Tedium 05:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Language

Do we have a standard of which language to use, i.e. British / US English by default? I've seen some edits where people change some words on an article, but not all, leaving them inconsistent. Biscuits 22:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Not this again XD. IIRC, it was: "Official information as it was released. The content itself is not regulated, but US english is prefered if the editor is willing to pick one. Editing articles only to change between US english and British english is discouraged.".--Fighterdoken 23:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh not really. If we're doing things verbatim, we do things verbatim; otherwise it's left purely to the writer. Of course, an article should be consistent, so I would say go with the majority - if five words are American and two are British, go with American (and vice versa). -- Brains12 \ talk 23:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So we don't have it defined anywhere then? Using the most common usage on the article is my preference too, but then you get people changing some words that were highlighted by a spell checker while they were editing a section, and leaving the rest of the British/US words in the other sections unchanged. Biscuits 09:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was one of the ones who did that on a talk page I think. Not sure. But anything that looks wrong to me or is underlined in red that's terribly distracting I normally "correct". But I think sticking with the majority usage is a good idea. --People of Antioch 09:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding videos to this wiki

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki:Admin noticeboard

Hi, wanted to suggest adding collaborative video capabilities to this wiki. We've developed a VideoWiki Extension, which is totally free and open source. This extension lets any user add media and edit it with users on any wiki page. You are welcome to see some examples here and contact me. Would love to hear your thoughts, IdoSet 08:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the right place for this suggestion and as such I am moving it to somewhere more pertinent. --Lemming 11:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of us already discussed this in IRC, as we got an email from you (?) some time ago but actually I don't think we should allow video uploads here. The chance of being abused is far to high and I don't think the additional server load wouldn't be ideal. Also when I look at a familar other wiki which allows embedding youtube videos, I have another reason why it isn't a good idea.

Finally if we really want videos for documentation (see the newest idea of the skill sounds project), I think it is better to create a player on our own to include restrictions and to have a design that fit's to GWW (and to not have a "powered by"-link) poke | talk 12:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It also raises copyright issues.-- Wynthyst 12:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a practical idea on paper, but in implementation, it would largely fail, as Poke and Wyn have pointed out. Thanks for the offer, though. Calor 14:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The only place where's it going to be of real benefit would be on the builds and certain types of user guides. But we disallow specific builds and youtube links works fine; it might still work, it would be of little benefit. -- ab.er.rant 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Clock

What genious added it? Great idea, i really like it :D —ZerphaThe Improver 19:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Clock? What clock? Where? — Poki#3 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Look up. No, further up. Further. Yes, further. And a little to the right. - Tanetris 20:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Main_Page/editcopy#PDT_Clock_for_the_Wiki ~ Kurd 20:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks Kurd —ZerphaThe Improver 20:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Ingenious. 78.176.174.31 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but how do I get rid of it... ? It confuses me having a different clock up there to my windows one. Nevermind found it here MediaWiki_talk:Monobook.js --Lemming 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) See this page for how to change the timezone and for how to remove it Lem. --Kakarot 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol I'll try not to edit the wiki monobook next time lol --Lemming 22:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Statistics

It would be nice to clarify what "probably legitimate content pages" means, in terms of how it calculates this number. Biscuits 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

articles that are in the mainspace, aren't stubs, and aren't redirects.--Sum Mesmer Guy contribs 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything that isn't specified in the sentence before that, i.e. ""talk" pages, pages about Guild Wars Wiki, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages". -- Brains12 \ talk 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK then, replace my original quote with "others that probably don't qualify as content pages" - what specifically is that? And can we state that on the page? :) Biscuits 21:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

stubs and redirects mainly--Sum Mesmer Guy contribs 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would guess disambigs and templates also. I don't know how this feature determines what is a stub and what isn't, but I don't tjink those qualifies as stubs unless tagged as such. - anja 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the wiki determines stubs for statistics purposes by size rather than categorization. Back when we were approaching the 10k mark I polished up and took the stub tag off a few articles and the count on Statistics never moved. My guess would be "others that probably don't qualify as content pages" refers to the other namespaces besides main, like Template:, Help:, etc. Has anyone noticed if the number goes up when a new Guild: page or ArenaNet: page is made? - Tanetris 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm after a specific exhaustive description. SMG says "mainly", everyone else "thinks". If you look at the equivalent page at wikia, it says exactly how that is determined. Is there a way to look this up here and get the Statistics page to describe it? If sysops don't have access to it, maybe we could request a description from ArenaNet? Biscuits 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Admins should be able to change MediaWiki:sitestatstext to make it say something different. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

God no wikia's looks horrible ~ Kurd 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would guess wikia are using the default stats calculation, and just tweaked the presentation. I've been looking all over meta and mediawiki documentation, but found nothing. - anja 20:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The same criteria as listed on the wikia page above are those used here. Wikia simply changed the display text as Anja guessed. (I can't really cite a source for this at the moment beyond actually reading the mediawiki code files. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

link poke | talk 06:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)