Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 12

User Pages

← moved to Help:Ask a wiki question

← moved to Talk:Nicholas the Traveler

Terms Page

I've added a Terms page, and am semi-actively editing it. While the wiki defines a lot of these terms, I thought (as a new and somewhat confused user) that it would be useful to have brief definitions for common terms on one page. --Wrye 02:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

My project

I've been working on updating and writing some terminology articles on GWW and I invited people to add terms that they would like to see defined. I updated for Byob and there are articles for things like rspike, but a rather hefty list has been added so I wanted to know what people thought about having articles briefly explaining these meta builds by name. Personally I think that some of them deserve an article due to persistence in the metagame such as balanced and randomway or continual re-emergence in different forms such as bspike and IWAY. There are some builds that I consider in a grey area such as Omegaspike. Would anyone else like to comment on what they think is and is not appropriate? Misery 09:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Builds - Tanetris 09:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GuildWarsWiki on Twitter

Okay, after some time working on it, I think it is finally the point where I should make it public. This is something that is less meant for regular wiki users but instead it is developed having the wiki visitors and players in mind.
Three weeks ago, when the activities box for the main page was new, Tanetris, Vili and me talked a bit about it, when they gave me the idea to have some external source for exactly that information, namely Twitter. Back then I already registered an account and started working on a solution, to read out the information from the wiki and publish it via Twitter. With more or less time to work on it, I got first results and started testing it (some people actually found that account in between). Last week the whole program was theoretically complete and ready to run. I had it running for last monday and it was already publishing the information well when I noticed some things I wanted to change first, so I stopped it again. Then at the last weekend I completely rewrote the script again to make it less vulnerable for wiki vandalism and easier to expand. So Wikichu is running since Sunday night and publishing the in-game activities now as soon as they are available.
I plan to make it publish other wiki news in future too, such as site notices, to keep the relation to the wiki, but I still want to focus on content with this. Anyway, start following the GuildWarsWiki Twitter now: http://twitter.com/GuildWarsWiki poke | talk 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As if we need to sell out anymore. I haven't touched twitter. It just gives people a reason to lower their typing standards.-- anguard 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

L0l0l0l0oollllooll...u r liek uber nerd. --Riddle 05:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't like the idea at all, but I have a rather bias opinion of Twitter in general, so I'll stay out of the way of this one. It just seems a bit overkill to check twitter for information that you could just as easily get on the wiki by typing in a few more letters in the URL box. -- Wandering Traveler 00:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't feel the need for using external sites to keep oneself updated with the wiki... At most (for the lazy ones) we could just use RSS feeds, but if people don't come to the main page to check what is new, i don't see them going to twitter either. As a personal project may work, but i don't think the wiki as a whole should give support to it.--Fighterdoken 01:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The wiki as a whole doesn't have to support it. — Jon Lupen 01:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

lolololol "The Unofficial Official Guild Wars Wiki twitter" :) I like it, nice one. --Lemming 01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get people's objections to this. Some people who don't check GWW daily, will check twitter daily. It's maintained by a bot, requires zero work from anyone and no one forces you to use it. What is the downside? Please explain, because I am not seeing it, although I will not use it. Misery 06:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am that don't check GWW daily, but do twitter. I guess its the same reasons why people hate facebook/myspace. Dominator Matrix 06:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

@WT & Fighterdoken: I think most of the Twitter users don't even check Twitter via their browser; there are hundreds of applications that work as Twitter clients to bring the messages on the desktop or phone or something else. Just because somebody uses Twitter it doesn't mean there is a browser involved, and as such, there might be the possibility that they are not able to check GWW in that case. Also being notified (because those tools usually do that) they don't need to remember the time to check for the new things.

And yes, it would be possible with a simple RSS reader but we again would need something to distribute that, and there is nothing for the wiki to produce custom RSS feeds, and I don't get why I should host some RSS feed, when Twitter provides this as well.

And as I said, this is not really meant to be for those people who are really active on the wiki anyway, it was more meant as an additional feature to the visitors - which is why I brought this up here to get some support to post a link on the Main Page (because I knew some of you would react like this, and I didn't feel like just putting a link in there). poke | talk 07:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"External sites" is my main concern really (we don't like them... no, we don't... my precioussss). In any case, before going further someone may want to check the licensing terms on twitter, because "external sites" love to include nasty things on the small letter section of their Terms and Conditions of Use.

By the way, can't we work over with GW feeds somehow? I understand you already researched over it, but maybe someone else has knowledge about the particular...--Fighterdoken 08:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That RSS is greatly limited, and crashed the wiki more then once. Quit thinking facebook terms, as long as you don't have an account you have nothing to worry about - not that having one will result in phone calls from no one. The external one is also a backup, for certain times when GWW is offline. Dominator Matrix 08:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the wiki already had an RSS feed, which is what was crashing it awhile ago because people were refreshing every 90 seconds or some other ridiculous thing. As for the Twitter thing, I have an account, but I don't use it, but I have no problem with those who do. I think it's kinda cool they can be at work, or school or wherever and get a tweet on their phone to tell them today's zquests, etc. Gives them something to look forward to when they get home, or let's them know they can do other stuff :P I applaud poke and his ingenuity, and once again.. bow to Wikichu :D -- Wyn 09:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Fighterdoken, as I said we could make our own RSS feeds; the wiki feeds we have a generated by MediaWiki, or the other ones are generated via the gw.com website together with their news. Yes, we could make our own custom RSS feed, but do you have access to the wiki server so we can upload something? Of course, you don't; and nobody of us will get access to it. We could instead write our own mini software to create an RSS feed that we have uploaded once by ArenaNet, then we could administer it, yes. However we would be still very limited in what we do, as we always had to ask ANet to change anything.

Instead, we are simply using an external service, that is already used by a lot people, so it can get used easily for those and people don't have to install/setup new things just to read our news. And I really don't understand what your problem is with their Terms of Use. We are not using it for commercial things; and there would probably also be no problem if Twitter uses that content in some other way (who cares? It is public on the wiki anyway). And as this is an extra anyway, there would be no problem in quitting it from one day to another if there would be a real problem with anything there. So I really don't get how you have a problem with it existing, when you don't want to use it (or see no need for it). It is just a free extra that definitely is useful to some other people (otherwise I couldn't explain the 32 followers by now) poke | talk 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Answer, oh, Great Poke: If we don't have access to the servers, how do we install wiki extensions? I don't see a RfTA regarding this issue to see if Anet can provide help regarding the RSS setup.

"A lot" of people still used IE6.0 a year ago, but YOU still didn't want to install the PNG fix that was handed to the wiki in a plate by some user. The "a lot" defense is pretty lame i must say.

Regarding the ToS... Anet cares, or they wouldn't be having the "suggestions" issue right now. At least (after reading the ToS) you have to include the pertinent information regarding licensing terms on GWW if you still intend on going ahead with this "personal" project. And for Dwayna's sake, use long url links, not tr.im...--Fighterdoken 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. No, we don't have acces to the servers, all we do is telling ANet what we would like to have, they look over it and then make the final decision. As I said, we could ask ANet to upload something that allows us to make feeds, to administer them and to do whatever we want with it; but whenever there is some issue with it we are completely depending on ArenaNet and their IT (the current TECH-request is up for some months now), and that is really bad for something that should get data live and directly to the users.

And you completely don't understand the licensing issue. ANet's issue is using content/suggestions/feedback we write (and publish under the GFDL) for anything because GFDL would require them to publish their game under the GFDL as well (which is simply not possible). But the whole issue has really nothing to do with others using the game content, or writing about it.

Bringing up something like a IE6 "fix" (or rather "hack") is really weird, it has nothing to do with this here; how a hack for something completely broken (regarding web standards, security and such) which is on top of that no longer supported by the manufacturer (and they strongly recommend upgrading) is related to using an existing system for communication, where an ArenaNet-interested userbase already exists (just look at the number of followers of the ArenaNet twitter), vs. using an RSS feed (which is available with the other option _too_) and as such requiring additional software just to manage it and (on the user side) to read it, is really not apparent.

And about the shorted urls, this is the main reason why I delayed the publication of it by one week. When I started it on that Monday, using the original long urls, I noticed that they were shortened automatically. I really disliked that (and I still do) and contacted Twitter because of that; however they don't want to provide some additional feature to disable their automatical shortening, so I had to implement a short url service anyway (because the automatical shortening left the brackets outside of the url for the ZQuests) and chose tr.im because of their nice statistics. I really would prefer using full urls and don't understand why Twitter is shortening urls automatically, but as long as they don't provide something to disable it for tweets, I can't do anything about it. poke | talk 18:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the IE6 fix has everything to do here. Why wasn't it installed? Because it's a minor nuisance that doesn't affect the use of the wiki, nor affects a huge enough portion of the userbase to be important.

Why should the wiki support Twitter, or any external aplication like that? It only makes it a bit more convenient (not even easier really) for a not huge enough portion of the userbase (as you said, the ones that "don't check the wiki daily, but check twitter daily") to access to content that is already available in a simmilar format on the Main Page.

Just keep it as a personal project.--Fighterdoken 21:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I really don't see the problem people are having, all poke is doing is feeding the latest in game activity to an easy to read source automatically. I find it really useful to get the zaishen stuff through to my tweetdeck on my phone rather than having to load up the page which takes longer and is harder to read because the wiki isn't optimised for phone sized screens. Personally I think it is great. --Lemming 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Installing something on the wiki is different to using an external website to post wiki/game updates. I think more people are addicted to checking blogging/social sites than wikis, and the fact you get notified of those changes without having to check yourself is a large bonus. Making something more convenient is nothing bad. The only person maintaining this is Poke (and even then, it's Wikichu doing the actual gathering of info) - you don't need to do anything. He's not even asking for your help. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think poke is just saying, "Look what I have created!" and perhaps asking if he can have a bit of room for a link. Wikichu is all automated, and if anything needs to be done by a person, poke will be the man to do it. It's nothing to get bent out of shape about. Cool off Fighterdoken. — Jon Lupen 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You just keep proving with your arguments that this is, indeed, a personal project, and i don't see why it should be treated different than other projects people have started (with, at most, a link on a secondary page). It being about the wiki instead of the game directly makes no real difference as far as i see it.

Also, publishing it as a link on a secondary page (Fansites or Poke's userpage, by example) will not make it less useful for those that want to use it (see:GWWT) than linking it straight on the main page while claiming that it is the "official" twitter link (even if by official you mean "Poke's only, and if he is no longer available tomorrow there will be none to maintain it and will stop being updated").--Fighterdoken 23:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Putting it on the main page makes it more likely that casual wikigoers (who don't check the wiki daily and are the intended audience of the twitter) will find it and utilize it. It's updated automatically by a bot, poke could take a month-long vacation and it would keep posting updates. It's not a fansite; it's a service, to make information on the wiki more accessible. Perhaps you should go set up a twitter account and take a look at how the site works and the information http://www.twitter.com/GuildWarsWiki is providing, because I really can't see how anyone who is knowledgeable about this could make this big of a deal about it. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 23:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

1) For those who don't like twitter move on seriously..just do its not hard. 2) Technically if we put the twitter link on the main page, then IRC should go up also. Dominator Matrix 23:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

IRC has nothing to do with wiki content and informing people of current events. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

IRC is no safe heaven :P. Anyways IRC could be for people who will pop in for help (Maybe not though since windows has no IRC support beyond apps). Now before almost everyone who uses IRC comes and screams no, it could help. Dominator Matrix 23:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are hereby abolished from the IRCabal. Also, #gww. Vili 点 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I so did not see that coming /sarcastic. Pathetic (not Vili). Dominator Matrix 23:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Given how is quite frecuent to see wiki decisions taken on the IRC, a link on the community portal may actually not be a bad idea... either way, we are off-topic now XD.--Fighterdoken 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

twitter is retarded. no offense --adrin 09:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

/Agrees Magic Talk 09:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Very useful! I was looking for an RSS feed about the Zaishen stuff for months! Why not put a link to the RSS on the front page saomewhere for others to find it easier? Ras 09:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The new image thing

So why is this necessary at all?-- anguard 14:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean {{user image|<username>}}? To make the category browseable. poke | talk 14:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't before?-- anguard 14:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All images were sorted under U, so, no it wasn't. poke | talk 14:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, that was all I needed to find images. I guess this speeds the process up, but it's still annoying to go back through images and fix it all.-- anguard 14:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you don't need to do it yourself, as long as you do it with newly uploaded images, it is fine. poke | talk 15:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All done Van :D -- Wyn talk 17:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You raped the shit out of my watchlist, Wyn. -- anguard 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Damage Calculator/Simulator???

Should there be a damage calculator page? I think it would be an invaluable resouce to players as they could set up a scenario with their armor, enemy damage output- including damage type, chances of critical hit... They could step up their game finding damage maximizing/minimizing strategies. For example, would it benefit a ranger to change all incoming physical damage to fire or cold damage which his armor is better suited to handle? There are many simple calculators of this sort for other games, and the Guild Wars games use one faster than my mind can comprehend every battle. Why not make a page where a player can have that resource? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:208.92.184.201 (talk).

I don't believe something like this is possible or it's near impossible, since damage output and critical rate are random if i remember correctly. - J.P.Talk 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's within a certain range, though, depending on certain factors. You can go look at the formula for calculating damage. Critical hits wouldn't be that important, but they could be another factor. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:208.92.184.201 (talk).

If someone wants to do it, sure go ahead. But it might be one hell of a job :D And by the way, though you haven't registered, could you still sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comment. - J.P.Talk 14:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Already done. Check on guru, Ensign made one ages ago. Google for guild wars damage calculator or something, you'll find it eventually. -Auron 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Learn2google Drogo Boffin 14:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Consolidating Game update talk

Currently there are 5 separate talk pages that contain community comments for each update due to the transclusion of the individual update pages on various other main pages.

1. Talk:Game_updates
2. Talk:Game updates/20090806 (each individual update has an associated talk page)
3. ArenaNet talk:Developer updates
4. ArenaNet talk:Developer updates/20090806 (each individual update has an associated talk page)
5. Talk:News (least trafficked of the choices and could be easily locked since there are links to each of the primary transcluded pages provided)

This has been a situation that has been a concern of mine for awhile since it fragments discussion. Now with the imminent opening of the Feedback namespace, I believe that we need a way to consolidate these pages into a single talk page or, one for game updates and one for dev updates, within the new namespace since the discussion on them is all feedback pertaining to the update. Hopefully this will encourage developer participation in the discussions as well. I simply have no clue how it can be achieved. -- Wyn talk 02:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Great idea. I'm not sure that there needs to be a per-update talk, so why not lock those (#2, #4)? Anyone commenting on a specific update can use the main article's talk, putting it on the same page as anyone talking about updates generally or a specific aspect of an update. (Ideally, we would use a form that creates the transcluded page, locks it, and puts the appropriate sections in the main page and its talk; otherwise, this could be done manually, as we do now.)

I can see reasons for a generic talk and a developer talk; I can also see combining them. I suspect that developers would be more likely to see more comments if they only had to stop at one talk page.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to lock the main game and dev update talk pages, and redirect the individual pages to, for example, Feedback:Update/20090806? A little messy, but serves the intended purpose of consolidating update feedback to a single location.--Pyron Sy 03:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages are still meant for discussing the article itself, and that needs to be possible. So no locking or redirecting, in my opinion. And, since we cannot simpy move content from main to feedback namespace, I think this is a good idea that might be hard to enforce strictly. We should still do it, but not go about it as strictly. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Anja Astor (talk).

While locking is a bad idea, we can at least make some big red notice saying "dont discuss updates here, do it there". That would at least reduce the amount of misplaced talk. --Xeeron 08:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Big red notices are about as effective at stopping behavior as doing nothing at all. Locking the individual update talk pages, and only allowing discussion on the associated talk page of the primary update page that has multiple updates transcluded on it makes the most sense. Since those article pages are simply transclusions, we are still allowing discussion of the article contents (though we all know that the discussion taking place on those pages are more in regards to the actions taken by arenanet than the content of the article, which is why they belong in the feedback namespace. It literally makes zero sense to allow discussion on the identical information in 5 places. -- Wyn talk 09:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

They do not have zero effect. However, something like 'This page is for discussing the article. Everything else will be deleted as spam. <line break> If you wish to discuss balance issues, go to <hyperlinked page name>' may work better. Backsword 10:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that only allowing discussion on Talk:Game updates and the likes makes most sense, since then you would have a lot of discussion which isn't relevant to the current contents (when we archive updates) and discussing changes to individual updates would need easy links to diffs or history to make sense.
What we could do is something along Backsword's suggestion. Any non-article (/balance/feedback) related content is moved to the posting user's user talk, while we keep a notice at the top telling why. And of course link(s) to the appropriate place(s) in the feedback namespace. - anja 11:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, except for the "is moved to the posting user's user talk" - things like that gave us a lot work in the past and won't help the user either (especially for IP posts it doesn't really make sense). Instead we should just revert those edits by referring to the note we put on those pages (or make automatically appear via a page notice). That's a lot easier for us and probably the best way, to make people notice that they cannot post there. poke | talk 14:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I also think that we should keep the discussion on the appropriate update subpage; it's more relevant, and it would mean less discussion on one talk page (meaning less archives, less spam, less sifting through to find what you want, etc). That's what subpages are for, and we should use them as such.

Then we can move discussions from Talk:Game updates to the relevant update subpage when the need arises, and stick a warning/notice template at the top of Talk:Game updates directing users to the most recent update (via DPL or something). I don't think we should protect anything, nor move discussions to users' talk pages - just do what we normally do when it comes to misplaced discussions. I'm not sure why we're discussing removing all non-article discussion as spam or moving them to user talk pages; I believe the issue here is misplaced, fragmented, or duplicated discussions across multiple pages, not about stopping those discussions entirely.

If we're going to have future update pages in the feedback namespace, we could do the same thing (obviously not across namespaces, but within them). -- Brains12 \ talk 14:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is also that the discussions are often mostly whining over balance issues and general balance feedback, which really is kind of misplaced in these articles. By directing it to the Feedback namespace instead, it becomes more useful and less misplaced. I don't think this is moving it as "spam", but rather trying to find the best place for feedback and discussion, since these pages grow enormously in size quite fast. On the other hand, I don't think reverting posts is productive, it only irritates people. - anja 15:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

One thought I had was to treat each update as an archive of the main update talk. So, all the talk from the time of an update to the next update is moved to the subpage's talk (with certain exceptions, if it fits on the main update talk). --JonTheMon 15:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess my thought was that these talk pages need to be moved to the feedback namespace (in the same way we are moving the dev talk pages, since all he content on them is effectively feedback. (they have been listed as additions to the feedback namespace on the Guild Wars Wiki:Feedback organization for quite awhile now. -- Wyn talk 16:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that these should exist in the Feedback namespace, and most of the content currently on those talk pages would ideally go there. I just think redirecting them or moving them, as we are going to do with dev talk pages (I think?) is a bad idea. The talk page have other purposes than feedback too. - anja 17:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, there is no 100% perfect solution for this. I think the best compromise would be to redirect all individual update pages to the Feedback space and discuss the update article on the Feedback talk page. This would leave us with a place in which to discuss the update and the article, while allowing people to make suggestions about the update. The problem is that we would be unable to move stuff from the main Game update talk page to the individual talk pages. Erasculio 17:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (Edit conflict) Purposes that haven't been utilized in how long? Sorry Anja, but no one uses those talk pages to talk about how the page is contstructed, and I am trying to be realistic here. As it stands now, the developers cannot read or comment on any of the discussion on these pages (and this will continue if they are not in the Feedback namespace). We either move the pages enitrely or we redirect their talk pages. That would make them the most appropriate place for immediate feedback on the updates and give the developers a central location to view. If we are going to redirect a talk page, Using the primary page (Talk:Game updates and ArenaNet talk:Developer updates) makes the most sense. Discussion can be archived as updates are (just like we do now). It always makes me absolutely crazy that within minutes of any update, there are multiple discussions happening, all of which pertain to the update. -- Wyn talk 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

You say using the main update talk page makes "the most sense" - why? I can see more points to using the subpage than the main page (and in fact more disadvantages to the latter). -- Brains12 \ talk 17:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) So, pull a dev talk page action on the updates where the talk goes to feedback and the feedback page goes to the update page? And then have the individual update talks redirect to the feedback talk, then change those over to archives when the next update hits? --JonTheMon 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To me it makes the most sense because it could be a permanent redirect. When the individual pages are created by the Anet staff responsible they could simply lock the individual talk pages immediately, thus preventing multiple pages for discussion. The information is transcluded on the main page, so there is still a location for the discussion. I thought we frowned on fragmented discussion? Yet this situation has been going on forever. -- Wyn talk 17:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Main article layout discussion does not belong in the Feedback namespace, it will be messy enough as it is. - anja 17:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tidied up Talk:Game updates - archived, moved discussion to the relevant talk page (i.e. the most recent update's), and added a notice pointing to two recent updates and their talks. I think we should see how that goes before we redesign or rework the current subpage system. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the next game update page will be created in the feedback namespace (Emily's intention anyway iirc) at that point misplaced discussion on the main page will not be able to be moved to the subpage. Same goes for the dev updates. -- Wyn talk 19:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with only posting the game update in the Feedback namespace, where is the discussion on this? - anja 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see where the problem is with leaving the talk pages intact. We simply can add additional "Feedback talk:Game updates/XY" pages dedicated for feedback regarding those updates while still leaving the normal "Talk:Game updates/XY" pages as they are (+ putting a notice on them). poke | talk 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

@Anja - that you see anything at all on Talk:Game updates or it's archives and the individual update talk pages and their archives as being "Main article layout discussion" is totally beyond my comprehension. It's nothing but feedback and opinion to the updates, or asking when the next update is coming, since very shortly after the pages were created to begin with. Holding on to this idea that people are going to discuss the layout of the article is a bit far fetched, and obstructionist imo. But I understand, consensus lies with chaos, so be it. -- Wyn talk 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Wyn. Notices are not going to work, given how they never ever work. Given how the original intent here was to prevent having the same discussion in multiple places, just creating one more place in which to have said discussion is not really going to work. Erasculio 21:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So what is the problem if notices don't work and people continue posting "feedback" outside the feedback namespace? We tell them once, via the notices, that feedback will only be read in the feedback namespace. If they don't care, just ignore it; if they care about it, they'll post it in the feedback namespace to make sure it is read by ANet. Easy as that. I don't want to add maintenance work for the wiki community to make sure that no feedback is posted anywhere else than the feedback namespace, when our main task is still documenting the game. Otherwise we could just put everything in the feedback namespace, because every talk page contains feedback. poke | talk 21:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

@Wyn, I was asking where the discussion on posting the main game update, not the talk, in the Feedback namespace could be found. I want to, at least, read the arguments about that and not get offtopic here too much. - anja 21:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Poke, this discussion began as a note on how we get multiple discussions about each update in multiple places. Are you going to tell me that the solution to that issue is creating one more place in which to discuss the updates? Erasculio 21:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that I neither want Game updates moved to the Feedback namespace nor want their talk pages being a redirect to the Feedback namespace. poke | talk 21:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Anja, I can't find it, it might all just be in my head, but I do know that Anet see the update talk pages as the primary source of immediate feedback on the updates from conversations I've had with Linsey and Emily both. It may be I've just associated everything on the current Anet Portal page as needing to go to feedback instead and assumed that includes the update stuff. I did start this topic with the intention of finding a solution to the fragmented discussion regarding updates, because it does make me nuts to see discussion about identical content happening in multiple places. I understand it's been Anet's choice to simply duplicate the Game updates on the Dev update page, and hopefully that is something they will change but it still remains true that each individual Game update is duplicated on the News page, as well as Game updates. Which leaves at least 3 possible places for discussion, and now they want to add a 4th in the feedback namespace. I don't see this solving the problem of fragmented discussion over identical content. I do however think that the discussion about whether the stuff contained on those talk pages is feedback and belongs in the feedback namespace, with as little effort for the general users as possible, is valid. -- Wyn talk 22:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Poke, how do you propose we solve this issue, then? (And in other news, it may be interesting to move the Developer Updates, as mentioned here) Erasculio 22:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, the thing is it doesn't matter if they continue to post outside of the Feedback namespace, so just don't care about it. And that we will have multiple similar things within the Feedback namespace should be clear from the beginning since we have a user-based suggestion structure and multiple users might suggest the same things.

Erasulio, as I said, just add additional discussion places within the Feedback namespace and put short but clear notices on the existing pages that explain that feedback won't be read by ANet there. Then they can decide on their own if they want to make ANet to read what they write or rather keep their contributions GFDL-only.. poke | talk 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, your answer to Wyn's comment about how the latest update is being discussed in five different places is creating a sixth place in which to discuss it? Erasculio 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If people ignore the info at the top of the talk page outside Feedback and add their ideas there, it's their problem. I think poke's solution is the best so far. I think it might even make the current talk pages less overflown. - J.P.Talk 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Erasculio, we can still move misplaced discussions, something we haven't really done so far, but Pling just did. Then we would have three places (individual game update talk, individual developer update talk, feedback namespace), and two of them would have notices saying that the feedback won't be read so it would be better off somewhere else. It could definitely help, we have just been lazy with moving discussions. - anja 07:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 wiki

If we do get Guild Wars 2 news this week, is the GW2 wiki ready? Is there any last minute change that has to be made there? Erasculio 22:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GW2W is, and always has been, ready to hold content. We just need content :P. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's ignoring the fact there are no active policies implemented or guidelines for how content should be formatted. But meh. -- Wyn talk 23:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's true, though I wasn't ignoring it. I don't think the wiki needs such a thing, at least during it's initial phases. Policies and guidelines come out of practice and process; there's not much of that going on there, yet. I don't think havoc or chaos will reign without them. To use an analogy... a person isn't born at 10 years old, with knowledge and experience of how to feed, move, and talk; it starts from scratch and learns, keeping hold of the good experiences in order to continue and improve. It can take tips from its parents (yes, even the third), but it's still mostly its own thing. A wiki should work in much the same way. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly about policy. As things currently stand, Poke and Brains12 (aka Plingggggg) are effectively dictators over there. They form a 'consensus' between them and no-one gets to disagree with them. For example the News page formatting is horrid. It's an effing TABLE with GRID LINES! There should be a strong parallel between the GWW and the GW2W policies. (And you can bet this announcement will bring out flocks, hordes and droves of vandals so an effective sysop team with working policies will be needed to keep it even close to sane and usable.) --Max 2 02:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, when GW2W was first opened, there was open hostility toward the idea of mirroring policies between the two wiki's, but after a very short spurt of excitement, all community participation in policy discussion ceased. I personally have little desire to participate in re-inventing the wheel, so I'm staying out of it. -- Wyn talk 02:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to just copy all policies from here to there myself. If needed, they could be changed later. Erasculio 02:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that we have proven here that it's more or less impossible to change something else than minor stuff ;) - anja 06:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmm, new policy discussions... --Dirigible 12:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just can't avoid the feeling that some things should have been done before the doors of the wiki were fully opened. For example, if the license had been changed, we would not have the need for a Feedback section on the GW2 wiki, unlike what is happening here. Erasculio 15:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Emily's comment on her talk page indicated they're thinking of having a new system for feedback, so I don't think we should be worrying about licensing and whatnot. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I meant things like that, not exactly that problem. I wonder if a couple years from now we won't find ourselves in a situation in which we could have prevented now a problem that is only going to appear later and would be harder to fix then. Erasculio 15:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

@Max: What exactly is wrong with the situation you describe? Are Poke and Brains doing a bad job? Are there enough people for it to matter if they are? And with regards to the news page, quite honestly, who cares? Visual stuff requires content to exist (of which there is little) and people to propose improvements or even notice the thing (of which there are few). -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 13:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Also @mtew: Regarding the news page, that has nothing to do with Poke and Pling being admins. They thought your formatting looked crappy (and they were right), so Pling worked up a better alternative (which Shewmake, a non-admin, decided to implement). You think that formatting looks crappy (and you're right too). The next step is for you or someone else to come up with something better, and if that's still crappy, someone else to improve it, and so on and so forth until we have something that is good. This is the basic function of wikis as a collaborative effort. - Tanetris 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just be glad I'm not the only one making the decisions there; if I had my way the entire GW2 wiki would have been wiped back to default status the day there was any actual info about GW2. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree with that. We could wipe it and begin with a new license. Erasculio 11:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would totally agree with that Aiiane.. I keep saying that for months :( No, not a new license, Erasculio, GFDL is fine. poke | talk 11:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The same license of our current Feedback space, so Arena Net would be able to read suggestions anywhere, in case someone decides to discuss game features on the talk pages (such as what keeps happening in this wiki, regardless of if we have a place for suggestions or not). Erasculio 11:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No that wouldn't work. That way we won't be able to use GFDL content on GW2W at all, not even from GWW. poke | talk 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have agreed with that before, but Tanetris brought up a good point - the mainspace content we have is fine (and I assume there are people using that info). There are some mainspace talk pages which have some useful discussion (like what to keep, delete, and why). A fair amount of effort (my own included) has gone into maintaining or creating those articles, so I wouldn't like to just see them wiped, particularly because they could be helpful. And I would say we'll be more info soon, so it would be pointless to wipe the wiki and then have to remake those articles again and document the new info.

Erasculio, the license was part of a solution for this wiki only, and only because ArenaNet preferred, for the time being, to have feedback here because they perhaps didn't have a better option at the time. I would think (hope?) that would change for Guild Wars 2. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern with the license isn't in turning the wiki into the main source of feedback for Arena Net; I strongly hope they will find somewhere else for that. However, if the Arena Net staff becomes active on the newer wiki (and I hope they do), inevitably people are going to mention suggestions on their talk pages. And while it would not be interesting to turn said pages into the GW2 wiki Suggestions Central, having to remove/move/whatever all suggestions from there would become troublesome, to say the least. If those pages were allowed to have feedback, maintenance would become a lot easier. Erasculio 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Warblade: As sysops, they do an excellent job. As a pair of syncopants, they are overwelming. I find their attitude denigrading. Their intolerance is frustrating. They implicitly use their powers as sysops and the lack of specific policies to limit the resulting power is a serious problem. That is why I asked for a Policy update over there.

Tanetris: The format has been changed again, somewhat for the better in my opinion. I've even made a few small changes now that it is not strictly abominable. The 'other' section formatting still leaves a lot to be desired, but I expect a discussion can now commence, which was not what was happening before. --Max 2 21:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If every little change would require discussion and consensus before it happens, wiki would be incredible slow, which it isn't by definition (wiki means "fast" after all). Instead people are encouraged to be bold when working on a wiki. That way if people think something can be improved, they simply should do so. If others disagree, they can revert but should give a good reasoning in the edit summary that can then be the base for discussion. poke | talk 21:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There were both changes and reversions so discussion mode should have been in effect. You and Plingggggg should have been much more interactive, but being sysops, apparently puts you above the usual rules... --Max 2 22:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I really didn't discuss anything or offer an alternative suggestion. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The set of changes out of your sandbox was not discussed and really should have been. I had comments to make about them but the way things proceeded preempted making them.. --Max 2 22:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to note that this section started as a discussion about the lack of rules on GW2W- Pling and Poke did nothing disruptive, so there weren't any rules for them to "be above" due to their sysop status. – Emmett 22:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What they did was disruptive, at least as far as I am concerned. --Max 2 22:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You chose not to the participate in the discussion that took place here, and I don't see any discussion on your talk, pling's talk, or poke's talk. Then you're accusing them of ruling with iron fists or whatever, when in fact you chose not to participate in the discussion they had. Furthermore, Pling did not implement that style- he proposed it, and a non-admin implemented it. Please back up your accusations with something more substantial, because I haven't seen anything to support the idea that Pling/Poke are heavy-handed dictators. – Emmett 23:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

evidence File:Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 23:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of history here. I recognized the baiting elements of their actions and refrained from responding until there was enough evidence that their position was not the consensus. Further, it is not an 'iron-fist' kind of dictatorship. It is a 'we are the consensus and being sysops proves it' deception. The dictatorship of the in-power-crowd. They are sysops but that does not make their opinions automatically the consensus. I've been told to 'cool off' a number of times. Well, I'll be cool and comment when it is appropriate and in an appropriate way. Still, there do need to be policies, not anarchy. --Max 2 23:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with the way things are being done, it is your job to speak up for your position. If other users agree, then you have consensus. Saying "Pling/Poke always say they have consensus because they're sysops" doesn't seem to be true, especially not in this case- to me it seems like more of a "Pling proposed an idea and everyone else who commented agreed"... which is what consensus is. You can't expect anyone to back you up if you don't say anything... if Pling/Poke are really just a vocal minority as you claim, then you and users who agree with you, whom you insist are really the majority, need to speak up. I guarentee they will not ban you for stating your opinion in a cool and collected manner, even if they happen to disagree. – Emmett 01:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to bring reality into the discussion, Emmett. Mtew conveniently ignores it then goes on ranting about how you personally attacked his templates or layouts by calling them ugly. -Auron 01:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Emmett: My reading of the discussion was not so much that the others all agreed with Plingggggg. The situation was that further action on my part would have put me in the position of conducting an edit war. That would have been a sound basis for a ban, so do not make promises you can't keep, especially since you aren't on the sysop list. And, of course, Auron, with his heavy hand on the ban button, is right in there with disparaging remarks and twisted facts... --Max 2 02:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

O isn't he? File:Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mtew, I did not encourage you to edit war; I encouraged you to speak up and actually state your opinion in the discussion on the topic, rather than do nothing and then accuse others of misconduct. – Emmett 03:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Trailer Trailer Trailer!

[1]

reanor 18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You're about 11 days late. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? I just got the e-mail :Preanor 18:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Regina Buenaobra/Journal#Guild Wars 2 Teaser Trailer - 21 August 2009. Also User talk:Mike O'Brien for where most of us found out it was coming. See also the 20 August 2009 entry for gw.com news, to say nothing of Twitter and probably Facebook, and then there's the login announcement for a few days now. Basically, the newsletter was the last to know.- Tanetris 23:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention, most of this info can no doubt be found on the GW2 wiki.-- anguard 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)