Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 19

Blackout for SOPA

Following in line with Reddit, possibly Wikipedia, and a few other sites, is there any chance we could do the same here? I'd imagine it'd require ANet's approval since they run the site and the company is somewhat represented here, but is this even something the community's willing to do? Just thought I'd open the conversation, although it might be too late given the general speed of things around here. ~FarloTalk 04:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We would definitely need to run this through ArenaNet, and ArenaNet would likely have to run it through NCSoft. The spontaneity of the SOPA protests is awesome, but I don't think it works in our favor.

If we could do it, +1. --Riddle 06:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd imagine it's too late to get that setup, but hey, I'll ask Stephane anyways. ~FarloTalk 06:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have three major concerns

1. It would be very easy, especially for casual readers who don't know how the wiki works inside-out and backwards, to take any action on the part of the wiki as a political stance of ArenaNet and NCSoft. That is extremely tricky water.
2. I'm not terribly comfortable with making the wiki inaccessible while the game and the official site remain open. That feels a lot like a breach of our relationship with ArenaNet and the GW community at large. Anet provides hosting for us, we provide documentation for the game. That's the "deal".
3. I don't really want to set a precedent where the wiki becomes a politically active entity. Now obviously SOPA is a huge thing that has far-reaching consequences for anyone on the internet, but let's be careful about winding up in a position to have to say "Yes, we did a blackout for a SOPA, but no, we won't do one for (next hotbed political topic seriously impacting millions of lives)," or worse wind up where we do blackouts on a regular basis for the political issue of the week. This is more a cautionary note to make sure that whatever we do, it's with eyes wide open.

I think about the only way I'd be comfortable with blacking out the wiki entirely would be if Anet decided to also take down the game itself; else we're essentially damaging the game by taking out a part of it. Obviously this would be something to talk to Anet about.

The other thought I'd consider would be to lock editing for the day, for all users, anon and registered. Sysops could still be allowed (to catch any vandalism that slips through at the last minute) but refrain aside from removing vandalism. This would also need to be discussed with Anet to make sure they're cool with it, planned out to make sure it's clear why people are locked out of editing, and gather a fair bit of community support to make sure the wiki community is comfortable with it and that we don't wind up either on a slippery slope or inadvertantly slighting other perfectly worthy causes.

Unfortunately, I assume the earliest Anet could possibly respond would be Monday (and then probably with an "I need to talk to some people about it" if not a flat no). So yeah. Tight timeframe there. But we can discuss amongst ourselves in the meantime. - Tanetris 15:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would require ANet's approval and it would definitely mean they were taking some kind of stance, or at least supporting the stance, that's why I asked Stephane, but who knows if it could even get through who it needs to in time. The issue of setting precedents is obviously a tough one, but (I think) anyone with a decent sense of the internet can see that this bill has some ridiculously far-reaching implications, something like this doesn't happen often.

I've been reading Wikipedia's discussion and they seem to be moving towards a page-sized banner that details SOPA and why it's blacked out, but then it can be hidden like their fundraiser banners (or our election banners). Once you click through it the Wiki functions as usual, except there's a small "click for more info" banner at the top of every page for the day. We might not wish to do that, if we do anything at all, but I guess that'd be something to discuss assuming we get approval from ANet. ~FarloTalk 19:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

We've been consistent about the message that the wiki is about documenting the game; fighting against SOPA is clearly not about the game. It's been easier to address a certain type of trolling because we have been able to make the blanket statement: if it's not about GW (or ANet), it doesn't belong in mainspace. Is this really the issue that we want to use to break precedent? (Wikipedia has an entirely different mission...and perhaps anti-SOPA campaigning, like fundraising, fits within that wiki's needs.)

That said, I support Tanetris' suggestion to ask ANet if it would be okay to lock editing for the relevant period. In effect, if ANet decides to support the blackout, we would be documenting the game by following their lead. (The sort of loophole that the authors of SOPA ought to be proud of.)

(For what it's worth: I'm against SOPA and the principles upon which it is based.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it really an effective protest to lock editing and not viewing? What does that achieve? Most players don't care/know about what's going on on the editing scene - would they notice the protest at all? If they don't, does it just serve to annoy users who need their daily editing fix?

Anyway, for what reason would Guild Wars Wiki want to protest? Its content comes from ANet, and if ANet doesn't think SOPA is bad enough to blackout their services, why should The Wiki do it on its own?

Sure, SOPA is bad, but I don't see the point in GWW doing anything about it. pling 20:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Pling. We've quashed political and religious debates/views on userpages before with the understanding that "this is a video game wiki." It's still a video game wiki, and as Tanetris points out, the official wiki hosted by ANet, so it's really not the place to protest SOPA or anything else. -Auron 22:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

^ Wasn't someone blocked just recently for bringing up SOPA stuff in mainspace? pling 22:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The topic was SOPA but that user was spamming the message everywhere and wouldn't stop. --JonTheMon 00:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, previous statement by Stephane about the topic: Feedback_talk:Stephane_Lo_Presti#About_anticensorship --JonTheMon 00:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

reset indent I think you guys should make an exception, seeing as how SOPA and PIPA threaten the well-being of the site. 108.52.50.248 23:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's k guys, GuildWiki has SOPA covered. elix Omni 23:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

not quite read this: http://rt.com/usa/news/internet-providers-year-sherman-661/ Yumiko ^,~ 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding accessibility: a barrage of redundant information, new categories, and an attempt to prevent excessive duplication of effort through automation

Hypothetical scenario: I want to see which monsters use a given skill. I search for the skill, and encounter mainly Codex entries. I try to use the term incategory:Monks to only see pages which are about NPCs that can use the skill in question. I lament the discovery that the wiki doesn't support that class of search. I exclude the string "codex" in my search and find a number of NPCs, some hostile, some friendly. I don't know if I've found all the monsters that use my skill, but I find some. Somewhat satisfied but with a sour taste in my mouth, I continue on my merry way.

Is there any chance we could improve dynamic information on demand? I don't know the full extent of what MediaWiki supports with regards to searching and network databases (my guess: jack), but it would be nice to make arbitrary queries about a given facet of the game and expect an accurate reply. To continue my example, if I was searching for enemies that used Word of Healing, a search that returned all enemies tagged with WoH or in the WoH category or something would be faster and much more helpful.

If the wiki software isn't capable of handling this, then I also welcome a discussion about ripping off all the wiki information, sticking it into a database, and hosting it somewhere. –Jette 23:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See two topics above yours. Tub 01:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I commend your attempt to humiliate me for my inattentiveness, but you fail to demonstrate why this is a bad idea. –Jette 03:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Why what is a bad idea? I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Many of us have long agreed that the a lot of data on the wiki is stored inconsistently (a natural result of the resource's evolution), making it difficult to run dynamic queries. The problem is that it's extremely time consuming to fix every malformed piece of data.

Possibly an easy way to tag NPCs with category: uses skill X is to update {{skill icon}} to add the category. Then, DPL queries could filter on pages that use {{NPC infobox}} and are members of that category. The problem with that kludge is that it creates 2000 new categories and adds 4-40 category tags to various articles (e.g. each type of peacekeeper might have one of 4-5 different builds). That solves one type of dynamic data problem, but makes it more difficult to use categories while browsing (and adds a new layer of organizational management issues). Worse, it doesn't address the underlying problems with how data is stored.

Alternatively, you can try to build on top of what I've been doing, which is to create a DPL query that filters on links to skills on NPC articles. See: User:Tennessee_Ernie_Ford/Sandbox_4 and User:Tennessee_Ernie_Ford/Sandbox_7. (Pop me a note if you aren't sure how to bend those pages to your will or send me an email if I'm slow to respond.) DPL is supposed to offer some way to look just at a particular section (e.g. Skills), but I haven't figured out how to filter the query to look there. As it stands, looking for Pain Inverter finds a lot of boss pages b/c PI is often recommended as a skill to use against those foes.

I suspect your concern is more general than just skills (there are similar issues with e.g. unique weapon data, although Kirbman et al have been doing a lot of good work fixing that). But that's what happens when a wiki like this grows by accretion. I hope we learn from this for GW2W, so that we start off from a more solid foundation. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Highlighting pending game updates

Robert Gee has just posted some details on an upcoming update. This is something that would be of interest to most people playing GW, however, chances are they won't see it because it isn't mentioned anywhere on the main page. I only noticed it because I was scanning recent updates. Maybe it would be worthwhile to have a section on the main page that highlights these things? It would be like the link on the top of the page to the most recent actual update, but to previews (formal and informal) instead.

I know we already have a link to skill update previews, but

1. people probably won't bother to click on the link until the update is live, rendering it moot;
2. that only works for official previews, while this is an informal post that Robert has made on his own initiative.

The recent ele rebalance leak would be another example of an informal preview that could have been highlighted this way. -- Hong 11:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

We could introduce a news section like gw2w does, but it's always a question of maintenance, usability, preventing vandalism on the mainpage, fitting it into the layout etc. Tub 12:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that I've already updated Feedback:Skill update previews (and Upcoming changes and features) yesterday when he first posted the journal entry. --Silver Edge 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's another reason why we should have a "news" section! I had no idea that the skill update previews page had been updated, because I never go to that page. Given how rare previews are, there's no reason why anyone would regularly go to that page. The only way you'd know it had changed is if you happened to see it on Recent Changes. -- Hong 07:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You could always add it to your watch list, then you'd know exactly when it was updated. --Rainith 00:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Game updates, skill previews etc. are usually created on new pages, which you can't watch beforehand. The lists you see are merely DPL queries, and they won't get updated on your watchlist when the page contents change - they're only updated when someone makes an edit.

Heck, I added the contributions of most ANet staffers to my rss reader so I won't miss any announcements, but that's hardly a solution for the average reader. Tub 01:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not the case for User:Robert Gee/Journal, which needs to be edited manually to display a new entry. --Silver Edge 05:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

External gift drop data tool — should it be linked from relevant data articles?

In an effort to improve the quality of the drop data we collect for gift-like items (Lunar Fortunes, Lockboxes, Strongboxes, ...), Tub has created a slick little tool, hosted on a site that he controls. Tub has offered to extend its usage (and maintain the tool) for relevant gifts. Due to the nature of its programming, it cannot be hosted from the wiki.

Should we link to this tool? (from the top of each data collection page, e.g. Royal Gift/Drop rate)

Pros

• Drastically improves the quality of data in three ways:
  • Eliminates the wikicode aspect of adding data rows, making it more accessible to more people.
  • Makes it easier to keep track while someone is opening gifts, reducing transcription errors.
  • Simplifies the process, also reducing errors.
• Tub is one of the most trusted contributors on the site.

Cons

• It's hosted externally and we haven't to-date linked mainspace articles to webscript pages.
• We only infrequently link to any external sites that host software (exceptions for TexMod/add-ons, YouTube, and fan sites).
• Some will argue later that this (will have) set a precedent and that we should link to their tool/site/etc.

I think we should make an exception because (a) this only applies to a handful of data pages; (b) we can include the usual warnings about using offsite stuff; (c) it's easy enough to expose the scripts used and validate their safety; (d) we can specifically note that this should not be considered precedent-setting; and most importantly (e) it's worth the effort to improve the quality of the data we collect. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as it is just a utility for wiki editing, which it definitely is, as it just generated wiki code for you, does not store the data itself, and you still have full control over the generated things, I'm perfectly fine with such things. We always had quite a number of tools made especially for this wiki, being them made available directly inside (like GWWT), or externally hosted. We had a very similar tool (in terms of what help it provided) for the daily codex skill pages, which generated the code to be pasted on the article. As long as it serves the wiki and its contributors, it's perfectly fine. poke | talk 22:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I really can't imagine this harming the wiki in any way - can anyone else? I'm aware that that particular branch of reasoning is a poor grounds for validating pretty much anything, but this is just a nonessential yet nifty tool. I see no need in this situation to be wary of hosting it externally and/or linking to another site, especially when we remain completely in control of it. calor (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The risk isn't the code itself, it's giving our trust to a site over which GWW has no control. Hackers have been known to install their Evil-doing code on otherwise safe-looking sites and have encouraged the Righteous to click an innocuous-looking link that triggers disaster (in the form of a small bot).

What mitigates the risk is that (a) it's easy to spot-check the script and (b) and I trust Tub to keep his site secure. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) In the absence of any negative feedback, I plan to add a link to Tub's tool at the top of the relevant articles. Afterward, we can reevaluate to decide if we should keep them and/or use them elsewhere. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

www.guildwars.com site wipe content placement

→ moved from Feedback_talk:Stephane_Lo_Presti#old_site_wipe

Dose anyone have suggestions as to where the content that we get off of the website before they wipe it should go or should we just make a page like guildwarsoldwebsite? and then just post everything we find there and then post the appropriate places? also who is willing to verify the information that we are getting off the site (ie someone isn't just fabricating guild wars info?)- Zesbeer 23:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that anything we don't already have after x years is irrelevant to the game and not worth documenting on this wiki. elix Omni 23:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

the problem is that there are some pages on here that reference the website. so we need to get that info off it as well.- Zesbeer 00:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC) We have used the official site as a reference source for certain information we rephrase here. Therefore, we should imo have a bot produce a list of any mainspace articles that link to the current guildwars.com. If that link is used as a citation (not necessarily via <ref> etc), then we should create a verbatim copy under an appropriate name & lock it against further editing.

For entries from e.g. The Scribe can go under The Scribe/20060727, as I've done in this example.

Otherwise, I agree with Felix: if we don't already use the info, it's no longer important. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In my view, there are 4 kinds of information on the official site:

1. Manual info - anything found on the manual will also be found on the site. This we do not need to duplicate, as outside the lore entries (which we have access too and is documented throughout), we have used our own words for such things.
2. News info - things like update notes, community events, or other news. What should be documented, already has been.
3. Media - things like wallpaper, concept art, videos, etc. Most of what should be documented have been, or they can't be on the wiki such as videos, sadly (note: I should have the trailer ones saved somewhere should we feel the need to document them somehow).
4. Other feature info - Information on the features that are not in the manual. Primarily the festival events or content updates, but can also include the Scribe and Conflict in Cantha. Except for the Scribe, all of this should be documented on the wiki already.

So really, what we need to do is go through the site and see what falls into the "should be documented" categories, and then compare to what's already up. Most of the information is already up. The most work we'll have to do is fixing all the links that go to the official site (references to the GW1 site are far and few inbetween, and are mostly about things already in the game). For my part, I have looked through all media content for www. and eu. versions and grabbed them all at the highest resolutions. I shall be uploading the remaining wallpapers which are on the eu but not www versions momentarily. But off the top of my head, and from my brief look through earlier today, at least when it comes to eu and www versions, the only thing we're missing is The Scribe and some images.

Should look through other versions as well though, as even between those two there are a huge different in media files presented, and I know that there was a lore entry on the now-removed Taiwanese site which was never placed elsewhere (and thus the original has been lost forever, and all we got is a possibly-fallible fan translation). Konig/talk 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The results and content from the various GvG championships aswell as the GvG and HB mAT results + skills usage charts should be documented aswell. Can't find anything about it on the wiki at the moment and those are definitely not something we want to lose forever. If there is some way we can translate that data over to the wiki, we should do it quick! I'm not very good at using the wiki but if someone can do the big stuff (like creating the page, design and boxes for images etc), I can add in the content. 60.234.197.191 06:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the Guild of the Week and match reports aswell! 60.234.197.191 06:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Another thing to check would be the developer update notes: I do not think we have consistently copied them to the wiki. (And when we have, we haven't always remembered to mark the text as verbatim from ANet.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I may or may not be running a bot right now that fetches all external links from the entire wiki main space... --zeeZ (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are 4484 external links, 2475 of which contain guildwars.com. Here is the list, as returned by the MediaWiki API. Formatted in timestamp of retrieval -- page title -- url --zeeZ (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Status update on retaining content

(Reset indent) With less than a week before month-end, where are we in terms of preserving the old website's data? I've modified Konig's list to our current level of progress.

Legend

: done.

: needs to be verified.

: probably should be preserved, but no one has done this yet.

: no one has requested this; none of the people working on backup think it's important enough to preserve.

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

GW Memorial has collected all the data for the GvG Championships already. Should the wiki have a copy of it? I have taken down all the HB championship data and will work on creating the pages eventually. I suggest that we just link to GW Memorial for the GvG info. Not necessary to have to do it all over when someone has already done it for us. I've also gathered all of the State of the Game articles aswell as some match reports which I will work on aswell. Just need help creating/formatting the pages :-) 60.234.197.191 07:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@IP: I think the wiki should have a copy of that GvG campionship data. My reasoning is that you never know when other sites will go down - we've left things in a single place in the past, then when those sites went down the info was lost (such as the original version of some lore on Abaddon - now we only have a fan-translation, which is subject to being wrong).

@TEF's list: No video is up on the wiki, as such media files aren't allowed. I do have the trailers (or at least 17 of them), but none of the in-game play video teasers (of which guildwars.eu has plenty of). My suggestion would be a youtube channel for the wiki (created by an admin, managed by admins), or alternatively getting Anet to put up their old videos on their Youtube channel (preferable).

I'd also like to note that not all renders are up (but never fear, I have them on my computer - there's only about 6 very very very old (like alpha stage) renders missing).

On general news - I don't think that was added, at least en masse, but I don't think it's necessary either. Same goes for community events. Also both of those will be a pain to get all the info of. I'll get the PDFs for the manuals shortly so that we at least have them available to put up (I doubt they'll remove those though) - for sake of consistency, I'll also nab the play videos.

I don't think we need verbatim versions of festival events. Lore info we have verbatim, however they could be beautified via images - what isn't in the mainspace is currently at User:Konig Des Todes/Remake. I'm just debating on where to put the remaining information atm. Konig/talk 10:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and question: Do we want to keep the screenshots that are on the sites? Because I don't think we have many/any of those. Konig/talk 10:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The main reason for including a list at the bottom is to make it possible for anyone interested to realize something is missing and decide to do something about it. I have preferences about what should be preserved, but (a) I don't think the wiki would be fundamentally hurt by losing any/all of it and (b) given the lead time, it's unlikely that we can save everything. Put another way: there's a good chance that we are going to lose historically interesting data when the official site is updated, but the impact will be small (very few people will notice that anything is missing and only a few of them will be bothered by the gap).

re: videos. What I meant was: we have as many videos on the wiki as allowed, which is none. I support Konig's suggestion that the admin team create a youtube channel that can host those vids. (However, I'd prefer that ANet preserved the videos.)

re: community events. I'm torn: on the one hand, when the game was young, the community got very involved and I know players who still hold strong and fond memories of those events. On the other hand, as Konig notes, it's a lot of work to grab any details from guildwars.com — as an unpaid volunteer who hadn't even heard of the game back then, I have little interest in copying/pasting or otherwise converting.

re: official events. I have more interest in preserving this. It doesn't happen often, but we do have discussions (arguments?) that go back to when something was introduced, what the originally intended behavior was, and so forth. That's much more easily resolved if we have the official text. The images used on the official site are often different from the wiki's. Plus, I'm not sure that we have all the lore. Still, that's also a lot of work.

re: GvG and other championship data. I agree with Konig that we are better off preserving stuff like that on the wiki, since this site will exist in some form as long as the game is played (but that's not necessarily true of fansites). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We definitely need to have the Championship data here, as well as the official events. The Wiki has very little details about how the 2005, 2006 championships played out, and that was a pretty big event in Korea. We just need a better way to document important championships like the prophecies and factions. All we have is this right now Prophecies_Championship_Trophy and the factions championship. No information on the brackets or builds used. We're starting some discussions on GW2W on how tournaments should be documented and this is what we have so far [1]. Maybe someone can get some good ideas from that. --Lania 21:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want this stuff preserved, it might be useful to copy/paste the html or the on-screen text to your user space or some other temporary location. I've done something like that for The Scribe articles, figuring better to have an ugly version of the data now and make it wiki-ready later. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Call me stupid, but won't web archive have a copy of arenanets site until the end of the earth? File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 22:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok answering my own question, text is preserved, but pictures aren't completely. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 22:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Update notes time:

1. All concept art and hi-res render images have been uploaded. 12 wallpapers remain, and I have the fansite kits downloaded for doublechecking on those, but I believe they were uploaded fully in the past.
2. I have hundreds of screenshots from the website - gathered every single one in the media files. I will upload when I have time (probably at night when no one else is really active).
3. I have every video at the highest resolution on my computer. I can easily turn them into a zip and send em to someone when we figure out what to do with them. Until we can figure out where to upload them fully, I suggest transcribing them (with images) onto the wiki ala Cinematic. Minutely off topic: I would also suggest doing the same for Making of Nightfall DVD (ask Stephanie or someone else from Anet's PR krewe to double check permission on that) - and this also makes me wonder if there'd be a way to argue for getting the songs up somewhere (well, they exist on youtube somewhere I'm sure).
4. I also have the pdf's of the manuals, so if those are not kept we can find a way to put them up.

As for other things:

• re: community events: The issue to me is how large of an undertaking it is. Furthermore, the information isn't fully on the official website for these, so that makes it even harder. And lastly, most of the more major events had gotten documentation on the wiki already - so what's left are the smaller one-time fan events. (Edit: Along with this, I have a qualm with how the wiki organizes player events - why are they in mainspace? It clutters the search! And often confuses me when I see just the name, whether or not it's something from players or from lore.)
• re: official events: Most of these are already documented by the wiki in wiki words. I don't think verbatim is necessary, tbh - but won't be against its addition, or at least documentation somewhere. As for the lore of these events, well, The official site doesn't produce much in the way of lore.

If anyone wants the stuff I haven't uploaded/can't upload (manual pdfs, videos, screenshots, fankits) I can make em into a zip and email them so that multiple folks have the stuff. Konig/talk 01:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Konig: When you say you have every video, does that include the videos from the various championships? The results for the GvG Monthly Tournaments isn't a huge priority because the info is on GW Memorial and we can get them later.60.234.197.191 05:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see that page before, but I got match videos from the eu. version, but I shall go over those to double check. Edit: Compared the two sites, seems the American version had 3 additional videos (odd) than the european version - added those three to my library. Konig/talk 10:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Update notes: All wallpapers, concept art, and fansite kits are double checked to have been added. I have 135 screenshots from the site I am still seeing if we have them and have been uploading higher sizes when available. I also have double checked what was copied in terms of lore value, and looked for more (finding no more), so I shall move what's here for that stuff into mainspace in the future - I will also work on transcribing the trailer videos in the future, in the format of how we documented cinematics.

So in terms of the media stuff, we're pretty much set (it's just a matter of formatting and uploading at this point) unless folks want the photo album stuff kept. So that leaves Guild of the Week, past championship info, newsletter, and double checking Developer Notes for the major things (in no order). Konig/talk 14:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Progress report card

Legend

: done.

: needs to be verified.

: probably should be preserved, but no one has done this yet.

: no one has requested this; none of the people working on backup think it's important enough to preserve.

(Everyone should feel free to update this section.)

Manuals - obtained, not on wiki in full yet.

1. Data: (mechanics/lore) moved to wiki ages ago.
2. Verbatim text: we have copies of these, but not on the wiki.
3. FAQs: we don't appear to have these. They are generally out-of-date, but might include hints as to original developer intentions. (Looks like no interest in preserving this.)- I have these all i did was save page as and saved it to a folder Konig if you want them i can send them to you. but its JUST the text none of the links work.- Zesbeer 09:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
4. legal: probably have no need, although there's a small chance that the verbatim text might provide context or source for explaining past policies.

News & developer notes

1. Game updates: we should have everything already.
2. Developer update notes: added a missing item; spot-checked the rest. Appears we have everything.
3. general news — I presume this has been added. I don't know that we've spot-checked.
4. reviews & awards — probably up to ANet to include or not on the official site, i.e. not needed on the wiki.
5. newsletter - Konig, TEF, Zesbeer, and Farlo have copies in .docx forms, not yet uploaded onto the wiki. Can be emailed to others.

Fan/player notes

1. Community events. This has not been checked, but decided that if it isn't already on the wiki it's not worth documenting (should be up to the host(s), not wiki community).
2. Past championship data, e.g. competitive. This is preserved elsewhere (but not sure if it's on wiki)
3. Notable guilds. We have our version.
4. Guild of the Week - Konig and TEF have full in .docx format; Zesbeer and and Farlo have copies of the 07 and 08 guild pages. Not yet on the wiki. Can be emailed to others.

Media

1. Concept art has been added
2. Wallpapers have been added
3. primary videos: generally, the wiki cannot host videos, so we have what we are allowed to have. Konig has backups.
4. photo album: not appropriate for or needed on the wiki.

Other

1. festival events — we have our version.
2. The Scribe — we have the content, and has been formatted.
3. Other lorical source material, e.g. Conflict in Cantha, War in Kryta. All is on the wiki.

Clarification: does this affect the wiki?

I'm a tad confused. Do I need to backup everything in my userspace? Or is this a specific set of pages and information?-- anguard 01:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No, http://eu.guildwars.com/ is being wiped, the separate entity http://wiki.guildwars.com is not being wiped. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 01:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, now I feel silly. I had backed everything I have rather quickly >_<-- anguard 13:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Deadline

so Stephane stated on his user page that the site will be wiped before release of gw2, so we know at the latest august 28th is going to be the deadline for this so if you really want to save something onto the wiki from the main site (www.guildwars.com) now is the time to do so.- Zesbeer 23:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything that's wanted above has been copied down by yours truly somewhere (I sent you and TEF a copy of everything, I believe). Just gotta find the motivation to, you know, copy it over. Konig/talk 23:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

yea I know I was just making sure anyone who wanted, something we didn't get ect. and cover the base of anyone who is watching this page.- Zesbeer 02:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

help  :)

← moved to Help:Ask_a_wiki_question#help_:.29