Guild Wars Wiki talk:Feedback organization/Archive 3

Next step

Okay, it's been like 4 days since anybody has even said anything on this page, so... /kick arses into gear. The next step is still to get the suggestion creation and listing up and running so we can then move on to more clear explanation of the same and tying up some other loose ends. Bottom line, we basically can't really move forward on this until our suggestion system is up and running. This means that coding capable people: Ale, poke, Aiiane, and Erasculio, we need you guys to get moving on this. I don't mean to be impatient, but the original idea was for us to be done and up and running weeks ago, and I know people are impatient (not just users, anet devs as well).

As far as the list organization and lay out, I have made my case for the yes/no category columns, but ultimately I'm happy with whatever the coding people choose to go with at this point, so long is it gets done sooner rather than later. (Satanael 15:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

I think the profession/skills feedback categories need to be finished out, I will try to take care of that later. -- Wyn talk 02:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't done anything the past few days, I had the flu over the weekend which I'm still recovering from. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. So, just to clarify, this is the overall flow that has been decided:

1. There is a central page introducing users to the system. This has a box where people can create their feedback userpage at Feedback:<username>.
2. Once they've created that page, which has a list of their suggestions on it, they have another button for creating new suggestions at Feedback:<username>/<suggestion title>. This naming system allows for title overlaps in suggestions, which is handy.
3. Each new suggestion page contains our feedback infobox, which categories it so it can be listed, as well as the suggestion itself.
4. The list page lists all the suggestions in each main category, along with the two subcategories it can be part of, the user who created it, and the last edit time.

Did that overview miss anything important? Ale_Jrb (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that covers it. I have completed all the skill feedback categories as well. -- Wyn talk 22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Certainly 1-3 seem perfect to me, but I'm still not overly happy with limiting people to 2 subcategories. However, I don't want that to be the only barrier to actually making this thing, so if you feel strongly about making it that way, just go with it. (Satanael 22:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

(RI) So, I have put a few things together. I have modified the infobox, so that it will detect and report errors made in filling out the categories, as well as categorising broken feedback into Category:Malformed suggestions. It also allows you to choose which game you are making the suggestion for, and will display the relevant logo instead of the grey circle (it doesn't require this, though, and will default to GW1 for now). You can see the template here and it in action here.

I have also put together a sample of the text for the suggestion preload; I think something similar to this should be used as the preload for a new suggestion. You can see that here and the edit intro (displayed above the edit box when creating a new suggestion) here. Feedback welcome.

I am also working on my JavaScript suggestion-creator-thing that I will demonstrate when it's ready. Ale_Jrb (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work : ) The infobox is being displayed incorrectly for me, though; this is what I see when I click here. Also, I would suggest removing the categorization by game (that example suggestion is part of the "GW feedback" category) given how the categorization by category already displays which game the suggestion belongs to (the example suggestion is part of the "GW places feedback", which is part of the "GW world feedback" category, which is part of the "GW feedback" category). Erasculio 15:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you'll need to copy my monobook.css into yours. Ale_Jrb (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now. Would it be possible to move the Guild Wars logo slightly to the left? Right now it feels like it's almost being cut by the right border of the infobox. Erasculio 17:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to move it, but the whole thing will never fit, so it will be cut. If you alter the 8.5em next to the gwlogo section of the css, you can change it's left-right position. Ale_Jrb (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ale, for your work, it looks good to me. Moving forward, don't be shy about putting this stuff directly into the feedback space right off the bat, the whole thing is a sandbox right now and it will be easier for us to see how it all fits together if you put it there to begin with.

If I understand this correctly, the users will have to manually type in the name of the category/subcategory to be listed, correct? First off, we will have to have some way of providing them with a list of the categories and subcategories, and preferably have that list available when they are actually filling in the template itself. Is that possible? Will the Java help with that part? Secondly, I foresee some potential for confusion with having the user type in the category/subcategory, i.e. they could misstype it, have case issues (World or world?), etc. that users may find annoying, especially since their ideas won't get listed at all if they make these simple errors. Would it be possible to make the category/subcategory selection either a checkbox or a yes/no query? If not, are there other possibilities to improve usability in this regard? (Satanael 16:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC))

Obviously, I can't edit the feedback space. As for checkboxes, I don't think poke's infobox (below) has a checkbox layout either. You could add that using a script, and is something I'd probably add to my thing, but to have it directly in the infobox would require listing all the possible suggestions with yes or no next to them in the wikitext, which I think would be impractical. Cases are easy - they're already handled in poke's infobox. I was intending to add in a lc call, but didn't get around to it. Ale_Jrb (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You could improve usability by increasing the category logic to handle a number of similar entries and common misspellings of each category; that would be easy enough, and limit mistakes somewhat. Ale_Jrb (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For the infobox, I already have modified Template:GW feedback infobox to have a custom layout (based on Wyn's colors :P) and integrated a basic validation in it. Categories are managed by this subpage. The validation should be improved later when it's clear how the categories or settings in general have to be combined, but as of now it works fine on example's suggestion pages.

Btw, I don't like including the logos in your infobox, Ale, as that requires the infobox to have a unecessary big size to be able to see the logos in the first place. Also it looks a bit redundant. poke | talk 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone said they wanted the logo in the background, so I put it there - it doesn't bother me either way :). Go for your one. Do you have any particular suggestions as to the wording of the preload? I linked my suggestions, but feel free to expand or come up with your own. Ale_Jrb (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, I suggest categorising suggestions with errors into them into a category of some sort: it makes vastly improves maintenance in the long run. Ale_Jrb (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha, added a category. poke | talk 21:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well...

• I don't really like the purple color (green with purple doesn't make much sense to me), but ok.
• I don't like the way the new infobox lists categories together with subcategories. This example shows what I mean: something saying "Categories: PvP / Other PvP" looks rather unprofessional to me, and counter-intuitive to how the system really works (as in, with subcategories within categories, not multiple categories).
• I also don't like the size of the infobox. IMO, it's too small, and it does not mention one of the most important things about a suggestion: if it's about GW or GW2. I had planned to use an icon for GW or GW2 not in order to make the infobox big, but rather thanks to how the infobox looked better with the bigger size.

I actually like Ale's infobox more. Adding a "Subcategory" and "Game" entries to poke's infobox would fix the important issues I have with it, though (the color doesn't matter that much, nor the size of the thing). Erasculio 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Meh, green and purple are perfect complimentary colors if you know anything about colors :P Not to mention being my personal favorite :P Also, I have done all of the rest of the feedback stuff with that color scheme... please??? -- Wyn talk 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

For the sub-category thing, actually I have absolutely no idea what the normal category is for; that's why I did it this way. I don't see how it is good to be able to specify a top-category whereas you have to specify the lowest categories anyway, because otherwise nothing is displayed and no category is added at all. That's why I did it like that for now.

I left the size on auto for now because I was sure that the infobox would not be finished with that. So I wanted to wait for more ideas before setting a fixed width.

The color is from Wyn and she chose it based on the colors elsewhere in the namespace. Of course, everything can be easily changed. Also what I did with that infobox is completely based on what was there before and what you did, Erasculio. I didn't add anything else, and that was not my intention either. I just restyled it and added a basic validation. poke | talk 09:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe an infobox the size of the average skill infobox would work, and I like the idea of a faded logo, but what? The GW logo is just words and doesn't really work well, while a faded version of the gw2 logo would be fine. As for the size, it is dependent on the content of the box, like all other infoboxes, it stretches as needed. We could do up simple monogram logos GW1 and GW2, but I don't know how everyone would feel about that. -- Wyn talk 10:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like having logos in the background. Something like that would require more room in the infobox, as we have for the skill box, but we won't have that for feedback. poke | talk 10:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the infobox has to somehow indicate GW or GW2, leaving it to the categories is not enough. And make the infobox the size of the skill infobox. In case anyone else cares, I did this and this (the GW2 one is just a fast thing, and would need some work) -- Wyn talk 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think fading the standard logos (including just words) looks fine, and it makes the infobox look much nicer also. The size is irrelevant to the logo - the logo can be shrunk, cut or both. If you are going for your logos, I think the GW one looks fine, but it would be better just to use the actual GW2 logo as putting the 2 behind the GW looks ugly. Either way, it should have an entry for which game it is for, and display it, even if we end up without the logo.

For the categories, we could have it so that you choose subcategories, and it automatically categorises into the relevant main category also. Ale_Jrb (talk) 12:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the icons I did were just examples for ideas, and I know the GW2 one is horrid :P -- Wyn talk 13:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Ale's and Wyn's ideas. Erasculio 01:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have moved Ale's pre-load and edit intro pages into the feedback namespace (the links on the project page) we still need to finalize the categorization to be able to complete the instruction comments, and finalize wording of the editintro. -- Wyn talk 05:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Categorization Structure - Reprise

As you can see, extensive work has been done building the categorization structure for the GW Suggestions. I think it's time to look at the GW2 suggestion categories. Due to ArenaNet's inability to discuss specifics, they have requested those categories remain broad, rather than detailed like we have for the GW suggestions. In looking through the current user suggestions for GW2, here is my list:

• Game mechanics
  • PvE
  • PvP
  • Character development
• Player interaction
  • Trading
  • Guild/Alliance
• Professions/Races
• Equipment/Items

These are just what I feel would easily cover all current GW2 user suggestions in a broad way but still give them some organizational structure. -- Wyn talk 09:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

These look good to me, the only thing I would add would be something like a World or Lore category. Since the release of the The Movement of the World, we know a fair amount about the locations and factions we will be dealing with in GW2 and people have a lot of thoughts about what should happen in those places and how those factions should interact. (Satanael 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

I have thought about this subject a bit the last weeks, although I kept postponing making a section for it. I have a few opinions:

• The Guild Wars 2 suggestions system is going to be temporary. First, it's in the wrong wiki (and I'm not fond of the circular argument of "we don't add content to the GW2 wiki because no one uses it because it does not have any content"); second, given how we don't know anything about the game, people could suggest anything. Once we learn more (something which will happen in this year), then the frame of acceptable suggestions will become more narrow (for example, a suggestion to make the entire world of GW1 into a single persistent instance is so ridiculous that no one sane is going to suggest it). Therefore, I'm not worried about making a system that would still be useful three months after GW2 has been released. We could just copy the entire thing to the GW2 wiki, but then many ideas (and possibly the entire system) will have become outdated.
• In order to make the system as broad as possible, I would suggest not using subcategories at all. Restricting people to categories only, each broad enough to include multiple subjects, would work well enough for this. Ideally I would install a system like the one Satanel proposed (a table with the "yes" and "no" signs telling people which categories each suggestion would be addressing), but I guess I'm on the minority on this one. Therefore, I would suggest taking the list made by Wyn above and splitting it into categories only, with no subcategories, changing some of the themes and adding a couple new ones.

Erasculio 01:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This needs to work on the same mechanics as the GW suggestions do. I will be the first to tell you that I barely grasp what that is, so I can't really comment much, but people are going to be using the same creation box/infobox/templates for GW2 suggestions as GW suggestions, so we have to determine how to instruct them. If we are going to use Ale's preload, it will need to be adjusted and expanded to provide the correct categories for each game. As for keeping them here, rather than putting them on GW2W, well, since GW2W is for the most part an unformed space (no policies, no structure, no guidelines) putting this stuff there now is just a mistake, not to mention, it would require a complete feedback namespace, since the licensing there is still GFDL. Also, I am fairly certain that ArenaNet has other plans for official feedback for GW2 once it comes out, so this is just a "Wish List" since ArenaNet isn't actually going to be commenting on any of the GW2 stuff due to their NDA and will become obsolete the minute GW2 goes live and can be shut down at that point. I just want it to not get lost while we are working on this, and I thought we had the GW suggestion stuff fairly well formed, so it's time to move on to the next area, which would be the GW2 suggestions. -- Wyn talk 03:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, so making it short: I would propose no subcategories, only categories (this would be something relatively simple to do with the system currently being discussed), and a slightly higher number of categories given how the GW2 suggestions can be really about anything right now. Erasculio 11:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so looking at the list I created above, what should we use? I had added the few subcategories, to provide a little more structure for those main categories that are bound to get the highest number of suggestions so that the devs have at least a minimal way of sorting through them. Of course, I am happy to scrap them if that is what is deemed best. I just feel we are so close to finalizing this, I want to have these things done. -- Wyn talk 12:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How to contribute?

I'm probably missing something obvious about how to contribute to the Feedback section. There have been many invitations on various pages to contribute to the Feedback space, but the only place I seem to have edit privileges is here. I don't have particularly strong feelings about how the namespace is organized, only about how users can communicate with each and with ANet. It's not clear to me where to go to review/comment on any proposed rules for contribution (aside from the obvious, you must post suggestions in your suggestion space). Thanks. Tennessee Ernie Ford 03:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Feedback_organization#Feedback:Rules_.26_Feedback:FAQ if you specifically wish to talk about the rules. Pretty much every aspect of the namespace has been discussed on this page or on it's predecessor. Please look through the archives so you aren't proposing a reinvention of the wheel that's already been discussed and discarded unless you have a different position/idea that hasn't been looked at. -- Wyn talk 03:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, we certainly do welcome your interest in this space, but unfortunately only a few people have been given permission to edit the feedback space directly at this time. The reasoning for this has to do with the complexity of creating the foundations of the space and the need for continuity while that foundation is being developed. In other words, you are right to begin discussing here. We are open to suggestions and observations about the development of the new space, and encourage you to help us by telling us what you think so far and what you think could be improved or what other aspects should be added, you just have to do it here is all. (Satanael 03:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC))

All pages that have been created in the feedback namespace are linked on the project page. If you wish to comment on or request changes to any of them, and you don't find a section on this page for it, simply start a new topic here. (linking the page in the section header so we all can easily access it. -- Wyn talk 06:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the quick responses.

• Wyn: thanks for suggesting the archives (although you might have forgotten how overwhelming it might be for a noob to absorb the entire concept by following 20 links from the project page, never mind this page's walls-of-text).
• Sataneael: FYI I wasn't expecting to edit any pages, just to comment directly on an individual article rather than rubberband between project page, feedback org talk, and the relevant page. (I guess it's more trouble than it's worth to block articles leaving discussions unblocked.)

My quick glance at it so far is that it looks thorough, professional, and consistent with the wiki's general philosphies/guidelines. Reading the "to do" list, it's not clear to me that any not-ready-for-prime-time issues remain, aside from beta testing (i.e. i'm not sure why the left-to-do items are blocking the release, but that's probably b/c I haven't had time to make sense of the game plan). Tennessee Ernie Ford 17:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand Tennessee, I just don't know quite how to give you a synopsis. People will start at the Feedback:Main page. It (I believe) will be linked in the nav bar on the left, just like the ArenaNet portal is now. Then they will be able to get to whatever part of the namespace they wish. We have not completed the main suggestion page yet, that will be where the suggestion lists are for people to browse suggestions and a link to the Feedback:Getting started page where people will go to initially create their user suggestion page. You can follow it through though you will not be able to use the create boxes yet since they are locked, but there is an example set up here. I hope this helps you navigate through what we have done so far. -- Wyn talk 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that helps some to give me the bigger picture. Thank you. (PS Call me TEF — Tennessee is the state from which the fantabulous gospel singer, Ernie Ford, hailed.)   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

handling outdated suggestions.

After you open the new feedback namespace, there will be a lot of suggestions, and after some game updates many of them will be outdated/solved, or they are just not viable because the member who posted it does not have a clue about how the game works. I think you will need someone to monitor the feedback namespace to tag outdated/not viable suggestions to deletion/archive or to archive them himself. We need someone with deep knowledge of the game, someone who plays the game even in a competitive environment. (ok ok I suggest to ask Shard whether he wants to watch over the feedbacks or not) --Boro 09:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We have discussed the idea of filtering pretty much into the ground. [1] [2] As of now members of the community are welcome to comment on suggestions on the talk pages, and point out when suggestions become outdated to allow the original poster to modify or remove the suggestions/feedback, there will be no other outside archiving or removal beyond admin discretion of the validity (no Fix Shadow Form! one liners, etc.) Unless the community as a whole comes up with a viable solution to the concerns raised in previous discussions. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe those previous discussions would not hold true now. -- Wyn talk 09:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sysops already do those things everywhere else on the wiki. You don't need a single person for that (and I wouldn't really want to do it, especially not alone). ~Shard 10:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest someone create a new template that can be applied to any suggestion at a registered user's discretion that automatically inserts it into a category, "fixed/junk suggestions." Every now and then, a bored admin could glance at that category and delete any pages that really do fit into that category (fixed suggestions are obvious, junk suggestions are also obvious (obvious trolling, incoherent ranting, asking for free money, etc)), and remove it from ones that are not totally invalid. It could also be applied to misplaced suggestions, such as bug reports that are simply in the wrong namespace. I'd do it myself but r bad at html. --Jette 10:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I didnt think that you would do it alone, but someone who knows whether the problem was fixed or not needs to watch over it. In my example there was a suggestion that asked for the Illusionary Weaponry rework since it was useless (10e 1c 45r), and in the next update the the energy cost is reduced to 5, the skill is still useless, and the sysop tagged the page to deletion because it was buffed. --Boro 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So instead of a sysop or any single person being responsible the whole community can mention it on the talk page, and leave it to the owner of the suggestion page to either modify the suggestion or tag it for deletion.<edit> There is a big difference between the way suggestions are going to be handled here than how they were before. All suggestion pages will belong to a registered user. There won't be as many suggestions posted and then abandoned. One of the biggest problems we had before was people deciding the suggestion was "bad" and tagging it for deletion and then the original poster showing up and removing the delete tag and let the chaos begin. These will all have associated talk pages, and associated registered users. Discuss with them the fact that a game update has made their suggestion invalid, and give them the options. -- Wyn talk 16:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm satisfied --Boro 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Will ArenaNet read and comment on every suggestion?

The question needs a direct answer. What about:

No, ANet will not be able to read and comment on every suggestion (in this namespace or elsewhere). ANet staff will only be able to participate on the wiki during their own private time. However, despite their intensive workload, they continue to be active on this wiki. We expect that they will read many of the suggestions provided in this space. We also know that many of the recent changes in GW have been inspired by user feedback. (Note that ANet staff is not allowed to share information about Guild Wars 2, so it is unlikely we see any comments responding to suggestions about the sequel.)

This puts the answer up-front, avoids the passive voice (which seems apologetic rather than matter-of-fact), and emphasizes the staff's interest in feedback. Tennessee Ernie Ford 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it, I've made some minor tweeks and kept some aspects of the previous wording, but I think what we have now holds true to your intended changes. (Satanael 18:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC))

Absolutely captures the intended spirit. Thanks.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Category selection

I gave suggestion creation a run through to see how it works right now, and so far I really like what I am seeing. I did have one thought though. Right now we force people to pick a main category and then suggest they can choose a sub-category. At the same time, however, there is no indication that there is any connection between the main categories and the subcategories. For example, someone could choose a World main category and then choose GvG and Armor as their subcategories without any indication that this is incorrect. I'm wondering, is there some automatic way of connecting subcategories with main categories so people won't make this mistake? (Satanael 20:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC))

I somewhat agree with this point. I think we should explain in some place how the category tree works, given how currently we don't really explain people how the subcategories are part of the categories (and the infobox isn't helping).

One thing regarding category selection: now that we are going to open this relatively soon, I think it's important for the community to be on the same page regarding to which category and subcategory(ies) suggestions belong to. Where would you people place suggestions about...

• Adding a trade house to Guild Wars?
• Adding mounts to Guild Wars?
• Making animal companions useable as mounts in GW?
• Adding a new hero to GW?
• Adding a new quest that would give us a new hero in GW?
• Changing how scythes work?
• Changing how scythes work in PvP only?
• Adding more playable races to GW?
• Making the online store accept other payment methods?
• Changing the end chest reward for the Underworld?
• This?

Erasculio 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look on Feedback:Game suggestions each section gives ideas as to what types of suggestions should go into which main category. If you wish to make up a more detailed instruction page and then link it on Getting started as "Still having trouble?" that would work, like Help:Creating a suggestion page or somesuch. <edit>The help page could then also be added to the Help center. -- Wyn talk 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not worried about people adding the proper category to their ideas, I think we got that part covered. What I'm worried about is people adding the proper subcategory to their ideas; the only mention to subcategories is within the preload suggestion text, and it doesn't explain how the categorization tree works (and IMO it shouldn't, that would be too big for the preload). Do you think we should leave it as it is, add this explanation to the Getting started page, or create a Help page about this?Erasculio 19:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on a help page now. Give me a little bit to finish it and then see if that covers your concerns. -- Wyn talk 20:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

done. -- Wyn talk 20:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's great, thanks Wyn : ) Where should we link it from? Erasculio 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, on the Getting Started page for sure, and I will add it to the Help Center when the namespace goes live. -- Wyn talk 21:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, so I looked at my Test suggestion, and found that it shows up under two different main categories, which I think is good, since it seemed to respond to my selection of subcategories in that way. However, for some reason is does not provide a date for my suggestion, nor does it list what subcategories I chose. I don't really know why this is, but somebody who understands the listing mechanics should take a look and see if there is a way to fix it. I think I filled everything out correctly, if not, then we may need to work on the instructions in the template. (Satanael 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Yeah, I created the mudkip skill2 suggestion and it also doesn't display a date in the table or derv skill suggestions.-- Wyn talk 03:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Try taking away the hidden "don't change this line" text and see if it changes things. --JonTheMon 04:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I took out all the hidden text and nothing has changed. :/ (Satanael 04:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Did you click on the time to purge the cache? --JonTheMon 04:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, now it's working :S I'll amend out instructions to tell people to delete those invisi lines when they are done.(Satanael 04:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

If that is really the case, there is something broken in the preload that needs to be fixed, rather than making them delete all the comments. -- Wyn talk 05:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the comments in my suggestion and there is still no date appearing in the table. I don't believe that is the problem. -- Wyn talk 05:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I just purged the page and now it shows. --JonTheMon 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's cuz thanks to poke, I fixed the problem with the preload. So now the commented instructions do NOT have to be removed. -- Wyn talk 20:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Purging did work, because I checked before he did it. But his solution of making the comments into parameter 1 is a rather elegant solution. --JonTheMon 20:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline revisited

We have now had this to work on for 6 weeks. I feel we are very close to being done, and would like to see this ready to be opened up by the end of this week. I know that ArenaNet would also like to see that happen. What is still left to be done?

• Finalize categorization structure for GW2 suggestions
• Finalize suggestion mechanics (I believe this is mostly done, based on the working examples provided)
• Create and finalize Game suggestion main page and category list design.
• Finalize and approve language on information pages
• Finalize and approve color scheme/design of namespace css

If there is something I am missing, please point it out, so we can get busy! We have come a long way since this started almost a year ago with the discussions of what to do with suggestions, let's get this done! -- Wyn talk 10:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest a beta test before go-live. As with gameplay betas, this would allow time to uncover potential glitches (e.g. in templates) and confusion. Ideally, invite a couple of wikians who haven't been involved (in the project) to start their suggestion space (also would work in a sandbox). (Rarely have I seen a website go-live without the first set of users uncovering something the designers missed.) An extra week of delay is annoying, to be sure; it's more annoying still to start off with a week of valid criticism delivered incautiously (as one might expect in this community that loves to cry fail! first and apologize later).   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would be nice once we are at that point, though I don't know that anyone currently able to edit in the namespace are interested in creating suggestion pages. What needs to happen yet is finalizing the mechanics, and the lists. If you have any comments regarding the information though TEF, I'd be happy to hear it. -- Wyn talk 15:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are we with the list mechanics? I kind of got lost in that discussion. Do we have a working system in place? I am happy to try and test what we have, but of course I don't really qualify as a wikian who has not been involved... (Satanael 02:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure what "finalizing the mechanics" or "the lists" means at this point, so I'm methodically going through all the main areas and doing my annoying routine of raising issues at the end of the process. (I apologize for that, as I was late coming to the party.) (Please feel free to point me to topics that y'all are less sure about, so that I more productively comment on stuff needing to be finalized rather than the already-in-cement foundations.)

• The categories/bug report line items look thorough. I'm a bit overwhelmed by their quantity, so I'll try to revisit them while visiting the wiki mainspace (and ensure that I can find a category for suggestions/bugs that I might raise).
• I like the main page; it looks thorough without trying to be all things to all ppl. (I also like the various icons used.)

Again, nice work overall: very professional and consistent with the wiki.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

One week late... --Boro 07:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just. Get. It. Up. Already. Savvy? :p --63.106.124.254 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Bug reporting - template vs form?

Is there already a discussion about the choice of templates over forms for bug reporting? My experience is that people uncomfortable with code will (a) avoid templates or (b) fill them out incorrectly or awkwardly. Typically, more people find it easier to use forms. I realize I am late commenting about this and that probably there has been plenty of discussion already (or implementation of forms would delay opening of the space too long).   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the exact same system for bug reporting that has been in place in the ArenaNet namespace and prior to that on Mike's pages forever. He developed this system, and the community and the QA team are comfortable with it, I don't see a problem keeping it as is. The instructions are relatively simple, and well laid out. -- Wyn talk 07:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the background. I'm ok with going live using templates. (I do worry that some wiki noobs might be more uncomfortable with it than we think, and I'm not sure how we would find out if they were simply not bothering to post.)   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We go out of our way to make help available to "wiki noobs" all over this wiki. There is no way we can make every single area totally friendly for everyone, and if they truly want to post, they will find a way, or even just do it wrong, and leave it for someone else to correct which happens a lot. Don't overthink this TEF, or we will be here writing step by step instructions (which btw, are pretty much already on every bug reporting page) and this will never get off the ground. If someone is totally uncomfortable posting on the wiki, there are numerous fansite forums that the ArenaNet staff do frequent for everything from bug reports to rants and raves. While I enjoy your enthusiasm for this project, and value your input, we don't need to reinvent the wheel. -- Wyn talk 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

@Wyn: I appreciate your enthusiasm for my enthusiasm. I didn't mean to re-open a decision, which is was why I asked upfront if there was already a discussion. Perhaps I should have known about the templates already being in use. Somehow, I never noticed them. So, I appreciate the context.

As far as overthinking, you give me too much credit :-). I have the same gut-reaction whenever I see code required. Since this remains the only player-editable site that links directly from the game, I don't think we can ask too often if the site is friendly enough. Of course, the answer will almost always be, yes, plenty friendly. And, more often than not, the remaining cases will be, maybe not, however the costs outweigh the benefit. That strikes me as the case here, especially since good ol' email is available.

So, at the risk of repeating my second post in this thread, I agree that Feedback should go live using the current bug reporting system. I apologize if I left any other impression.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Feedback rules page - suggested edit

I took a look at the Feedback:Rules page and did some copyediting with these goals in mind:

• follow the spirit of existing similarly pages (Gaile's guidelines, etc.)
• attempt to reduce the number of people who seem confused about how to reach support and how many times to submit a ticket
• separate good faith guidelines from consequences
• simplify verbiage (as in not using words like verbiage; compacting sentences for easier comprehension; combining similar ideas; organizing similar info together)

I've posted an alternate in my user space. Feel free to copy whole or in parts (or ignore entirely if I missed the boat).   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the support rules were written and approved by Gaile (were actually taken directly from her page), so I am hesitant to change them. The emphasis for contacting support is through the online ticket system, which is why it is first and covered most thoroughly. The alternate means of contacting them are to be used only if the ticket system is unavailable, so placing them at the top is not a good option imo. -- Wyn talk 07:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've incorporated some, but not all, of your suggested changes for the game suggestions rules. In some cases, I left them as they are because your changes made the rules too specific, in my opinion, and I wanted to leave them a little broad to give Admins the flexibility to make decisions based on the specific case in point without being too incumbered by the specificities of the rules. For example, I left the suggestion spamming rule more broad because I felt that the rule should incorporate more than just the repeating the same idea. (Satanael 19:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

@Satanael: works for me. Mostly, I wanted to make it less likely for people to misunderstand (so that good faith ppl don't fear the rules and bad faith ppl can't wiggle out). I appreciate your willingness to consider the alternate.

@Wyn: of course, I am now mortified to have copyedited Gaile. My embarrassment aside, I think if we want to emphasize the online system, we should only include that mechanism on the page, adding a note that says, "if the online system is not available blahblah, please visit [alt page on wiki] for other means of contacting support." That way, the online system gets all the attention and ppl have to take extra time to go around it. In any case, I'm ok with whatever is decided.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, these rules are in regards to further posting on Gaile's support page. She would like them to have all the means of contacting support available (or she would not have them listed on her support page to begin with) so they will contact support (by any means) prior to posting on her page. I think leaving them the way they are is fine. -- Wyn talk 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Finalizing

With Aiiane's assistance today, I believe all the remaining pages necessary to open this space have been created, all things required in the backend are ready to go with the exception of the category logic for the GW2 suggestions (which I have asked poke to look at). I would like to be able to give Emily the greenlight on Monday and then it would take a couple of days for Anet to do the stuff on their end necessary to open this up for public consumption. -- Wyn talk 01:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

good. so we will have it in a week --Boro 11:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(RI) Some thoughts:

• I really, really like the new suggestion index pages. They look very professional, nice work on those.
• The only issue I have is with the skill infobox: I like how the logos are visible, but I'm still worried about how the infobox makes no distinction between categories and subcategories. I still believe listing subcategories as if they were categories is only going to make people confused about how the categorization system works.
• I think the Rules and the FAQ are great as they are now.
• I'm not completely happy with the getting started page. I would suggest adding a link to the suggestion lists within the "Step three: Read and comment on other suggestions!" section, but what I'm worried the most about is the categorization system. I don't think it's explained to people how they should assign a category and then pick subcategories within that category, as opposed to just picking stuff randomly (Category: PvP, subcategories: Fire Magic and Places).

Erasculio 12:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the suggestions preload? I did make some changes to the commented instructions. Also, go ahead and add the link on the getting started page. -- Wyn talk 16:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is ready to go as it is, for the records; the things I'm suggesting to change are just minor details that we can change after the space has been opened. I think it's a good idea to open it on Monday. However, I would be happier if eventually we explain more how the categorization system works (right now the preload tells people to pick one among all possible categories and then pick one among all possible subcategories, while ideally we would tell people to pick one among all possible categories and then pick one subcategory only among all possible subcategories for that category; I think that would become something too complex for the preload page), and if we could add some more features (a navigation bar, for example). Erasculio 17:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Poke has said he'd get the GW2 category logic stuff worked out this weekend, while we can tell Emily it's ready on Monday, as I said, it will take a little time for her to submit the request for the necessary changes so it probably won't go live for at least a day or two. When it does there is a bunch of stuff that needs to be done as quickly as possible, getting the staff pages redirected, etc. so she has promised to notify me as soon as it's ready. -- Wyn talk 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a special page that takes you directly to your own feedback page? For some reason I never thought of this before, but unless someone creates their own quick link on their userpage or something, there is no easy way to go directly to their feedback namespace userpage. I have no idea how to make that easily available, but if we could make it one of the options at the top of the screen, that would be the coolest way to do it, but maybe that's more headache than it's worth at this point? (Satanael 03:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

We could create a userbox or somesuch for people to put on their userpage, but not something that would happen automatically across namepaces, I don't think... there is the link on their suggestion page directly to their userpage, and talk page, if they can't figure out how to create a link back to their suggestion page, I'll probably have to cry. -- Wyn talk 03:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a special page that takes you directly to your own feedback page? - Not without installation of a plugin. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(RI) Speaking about finalizing, is anyone not completely happy with the way the Feedback:Main page looks? I'm wondering if there's a way to change the second row (the one with the two logos) so it's made by three columns (without borders, so it looks like a single cell), with the GW logo centralized in the column to the left linking to the GW suggestions list, the GW2 logo centralized in the column to the right linking to the GW2 suggestions list, and the text in the middle column. Erasculio 22:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Like it is right now (although maybe those logos are too big). What do you people think? Erasculio 23:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

A little maybe... - J.P.Talk 23:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Feel free to tweak today Erasulio :D We have created a feedback color template using the purples, and I have applied it to all the colored feedback pages, so now if, after I'm dead and gone, everyone wants to change the color, you simply change it on the color template, and it will be uniform across the namespace. Poke is also working on finalizing the category logic, which is changing in some ways the way the categorization works, and instructions will be updated when he's finished. He also identified the error (missing pipe) in the suggestion preload that was preventing the dates from appearing on the lists, so that has been fixed as well. Basically today is clean-up day. Since it seems to be community consensus, the watermark has been removed, and the altered logo as well. I am working up the "Things to do the minute it goes live list" if you and Satanael are around to help with that it would be fantastic. I will post the list as I see it as soon as I finish it. I'm trying to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed. -- Wyn talk 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the main page looks cleaner now, though I agree at least the GW2 logo is too big. I wish they had designed it differently, but meh. <edit> I think I would like it better if it were actually a box with a silver border however, rather than just floating in space. -- Wyn talk 23:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, I don't like the design of the GW2 logo. Feel free to add the border, I think it would look better if there were a single border around the entire row too (although I haven't figured out how to add one xD). I have made the logos a bit smaller, too. Erasculio 23:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, how about:

Feedback
Getting started	Rules • FAQ • Getting started
Suggestions	Guild Wars suggestions • Guild Wars 2 suggestions
Other	Bugs • Support • Game updates

? Erasculio 23:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we move the comments explaining how to work with the feedback infobox from Feedback:SuggestionPreload into Feedback:SuggestionEditintro, please? That way we would not only clean up the extremely messy preload but would also allow to use formatting to explain how to use it. Especially as the infobox only requires two parameters at the minimum to be set, that many comments look very wrong and will just clutter the actual suggestions. poke | talk 23:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great suggestion. I simply copied over the examples that Ale had come up with. -- Wyn talk 23:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the border. As for the nav box, where do you see that being used? -- Wyn talk 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In all the pages it links to, plus in the users' central page within the Feedback namespace. Erasculio 00:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Much overkill imo, especially on the user suggestion page since the preload includes links to most of them in a better format for the page already. (I'm not a fan of nav boxes for the most part) I think adding relevant individual links is better than a nav box. -- Wyn talk 00:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fond of how navigation inside the Feedback space works right now. I don't know any other way of solving that other than through navboxes, but IMO it would work better if there were easier ways of navigating between, say, an individual suggestion and the Guild Wars suggestions list, or between the Guild Wars 2 suggestions lists and the rules. I think this problem will be lessened once the Feedback portal replaces the Arena Net interaction entry on the wiki navigation box, but even then users would need a lot of back and forth. Erasculio 00:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to use the combined Feedback:Game suggestions than the split GW/GW2 suggestion pages, since they are set up to be transcluded rather than to be used as stand alone pages. Adding a link to the preload for suggestion pages allowing return to that page is not difficult, or could replace the link to the feedback portal on the user's main suggestion page, since the portal will be linked in the nav box and available to everyone from any page anyway. Everything else is easily reached from the main portal page. -- Wyn talk 02:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Here are the links that are created on the main user suggestion page with the preload:

• Suggestion portal
• Getting started with feedback
• Rules for the Feedback section
• Feedback section F.A.Q.
• Bug/localization issue reporting

There is an additional link to Feedback:Getting started in the suggestion creation box on the same page, as well as a link to Help:Suggestions

I have added links back to Feedback:Game suggestions on each of the list pages as well as Feedback:User.

There is a link back to the Feedback portal at the bottom of Feedback:Rules, Feedback:FAQ, Feedback:Bug reports, and Feedback:Localization bugs. All of these along with the main portal link in the navigation should make navigating through the space relatively easy and painless. -- Wyn talk 05:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Great! MONDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY! --Boro 06:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL Boro... Emily will submit the ticket to IT on Monday... it might not happen til Wednesday/Thursday. And... when it does, there is going to be a few hours delay for somethings while current pages get moved/redirected (like Linsey's) but you will be able to start creating suggestion pages immediately. -- Wyn talk 06:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome — nice work.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think what we should do with the split GW/GW2 suggestion pages is to make them the "most recent changes..." pages for each of the games. Similar to what we've done with Feedback:User but game specific. That way if someone wants to just see all the most recent GW suggestions, rather than jumping all around to the different category lists, they can just go there. (Satanael 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

(Reset indent) Satanael.. please... I thought we were done with the creation? I've already asked about this, and been told not without recoding a bunch of stuff, so leave it be for now. -- Wyn talk 19:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, not to worry, all I needed to hear was "not without recoding a bunch of stuff." So, then I guess we should just delete the split pages, since they serve no purpose at this point. (Satanael 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

what split pages? Feedback:Guild Wars suggestions and Feedback:Guild Wars 2 suggestions are transcluded on Feedback:Game suggestions I don't see them needing to be deleted. -- Wyn talk 20:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, all they do is transclude an existing page that serves the same purpose. The suggestion portal page not only does exactly what Feedback:Guild Wars suggestions and Feedback:Guild Wars 2 suggestions do but is also the page to which most others link. Feedback:Guild Wars suggestions and Feedback:Guild Wars 2 suggestions serve no purpose at this time, so why have them? (Satanael 20:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

To me it's easier to transclude them inside the page formatting, than to physically nest another table, but w/e. If you feel strongly about it, go for it. -- Wyn talk 20:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nest another table? No, no, I'm talking about deleting the actual pages, leaving nothing there at all. (Satanael 20:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Okay, let me sum up what I did today; Feedback:SuggestionPreload and Feedback:SuggestionEditintro were modified so that they will explain the new categorization scheme now and the preload was basically removed from all comments to keep that clean. Instead all instructions were moved into the intro and formatted there. The Template:GW feedback infobox was already changed before to have a more detailed category validation in it and I also added more details on the categories this morning. The new scheme basically allows secondary categories from other category-trees instead of just another subcategory (which made it quite senseless before).

To output the categorization changes correctly, I have remodeled the feedback table layout to work correctly with it and included some more useful things. The current draft is visible on my sandbox; I'll push it live later to all pages. While doing that I also want to get rid of the table template because that will just lead to confusions especially if we want to adjust single pages slightly. And there is no real reason to keep the code on list-only pages short (because they won't be edited that often anyway). poke | talk 22:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't just "delete" the page leaving nothing at all Satanael, you have to copy/past the table on that page to Feedback:Game suggestions and for it to go into the formatting it's "nested". If you just delete it, then Feedback:Game suggestions would be blank. -- Wyn talk 23:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like...

1. The change to the feedback infobox so a given idea may have subcategories from multiple categories. This is only going to make the system confusing (as we lose coherence between main category and subcategories) and more cluttered (given how an idea is going to appear in multiple lists, despite how we are already limited to the number of entries per list). The infobox still does not state what is a subcategory and what is a category, by the way.
2. Replacing the table template for individual codes per page. Pointless change especially given how the current formatting makes all tables to look the same. I wonder if the next step will be to remove the skill lists template and replace them all with individual codes per list.
3. The new color scheme for the lists. Having all lists looking the same, with the exact same pattern used everywhere in the Feedback space, borders on obsessing on that color scheme.
4. The new proposed feedback table; it looks like a mess (there's a very ugly line break in the current example), it begins with the name of the suggestion (which is exactly what we cannot sort the table by), it pointlessly links to the usertalk page of the author.
5. That all those changes were made without discussing a single one of them with the rest of the community. I remember a rant against hastly made changes a little while ago. I'm almost reverting each and every of those changes just so they may be discussed before actually having their implementation considered, instead of having to accept an arrogant "I'll push it live later to all pages".

Erasculio 00:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The categories and instructions are all clearly laid out on Feedback:SuggestionEditintro. I don't believe you are understanding the way it works Erasculio, because subcategory A has to be part of Category A or it errors out as a malformed suggestion. Same with Category B and subcategory B. I agree that poke is acting arrogant and high handed, waiting until the day we request ArenaNet to push it live to make these changes, but reverting everything is just as bad. No one is saying that any of the effort you put into this is less than heroic. -- Wyn talk 00:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please leave Feedback:Guild Wars suggestions and Feedback:Guild Wars 2 suggestions as they are. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The previous system with one main category and up to two subcategories (where the list of subcategories in the instructions gave absolutely no idea how to combine those) made no sense. For example providing a PvE suggestion about "Enemies" and "Missions" is very useful, yes. So that was required to change somehow. And I can easily think of suggestions that span over different categories (Balancing of "consumables" in specific "missions" for example). This allows much more complex suggestions and gives a bit more freedom to the author while the validation in the background makes sure that it doesn't get abused.
2. Having a central template that "rules over all lists" looks good in the first place, as changes can easily pushed lived to all lists, however I already said it while you were debugging something with your lists; it is nearly impossible to do that in a good way, not only because you have to save every change to see if it works or not. Additionally you need to make very many additional optional variables available to allow some individuality for the lists. However by directly using the dpl parser extension on the direct page we have the big advantage, that we can very easily change the details on the individual list, add extra columns for special cases or add more categories without having to "category2=", "category3=", "category4=", "category5=", ... just to make the parser put all these together again on the template side.
   The biggest advantage however, and that will also be a reason why I will really replace the skill lists with direct DPL calls, is exactly that it is direct. Currently the list of spells is unavailable exactly because it uses a template that makes the DPL call. When you preview the page, it will give you the following error: "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.". Because the one and only template that is displayed on the list itself is the skill list, nothing is displayed at all; and debugging is impossible. However with just a DPL call, and DPL not being a template that needs to be included, you can be sure that at least some (or most) of the skills are displayed, so you can check why the problem occurs.
3. The lists that were made with the template look all the same too, except for the skill lists. I checked the {{feedback-color}} template and got the colors of that template (and added one additional lighter color for CSS3 compatible browsers). If you think about it then you get that the lists that were made with the template use that color template as well; so if you don't like that all lists look the same, then you are also arguing about your lists. And I don't get why we would need different "fancy" schemes anyway. We are talking about lists after all, lists that exist to display pure data.
4. If you check the history, the name of the suggestion was at the last column before, however that makes absolutely no sense and distracts the usability when using the lists. You are looking at the table to get information about the proposed suggestions, not about the user that created it or what category it belongs to. Having the title in the first column supports that focus and prevents people from clicking on the username when they want to see details about the suggestion. Sorting by exactly that title column on the othery is possible; I don't know why you believe it would not, but it works.
   Again the history also shows versions where the table spanned across the whole site, however that looks weird on larger resolutions, especially with not much content being displayed. That's why I changed it to autosize itself; if there is a line break then your browser is not handling it correctly, however that is a minor issue that can easily be addressed. The link to the user talk page is a compromise to get to the user space of the user, and I don't think it is bad at all, especially at is not distracting anything.
   And as you were talking about mess already, I'm not sure if you actually looked at your own tables. There are sometimes spacings missing or with different widths and that looks really messy.
5. "Those all changes" - I am really not sure what changes you are referring to, because all I changed were the infobox and both preload parts, and I asked about the latter some lines above and two days before, where I received only one support by Wyn about it. So I guess you are talking about the category structure. When I was changing the previous category logic I created based on what I believed how the initial system was supposed to work, I asked Wyn and Aiiane if they understand how the multiple sub-categorization is supposed to work, however both were not able to explain it to me, so I just guessed that nobody ever thought about it. It made only sense to rework that model, and because I wanted to keep a multi-categorization, I added the possibility to add a second tree (which I have explained above). And now, I asked about the new list to get input from others; if I didn't care about comments I wouldn't have asked about the list and I wouldn't have asked at the beginning of this namespace.
   Telling me I'm arrogant that I am working on this on that day, after I got home from work earlier to make it possible to do it as fast as possible, after days of "threads" by Wyn to do this, I again know why I have stopped responding to most of the topics in these discussions. poke | talk 08:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with anything poke has done, but that could just be because I'm not good with coding and may not fully understand everything he has done. As for arrogance, I understand the concern about doing things without discussing first, especially so close to going live, but the truth is, of the 6 or so weeks we've been working on this, a good 3 or 4 of them were spent idle (I'm not pointing fingers; Erasculio, Wyn, Aiiane and others have all been extremely helpful on this and have each put in a lot of time, work and effort), so someone taking action is a welcome change, from my point of view. Frankly, at this point, I would prefer action over discussion.

Accusing people of arrogance is not helpful right now, if you don't like what someone has done, concentrate on the points of why that is, and discuss as needed. At this point, we need cooperation more than courtesy. (Satanael 14:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

I agree, it is really incredible what those few people were able to decide and discuss on these pages (others would been tired very quickly already), and I would like to express that nothing of your work in particular, Erasculio, was for nothing. Everything I did in the last days was based on what you build up before and set as an example, it probably wouldn't be like this if you didn't work on it. Also this is far far away from what I have imagined at the beginning of this, or what I would have done with it, but I really like how this evolved without me taking up a special place in it. poke | talk 17:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the code is cleaner, hopefully the changes poke has made will make things work better and easier, and allow for ease of customization/expansion in the future. To poke: I apologize if what I said offended you, it came from the frustration I've felt for the past several weeks watching Erasculio's efforts to do this and not being able to help because I'm such an idiot when it comes to code, and knowing that you could have been of great help but for whatever reason chose not to. To Erasculio: as poke said above, none of your efforts have been wasted, and are the building blocks for this whole thing, that poke was able to clean and polish it is only a positive thing. I understand the comments about his sandbox table looking a mess, when he first posted the link to it, it had no color, and did not have proper sizing, which it does now. Let's get it live on the list pages so whenever ArenaNet "flips the switch" it's all ready to go. -- Wyn talk 17:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me isn't how the stuff I did was replaced (that's a good thing, my code was rather bad), rather how, instead of reading "I would like to make those changes, what do you people think about them?" in the weeks we have spent waiting for this to be implemented, we get to read "yay, let's go live - ah, by the way, I have changed how the system works, and that's how it's going to be". I wish we had time to actually discuss the changes proposed by poke instead of having them thrown at us after we had said we were done, but whatever; now that we are in a hurry (as we have already told Arena Net this section was ready), and I'm busy and my computer is broken, I won't be able to discuss this subject anymore. By the time I fix my computer, this will likely have been implemented (and for God's sake don't wait for me, just go on with it, regardless how I really don't like the current system). Erasculio 23:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Hi I'm Erasculio, and I'm a hypocrite" ...he's right about one thing though, no more waiting. ... Once the system is open to the rest of us, we can actually *feel* how it really behaves and broaden the discussion on those things that really need changing the most. No drama plz, just Open it this week --ilr 20:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's now out of our hands and in the hands of ArenaNet, who are incredibly busy with PAX, and finalizing the new GW2 stuff that's on it's way to the masses. This has become a lower priority, and the last I heard from Emily was, I will try for the next few days, but I am incredibly busy. Everything left to be done has to wait until it gets opened to the public. -- Wyn talk 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Erasculio, in response to your wish for a navigation box, I thought since I used the page styles of GWW:PROJECTS and GWW:CP for the majority of the info pages, using a nav bar like we have for those sections might be better, so I created Template:Feedback navbar header. Additional links can be added, for Support, and Website suggestions. I would be less opposed to using this style than the one you proposed if you feel it's really a necessary addition. -- Wyn talk 22:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Game update feedback

Since it seems consensus is against redirecting game update talk pages from the mainspace to the feedback namespace, we will need to create a Game update feedback area. A page for each individual update to mirror the ones in mainspace? -- Wyn talk 23:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, maybe we just create a box at the top of each game update talk page directing people to the feedback page for that update. (Satanael 03:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm thinking we provide a main update page in the ffedback space (which I've already created here), and link all the feedback mirrors to there? (Satanael 03:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

And what about Dev Updates? IE: the ones with the actual Dev commentary? The last batch wasn't even properly categorized (fixed now). Will this redirect box get added there too? --ilr 23:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Dev update notes pages are created an maintained by ArenaNet staff, unlike the game update pages. I have asked for their input on how they wish to handle them, and offered the same system as we have for the Game updates. Since there will be a single talk page in Feedback regarding game updates, though there will be multiple updates on the article itself, I suggest that comments on each update are placed in a separate "archive", when the next update comes out. They can be slightly different than normal archives since people tend to discuss updates LONG after they are past, so comments and discussions could continue on these pages, unlike traditional archives. This will give the developers a single page per update to read through (even if it is really long) rather than a system of haphazard archives "whenever the page gets too big". -- Wyn talk 23:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Pages to protect

I started a new section listing the pages that we should be sure to protect indefinitely once we go live. Most of these are the suggestion list pages, which I thought we should protect in order to prevent the impatient from editing those lists directly. Things like the preload and the edit intro I think should be protected for obvious reasons (mainly to prevent vandalism and accidental editing), this also goes for our info boxes and other templates. The rules page I also thought should be protected, though I'm open on that one if people think it should be open to editing. I also wanted people's input about protecting pages like the main page, the FAQ and the getting started page. How open to collaboration do we wan those pags? (Satanael 15:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

I totally disagree with locking down anything. This is a community wiki. The fact we have been the only ones able to edit until now does not mean that we are the only ones in the future that should have editing powers, or control of this stuff. Vandalism here will be handled the same as it is anywhere, and anyone making a reasonable edit to either clarify how things work, or make them work better should have that opportunity. -- Wyn talk 19:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say for the list pages, that they will need to be locked, since people will be like "I don't know how to make a suggestion, i'll just add suggestions to the lists instead of properly putting them in as suggestions". --JonTheMon 19:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

After a little more thought and less gut reaction, the preloads, and editintros = protected. templates = protected. But the lists, no, they are easily revertable and don't break other pages or create huge job queue issues if they are vandalized. -- Wyn talk 20:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why protect anything? We don't even have guild related things (infobox, editintros) protected.. poke | talk 20:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The only things I see as needing to be protected are the legal info pages. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than the legal info, the only thing I would like to protect are the suggestions lists, given how people will just add their suggestions there manually. Given how they are DPL based, there is no point in anyone editing them anyway, so a lock would not hurt. I wouldn't lock the templates; the skill infobox template isn't locked, and so far the wiki has not exploded because of that. While I would expect some vandalism when the Feedback space is opened, there wouldn't be too much of an effect to such vandalism considering how we wouldn't have too many suggestion pages at the time. Erasculio 21:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is DPL-based doesn't mean it should be protected - consider, for example, List of warrior skills. If there's not a clear and pressing reason to protect something, there's no need to protect it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My point was the other way around: those lists have to be protected because people won't bother to read the rules or the FAQs or anything and will just write their suggestions on the list pages. The fact the lists are DPL based is not the reason to lock them, but rather the reason why locking them won't cause significant problems. Erasculio 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't seem to have issues with people trying to edit skill content in the skill list pages; I think we'll be fine with people not adding suggestions directly into DPL suggestion list pages as well. It's pretty obvious when you edit the page that there aren't actually individual suggestions there. There's no reason to protect them ahead of time either way - if, heaven forbid, it does become an issue, then the page can be protected then - why jump the gun? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We did have plenty of issues with people trying to edit suggestions in the wrong places of the old suggestion space (example). Locking it ahead of time forces people to try to understand how the system works, as opposed to placing suggestions in the wrong place, then complaining about how their suggestions have been removed and then be told to understand how the system works. Erasculio 23:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The old suggestion space was not purely DPL-based, last I checked. Furthermore, the example you linked was one incident in the entire history of the page, and one which was easily reverted. Not worth protecting the page for. Again, locking it before we see any problems does not help. If it is found that users consistently have problems, then they can be locked to prevent further issues. But there's no reason to protect them now when we have no indication that there will be issues. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to find plenty more examples here; I didn't suggest locking those old pages exactly because they weren't DPL based, but now that the pages with "Guild Wars suggestions" in the title will be, why are you against locking them in order to prevent problems, like the problems we have already seen? Being against locking for the sake of being against locking isn't a good argument, IMO. Erasculio 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Because locking is entirely contrary to the core concepts of the wiki and thus should be the exception not the rule. Not locking the page now does not prevent the page from being locked later, and I have yet to see a good case as to how not locking the page now would cause severe harm to the wiki, thus I see no need to lock the page(s) in question. If there is doubt about whether or not a page should be locked, the decision should always lean towards not locking the page. Period. End of story. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yay, wiki philosophy and all that, but in practice, do you see any benefit of allowing anyone to edit those specific pages without any kind of discussion before doing so? They are not common articles that need to have more content or to be better explained; in fact, changing them without changing the templates they are based on would hardly accomplish anything. Again, just saying "locking is bad, hide your children!" isn't a good argument. Erasculio 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do see a benefit in that unlike the current situation in which users had to be temp-promoted to sysop in order to deal with technical aspects of the pages, in the future regular users could help with optimizing/improving the technical aspects of the suggestion system. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Optimizing/improving the technical aspects of the suggestion system may be done by changing the templates used in the infoboxes and in the lists without actually editing the list pages themselves. Improving the system is not limited to editing the suggestion lists, or are you going to claim that only those who have edited this page have helped the Feedback space? Erasculio 01:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that also giving people the power to help improve the lists through any modifications that might need to be made to the DPL code itself is a valid reason. While optimizing may be done via the templates, it may also be done by changing the top level DPL. Some things can only be done one way, other things another. What it comes down to is that we do not yet have any reason to lock the pages aside from speculation. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, with the way the lists are generated, the DPL is in the template, which is then used on the page, so changing the DPL requires changing the template, and the page can remain protected. --JonTheMon 02:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally, I prefer wikis (and all dialogue) to be more open, which tends to prejudice me against locking. (e.g. I think Nick Traveler should remain unprotected.) In this case, I would expect that the biggest vandal risk is when this area is opened. I remember that the biggest revert wars I've seen here took place during the 4th year content updates (as ppls argued about details). So, I would think that locking certain pages for 2 weeks will: (1) give people a chance to give the new area a chance to work before they begin improving it; (2) give those interested in giving feedback a fixed product (so they don't have to track how it changes); (3) do no lasting harm to the openness of the wiki.

I think the potential downside of not locking at go-live outweighs the potential harm of locking for a fortnight. (In fact, if this wiki was in the habit of adding new spaces more frequently, I would recommend that as a policy, e.g. two-week breather from everyone-is-an-editor, after which a two-week read-the-wind period without any protected content in the area.)   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A temporary lock for the first two weeks would be good enough for me. Erasculio 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I could tolerate that, though I personally think it would be an unnecessary hassle. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We can always put on a temporary protection when the namespace is open and when there are actually any vandalism cases. Until that, I don't want to protect anything.

"with the way the lists are generated, the DPL is in the template" - currently, but that will change today. poke | talk 07:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we protect the Feedback:Game updates page since that is simply a transclusion of the mainspace Game update page, and all changes to it NEED to be made in mainspace to maintain consistency across the many pages it is transcluded on? -- Wyn talk 16:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't the fact that it's a transclusion pretty much prevent people from making changes to the actual content w/o going to mainspace? (Obviously they could add something to the page around the template, but they're not going to be able to go "oh I see a typo *change*".) If anything, it'd be better for a vandal or whatnot to vandalize that page instead of the one in mainspace, given that it wouldn't be mirrored across unlike the reverse case. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I didn't realize people felt so strongly about this. It is a little ironic to me that we so willingly do away with the wiki philosophy of collaboration by giving people ownership of their own ideas, but are so adamantly against protecting the system that allows them to express their ideas in a way that ensures they will be seen. Nevertheless, this is not an issue about which I feel particularly strong, so if the consensus is to leave everything unprotected, then so be it. (Satanael 16:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

What advantages does protection give us? Any malicious changes are trivial to revert. If anything, protection goes against the wiki philosophy of allowing anyone to make improvements to the system. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

.. And it slows down the wiki.. xD poke | talk 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I still believe it is worth protecting critical pages for a fortnight. For standard articles (e.g. Nick Traveler), vandalism is a simple matter to revert. For organizational pages (e.g. templates and new spaces), it's not just a matter of reverting. For people like me who are new to this space, it helps a lot to have a non-moving target while we organize our thoughts. Vandals might be easy to revert; improvements to the system are not (which are beneficial and which subtly subvert the purpose, accidentally or otherwise?).

So, I think a short-term protection of a small number of pages is prudent and costs the wiki little in terms of philosophical compromise. If we decide not to protect, I believe we risk a greater cost to the actual Feedback space and, worse, to its credibility. It might be unlikely that something bad (intentional or otherwise) happens; why take any risk at all? What's the harm in 2-week protection of a limited number of pages in a brand-new area? (especially since that new area is already the subject of legitimate controversy and drama)   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to go with an AGF viewpoint. If pages get targeted for vandalism, we can revisit the issue. I don't believe it's critical, nor does it affect whether or not the space is ready to go live. -- Wyn talk 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 logo

Should we change it? It seems ArenaNet changed it. - J.P.Talk 17:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask Emily to update it. But we won't get it before next week, as Emily will be out of the office the rest of the week. poke | talk 20:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded one, but we need a rendered one since some one of our Feedback pages got a background colour. - J.P.Talk 19:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Transparent, that's the word! And plingggggg uploaded one. Not perfect, but still looks awesome to me ^^ - J.P.Talk 22:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell cant we use the system now? --Boro 07:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Because Emily had to get gw2.com done by Thursday, and hasn't had time to do what needs to be done on their end. She'll be back on Monday, and hopefully it will get done soon. -- Wyn talk 07:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... --Boro 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)