Guild Wars Wiki talk:Suggestion pages restructuring

Archive

---

/Archive1
/Archive2
/Archive3

New language up!

Heya guys! I just wanted to give you a heads up that I've posted the final proposed language reworks on Mike's talk page. This means that we're pretty much ready to go with implementing the new namespace, so let's work together to figure out the best way to get things in place.

• If you guys would like me to request a certain group of people to have early access to the space, please give me a list of names.
• If you have any requests that would make getting this set up simpler, please let me know and I'll see what I can do.

If possible, we'd like to have the new language posted and live by next week. If that's not enough time for you to get things ready, we can adjust our timeframe for posting. I just want to make sure we're actively working on getting stuff set up, though. It will be nice to have all this ready to go soon.

Anyways, please let me know what I can do to help! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, imo step one is getting the namespace up, and restrict ALL users to start. Hopefully we will be able to have a list of names to you very soon. -- Wyn 19:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So is the namespace not going up until after the submission terms are updated, or is the feedback namespace going to have to be wiped once the submission terms are updated? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Submission terms just got updated, that's what this is, and the namespace is soon to be created.

@Emily, et al., Have you guys thought about how the devs' userspaces are going to be handled? I mean, a large amount of feedback is provided there, as you certainly know, so are the devs' userspaces going to be ported over or otherwise somehow included in this new namespace and/or new submission terms? I'm mainly asking because, technically, all feedback will have to go in through the new wording and I don't think there's a way for us to really stop people from providing feedback directly on a dev's talkpage (given how hard it has been to stop people during just this short time we've been wording-less), so it would be worthwhile to at least explore that issue if it has not been fully explored already. I'm sure Wyn would second this thought ;-) (Satanael 03:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

No, they haven't been updated yet, Emily is just providing us with the finalized language for our approval. I think the namespace should go up first, get structured, and THEN have the new language go live (and I think that's their intent as well). You know what will happen if it goes the other way, people will start posting suggestions everywhere regardless, and/or riot if the Namespace is delayed. -- Wyn 04:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

IC, I guess I didn't quite get what he meant by "updated". In that case, I guess an answer to Gordon's question would be that the task force is going to go in and make this new structure before it goes live for people to start with posting feedback; therefore, so long as the wording goes live at or before this new namespace does, there shouldn't be a problem. In fact, it would probably be best if the wording went live before that, at least within the namespace itself, so it covers all the things the task force do while they're in there. I mean, I envision us making a few "Test" suggestions to make sure things work correctly before going live, and it would probably be prudent to make sure even those test ones are covered under the new wording. (Satanael 05:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

And I absolutely disagree with that Satanael, we need to have the structure in place before it goes live, or we will just have people screaming about getting it done. I think the licensing change should go live when we open the Namespace for general contributions. Any test posts can be deleted before it goes live. -- Wyn 06:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see three options:

1. We allow limited contributions to the feedback namespace before the new licensing terms go live as practice. Once the new license goes live, all contributors would have to agree to the new licensing terms, and any page with a contributor who had not agreed to the new licensing terms would have to be deleted. Getting everyone to agree would be pretty easy, since initially it would only be restricted to a few registered users.
2. We open up the feedback namespace to all registered users after the new licensing terms go live.
3. We don't allow anyone to contribute to the feedback namespace until after the licensing terms go live. After they go live, we only allow a few users to contribute until the structure is set up, then we open up the namespace to all registered users.

-- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually we simply cannot edit inside of the Feedback namespace before we don't have the new licensing active, because then we are contributing under the GFDL and ANet won't be allowed to take those edits over (yes, it's stupid). So we have to go the way that we publish the new licensing first or together with the namespace. But in my opinion that completely doesn't matter because 1. people probably won't notice that there are licensing pages changing; and 2. the submission text that is displayed when editing will be made with a namespace switch anyway, so people contributing to the main space won't unnecessarily see the feedback licensing text and vice versa.

So there is no reason to wait with the licensing; we just lock the namespace and prepare everything.. poke | talk 07:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any drawbacks with just pushing the new language live. That said, people are allowed to dual licence their contribs (or realease them to the PD), so gordons option 1 could' work. There's just no reason I can see to things that way. Backsword 08:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the GFDL is non-retractable, however it does not prohibit the copyright holder from releasing the same content under other licenses, releasing it into the public domain or transferring copyright to some other person or organization. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

After going through all of this, I see no point in potentially muddying the waters. -- Wyn 09:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Poke on this, I don't really see people freaking out about the new wording going up but not having the namespace ready. Besides, didn't Emily say something about getting it all up and running by next week? That means there shouldn't be too long a wait.(Satanael 16:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

P.S. All of this is affected by what is going to happen with the dev talk pages. Are they going to go under the new licensing? If so, how exactly? Is the new feedback wording just going to be put on their talk page submissions and all pre-wording stuff will be archived, or are the dev talk pages going to start over in the new namespace? This is important because I think those talk pages are where most of the ire about no-suggestion-posts is being felt ATM. (Satanael 16:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

The pages stay where there are, with their current licensing. But we will probably have to think about some global multi-user pages for especially replacing the dev talk pages (to allow feedback). Same goes with the bug reports etc. but we won't be able to move it. We will have to start from zero there. poke | talk 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's an interesting issue. I mean, theoretically we should be organizing the namespace such that all types of feedback will have a home therein, so I guess we could just play hardball and tell people that post feedback on a dev talkpage to take it to the namespace, but I'm not exactly sure how well that will work, people really like posting suggestions, bugs, whatever, directly to the devs. Is there some way we can create special pages inside the new namespace for each dev that could act as a new userpage for them?

I suspect not, and if not, what other alternatives are there? What exactly do you mean, poke, by "global multi-user pages"? (Satanael 05:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

If we go with what we discussed above, with user-based suggestions that are organized by the username, then we still need some global pages where everybody can submit things. For things like bug reports and such, similar to what we already have in the ArenaNet namespace. And then we can also provide some pages that replace the dev talk pages for feedback, maybe ordered by topic instead of dev... poke | talk 07:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have brought the issue of the staff pages up with Linsey. I think it's best if we have at least some direct staff input on how they want their talk pages handled {archiving the old and actually moving them into the new namespace might be best). I believe she will have some time to look at this after this week's update is done. I think we have to make it easy for both the staff, and the community to access. -- Wyn 07:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree with poke that we will have to have some global pages for certain kinds of feedback (bug reports, skill feedback, etc.), but we also want to be careful not to encourage people to post suggestion-type feedback on any global pages, that will just confuse them and likely make it so people don't bother with the user-based suggestion pages. For suggestions, I think we really should try to stear people towards the user-based pages. In that light, I would hesitate before setting up any "multi-user" pages to replace the dev talkpages. I mean, I can kinda see setting up a "Live Team" page or something along those lines where people can talk about what they want for the next content update or whatever, but I would worry that such a page would confuse people and divert them from creating any user-based GW1 suggestion pages.

The way I see the overall organization is that bug reports, localization, and skill feedback should be on global pages, in other words basically unchanged from the way they are now, just housed in the feedback namespace. Apart from those, all we really have left are the game suggestions (both GW1 and GW2), website suggestions, and international cultural references. Certainly game suggestions should be user-based, but maybe website suggestions and cultural references should be global pages? It seems like there aren't any real complaints about how those two kinds of feedback are handled right now, so, if it ain't broke...

In any case, yes, I fully agree with Wyn, some input from Lindsey and/or Emily on how dev talk pages should be handled would be really helpful. (Satanael 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

(Reset indent) Hi all! Sorry I've been away a bit....been swamped =X Here are some thoughts on topics in this area:

• I think you guys are right about the licensing concerns. I think the easiest thing to do will be to put up the namespace and lock it to sysops only. At that time, I'll put up the submission language for that space. The ToS and the main space submission language shouldn't need to go up until after the space is officially open for business. (As it's going to be completely inaccessible to non-admins before that time). That way, admins and other approved folks can go in and set stuff up with no issues.
• As far as dev pages go, we've been having that same discussion around here. Since this topic is long already, I'll open another section below to talk about thoughts.
• We were also thinking that bug reports and localization bug reports can stay in the main space. Since they point out cut and dry issues with existing game features, they can legally hang out there with no issues. I'd have to check about skill feedback, though. Since that skates the line between a perceived bug fix and an actual functionality change, those may need to move into the new namespace. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

New look

Ok, so we have pretty much decided (correct me if I'm wrong) that the new namespace should be set apart with a different "look" through an altered css, but we haven't really discussed what that "look" should be. My thought is that it should be sufficiently different from the rest of the wiki to be obvious, but not so different that it breaks the feel of GWW. I have started brainstorming some ideas, here. I'm assuming that most of this new look is going to have to be achieved with colors, so we should keep in mind the colors that have been assigned to other areas/things on GWW already. They can be seen at GWW:COLORS. Please comment and add your ideas. -- Wyn 11:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is one major dilemma that needs to be solved here: Red text on black background, or black text or red background? Backsword 15:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol... I didn't realize you were a Eloc sock! That explains a LOT! -- Wyn 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

These look good Wyn, I like them all with the exception of the scheme with the background color starting with #9E..., that scheme seems too dark to me. I agree with your statement that the background should be pretty light (As much as we all love Eloc, I think we should go with a different style...), I personally would go with a light grey or blue, something that is pretty obvious but not too overstated, even the skin color or whatever that is (#E8...) would be a fine background IMO.

My only other thought, though, is whether we should make the color schemes for the suggestion and skill feedback sections different, like you seem to indicate. I was thinking that we should keep the entire feedback namespace the same color scheme, since the color scheme has a function of letting the devs know where it's okay to steal ideas and respond to feedback. If we keep it uniform throughout the feedback namespace, that should make it easier for the devs to know they are in the "safe zone". (Satanael 18:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

The color schemes are only for the main pages of each section, where we define the rules for posting, etc..... The real identifier will be the changes to the css. -- Wyn 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I don't really know what the css is. Please forgive this wiki noob's ignorance, oh mighty and powerful Wynthyst The Great! (Satanael 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

(Edit conflict) Ok, here's an idea for a new look that isn't very intrusive, but is distinct. I think it would be easy to re-use the color scheme from the Arenanet Portal colors, AND make the current gray/blue background a more red-like color. Somewhere around

here

or here

or even here

--JonTheMon 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The css (Cascading Style Sheet) controls things like the wiki logo, the header image (that gray/white pattern behind the logo, and the login info), default backgrounds, the navigation bar, fonts, etc. -- Wyn 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Pink? -- Wyn 19:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, when going for light/faded red, it's hard to avoid pink. --JonTheMon 19:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I see, so do we know when/how that will be changed for the feedback namespace? Or is that going to happen when the namespace goes up? (Satanael 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

Well, I have my wiki standing by for css testing, and that is why I started this topic, to find out what everyone thinks/wants and to brainstorm ideas until we come up with something we all like :D -- Wyn 19:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I like your tint shifts for the background, Wyn. I'm going to stay neutral on this decision since you guys have free reign to pick whatever colors you'd like. From a personal preference, though, I might be sad panda if I log onto a pink wiki ;) Something a little more neutral might be better for general consumption (greens, blues, creams, etc). Just my preference, though! (And you can't comment about my pink armor, because THAT electric pink on a necro is just plain awesome). -- Emily Diehl (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, I really didn't consider yellow as an option. If it's only in headings and on the trim, it could possibly work. --JonTheMon 16:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would rather have this. Or something equally drastic (heh, or more likely DRASTIC) so people know perfectly well they are not in Kansas anymore. Erasculio 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Existing Feedback

I think we pretty much recognize that, when it comes to the existing game suggestions, we're just going to have to start over. Meaning that the existing suggestions will just be forever archived and ANet won't be able to do anything with them. But what about other types of feedback such as the bug reports or the skill feedback? There certainly are tons of those kinds of feedback out there and it would be a real drag if everyone had to repost them manually. I mean, stuff like the bug reports has got a real concrete structure that seems to still be used by ANet's QA on a regular basis, are they going to just lose all those current bug reports?

In reality I think this is more of a question for ANet's legal team, I mean, is there any way they can safely use the current bug reports and skill feedback that was posted under GFDL? I think this is yet another issue that would benefit greatly from Emily/Lindsey's input. (Satanael 19:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

All of that should be started over in the new namespace, meaning all the existing stuff will also be archived and we will start from scratch. It all falls under the umbrella of "Feedback" so it will be best and easiest to have it all in the correct licensing. -- Wyn 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, in that case, then shouldn't we stop people from posting any more bug reports and things like that since it is all useless right now? (Satanael 19:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

QA is still using it, and I don't think anyone is going to have a problem since they are existing bugs in a copyrighted game, it's not like someone is asking for new stuff, just fixes. We had that discussion when this started I think... but relocating them in the new namespace is going to make it best case all the way around. -- Wyn 19:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, I remember when it was discussed before, but I don't remember there really being an answer to the question. I guess we can just charge ahead and let ANet deal with what they can and can not use. (Satanael 19:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

I think I responded to something similar on Mike's page, but I'll repost my reply here. As far as I understand, bug reports are fine to keep where they are because they point out cut-and-dry fixes to existing content. Skill feedback MAY be a different case because many of those suggest new functionality. I'll ask about them and let you know what I find. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good. But just so I'm clear, that means we are going to leave bug reports and localization in the ANet namespace? Or are we still going to move those over to the feedback namespace but just not worry so much about the licensing and move all existing bug reports over as well? If we leave them in the ANet namespace, I think we should at least link to them in the feedback namespace. Calling it the feedback hub but making them report bugs elsewhere could be confusing. (Satanael 16:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

ArenaNet staff pages

Heya guys! Let's talk about what we should do with staff talk pages and the new namespace. Here are my thoughts after chatting with people:

• Since many of us use talk pages as a central hub for communication, some would like to be able to at least be able to respond to suggestions posted to their pages if they choose. If we leave the pages in the current namespace, we can't do that.

• If we decide to move pages into the new space, we won't be able to actually move the content of talk pages over. I think we'd be fine with moving main userpage layouts, since those are built primarily by the user. The only situations I could think of that may be weird would be if userpages reference templates in the template space (like userboxes), or possibly archived talk subjects. I'd like to think that these cases wouldn't be a problem, but if you guys have concerns about creating Feedback templates before the license is up, I should check on it just to be sure.

• My personal gut says to move staff pages into the namespace to prevent confusion, but there are a bunch of caveats that come along with this thinking:

• We'd need to establish a retirement policy for the existing pages, where we basically close out and archive all old topics. We can't move open questions to the new area and answer them (I don't think). I think that once the space is up (if we decide to move pages), that we all close out questions on our talk pages, archive old stuff, move everything over to the new area, and then redirect from the original area.
• We might want to consider how this would impact the organization of the space itself. If people can post suggestions directly on Linsey's page, I could see many trying to do this instead of following the proper structure and creating their own suggestions pages. I don't have a solution for this, but I wanted to mention it anyways.

In any case, it's something that needs to be figured out. We'd like to be able to respond to any question posed on our pages, but we also realize that opening this door would require careful planning so it doesn't get out of hand.

What do you guys think? -- Emily Diehl (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have said that we keep all pages in your user spaces and just create new talk pages in the feedback namespace. Then we can redirect the Feedback pages to your userpage and your userpage talk to the Feedback talk namespace. About the templates, I don't think that matters because individual items are licensed individually anyway and as such they could stay as GFDL even in the feedback namespace if they don't contain feedback themselves (which is very unlikely for a formatting template :) ) - same goes for images then as well; we might need to make a new licensing tag for those images that are only uploaded for use in the Feedback namespace. poke | talk 07:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

poke lost me with the redirecting back and forth, I think he means leaving the userspace pages alone and creating links back and forth, but I see this as a problem, and agree with Emily that the staff talk pages need to simply moved and redirected to the new namespace (After moving all current discussion to a temp space while it's being answered and archived). The amount of policing it will take to keep inappropriate content off the userspace pages is just not worth it, because we all know that no matter WHAT system is in place for suggestions/feedback, people will want to take it directly to the source, they always have and always will. One of Mike's main concerns was making sure that the Staff KNEW absolutely what they could/could not comment on, and leaving their talk pages in unsafe space is just asking for trouble. -- Wyn 08:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand me. Example: User:Emily Diehl stays where it is; User talk:Emily Diehl is archived and replaced with a redirect to Feedback talk:Emily Diehl (or whatever); Feedback:Emily Diehl redirects to User:Emily Diehl. So when people go to the her talk page they automatically get on the page where they can give feedback or whatever they want, but the personal user pages of the ArenaNet members stay in user space (and as such are limited by the user page policy for example)

Also: "the staff talk pages need to simply moved" - that doesn't work. We cannot move GFDL content to the Feedback namespace. poke | talk 13:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Poke's idea can work, that will make it so Emily's construction of her actual userpage remains under GFDL while everything in her talk page is in the feedback namespace's new wording. We can even have an introductory page within the feedback namespace that says what ANet staff are active on the wiki and what role they play within ANet, with links to their user pages so people can easily get to them to leave feedback. Although, now that I think about it, maybe we don't want to make it too easy for people to reach dev talkpages... (Satanael 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

P.S. "We cannot move GFDL content to the Feedback namespace." Not exactly true, we can move GFDL content to the new feedback namespace, it just essentially stays GFDL. But so long as any GFDL content we put in the feedback space is not feedback, it should not be a real problem (essentially the same point poke was making about the user templates). However, I do think we should be wary of doing this and only do it sparingly, if at all. (Satanael 16:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Ofc we can practiacally do so. It's just not legal. Backsword 12:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

poke.. we are on the same page... just saying it differently. I KNOW and did make note that all GFDL content on the staff talk pages needed to be moved to a temp holding tank page until they had been answered and archived, I didn't mean move that content, but the header templates etc. can be used, I just meant move as in create a redirect. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. -- Wyn 17:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the solution for current talk pages would be a temporary archive as one done in the past when dev pages got overwhelmed followed by the poke/wyn protocols. Good luck with the madness that will ensue. I don't care that I misused the word protocol. Misery 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Couldn't you just prot their old talk pages and only have the new ones editable by the public? --JonTheMon 17:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(RI) If user X can add suggestions directly to Linsey's talk page and get her to reply there, it would be completely pointless to have a Feedback: User X article. In other words, if Linsey gets a new talk page in the Feedback space, it would just become a big list of Guild Wars suggestions, and everything else in the Feedback namespace would become pointless.
For that reason, I'm against creating personal pages for the Arena Net employers. I'm also against allowing suggestions to be added to any staff member's talk page, for the same reason. The Feedback:User space is meant to be the only single way to allow users to use the wiki to share their ideas with the Arena Net staff; if there exists a different space (or an Arena Net's section in such namespace), it would become useless.
(And while we're talking about not being able to move the old suggestions anywhere, I would suggest we delete - really delete this time, not archive - all the older suggestions in Linsey's and Regina's talk pages, as well as those archived within Xeeron's namespace. As long as those suggestions exist at their current location, their creators are not allowed to move them or copy them to the Feedback space.) Erasculio 00:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have said as much. Misery 06:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Erasculio, could you explain how you reached the conclusion that deleting an archived version of a suggestion would have an effect on the legal status of that suggestion? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually original creators are the only users allowed to move their own suggestion if it involves changing their license. So if you delete suggestions instead of archiving them... they just won't be able to do it. Elephant 07:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely for the old suggestions that were moved away to be reused in the new namespace, because the original authors are most probably not interested in it. Deleting them would at least prevent other users from getting influence of their "original idea" when posting a suggestion in the Feedback namespace. poke | talk 11:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see as we have any other choice with Staff pages. You know that regardless of what system we implement for suggestions, and feedback people are going to take some straight to the devs. Mike specifically voiced the concern that the devs/staff be safe to comment, and I for one do not want to have to police all of the staff pages in userspace for unsafe topics to be removed forever. I've been doing it since the licensing issues first came up, and it continues to this day, it's not going to stop just because the new namespace is in place. Posting rules can be placed (if they aren't already) on each page, and people who continually misuse staff pages, can face bans, etc. Once they realize that ideas posted as formal suggestions in the manner outlined are actually being read and commented on I think the amount of that kind of posting will diminish. Also, especially in the case of Linsey and Regina's pages, people are always going to want to give them direct feedback on every update, and change, which almost always includes suggestions of things that they wish to see tweaked. That kind of discussion is not necessarily appropriate for a full suggestion, and will automatically be placed on the staffs pages. It's also up to the staff to direct people to the proper places. I stand by the idea that staff talk pages need to be relocated to the new namespace. -- Wyn 12:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are going to be such people. Unavoidable. And it will be up to induvidual sysops how to handle each situation. But don't be afraid to ban on first offence. There is no room for AF is there is a big angry warning on top of the page. Backsword 12:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

While I am enerally sympathetic to devs gëtting things the way they want it, and so fom Linsey to have a frum on some page, I cannot see how that wouldn't drain massive resources from the community in maintaining. Since this feedback system is already going to take som much time and energy, I'd strongly object to implementing one. Backsword 12:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd move all Arenanet staff pages into the new namespace. Problem with the last Suggestion Pages/Feedback Pages is that, from my point of view when looking at how the community looked at it, there was a disconnect there. No one knew if Arenanet was even bothering with the pages. That's why, I feel, people like posting on the more high traffic staff talkpages as there's generally some kind of response (or felt they were getting heard), especially from Linsey. People want to feel they're at least being heard.

Excuse me if that made little sense, it's early morning here, my apologies if I'm being disruptive to the conversation. Rambling aside I'd still move for all the Arenanet staff pages being moved into the new namespace. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 13:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Which leaves out the problem of how the entire system would become redundant if we add a huge "Guild Wars Suggestions List" that is constantly being looked at and replied to by the most important Guild Wars 1 designer. We already had a list like that - the massive list that was completely unreadable and that was part of Gaile's talk page. If we add Linsey's talk page to the feedback article and allow people to just add suggestions there, everything else other than Linsey's page would become reduntant at best, pointless at worst.

Not to mention how, even before the lincense issue, Regina already had a note at the top of her talk page asking users to not add suggestions there. Moving her page to the namespace meant for suggestions is IMO going against her own wishes.

I hate having to rely on enforcement of rules, because that's usually more time consuming than it's worth, but I cannot see a way to make the Feedback namespace useful (as opposed to making only the Feedback: User Linsey Talk page useful) without heavy supervision of Linsey's, Regina's and Joe's talk pages on the common namespace. IMO, you people are all being too nice to offenders there - we have users who know exactly what is happening regarding the license issue, who have had multiple suggestions previously moved away from Linsey's talk page, and who still keep adding more and more suggestions there. Not removing those suggestions as soon as they are added and not punishing in some way those recurrent offernders is IMO not going to even slow down the influx of suggestions on the wrong pages. Erasculio 13:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So has Linsey, and they do it anyway. As I said, we can do our best, and WILL have the support and cooperation of staff in helping to direct full suggestions to the system, but, having to constantly police userspace talk pages is just too much. It takes time to change habits, and people have gotten into the habit of posting on staff pages directly specifically because they got no response before. As I said, once they see they are getting responses in the system now, I think it will diminish on staff pages, but I'd much rather (as I believe Mike would too) be safe than sorry. I've already had some discussions with some of the staff regarding this, and they all seem to understand the necessity. I am willing to help get all the staff Feedback pages set up so things can be as seamless as possible for everyone. -- Wyn 14:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, you haven't replied to the main problem: if people have the habit of posting on staff pages directly, if they get replies there, if they're allowed to make suggestions there and know the Arena Net staff reads them...Why would they post suggestions anywhere else? We may as well limit the Feedback space to a Feedback: Linsey Talk Page then. Erasculio 15:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

People are going to post suggestions directly to Linsey or Regina, etc directly. There really is no way around that. However, if their talk pages are in the feedback namespace, that means A: small suggestions can just be left there without a lot of deletion drama, and B: bigger suggestions that are inappropriate to be posting on a dev's talk page can be moved to their own feedback namespace page without any licensing fuss. I think you underestimate the clued-in wiki users, who'll understand that with a properly set up suggestion pages structure their suggestions will be most useful to Anet by using that structure, and I think you overestimate the less-clued-in wiki users, who won't be deterred from using dev talk pages for suggestions either way. - Tanetris 16:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I have also addressed that Erasculio. The staff will have posting rules, and they will cooperate in guiding people to the system set up for suggestions, but there is as Tane says no way around the fact people are going to post suggestions directly to Linsey and Regina, and potentially other staff as well. It's been at Linsey's specific request that bans have not been issued to people who have continued to post suggestions on her page at this point, and I felt compelled to respect that. With the new namespace however, I agree, it needs to be stricter, and I will advocate for bans after warnings to people who continue to abuse staff pages rather than using the system. As I pointed out, there are also some suggestions that really aren't going to be appropriate for the suggestion system and the best place for them is going to be staff pages. -- Wyn 16:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that system is going to work. If some suggestions are kept in the talk pages and others are moved, we will have users complaining about how their suggestions are being moved and everyone else's isn't. Regina had already asked people to not add suggestions to her page, and changing it to the feedback space would basically be an invitation for adding suggestions. And requiring the community to move bigger suggestions from the talk pages to a proper page within the feedback system would be demanding people to not only be watching the talk pages, but also be willing to set up a new feedback page for every moved suggestion, something that is not going to be simple and that is going to be time consuming.

Again, I think you people are being too nice, to the point of stretching the community's resources. Deleting a suggestion on the wrong page is far easier than moving it to the proper place and making sure it follows the proper formatting guidelines (something required for the suggestions to be listed on the incoming master suggestions list), and while we have users willing to move some suggestions, I doubt we have enough users to move hundreds of suggestions. Banning an user (even if temporarily) is far easier than moving the dozens of suggestions that some of the recurrent offenders keep making.

Instead of assuming people will do something wrong and tolerating it, leaving the community to clear it all up, I would rather punish those who are doing something wrong so they either clean their own mess or simply leave. Erasculio 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall saying anything about tolerating it. People who use the dev talk pages incorrectly should be warned, and if they do so consistently to the point of being a burden on the community despite warnings, I have no problem with bannings. But keeping the talk pages in userspace only limits us in what we can do. We can just as easily maintain the rule that suggestions that aren't moved to their own page within 3 days will be deleted, but if some well-meaning contributor wants to move it for them, they can. We can also be looser about what gets the "move or be deleted" tag, because there are some suggestions that are simply best-suited to dev talk pages (removing one of the rezes from the awakened cavaliers after the recent update is a great recent example. It's just a quick note, something Linsey would want to hear that is technically a suggestion, but not something worth a formal suggestion page). And you're right, people will complain. My question to that is: so what? If people complaining about taking reasonable actions to keep dev talk pages useable was a reason not to do so, Linsey's and Regina's pages would both be measured in mb at this point. - Tanetris 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern Eras: it seems that you grasp that people will post on dev talk pages no matter what, but you worry that no one will bother using our more "official" system, and instead will only (or largely) post on the dev talk pages instead of the way they "should" post. That is a valid concern, but I don't think it will pan out that way. When suggestions were held in the ANet namespace, people still had the ability to post directly on Gaile's and other dev talkpages, and some did, but the majority of it went to the ANet pages. Same goes for skill feedback, people complain(ed) all the time on dev talkpages about SF, ursan, and any number of other skills, but the majority of the skill feedback remain(ed) in the skill feedback pages, not on the dev talkpages. Same goes for bug reports (see Gaile and Joe), localization (Martin) and all manner of feedback that has always been put in both the dev talkpages and the more "official" feedback pages dedicated to that kind of feedback. I see what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree that the presence of dev talkpages in the feedback namespace will make the rest of it redundant. (Satanael 04:20, 21 June 2009

Most skill feedback went to Izzy's talk until we clamped down on that. Backsword 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(UTC)) (Reset indent) Hey guys! I just caught up on stuff this morning. I don't have much to add on the topic of policing people that post on talk pages rather than suggestion pages, because I just don't have a good answer for that. I suppose it depends on how you guys want to handle it. Here are a few things though:

• We've talked about it internally, and we're all in agreement that if one userpage goes over to the feedback space, all of ours should. So don't worry about a situation where Lins wants hers moved but Regina doesn't. We all want them moved :)
• I brought up the discussion about leaving the userpage in the mainspace and redirecting the talk page to the feedback space (and vice versa) in this morning's business meeting. That seems to be a solid plan as long as there are NO discussions on dev pages going on in the main space. So this means that we'll have to move our journals and their talk pages too (well, the ones of us that keep them).
• I also found out some new information about bug report pages and skill feedback pages, but I'll open a new topic about this below.

Hope this helps! I'm working with IT this morning on namespaces, so we're hoping to get them up and locked to only sysops/bureaus soon. I'll keep you posted! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Users aren't allowed to edit other's userpage anyway, so unless you aneters are planing to expressely tell people to post feedback on your userpages, that should be a nonissue. Backsword 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually they are allowed to edit other's user pages, however editing someone else's user page without permission or a really good reason (such removing a user page from a category it doesn't belong in, as reverting vandalism or fixing a broken link) is likely to be construed as vandalism. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that this is a finished discussion. Any opposition to me beginning to set up the pages in the namespace? Minus the redirects of course. -- Wyn 02:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have set up the shells for all the staff talk pages based on this list. I also covered the relevant subpages. -- Wyn 02:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

New update on bug fix pages and skill feedback pages

Hi guys! We were chatting about these pages in a meeting this morning, and I was told that we should plan to transition all of this stuff into the feedback namespace. There are concerns about bug fixes shifting into potential suggestions, so to be safe, the team would prefer if we just plan to move everything that provides any kind of feedback into the new namespace. This will affect bug report pages, localization bug report pages, and skill suggestion pages.

I don't think this should pose a huge problem. We'll just need to figure out a good way to close out the topics on the current pages and start new ones in the new area. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding! At least there will be no "what if" cases in this scenario, since all of the pages in questions will move to the new namespace :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as the old pages will still be visited until all remaining issues are sorted out, I see no problem with that. poke | talk 19:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this will end up working like the talk pages on our userpages. We can lock the existing pages, finalize all topics on the pages, and then point people to the new space. When everything is taken care of, we can archive and redirect. I think that will work, at least. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Feedback and Feedback talk namespaces are up!

Hi guys! I just wanted to let you know that the Feedback and Feedback talk namespaces are up and ready for edit. For the time being, we have edit restricted to sysop only (hence my flipping my status to test :)). I am going to remove myself from sysops and let you guys do your thing. I'm assuming that you will decide whether to promote people temporarily to help with set up, so I'll remove myself from that discussion too.

Since we're back on track and in set up mode, I am going to put the Feedback submission language up, and then you guys can do what you need to with the space. I'll check back here to see if you need any input or assistance with anything, and I'll ask IT to remove the permissions limits when it's ready to go live.

Yay for progress! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Progress, hooray! ^^ Are you going to set up the new licensing now? poke | talk 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nvm my question. poke | talk 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you are here Poke! I need your help with figuring out the best way to do the submission language page. Is there a way to set the normal copyright message to an "if not equal to"? I think I need to legally post the "final" version of the language, but if you wanted to check out the page, set it up right, and let me know, I can just copy and paste what you did so it says my name as the last edit (I think that should work, at least!) :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I already did that :P poke | talk 22:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Whew, thanks! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Awesome! So, who gets to work directly on this, how do they get the necessary permissions, and where do they go to start working? (Satanael 23:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

That's up to you guys to decide! The namespace is currently locked down so only sysops can edit it, so anyone working in there will need to be a sysop or will need to be temp promoted to that status. Beyond that, I'm removing myself from the set up unless I'm needed for questions or input. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial attempt

Okay, as the namespace is up now, I quickly set up a very basic idea of what I have imagined. You can see it on the only page that currently exists in the Feedback namespace: Feedback:Test page ^^
Unlike what others tried in the previous discussions, I really don't want to change the interface or the logo, as that would make the page feeling completely different for those pages and would destroy the coherence of the wiki for that namespace. Instead I tried to focus on the actual content, or rather the area the content is displayed on. The colors are based on the ArenaNet logo, and should not be too disturbing (though it could even be a bit brighter maybe). The ArenaNet:Portal uses very similar colors but I don't really know what will happen to the ArenaNet namespace anyway (the only things that will stay there are the whole update things, although it might be not a bad idea - for example for the Dev Updates - to have those in a feedback-able namespace as well..), and it shouldn't be a problem as only the Portal itself is affected (all other pages will be closed there anyway).
So, comments & suggestions please. poke | talk 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, you might need to CTRL+F5 first. poke | talk 01:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Not sure what else to say other then that. -- Wandering Traveler 01:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll experiment with different colors tomorrow, as the "pink" might not be the best way to go.. poke | talk 01:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didnt even see that on my frist load. I'm not quite sure of pink either, it just stands out a little too much. On my browser it also bleeds into the "feedback" tab as well. Color wise, do we really need anything special? Something like the color scheme on GWW:HELP would be just fine, imo. -- Wandering Traveler 01:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I really dislike the pink, I think there needs to be more changes to the non content space. As I said, a different colored header and sidebar. I was playing around on my wiki yesterday and did this, while I know purple isn't necessarily the answer, possible green with a more neutral grey for the content background. I also think having a separate logo, even if it's just the same old one but with the word feedback replacing the word wiki would be good. Bur seriously, the pink has got to go. -- Wyn 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I really like green as the main "theme" color, kind of like giving everyone the green light. Although, it seems that there already is a green background for non-content and grey for content. Was that added since Wyn's post (history suggests not) or perhaps Wyn forgot to switch to compatibility mode (per poke's "shift+F5" comment above...)? (Satanael 02:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Ok, so don't kill me but I made it green and grey... what do you think? -- Wyn 02:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, I really like the green theme. Actually, I like it all as is right now. I knew getting you in on this would be a good idea, I never would have been able to do any of that, and even if I could I wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as good a result, and here you go getting it done in negative time. /applause (Satanael 02:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm just afraid poke is gonna kill me :D -- Wyn 02:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

/casts Divine Intervention on Wyn (Satanael 02:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Looks really good as it is now. I like it better than our current colours. =P -- §Lacky§ Talk 03:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

With the green, I mean. -- §Lacky§ Talk 03:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Just curious though, is it intended to change the background monobook skin color? Its changing that as well...hopefully that makes sense. -- Wandering Traveler 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sorry guys, we are just working through a few different color palettes.... -- Wyn 03:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes WT -- Wyn 03:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Mm, I'm not sure about that, but I love it otherwise. Carry on. :) -- Wandering Traveler 03:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick question. So if this is all successful and what-not and this goes ahead and all, is this what the wiki will change to to look like? If so, I think that it's a great idea (especially with that green from before as I said =P)! -- §Lacky§ Talk 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No Lacky, this is only for the new feedback namespace. We want to make it look different enough from the rest of the wiki so that people including the arenanet staff know they are in the space where suggestions/feedback is correctly licensed for ArenaNet to use/comment on legally. -- Wyn 03:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally based on the colours currently at this page (permanent link) I like the green the most for the background image, the blue coming a close second. --Kakarot 03:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The login links get lost in the blue, and we'd have to make them different colors. -- Wyn 03:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, ok thanks Wyn! This idea/suggestion has my vote! -- §Lacky§ Talk 04:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I thought would happen with the blue, just hadn't seen an example of it as of yet. Although at the moment I would get a similar problem to the one you mentioned; because of my current modified css; for any of the background images on the linked page since the links along the top and in the footer are all set to white but I was already planing on changing it up a bit once I got some spare time however I think I will probably wait until after this namespaces colour scheme is set up first. --Kakarot 04:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

With the green one Wyn, would it be possible for you to upload a slightly darker version of the green, maybe even a few shades darker and upload it under a new name; maybe dark green. I mention this because one thing I have noticed is that I find that on this page (the colour I like) it looks slightly darker than on the image page and then when you look at this one; which is what it looks like when used; it seems to go brighter although maybe that is just me. --Kakarot 04:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably because of the size differences. -- Wyn 04:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize now, that it really was a mistake to start this yesterday. I'm really offended in how Wyn and Aiiane used the Common.css as their testing sandbox and brought out 38 edits with multiple completely different looks, and without making it possible to even discuss anything about it, because nobody is able to look at the older versions.

Instead of such a changing spree on a system message page, I would have rather seen some ideas, as I have asked in the starting post, so we can actually get people to look at it. Now all these comments are wasted and have no value for the final design. Thanks.

As for the current version, Tanetris actually made it look similar to the way it was in my mind last night when I went to bed; although I would like to make minor changes and take another deep look at the color choice again. However what I really dislike, for the reasons I have stated in my first post (which seemed to be completely ignored for the other edits), is the different background and logo. poke | talk 10:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Wyn asked me for a little feedback here, so I think Ill post this: I wasn't able to see the initial effect you guys were talking about due to the web page skin preference I was using. It may just be a fluke for that skin. Its the "modern" skin, if that helps any, and Ive noticed several little flukes with different skins overall. Is that because this page is in testing, and has not yet been formatted for all the skins, or is this page meant to be viewed on the default wiki skin? As for the style, color, and logo, I think that it does help make the page look different, and people will notice that fact and use the page accordingly for the most part (I like how the style looks slightly like a blueprint design, fits the idea of the page nicely). I did have a question, however. Would it be possible to either change the color of these pages via code on the page, or through a preference setting? That would allow customization, but it would be following unalterable guidelines, so there will be little drama over that. Just a little idea for it, since you all are talking about all these colors and not being able to see them due to edits. This would let everyone be able to see the colors they want after the pages are set out live.--Neithan Diniem 12:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Poke, I added the few color options we tried to my sandbox page with their various options. I'm sorry, that we made you unhappy, but I don't know how to show it without changing the css other than doing it by screenshot in our own. And so what if there are 38 entries in the css history? It is not your private page to play with. As for your wishes regarding the changes, the majority seem to feel that simply changing the content area is not enough of a change. I am one of them. -- Wyn 14:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

@Poke: Personally I find changes outside the content area to be far preferable to changes inside it. Even a small change to the background of the content area can have consequences on a page's readability, particularly when we come to talk pages where customized signatures get involved. That said, I'm very happy with the way File:Feedback banner logo.png turned out (I do have a .psd saved with separate layers so it'd be trivial to stick the white logo on a different color version), so if that's sufficiently noticeable for Anet staff, I wouldn't mind some of the other changes going away. I do still like the idea of a minor but noticeable change to the main upper-left logo image for the feedback namespace (small enough that you're sure you're still on the same site, but big enough that you can tell at a glance). I'm the one who asked Wyn to do so.

On a sidenote, be glad you weren't here to see all the intermediate steps. Let us just say that certain people struggled to find the bounds of good taste.

@Emily: How drastic should we be aiming at here? Where does what we currently have up fall on the scale? - Tanetris 19:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The logo font looks mismatched, and "Guild Wars official feedback" sounds odd. If the logo's going to change, I think the "wiki" should stay. I agree with Tane that the content-background (specifically the large ArenaNet logo across the middle of the page) might affect readability - it might be better to keep the changes outside of the border, or no lower than the bottom of the header bar. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Heya Tanetris! I don't think we really have a stance on the topic of re-coloring, as this was something initially proposed by the community to make the pages clearly stand out. We'll be fine with whatever you guys decide, as long as the changes don't disrupt the flow of the site and as long as people clearly understand that they are still on the official wiki when they're in the feedback area. I'm a little unsure about the logo change, and I think that if anything were to raise flags, that would be it. I think that flipping the css is fine as far as colors go, but I think there might be a concern with actually changing the logo itself. Changing the logo, especially to a different name, could be confusing to some users. It makes it seem like a separate official suggestion site (which it isn't). This area is still part of the wiki, even though suggestions can be posted here. If this is something that you guys unanimously decide you'd like, though, I can follow up on it further. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I agree with the logo change being a bit confusing. Looking at other wikis, this looks the same as if it were a separate wiki site, and not the same as this one. If anything, it may be best to place the original logo there, and putting another logo or something on the page itself. Otherwise newer wiki members or people that dont check in often may get confused.--Neithan Diniem 20:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with not changing the logo, as Tane said, he asked me to do so even though I knew the font was not going to be correct. It was just an option to consider. The green seemed to be the color that most people came back to as far as the color change. I would also agree with Tane that changes outside the content area are better than changes inside the content area, though I don't see the watermark being a problem, and actually rather like it. I did center it for fear it would just be buried under various side boxes and toc's. Again, I'm not trying to force my ideas on anyone, and most of the changes were at least commented on by others. -- Wyn 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If the separate logo is a big issue for people, I'm not too emotionally attached, I just want to be sure we explore all the options that don't affect the content area before we start messing with readability.

I think the primary goal (mine, at least) here is making sure the namespace stands out in a way that's sufficient for Anet staff to know they're safe, and not to go further than that, to preserve cohesiveness of the site. I'd like to get a sense of where that line is, so we don't go shooting past it unnecessarily. I mean, if just having File:Feedback banner logo.png (or some alternative of it, possibly another color) in the upper-right corner of the page is enough and background and logo changes are unnecessary, I'd be thrilled to just have that. On the other hand, if what we have currently is still going to leave some doubt in Anet staff minds, we need to figure out what else we can reasonably change without losing all consistency with the rest of the wiki, or even if we want to go all-out and actually make it look like a different site. It's really hard for me to judge where that line is, for the simple reason that I'm used to the wiki. I see Feedback: or Feedback_talk: and I where I stand, but I know a fair portion of Anet staff are not so used to it. - Tanetris 21:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the green. It's bold, I like that. It looks very official which is very nice. This doesn't make it look like two different sites to me, changing the text from [[WIKI]] to [[FEEDBACK]] is nice, for me at least, it does make it clear that the functionality of that section is different from the other - this is where feedback goes, and that's the purpose for the space, yes? This makes it clear.

It looks very official the Arenanet logo being used multiple times goes give me pause, it was questioned how involved Arenanet were in reviewing what people had being posting last time (in the feedback and suggestion areas of the wiki), this gives off the vibe that Arenanet is actually going to be looking at it (the whole official vibe), which I don't think is the message you want to send. I like the green, I think a watermark is nice but maybe not of the Arenanet logo. I actually really like the non-standard look the page has over the Wiki.

Just my thoughts at the moment. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 21:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"this gives off the vibe that Arenanet is actually going to be looking at it (the whole official vibe), which I don't think is the message you want to send": ...the reason we have created a new Feedback space is exactly so Arena Net becomes able to look at it, so yes, that has been pretty much the message we have been repeating since the beginning of this discussion.

I like the current page. The only thing I'm not fond of is the icon, IMO keeping "Official Wiki" is better. Erasculio 23:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I may have misrepresented the point, I may come back later and correct it but it's not really relevant. ~~000.00.00.00~~ 23:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks a bit weird, its the dismiss-button of the Mediawiki:Sitenotice, other than that, the page looks great. — Why 00:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The dismiss is only an issue when there is a site notice, which in most cases people actually dismiss after they have read it the first time. Chances are they will have dismissed it in the main space before they even come to the feedback space. -- Wyn 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The File:Feedback banner logo.png looks really good, especially with the green. I have modified my monobook.css so that every page on the wiki for me has the green, and looks (relatively) the same. This is what the FeedBack Page Page looks like for me. I like it like that the best. ^_^ -- §Lacky§ Talk 02:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The only problem I have, is when viewing the Main Page (and possibly other pages like it, I haven't really checked yet), there is a white background where everything is, instead of that greenish colour like everything else. -- §Lacky§ Talk 03:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Will this feedback background effect be altered to work with other wiki skins than just Monobook? Also, would it be possible to make the Logo say [[WIKI]], then [[FEEDBACK]] below it? this may resolve any possible "what site is this?" issues.It uses the best of both logo ideas.--Neithan Diniem 03:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea to use both, Neithan. -- §Lacky§ Talk 03:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the dead links, i forgot to add in the nowiki codes.--Neithan Diniem 03:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Although i'm all in favour of the green, is their anyway we can soften the background green png somewhat? The contrast between that shade of green and the grey is somewhat jarring, whereas a more pastel green may be easier on the eyes and lack the choppiness of the current image. Also the arenanet back image is having a weird issue with the dismiss announcement button, as its overlapping and looking somewhat odd. -- Salome 04:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created a set of various colors that have been talked about/looked at User:Wynthyst/Sandbox/Feedback namespace. The test page currently has a white background in the content area. All elements are up for discussion. -- Wyn 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of the green, though I think at this point I am against the watermark. When I first saw it I thought it was cool, but now it seems like it just poses more problems than benefits. On the current test page on my browser at home the watermark gets more pronounced at some positions on my screen (i.e., when I scroll down to certain points) than at others. It only happens with the watermark, so I know it is not my screen. Also, the presence of the watermark limits our options for background colors in our content areas, which I would like to see. Right now I am thinking something like a faded yellow or tan could be a good background for the content area, but those would not look good with the red watermark. I guess at the end of the day I just don't really see the watermark as adding that much value, while it also seems to complicate things a little. (Satanael 19:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Well, we could always inquire with Emily and Co. about the viability of a different-colored ArenaNet logo as a watermark. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

you could always just use the outline/silhouette of the logo. ~ PheNaxKian 23:05, 25 June 2009 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The wiki is infamous for decisions taking months to be reached and for two thirds of those decisions being eternally stalled when apathy settles in and the subject is just forgotten. Before this discussion dies, let's just go with the green theme currently on poke's Feedback page and move on to more pressing matters. Erasculio 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, let's get building, the hounds are restless. (Satanael 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

If no one has any fatal objections to that, I'm willing to go with it; like the design of the main page it can be revamped over time if people have an interest in improving it as well. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

GW1 Suggestions

For GW1 suggestions, I propose a system based on multiple tables under the following format:

User		Created in		Last modified		World
Erasculio		06.06.2009		22.07.2009		Add mudkips to the Gyala Hatchery Add mudkip NPCs to Kaineng Center

Each table:

• Would be locked. As in, no user would be allowed to manually add entries to a table. Rather, entries would be generated automatically by DPL or by poke's alternative system, depending on which one people decide to use.
• Would have, in its main section, links leading directly to each subpage within an user's feedback page; each subpage would host a different idea, so it would be simple for the developers to go from a descriptive page title to a suggestion through a single link.
• Would look prettier than my example above, of course : P.
• Would be about one of seven main topics:
  • World for suggestions about...
    • Lore
    • Places
    • NPCs
    • Story
  • Character customization for suggestions about...
    • Professions
    • Armor
    • Body & face
  • Items for suggestions about...
    • Weapons
    • Consumables
    • Inventory
  • PvE for suggestions about...
    • Heroes
    • Enemies
    • AI
    • Missions
    • Quests
  • PvP
  • Skill system
  • Player Interaction for suggestions about...
    • Chat system
    • Emote system
    • Trade system
    • Guild system

Erasculio 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks good to me, my only question right off the bat is, shouldn't suggestions about professions go under the "skill system" rather than "character customization"? (Satanael 17:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

I also think another suggestion tab would be appropriate:

• Mechanics for suggestions about...

• User Interface
• Game Features
• Graphics

Also anything else that would suitably fit into this category. This will allow for feedback into stuff that effects the core part of the game, not just the smaller things. AI May be moved here also, since it would be more appropriate here (PvE does use AI, but so does PvP). I had been working on a possible "suggestion tree graph" but it seems someone beat me to the pitch. After a few more category additions and move arounds I think it would be perfect.--Neithan Diniem 18:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first three columns, tho' I think the name should be linked to their main feedback page. While I do like the idea of links to induvidual pages, I'm not sure is users can handle that. I would like to keep things simple for those users who are new to wikis. Also, line breaks could become a major problem, esp. if people add ones as padding so that their idea ets ectra space. We would need some strict techinical limit, which do add an extra headache. Backsword 13:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

GW2 Suggestions

For GW2 suggestions, I propose we use a different system. And before someone complains, Emily has stated that GW2 suggestions are different from GW1 ones; the team is far less likely to comment on them, and we have been asked to use a looser system given how little is know about GW2. So I suggest a system like this:

Username		Last modified		World		Character		Items		PvE		PvP		Skills		Other
Erasculio		06.06.2009

With a single page per user, and the yes/no system letting Arena Net know if a given topic is covered in said page or not. Erasculio 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the above tables do a good job a representing roughly where we want to go with this, but I think the GW2 system needs to be closer to what you have for the GW1 suggestions above. i.e., GW2 suggestions should not all be crammed onto one page per user, some users have an awful lot of suggestions for GW2, and that one page could get really long and unwieldy. If anything, GW2 provides room for even more suggestions than GW1, therefore we should allow for the same subpage-per-suggestion that we have for GW1. Also, this list for GW2 suggestions should include a direct link to the subpage, just as the above GW1 list has, with a name for each subpage. I agree that the GW2 system should be looser because the ideas can be all over the place, but I think this calls for less reliance on categorization and more on direct linking to the subpage, since we are more likely to face suggestions that do not fit into our categories, or fit into all of them, or some such similar quandry. That is not to say we should get rid of categorization, I think categorization is very important, but the GW2 system should not rely solely on categorization. (Satanael 17:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

If you think about it, the general breakdown of GW2's structure cant be that different from GW1, Its going to have in the most part the same basic categories as does GW1. All you would have to do is replace things that we know are not going to be added (heros, etc...) and replace them with what we do know ("sidekick system"). Having the suggestions for GW2 being different would be good for the beginning of the feedback system, but once we get more information, we would have to switch it over to the same system as GW1. To make a switch over system easier it would be best to have it where we build the categories as if they were going into the same organization as the categories of GW1, but leave them more open and not be so specific. Otherwise your just leaving the gates open for all hell to break out when we learn more about GW2 and then have to categorize the suggestions into their appropriate sections. --Neithan Diniem 18:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would actually prefer to use a more "blank canvas" system for GW2 suggestions until we get more information about the game, then change the system once we know more.

GW1 suggestions are limited: we know that Arena Net is not going to fundamentally change the game now, so there is a limited scope of things they could possibly change. For GW2, however, people could suggest almost anything; we know next to nothing about the game, so even basic aspects could be suggested. IMO, this leads to two problems:

• Some ideas are too encompassing to be filled under a single of the categories used for the GW1 suggestions. The automatic system would have problems fitting them to a single category, and the whole system would suffer for that kind of thing.
• When we learn more about GW2, eventually old suggestions will become useless, as they will be talking about things that Arena Net has already set in stone and told us about. The newer game will go from being a full white canvas to something with more definition, and suggestions outside those defined aspects would be pointless.

Hence why I believe a more loosely based system, to be discarded and replaced with a more rigid one when GW2 details are announced, would be better right now.

(Besides, once we get more GW2 information, we will hopefully move the GW2 suggestions to the GW2 wiki; said move would be the perfect time to update the system so it's more similar to the GW1 one.) Erasculio 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to agree with everything you just posted, Eras, but I wonder if we draw the same conclusions from that. Your original post in this section suggests that you would want to use the same seven (er perhaps 8?) categories as the GW1 list but instead of each category having a link to a single subpage, it would simply say "yes" or "no" for that category. I'm not really sure how that would be more of a "blank canvas" than what you suggest for GW1 suggestions above, unless I am understanding this incorrectly, or perhaps you have changed positions somewhat since your original post in this section.

Either way, I think there are some categories that we know will remain relevant almost no matter what ANet does with GW2. For example, we know that such categories as "World", "PvE", "PvP", "Items", "Skills" and "Characters" are almost guaranteed to remain relevant throughout the development process. In addition, I'm not sure if it really matters that we may have GW2 suggestions that are irrelevant due to ANet announcing a different direction. I mean, sure, these suggestions will distract devs from more plausible suggestions and will annoy some others, but ultimately, I think people will post whatever idea they have about GW2 (and GW1 for that matter) no matter how ludicrous the idea. Any attempt to stop these ideas from being posted will most assuredly be in vain.

Nonetheless, you are right, our GW2 suggestion system should be able to adapt as more information about GW2 comes out. If you wish to start with more a blank slate, then I stilll think a subpage per idea approach is warranted, with a heavier reliance on the title of each subpage (i.e., fewer, more general categories and direct links to each of the subpages) - Satanael 02:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The only thing bugging me about a subpage per idea is that when GW2 does come out, what will become of those pages? Also those people who are a little slower at adapting to new methods may still continue to make a new subpage for each idea after a form of categorization is implemented. I guess if a subpage system in used, then why not have rules about names? such as if the suggestion is about armor, have it named: Feedback:User <username>/Armor/<suggestion name> or have a template tag in the subpage that will list it on a proper category page, that would provide at least categorization for ideas that we know will be in GW2. We can go through and pick specific suggestion topics that would fall under such categorization, such as some of the things listed above, and then whatever doesn't fall under one of those would be named/tagged with "other" or it would just have its own page that's uncategorized.--Neithan Diniem 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe what you just described is very similar, at least in end-intent, to what we are already proposing for these lists. essentially the creation of a suggestion page/subpage would incorporate a template that the creator would fill out, and that template would decide how the suggestion gets categorized. In the end, the only thing I would point out from your concerns is that a subpage per idea does not harm or adversely affect categorization at all, if anything it may be easier to categorize a page with only one idea on it rahter than a page with many. As for what happens to GW2 suggestions after GW2 comes out, well, I think we have some time to worry about that later. (Satanael 14:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

See no reason to do gw1 and gw2 in different ways. Just adds confusion, with no benefit that I can find. Backsword 13:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument for not doing them the same is that we don't know what will be in GW2 , so making categories would be all speculative work. If we make a category for something that doesn't get used, people will complain. If we don't make a category for something that latter gets implemented in the game, people will complain. I think their going at it in the most basic form of categorization as they can to prevent this.--Neithan Diniem 14:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(RI) Backsword, Emily has said:

4.) GW2 comments

"I'm not sure what to say about this topic, because I honestly don't know what the dev team's plans for taking feedback on GW2 are. All teams will be made aware of the new feedback areas, but the decision to read and use the space is completely up to the individual. Since GW2 is in development, I'd expect that no comments will be made by any members of the team.

The only thing I can think about saying is that it would probably be best to keep the feedback organization as broad as possible for this area. Keep sections and subsections as generic and encompassing as you can."

...Which means, having a different system from the GW1 suggestions, so players know that yes, they are different things, and also having a broader system for GW2 suggestions. Erasculio 22:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

um, what Emily wrote means what Emily wrote, not something else.... Backsword 21:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming personal feedback pages

Heyz. I haven't really read all of the discussion above, but something worries me. That is, in Erasculio's example, he named his personal feedback page "Feedback:Erasculio/<subpagename here>". Perhaps it would be a good idea to instead name these pages something like "Feedback:User Erasculio/<subpagename here>". It's a minor issue, but it would prevent people from making sock accounts like User:Main page and claiming Feedback:Main page as their personal feedback page. — Why 10:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, we can make sure we hammer that out when we finalize the suggestion creation process. I think Eras just needed some page to refer to for his table, but when we actually start building this thing we will have to think things like that through a little more. (Satanael 12:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC))

Sure, like Satanel said, that link was just to mention how we would have links instead of just plain text there. Erasculio 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought as much, it was just something I thought of, and decided to post because otherwise I'd surely forget about it. — Why 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder, would it work better to ask for subpaging to be enabled on the feedback namespace, and then use something like Feedback:User/Erasculio instead? That way the breadcrumb links would include Feedback:User, which could be used as the main index page for user entries. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I expect pretty much all entries to be user entries, but Feedback:User/Erasculio does look better than Feedback:User:Erasculio. Erasculio 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter if it is Feedback:User Username/subpages, or Feedback:User/Username/subpages; actually I like the first version a bit more. Having the subpages doesn't make it easier after all. poke | talk 21:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't think having the main user suggestions index as part of the breadcrumbs is useful?

Edit: It also makes the urls look similar to those for, say, Special:Contributions and the like. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like adding User to the beginning of each page name as it eliminates the automatic alphebatizing in categories. Everything would fall under U. This is giving me a major headache in the image categories atm. I think each user creating a page should be required to link their userpage at the top of their main suggestion page. This would eliminate Feedback:Main page etc. -- Wyn talk 04:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I don't get that, both actually. Even by linking to the user page, there would still be the problem with users that have names such as "Main page" or "Portal" or "User suggestions" (names who are likely to be used as starting/global pages). So having User in front of it would split the user suggestions from any global thing we will have (bug reports, dev pages etc.). And for the categorization issue, it is actually only an issue with the user images, as the {{user image}} tag cannot split the actual username from the page title (it cannot split the text), but for suggestions it would be easy to require people to set the global sorting key to their username. That way their pages would appear as "Feedback:User XY" in the category, but still sorted by "XY".

And Aiiane, I wouldn't have a problem with having "Feedback:User XY/.." pages and a global "Feedback:User suggestions" page, especially as one listing page won't be enough anyway, so we could always split it to "Feedback:User suggestions/categoryZ". And also having all pages begin with "Feedback:User XY" or "Feedback:User/XY" won't change anything on the fact of being visible in the contribs list. poke | talk 07:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I vote this, assuming those subcategories will also be tabled and sortable by date --ilr 08:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Poke, it's not so much that I have something "against" the idea of 'Feedback:User XY/whatever' as it is that I think 'Feedback:User/XY/whatever' gives us more benefit without any downsides. Can you think of any specific reason (besides just URL appearance) that you wouldn't want to use 'Feedback:User/XY/whatever' instead of 'Feedback:User XY/whatever'? I've already stated the benefits I think it gives (breadcrumbs, and similarity to the contributions/logs pages). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) How about making a rule that people whose username is taken by a page in the general feedback structure, are to name their personal page "Feedback:<username> (user)"? It doesn't look really nice, but hey, if it doesn't look nice, people might actually consider NOT choosing weird usernames. :P — Why 11:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

All I was saying that I don't really understand your benefits :P (especially the contributions-one). And yes, I think "Feedback:User/XY/whatever" is harder to read than "Feedback:User XY/whatever". But that's just my opinion, and as I stated somewhere above it doesn't really matter (as long as we have something that makes them appear as user suggestions). poke | talk 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My only objection is geared at being able to sort the categories by username. Category functionality is my new pet project (if you haven't noticed) and as long as we can maintain that, I am fine with however you decide to name the pages. I did not use User in the staff page shells I created, but they can easily be moved if necessary. -- Wyn talk 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see what the value in forcing a link to a specific page which could be added if wanted is. Esp. when it makes things more diffeicult to work with. Backsword 13:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make things more difficult to work with... if anything it makes it easier, due to how certain wiki magic words function... I have yet to see a single downside pointed out to the Feedback:User/XY format, aside from looks. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, if each minor issue likes this takes days to be discussed without any consensus on sight, with people ignoring more pressing problems, the feedback space will be open to players more or less when Guild Wars 2 is released. I'm already not happy with the limitation on only sysops editing the Feedback space, given how few sysops are even a part of this discussion. Erasculio 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, where is this "task force" that is supposed to be working night and day to build this thing? Is the Shard ArbComm really taking up that much of people's time? (Satanael 22:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately we have a limited usergroup options, and until there IS concensus on anything, what difference does it make? The coding structure can be done in any namespace, if you wish to start working on the actual coding, do it in your sandbox. The only thing that HAS to be created in the new namespace are the suggestions and feedback themselves. -- Wyn talk 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Different people have different foci, Erasculio. Some people tend to focus more on the technical elements of things (poke, myself), while others tend to focus more on the content (you, Backsword, etc). Just because people post in one discussion and not another does not necessarily mean they are ignoring it, but rather it might simply be an indication that they don't have a strong opinion one way or another on that particular topic. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the frustration that Eras is voicing is that there are an awful lot of pages that need to be made inside the feedback namespace (introductory pages, instructions, etc.) that are going to have to be discussed and finalized before the feedback space can go live, but that is not happening. Aiiane is right, some are interested in content, some are interested in mechanics, some are interested in aesthetic, but right now the mechanics and aesthetic are the only ones that seem to be getting anywhere because the people concerned with content don't have access to the feedback namespace. Let those of us who want to work on the content get to work and while we build we can also discuss the many other issues. (Satanael 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Plus, since Emily's comment about progress, on June 22nd, we have barely made any decision or made any further step in implementing the Feedback space, regarding any of the multiple aspects involved here. The only decision that has been made in the last week was about the color scheme, but all other topics don't appear to be anywhere close to a consensus, or even being discussed at all. Erasculio 22:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Satanael, if you have a page structure hashed out that you'd like to see created, and there aren't any pending issues raised with it, I'd be glad to start creating things for you. Just let me know (a page in your or someone's userspace outlining what page structure you think might be necessary would be helpful). So far, however, the content discussion I have seen has mostly been about categorization. Furthermore, is there anything stopping you from beginning to work on the textual content of those pages in userspace, after which they can be moved over? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussing and editing the page itself would be easier and would likely bring more contributors. The page isn't going to be made by Satanael; it's going to be made by the community, so hosting it on his userspace, or expecting it to be hosted in his userspace, doesn't really make sense. Erasculio 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Eras, we can't discuss on the pages in the feedback namespace regardless. Since that will eliminate the rest of the community from the discussion. -- Wyn talk 21:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving the staff's talk pages

I think the safest thing for Arena Net would be to not move any of the content of the current talk pages into the Feedback space, rather begin new ones there. In order to do so without ignoring the discussions currently on the staff's talk pages, I suggest we lock those pages now (so their owners have time to answer everything they want to) and some days later open the new talk pages (redirecting from the old ones) inside the Feedback space.
TL;dr: lock Linsey's talk page now. Erasculio 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. As long as the feedback namespace is not completely ready, nothing should be done in that direction. poke | talk 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be a considerable long time before it's "completely" ready, and if we want Linsey's talk page here to redirect to her talk page on the Feedback namespace, we would have either to move the current content together with the page (risking license issues) or replace the current page with a redirect, stopping all discussions currently in place there. Giving Linsey time to answer everything and archive everything before the move makes sures she has an opportunity to reply to everything she would like to without worrying about double license issues and without making contributors lose track of what has been said. Incidentally, the peer pressure that would create would also help a bit to make this entire process faster, so we hopefully won't waste more than one week wondering if magenta is better than cyan without actually reaching a conclusion. Erasculio 22:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason why her existing page could not be archived wholesale when the move occurs, and there is no reason she could not answer items on the archive page. It should stay unlocked. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We would then have to make a new archive for active discussions outside the Feedback space, hoping people would notice which archive is still the active one within all her other archives, making Linsey look at two talk pages at which to reply instead of one, and monitoring if people won't think they can add content to all her archives. Given how Linsey's talk page has been locked in the past when it got too big, how it is too big right now, and how IMO this would be simpler than the alternatives, I don't understand the resistance to even suggest this to her, but fine. Erasculio 22:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to suggest it to her for regular reasons (namely, page too large atm), but I don't see why it should be tied in with the move. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm of the opinion that the move should just be made without a whole lot of consideration for the existing content on dev talkpages (i.e., archive all and move on). I mean, sure, some discussions will be lost, but ultimately that's a pretty small price to pay, and the one or two editors that have to repost their questions will likely not complain too much. Given how quickly most dev talkpages fill up, we're talking about maybe a week before everyone forgets that any discussions were lost in the first place. (Satanael 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

As I noted in the previous section regarding staff pages, I have created the shell pages for all the staff who have userpages on the wiki Category:Staff feedback pages All that needs to be done is once the namespace is opened up, redirects need to be made from their existing pages. I would propose moving them to User talk:<Staff name>/old and replacing the created redirect to the feedback page. I have also been working on an email to send to each of them explaining what has been done, and that they will no longer receive "You have new messages" alerts when they log in. The content on the old pages, can then be answered and archived in the usernamespace and the pages in the Feedback namespace will be started clean. -- Wyn talk 04:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You will also notice that Linsey is currently working on clearing the current content on her talk page, so most of it will be archivable by the time the new namespace is opened up. -- Wyn talk 04:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer if existing talk is archived, otherwise some may contrinue to use it. Backsword 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A good way to prevent the continued use of staff pages would be to make a templated warning that could be placed on their pages, and any suggestions or problems people post there could be A) deleted immediately, B) Archived immediately, or C)moved to a proper page, be it their talk page or into the feedback system.--Neithan Diniem 14:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We have used temporary archives before, can't we just do that again? Misery 14:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... The current topics on Linsey's page will be moved to <User talk:Linsey Murdock/old> (temporary archive) so that existing topics can be responded to and archived in the User namespace. The redirect created by the move will be replaced with a redirect to <Feedback talk:Linsey Murdock>. All new topics will go into the Feedback namespace and be archived in the Feedback namespace. Linsey and Regina both currently use a template system to mark items that are misplaced so they can be moved to the appropriate places, or archived after they've been answered. These tags will simply be adjusted to point to the correct pages in the Feedback namespace. They are also working on beefing up their posting rules (which have existed on the busiest of staff pages for awhile now) to make it crystal clear what should and should not be posted on their pages, including links to the most appropriate places for things to go. I think we have already agreed that people who continuously abuse staff pages with stuff will face warnings and bans. -- Wyn talk 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for poke

I'm not officially proposing this as the best possible solution, but I'd just like to know how Feasible it might be to:

• Set up a special cookie or script only triggered by a couple of Anet's Design Staff when they click on User Feedback pages...
• This browser request would then instruct a bot to add a template to each User's Suggestion page that was viewed by that Dev.
• That template would then give a small indicator that a Dev had atleast clicked on his/her Page.
• Disclaimer: o/c this would be voluntary as per Emily's confirmation that some devs won't have a presence here.

--ilr 02:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning

After consulting with Emily on this, I did confirm that they're very interested in showing a Staff presence to fuel the suggestion process even though they can't offer any assurance that it will always Appear that Way. But without such, we Do run into this problem where Lin's page becomes this big ugly "Receptacle" for every chunk of input from every tom dick and harry who feels like their own pages are being ignored. ...Which would just lead to harsher and overzealous crackdowns. And I already pointed out that I find that situation very distasteful. But I'm not so sure I'm any more comfortable with the Devs having to actually make Comments on other end-Users pages either just to show that they're listening; and let me explain why: People are "competitive", especially PvP'ers. ...which leads to Drama. So we should try to avoid all the pitfalls that lead to the appearances of Favoritism towards certain users from the Devs (and Ultimately, ALL of our ideas that actually get used are ultimately judged by the Playerbase itself anyway, not just the Devs).
... ...So I'm not saying the Devs shouldn't comment, I just don't think that always commenting is the most efficient and fair way to show their presence and utilization of this new namespace. ...Especially in regards to the "Carrot & Stick" analogy I used in that discussion. So what I am proposing is that maybe a more Neutral but also more (quantitatively) visible approach would be better for everyone, even including just for I.P. Anons who wouldn't even have a primary means to participate under the currently planned system. In other Words: Keep the vast majority of "Participation Indicators" from the Devs as simple and discreet as possible. If there's a better means of doing this though, then by all means, let's hear it. --ilr 02:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect this feedback area to be used much the way the ArenaNet area has been, with the difference being the developers can comment on suggestions if they choose to. The staff talk pages, will be monitored, and policed the same way they are now, with the exception that people who continually abuse that space will be more prone to find themselves banned than they have been currently. I agree with Emily that requiring the developers to indicate they have read an idea is really not a reasonable request since they all wiki primarily on their own time. People will just have to live with it. I'm sure that if the developers see an idea they wish to discuss further with the community, they will comment on it and ask for more comments. I think the community's level of entitlement to being heard is overblown to the extreme on this wiki. -- Wyn talk 03:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you and others have made it abundantly clear (sometimes inciting complete disdain against the masses) where your loyalties are and that they should just "suck it up". And I'm saying that approach just incites more drama, not less. I also thought Emily made it pretty clear that they DO CARE that the masses feel heard. And we've seen that demonstrated with the content added this year. Now I may have misinterpreted HOW she explained those indicators working but rest assured, I understand her message that none of the Devs owe contributors a hand-written note on every page and as you see I actually took issue with that approach. (but it's their call in the end...) ...So, try giving it some thought plz, before just shooting it down. It's intended save YOU GUYS the time and need to just start banning ppl left and right. --ilr 04:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that I am aware of to automatically mark a suggestion read by a developer or anyone else other than them applying a template of some sort. Now, the fact that they wiki on their own time, means that no, they are not going to have time to read every suggestion that's posted, so is it more fair that those that do get read get marked, while those they just don't have time for don't? Is that going to make the people who post the ones that don't get read feal better? I've seen more drama over "DO THESE SUGGESTIONS GET READ?" than almost anything else on this wiki. Anyone posting a suggestion anywhere takes the chance that their suggestion won't be read. That's life. So yeah. I say suck it up and assume good faith that the developers will read and comment on what they can. -- Wyn talk 04:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear lord, no. Devs get enough razzing from people as it is, they don't need "OMG YOU DIDNT READ MY SUGGESTION" grief as well. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be possible somehow, yes (even if I wouldn't take the way with adding a template, for RC's sake alone..), however I wouldn't want to do it for reasons stated above. If we would want something in that direction we shouldn't have taken the wiki-route for suggestions (as I said before, there would have been a lot of better systems). poke | talk 07:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, letting people know whose suggestions get read and whose don't opens us up to WAY more drama than keeping it a mystery. I can just imagine all the "How come you read all of WYN's suggestions but none of MINE??" bs posts. I think the fear of the dev talk pages becoming giant receptacles that replace the other feedback pages is overblown anyway. People post feedback everywhere they can, no matter what. (Satanael 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

You missed the point, they're going to make those "bs" posts much more fervently if Devs ever make comments to only certain folk's feedback, even if it's just for good faith of just showing they're reading them at all. And if Devs never make any comments, well then we're right back to "Anet doesn't Care!" land. More indicators would mean less likelihood of anyone being constantly skipped. I don't know how that numerical fact is being missed But I guess we'll have the whole next year to see who was right, won't we... --ilr 10:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact, people are going to bitch no matter what approach we or Arenanet take. Misery 10:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So why not try the new route that has them bitching Less then? --ilr 10:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't believe it will have less bitching. Also my comment was more pointing out that we won't ever see which is would have been the best route. Misery 10:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point, I just disagree. Having concrete proof that the devs read your suggestion also means there will be concrete proof that they did not. Which would be more angering to you, that the devs did not comment on your suggestion, or that they did not even bother to read it? Of course the devs will not be able to read every article but they need plausible deniability on each specific suggestion. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the devs ever agreeing to some automatic flag that records which suggestions get read and which ones do not. (Satanael 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

^ Misery 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Feeling like I'm always being lied to (while being suppressed by Mods) would make me angrier than anything... I guess it all depends on where you stand with Accountability. The fact I'd expect them to embrace accountability shows that I actually have more faith in both the Users and Anet than you guys do. ...But thank you for indulging me in this bit of theorycraft. /Thread --ilr 18:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Needed pages

Ok, new topic. Give me a list of the primary pages needed for the Feedback namespace, and I will create them, then we can discuss structure. -- Wyn talk 22:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Main page: an introduction explaining what the section is and linking to the relevant pages. The current Arena Net portal isn't suitable, IMO.
• Index of Guild Wars 1 suggestions.
• Index of Guild Wars 2 suggestions.
• Bugs pages, maybe with an index.
• Index page of the Arena Net staff talk pages, maybe.

I think that's a good beginning. Erasculio 23:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

K... I've started on the bug pages, I'm simply recreating the existing page structure. We can talk about any changes that should be made, but I think they are working ok the way they are. <edit> Why don't you work up an example of what you'd like on the main portal page? -- Wyn talk 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As Eras mentioned above, this would be a lot easier if we could create the pages themselves and discuss on those pages. Creating examples in our user space and relying on someone else to implement them once we've reached "consensus" is going to be horribly inefficient. Trying to do it all in one "needed pages" section is not feasible, since there are going to be discussions regarding each and every one of the pages we create. Am I wrong or was there going to be a "task force" set up who would go make all of this? Is there a reason why there is reluctance to make this task force? If there is a concern as to why we can not go do this, by all means voice it, otherwise we are just wasting time. (Satanael 01:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

I understand the issues, however, we have little choice atm. I asked for names for the task force, and it was me and poke, and I had to nominate poke. No one else volunteered or offered any other opinons, so rather than delaying the implementation of the namespace, Emily set it up for sysop only editing. That can be changed (from what I understand), but not today, and not without having more names. Now... I'm here, I'm willing, and able to do things in the namespace, so tell me what you wish me to do. -- Wyn talk 02:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I missed something, but when did you ask for names for the task force? I also recall you nominating both me and Erasculio when you nominated poke, and both of us accepting. Maybe I don't understand how that part was supposed to be set up, but I thought Emily said something about the non-sysop task force members being temporarily promoted to sysop so they could edit the feedback namespace, is that how it will work? If so, who does the promoting? (Satanael 07:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Something like this, only a lot better looking. Erasculio 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Bugs, Support, and Feeback tables be Above the larger Suggestion categories since they'll be smaller and more structured? --ilr 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So you want the portal page to match the Main page? Interesting :D -- Wyn talk 02:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that can work, but what about skill feedback? Surely that's moving to the feedback space as well, no? I would imagine that, like bug reports, the infrastructure for skill feedback will remain the same. Also, localization bugs, cultural references and website suggestions all need to be there. Basically, all the feedback stuff that was in the ANet portal, which almost the entire portal... (Satanael 07:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Feedback:Skill feedback I simply copied the structure of the existing skill feedback pages. I also did all the bug reporting pages including Feedback:Localization bugs. I thought it would be good to have all the stuff in the Feedback namespace in separate categories from the stuff in the ArenaNet namespace, though I haven't actually created the categories yet, I modified the category tags on the pages. We still need to work out categorization structure. -- Wyn talk 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Those look great, but I might have found a bug thing. I decided to test it by creating a suggestion for nerfing Shadow Form (since we know that will be there soon enough anyway). I got to the page create box with the template, but it won't let me type anything in, is that just cause I'm not a sysop? (Satanael 08:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Short answer - Yes. They work fine for me. -- Wyn talk 08:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

/farms to reach wiki lvl 20 (Satanael 08:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Actually the skill feedback system is one of the reasons why I don't think the current Arena Net portal works. Skill feedback today is basically a bunch of suggestions about changing skills; I think that would work better if the entire system is trashed, and skill-related suggestions become part of the GW1 suggestions system. I did forget about the "website suggestions" thing, but I have changed the looks of the bugs section because I don't really agree with how much space the localization bugs take today. IMO, something that small should be, in the portal, something below text bugs, not a section taking more space than all the other bug-related links. Erasculio 10:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(reset Indent) Another needed page would be the normal GWW Mainpage. When we actually do get this feedback system up and running, are we going to make a section for it on the Wiki Main Page? I can probably make up a quick preview if thats the case.--Neithan Diniem 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking about it, doing that would make the feedback main page almost not needed, Maybe a link to the feedback space under the Community section would be better?--Neithan Diniem 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We can deal with how to link the feedback area on the main page later, it will be easier to figure out once we have finalized what pages are in the space in the first place, plus it would probably be more appropriate to discuss it here.

As for the skill feedback area, I don't really have a strong opinion about skill feedback because I have never really spent much time there. The only worry I have (and maybe this is unfounded) is if there would be such a volume of skill feedback that it would drown out the other GW1 feedback. Also, from what I understand, the devs currently like the way skill feedback is handled, in particular because it is organized by prof and then skill. That way, for example, if they decide that Rits are underpowered, one of the things they can look at is which rit skills are getting the most complaints, or just to generally browse what people are saying about rit skills. And they can also easily see which particular skills are getting the most complaints (e.g., they just go to Shadow Form and the text wall is immediately apparent). Would it still be easy for them to do those kinds of things if we lumped skill feedback in with the rest of GW1 feedback? (Satanael 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

I would be extremely happy if we could not take two steps back for each step foward we make. IMO it has always been obvious that the suggestions to change GW skills would become a part of the GW suggestions; the current skill feedback system not only is rather messy, but we haven't heard from the person who the system was originally aimed for other than that he's too busy with GW2 right now, so we really have no reason to keep the system as it is right now. Splitting GW suggestions in "section without skill feedback" and "section with skill feedback" feels extremely pointless to me.

Also, as a more personal note, I have been giving examples of skill feedback ideas inserted in the GW suggestions tables since at least June 12nd, and others had mentioned having such feedback as part of the suggestions system before. It would have been rather nice if people had complained about merging the feedback system with the suggestions system then, instead of ignoring all that and deciding to question this subject now. I can barely believe the skill feedback system was even created on the new Feedback space. Erasculio 15:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that angered you eras, but as I said I do not have strong opinions about this, and I was only pointing out some observations. Those concerns I raised are not, in my opinion, dealbreakers. I only pointed them out so that we may be able to consider what some of the pros of the current system are and whether or not we can preserve those in any new system we implement.

I did not raise these thoughts before because, for one, we were discussing other issues and raising more would only convolute the discussion, and two, even if we were to keep skill feedback separate from GW1 suggestions, GW1 suggestions could still have a "skill system" category (e.g., SF feedback on the SF page, suggestions to allow the use of 10 skills in the GW1 suggestions area).

Again, my opinions on this are not that strong, so unless someone else has strong feelings on the matter, I see no reason why we can not proceed more or less as you say. (Satanael 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

I also have no strong feeling on this, if Skill suggestions are going to have a separate category in the suggestions area, fine, however, they do need to be able to be easily accessed separately, without digging through the mass of other suggestions since skill updates happen much more often than content updates, and will more than likely get more use by Linsey on a regular basis. I only created the pages the way they were because I was trying to cover bases, and give us something to talk about and work on. I'm assuming it's ok to leave the bug reporting pages and localization pages with the same set up as they currently have in the ArenaNet namespace? -- Wyn talk 17:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If I read Eras right with regard to his localization complaint above, I think he was more concerned with the amount of space it took up on the Portal page rather than exactly how those bugs are organized and presented. (Satanael 18:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Honestly, I couldn't care less how they're displayed on the portal page. Feel free to hash out whatever you all want the portal to look like. All I care about is that the actual page structure and functionality works out well. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Task force revisited

After having a conversation with Emily in MSN today, it was decided that a separate usergroup for this was not going to be possible at this time. So, Erasculio and Satanael have been granted temporary sysop status for the purspose of working on this project. It was done with the belief they will not abuse the tools they will now have access to. -- Wyn talk 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wyn (and Emily)! I'm not even sure I'm going to understand all of the tools I will have access to, let alone abuse them... (Satanael 18:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Namespace organization

Since this project has now moved on from just a Suggestion page restructuring, and work has started in the new namespace, it's time for the discussion to become a bit more specific and structured. To that end, Guild Wars Wiki:Feedback organization. -- Wyn talk 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)