Guild Wars Wiki talk:Suggestion pages restructuring/Archive1

Preparation before the site notice

Okay, here we are! I think we should put the site notices up in the first week in March, this is the week after the election ends. Maybe on Wednesday, so there is a small pause between the election and the next site notice. The other thing is the deadline. As we put the site notice up far later than proposed in the beginning, 31st March is too early in my opinion. What about 30th April instead, or is that too late? poke | talk 17:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Setting the deadline to the end of April would allow plenty of discussion and a better chance of consensus, but we don't want to drag this out/beat a dead horse. Sometime from mid to late April would be fine. If we're looking for a set time, I'd say middle ground; about the 15th or so. -- Wandering Traveler 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wandering Traveler. The middle of April is what I was thinking for this. Erasculio 21:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. 15th April. poke | talk 22:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Are we putting the site notice deadline of April 15th for discussion of this restructuring, or is April 15th the date we put up the site notice regarding deletion? -- ab.er.rant 15:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We put up the site notice directly after the election. And then we have time until the deadline date for discussion, and if nothing changes, the suggestion pages will be deleted/moved. poke | talk 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Didn't we kinda agree below that we wouldn't set a deadline for discussion but for actual deletion, and that discussion can come up at any time until now and then if that date should be further away, or if nothing should be deleted. At least, that's what I've been thinking throughout all these discussions - we've already decided to go ahead and delete them (unless future discussion goes against that), we just needed a date. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I'm misreading your comment... "And then we have time until the deadline date for discussion" <-- I thought you meant the "deadline date [was] for discussion", not that we have time for discussion until the deadline date. ..just ignore me. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ignore what? poke | talk 13:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Preparation for after the site notice

I didn't want to write the introduction on this page thanks to how I woud likely add a strong focus on deleting everything, but there is one thing I don't agree with on the current article: "A deadline has to be set on which a consensus on all necessary topics should be reached". A deadline for a consensus has never worked, IMO, and I don't think it ever will. I do believe the previous discussion had a general agreement with deleting the suggestions as opposed to just locking them, thanks to the problems locking would have; so I think the deadline could be for deleting the suggestions, with of course a discussion here being able to delay and/or prevent it in case people voice their disagreement here. Erasculio 21:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that was basically what I meant, but we have to decide what exactly happens with the suggestions (#3 in the discussion list) poke | talk 22:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The CP discussion has already gone in favour of deletion, as Erasculio said. People can still object, delay, whatever, but at this point, that's what we're going with. We've gone forward many steps in regards to the "what we want to do" discussion - let's not go backwards and say we still need to discuss that :/ -- Brains12 \ talk 23:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to change the page. poke | talk 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed other text to use the word "remove" in order to convey that it is a agreed that they're going, but not what will be done with them. Backsword 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Xeeron gonna take all unclaimed pages? --JonTheMon 15:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe he mentioned that, yes. -- Wandering Traveler 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's noone objecting to Xeeron taking hold of any unclaimed pages, it should be mentioned on the project page. Unless someone doesn't want Xeeron to take them? (Terra Xin 02:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC))

If the pages will be moved to Xeeron's userspace, they should be used as if they're his, just like any other suggestion page (i.e. belonging to the creator), otherwise we're just shifting one namespace to another. -- Brains12 \ talk 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Make a new category for it

Srsly, if u guys r going to delete these pages, your going to have to make a category for user suggestions or something, because then A-net will definitely not read them. I mean, it would be insane to suggest that they would try to search random user pages just to see if they have a suggestions page, which could be full of absolute rubbish suggestions. Personally, I think the system right now is better than the system your proposing (even though right now it isn't good), but you have to be practical. I'm sure that many users of this wiki like to occasionally engage in a debate on how to fix certain things, and moving all suggestions to each userpage seems like you are cutting off the idea of community feedback. I mean, community feedback is constructed by a community discussing without bias the merits and demerits of each suggestion and then presenting this idea to A-net. Community feedback is not loads of people isolated from each others ideas and knowledge coming up with random suggestions in a load of different places.

I think that we should retain the suggestion pages and instead make some sort of voting system, where if a proposal gets a consensus (or near consensus, excluding trolls and idiots) then it goes onto a protected page where only sysops and bcrats can edit (this is just an idea), where A-net can read it and implement ideas or discard them. This way, they don't have to sort through loads of rubbishy ideas to find good ones. I suppose the only downside to this is that it needs lots of active participation by sysops and bcrats to monitor these pages.Crimmastermind 07:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is already a category set up Category:User game suggestions that contains 2 sub categories, Category:Guild Wars suggestions and Category:Guild Wars 2 suggestions. All of the currently linked personal idea pages are already in them. If you look at how the current user suggestion pages are linked in the suggestion page nav, you will see that they are easily reached by anyone wishing to read them. By placing them in userspace, it doesn't eliminate community feedback, the community is just as welcome to post on the user's suggestion talk page as they are on the current suggestion talk pages, the only change is that the suggestion itself will be protected from edits by anyone but the user who created it due to our User page policy that frowns on other people editing a user's page.

This is not a step that is being taken lightly, there have been months of discussion of this issue, which pretty thoroughly covered all other suggestions for managing the suggestion pages including polls, voting, committees, etc. Feel free to read through those discussions, they are linked on the proposal page. -- Wyn 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

so wyn basically what your saying is that this "discussion, opinions, objections, and alternative ideas are requested on the talk page in order to reach a consensus." is a lie and that this change is going to happen, regardless of anet feedback and the general users feed back. i don't know for sure but i thought you guys were still waiting a reply to know if they even read the suggestions how they are now. also this "new way" really really makes me think "the illusion that other people care but its ultimately useless." im going to have to agree with crimmastrmind and say that this "change" is horabad and that it wasnt thought out very well and that a better system ( i don't know what that is but i know its better then the current plan) is out there.75.172.46.207 09:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Resent ident since this isn't totally following the topic above but semi-related. Basically what I wanted to ask about is the point for asking for objections if it's already decided beyond at best, a slight delay? While I strongly agree with this particular action for many many reasons, I've always found it fairly disturbing that by the time a global notice is brought up, the decision is pretty much made and the people who may have been involved in affected sections may have never noticed. Some people on wiki are pretty secular and never visit it the community portal or other areas until the global notices pop up. Now I'm not sure if this was done, if it was, it completely invalidates my post and answers my concerns but in the future, is it possible to put a message on top of the sections that are being discussed while they are being discussed? PlacidBlueAlien 06:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The two main points are, 1: Maybe someone who wasn't part of the discussions that have already taken place has some amazing, fantastic idea that can make everyone happy that no one's thought of. Long shot, but possible. 2: To give people time to prepare for this to happen, to move any suggestions they've previously made into their userspace if they care to, to work out any tweaks to the plan that may arise as more people see it, and to just generally get used to the idea.

It's not a (near-)certainty that this will happen because anything's written in stone, but because it's unlikely there's anything left to say that everyone who's already gone around and around discussing this for months haven't already considered. Crimmastermind's comment, for example, isn't being dismissed because his opinion doesn't matter (it does, and so does yours, and so does 75.172's), but because it ignores that those concerns have already been taken into consideration. He suggests that the pages will be unfindable in userspace when we already have categories for them, and the proposal specifically states that ArenaNet:Suggestions will list them. He raises concerns that community feedback will be cut off, when the whole concept of userspace enables each user to allow as much or as little community feedback as they happen to want for their own suggestions. The concept of a voting system is also not a new idea to the conversation and generated a number of walls of text (long story short: wiki extensions to allow voting are extremely lacking, the vast majority of votes would be far too subjective, and the added workload would be monumental) - Tanetris 12:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also on that voting idea; it is not the community that decides what suggestions will make it into the game. All that is up to ArenaNet, they have to decide what really is a good idea, what fits into the game and what actually is possible. So we cannot really leave the decision what good or bad suggestions are to us, the community.

And as written on the restructuring page (I'm actually wondering if people actually read it..) the whole idea of the suggestions in the user space has good reasonings and will work (as categories and lists are already ready and working); but continuing the whole thing in the ArenaNet namespace is not "efficient". poke | talk 14:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

@75, that is not what I was trying to say at all, I was simply asking that the discussions that have already gone on be at least read and considered by people that are new to the discussion before it devolves into a repeat of history. If someone reads what has gone on before and finds reasons that have not come up before or has counter arguments that shed a new perspective on an idea that's great, but considering the months of discussion and the walls of text that have already been written, I personally think it's in the best interest of everyone that we continue moving forward rather than backwards. I never once said that the idea can't be suggested again, I would just like to see reasons why it should be reconsidered that haven't been brought up and discussed into the ground before. -- Wyn 15:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

can some1 explain something for me quickly

how will any 1 know u posted an idea on your userpage ive read the stuff but im still confused --Nick123 10:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Because you can put a link to your suggestion at the "central register" at ArenaNet:Suggestions. --Xeeron 11:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as well. So basically I have to copy the entire ArenaNet talk:AI bugs to my userspace since it will be deleted, and then everyone has to create their own AI bug page in their userspace and link to it on the suggestions space? If that's the case that would be a horrible idea. --Draikin 12:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Bug reports are not suggestions. As you see at the top of the page, this is only for Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 suggestions and has nothing to do with the bug reports (AI, quest, skill etc). No need to worry. - anja 12:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, in that case there's no problem :) --Draikin 13:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ty guys for telling me that i understand now --Nick123 14:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Should the suggestion pages be removed at all? What other options can we consider?"

"As of now, we still have not received an answer to our questions posed to ArenaNet users on how the namespace is seen by ArenaNet." 4th of the October... and still no answer. I asked someone(forgot who) if the new team was even reading these suggestions. As of now Im still riddled if they even look at it. The game has a long run. If the notion is that they are not read(like I feel about it) or if we get any evidence that they dont need it, just nuke 'em, I don't think they will read 100 users making different suggestions. Do they even need suggestion from players for updates anymore?--ShadowFog 02:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We could never seriously expect Anet to read those suggestions, but there was a big demand from the contributors so that's the main reason why it was set up. As for everything else that they should be reading... well, they should be reading it. Their level of community relations is something that all mmorpg's should have. (58.170.183.105 06:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Doesn't Matter , They Never Read Those Suggestion Pages

Just take a look in skill suggestion, do they really care the balance of this game? nope. Izzy cares? nope. Bspike and smite problem still exist in GvG. HB dead long time ago. RA sync problem....etc. Izzy doesnt care the balance, though the balance sux and he still get paid. Anet doesnt care the balance either , cuz we've already bought this game. They seems want us "play this imba lame game or leave." I think we should save our breath suggesting and let this game dead.--61.65.70.44 07:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Both times you said "dead" you meant "die(d)". Just saying. And you're completely right. Of all the suggestion pages I've looked at, only a handful have been commented on by Izzy, and none by any other A-Net employee. Updates suggest they're more interested in making "interesting" elites instead of balancing the myriad of badly made non-elite and remaining under-appreciated elite skills. People continued to move skills that weren't fixed to the "problems addressed" list even if nothing was done but a comment. Still, you may as well uninstall if you don't want to at least try to fix something. Bathory 08:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are confused, we are not talking about the skill feedback pages, they are not going anywhere, we are talking about the game suggestions for both GW and GW2. -- Wyn 13:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter as those aren't read either, especially with the new community manager, communication is worthless. The only thing this will achieve is turn it into private discussions of what could be cool or not. I'd scrap it alltogether. SniperFox 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether for good or bad, Izzy is no longer in control of balance, anyway, the Guild Wars Live Team is, and it says so right on Izzy's page. Izzy has moved on to GW2. Most of the live team is active on the wiki, but be sure to check their User: pages, not the ones linked from the live team page. --Falseprophet 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Viewed

Is there any way we could create a tag or something to let someone know that an A-Net employee has viewed their suggestions? Currently, we're relying on comments - and if they read one and have nothing to say about it we're S.O.L. I'm pretty fail at this wiki stuff - how do I make a page linked to my user-page (as the users in the example list have) and how is the list for this going to be displayed once the change is made? Bathory 08:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is up to ANet if they decide to somehow show that they read it, but I doubt that they will do it (it = marking the page). poke | talk 12:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, ArenNet has never commented about game suggestions since they were moved out of Gaile's userspace. -- Wyn 13:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's no way. I very much doubt that ArenaNet is going to waste their resources by having them read even a fraction of player suggestions. -- ab.er.rant 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got the understanding that player feedback was requested by Arena-Net. =\ If you believe that they never read our suggestions and don't care, why are you here? Bathory 14:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It was requested and it -used- to be somewhat read. That simply isn't the case any longer as far as anyone knows. The situation only worsened and the (limited) live team was left doing the real updating. Izzy, at first, responded when the skill balances used to be on his talk page albiet not very consistently. Then he found it to be much too time consuming and tried a private forum for top tiered players but that proved to be a bit too much as well. Andrew Patrick also left as the PvP community liason which means the state of guild wars is in worse condition than it was before - the helping hands are too busy with GW2 and all we have is Regina who takes up after Gaile and doesn't show all that much initiative in the PvP realm. I'm not sure of this is a good or a bad thing. I'm sure they care in some remote sense of the word but are unable or unwilling to show it. Tsun tsun... PlacidBlueAlien 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I think people are lumping too many things into this discussion. It was Gaile Grey that started encouraging players to post game content suggestions on the wiki in her userspace when she was CRM, when she moved to support, that was no longer appropriate, so they were moved into the ArenaNet namespace and became 'community property'. It is only the game content suggestions that this proposal to remove is concerned with. There will still be skill feedback, and bug reporting pages (which are commented on by QA staff regularly), just not game content suggestions. Since they have been moved to ArenaNet namespace, no employee from ArenaNet has commented on them. -- Wyn 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, Placid. You, however, Wyn, have just made things twice as confusing. The project page links here, which includes userpage lists for game content ranging from Skills, AI and new items...So they have to be effected by the change because they're what's listed there. What's left of game content? Graphics? =S Bathory 22:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to confuse. If you look at ArenaNet:Portal, the ONLY portion that is being considered for change/removal is ArenaNet:Suggestions, not the skill feedback (for addressing balance, skill changes etc.), or the bug reporting pages (for reporting other bugs that need fixing). The suggestions are more like everyone's 'wish list' of things that aren't in the game, but they would like to have in the game, or things they would like to see included in Guild Wars 2. I was trying to address the comments regarding Izzy, who used to deal with skill balance, which really has little if anything to do with the pages that are going to be removed/moved. Basically, Placid's comments have little to do with the actual subject under consideration. -- Wyn 22:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have influence on what people actually suggest in their personal suggestion area. Fact is however that only the core game suggestions will be affected by this restructuring plan. If you read the introduction on this page, you will see that very clearly. poke | talk 22:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading the suggestion pages and commenting on them are two different things. Just because they didn't comment on a suggestion doesn't mean it wasn't read. Izzy rarely comments on suggestions on his pages but every now and then he does. He obviously reads a lot more of the suggestions than he comments on. The same with Gaile when she did the weekly community summaries. She would often include forum posts or feedback she was given without specifically stating to those people she would do so. 122.105.155.6 09:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I Object

1. I object total deletion of the GW2 suggestion pages.
2. I suggest that they be archived.
3. I like userpage-based structure.
4. I think there should be a poll.
5. I think the Notice is bias because it says the pages will be removed instead of lets discuss this. I know objections and discussion is a part of the notice but when I read it, its goes like this April 15th all suggestion pages will be removed. I think it should read, Guild Wars Wiki, GW2 suggestion pages need a restructuring. Discussion and opinions are welcome, a removal of the pages were suggested, read the discussion why it was deem necessary to be remove here(link) and post your opinions and discussion here on the talk page(link) in order to reach a consensus.

Pumpkin pie 05:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Going through by the numbers: 1: Why? 2: If you (or anyone else) currently have suggestions you want kept, you can move them to your userspace and they won't be affected by the change. 3: Okay. 4: For what purpose? Wiki is not a democracy. Decisions are made by reasonable arguments and consensus, not by headcount. 5. That's because it is biased toward that result. Unless the discussion in the meantime leads to some other clear result, that's what's going to happen and when it's going to happen, because that's the consensus of the people that have been discussing this so far for months now. - Tanetris 05:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

1&2: Yeah, that is why Xeeron agreed to adopt all suggestion pages that are not moved by others into his user space. 3: Everything's fine then, huh? 4: As Tanetris said, what about? 5: Well, not really. It was decided that they will be removed, and now it is open for discussion, and people - like you - are free to give valid reasons why that should not happen. Also a notice that sounds like that gets quite more people interested in the topic ;) poke | talk 09:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey the notice says opinions and alternative ideas those are exactly what they are, my opinions and alternative ideas. And why should these pages be remove, locking the pages and letting it stay that way is fine in my opinion. What will removing the Suggestion pages achieve exactly? Because no one is looking after them? so lock it like its is now. Does it bother you so much that there must be "total annihilation to that page?" Pumpkin pie 11:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering they aren't being deleted, but adopted by Xeeron, I don't see the issue. While current pages can be 'locked' as you put it, there would be no way to stop people from creating new ones in the ArenaNet namespace. This simply makes it clear that if they wish to create suggestion pages, they need to do it in their own user space, and take responsibility for them. Also, since this is the Guild Wars wiki, Guild Wars 2 suggestions don't really belong in the first place. -- Wyn 13:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(but they are better here than on GW2W where nobody will watch them :P) poke | talk 14:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I also object. I don't see the harm in these pages being there so much so that they should be removed. At least two of the reasons to remove them will become guaranteed consequences of their movement to user name space.

Current problems cited as reasons for removal which will either remain or increase:

1) Arena Net doesn't read them. How do you expect Arena Net to read them if you move them to userspace? Instead of being in one designated space on the wiki they will be spread all over user pages hidden away from view. Although the category will help, this doesn't solve the stated perception that Arena Net doesn't read them. Also, how many people do you think are going to leave the category off of their userspace suggestion page?

2) Duplicate suggestions. Unless users sniff around other user page suggestions this will still be a problem and will become a step in the wrong direction. Binding users to their suggestions means that everyone who wants to suggest mounts for GW2 will have a separate suggestion. This would create tonnes of duplicate suggestions which will result in reading them all nearly impossible.

3) Putting them in user space removes community input except for small groups of wiki users who commonly comment on each other's pages. This will lead to a skewed representation of the community.

4) Organize their suggestions however they like sounds like a less structured and less constructive format for suggestions than we currently have.

5) How should we deal with suggestions created outside of an individual's userspace, particularly in the talk pages of ArenaNet users (considering their talk pages explode in size relatively quickly)? - I refer you to Lynsey Murdock posting rule number 4. "Suggestions pertaining to Guild Wars can be posted here, but not for Guild Wars 2."

6) Overprotection or ownership of a posted suggestion. Conflict and revert wars are a consequence of having a system which allows interaction between two users. The only way to get rid of this is to remove the interaction, which this proposal would to do. This makes suggestions static and less representative of a community collaboration. The benefits of a community proposed suggestion will be lost.

Considering the above reasons were given for why the current proposal of deletion should be taken, when effectively it is a far worse alternative as far as these reasons are concerned, I don't agree deletion is a superior option.

Other reasons this is a bad idea:

1) Not everyone has or wants an account. This is an avoidable and unnecessary requirement for the purpose of the suggestion pages and thus should be avoided. This option would likely decrease the number of suggestions but in a bad way. If you have 10,000 suggestions and 6,000 of them are bad, reducing them by 6,000 doesn't make the remaining suggestions better. It just reduces the sample size. Assume 60% of registered user suggestions are good and 60% of unregistered users are good. Reducing the number of unregistered users in now way increases the quality of suggestions.

2) This will almost certainly lead to an increase in spammed suggestions over and over again on Arena Net staff pages. Considering at least one of them has been frozen completely from edits due to over-usage, this would further increase the strain on these talk pages and reduce effective communication with Arena Net staff.

3) There has been an expressed desire, even if it wasn't a commitment to reading them (although I believe this to be implied), to maintain the GW suggestion pages from Arena Net staff. Having no superior alternative to a feature which clearly has a demand, the suggestion pages should stay.

4) As far as it it being difficult to "to find a good way to organize and maintain them," very little has been attempted in the way to make them work, as evidence by their almost static structure since their conception.

5)Most of the dissatisfaction with suggestion pages seems to come from wiki admin. This is in clear and stark contrast to the "many hundreds of suggestion pages" that have been created. How a consensus for the deletion of a feature so popular is conceivably possible let alone assumed is confusing.

If deletion were to go ahead the only way I can see consensus was made is by a core group of admin and wiki users who take greater interest in the wiki than the average user and thus general users won't bother to comment. Although I recognise the warning on all pages, the sentence "On April 15th, all game suggestion pages within the ArenaNet namespace will be removed and a new userpage-based structure will be implemented," implies the decision has been made and there is no point contesting it to most people. Considering the option to object is later mentioned perhaps rephrase the opening sentence to reflect this.

This is already too long so I will just summarise now without increasing the list. This proposal seems like an attempt to sweep suggestions under the rug of user space rather than a genuine attempt to increase their efficiency and effectiveness. I can see two "positives" out of this proposal. There will be less conflicts between users over suggestions, at the cost of user interaction and collaboration over suggestions. There will be less suggestions period, which will reduce the number of garbage suggestions, conflicts, duplicates etc. But it will also reduce the number of positive suggestions and hard work on community collaborated suggestions. A third possible "positive" is it will reduce the perceived work load of admin, a voluntary position, at the cost of the two above consequences as well. The suggestion pages are designed to allow any person who loves the game enough to want to make it better with an idea. They allow anyone to comment on this idea and add to it giving reasons why they agree or disagree and discussing advantages. These ideas are all collected in place easy to find for everyone, including arena net. The deletion proposal removes these vital elements that make the suggestions pages valuable and creates new problems or enhances old ones with the only mitigating factor being at least the problems are under the rug now. I oppose this consensus. 122.105.155.6 09:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's begin commenting your comment ;) First of all: "This proposal seems like an attempt to sweep suggestions [...] rather than a genuine attempt to increase their efficiency and effectiveness." - Well, yes, you can understand that like this if you like. Because fact is that the suggestions have no efficiency; They are most probably not read by ANet, they are not really maintained by anyone, a lot of them do not contain real suggestions, and we have a lot duplicates as nobody is interested of what has been suggested before. So basically the new structure is like a proposal to get rid of the suggestions as they are not worth the work we have with them (drastically said).

Okay, I'll go through your list number by number now, A for the first list, and B for the second.

A1. We have the automatically generated list where all suggestions will be listed, when the user added the category. So they can be found, and we can even show more information, or for example implement some status template that users can add on their page to put in basic information to explain what their suggestions are about in very short (to categorize the suggestions a bit). And if people forget the category, it is really just their own fault. The reason for the userpage-based structure is to make them more responsible of their own suggestions.

A2. We have many duplicate suggetions now already because, as I already said, people don't even think of looking through the other suggestions to look if there are similar or even the same suggestions already. So that will not change anything.

A3. As subpages linked using the automatically generated list, everybody will be able to leave comments, including unregistered users.

A4. Our currently used structure is not always a good idea, and still leaves too many liberties how to put the content in while in the same way restricting them to a fixed overall design. With our new structure people can add more details, with tables or graphics or whatever they think will help to make their suggestion well structured. Also they can put multiple suggestions on one page if they like.

A5. It was Linsey's decision to allow that, so if she really wants to deal with suggestions she will have to live with it; but she can of course change her rules if she noticed that there will be too many suggestions.

A6. People can change their suggestions if people have better ideas - or they can leave them how they are if they don't agree with it.

B1. There is no disadvantage if people register on the wiki, that will only help to increase their anonymity. So if they really want to add suggestions, they can just register - or simply go on any possible fansite forum and leave suggestions there. That is and was always the preferred way to suggest things.

B3. ANet won't make the effort to offer an official way to make game suggestions, that is just too much work so it won't ever happen.

B4. That is not true. We had a lot of endless discussions about how we could improve the suggestion system; all tries failed and in the end people preferred to get rid of the suggestions at all. So we got to the userpage system, which is a good compromise in my opinion.

B5. No, a lot of the active users, not just admins, have taken part in the discussion and decided so.

Also I want to add that "remove" is not the same as "delete". The existing suggestion pages won't disappear, they will be removed from their current location, yes, but will still stay available for people interested to read. poke | talk 16:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1. "Also, how many people do you think are going to leave the category off of their userspace suggestion page?" This goes back to "if they wish to create suggestion pages, they need to do it in their own user space, and take responsibility for them."
2. "This will almost certainly lead to an increase in spammed suggestions over and over again on Arena Net staff pages." See User talk:Isaiah Cartwright. If it becomes a problem, this leaves a half a dozen pages to deal with rather than hundreds.
3. "Putting them in user space removes community input" What poke and I have both said. Being in userspace doesn't preclude community input, it simply stops the community from being able to change them due to our Userpage policy that restricts editing of userpages to the User that owns them.
4. "very little has been attempted in the way to make them work" On the contrary, see the months of discussions that have occurred regarding how to make these better and more workable.
5. "Most of the dissatisfaction with suggestion pages seems to come from wiki admin" Again I point you to the months of discussions that have lead to this. Not only have admins participated, many users who have been active in trying to maintain them.

"If deletion were to go ahead the only way I can see consensus was made is by a core group of admin and wiki users who take greater interest in the wiki than the average user and thus general users won't bother to comment." This is the way of the wiki, ALL decisions are made by the people who take greater interest in the wiki and care to comment, from policy decisions to formatting decisions to content decisions to election of admins. With the tens of thousands of registered users alone, there is no way to get EVERYONE's input unless they decide to care enough to comment. -- Wyn 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The simple choice to use the suggestion page over creating suggestions in name space should indicate an opposition to this proposal. If someone leaves off the category it is no indication of the quality of their suggestion. This point needs to be made because most people have very basic wiki knowledge. The months of discussion is just that, discussion. It isn't reflected with actions - the actual formatting, structure and function of suggestion pages has been static for most of their existence. It's like the smiter's boon nerf. Most of the discussion has actually been sympathetic to deletion from the very beginning. Deletion does not solve the problem, it merely moves it. Any perceived benefits will simply be due to decreased. People are citing concerns about them being read. How is deleting them and only allowing them to be made in userspace using the same system but with less collective input dealing with this problem? How are we solving duplicate suggestions? The perception we are replacing this with anything at all is also misleading as people have aways been free to create suggestion pages in user name space, all we are doing is removing one option. The current pages aren't a problem, use them or don't use them, you have a choice - it's not like the proposal is going to solve the problems better. We aren't fixing anything here. The current system has titles and headings for suggestions, the user page suggestion has "UserName's suggestion" which is far less descriptive and could have anything inside it. It will almost certainly lead to more duplicate pages than we currently have only the location will be user space and not elsewhere. Still oppose. I see value in the current system, we have no reason to believe none of them are read and this simply doesn't solve any of the problems it merely reduces usage and thus symptoms but doesn't solve anything. 122.105.155.251 17:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to deal with the concerns of "are they being read or not" that is solely on ArenaNet. Regina herself has indicated that fansite forums are a better way of hosting suggestions, and are visited by ArenaNet staff almost daily. One of the major concerns with the current structure is the 'community property' structure of the ArenaNet namespace which allows anyone to make changes to the article pages if they feel it would improve them. This has lead to many user to user issues and has in many cases lead to bans. Moving them to userspace would elminiate this as only the original poster would be able to edit the original suggestion. The current system only allows for management of duplicate suggestions if the posters bother to go through the archives and lists of previous suggestions, which few do, and many feel that while another suggestion might be like theirs, theirs is actually unique so worth posting. This leads to being tagged for deletion anyway. As for making changes to how the current system is structured, yes, it has been discussion, and the entire GW Suggestion area was changed several months ago, the other ideas discussed were determined to be less viable so never implemented. We have approached ArenaNet on several occasions asking for their input and asking if there were any viable alternatives they could implement or suggest, and the only answer we have ever received is Regina saying no, they weren't going to implement anything, and that we should direct people to fansite forums. -- Wyn 17:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 122.105.155.6 on many points, but I also see the point you wiki-admins are making. The thing is, the only problem with the current system that will actually be solved or in some way be improved is the user-user edit-conflicts. None of the other problems will be solved, like 122.105.155.6 pointed out. In most cases (like availability for anyone to leave suggestions) it will be drastically worse, not to mention it'll take a big effort and wiki-knowledge from each and every person leaving a suggestion for a proposed infobox-template-like presentation (with user, suggestion, brief description etc) in the category-view. And without it, almost all aspects would be severely worse.

So all in all, don't sugarcoat it -- Yes, handling the suggestions would be much easier, especially for the wiki-admins, but in almost all other aspects, it'll require a lot more knowledge and effort to even remotely reach the same availability and coherency in the new "suggested" structure. So a lot more work, for a lot less ...

- Kherec 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh no, the only thing people have to do is adding the category, not more not less. I don't think that requires a lot wiki-knowledge. And please leave out the "admins". In this and every other discussion on the wiki, comments from admins don't have more influence than everybody else. And the work with the suggestion pages was the same for everybody that worked with them, not only admins but every user that helped there. poke | talk 13:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

While "just adding a category" may seem like a small thing to you, far from everyone would immediately think to add it. Also, the category would just ensure a huge, rather unmanagable (and definately not good in an 'overview' sense) list of links. It will not show any kind of description as to what suggestions are on each page and you would have to open up a lot of links and wade threw each page in order to get an overview on what has been suggested. That's why in almost every aspect, it'll be anything but an improvement.

- Kherec 15:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's why there will be clear and easy to follow instructions of how to create a suggestion page in your userspace. Also an easy to use template has been discussed that would allow for the automatic addition of a suggestion summary to be added to the linked list. I believe that it is necessary to make people who care to post suggestions take the responsibility for maintaining them. Several members of the community have tried to help maintain order in the ArenaNet namespace, but with the hundreds of suggestions that come in, it gets overwhelming fast. -- Wyn 15:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to continue arguing, but when the dust settles, it'll mean a lot more job for individual users making the suggestions, with no apparent gain as far as availablility or overview. Apart from the move to userpages (and the complete removal of the edit-conflict problems), I have trouble seeing improvements, only more work. But, I'll gladly be proven wrong when this is implemented :)

- Kherec 15:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

More work for the posters, yes, but less work for those who clean up and maintain the wiki ("regular" users as well as admins). I don't see the more work for posters as something negative, this means each poster has to care about their suggestion to post it. Before, we have had a lot of posters who simply post one line, hardly describing the suggestion, and then never revisits the page. How does that make for good suggestions? Posting suggestions is not a right we as users have, it's a priviledge. :) - anja 16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One should take into account that the purpose of the suggestions area is, arguably, to appease the crowd. It probably doesn't carry substantial weight with ArenaNet, and without any response from them, it's hard to assign a useful purpose to the area (considering we're doing all the work for supposedly their benefit, without knowing whether that work is useful or not). By carrying out this restructuring, we're saying "we're not hosting an 'official' suggestions area anymore, but if you want to make suggestions, feel free to put them in your userspace". One should also remember that this isn't a big part of the wiki - suggestion-making should be a side-project or minor aspect of this wiki, but the current ArenaNet-namespace suggestions area seems to portray that we're the central hub for ArenaNet suggestions and feedback, when more appropriate (and likely better viewed) places exist. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not that you are wrong. You aren't; it will be more work for the user making the suggestion. But the thinng is; this is what is so desirable about it. Not just the principle that one should take responibility for ones own action, but also that the work it saves can be put into improving the wiki, and that the quality will be higher if people are forced to think before acting. In short; we want people to be invested in their suggestions. Backsword 02:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I object too. I use the pages a lot and they have helped me to progress throughout the game. Pages should not be removed. (User: Brennus of Rome) 12 March 2009--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:87.11.220.69 (talk).

The suggestion pages have helped you through the game? How have they helped? Surely you mean the main pages have helped you through. The suggestion pages are just things that people have suggested they don't exist in the game.- TheRave (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I'm reading, I'm gonna go Confucius on you and say that you're all pointing out problems in this solution, rather than actually coming up with a solution to the problem. Less talk more action. If you don't want the suggestions deleted, then make a counter-solution. At this point in time, you should very seriously start typing out an alternative structure to the one that we're using at the moment. Most of the people that have been working on the suggestions are in general consensus for their removal. Convince us that there's a realistic alternative and maybe you'll get some heads turned your way. (Terra Xin 14:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

It could work

At first I was against the idea, but after reviewing it again I am now in agreement with it.

Since it remains unknown if ArenaNet staff has ever bothered to read these suggestions to begin with, it really is a moot point as to whether the pages will be moved to this location or that.

I say to go ahead and make the change. Flipper 04:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Skill feedback

Does this include skill feedback pages? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, only ArenaNet:Suggestions. Skill feedback and Bug reports will still be there -- Wyn 03:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a red box for this. --Antioch 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the bold links and the text at the beginning of the page would be clear. poke | talk 16:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Giant bold text doesn't seem to stop pepole from posting on the wrong Help: space either. Neither will a red box, but it did bring some awareness on the Admin Noticeboard and the Help:Account (personal info). --Antioch 16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is going to work for those that have already decided to not read the page. No matter what formating one uses. Backsword 18:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

just a thought

I am one of those users with minimal knowledge of wiki mechanics.

Could the users be supplied with a set of templates to structure user suggestions by category/subcategory so that they could be automatically sorted and referenced from a main page? I see this is the basic system currently in place.

Personally, I would like to see the suggestion main page in a tree structure, with individual suggestions given two or three lines of summary text linking to the actual user suggestion. Such a structured system will cut down on duplicate posts. ( I guarantee I would post less on forum boards if I could find an answer without searching years of archives for key words ) Allow others to offer comments to the post that the owner may accept or decline.

Also, add a system of user voting to filter suggestions that amount to nothing more than flames and complaining. A suggestion that gets a thumbs-down vote drops to the bottom of the sort order. Good votes move it up. This does not delete any post, it just moves junk to the back of the line.

I think devs would actually read suggestions if they could find what they were looking for specifically without having to filter through complaints, rants, and personal vandettas carried out on a public board.

VictorStrong 17:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)VictorStrong

As discussed before, voting isn't a plausible system on a wiki - it's not easy to implement such a thing, and if it was, it probably wouldn't be effective. Something to understand is that comments, complaints, flames or whatever would go on a talk page, not the suggestion userpage itself - people viewing those suggestions wouldn't have to view those comments (which makes it unlike a forum).

Your first suggestion could work though, and it's similar to what will be implemented - suggestion pages in the userspace will be categorised, and those categorised pages would be automatically listed on ArenaNet:Suggestions. Currently, the thought process seems to be one category for Guild Wars suggestions and another for Guild Wars 2 suggestions; whether or not we want multiple subcategories (e.g. suggestions about items, UI, game mechanics etc) is still something to be discussed. I'm not fussed either way. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

As I proposed earlier it would be quite easy to make some template that allows users to add short information about their suggestions that will be displayed next to their entry in the suggestion list. Or even categorization or complex what-ever would work quite well. The good thing is that such things can be implemented at a later state when we have an idea of how this whole userpage structure is accepted and working.

Btw. I never tried it but I know this website being specialized to suggestions and feedback on GW. So maybe that is an appropriate place to add suggestions. poke | talk 17:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is one of the sites that are currently linked to as an alternative on ArenaNet:Suggestions (http://guildwars.grupthink.com/) along with the fansite list. -- Wyn 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Difference Between Talking and Listening

Talking is what people on a Wiki do. (or posting, etc.) Listening is what people on a Forum do. (at least one hopes :)

Would not HAVING A FORUM dedicated to suggestions (or as part of a forum) fix many of these kinds of problems?

Last time I checked, using a Wiki for suggestions is like opening up the official bulletin board at work (where they post those OSHA warnings etc.) for anyone's Avon bulletin, or what not. That is, not a good idea.

But then, that's just a suggestion.

The wiki is more for documenting the game then anything. The suggestions come second. Besides, I'm sure there are forms out there that take care of this. -- Wandering Traveler 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the exact reason for this change. The wiki is the worst medium for posting suggestions. It's been said by everyone including Regina, that suggestions should be posted on the fansite forums. It's just that because this is the official wiki sponsored by ArenaNet, people think their posts here carry more weight (which they don't). -- Wyn 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, if Anet were truly interested in player feedback then they would have an official place for it. They don't. It's naive to think that any of the fansite forums carry any weight as far as ideas go. About the only thing that may be read and acted on, are posts about abuse in some way, shape or form.

So of course those who care try to post here, after all, it's the only official place to post anything, even if it's a wiki.

- Kherec 18:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Arenanet namespace/ userpage based structure union

Why not link and connect or conjoin both the arenanet namespace and the userpage based structure to one designated space. Why not the best of both structures.?? If not I energetically suggest archiving arenanet. I strongly object to deletion of the arenanet information due to lots of good and better data being lost for ever which took time to build that data/information even though there might be some bad info. I can not say much more because I do not use these pages much but when I do it is to learn what I"m doing wrong or why I can't find something someting after X's and X's....s of times of playing the same quest or mission.--Pma 12:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"when I do it is to learn what I"m doing wrong or why I can't find something someting after X's and X's....s of times of playing the same quest or mission" - Uh what? Are you sure that you understood that this is about game suggestions from players? Our articles and everything will remain as it is. poke | talk 13:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ArenaNet:Guild Wars suggestions and ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions are the only areas affected. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete or not Delete?

Ah.. It is so good too be back in the middle (or rather an end) of a Shakespearean proportion dilemma ! Actually, it is not a dilemma, for decision has been already made and 'concesus' has been reached.

I am writing this topic for users like Pumpkin Pie and 122.105.155.6 who still may seem to believe that their passion can make any difference. Your objections are objected.

It's like in a Matrix movie: the choice have already been made and we come to this discussion page to understand it. "Everything that has a beginning has an end", 'an anomaly' finally realized in a third movie and has submitted to the cause. But despair not my faithful comrades with great ideas, which you cannot let go yet, and I say yet, because if you read to the end you will. Because you and your ideas have served their purpose. You must submit to the deletion. Here is why:

1. It is false that ArenaNet did not read your suggestions, they did. They created the very first version of the page in their own space, which said: "Welcome to the Guild Wars 2 suggestions pages. This is the place where you get to let ArenaNet know what you want to happen with their upcoming game. They might listen, they might not - but that's all part of the fun." Key word here is 'fun'. For creative people fun is in creating new ideas, so there is nothing to complain about: You had your fun contributing your ideas. It is the same idea as with TV stations creating children Website offering them making their own animations. Kids creative ideas are getting assimilated into new production movies; or when card companies folks come into school 'challenging' kids creativity on inventing new card product names and features, of which they would never think themselves. The best stuff in the World is free!

2. It is true that they almost never commented to the suggestions, but only because of their policy of interaction with users and because of the purpose of these suggestion pages, as well as because they would never want to be involved or complicated by showing their interest in an idea. When they did, they would not do it as registered users. One of them anonymously complained: "Even just adding different story line elements would require a lot of work. What motivates a "good" character is often quite different from an "evil" one. Even just a simple Good/evil division could lead to doubling the work needed by the writing, dialog and cutsceen staff. Adding more nuanced alignments adds further work. Any alignment specific quests arising from respective story lines is again more work....[more complains of how difficult this is]" The key word here is 'work', that is how we know it was a developer's complain because gamers do not care about developers' work. This one was told to take a look at a particular suggestion by one of the people who are in charge of making the game interesting for users (architects, creative directors and such) and responsible for analyzing all these suggestions.

3. Now it is time to remove all these ideas. Reason one: the amount of the ideas given for GW2 is enough for making it a sequel up to GW4. Reason 2: They already have documented everything that seem to them of value and need to get on with the production and release of what they can release, for they are already late with GW2, and competition does not sleep, and they can loose most of the gamers if they do not do the release soon enough.

4. Why it is happening the way it is? User spaces cannot be deleted in a Wiki, so if someone cherishes their ideas they can do it within their user space limit (which is really small). But by doing so those authors can forget about their ideas being implemented in a game. At least in a way it is described because the company would not want to admit the fact that the idea came from outside of it. On the other hand, other spaces can be deleted, even though someone swears to you that "nothing is deleted in a Wiki and this is not a Wiki way". The deletion removes imaginable liability from a company that maintained these pages for so long by the work of Admins who were trying to help organizing them for a better use of a reading time of those in a company responsible for game design. These deletion voids any further complications. Copying all 'unclaimed' suggestions to someone else's user space serves the same purpose because it de-links company sponsored content from user only content. That is also why there is a hard date for deletion: the development must go on without hanging complications.

My personal choice is not to move my suggestions to my user space. I want to think of a possibility for them to be used in a game and even knowing that they may not be exactly like I have imagined, there is a chance for them to be included in a game if they are deleted now. Their purpose has been served. The only way to have a chance to influence the decisions of the game design is to work for this company in an architect/designer role and come up with an 'insider' proposals, but they have only developers positions posted at the moment...

Having this opportunity I would like to thank those who commented on my ideas: Invisible Infinate Spear Bag, NUKLEAR IIV and others... Unfortunately, their good comments will be deleted as well as opposed to be archived in my user space...

Good day to all!

HH LEADER talk 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, none of the suggestions that have not been tagged for deletion for legitimate reasons are being deleted they are all going to be moved to Xeeron's userspace. Secondly, this proposal has absolutely nothing to do with any ArenaNet liability if a suggestion gets implemented in the game. It's strictly a wiki maintenance issue. The entire problem is the massive amount of dedicated time it takes to monitor and maintain suggestions in a community property namespace as well as the user to user conflicts that seem to run rampant when they are edited by the community. As has been explained repeatedly, by confining suggestions to userspace, it more or less forces the poster to take responsibility for their own suggestions, maintaining them, participating in discussion about them, and developing them further as discussion progresses, as opposed to those who simply post an idea and walk away. -- Wyn 17:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wyn. I do not see any reason to move anything to Xeeron space. I oppose this solution. This effectively removes users who created these suggestions from their rights. And how come Xeeron's space can include tons of the pages, their attached discussions including archived ones and mine, for instance, can't? The history of author and community chages also will be effectively deleted. All the inappropriate merges done by the Admins that in certain cases were throwing the baby out with the bath water will be preserved in their ugliness.

You see, in a this Wiki as Brains12 said in one of the archived discussions (it is not a quote) there are only 2 types of users: the ordinary ones and Admins, where ordinary users have no rights and Admins have all the rights. On this very page Tanetris puts it even more bluntly: "Wiki is not a democracy." Well, this by itself is not a problem. Admin performs 2 very important functions: "preserve integrity" and "search and destroy anomalies". This person becomes a member of an elite community, whose opinion is always be the last word said on the matter and they are given powers to disable users, remove and merge content, create categories, etc. The members of this elite community protect and support each other and their elite status. This by itself is not a problem either and is known phenomenon in every society.

The problem is that Admins should concentrate on their main functions as listed above and surrender their status as members of an ordinary community users and they don't.

What happens with the suggestions is that they are not a game documentation, on which the Admins should be solely concentrated, they are ideas targeted to not yet released product and bear certain properties of Intellectual rights, or at least so perceived by the idea creators. Creation of this section in ArenaNet Namespace was appropriate, but it was an overall mistake on ArenaNet behalf. Admins have assumed the ownership of the ideas like they were ordinary content or their own and started sorted, merging, archiving, scratching, classifying like they were in the sits of an ArenaNet creative directors. On the way some of them have harassed users who were not doing good job in their opinion. It is no wonder that with no sign that ArenaNet will somehow react to any of the suggestions and with many of them ran down by merging efforts, users have "walked away".

You say: "conflicts ...seem to run rampant when they are edited by the community". Can Admins remember once and for all that they are elite community and cannot associate themselves with ordinary users community? Ordinary users leave comments on the discussion page of the idea while Admin goes ahead and presents own version of the idea that has nothing to do with those two that were merged, or simply scratches it, or leaves a comment like "advertise your idea on your own user page" and since Admins are intelligent and may have ideas on their own, there is a clear conflict of interest in this particular instance, but on a short term authority wins.

Now when Admins have finally realized that they have failed to fill big creative directors' shoes they turn the mess they have created back to the users who have gone in desperation from Wiki and from the game. Admins who abused their power are real ArenaNet liability for in this instance they did great disservice to ArenaNet and the gamers community. And continue doing so by not listening to the objections given on this page.

Unless it is a directive from ArenaNet there is no reason to move or delete any of the suggestions, their history and discussions which are inseparable parts of them. Unless it was ArenaNet directive no one was asking to maintain, classify or otherwise alter any of the suggestions in a first place. Don't tell me that it was done just for a fun of it. Simply archive them like it was done in the past and say: "Suggestions are now closed and archived here (link). They may reopen after game release (or not)." Admins do not have to maintain anything in this section anymore. I hope this solution will address your maintenance concerns.

Regards,

HH LEADER talk 15:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick couple of points: the 2 sets of users are: Involved users (includes admins) and uninvolved users. That's it. Also, the wiki isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy; everybody gets a voice, but those who have proven themselves and are involved have a stronger voice. Xeeron isn't just claiming all the suggestions, he's claiming all unclaimed suggestions. So, if you have a userspace and want your suggestions, move them to your space. Everybody is free to do that. And moving keeps attribution. --JonTheMon 15:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A stronger voice? But what measure? More equal than others... I heard that somewhere... As for keeping my suggestions to my space, I've heard about this many times now. No news. To claim something that is unclaimed ... sounds like finders - keepers. Should I play this game too? Will I have a fair chance to compete for this with Xeeron? 74.15.90.229 18:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If a user jumps into a conversation for the first and only edit of their account to give their opinion, it's valid, but personally i would consider the opinion of, say, Wyn or Auron or Anja as more important/valid/informed even if they weren't sysops. And if you want to take care of a suggestion in your userspace, you're welcome to. Xeeron is just the catch-all. Of course, you'll need an account. --JonTheMon 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It was HH LEADER talk. Was logged out due to edit conflicts. Would you trust me with this? HH LEADER talk 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If you say it was you, i trust that it's you. And I would have said the same thing, bar 1 or 2 items, if you had still been signed in. However, people tend to be more trusted when they have numerous, productive edits. --JonTheMon 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your userspace can hold as much as you wish it to hold (there is no size limit), secondly, no history is deleted when you move a page, that all goes with. Thirdly, moving to userspace retains all the information rather than deleting it and Xeeron offered to take them rather than having them deleted, he's not claiming ownership of anything and full history attribution will be available for everything. By simply placing a suggestion in community property space, any poster is effectively giving over ownership by allowing others to edit as they say fit. As for the difference between admins and ordinary users, all that is is that admins have some additional tools, making the work of maintenance possible. In discussions, our words do not carry anymore weight than anyone else. You are suggesting that we should not be allowed to participate in discussions? I find that really unfair. The simple fact that the admins are more active in discussions and on the wiki in general is simply reflective of the fact that most of us care more about the well being of this wiki and the community in general than the average poster, and for you to negate that fact is simply insulting to me. I'm not sure what mess you feel we have created, since the ArenaNet namespace was developed by more than just the admins. All the objections (all 4 of them) are being listened to. When you present us a valid reason why these pages should not be removed, and a process by which they can be kept in community property space without the massive amount of time and work it takes to maintain them, the decision might change. So far, none of the objections really have any merit that I can see, as there are proven and stated counters to all of them. What you seem to be failing to see is that there will be no directive from ArenaNet, as they have given over running of this wiki to the community. -- Wyn 16:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wyn, you wrote the following on my talk page "I know we are obnoxious aren't we? But your userpage is almost twice as big as the User page policy allows. That's how you educated me about the size. The policy also states that "You can create user subpages under your user page, such as User:Example/Subpage. These can be used to specify additional details about yourself or manage your current projects. Your user space encompasses all of the above."

So, strictly speaking, it is against policy to put these suggestion pages into someone's users space even though as you are stating now the size is unlimited. Should not the policy be changed to allow this?

You seem to be ignoring the point that the suggestions are not ordinary pages, they are someone else's ideas, not a documentary of a current game. It is perfectly fine to leave a comment on discussion page in this case, but it isn't to do the merging with another idea from another person, which only Admins were doing. It has nothing to do with the right of discussion.

Not seeing a merit in others propositions is not uncommon gift. People who objected already proposed to archive all these pages, and I support this. None of the Admins responses have included an answer why this isn't a viable option.

Can you answer now?

HH LEADER talk 19:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User page is different than user space. And the reason we aren't doing a straight archive is because we'd have to constantly monitor and remove pages added to the ANet mainspace (b/c "there are already suggestions there"). And are you aware that the suggestion pages are the community's, and so as a community we're dealing with them. --JonTheMon 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The size limit on GWW:USER only applies to the main user page because that is the entry point of every user when accessing his user space. There is no limit in the length or in the number of subpages. As Brains wrote belowe, too: Please read and understand the policy before you try to use them as an argument.

Also I don't see how you cannot understand that Xeeron actually proposed to move the remaining suggestions to his userspace to archive them, so they don't get deleted. poke | talk 19:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

1. What I pointed out that user space should not contain anything but this particular user related information. Community created pages do not belong there. HH LEADER talk 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

User space can contain anything you wish it to contain, including archives of information that you don't wish to see removed. -- Wyn 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I am reading user policy wrong that says: "These (pages) can be used to specify additional details about yourself or manage your current projects". Does the move of all these user's created pages qualifies as additional detail or a project?

HH LEADER talk 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional details or projects are two examples of things you can use subpages for, not a limitation. - Tanetris 03:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

2. No one will be adding stuff to the archive if the note will say "don't", will they? Why deleting a space is so important? HH LEADER talk 23:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are no other suggestions in ArenaNet namespace, it will be less likely that people will try to create new ones. The only thing that will remain in ArenaNet is the page instructing people how to create userspace suggestion pages, recommendations with links to alternative suggestion sites, and the links to userspace suggestions (including the archives in Xeeron's space). -- Wyn 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If the main problem with current situation is a work volume for Admins, do you think that extending Admin's staff will help to resolve this while keeping current approach? How exactly one becomes an Admin and if this job is compensated?

HH LEADER talk 02:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The workload wasn't just for admins, it was also for a number of normal users who as well. One of the main problems was the sheer number of suggestions as well as the number that were either duplicates, not thoroughly thought out suggestions (including ones lacking much information), suggestions made by a user who then subsequently left immediately after making it, or even suggestions that were more or less just the title and nothing else.

Also as was pointed out in either the above discussion, one of the many many discussions that have gone on over the past however many months or even both, is that a wiki is just not made for suggestions and a forum or similar is a much better place for them, some are mentioned on ArenaNet:Suggestions. --Kakarot 03:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Second part of my question was: How exactly one becomes an Admin and if this job is compensated? HH LEADER talk 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you read GWW:ADMIN? Vili 18:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Does Sysop or Bureaucrat work pays or being in any other way compensated or may lead to paid work?

HH LEADER talk 14:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a secret monastery in the tibetan Himalayas dedicated to providing sexual favours to admins. Backsword 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good dissmissive technique! This should lead to the conclusion that taking in an account great amount of time each Admin participates in this Wiki activities + the time they play the game to remain involved leaves them no time to work anywhere else unless they use their work computers for non-work activities. Is that sadly so? HH LEADER talk 16:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you even click the link Vili and I gave? You might find, if you read what's on that page, that you'll realise why the response is less-than-serious. You might also start to understand how the administration works. By the way, having one discussion in the middle of another discussion (days after) isn't really the best way to discuss things - put new responses at the bottom with one more indent than the comment to which you're responding. That way it's chronological and easier to read. Welcome to the wiki. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Unless it is a directive from ArenaNet [...]" - Uhm first of all ArenaNet decided that the community runs the wiki, not ArenaNet or any members of them. They don't decide in policy decisions and they also do not decide something about the suggestions. Also you say that ANet didn't say that we should remove them, but in the first place, ANet didn't say that we should maintain suggestions at all. It began with Gaile when she created those suggestion pages in her userspace. It was her idea and she did read the suggestion pages. When Gaile got her new job, the idea was born to create the ArenaNet namespace to keep all those suggestions on the wiki. The community alone decided to keep those suggestions, and now the community (not the admins) decides that we want to change the current system.

That Xeeron wants all remaining pages moved to his userspace was his idea so that the rest of the pages don't have do be deleted; but it doesn't change anything of the suggestions or its authors at all. poke | talk 16:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Others have already answered this for me, but let me repeat this to be totally clear: I don't want to claim anyones suggestions. In fact, I am happy if other people claim them. I only made the offer to move left over pages to my userspace, because I wanted to prevent unclaimed suggestions from being deleted. --Xeeron 12:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Accordingly JonTheMon moving keeps attribution. I'll be happy to have all unclaimed suggestions moved to my space. After all it is mainly the area I am interested in. Perhaps I could reorganize them the way I see fit if others are giving up on this...

HH LEADER talk 02:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

lol where exactly did I say that? I'd like to see a quote. Also, you might want to find out how the administration, policies, role of ArenaNet, and the community work before you base your comments around them. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion pages being connected with the Anet namespace made it a prime directory for people to add their suggestions (instead of going to a fansite for instance) - but when people come in and not read the guidelines to post a good suggestion, then maintenance became stressed. I personally think it's a bit late to bring this up now, it's been like 7 or 8 months since this discussion first started. If we put it off then we may as well keep it for another 12 months or whenever the game is released - and the workload is only going to worsen. I and many others have spent a lot of time just keeping those pages tidy, (I got flamed by a few who couldn't understand what "community contribution" meant...) A lot of us are just normal contributors who took an interest, which was promoting good suggestions and tossing out the bad ones. At this point, it's easier for the suggestions to become defunct so that focus turns to other things more productive. HH Leader, if you want to contest Xeeron's claim to the suggestions, I think the two of you need to discuss it. It's preferable that all unclaimed suggestions go to one person's userspace so they're kept in some form of textual sanity. It really doesn't matter who claims them, as long as someone does. :)(Terra Xin 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC))

That is where we differ. I do not believe that there are good or bad suggestions. If I was handling this work, I would revert every particular suggestions to the last edition made by original author, and 'unmerge' what has been merged even if the ides looked similar or exactly the same. My approach would be to have a summary page for every particular area of suggestions that would include links to original suggestions and a discussion page attached to it. HH LEADER talk 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I guess I wouldn't want you managing suggestions. -- Wyn 18:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? The way it has been done so far have led to the situation that needs to be resolved. Please explain what is bad in what I am offering.

HH LEADER talk 14:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The current suggestion pages are a problem. Your "solution" does not address the problem, it pretends no problem exists. If you can't even realize that a problem exists, and further, that your solution does nothing to fix those problems, then I would have to agree with Wyn.

You ask us to explain what is bad in your suggestion - I would ask you first to explain what is good. It solves nothing. It offers nothing. It fixes no problems. The section is in disrepair and ANet couldn't care less where it goes. In lieu of removing it outright, a user has agreed to archive what we have in his userspace. Leaving the suggestions as they are is simply not acceptable. -Auron 15:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Respectufully disagree. This solution offers a summary of all related ideas with their critique without attempting to interfere with the way an original idea was expressed. HH LEADER talk 17:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

People were not interested in reading and providing feedback towards other people's suggestions. Many of them were more interested in getting their own ideas out than actually reading the others. That's why a lot of our suggestions come from anons and why even more of them contain very little feedback in discussion. If that's what you want to preserve then I'm sorry, but that's not how this wiki should be run. What I'm most confused about is how you're looking at this. The original idea only goes as far as it's page creation, from then on, it becomes the community's duty to make sure that the ideas and feedback of that page results in an idea that is representative of the community as a whole, and not that one person that created it. That can actually be disregarded now that they are moving into user-space - it retains community feedback, gains individual control but loses community development. (Terra Xin 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Honestly folks, this isn't rocket science

There will still be a central repository, where all the ideas are clumped together.

Almost nothing will change regarding the visual appearance. Everything will look and feel the same. The functionality will be nearly identical to what it already is. The only thing that will change, is where the pages are stored. Its purely a technical matter, nothing more.

Now how hard is that for some of you to understand? Clearly innovation must be spoon-fed here to accomodate the lcd of the populace. Flipper 20:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

With my IQ it is. If nothing changes but appearance, there is no need in change. I argue the case that when something is done someone gains a benefit from it.

So far it has been identified that attribution is being moved with the pages. Since I am unfamiliar with technical details of the move process, it seems to me that original creators will lose the attribution of the content. Is this true or false statement?

It has been also discussed that once all unclaimed suggestions are moved to single user space, the edits will not be available for users who originally created the suggestions should they want to come back and do it after the move has been implemented due to user space policy restrictions. Is this true or false statement?

HH LEADER talk 15:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

There will still be a portal in the Arenanet namespace for the suggestions. Moving keeps attribution. Period. And Xeeron is holding all unclaimed suggestions. If someone says "Hey, that's my suggestion," he'll move it to their userspace (most likely scenario). --JonTheMon 15:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is not most likely scenario due to the way it has been done so far. Indeed, because of the nice merge and scartch work many of the ideas are twisted the way which they weren't meant.

Here is the specific example: there were two similar ideas ArenaNet:Guild_Wars_2_suggestions/Allow_moral_choices_in_character_development and ArenaNet:Guild_Wars_2_suggestions/A_good_side_and_an_evil_side. Here comes TerraXin and merges the 2 by deleting the latter and changing the former to the way none of the authors agreed on. One of the othors leave a comment on page itself : "btw i only wrote this paragraph.Talos the Hunter", because he did not understand how and why was it done and walked away because his origial idea was deleted and I never wanted to touch it again because TerrXin attributed this idea to the other person and I felt like a thief caught by the hand. This is kind of a mess I was talking about before. Apparently after this incident I have not come to the Wiki or played a game for many months...

This was happening all over the place because, as I already said, Admins used the same approach for creative ideas as they were game documentation with the feeling that they serving comunity while doing exactly opposite. Because in this situation one needs to go to Admin to resolve it and argue the case, but Admins have an upper hand in this discussions and were very excited to work on this stuff the way they saw fit. This approach has failed.

HH LEADER talk 16:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trolling to be honest. Also, if it's moved into the user space, that can never happen again. The community will no longer have any say and people can put whatever crap they want there, clones of other suggestions, ridiculous suggestions, whatever. It will help retarded people spout retardedness and won't hurt anyone because it won't have to be policed. It's all win, no loss. Misery 16:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This user seem to be deleted. Gladly I don't need to answer that...HH LEADER talk 17:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not deleted, I just don't have a user page. Misery 17:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

HH Leader, can you finally stop on this "Admins are bad"-rage? We said multiple times that admins do not decide anything alone, and you even gave an example where a non-admin did something on with the suggestion: Terra Xin is not an admin, and btw. what he did is completely fine, because the ANet namespace was never meant to save the suggestions from being edited or improved. And that is also part of this new layout - if you read the page, you would know this - users will have more power about their own suggestions.

Also: "If nothing changes but appearance, there is no need in change.", please read again, what Flipper wrote. The appearance will not change, and it will "feel" very similar to the current structure. But it will allow a lot more freedom for the suggestion authors, it will make it a lot easier to maintain the suggestions and it will make all suggestions a lot better. If you can't understand that, you should probably read through all the previous discussions to get an idea how it was like with the suggestions in the ArenaNet namespace. poke | talk 17:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, it was Defiant Elements who deleted Talos the Hunter suggestion after TerraXin's edit. And No, I never said that Admins are bad. What I was saying that in this particular instance the methods that were used were inappropriate to the content, hence the problem. I also highlighted that Admins perform the neccesary functions. And as I already said, I was not trying to change the decision, but to understand it. Thank you for your time. Good Bye. HH LEADER talk 17:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, attribution is not the same as claim. Much like how contribution is different than ownership. Attribution stems from the GDFL, in that when articles are merged, the contributions from the original article are represented appropriately. What effectively happens is that when we merge articles, then their history section has to be transferred as well, and since it's not possible to merge history sections, then that's where attribution comes in. It's exactly like merging history sections, but it's recorded in the talk page instead.

I don't know how you're going to perceive the information that I have given you, since you still assume that articles are owned and claimed rather than contributed to. And no, I'm not an admin - I think the universe would implode before that, I really am trying to be better with people but it's just... so... hard. :) (Terra Xin 01:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Please don't take my actions the wrong way, I understand that when someone presents a suggestion then that idea becomes theirs and should be recognized for it... But in terms of how this wiki operates, every contribution has representation equal to the author that posted it. The wiki places recognition on the article as a whole, not by the author and not by each individual contributor. That's why articles with contributions from many people will have a higher standing than an article written by one person, because we know that the article will have been thoroughly thought out from many angles - trialed and argued. (Terra Xin 01:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

I wasn't going to continue here. But some contributors may think that their suggestions about new game can be considered as an original content, "Original content (which the contributor holds the copyright to)" Guild_Wars_Wiki:Copyrighted_content. If proved that new idea is an original content, "community" editing of such contribution may not be applicable for it is not an 'article' about existing game for which ArenaNet holds copyright to. But I am not a lawyer who won a case for students against Facebook(c)....yawning....Let's see what's going to happen if some of the ideas will be implemented...Good night.HH LEADER talk 04:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case then the poster should never post it in a community property space that has clear notice that it will be edited by others. The option to post suggestions in your userspace has ALWAYS been an available. Besides, on this wiki you agree to license your contribution pursuant to the GNU Free Documentation License (that statement is contained in the first line of the text on EVERY edit page). Attribution is all that is required for GFDL and is provided in the page history, or as Terra indicated on the talk page in the case of merged articles. If you wanted to be able to claim copyright in case your idea got implemented into GW2 and you wanted to sue for a cut, posting it on a GDFL licensed wiki (or any wiki for that matter since wiki is about community) is NOT the way to go about it. -- Wyn 05:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're mixing contributor with author. Anyone who contributes information to the wiki is contributing original information, the creator of the page is one contributor - you don't get brownie points for making a page. The layout and text on the mainpage for example is original content which also contains information that is given with permission by Anet. The company owns the information that the mainspace links to while the layout and text (except "Guild Wars" and "Arena Net" to be specific) is licensed under the GFDL. (Terra Xin 05:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

Hey, who said I am in a business to sue ArenaNet? However, GFDL is compatible with the "Original content (which the contributor holds the copyright to)". Did you see those words there: "original content" and "contributor"? And you are saying yourself: "except ... Arena Net space". So, the plan is to remove it from Arena Net space. And if the suggestion will be claimed and placed to the user space it will never be used in a game, because ArenaNet is smart enough not to be doing that. If it was never cliamed, forgotten, deleted, etc, it might be. Hence, it was my suggestion to the contributors if they wanted their suggestions implemented just go with the flow and forget about them. Yes, the option to put something as personal suggestion was made available and it was clear from the start that none of them will ever be considered by ArenaNet, just because this choice has been given. I made mine then. I also has declared that I am not going to do anything about mine now on this very page. Clear cut. But you never listen, only argue to show your superiority. The last word is always yours. Pity. You actually MUST do this.

Yes, I did not like the body of my suggestions edited. Yes, I did not like none of the suggestions deleted because I did not have time to read them before deletion. "Concensus" has nothing to do with the suggestions out of the context of Arena Net creative teams that are aware of NEW game engine and mechanics; it was not an Admin choice to make. And you MUST object any objection on this page and MUST counter any word that is not in accordance with the plan. By acting so on every single objection on this page and by answering the way you do, you just proved every single statement I have made. Thank you. The funny thing that I have said repeatedly that I am not against the decision, but want to understand it. Thank you again for making it even more clear than before.

I am unlike you guys not in a bussiness of Pro Bono laywering or slaving for ArenaNet or trying to cut some money as you may think, but would not be surprised if some are not so smart "contributors" may want to do something like class case for some of thier "original content" "originally placed in Arena Net space" after NEW game release, if it ever be released... Peace. HH LEADER talk 14:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confused about how GFDL works. Everything, everything on this site is licensed under that, even userspace. So, based on that license ANet can still use the ideas even if they're in namespace. It's one of the reasons GWW was founded, so that ANet could use this wiki as part of it's (commerical) game. --JonTheMon 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: everything that isn't already copyrighted is released under that. But ANet allows us to use their copyrighted stuff. --JonTheMon 14:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The "ArenaNet" namespace is not owned by ArenaNet. It was our, the community's, idea to name it like that because it was meant as some kind of a "gateway" to ArenaNet. However that doesn't change that everything, except for content that is explicitly taken from ANet and marked as such, is released under the GFDL. The GFDL allows the change of everything as long as you leave attribution, and that is actually also a part of the idea of a wiki, that you can change everything. If you don't want your content released as GFDL then stop posting anything on the wiki; because by posting, you automatically agree that your content is released under GFDL, and you cannot change that. poke | talk 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You quoted me incorrectly, I didn't mention the Arenanet space, I said the text which reads "Arenanet" is owned by Arenanet. Like the word Arena Net. Like how Anet own that word? Not the space. I didn't say space. You also seem to be avoiding the fact that contributor is not author and I couldn't stretch that even if I had two horses tied to it running at opposite ends....it's anyone who makes a contribution - these include editors. I simply don't understand how you can progress the argument after that fact. I'm not trying to patronize you, I honestly don't know how you're basing your claims with no grounding. We're not acting as lawyers, we're making sure everyone understands the situation very clearly so we're all on the same page. (Terra Xin 12:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

(Reset indent) After reading that massive wall of text, I have to admit not really sure what the problem is. It all makes perfect sence to me. All the change will do is shift things into peoples user space so that no one else has to go around fixing them or adding contributions to them, thus giving an individual much more control over their own ideas. If the person wants ideas and contributions about their suggestion, well then that's what their talk page is for. This will just make that area of the wiki much easier to manager as community members wont be accepting collective responsibility for it anymore and instead any crap suggestions will be just on that users page, thus no longer requiring us to fix them. It also removed the massive amount of IP suggestions we had, which imho is a good thing. AS it stood the suggestion pages were pointless, as anet couldn't use them for inspiration as they were an absolute mess. This should tidy it up an awful lot more and it may well reward those who actually put effort and thought into their suggestions as they will solely responsible for their own ideas without anybody else changing them and they will probably stand out from the bulk which will still be just plain 'ol wrong imho. -- Salome 12:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

I have read through most of what has been talked about, and I just wanted to ask a couple of questions to clarify my understanding of what will happen, and hopefully the explanations can help to asuage HH LEADER's objections.

1. As I understand it, the "unclaimed" suggestions will be archived into Xeeron's userspace. This will involve a history merge, which is something I am not overly familiar with, but let me provide a hypothetical situation that may help to clarify what this means exactly. So, let's say that, in 2012, a player that had made a suggestion is playing GW2 and brags to a friend that a particular aspect of the game was first suggested by him/her, and the friend does not believe it. Will the player be able to dig into the archives and provide proof that they were the ones who first suggested a particular idea? I mean, as it is now we can go to an idea and see when the page was created, or even find a suggestion made back when it was in Gaile's userspace because there is still an archive that shows the original discussion with the original timestamp. Will this "fact-checking" still be possible under the new system?

2. It seems that the archive of unclaimed suggestions will be put in Xeeron's userspace, and that this was decided largely because Xeeron was nice enough to volunteer to host it as an alternative to the suggestions being deleted outright (please correct me if I misunderstand the history). But, if we accept that these suggestions should be archived in some way, is archiving in someone's userspace the best way to do it? If so, why? I mean, can not a page in the community space be locked to prevent anyone from editing it? Is one preferrable over the other, especially in consideration of the answer to #1 above?

As someone who helped create the suggestion system currently in use, I have been dissapointed by some of its use, or, rather, abuse. Ultimately I agree that the proposed system will work better, but I think the final product, especially with regard to attribution, needs to be better explained here and in this article. Attribution may not matter to ANet (any copyright argument is silly, and I am a lawyer), but I think the perception of attribution could be very important to users and players. - Satanael 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes. When one uses the move function, the history stays intact. That's the major benefit of it.

2. Much so. It means they do not gain special status, can be maintained and has someone to deal with them. Backsword 20:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For an example of how something looks when it's been moved, take a look at User:Ryan Galen/Guild Wars 2 suggestions/Pull the spellcasters back to their roots, which a user moved from the ArenaNet namespace to their own userspace a few days ago. You can check the history page and see that it remains intact with all the same information, and the talk page is moved along as well. Only difference is the page names'll start with User:Xeeron/whatever, and that it'll be done a thousand or so times (by our friendly neighborhood wikibot, Wikichu) - Tanetris 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see, thank you, this helps greatly to answer my first question. However, if Backsword or someone would be so kind as to elaborate on #2, what do you mean by "It means they do not gain special status"? Also, you mention one advantage as being that they will have someone to maintain them, but, if I am understanding correctly, if the idea is to "lock" them into an archive or similar structure, what maintanence would really be necessary? -Satanael 05:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Compromise solution

I must confess that I may have been overreacting on the entire issue and would like to be short in offering compromise solution that should address all the objections posted here while allowing going forward with a move solution that has been discussed.

Let's call all the work that has been done so far a requirement gathering phase. This phase is now completed. The conclusion of this work will be in moving all collected and classified in certain way information into new repositories. And that is a current plan to which I now concurr.

Next step of the work is to create 'users requirement analysis' document - a holistic view of the proposal in certain area .e.g: armor, character development, etc. that is a not controversal, easy to read and understand high level (executive) summary.

Creating such pages will allow community to concentrate on the work by interest in particular area refining single document while using material gathered so far as a valuble resource.

Therefore, I am proposing to move everything but these newly created pages that will remain in ArenaNet space. This will allow people who continue to believe that cause is not lost to deliver community view in a form of highly refined documents that may make an impact on future game development.

Since these pages will be very few this will not be a huge burden to maintain in ArenaNet space and enjoy the results but collective work by everybody and first and foremost Admins who will still have an interest in the area ;-)

HH LEADER talk 21:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I could understand, I don't see how this addresses the main problem - maintenance of something that we shouldn't have to maintain. It actually increases the amount of work needed to maintain the area, an area on which we don't even know ArenaNet's view. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If I'm understanding correctly, we'd go ahead and move all the current suggestion pages into userspace, then create a much smaller number of suggestion pages in the ArenaNet namespace, each covering an overview of the various suggestions put forward under a broad topic (for example one page which discusses all armor-related suggestions), in a neutral and easy to digest format. Am I correct that that's what you're proposing?

I agree that this would be easier to maintain, but I wouldn't envy the person who creates these pages in the first place, as I assume it would involve reading all of the previous suggestions, and I have no idea how you would manage to put so many disparate ideas together into something that reads well without being a ridiculously long wall-of-text. If someone's actually up for that, more power to em.

I'm curious what you'd do about the sort of miscellaneous suggestions that don't really group well into neat categories? Would these be left out, or put onto a "Miscellaneous" page? What would be the threshhold for suggestions getting worked into the Miscellaneous page or left out vs creating a new topic page? If there are 2 suggestions related to holiday events, would that warrant a "holiday events suggestions" page, or a section in Miscellaneous? What about 3? 4? etc. Similarly, what do you do about the rather fuzzy line between ideas that are just plain not thought out at all vs ideas you just don't agree with?

I think it's interesting (if I've interpretted you correctly. If not, I apologize), but there would certainly be details to hammer out, I'm also curious who would work on this, as it'd be a pretty hefty project. Are you volunteering, HH Leader? Is anyone else? If so, could you draw up an example page in your userspace drawn from a handful of current suggestions, so we can get a better idea of what it would look like? - Tanetris 23:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read Satanael page and talk and it seems that historically she is the one who come up with the idea and has been offered to move her stuff to this new structure. Her recent request indicates keen interest to this area. By creating it and maintaining it for quite some time certain obligations have been taken and are now in effect. This is expected to be in place by many users now. That is why there are objections and concerns. That is why I call my solution a compromise. Maintaining dozen of pages is not the same as maintaining hundred of dozens. The rest is the same as planned. No new ideas in 'raw' form will be taken in. One will must consult a forum and get concensus to include new idea in the summary (only through the discussion page). This is a 'win' exit from the situation and will keep users engaged, which is a main purpose of this Wiki, or so I heard.

Yes, it may be not an easy exersize but will look better than 'a lost cause' exit. I will try to make a sample page for discussion. HH LEADER talk 23:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are 100% positive that you can commit to this, then I'm keen to see what examples you've got planned. (Terra Xin 00:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

I would also like to see an example of this. If I am understanding it correctly, we could, at the very least, provide an aggregation of the "most commonly" suggested ideas. We have already done most of that work and it would not be hard to adapt what we already have for them into a clearer and more concise description. I would be happy to work on that if we think it is a worthwhile endeavor. Of course, I would initially put my work into sandboxes on my userspace so as not to rock any boats too early. (Satanael 05:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

I would like some clarification on this. If this is strictly regarding the old suggestions, and you guys actually wish to put this kind of effort into it, go for it, but... how does this affect the over all proposal of having new suggestions only posted in User space here on the wiki, while encouraging people to move suggestions to the alternative (and better) suggestion fansites? -- Wyn 05:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, it would not be limited to the old archived suggestions, but would include new suggestions created in people's userspace. I'm still not certain how it would work either, but my understanding is that it would not overtly affect the overall proposal to have users put their suggestions on their own userspace, it is simply suggesting a more visible supplement, I think. There are obvious objections of course, but I think we should give Leader a chance to provide an example and explain how he thinks it could work before jumping too deep into potential pitfalls. (Satanael 06:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

I have included an initial implementation idea here. The discussion about this particular approach can be continued on its page if desired. HH LEADER talk 13:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you wanted - after the restructuring is done - to create some summary pages of the suggestions in the ANet space, based on the archived or new user suggestions. But now, after I saw your page, I understand nothing o.O What exactly is that and how would it help?? poke | talk 13:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You understood correctly. It is a summary represented in a structured way. Analysis of user requerement a.k.a. ideas will lead to the creation of use case scenarios, that is that summary. This type of documents is one of the possible outputs from the analysis phase and input to the architecture/design phase. This how it is done in (most) software development companies for arhitects/designers to understand what it is users really want in a way that it can be programmed. What we have now is a bunch of 'user stories', which is a form of the input from the users who do not knwo or care about how it is done and in many cases have no clue what they really want (a normal case for corporate environment as well). By formalizing the requirements, clearly listing steps how to get from A to B and showing dependencies and constrains the analysts save time for the designers who then will think a little bit and say: 'Yeah, this can be done" or "No, this is too dificult to do it in this release or at all". This, in essence, will achieve the goal of sending very clear message to ArenaNet what users of their product want or do not want (we can have a use case "exclude this something and never do it again" ;-)

The time doesn't matter as long as original suggestions that were classified to the area can be accessed through this area, so whoever does the summary does not need to classify them again. One template could potentially accomodate big nimber of related ideas that lead to the same outcome. These templates will grow little by little and may need to be in ArenaNet space allowing community to participate in the discussion: "What use case we want to document first? What is its one phrase description? What ID we will assign to it?". This will conclude the classification and represent the final product of the collective work. Consider this a more efficient and formalized form of representation.

In essence, you may think of it as the similar process of merging and deleting that has been done before, where the final product is represented on a higher abstraction level and nothing is physically merged or deleted. The community will decide the fate of each use case. Most beneficial cases will be documented first (all original ideas might be eventually included in the summary ). The process how to achieve this can be worked out. Please let me know if I am still unclear. HH LEADER talk 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh you're clear as mud. Seriously, I understand what you're trying to do, but you're taking it a little too far. It is good to collect a group of suggestions that has the entire community behind them. It is good to evaluate those suggestions based on their feasibility to be implemented. And if everything suggested where suggestions to the programmers from a bunch of MIS, IT, and CS graduates then the format your suggesting would be all well and good.

What you're suggesting falls apart at that last point.

Not a lot of suggestions need to be presented to the programmers. If anything, we need to present them in such a way that they get noticed by the developers and taken seriously by the designers. Yes, some time must be spent on how feasible a suggestion is to code, but first the suggestions needs to fit into the existing concept being designed... something we only know a few scant facts about. Most is based on preconceptions of Guild Wars 1 and assumptions extrapolated from what we've been told about Guild Wars 2.

And please, remember we're not all Computer Science majors/graduates. You're statement was loaded with terminology and concepts that I feel drowned in, and I'm in the beginning of my MIS degree's 300 level courses. A large majority of the people trying to understand you are even less prepared. I understand that being as official and formal as possible gives weight to your words, which is exactly what these suggestions need to be taken seriously by ANet, but you still need to be understood and comprehended by your peers.

Also... line breaks are your friends.

On a completely different note, could someone with some authority reset the indent? I have the authority of a worn out shoe, and even I can tell it is getting a little ridiculous how far we're intended at the moment.--Ryan Galen 17:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This system doesn't take into account that many people aren't interested in, or aren't willing to, discuss and contract a suggestion into summaries. It probably wouldn't be worth people's time to do so, and we all know how discussions about something as subjective as suggestions end up on this wiki (in fact, that's one of the factors inspiring this move from community-based to user-based). Another concern is that if people are so clingy to their own suggestions that they don't want to see their suggestion merged, edited, or summarised by anyone else (similar to how HH Leader mentioned above... somewhere), would they be willing to go with this proposed system, which is even more reliant upon community editing and summarising?

Considering the above, I can see this being something like a de facto 'suggestions committee' made up of a few dedicated suggestion maintainers ("few" because not a lot of people are that interested in the actual maintenance of suggestion pages) who view and compile the created suggestions (and you know people will just add suggestions anywhere without reading what they're supposed to do, so that's no easy job), discuss them, summarise them, come to a consensus about that summary, and then implement it. We sort of went against that idea when we discussed it on the community portal earlier on. (Speaking of creating suggestions, where do you intend for these new suggestions to be created? As far as I understand, you've only proposed an evaluative method, not a creation method.)

Some more issues that were discussed in the earlier discussions were that it's simply not our role to receive, improve, compile, host, or present these suggestions. Insert your 'wiki's not adapted well for this purpose', 'we're here to document', 'forums are better', and 'other websites exist' arguments here. I don't think this proposed solution addresses these matters, and I think these matters are quite major in regards to how the community views suggestions on the wiki. I'd go as far as to say this worsens some of the major negative aspects of the current suggestion system - perceived ownership of suggestion pages by clingy creators, revert wars by the same, discussions which might not end with a reasonable solution, 'bad' suggestions diluting the 'good' suggestions, the amount of time or effort spent on maintenance, and the lack of suitability of game suggestions on a documentation website - and doesn't do much to improve or introduce positive aspects in hosting suggestions. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll pass for the reasons above. Actually, there was this guy that come from this website [1] who sent messages to active contributors of the GW2 suggestions page a few months back. He asked some of us if we were interested, and that we could help out if we wanted. Now if you take a look at his website, you'll see that it is a better suited place to host suggestions, and it looks much better on the eyes. The rules are different there too, like how the author holds propriety over the suggestion, and users can vote and leave comments on that particular suggestion. It's more expansive and requires less maintenance than how we operate. I think you should check it out, I'm planning on spending some time on there myself. :) (Terra Xin 01:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

You will notice Terra, that his website is one of the ones recommended as an alternative place for suggestions on ArenaNet:Suggestions, and has been mentioned previously by poke and myself in an earlier section of this discussion. -- Wyn 05:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I think it should be noted that Leader does not propose to replace the current system with this, he wishes to do this in addition to the current system. Raw creation of ideas would still occur on userspace, and my understanding is that this simply provides an effective way of "browsing" ideas. Perhaps it is currently a bit technical and not very user-friendly, but it is still in development. What's important to bare in mind is the purpose of something like this, which I don't think has been adequately discussed. My personal opinion is that something like this would best serve the purpose of giving a given suggestion more visibility and providing users with a browsing option for finding ideas.

For example, and I do hope Leader will correct me if this is contrary to his thinking, but what we have right now is simply a list of users who have ideas, but nothing that helps people to understand what those ideas are, my guess is precious few people will bother to look at other people's ideas if it is presented like this.

I am envisioning from this a purely voluntary process by which interested users can seek the comment of the community on their ideas. Once a user has created an idea in their userspace, they can come to something like a project page, whereby they can invite comment from the community on their idea by filling in a form or template (something derived from what Leader has provided) and "listing" their idea in the appropriate categorical page. Each listing of an idea would include a one phrase description of the idea and a link to the corresponding article in the userspace. Community members could then use these "aggragations" to browse ideas and provide comment. All comments would be made on the talk page in the userspace for each idea.

Of course, this system would require the use of strict ground rules for participation, and in turn require some users to enforce the ground rules. However, I do not think that it would require the kind or amount of work that was required of past "maintenance" users for the suggestion pages. These users would simply have to ensure that additions to the list meet the given criteria and followed the given ground rules. And since this would be a purely voluntary process undertaken by the "owner" of the idea, there should not be any difficulty with revert wars or anything of that nature.

In any case, I would like to point out that I am not certain what I described above is quite what Leader was trying to get at, but that seemed to be the direction he was going and I think it could work if there is support from the community. (Satanael 07:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

So once again we are back to a "committee" of designated users that will commit to verifying that pages meet the requirements.... Who chooses this committee? How are they chosen? What authority do they have? How long is someone required to commit? I do agree that a summary of the ideas/suggestions would be better than the current list of names we have, but I think there is a better/easier way to do it. -- Wyn 07:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a committee would be necessary, rather a group of volunteers. Just like on any project page, simply have the groundrules laid down from the beginning, easy for everyone to see, and any volunteer in the project, or for that matter any user, could assist in enforcement of the rules. As mentioned, I don't think the workload would be too onerous or complicated, provided we make the groundrules clear and simple. (Satanael 07:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC))

The problem I see with making this a project is that you are talking about something that is ongoing indefinitely. The most successful project (in my experience) are the ones that have a clear start point and end point. While a few people might sign on in the beginning, as time goes on, they get either burnt out, or bored, or life intervenes and the amount of time they actually give to the project tapers off, or they find a new interest. If you look at a lot of the current project pages, those that are ongoing, don't get a lot of attention after 3 months or so. This system (if the trend in suggestions continue) at least a daily review of new suggestions indefinitely. -- Wyn 08:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because there is a possibility, or even a likelihood, that people will lose interest is not a reason to not bother even trying. I am not familiar with the history of projects on this particular wiki, but there certainly are very successful projects in wikipedia that do not have a specific start and end point, Wikiproject Biography is only the first that comes to mind. Maybe you are right, maybe people will lose interest, but maybe they won't. In any case, since this project would have no effect on the overall ability of people to create and share ideas, then I don't see how this could cause any real harm, even in failure. If Leader wants to work on something like this, and if people want to help him develop it, I say let them. (Satanael 07:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

The ground rules were clear and simple. They were written on the front page of guild wars 2 suggestions in bold and at the top....and still nobody read them. I mean, yes... If people put some work into HH's idea, then maybe it'll work, but you have to do it all the time; every time someone thinks and writes a suggestion on their userpage, your project should be updated to complete it. Otherwise it's going to end up like these ones that Wyn was referring to. Even if HH's idea doesn't end up following through, people are still going to make suggestions on their userpages and the links to their suggestions will still be listed on the GW2 suggestions page. An organizational structure is merely the icing on the cake.(Terra Xin 13:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

I think you are misinterpreting a key point of what I was envisioning. When I said that participation would be purely voluntary I was not just talking about the volunteers who would administer the lists, but actual additions to the list would be voluntary as well. In other words, a list is provided for armor suggestions, and if I want my idea about armor to be listed, then I add it myself according to the form provided. The project volunteers would only have to police new additions to the list to make sure each one complies with given rules, and occassionaly archive portions of lists if they get too long. (Satanael 16:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Oh ok I see where you're coming from now. (Terra Xin 16:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

(Reset indent) Thank you for all the suggestions. I guess, Satanael has nailed it. A simplified and more user friendly version of template with number of illustrations can be found here - > User:HH_LEADER/Guild_Wars_2_suggestions/Use_Case_Scenario. Keep in mind that it is not a final product, but a ground for discussion. Thank you. HH LEADER talk 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This is for information only: I have asked a game designer a question about suggestions' fate. Anyone interested in her answer can look here User_talk:Linsey_Murdock#GW2_Suggestions_fate HH LEADER talk 02:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you posed it as a question regarding GW2 suggestions only, Linsey has no input to give, since she doesn't deal with GW2 in any way. Also, that section is going to be archived on Tuesday. -- Wyn 02:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I understood her response. She promissed to bug the people who are responsible. If they are not interested, there is no point to be doing that because they are the intended audience. If you looked at 'Use case scenario' page I mocked up, it shows pretty clearly what I was proposing to do with all the suggestions, if there was an interest from ArenaNet. It could save them a lot of work without looking at 40 different fun site forums. After all, the major adavatage of all this affair with suggestions that it was kept in a single place, where the summary belongs too. If they do not respond, they either already did it themselves or don't care about what their customers think or want them to do ... HH LEADER talk 16:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No reason you can't have both. HH LEADER can start the project in his userspace, and if it works out, we consider where to move it. Backsword 19:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A quote regarding ArenaNet's position

I just wanted to add this because it's probably the clearest response to user suggestions that any ArenaNet employee has ever given:

For the record, I don't want you to feel I'm ignoring your posts or trying to blow you off with vague answers. We're bound by NDA and can't divulge development details, nor are we allowed to critique fan-submitted ideas for obvious legal reasons. It's great that we have so many passionate fans like yourself, and we appreciate when you take the time to engage us. Thanks for understanding. Bobby Stein 15:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see it included in the main Suggestions page (or see if we can get Bobby to give us another to use) so that it is clear to all who post suggestions that there will be no feedback from ArenaNet to their suggestions regardless of how we structure them. -- Wyn 05:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a chat with Regina a few days ago, which I did not record and do not want to quote. What I am about to say is my own perception:

- ArenaNet is fully aware of the suggestions

- Legal aspect had been looked at by their lawyer(s) and as a result no direct interactions with GW2 team are allowed

- They understand that keeping players enagaged is important and looking for a ways of doing this, which would be beneficial for players and ArenaNet as well.

My own conclusions:

- Both Bobby and Regina have confirmed that there are legal issues to acknowledge suggestions from either Wiki or any other fan site

- It is unlikely that this sort of interaction will be done via this Wiki or a any other fan site

- There could be a posibility, however, that ArenaNet may decide to open specific site/discussion forum and structure it in a way that does not impose any possible legal complications (with proper legal stuff saying how this site may be used)

- We may not recieve an official responce before GW2 (or its beta) is out (became a product), which automatically resolves all the legal concerns, because 'suggestions' (aka creative unsolicited input in the development process) then will become a solicited users' feedback on the existing product, which is OK to give and recieve if legal agreement is attached to it.

The case is closed. The solution do not maintain suggestions was an appropriate one and my attempts to do an analysis job on suggestions were not (at least not before I am on GW2 team ;-))

HH LEADER talk 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1 week to go

I think we're agreed upon the move-all-unclaimed-suggestions-to-Xeeron's-userspace,-new-suggestions-go-in-userspace,-one-page-with-list-in-Anet-namespace idea. The "topics to discuss" section is pretty much dealt with (deadline on 15th April, categorise the main suggestions page for each user, DPL creates a list at ArenaNet:Suggestions), but we haven't really gone over the last point - what do we do, if anything, to suggestions made on ArenaNet employees' talk pages? Just ask them what they want and go ahead with their wishes? Or do we want to say "no suggestions"? -- Brains12 \ talk 00:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, based on Bobby's response quoted above, they aren't going to be able to comment on them regardless, so I see no real advantage to leaving them there. I would say if they are posted by a registered user, they be moved to that user's space as any other suggestion. Though what to do with IP posted suggestions is anyone's guess. -- Wyn 00:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If Xeeron wants to take back the pages that are unclaimed, thats fine. IP suggestions are tricky; we don't know what accounts are created by what IP's (I think) so we can't really "assign" pages to IP's. Perhaps if an IP suggestion page isnt claimed within a certian time period it will be deleted? I'm only considering deletion because of the above quote on suggestion pages and legal terms, but if they can be claimed, that'd be even better. -- Wandering Traveler 00:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That's a thought, but we need to remember that it is still a user's talk page (albeit a high-traffic, high-content, high-wall-of-text talk page). I'm sort of in the middle; I'd prefer that we move the suggestions, but I'd also like to go along with courtesy and ask them what they actually want. That asking could include some subtle persuasion to our preferred side though :P. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In going through the Legal disclaimers on GW.com I realized they have a fairly clear cut response to suggestions -

"We are grateful for the enthusiasm of our fans, and appreciate the efforts and creativity that they use to develop concepts intended to assist with or expand upon our current and future titles. However, our company policy necessarily prevents us from accepting and/or reviewing any unsolicited ideas.

One alternative for submitting ideas and suggestions is to post them on a fan-run Suggestions Forum.

As such, I would like to submit requests to all wiki active ArenaNet employees that they place that disclaimer at the top of their talk pages, as well as have it posted on ArenaNet:Suggestions. -- Wyn 11:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

One question I have, rather than mass moving all unclaimed suggestions to Xeeron's space, what about moving those that were created by registered users to their userspace, and only moving IP created suggestions and archives to Xeeron's? I realize this might be a little more labor intensive. -- Wyn 11:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If people are willing to do the work, we could at least place a note on their talk pages, asking them if they want it nad or telling them (hot to) move it. Maybe not so good an idea to move every page, as if they've left the wiki there would be noone to oversee the page. Backsword 11:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with splitting into suggestions from registered and unregistered users is that first, when there are mixed contributions (which will be the case because the suggestions are community content and editable/improvable by everyone) we cannot simply say this is UserX's suggestion, and by moving the suggestions to their userspaces we already decide about the structure in their user space; which would be something I personally wouldn't like. poke | talk 12:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was just an idea. -- Wyn 12:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So, I understand the concern we have for a mass amount of suggestions flooding dev pages, I remember with horror what Gaile's suggestion pages were like. With regard to GW2 suggestions, I support basically saying "not the right place for this" and either deleting or moving, whatever consensus is. However, I think we need to be more careful with GW1 suggestions, as some devs (i.e. the Live Team) do seem to be more receptive to these, just look at any of the discussions on Joe's page, which actually have born some fruit in later updates (albeit small, barely edible fruit). My sense is that we should just leave GW1 suggestions on the page, although I can see the other side of the argument if we start to see "Pirate ships FTW!" style suggestions on these talk pages. Any thoughts? -Satanael 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've already suggested, I think requesting them to simply follow the ArenaNet policy as stated on gw.com and discourage suggestions. It will not stop people from creating their user suggestion pages, or posting them on fansites, nor will it stop the Live Team from reading them, it will simply make it clear that their talk pages are not the appropriate place for them. -- Wyn 16:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with putting the disclaimer at the top, if the users agree to it, but what I am saying is that there is a gray area with GW1 suggestions on Live Team user space. For example, not long ago it was suggested on Joe's page that hero necromancers use Death Nova less often to allow them to keep up with players. Joe agreed, and a change was made in the next update. If this suggestion had been put on someone's userspace, I doubt Joe would have seen it, and I think bringing up the issue on Joe's talk page was the exact appropriate forum for such a suggestion. If we insist that ALL suggestions stay off employee talk pages, then the employees will lose a valuable method for hearing about in game issues that they can easily deal with in game updates. All I'm saying is that we need to be pragmatic with regard to GW1 suggestions. (Satanael 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

See, to me the Death Nova thing was more of an AI bug, than a game suggestion. Since it wasn't about new content, just tweaking existing content. I see game suggestions as being full blown new content stuff... I do realize there are grey areas, but as it is, Joe is getting weighed down with walls of text as is Linsey. There are appropriate places set up on the wiki for Bug fixes, and Skill feedback, I think those are the areas that most of what you are looking at as suggestions should be going. -- Wyn 18:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we are thinking of more or less the same thing, but it actually was not a bug, per se, as Death Nova, and the Hero AI, were both working correctly, they just could have worked better, and that's where the suggestion came in. Another example would be the additional traders discussion going on right now, or the discussion on how to revamp Tombs, we may not actually get new traders or a revamp of Tombs (or maybe we will), but they are still valuable discussions for both players and ANet employees that all started with a suggestion or an idea. I think that if the Live Team did not want feedback such as these, then they would not have gotten people like Linsey and Joe to be more active on Wiki in the first place. Of course I agree that more "full blown new content stuff" is not productive, but there seem to be enough people who understand that to warrant at least some leniency with regard to GW1 suggestions. I'm not saying we necessarily need to say as much in the disclaimer or anything like that, I'm speaking more to our own enforcement of this rule or guideline. Call it an unwritten rule that if a GW1 suggestion seems within the realms of possibility, let the employee answer. (Satanael 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

So...

Are we supposed to expect ArenaNet to act on hundreds of different suggestion pages when they barely even acted on one? What exactly is the purpose of this? To keep unregistered users from posting and thereby reduce trolling, which could be done anyway by locking the page to registered users only? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm 99% sure this move is a huge waste of time. Probably even a step backward. That's just my opinion, so everyone can jump all over me now and start flaming with bad logic and such. --Gah Eat my uber regen. 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the actual project page... And read the section above and the rest of the discussion topics on this talk page... poke | talk 15:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. But the reasoning is backward.

Since the inception of the ArenaNet-namespace suggestions areas, many hundreds of suggestion pages have been created. This, plus the relatively small number of people attempting to maintain the pages, has made it harder to find a good way to organize and maintain them. Many duplicate, uninformative, or unsatisfactory suggestions were also created, cluttering the namespace with unqualified pages. Another problem was that some creators did not maintain or watch their suggestions, leading to suggestion pages with missing information or discussions where the initial editor wasn't a participant. On the flipside, some creators were too protective of their creations - despite the open-edit notice on the main suggestion pages, some people saw suggestions as being their own rather than the community's. This usually lead to revert wars and other forms of disruption.

On top of that, it has always been unclear if the suggestion pages were read by ArenaNet. As of now, we still have not received an answer to our questions posed to ArenaNet users on how the namespace is seen by ArenaNet.

So... you plan to reduce clutter and duplicate suggestions, and increase the chance of ARenaNet reading the pages... by increasing the number of suggestion pages and making them user-dependent? Um... --Gah Eat my uber regen. 15:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the clutter had to be sorted out by people who could've (and would've, had the mess not been there) spent their time doing something worthwhile. People who still want to spend their time working on or clearing up their own suggestions are welcome to, just as they can create character pages or whatever. This isn't about increasing the chance of ArenaNet reading or commenting on the suggestions, because that's impossible - if you read the above sections, you'll see that they can't or won't use or comment on them. By carrying out this move, we're stopping the 'official suggestion page hosting' and leaving suggestions as a side-project for interested users (a la userspace projects). Making them user-dependent wouldn't increase the number of suggestion pages. Some users each create multiple suggestions; with the current system, they'd all be separate pages requiring separate maintenance by the community; with the proposed system, they'd be centralised on one page, and that user would take care of them. Less work for the community, still a place for interested users to make suggestions, less make-it-and-leave-it type pages for the community to sort out. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

...can't or won't use or comment on them... I did read the above sections, please don't make the assumption that I didn't - but I came away with the impression that they simply weren't allowed to comment on them, not to not act on them. It's whatever, I've made my point and am done here, just trying to figure out the reasoning behind the move. --Gah Eat my uber regen. 20:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea behind this is as a way to help the community clean up all the garbage in this area, while still allowing the suggestions to be posted as normal. For those who disagree, I would suggest they take over an admin role for a month or so, including the responsibility of spending their own personal time cleaning up the garbage themselves. Then return here to tell us their new 'enlightened' opinion on the matter. Well somebody has to do the dirty work after all. All this does is put a system in place to allow posters to clean up their own mess themselves, instead of relying on others to do it for them. Flipper 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)