Talk:Main Page/February 2007

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Important steps to ensure sanity

Please:

  1. Protect the Main Page. DO THIS NOW BEFORE THE SPAMMERS AND INTERNET LOWLIVES GET HERE
  2. Install the SpamBlacklist extension.
  3. Add an interwiki to GuildWiki. gwiki: is my suggestion. Interwiki links for wikipedia (wikipedia: or wp:) is also a good idea.
  4. Quickly decide on important policy considerations. In order of importance:
    • Verifiability/factualness policy (builds? opinions?)
    • External linking policy (links to fansites? guilds?)
    • Deletion policy (admin discretion à la GuildWiki? debate+consensus à la Wikipedia?)
    • Civility and personal attacks policy
    • Blocking and open proxies policy

Opening it to the public without taking these basic steps is premature, in my opinion, but good can still come of it. Stabber 13:01, 7 February 2007 (PST)

In addition, Guild Wars Wiki:General disclaimer, Guild Wars Wiki:About and Guild Wars Wiki:Privacy policy should be protected for the same reasons. — Skuld 15:05, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Feature requests

Next, after the above have been dealt with, are some necessary luxuries.

  1. The ParserFunctions package
  2. The CategoryTree package
  3. The ImageMap package
  4. $wgAllowUserCss = true; and $wgAllowUserJs = true; in LocalSettings.php

S 13:42, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Some more:

  • Switch off page hit counters: $wgDisableCounters = true; in LocalSettings.php. Needless DB pressure.
  • Add "the official Guild Wars Wiki" to MediaWiki:Sitesubtitle.
  • Allow image links from the guildwars.com sites. $wgAllowExternalLinksFrom = 'http://www.guildwars.com'; in LocalSettings.php
  • Enable AJAX watching. $wgUseAjax = true; $wgAjaxWatch = true; in LocalSettings.php.

S 19:16, 7 February 2007 (PST)

And another:

  • Cite adds <ref[ name=id]> and <references/> tags, for citations

Barek 08:54, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I think allowing javascript is a horrible idea from a security perspective. Sure, it makes some fancy little things easier, but it also potentially allows for trivial XSS attacks, login spoofing, etc, and if Mike O'Brien's comment about embedding the wiki in game comes around, none of the JS will work in game. LordKestrel 10:52, 8 February 2007 (PST)

You have no idea what you're talking about. User JS and AJAX watching cannot possibly change how pages appear to anyone but that particular user. If you think this is such a security threat, look at Wikipedia, which has both turned on, and has all the above extensions. It's a matter of making the wiki easier to use for those who know how MediaWiki works. S 04:35, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Could we get ImageMagick? That way we could use png that resize properly w/ transparency. Then logos and icons won't look funny without a white background. This might be important if this wiki will later be used in-game. -Smurf 17:23, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I agree that ImageMagick and ParserFunctions would be excellent. I've grown far too used to ParserFunctions! LordBiro 04:52, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Logos on the main page

They look nice, but they are sure to take up unnecessary bandwidth and clicking them doesn't give the desired effect. — Skuld 14:48, 7 February 2007 (PST)

So... what's with the dual-wiki? Rapta 15:58, 7 February 2007 (PST)
This is Anet's official wiki they started. The Guild Wiki is a fan started/maintained wiki HanokOdbrook 10:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
For the record, this wiki is still predominantly fan maintained. LordBiro 13:52, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

ArenaNet copyright content

(I don't really know where to ask this - sorry if it is in the wrong place) Do we have the right to copy ArenaNet's content (such as lore, profession descriptions, images) from game manuals and their website directly, completely unmodified, to this official ArenaNet supported wiki? Or would someone from ArenaNet need to copy the information across to put it under the right license? --Aspectacle 15:59, 7 February 2007 (PST)

This wiki can only publish GFDL stuff. Game manuals are not GFDL unless Anet releases it as such. S 16:02, 7 February 2007 (PST)
That's kinda what I thought, but I thought I'd ask anyways. It'd be an easy way to get a start on those articles without having to think too hard about it. But then I'm lazy. :D --Aspectacle 16:09, 7 February 2007 (PST)
I assume that even the publicly released images at http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/kit/ are not usable here? --Pepe 13:09, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Stuff released for the publicity like the fansitekit might be usable. We would really need ANet comment on this. --Gem (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Taken from that page, verbatim:
For information about the appropriate and approved use of any Guild Wars assets, please read our Terms of Use and the Copyright Page. I think that kind of answers any of the questions. — Jyro X 13:21, 8 February 2007 (PST)
The question is where we draw the line. In that same Terms of use section it says:
Our art assets — be they concept art, in-game screenshots, verbal content, or renders — are all copyright materials. Their use is strictly prohibited unless approved in advance and in writing by ArenaNet.
All in-game images are the property of ArenaNet
Technically, the screenshots that we use almost constantly (and used on GuildWiki) don't meet the GFDL requirements. --Pepe 13:26, 8 February 2007 (PST)

And this : "You agree that you will not alter, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer or in any other way modify the content" say we're not supposed to change size of thing or put gold contour on it. --TulipVorlax 02:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

So according to Pepe's quote we can't even post a screen shot without Anet's permission? And according to TulipVorlax's quote, if we could post them, we can't even draw on it (like a route to get from point A to point B)? I hope I'm misinterpretting this or otherwise the other wiki and this one are already in big trouble... --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 09:49, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Agree with you there Vallen! This is starting to get to be a pain in the rear. It will reach the point where there will be virtually no images we can use. The dead hand of ANet will strangle this wiki before it can get off the ground if we are unable to contribute without going through their legal team every 5 minutes. I hope I'm very wrong and this is going to be a wiki, not a guildwars.com extension built for them by unpaid workers. Fox 10:00, 8 March 2007 (EST)
This is an old discussion fox, we can now use whatever we like here 66.90.73.60 10:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Guys, Pepe's message was from a month ago, the issue has already been resolved. :P The pages you want are Guild Wars Wiki:Copyrights and Guild Wars Wiki:Official content. Basically, we can use anything we want, whether it's from in-game or the guildwars.com website. The copyright licence makes sure that they aren't licensed as GFDL. Thus all sides are happy; we get to use that content, ANet gets to keep the rights to it. :) --Dirigible 10:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Thanks for clarifying :) Fox 10:14, 8 March 2007 (EST)

GW news and updates

Will these be posted here as well or not? If they are i suggest we pull them from the rss and wikify them ourselves after. --Phoenix 16:05, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Or maby ANet releases them from here and pulls the guildwars.com version from here. (Or not...) --Gem (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2007 (PST)

browser icon needed

The wiki need an website icon near the address. --Phoenix 17:39, 7 February 2007 (PST)

That would be a favicon. Ab.er.rant 00:52, 8 February 2007 (PST)

And you want one rather than one is needed --m0r1aty

I would want one too. It's irritating to have a million tabs open and only see the icons when the wiki doesn't have it's own icon. --Gem (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I agree. It should either be the "helmet" of GW.EXE, the GW Icon, or the Carapace Shield that is displayed as logo already. --Longasc 03:38, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I would accept both the GW.exe icon and the shield, but I'm in favor of the shield as it's used as the wiki logo. --Gem (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I created an icon and uploaded it here http://birke.gmxhome.de/Guild%20Wars%20Wiki.ico for now. I made a screenshot of a Carapace Shield and resized it to 32x32 pixels. Unfortunately I do not have a better icon editor than IrfanView, maybe someone can improve it so that edges do not get jagged when the background color is set transparent, which I would favor. At the moment it is grey. --Longasc 04:01, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I'll ask LordBiro to consult us on this matter. He might even have a great icon idea for us. --Gem (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2007 (PST)
It seems someone has sorted the favicon. I don't have any ideas at present, but the current one would look a lot cooler if it was transparent/translucent! LordBiro 10:43, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Okay I spent FOREVER pixelling this with the full size logo as reference (so it would be great if it got used lol): [1]. It is web safe color palette and 16 x 16 but I don't have a program to turn things into .ico installed at the moment. The current one bothers me because it just looks squishied. - BeXoR 11:19, 9 February 2007 (PST)
That is some beautiful pixel art on the mini gif Bexor! I really like it! It wouldn't look out of place in an amiga game or something ;) hehe LordBiro 11:31, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Thanks! :D I used to do a lot of pixel art in the past, I still have a lot of it on my website actually but that place is a mess and difficult to navigate. I ended up using the Photoshop tools a lot in the end of that venture though. The joys of lazy shortcuts. ;) - BeXoR 11:37, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I found a website that made favicons from gif so here is the file: mygwwikifavicon - BeXoR 11:47, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Uah! There is a background o.O - Just made some based on the .png GuildWarsWiki.ico Poke 16:14, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Can someone please replace the actual one? :) Poke 08:29, 11 February 2007 (PST)

(Reset indent) I updated my one a bit to make it resemble the shield more. Shield-Logo-Mini.gif and here it is in favicon form (web safe color pallette, transparency, can use or modify without asking permission or crediting me) - BeXoR 06:10, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I might be alone with this opinion, but does anyone else feel that the Crude Shield is hideously ugly? I don't like it as a logo, let alone a favicon. -- Dashface 00:14, 27 February 2007 (EST)
It's always the Crimson Carapace Shield to me. I think it's pretty with all the engraved scrollwork. It's definitely iconic. - BeXoR 00:16, 27 February 2007 (EST)
The shield is neither crude nor crimson. The detail is good, but I can't bring myself to call anything in the likeness of a skull "pretty". Something like the shield icon for the Sunspear Arena would be nice. -- Dashface 18:59, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I made a favicon : File:Gw 2.gif It is the official GW icon on which I wrote WIKI. Simple, instantly recognizable and looks cool on dark and light background. If you use Firefox you can test it with the Favicon Picker 2 plug-in. PogS 06:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I like it that the favicon is the same as the wiki logo, so I don't support changing it. Besides, the text is unrecognisable and looks a bit stupid. -- Gem (gem / talk) 06:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Did you test it before saying that ? I can read it quite easily moreover on a mouse over. Looks a bit stupid ? What does this mean? How can the work "wiki" be stupid ? This is there to make the difference betwen the GW site and the GW wiki. At the same time it is the same logo so you know this is official and this a wiki.

How can I say it looks a bit stupid? It's an opinnion so I can say it if I want to. I have never liked the game icon too much and I would not like to see it used. And it is not the same image that is used for the wiki logo. The shield is the wiki logo, so the favicon should be the shield too. -- Gem (gem / talk) 07:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
On a white background the first stroke of the W and the last I are difficult to see because they are yellow next to white. The logo that is being used at present was produced by ArenaNet. This is the official logo of the official wiki. While we do have the right to change it, I believe that changing the wiki logo to the same image as that used for guildwars.com, except with the words "wiki" written on top of it, is not good enough. LordBiro 07:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
PogS is meh, why not use bexors? -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 07:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
The crude shield is our logo and a favicon of it would be more appropriate than using the guildwars helm icon. And BeXoR's "web-safe" icon seems unnecessary since most computers can display more than 256 colors now. -Smurf User Smurf.png 08:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Please instead of just judging the logo from viewing it inside this page on a white bg, try using in for real , where it belongs, in a browser tab. There you will see that it fits as it's not on a white background.

Ok having a background-less icon is reasonable, but the guild wars helm icon is not our logo even if we are part of the guildwars.com domain. -Smurf User Smurf.png 09:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Why don't we use this one: GuildWarsWiki.ico? It's transparent and it is our shield. Poke 12:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
BeXoR has already produced an icon (mentioned further up the page) that I think we should use. LordBiro 12:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

OpenSearch Plugin

I know MW is supposed to support it, but it,s not working. It says that it could not download the plugin from : http://wiki.guildwars.com/opensearch_desc.php --Phoenix 17:39, 7 February 2007 (PST)

I'll ask some1 if they can make on for us ~ KurdKurdsig.png07:20, 24 February 2007 (EST)
Ok maybe not, some1 else is gonna have to make one ~ KurdKurdsig.png19:12, 28 February 2007 (EST)
Ok we have one tnx to this guy, look here ~ KurdKurdsig.png18:08, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Word from ANet

Biro will post up something more substantial either soon or tomorrow (after he wakes up), but the short answer to some questions are:

  • ANet's leaving policy up to you guys. In particular they want a policy for deciding on sysops and bureaucrats. User page concerns are up to you, within reason. Their main concern is that ANet is hosting the site so anything posted is, at least, indirectly related to them. They probably want a tighter stance on user pages than GWiki has.
  • ANet employees are allowed to discuss anything about a released project but, of course, they have no obligations to do so.
  • ANet will probably post some information themselves like news or patch notes.
  • If you guys want certain graphics, they'll provide some of their graphic artists to help.

So really, you're free to do as you want (as Emily has put into the FAQ question about "is ANet running the wiki"). You should discuss and lay down policy. --Fyren 18:08, 7 February 2007 (PST)

As Fyren said, I took some notes, but it is 02:10 here right now, so I'll post it in about 8 hours time. LordBiro 18:12, 7 February 2007 (PST)
Do either of you have server access? Can you get us PF and turn on user CSS etc? S 18:13, 7 February 2007 (PST)
Sounds fair to me. For anyone who might start on the user page policy: I would suggest a user page policy allowing the user page and a few sub pages (5 maby). The main user page would be allowed to have information of yourself and your in game stuff. The sub pages would be allowed to have game related stuff like quick references for yourself or humor stuff/research. This would make the official wiki feel like home without getting out of hands. :) --Gem (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2007 (PST)
I see no sense in making elaborate standards for non-content pages. S 18:20, 7 February 2007 (PST)
Quoting Fyren: User page concerns are up to you, within reason. Their main concern is that ANet is hosting the site so anything posted is, at least, indirectly related to them. They probably want a tighter stance on user pages than GWiki has.
They want us to have a policy and we could do it well on the first try so we don't need ot change it later on. --Gem (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2007 (PST)
As a random example, they don't want people posting rants about why World of Warcraft sucks. I didn't get a good answer out of where the "do not cross this ever" line lies. They'd like everything to be Guild Wars related. --Fyren 18:36, 7 February 2007 (PST)
I would assume that Anet is far more concerned about what is written on user pages, than how much. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 04:26, 8 February 2007 (PST)
This seems like the most important thing, says the person late to the party. I suspect ANet doesn't care that much about five versus ten pages per player. The big financial hit to them is likely to be bandwidth (based on how many users are viewing the wiki), more than disk space (based on number of pages and how many there are). JoDiamonds 16:37, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Hi! Yep, pretty late ;p check out Guild Wars Wiki:User page. -- ab.er.rant sig 20:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I will attempt to work on drafting up some rough copies of various policies when I get home from classes tomorrow if they have not already been done. — Jyro X 23:04, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Profession Colors

We're allowed to use the same colors, I take it? Rapta 21:00, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Why not. Colors can't be under the license and we used a lot of time thinking them through. --Gem (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2007 (PST)
For the most part, the final colours were chosen by Barek, so if he's released his work under the FDL then there should be no problem. LordBiro 03:59, 8 February 2007 (PST)
What I listed was actually values set by other participants - although I did tweak some. I think it should be okay to use those colors; but if we want to keep it clean, then maybe just using Lord Biro's base colors from the profession icons he created would be better. The implemented version from over there were mainly close to his in background, but deviated on the border colors. --Barek 11:39, 9 February 2007 (PST)

User Contributions in Terms of Graphics/Layout

Will users be able to make contributions in terms of graphics as well? I'm sure the ANet graphics team has enough of a workload, and that those who can would like to help (including myself). Besides, this site needs a cooler logo. :) --Doram 22:54, 7 February 2007 (PST)

You can upload files to use on the wiki, either by using the Upload file link in the toolbox on the left, then insert them into an article with [[Image:image name.jpg]] where image name.jpg is the name of the file. Alternately you can just put [[Image:image name.jpg]] in an article and then click on the resulting red link. While we don't currently have an Image use policy, you should read over GuildWiki's policy as the one here will probably be similar. As always images that are deemed inappropriate will most likely be deleted and may be cause for administrative action if they are "bad enough" (i.e. porn or the like). As for the site's logo, that one was created by ANet and is different from the one that was up yesterday (better IMO) and it not editable. --Rainith 23:12, 7 February 2007 (PST)


Build directory

Is it planned to add a build directory here? Also who will be judging the viability of build? --Bob 03:28, 8 February 2007 (PST)

The current policy is to not add builds or other content which isn't hard facts that can be verified in game. --Gem (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Where can I read that "current policy"? --Tetris L 05:02, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Don't know if it reads in one of the current policies / policy suggestions, that's just what everyone keeps saying out loud. I should probably read them all... --Gem (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I'm 100% against it. — Skuld 05:22, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Ditto Bubbinska 03:22, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Soo...theres a dead link to "Builds" on the front page. Is the directory soon to come? EatMoreCarbs 16:17, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I would hope not. I was reading the standing on the builds but nothing has been posted here saying otherwise. As far as what was discussed, I saw that builds could be kept on user pages only. That makes sense to me as then a user can keep their builds without worry of deletion or vandalism (per se). No builds is a good idea IMO.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 05:14, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I should stress that this main page is not final. ArenaNet said that they produced this main page simply as a filler, and that we should create our own. So obviously they had no idea whether or not we would be allowing builds when they produced it. LordBiro 05:16, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I'm not 100% against a build section, but am 100% against the way it was done on the first Gwiki. The problem with voting on builds is that self selection (as a voter) has terrible biases. Also, a small number of voters is all that was required to accept or reject a build, also terribly skewed. Lastly, typical people just don't possess the logical rigour or objectivity to really reliably vote on anything (think america is democracy? wrong. it's a republic and for a good reason.) Everyone has different ideas about what they are voting on and why they are doing it. What should probably be posted is metagame builds only, and people can discuss, edit (vote if you want to), on whether the correct metagame builds are posted. Such a section is valuable to new players for its info and jump start on build designing, and to experienced players so they can design builds around the metagame (if these are the most typical builds, then we know how to design our own builds to counter or not be countered by the most common things). I think a build section is a good idea, but it should only contain metagame builds. This idea isn't new and was actually suggested by Skuld I think on the first Gwiki. Why not try and implement it now on a fresh wiki? We certainly don't know how it will fully work, so start out slow and reserve the right to nix the whole thing if it gets outta hand. Start with a lot of discussion, get some ideas. There really arn't that many metagame builds. Most of the time all you have to do is say "I'm an X/X" and everybody knows exactly what build you are running; of course, context clues figure in too. If there isn't a build section then you really need a strong profession or skill section that can substitute for it, to give people ideas of what classes or skills are used how. I say a certain kind of build section is a good idea though. But give the admins of this site the power of council to cancel the build section if it gets bad.--Windjammer 00:49, 11 February 2007 (PST)
I agree that the new wiki should not have the same type of Builds Page. To me, as a wiki user, it seemed fairly useless to new players, as they don't have the required skills. It also seemed to consume a lot of time for wiki volunteers in testing every one and then re-testing after skill adjustments. This type of thing should be left to the fan forums. A builds section on the GvG, HA, Farming, etc. pages would allow for display of the popular builds for each type of play without inviting unwanted submissions, but giving newcomers information on builds seen in Observer mode or talked about in in-game chat or fan forums.65.7.211.83 05:53, 11 February 2007 (PST)
I like the idea of documenting what is used, not what is new. Of course every path has its pitfalls, but there are some good ideas being discussed here for those interested in contributing. - BeXoR 05:59, 11 February 2007 (PST)

This issue is currently being debated here. --Xeeron 06:29, 11 February 2007 (PST)

The link was in my comment already. :P - BeXoR 07:02, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Other Languages

Is ArenaNet going to host wikis in the other languages supported by the game? Recently TheLair, the main italian fansite, has create an italian wiki [2], but if ArenaNet intends to host a wiki in our language, probably would be wiser for us to work on that, instead of duplicating contents and efforts. --Lumenil 05:21, 8 February 2007 (PST)

When I spoke to Mike and Gaile yesterday, they said they'd open up wikis in other languages once the English version is on its feet. They didn't say which languages specifically. --Fyren 05:24, 8 February 2007 (PST)
look here:
a little bit to fast, or ? -- Flece
Wow... looks like Anet is going all out to try and absorb all the existing GW wikis... Ab.er.rant 09:22, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I think it will depend on the quality of the wiki developed in each community language. ArenaNet won't want to link a poorly done wiki as the in-game help source even if it's the only one available in a certain language. Remember that ArenaNet is not "creating" the wiki, they are supplying servers etc. to host the wiki in return for one that can function (at some point) as in-game help. But, in return, they need a viable wiki that will be kept up-to-date by the community.65.7.211.83 06:42, 9 February 2007 (PST)

They host a wiki based on the english version, rules by the guildwiki.com admins, what does it mean?
The policies and the rules are pre-established and we have to go to bed... this is totally un-wiki. --86.217.170.248 10:42, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I hope ArenaNet will start fast a german wiki. Kerish 13:39, 12 February 2007 (PST)
The German Wiki is down. So please open a German Version. 217.227.168.201 23:55, 22 February 2007 (EST)
The German Wiki is NOT down. But - please open the official german Version soon.--217.225.17.216 06:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Map

Can ANet provide raw map image from the game? A fully fully explored map without cloud effect would be so much cleaner then the usual screenshot whit red dot path? --Bob 05:51, 8 February 2007 (PST)

See Map. ANet allready provided us with a few maps. --Gem (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Great maps. are they already splited by zone or this must be done? --Bob 06:18, 8 February 2007 (PST)
What do you mean? Maps for the location articles? Thos will probably have to be done by the contributors. --Gem (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Wont there be small map on boss and quests articles that point location? Some mini map template for each zone would be useful for that purpose. --Bob 06:39, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Skills template

Any news on writing skill,spells? are there any template for it?, if not will anyone be making one? ~ Kurd 06:47, 8 February 2007 (PST)

With regards to the skill template, anyone wants to think of some way of preserving the history of skill changes? It was a common question where some people would like to write articles on skill changes. Ab.er.rant 09:24, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Fyron mentioned before that he could produce the XML histories (which would be easily programmaticly parseable with a little perl or such). Is there anyone on this wiki who can do that? Oblio 14:22, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Discussion with ArenaNet

Hello! I'm sure you can appreciate that, since the conversation lasted close to 2 hours, and it started at midnight GMT, I decided to wait until I'd slept before writing up a summary of the discussion that Fyren and I had with Gaile Gray and Mike O'Brien.

I'm just going to write this in the approximate order that we discussed it, and I'd ask Fyren, Mike or Gaile to correct me on any errors I may have made.

I would also ask you to put any comments you might have about each subject at the very end under comments, so as not to break up the text. Thanks!

The current sysops and bureaucrats on the official wiki

Firstly we discussed the current sysops and bureaucrats on the site. Mike wanted to stress that ArenaNet employees would not have bureaucrat or sysop status on the official wiki.

The bureaucrat and sysop roles will be reserved for members of the community.

Bureaucrat selection

We discussed how bureaucrats had been chosen on the GuildWiki, and how Gravewit had chosen Tanaric, and how Tanaric had chosen me.

After discussing the role of bureaucrats, Mike said that he wants the official wiki to come up with a democratic system where it would choose who the bureaucrats would be, but these bureaucrats would only have a limited term in office.

The reasoning Mike gave as to the limited term in office is that ArenaNet want the wiki to continue indefinitely. They don't want a situation where the bureaucrats become inactive. Mike suggested a term of 1 year, but personally I think that's too long of a term, considering the speed at which wiki's change, and I suggested 6 months.

As for who should vote for bureaucrats, Mike had concerns about allowing the entire community to vote. He wondered if the official wiki could set up an electoral college system of voting. He also had concerns about allowing sysops to elect the bureaucrats, since the bureaucrats pick the sysops.

I should stress at this point that this is something that ArenaNet would like the official wiki to decide on. What would be the fairest and most robust way of electing bureaucrats?

Off-wiki discussion

He also asked if the sysops would like a mailing list. I told him that the issue of a private forum had been discussed by the sysops on GuildWiki, and so far no conclusion had been reached. Mike said that ArenaNet would not be willing to set up a forum, because ArenaNet would not have the resources to maintain such a forum. As you might be aware, I was opposed to the creation of a private forum for reasons given on Tanaric's talk page on GuildWiki. I didn't go into this in much depth, but if the sysops decide that they want one then they can have one.

The gradual build-up VS the massive influx

The GuildWiki was built a very slow fashion. There were only a handful of active contributors to begin with, and that meant that communication was very straightforward and there was no need for heavy style guidelines until later on.

We discussed whether this would be possible on the official wiki. At present the official wiki is only receiving edits from users who have found their way here via GuildWiki (at least, that's what I would imagine). ArenaNet want to know that, once they begin linking to the official wiki from guildwars.com, it will have enough structure to be able to deal with all of the new contributors.

I am of the opinion that the official wiki certainly need some basic guidelines in place from the start, although Fyren didn't agree with me too much, and I'm sure he will post his thoughts below.

User pages

We spent a long time on this. Mike made it clear that, since ArenaNet are hosting the wiki, they will be automatically associated with the content on the wiki, whether it's on the user pages or not, and they can't be seen to be allowing certain types of content.

Mike wanted to stress that he felt the wiki should be fact-oriented, and I think Fyren and I made a good argument that, if there's no camaraderie within the community, and no sense of safety from persecution on user pages, then people would not enjoy contributing.

We said that on GuildWiki there is a policy whereby sysops would only intervene with a users page if they displayed illegal content, but Mike said that ArenaNet would have to be a little stricter than that since they could not support someone who launches into a tirade about why WoW sucks.

Fyren explained that having to police user pages for this kind of thing would be demoralising, because the average user might not understand the implications, and it's not going to be enjoyable for the sysop policing it.

Overall I don't think user pages will be a problem. There isn't any need for overly restrictive user page policies, I would even go as far as saying user pages don't have to be about guild wars, provided they don't stray too far.

In response to discussions going on at User page, from experience on the GuildWiki, user pages never posed a problem as far as bandwidth or storage was concerned, and all that ArenaNet have said is that they can't allow anything that would be offensive. I will post my thoughts on that page as well, but I think having a policy that prevents subpages/long pages/colourful pages is to the detriment of the wiki, and it's not something that ArenaNet have asked for.

Differentiation between wiki and guildwars.com

GuildWars.com and the official wiki serve very different purposes; one is a marketing tool and one is a reference tool.

ArenaNet want to make sure that the two look and feel very different.

As you might be aware, the appearance of the GuildWiki is something that I've taken a personal interest in. Mike said that the Guild Wars artists would be available if the official wiki needed anything, but that for the most part he would prefer the style of the wiki to be different to that of guildwars.com. Gaile and Mike were aware that I'd made the profession icons for the GuildWiki, and I used that as an argument that, for the most part, the community are able to produce the artwork needed for the site themselves.

Gaile mentioned that it might be possible to have some sort of artwork competition in the future, which sounds cool.

Additional roles

As I mentioned above, Mike said that ArenaNet staff would not have bureaucrat or sysop status; instead they would have their own roles.

When we discussed this there were no such roles, but Fyren has pointed out to me that these roles are now in place. Mike explained the roles as follows:

  • ArenaNet - an ArenaNet staff member who may participate in the wiki
  • ArenaNet Contrib - an ArenaNet employee who adds content to the wiki in a somewhat more formal sense (I will mention this again later).
  • ArenaNetIT - a role for the IT team, for maintenance purposes.
  • ArenaNet Liaison - a member of the ArenaNet Community Relations Team.

Autonomy of Sysops and Bureaucrats

The points from here on were questions that I'd noted from GuildWiki.

I asked how much autonomy sysops and bureaucrats would be allowed. Mike said that they had no interest in defining policies for the official wiki. Basically ArenaNet don't want to moderate the wiki, and so sysops and bureaucrats would have as much autonomy as on the GuildWiki. He did say that ArenaNet might intervene in extreme circumstances, i.e. vandalism by a sysop of bureaucrat, or mass demotion/promotion by a bureaucrat, but he doesn't foresee this happening.

He also expressed his hope that admins would stay in regular contact with liaisons.

Information from developers

Gaile has (or is in the process of) mailing all ArenaNet employees with conditions as to what they can discuss on the official wiki. As Fyren said earlier, ArenaNet employees will be able to discuss whatever they like with regards to products that have already shipped, but it is at their own discretion. This means that ArenaNet will not be providing the official wiki with the actual calculations from the game, but if a developer wanted to volunteer this information then he/she could do so.

Foreign Languages

On this subject I have no more to report than Fyren: Foreign language wikis exist, but they are not active, and won't be active until ArenaNet are satisfied with the English version.

In response to Karlos' walkthrough question

I can't speak on Mike's behalf, but I can say that I believe that articles such as Hell's Precipice would be allowed. Mike said that he had no interest in getting involved with the policy decisions, since that should be left up to the members of the wiki, and I doubt that ArenaNet would have an interest in removing such content.

Summary

ArenaNet would like the following from the current members of the official wiki:

  1. Some guidelines (of some sort) on building the wiki. These can either be style and formatting articles or something similar, or they could just be model articles from which other articles can be built.
  2. Suggestions for a system of government.

Overall the discussion was quite positive, and I got the feeling that Mike and Gaile were very optimistic.

Please post any comments or questions below.

LordBiro 08:48, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Comments

A question. How far can we use the old wiki information? I want to start building some skill pages and skill icons like Spiteful Spirit and such, but i don't know what i'm allowed to do and what i'm not. Kailden Jera 10:44, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Everything which was contributed by users who have released their contributions under the GFDL may be copied. Nothing else can be, but facts are free to be used ofcourse, you just need to rewrite the stuff. --Gem (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2007 (PST)
It depends what you mean by "old wiki information". If you mean the facts, then they are facts and as such they are not copyrighted. If you want to make Spiteful Spirit then you can do that now! :) LordBiro 11:14, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Ya, are we moving the same templatized skill system over? etc.? Oblio 11:16, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Well... that's a difficult issue, and it probably deserve its own article rather than being discussed here, but I will say that from one point of view the skill template system used on GuildWiki is very clever, but from another point of view it is unbelievably complex.
There are also issues of license restrictions. Much of the groundwork for the template system on GuildWiki was laid down by Fyren and PanSola, and Xeon has done much of the work since then. I would say that, if Fyren and PanSola agreed to have their contributions released under the FDL, then we could implement the same, or a similar, system on this wiki.
However, that's not to say that we should implement such a system. As I said, this really should have its own article :) And I reckon Guild Wars Wiki:Style and formatting/Skills would be a useful place! LordBiro 11:21, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Having hated that long article name for ages, might I suggest Guild Wars Wiki:Layout/Skills instead? Anything that is one short word will do as well. --Xeeron 11:25, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Actually that's a very valid point Xeeron! Although I think Guild Wars Wiki:Style and subpages would be better. What do you think? LordBiro 11:38, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Counting letters, your proposal beats mine, go ahead in ... err with style! --Xeeron 13:04, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I have allready started using Guild Wars Wiki:Style. Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Profession colors --Gem (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I really like that choice. I'm a big fan of using intuitive section headers and then subpages, as you've done. *thumbs up* --Gaile Gray 15:08, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I have to admit that I was obliquely hinting that there is a time for spiteful spirit to be blue, but I'm not sure if it's quite yet. This portion of site design is difficult (category tree's, namespace, layouts, etc.) Oblio 11:40, 8 February 2007 (PST)
So? Do i have "carte blanch" to do this articles? Just a litle change here and there. Of course you guys could monitor things you find out to break rules. Kailden Jera 12:05, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Everyone has carte blanche to change everything! :) But we need to get frameworks setup too. Oblio 12:08, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I've put together an example using a skill box that I just put together. It looks the same as the skill box on GuildWiki (but I designed that (if you can call picking "lightgreen" designing)). LordBiro 12:59, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Beaten again! Had just posted a message regarding that on Gem's talk page, but then immediately saw you creating the template. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 13:00, 8 February 2007 (PST)
Oh goodie. You guys gotta teach me on how to do that. I was wondering on how to do that but i can't find on how to do it.Kailden Jera 13:25, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Hope it's ok, LordBiro -- I added a newly-created category to the ArenaNet staff member designations, clarified the roles, and updated the name types because we decided to amend them slightly. If you'd prefer I provide those updates in the Comments section, let me know and I'll keep my mitts off the body of text. :D --Gaile Gray 15:14, 8 February 2007 (PST)

That's fine Gaile! I just wanted people to post at the end because sometimes it can be difficult to see where the information ends and the discussion begins, but since you were amending the information it's not a problem :) LordBiro 15:18, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Question about the above notes. What about gliches, anomalies, etc.? We keep track of them on GWiki and they often make it into the guides or skill notes. Will those be allowable here?--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 05:48, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I could see it both ways. While devs probably don't want people exploiting glitches, if people post it on the wiki and a dev wanders by, there's the glitch just waiting to be fixed ;) ~ File:GeckoSprite.gif Pae 16:50, 9 February 2007 (PST)

This mostly follows LordBiro's outline with some extra bits later on. Search for Pae and skip it if you don't want to read it. It's a bit messy...
Bureaucrat selection: There is no perfect way, unless everyone's main interest is what benefits the wiki the most, and that simply isn't true. I'm not sure if Tanaric and LordBiro would become bureaucrats, since they seemed to have similar roles on GuildWiki. It seems a bit arbitrary, but I think that 6 months is too short for a bureacrat's term. If someone does become one, I'd assume that they've had at least a bit of history with the wiki and remain active after gaining the status. On voting, I'm not sure that the electoral college system of working would work. The representatives would need to be voted on by the community, which just brings in a bunch of problems, since people can easily create sockpuppets(? either that or the other term) to choose someone. It would also be a mess, since many people would probably be nominated. I think that it would be better to have sysops nominate bureaucrats, then let the community give some input, though they won't be voting. I think that it should be okay, since sysops should be keeping the wiki in mind, and they should know each other better. I suppose that the sysops who participate in the bureaucrat vote should already have a few months (3?) worth of activity behind them to make sure that behavior is consistent. And to safeguard against the possibility of someone popping back up and becoming active in hopes of gaining a position. It's happened elsewhere before.

How many bureacrats; how many sysops? Change sysop appt to: anyone can nominate; sysops vote. Then have bureacrats elected by sysop body. "Democratic" is too unwieldy even with an electoral college and would not reflect the usefulness of the nominee to the wiki, just his/her visibility. Having the sysops do the electing would ensure the continuation of the wiki as they are the people actively working on it.65.7.211.83 05:41, 10 February 2007 (PST)


Off-wiki discussion: Couldn't the sysops just randomly pick a forum on their own and lock it down?
The gradual build-up VS the massive influx: It'll be huge, so it'll need plenty of preparation. There are a couple things that I think would be required before even considering announcing it. It needs main policies established. That'd include things like expected behavior (rules/code of conduct), possible consequences if those aren't followed, editing policies (no reverting past x amount of times), and dealing with vandalism and other nastiness. Basic templates are also needed. Offhand, I'm mainly thinking of skills lists, skills info, armors, and builds (if those will be allowed). Some basic outline for articles in general might also help. A guide on contributing (basic wiki info and how to/how not to contribute) would also be nice.
Autonomy of Sysops and Bureaucrats: I think that basic guidelines are needed to have some consistency while allowing flex room, or it'll cause mass confusion and possibly cries of favoritism. A code of conduct for sysops and bureaucrats might also be nice for community reference.
Walkthroughs: The wiki wouldn't be a real reference site without them. This is especially true if it gets integrated with the game. People get stuck on challenging missions and get frustrated. They'll want something they can reference for some help.
Sysops and Bureaucrats tag?: If it's possible, I think that a tag limited to sysops and bureaucrats could be used to mark something as an administrative action/decision. Otherwise, it could cause confusion when opinions are involved in a discussion.
Other comments: I'm not sure about others, but when there's brainstorming going on, I prefer IRC, just because it's close to real time discussion and prompts more ideas. If people would like a network, I know of a smaller family friendly (need to be keyed otherwise) one to use where we'd be left alone. I'm not sure if posting a link would be appropriate or not, though. ~ File:GeckoSprite.gif Pae 16:50, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I've started working on Guild Wars Wiki:Charter policy, which is to be a suggestion that is closely related to these topics. Unfortunately, it still requires a lot of work. --Rezyk 16:52, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Something I forgot in the summary above

It's just occurred to me that I forgot to mention that ArenaNet would like us to redesign the Main Page. They said that they just ordered the main page like it is now so that there would be something there. Just thought I better let you know ;) LordBiro 13:37, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Thank goodness. The current layout looks like a game manual for beginners, when probably 90% of the wiki users have been playing for over a year. Please go with something resembling the old layout. And the mission, quest etc links are lost to view up with the game logos.65.7.211.83 20:24, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I like the mission, quest, storyline and map links under the logos. The rest should be organised and presented better thou. --Gem (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Grouping them with the logos is fine (I'm all for less steps to access info), but they are lost visually. Something needs to be done to emphasize them more.65.7.211.83 03:55, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Agreed. --Gem (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Personally, I think we should create a unique new look for the main page - not a copy of the old one. At the very least, reorganise and change the color selection.
Personally. I wouldn't mind seeing something resembling Gwiki's quick access links making it either onto the main page, or at least onto the official wiki someplace. --Barek 17:14, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Guild Wars Wikia content available

Please note that all the contents of the english Guild Wars Wikia are licensed under GNU FDL and therefore can be copied to this wiki without asking for any extra permissions. --Rezyk 15:42, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Note that, to do this, you must state that you copied from the GW Wikia and provide a link to the contribution history of the article in question. —Tanaric 13:36, 9 February 2007 (PST)
Does this include images and walkthroughs etc? Of course some of the info on GuildWikis pages are just fact, which as mentioned is non-copyrightable and can be used, but things like Walkthroughs and images (even though of GWs) are user created. Can we still copy these? Can you also show a demo of how we should link to any copied articles? Vandal2k7 06:41, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
We can copy anything from a wiki with the same license as ours, but we must have a complete history of contributors in order to satisfy the terms of the license. This means if you copy anything from Guild Wars Wikia there must be some way to see who contributed to that article.
So to answer your question, yes, you can take anything from a site with the same license as ours, including user-created content, but you must link back to the page that you took it from. LordBiro 07:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
As for the "demo of how we should link" part of your question, a simple link in the summary of your edit should do, (e.g. "Copied from Guild Wars Wikia"). --Dirigible 07:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Great, cleared a lot up there. Watch me go now! :) Vandal2k7 09:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Skill icons

As one of the important things conten twise are skills, I would like to discuss them as soon as possible. I've started discussion on the skill icons at Guild Wars wiki talk:Style/Skills. --Gem (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Let's not repeat mistakes

The current trend here on the official wiki is to copy GuildWiki, more or less. On one hand that is a good thing, because it'll speed up the process. And GuildWiki isn't such a bad role model overall, given the success. On the other hand there is the risk that we make the same mistakes yet again. Many things on GuildWiki were the result of a hasty draft, without the whole picture in mind. Later, when the flaws were found the thing was already so well established that it was too late to change the status quo. Some things were changed, but it took looong and tiresome crusades, editing hundreds of articles.

Now we're building the thing again, from scratch, and I can't help but feel that we're already repeating mistakes. Everybody is rushing. How often do you get the chance to "turn back time"? We have the chance here, so I'm asking you to stop for a second and think about it: What do you want to do different this time? What things would you like to change compared to GuildWiki? Please be brief, and to the point. --Tetris L 04:50, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Yes, we need the templates up fast, especially the skill templates. Lightblade 18:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Short list of stuff which I feel could have been better on guildwiki:
  • Policies should be clearly formulated and clear about how they are enforced.
  • Article names should be self-explaining and short.
  • Links (and "Link-chains") starting from the main page should never lead to categories.
  • We should have a guideline describing how much "complex" syntax is allowed at which places.
  • A better place to coordinate big tasks (especially a place where others can be notified before big "crusades" start). This should be separate from the "I am new here, how can I help" article.
  • Personally, I found the category structure (of PvE related articles) very confusing for a long time. Maybe this can be prevented by drawing a logical and useful category tree in advance. --Xeeron 05:34, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I am quite interested in your point about coordinating big tasks. There was a GuildWiki:Project area that never really took off. Do you think something like this would work if we publicised it from the start? LordBiro 05:45, 9 February 2007 (PST)
The old community portal served as that partly: Informing others about big tasks that needed to be done. However it was not generally used as a mean to inform others about big tasks currently under way (to prevent doubling of work), only those wanted. It also tried to be a "place of first contact" for new users and "information exchange" for old users at the same time, which, in my mind, lead to it failing on both accounts. If those could be separated, something like Guild Wars Wiki:Tasks would be beneficial. --Xeeron 06:05, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I hate the old GWiki's search engine. 1/2 the words are capitalized the other half aren't and only some have redirects. Some require quotes and exclamations, etc. etc. I hated most having to type "Watch Yourself!" when I should logically come to the same results as typing:

  • watch yourself

I think you see my point by using this example. Others like "Go for the Eyes!" require capitals on some but not others (as it used to search for words that needed capitals on only the first 2 words) etc. Is there a way to just eliminate capitals in the search altogether? Just my thoughts.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 05:55, 9 February 2007 (PST)

The search engine in Media Wiki seems really bad... Is this a separate plug in? Can something better be used? More...say...Lucene-based or something? --Vladtheemailer 06:37, 9 February 2007 (PST)

On the subject of redirects I have drafted Guild Wars Wiki:Redirects to be much more lenient and, in fact, encourage users to put redirects wherever would be helpful. LordBiro 06:17, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I'm all for the idea of project pages, but there needs to be some way of enforcing them. Currently BeXoR is working on the armor pages (which will take some time) but during that time people are uploading anything. Maybe protecting the Armor page is in order until its all ready? -- Scourge 05:58, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Lately the wiki has shown a tendency to NOT explain the obvious. This is not good. A forum question led me to the wiki looking for basic info on traps (trigger time), but all I could find was skill descriptions on a quick reference page. Keep in mind that basic info is just as important as detailed test results.65.7.211.83 06:07, 9 February 2007 (PST)

You have a valid point and often I still see questions in my head even though the skill says what it does, we also know that some act different from how they read and may suspect that it is working differently. For example, I did a lot of explaining of Splinter Weapon on GWiki and the notes explaining the already mostly clear skill were cryptic or non-existant or even redundant or biased toward or against other professions. By adding extra knowledge in a notes section it helps the skeptical or less informed user. I do support more info but only if it's concise and needed. Adding a note saying This skill is useless for rangers or Warriors are not good against this boss would be excluded and so on but adding useful info that may help understand it I am fine with (like: As this is a touch skill it's energy cost can be reduced by ranks in a primary Ranger's Expertise attribute.) even if it's sometimes understood.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 06:43, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I agree that Skill Notes should not be opinion-based; opinions change with skill changes. Using the Notes to give pertinent information that will aid the player and not require editing every few months would be great.
But my point was about the lack of basic info. For example, where is the information that describes the purpose of a trap, the damage radius, the trigger radius, etc.? Assuming that every player who selects a ranger as primary or secondary knows by instinct all this information is ridiculous. My ranger is 8 months old and has never laid a trap; which is why I went to the wiki for info to help the forum poster.65.7.211.83 07:29, 9 February 2007 (PST)
I don't mean to be rude but this may come off a little blunt. Did you even try searching for "trap"? I typed that in the search and all that info and more came up that you were looking for including a link to a trapping guide. See here. I have no idea what you might be looking for with a search for "trap (trigger time)" and I think you may have made the search more complex in an effort to find basic info. If all else fails you can alway default to the profession pages like "ranger" and get all the basics, tools, and links on how to play a ranger (or any other profession) as they even made effective profession guides for each profession as well. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 10:25, 9 February 2007 (PST)
My apologies, you are correct that the info is there. I do not remember what search term I used this morning. Thank you for the help.65.7.211.83 13:24, 9 February 2007 (PST)

I'm going to complain about this. This might not be the best place for it, but I hope someone reads it. The section includes several hundred items on a few dozen pages, with a bunch of redundancy. The pages take an hour to write, and hours more to error-check, and there are errors. (E.g. this is not included here. You could fix it, but then I'd just need to find a new example.)

So, since you already have a fancy database, I'd recommend making collector pages that can be populated automatically. That would save some work, and prevent errors. It's just going to get worse. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.139.17.252 .

I presume that by "you" you mean "ArenaNet". ArenaNet will not be contributing information in this way. This is a player-run wiki. LordBiro 18:44, 24 February 2007 (EST)
Thank you. Missing collector weapon has been added. Feel free to note any more missing collector weapons or to edit them in. -- ab.er.rant 19:53, 24 February 2007 (EST)

No, by "you", I mean "you". Does that mean you're not going to do anything? Thanks for fixing my example, but you still need to fix all the other mistakes. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.139.17.252 .

You might have been mistaken. What exactly do you mean by "a fancy database"? We don't have access to Anet's database of collectors, if that's what you mean. Users fix mistakes as they come across them. It's not like there's some sort of signal that pops up whenever a mistake in an article occurs, and there's only so many pages that one can patrol and watch at one time. What are the other mistakes? You aren't prohibited from editing pages. -- ab.er.rant sig 00:25, 26 February 2007 (EST)

... Where can I get an intelligent answer to a simple question? Can you direct me there?

I don't know what the other mistakes are, but there are surely dozens or scores of them, and I don't have days or weeks to check every page. Why don't you do that? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:72.139.17.252 .

I don't mean Arenanet's information, I mean the collector list that I already linked to, which is complete and accurate.

It is a wiki, you can feel free to make what edits you want, you cannot however, expect that people will jump and make them for you. --Rainith 14:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)

omg...yes, you're the third person to say that without answering my question The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.17.252 (talk • contribs) 11:24, February 26, 2007 (PST).

(Edit conflict) Why do you assume that anyone else has the time to check for these mistakes? Please do not insult other users by insinuating that they or their responses aren't intelligent. GWW:NPA
You seem to be asking wiki users to generate pages using a database that doesn't exist. Every bit of data presented here is collected the same way as it was at gwiki - users copy information from the game. Anet isn't providing us with anything. - BeXoR 14:17, 26 February 2007 (EST)

omfg...NO ONE HAS TIME TO CHECK THEM ALL! There are thousands of links on dozens of pages! I was suggesting a slightly better way of doing it that wouldn't be plagued by errors. Why do I have to say everything 3 times here?

...

Rainith, can you just read my suggestion and give a useful answer? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.17.252 (talk • contribs) 11:33, February 26, 2007 (PST).

You have gotten accurate answers already - you're not listenning.
What database are you thinking the data can be populated out of? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 14:39, 26 February 2007 (EST)
To clarify: we do not have access to ArenaNet's database - this is a player populated wiki. We do not have open access to the Guild Wiki database - that is a different fansite, under a different (and incompatible) license. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 14:50, 26 February 2007 (EST)
As you've asked for my opinion, here it is: If you want something like this done, do it yourself. Make an example of what you're suggesting and present it to the wiki and see how it goes over.
My (admittedly limited) understanding of MediaWiki software is that what you're suggesting would be difficult at best. And even if it was workable, would probably not be usable by the majority of the editors. --Rainith 14:56, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Lol
'So, since you already have a fancy database', 'I presume that by "you" you mean "ArenaNet".', 'No, by "you", I mean "you".'
I can categorically state that I do not have a fancy database. When you said "you" who did you mean? And when you said "database" what did you mean? If you mean information in an article or articles, that is not a database. Please use terminology properly! LordBiro 18:09, 26 February 2007 (EST)

FYI to the anon, you did not ask a question in your first post. You made a complaint and a suggestion, you did not ask anything. I did. I asked you a question, to which you did not respond. As for your so-called "question", this Collectors page that you referred to were built by hand. It is not a "fancy database" (assuming the table is what you're referring to) which can be referenced. It is a page of text, not something which we can say get cell value of table x, row y, column z. A wiki doesn't work like that. Please try to understand things and clarify your points first. -- ab.er.rant sig 21:56, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Navigation

I always wondered if we could have a link to the updates page in the navigation links. Y/N? - BeXoR 18:39, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Updates have always seemed fairly minor to me. I just go to the GW site and only sometimes check GuildWiki for the GuildWiki notes. ~ File:GeckoSprite.gif Pae 10:00, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I always use gwiki for updates because of the notes. I don't like the gw site because its too bloated. It's just annoying cause my bookmark goes to my watch list, and then I have to go to the main page, and then to the updates page. It's something that is changed regularly, it would just be good to see it on the sidebar. - BeXoR 17:17, 10 February 2007 (PST)
I just rely on the url completion of browsers. Since you go to the updates page alot, how come you didn't bookmark the updates page as well? I have 3 separate bookmarks just for GuildWiki :D --ab.er.rant (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2007 (PST)
I have too many bookmarks as it is - mine are all on two bars and I can't fit anymore - and these are all bookmarks I visit multiple times throughout the day. And I try to do as little typing as possible because I have bad RSI. I don't see why adding it to the sidebar would be such a big deal. It feels like every suggestion made here is shut down with next to no reason other than people being used to the old ways. A little change is nice ya know. It would be nice if you could completely customise your sidebar. The only links I use are recent changes and the main page. - BeXoR 06:09, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I have another question that is related to navigation I guess. I have tried to contribute as much as I can at the old wiki, but it seems I have never been able to find a centralized place with all the guidelines and policies. I know it exists, I just haven't seen it. Someone please enlighten me. It also might be nice to have an actual link to this guide index because I am betting most visitors haven't a clue what has been decided on some random discussion. --RabiesTurtle 15:26, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Try Guild_Wars_Wiki:Policy or here. -Smurf 17:26, 10 February 2007 (PST)
And Guild Wars Wiki:Discussion. --ab.er.rant (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2007 (PST)

Where to address wiki tech stuff?

To whom, or where should the user address technical stuff regarding the wiki server, such as request for installation of a MediaWiki extension, a bug report, questions, etc.? To one of the SysOps? Or to any of the ArenaNet IT users? Who is Fyren's counterpart here? --Tetris L 05:52, 12 February 2007 (PST)

A current admin should send e-mail to ArenaNet. I doubt they are following this talk page, and ArenaNet have shown a distinct preference for dealing with the community through the admins. If you do it, be sure to ask for ParserFunctions and ImageMagick at a minimum. Other requests at the top of this page at your discretion. Perhaps also mention that we (i.e., Fyren) have the expertise to help ArenaNet if anything breaks during the installation. S 07:51, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I was hoping that Tanaric, Lord Biro or any of the ANet IT guys might read this without a heads-up. Looks like I was wrong, so I'll poke 'em a bit. /me grabs his pointy stick. ;) --Tetris L 08:04, 13 February 2007 (PST)
If you send me an email, my information is here, with everything that is needed server side at this time, I will forward it along. I only know of a few things, such as Parser Functions and ImageMagik, Guild/Guild Talk namespaces, and some others. — Gares 08:14, 13 February 2007 (PST)
No need for an email. This is not confidential, it can be discussed in public, right here on the wiki. I just wanna know where is the best place for such a discussion, or whom to address, in general. Right now, ParserFunctions is my main request, but there may be other things coming up in future. --Tetris L 08:37, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Discussion cannot lead to features. Someone should summarize and send action items to ArenaNet. Once again, I doubt they have time to wade through X00Kb talk pages. S 08:56, 13 February 2007 (PST)
It's not a matter of public discussion on the wiki, it's the fact that I doubt ITs are watching these pages and any outside information regarding ANet is confidental. If you do not wish for an email to be sent requesting such extensions, your best recourse would be to place your concerns on Gaile's talk page. — Gares 08:58, 13 February 2007 (PST)
You got me all wrong. Certainly I don't expect the server admins to watch all talk pages all the time. I'm aware they don't, and they won't stumble across this talk thread unless somebody points them towards it. That's why I want to have a single page to address such matter (like the bug report page on GuildWiki), which the ANet IT guys can put on their watchlist and check frequently. Or I want to know who's in charge for the tech stuff, so I can address him on his talk page. Gaile will probably only forward the request, so why not write to the person in charge directly. I guess it's one of the users in ArenaNet IT. Do they check the wiki regulary, so they get the "You've got new messages" pop-up? --Tetris L 09:21, 13 February 2007 (PST)
If they have their preferences set to receive an email everytime someone posts on their talk pages, then you just got one's attention. — Gares 11:42, 14 February 2007 (PST)
There is a policy proposal at Project:Requests for technical administration to address this sort of concern. —Tanaric 16:59, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Small small fix on main page

Welcome to the official Guild Wars wiki!

Is at the top but it should read like this:

Welcome to the official Guild Wars wiki!

Nothing big but just thought I'd mention it (even though the whole front page will probably be redesigned). --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 10:12, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Interwiki links will fix that later. (Oops, forgot to sign.) — 130.58 (talk) 10:56, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Notice on the main page

I think that we should add a notice on the main page which clearly states that adding content before the policies and style guides are ready should not be done. There are multiple editors adding skills and other content although there are no style guides yet which means that we need to redo everything later if they don't follow the style guides. Adding content now wil just cause trouble later on. --Gem (talk) 12:42, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Aye, probably a good idea.
I think the discussions on deciding the style and formatting guidelines for adding content should have been done first, to be honest, before even starting with many of the policy proposals that are currently going on. =\ --Dirigible 13:14, 12 February 2007 (PST)
I'll add a notice on the main page. It may be removed by a sysop if they think it is inapproppriate. --Gem (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Mind if I tweak the message slighty? Feel free to revert if you want to. Thanks — Gares 14:03, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Instead of Guild Wars Wiki:Style it should probably link to Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting, as per the discussion here. Looks good otherwise though. :) --Dirigible 14:12, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Thanks for the nice tweak Gares. And thanks for the heads up on the formatting link Dirigible. --Gem (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Very good move! I was already quite worried seeing all those skills, items, creatures, etc. being added with the formatting and policies still being under discussion. I'd reword the notice slightly though: Instead of generic "content" I'd be more specific, saying "individual skills, items, creatures and locations". And instead of "style guides" I'd call them "formatting guides". --Tetris L 01:13, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I'll adjust the notice. --Gem (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2007 (PST)
At the risk of the notice growing overly long, I'd invite and encourage people to participate in the policy and formatting discussion. Otherwise the notice may put off some people. --Tetris L 01:41, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I dislike the note. Even if some stuff is added that we want to do otherwise later it is not harder to redo a page compared to doing it from scratch. Since we dont have any timelimit on finishing policies, that note basically tells editors to stay away for an undetermined time period. --Xeeron 07:13, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I disagree. The note will only stay up until there are at least some policies and guidelines finished. As it is, there are almost none and that's not the sort of environment that we want to start actually creating the Wiki in. People are better at working when they know what to do, and I think that applies here as well. Ale_Jrbtalk 09:30, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Let me put forward two scenarios:
  1. The skill guidelines are not complete. Someone posts information about a skill and it is not formatted properly. Later, the formatting guidelines are finished, and a user has to rewrite 50-90% of the article so that it is formatted appropriately.
  2. The skill guidelines are not complete. Someone decides not to post a skill article. Later, the formatting guidelines are finished, and a user had to write 100% of the skill article from scratch.
Why should we limit what people can contribute, just because we might have to rewrite it? Perhaps we should not encourage people to fill in the blanks until we finish the formatting articles, but we should not discourage people from submitting information. LordBiro 09:36, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I see where you're coming from, but I think your analogy was slightly wrong. Instead, consider these two situations:
  1. The user doesn't add anything. We get the policies done, then they get hold of the stats (which are easily accessible) and write the article from scratch. 100% workload.
  2. The user writes something using stats that are easily accessible. They have done 100% work (i.e. they've written it from scratch). Then we realise it's wrong, and they have to rewrite anywhere from 30 - 70% of it. They've done 150% work, because they've written it then rewritten it.
What I'm saying is that it is actually more work to write them before the policies are done then to rewrite them to fit in with the policies than it is to simply wait. Ale_Jrbtalk 09:43, 13 February 2007 (PST)
While it is potentially more work, I do agree with Lord Biro that we should not be discouraging people from uploading. If someone wants to start filling in then they should be encouraged to do so. However, I do think they need to be aware that the style and formatting guidelines may cause what they write now to potentially have to be updated/cleaned. As its a wiki I don't think we should ever be discouraging people from contributing. They should be informed that things are still being decided on, certainly, but not discouraged. Lojiin 09:47, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Exactly Lojiin, although the very nature of a wiki means that any contribution should be re-written.
And you are right, Ale_jrb, if users submit something early then the total work needed for the article increases, but I don't see the problem there. It might be less efficient when you look at all the edits in total, but so what? LordBiro 09:53, 13 February 2007 (PST)
The 'so what' is that it is less efficient. Why make more work for ourselves? There are a few other potential problems as well. Say someone writes something that then clashes with a policy meaning it need to be totally deleted. They'd be upset and discontent and might not want to edit again. That shouldn't happen to anyone.
Say, for example, that we decide that skill pages should all use template, or all shouldn't, and everything has been put in the other way. With the number of articles we have now, it would be manageable. But when you start reaching every skill in the game, it becomes harder. Imagine then if the same applied to multiple areas of the game. The work would be huge. It would get done, but instead of what? If we do everything in an organised manner - first with the policies and style guides, then with commonly access pages, then with the rest and so on, we will save ourselves and the community in general a huge amount of work.
As they are progressing at the moment, I see it only being a few more days before we have enough policies and guides up to remove the notice and begin adding en masse with changes only made as they are needed. Until then, I think its better if we wait for just a few days. Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2007 (PST)
We've always changed and rearranged things. It's apart of contributing on a wiki. I've spent hours fixing categories. It's no big deal. Crusades, anyone? :P Apart from the skills, when I saw that notice, I was thinking more of in-game content and since we have had no definite answer to that question as of yet (hopefully soon *crosses fingers*). — Gares 10:26, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Reset indent

I do realise that - I have a large experience with Wikis (although mainly Wikipedia) - and there are people that are willing to spend hours checking that every single one of Guild Wars' 1000+ skills and over 200 locations follow the same template. The point is they shouldn't have to. If we can save ourselves that effort by waiting 2-4 days, why not do it? I'm sure your crusades are very effective, but would you honestly want to check all those pages? =P Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2007 (PST)

If we allow people to upload lots of stuff, some of it will be correctly formated, some not. Everything will be differently formatted depending on the user uploading the stuff. It makes a hell of a work to go thrhough everything and adjust each article uniquely as they don't have uniform mistakes. --Gem (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I think the problem I have with the idea of "don't contribute until we have the guides down" is two-fold. Firstly, on GuildWiki, we built the style and formatting guidelines based around the best looking skill articles. Secondly, it makes me feel as though we are saying "we know best, please come back when we've done it our way". Personally, I am not going to contribute to the skill articles until the formatting is sorted, but if someone else wants to contribute in the mean time, why discourage them? Let them get on with it. If we end up replacing every skill article then at least there is some skill information there in the interim. LordBiro 11:55, 13 February 2007 (PST)
It doesn't suggest that users wouldn't know anything or that they shouldn't have any ideas of their own. It invites people to take part in the discussions to speed up the process and prevents them from causing 150% work. (or what ever you calculated above :D ) --Gem (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I disagree, but I would only be repeating myself now. I am opposed to the notice box. Encouraging users to get involved with discussions is one thing (and in fact I have argued for it on the editcopy talk page) but discouraging users from submitting skill articles or the like is something I am very opposed to and I hope that it is removed very soon.
I am going to make some changes to the notice as it is anyway, because I find it annoying. We have no right to tell users what they should and shouldn't submit; there is no policy saying that articles should not be submitted yet, and I would hope that if there was one it would not have been approved. Also, aesthetically, it's not very attractive. LordBiro 12:08, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Okay, go ahead. (It really doesn't look too good btw, it's a quick two minute job) --Gem (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I think it is useful and should be kept, but if you are that opposed to it, I won't oppose its removal. I'm sure there are more important things to be arguingdebating about. =) Ale_Jrb (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2007 (PST)

(reset indents again) The whole efficiency agruement is flawed, because it assumes that users can perfectly shift time from now to the future. Just because they have the time now to upload skill pages does not mean they will have that time in the future. Maybe they have nothing better to do right now, but are really busy later on. And lastly, it is up to everyone's free decision to contribute. This being a wiki they know that their contributions will be edited, but it looks like they dont mind. And it is not wasted effort either: I personally love it when I edit an article and the obvious wiki links turn up blue instead of red, no matter what the final layout will look like. --Xeeron 12:42, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I removed the notice. Do not EVER add that horrible note again. Since when do we ever tell people "Don't add content unless it's properly formatted." If the article is misshapen, add "Cleanup" to it, if the article is missing sections add "stub" but don't prevent the article from being created. As Xeeron said, you are assuming people who can add content now will sit and wait until the never-endign diatribes on talk pages in the formatting section are resolved. Let people contribute now. --Karlos 17:45, 21 February 2007 (EST)
You act like that had no value to it :\ I see where your comming from and I partially agree, but I also see what it did have value. User KaYa Kaya-sig.png kaya 18:04, 21 February 2007 (EST)
Karlos was right to remove that notice. LordBiro 18:31, 21 February 2007 (EST)
For what my opinion may or may not be worth, I agree with Karlos also. Lojiin 18:36, 21 February 2007 (EST)
The value it had, Kaya, was a negative one. It was killing the site. Literally. It's VERY bad when a new wiki that had as much buzz as this one and so many people willig to help out not have more than 10 new edits in the span of an hour. I believe that notice was directly responsible for that. --Karlos 20:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)
While the moral outrage is touching, I thought that such things were discussed before they were done? Whatever. Some people obviously thought it was of value, I'm sure he talked with them on their user page since he didn't seem to here. Regardless, if it's time for content, great. We should set up a projects page so we can get started in a meaningful way. Oblio 20:51, 21 February 2007 (EST)
I understand the bad points to it, you've so perfectly stated them more than once. I only pointed out the fact that there was come good to it because of the manner in which you took over and left no room for discussion (it lacked tact). I didnt think that's how this wiki worked, but maybe i'm wrong. *bends back over for another spanking* User KaYa Kaya-sig.png kaya 21:21, 21 February 2007 (EST)
perhaps it could have been discussed more, but it is apparent that nothing is getting done on this wiki at the moment. Policy discussions are stalling, formatting discussions for the most part haven't even started and hardly anyone is adding anything while waiting for those same guidelines. There is a rapidly depleting supply of hot air, very little decisive action(like what Karlos did) and an increasing supply of frustrated editors.
It is unlikely that the main page message was all of the problem, but I think that it is important to take away the disinsentive to add content particularly while the mentioned policies and styles are not reaching concensus quickly. Alternatively make arbitrary formatting decisions on skill images, profession order agree on essential content for templates and outlines for core articles *quickly* to allow content to be added without requiring too much distruption to the page in the future (so many of the discussions seem to bog down in detail where in reality any decision could be made, and in many cases recitified easily at a later time if the wrong decision was made).
I agree that project page would be good start for adding content. I'll start it. Where is the usual page to put it? :) --Aspectacle 21:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)
Probably here: Guild Wars Wiki:Projects, and you might wan't to toss in a link to it on Guild Wars Wiki:How to help, since the only thing were telling people we need help with here is policy ;) User KaYa Kaya-sig.png kaya 21:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)
The note frustrated me to no end. I am surprised to see names such as Gem, Dirigible, Tetris and Gares all see it and approve it if not add to it. If my frustration seem to offend, I apologize, but I do not see how it did that. My tone is firm. I am saying that this is an administrative decision and one that I plan to stand by and that if anyone plans to counter it, they need to be ready for a long fight. Unlike the Guilds section, I CARE about barriers to contributing. --Karlos 01:59, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Reset Indent: My original statement was: We've always changed and rearranged things. It's apart of contributing on a wiki. I've spent hours fixing categories. It's no big deal. Crusades, anyone? :P Apart from the skills, when I saw that notice, I was thinking more of in-game content and since we have had no definite answer to that question as of yet (hopefully soon *crosses fingers*).

If Guild Wars Wiki:Official content did not have the statement Content from in-game!, then my stance would be have been totally different. Btw, ANet has still not commented on it yet. — Gares 10:05, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Category for terms

On guildwiki we had the category "Slang and terminology", which was later renamed to "Glossary" for brevity, with a sub-category for abbreviations. I think both these categories were very useful, and we should definetly have an equivalent here (not necessarily under the same name though). I like "Glosary", and I wouldn't mind using it again, but "Terminology" or "Terms" would also be okay for me. Currently some articles are labeled "Terminology stub". We should use the same term both for the category and the stub tag. --Tetris L 01:49, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I didn't like glossary because the meaning didn't fit. The individual elements of the category were terminology, not glossaries by themselves. Glossary is, according to the American Heritage Dictionary,
A list of often difficult or specialized words with their definitions, often placed at the back of a book. (boldface mine)
I would have preferred Category:Glosses over Category:Glossary, because the elements are glosses and a collection of glosses is a glossary. "Terminology" is more precise, however, because many of these pages are more than simple glosses. S 16:53, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I'd prefer terms or terminology too. Glossary should be a page that lists all the terminology (kinda like the terminologies category but with the meaning thrown in). --ab.er.rant 17:49, 13 February 2007 (PST)
We better make a decision quick, because people are already filling Category:Glossary. I wouldn't mind switching to Category:Terms or Category:Terminology. I'd rather not use Category:Glosses because I'm afraight many users don't know what a glosse is. --Tetris L 11:05, 14 February 2007 (PST)
You definitely don't want "gloss" or "glosses". Terminology and Glossary are equivilent AFAIC. Oblio 11:13, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Not quite. As I read the dictionary definition "Glossary" implies that only special or difficult terms ("glosses") are listed, and that an explanation is provided directly with the list. "Terminology" includes all kinds of terms, also easy and common ones, and it can be a plain list, just links. --Tetris L 11:24, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I'd think that "Terminology" would be better. While "glosses" may be accurate if the average user has to look up the word to figure out what it is, doesn't that defeat the purpose? (edit: DOH! signing :P) Lojiin 11:34, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I understand. But definitionally, all terms we care about are "special" as they refer to a specific game. I don't care about the distinction, whichever you guys choose will be fine, regardless of it's "correctness" according to m-w.com. I only care that you don't pick something which is essentially a "term of art" for MLS's. We need to be usable for a wide target audience, thus "glosses" is not appropriate (where glossary and terminology are fine). Oblio 11:30, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Just a note, but there is no looming emergency if people use Category:Glossary for now. Changing cats later is easy enough. Glossary is at least familiar for those who come here from guildwiki. S 15:48, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I think a proper Glossary article would be incredibly helpful. I started one on the GuildWiki, but nobody helped me and I got bored. If anyone else is willing to keep going with something like this, you can port the old Glossary article straight over, as all copyrightable contributions were made by dual-licensed or public domain contributors. —Tanaric 16:57, 14 February 2007 (PST)

A general concern

ANet started this wiki with one general guideline:

"We hope to agree with the community to some basic guidelines, like "report facts, not opinions" and "the purpose of this site is to document Guild Wars"."

In the beginning we all agreed to that. Now it seems to me that we move away from it, more and more. Subjective content, potentially controversial content, and content that has very little to do with game documentation slips back in through the backdoor in several areas, most notably User pages, Guilds and Builds.

On all of these subjects the policies started off very restrictive, to prevent negative aspects experienced on GuildWiki, but in the process of discussion the policies were softened more and more. Right now, the status on all three of them is basically: "Anything goes, as long as it isn't offensive or illegal." If that'll be our policy, this wiki will be much worse than GuildWiki. The situation on GuildWiki is already that we have a lot more edits in the User: and Build: namespace than in the main namespace. Now add Guild: to that picture, and imagine an influx of new users (especially newbies and trolls) as soon as the official wiki is officially announced and linked to from the game. We're creating a monster here, a BIG can of worms! Good luck to those who try to moderate and control it.

I may be overly concerned, but I'd rather see us concentrate on the main purpose of this wiki, which is game documentation and factual information. We can always expand to other areas later, when the basis has been established and when we've got a better feeling for the behaviour of the community of this wiki. --Tetris L 06:50, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I dont share your concern. Despite being still debated, even the least restrictive proposal on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy/Builds is much much more restrictive than the guildwiki policy. On Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page, the current policy proposal is also considerably more strict than what we had on guildwiki. That means on two out of three we will end up more restrictive. It is also worth noting that more activity in one namespace does not mean less activity in another, we are not playing a zero-sum game here. --Xeeron 07:11, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Admin time and patience is a finite resource. Unless this wiki is much laxer about RFA (but we will still need volunteers). S 07:14, 13 February 2007 (PST)
More users = more potentially good admins. Currently the admin/user ratio here is a magnitude higher than on guildwiki. --Xeeron 07:16, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Xeeron: I don't see the big restriction. Users will still document all of their characters with every little achievement. Users will still post builds, except they'll label it a "strategy guide" this time. Users will create pages to advertise for their guilds, bragging away about how great it is. The policies don't prevent any of these. What's next? Shall we allow trading? How about an Auction house: namespace? >:[ --Tetris L 07:24, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I dont know what the exact stand of discussion on user pages and guilds is, but at least with regard to builds, I am confident to say, no they will not. --Xeeron 07:34, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I disagree with you when you say that allowing guilds or builds goes agaist "The purpose of this site is to document Guild Wars". I think the disagreement stems from the fact that we have different definitions for what "Guild Wars" means. In your case, it seems to me, that Guild Wars means everything that you would find on a dev server with absolutely no users on it; just the skill descriptions sitting unused in the Priest of Balthazar window, just the monster mobs patiently for someone to one day get in their aggro bubble, the dye and rune traders in LA being the only one who yell out WTB or WTS. My definition of what Guild Wars is would include yours, but there'd also be a couple of million people playing on that server, all of whom are as "real" to me when I logon to the game as the ice imps in the Ice Floe are. When I log on to any pvp match and get chased around by a blindbot, he's pretty real to me; how is that particular build not a part of GW? When I do something with my guild, whether it's a TA match, a HA run or an Underworld clearing, I'm taking part of something which has as much right to be called "Guild Wars" as the crimson carapace shield collector outside Thirsty River.
There are two ways Guild Wars is often classified as; a CORPG and a MMORPG. What does CORPG stand for? "Competitive/Cooperative Online Role-Playing Game". Note the "Competitive" and "Cooperative" parts, whichever you want to choose as the real definition of the game, neither of whom would exist without those couple of million players on that server, without those builds that they use and abuse. Take the other definition, MMORPG, "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game". Once again, the "Massively Multiplayer" part necessitates interaction with other players, both of which result in builds and guilds. How are they not part of the game? How are they not Guild Wars? How is "Guild A B [C] has won a battle in the Hall of Heroes and keeps the favor of the gods for Ascalon" not part of the game?
It's not an opinion that there are guilds out there, it's a fact; somewhere in the game right now there is a bunch of people that identify themselves as XoO, fact. It's not an opinion that there are builds out there, it's a fact; somewhere in the game right now someone is running a build known as thumper, fact. So why not document these facts? --Dirigible 07:29, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Because we've already tried, on GuildWiki, and failed miserably. Now we're repeating the same mistake, and the outcome may be even worse. Yes, it's a fact that somewhere in the game right now someone is running a build known as thumper, fact. It's also a fact that somewhere in the game right now someone is running a Wammo build that centers around the use of Mending and Frenzy. Shall we document that as well? Who separates the wheat from the chaff? --Tetris L 07:41, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Guilds were never tried in any way shape or form on GuildWiki, so all you have to base your fears on at the moment are in making vague connections between it and the Builds section; somewhere in the talk page of that policy it was discussed how the two are completely unlike each other, there are very basic differences between the two of them. The Guild page policy right now is far more restrictive than I personally would wish it to be, but I understand that it's a necessary compromise at least for the time being, until the section becomes more established. And about builds, almost every post in this page is dedicated to trying to find a sensible answer to that question, how to separate the wheat from the chaff. You are not alone in your worries. I realize how terrible the Builds section on GuildWiki was, and apparently many many others do too. We grabbed the potato from the plate and it turned out to be so hot it that we yelled in pain and dropped it back on the table. Now we can either a) throw the potato in the trashcan, worried we might burnt again and go to bed without dinner, or b) we can look around the kitchen, find a fork, and use that to break the potato open in smaller chunks so it cools down. Solution A keeps us from getting burnt, but we end up with our stomach rumbling. Solution B keeps us from getting burnt AND satiates our hunger at the same time; the only catch is that we first need to figure out just where in the world our wife keeps the cutlery. And every post on the Builds talk page is trying to do exactly that, find the fork. Yes, the outcome may well be worse, we may end up accidentally biting the fork, breaking a couple of teeth in the process. But is that worry really a reason to not try? --Dirigible 08:05, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Thanks. That was... awesome. You had me at "potato". — 130.58 (talk)
Part of my concern is that the areas of the wiki that worry me the most (the potential "troublemakers") are also the most active ones at the moment, draining resources from the basics. Not only do we repeat the mistakes of GuildWiki by allowing the troublemakers back in, and even add additional potential troublemakers, no, at the same time we pretty much ignore the basic foundation.
I find it very sad, and it worries me a lot that the formatting guides and talk pages of all the essential game subjects (creatures, items, quests, missions, etc.) are very quiet, or not even started yet, while at the same time we spend huge resources discussing endlessly about features that should really be second priority.
As for your potatoe metaphor, in my eyes the hot potatoe is part of the dessert. How about we leave it on the plate for now, and start eating the main course first? No, let's start cooking the main course first! We can always get back to the dessert later. --Tetris L 08:28, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Agreed with you on that. Deciding on the Formatting guidelines should have taken priority over most of these policy discussions. --Dirigible 08:32, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I think the "hot potato" issues are the most active because people are the most concerned about them. Style and formatting for mobs less so. Important, absolutely. Are you going to get a huge debate over them. Not likely. Do we need them both? Yes, of course. However, since it will take alot longer to "find the cutlery" so to speak, its sensible to have it started early. Should we be excluding the others? No, probably not, but I don't find it likely in the slightest that there will be as much debate over them. Lojiin 08:39, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I almost laughed myself into a coronary. Man, Dirigible, I am making you a potato icon at some point. And Tetris, who has potato for dessert? Yuk.
I agree with Lojiin, the reason people are busy on the build/guild/user pages is because they care about them. To be honest, skill articles might be an important part of the wiki, but they are pretty boring in comparison ;)
That said, I also agree that builds and guilds are the dessert, and we should probably prepare the main course first, but I think getting the ingredients ready for the dessert is also important, otherwise after the main course we'll end up having to go to the shop and by the time we get back we might not want dessert any more. I think you can see how closely this analogy mirrors the events that take place on the wiki. LordBiro 09:16, 13 February 2007 (PST)
http://www.google.com/search?q=potato+dessert :D --Tetris L 09:24, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Potatos, potatoes, what's the difference. Minor details. :P I blame my brain for that one; it finds it too difficult to accept any connection between food and toes! --Dirigible 11:02, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I do not share the concerns of Tetris even nearly in the same magnitude. The user page policy is restricting a lot of content from the main user page, which was the only real problem we had in GuildWiki. The signature policy is more restricting than the one on GuildWiki. Guilds were never tried so thats a wild card, easily handled if chaos arises. Builds are not allowed, only guides. I don't think users will be uploading builds as "guides", and if they do, we jsut remove them. Everyone is able to see the difference in the massive General Minion Master Guide and N/Any Minion Bomber. --Gem (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2007 (PST)
Just to point out. The current version of the build policy doesn't read that way at all (don't look at me, I didn't write it.)
But I think everyone is, at very least, agrees that there should be some sort of strong restrictions on the quantity of builds allowed in this wiki.--Drekmonger 20:01, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Bug reporting

We need a navigation link for reporting found bugs like GuildWiki. I can't seem to find anywhere else relevant to post this so here will have to do for now. The RSS and ATOM feeds for the Recent Changes page do not work. Any chance of a fix? --SK Warrior-icon-small.png 23:36, 19 February 2007 (PST)

Yes, we do. How do we go about setting one up? Lord Biro? --Karlos 09:26, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Some info to explain Differences.

I recently posted something before, and it was deleted, and I can understand why. Basically, in a more understanding way now, could we just have some info to explain that this Guild Wars Wiki is ment to create a more secure, purely documentation form of Guild Wiki? Some people might get confused. I understand what Guild Wars Wiki is trying to create, and im for it, I just think it needs some more identification. Anyways, I'm glaad to help in whatever way I can. Alreajk 01:15, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Actually the official wiki is not intended to be a lot different from GuildWiki, although we are making some major changes as we now know what went wrong in GuildWiki. The only reason why ANet created a new wiki instead of taking over GuildWiki was the license issue. They needed a license which allows using the content for making money, but the GWiki license didn't allow it. -- Gem (gem / talk) 07:04, 23 February 2007 (EST)
Now it seems the only trouble is trying to duplicate that vast amount of info partially from scratch when the other wiki has been around for a very long time. Will this one ever catch up? At what point will it be announced publicly so that your average user knows of it and can help (not counting little mentions on the other wiki etc)? I'm having some concerns at this point as I don't want this wiki to fizzle.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:26, 23 February 2007 (EST)
Alright, that clears some things up, but some people still might not have any clue on what this wiki is about , so I'm just suggesting a more in-detail explanation of this one. Thanks, and i'll get around to helping as soon as I understand everything. Alreajk 18:01, 24 February 2007 (EST)