Talk:Main Page/May 2007

Game integration

→ moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Game integration

Other Wiki

In stead of two different wikis can this wiki and http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page be combiened? It seems to make more sence then two guild wikis with the same programming Epg 21:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Long story, short answer is no -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 22:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Different licences - and incompatible ones at that. GuildWiki cannot be used for any for profit use per its license - this wiki is planned to be integrated directly into the game (a for profit product) so has an entirely different license. See the F.A.Q. and the how to help article (especially the "common mistakes" section) for more information. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

403

Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /wiki/Main_Page on this server. - BeX 20:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

It works for me, is this still happening now? What about [1]? LordBiro 04:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

This should be fixed guys :) I posted about it on the tech page, but I think it got missed. If there are any other issues, just let me know and I will pass them along. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Wiki NEEDS a suggestions

Seriously, why rely on the fan sites to do this? Doesn't it make MUCH more sense to have an 'at-home' approach to seeing fan suggestions, where they can be deleted after consideration? Seriously, posting on a fan forum is POINTLESS. The messages get flooded out faster than something that happens really fast happens as it normally does. THAT'S FAST. It makes perfect sense to have a suggestion box that the devs can look at, ponder, then delete, ready to move to the next suggestion. And they can't do that on pages that they do not own. Get it? Anyways, discuss --Omigawa 19:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Thats a good point. It also begs the question why there was never an official GW forum. Nathan Mithrandir 20:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

This is a fan-created forum.. they're not going to check anything here any more than guru or w/e, probably even less so due to the format... — Skuld 20:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

That's silly. Do you realise how many times the same few suggestions keep getting suggested/recommeded/demanded? Do you think that by putting an "official" suggestions box here will actually stop people from posting suggestions all over the internet? If posting on a fan forum is pointless, why wouldn't it be pointless to post here? If you can't handle the flood of comments that follow a suggestion, it doesn't mean that no one else can... It just takes time to read through all of them and I believe Anet has people specifically tasked with going through fan forums doing just that. -- ab.er.rant 21:39, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I suggested that earlier, and I started one on my user page. Personally, I find a good wiki-style suggestion page could really improve how people go about making suggestions, and seeing the feedback, and focusing the thoughts. Sure ANet has people paid to plow through forums, but I for one, don't have the time or resources to do the same. If my wiki-style suggestion page picks up, then I'll definately move it on its own page on the wiki. But until then, I'll keep it away from the rest. And yes, a wiki is about documenting the game, but the game is about giving the players what they want, as long as it is fun. Alaris 21:58, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Gaile Gray has said herself that things like that belong on fan forums, and that they do get read. The fact that they haven't been added or responded to doesn't mean they haven't been seen. And you can always send your suggestions in through support. - BeX 22:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Again I emphasize, I'm not doing this for ANet (though ANet might thank me if it takes off), I'm doing this for ME and other users who get tired of wading through forums that lack organization. Anyway, it's on my user page, so at least at this point we don't need to decide on whether to include it on Wiki or not... Alaris 22:36, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Two concepts at play here:

1. An official suggestion box
2. A wiki-styled suggestion box

Number 1 has been "refuted", but I do see potential in number 2. Suggestions handled in wiki format may make ideas more organizable compared to in forum format. So now the question becomes, can the official Guild Wars wiki host an unofficial suggestion box (I don't count user-page suggestion articles, since that's not part of the wiki's "real content", and isn't easily accessible to casual users)? Or would that have to go on an unofficial wiki due to the official nature of this wiki? -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 22:49, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Things like this make me think that we should have a mission statement. I think our mission is to document the game as accurately and thoroughly as possible, and to present it in an informative and easy to digest manner. As such suggestion boxes do not help our cause and should not be here. Of course, if user's want to have something on their user pages then I'm not opposed to that. LordBiro 06:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with LordBiro. We are here to document things, not to be another version of a fan forum. I also agree about user pages, I don't mind them containing suggestions. - Anja (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps discussion then as to whether we should adopt something along the lines of this plain English statement? Fox (talk|contribs) 07:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Those interested in a very good compilation of all the suggestions I've seen made on fanforums and the wiki, please see this page on GuildWiki. The talk page is open for anyone to post their ideas and thoughts. -- (gem / talk) 07:52, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Link to my user page... let's start something :) Alaris 08:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I do not have an account on GuildWiki but I think I would add "The possibility to sort the players in the party panel with a <Drag'nDrop> or a <Sort By Profession> feature in the UI/Windows section Serge Yseron 08:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

An excellent and most requested feature. I'll make sure the drag & drop feature is there, as the sort by profession can be done easily if you can drag & drop. Alaris 09:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

That request is also in my list. I don't see a point in starting a new one as we have such a great list allready. :) -- (gem / talk) 10:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

and now we just need to let more ppl know about it, so as to minimize wasted efforts of other ppl starting their own lists, perhaps having some great ideas not found else where, and have that list die due to unable to sustain the effort alone. This is all while still keeping the list outside the wiki proper still... tricky.-User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 14:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, I was not aware of other lists until recently. However, I plan to combine the lists, and make a Project Page on the official wiki. Details in a few weeks. Until then, it would be nice if a list be drafted, as complete as possible. Alaris 14:49, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So right now the question is, how do we reconcile the identity of this wiki as one that only documents the game (at least within the wiki proper), and the need of the community to have a centralized (and prominent, easily located) place to organize the multitude of player suggestions wiki-style so that other gamers can help refine the suggestion or even spark off some new ideas? This project idea seems to conflict with the mission statements of both Guild Wars Wiki and GuildWiki. Does that mean we need to go seek out another wiki and host it there? -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 15:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Creating a 'suggestion wiki' to the gamewikis network wouldn't be a bad idea imho, but a user space suggestion project wouldn't be bad either. -- (gem / talk) 15:31, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

The problem with user space suggestion project is, if you don't know the right people, you won't know it exists. If there's a need to easily find Unique Items by their functionality, we can do something within the wiki so any visitor coming here can easily find it from the main page or navigation bar. If there's a need to easily find boss skill capture data, we can do something about it too. The very reason that suggestion project can only be in the user page means there is nothing we can do to make such resource easily findable for the casual user visiting the wiki. It'd be something that only the "advanced", the "elite", and the lucky users will have access to. Ordinary casual folks won't know it exist at all. And our signature policy even prevents us from randomly advertising it on talk pages in general. Once this topic gets archived, it'll be many more weeks before another user gets enough initiative to suggest we should have this project, then you would again point out that it already exists in your user page. During the months in between, users who don't already know about it and are too timid to ask will be missing out on the resource that you provide in your user page. So, is there an existing "third" wiki with a sufficient userbase so we can put the project there? Or we might as well start a new wiki from scratch? Or is there a way to reconcile the identity of this wiki with a particular community need so the project can exist here outside userspace? -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 15:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't necessarily see a reason why this project could not be creted in this wiki in the main name space if it only includes one single page. I'm still not sure how this project would work as a community project though. Could anyone post any silly ideas? Ideas posted on talk page and then either accepted or not? Currently I like the idea of having it in the hands of one person; sometimes dictatorship is the way to go. -- (gem / talk) 16:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly what I meant. Not so much official as it is on Wikipedia. However, as this is the official wiki, I put two and two together and said official. Doesn't mean ANet needs to look at it, but having a nice big list of suggestions accessible all at once is much better than having to sift through pages and pages on the forums, half of which are totally not serious. --Omigawa 16:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Gem, the reasons (against having such project in main namespace) were stated above by LordBiro (in response to my first comment in this section). I don't necessarily agree or disagree with it, just want to point out prior stated objection to the idea/project. I don't currently care if it's a dictatorship or democracy or a lottery system, but I do believe it should be easily accessible to the casual users, as opposed to only the privileged users who happen to know which user on GulidWiki maintains the most comprehensive list of suggestion ideas on his ownuserspace. -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 17:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it would be nice to have the list easily accessible to everyone. If we can't do it in the main name space, then it will never be available any easier than it is now. I'm trying to spread word about my list as long as it is the best list out there. If an official one is started, I'll be sure to help with it, but I wont be too bothered to do much work to convince people that it's a good idea. :) -- (gem / talk) 18:12, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I saw a link called Community Portal on the main page. I dont know if it would be more acessible from there but it's just an idea... Serge Yseron 18:26, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I tend to believe that having a list that only has suggestions that are backed by community consensus would be too limited to be worth the potential problems. I also reject the notion that userspace pages can't be easily accessible to casual users. The reason that has been true is because userspace pages generally haven't been worth making easily accessible to casual users. If we really wanted to, there's no inherent reason why we could not put a Category:User suggestion lists one click away from the main page. --Rezyk 18:59, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm. Reading all this, I have to back up Gaile on her statement that suggestions should be kept in forums. What Anet needs is not a neat wiki suggestions page, but threads out there in tons of forums with hundreds of replies. Only if they see that something is demanded on all different forums out there, by many different people, they will know it is really demanded by players and not just a small minority. Of course the wiki could be one of those many forums they look at, but any attempt to create a "centralised suggestions page" seems inherently flawed in my opinion. --Xeeron 19:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

That is a good point. They need to see that something is wanted by a lot of players, not just one or two. -- (gem / talk) 19:35, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Xeeron. I think the discussion behind each suggestion is one of the most important assets of a fan forum, and the lack of such thing, as would likely happen in a single list, would make those suggestions less valuable than they could be. There are ways around that, of course, but I think the fan forums are the better place for suggestions, with the Wiki being a way to document the game and nothing more (and while I'm doing a list of my suggestions in my own user page, it's there just so I can keep working on it before posting it on a fanforum). Erasculio 19:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, there is the talk page for discussions. Collaborative discussions on the talk page help refine the ideas on the main article, sometimes listing multiple non-reconcilable opinions etc etc. I thought the collaborative editing spirit of the wiki way works rather well for the purpose of organizing ideas. Also, I'm not thinking about a list of suggestions for Anet to read. I'm thinking about a list of games suggestions for other players to read, so they can see easily see what has been thought of before, what are some beaten-to-death issues with some common ideas (which they may have), and what are some novel ideas that might be worth further pondering upon. I envision it as something that help players figure out or refine what they want from the game, what they want to suggest about the game. If I have a suggestion that others have come up before a hundred million times, and have been refuted two hundred million times with very sound reasons, or if someone already have some idea that is strictly superior than my idea, I would like to be able to see those, rather than submitting my own stupid suggestion. -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 19:52, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the talk page would get a bit messy if we went with a list. Think about it: a list with, what, 20 suggestions would have 20 discussions in the talk page about all those ideas? It would be easier to create categories of suggestions, or even a single page for each suggestion and one main page with links to all those. That's the kind of thing I meant with "there are ways around that", but I don't think the trouble is worth it - you and me would know that the list has been made for players and not as a statement for Arena Net, but here, in the Official Wiki, I doubt the users would realize that difference. I still see people in the GW fan forums looking at the list of "Upcoming Features" here as if it were something written by an Arena Net employer. Erasculio 20:11, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

That is NOT a good point Gem, INSANELY often the BEST of posts get flooded out in the forums by kiddie supported posts such as LOL MAKEUP PLS. Fan forums are terrible. The more popular they are, the more hidden suggestions become. --Omigawa 20:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

And what makes you think that dicussions on talk pages won't be similarly flooded? It's going to be even worse, as mentioned by Erasculio, since discussions on all the suggestions are all taking place on the same talk page... >.<

I believe the original idea (by Alaris?) was not a suggestions list. It was suggestions pages. Such that each suggestion page can be nicely detailed, discussed on their own talk page and neatly categorised. But I think Rezyk's idea is better. Might as well let eveyone create their own suggestions list and link them all up via a category. What's wrong with redundant lists and suggestions? It is difficult to quantify how popular a suggestion is in a centralised list. But having multiple lists declaring their the same suggestion, at least there are numbers that help differentiate useful ideas from obscure ones. -- ab.er.rant 21:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree, Aberrant. I'm personally still not sure who exactly would be the target audience for this section. ANet has already said that they want this kind of content to remain on the forums (the reason Xeeron mentions above is a very sensible one), so it's definitely not them. Who's supposed to read these lists and pages of solutions then? The community itself? But... if I want to burn some time discussing and speculating the "ahhh, what if!"s of these ideas with other players, then discussion forums are a far more suitable place for those discussions than the wiki. If the discussion gets heated, the flood of comments is going to be the same here as it is on discussion forums (check some of the policy pages to get an idea, and that's just about boring policy), with the obvious disatvantage of the wiki talk page being much more clumsy way of communicating than a forum, which has been designed for that specific purpose. On a wiki the talk page is just an auxiliary communication method for the editors, it's simply a tool supporting the work on the main DocumentMode article, nothing more than that. To put it in other words, if we're on the wiki for the chatting, then the server admins installed the wrong software. I simply don't see the advantage of having such discussions on the wiki instead of a forum. --Dirigible 21:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Indent reset. I'm not sure what I originally suggested, but hey, if it evolved, the better. I think forums are good for debates and votes. User pages are good tools for fleshing out ideas and modifying them using feedback. Wiki pages are good for maintaining lists. As long as these three link to each other, then it might works very well. Alaris 22:58, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

• People ask questions on forums and what not. Many questions get reasked over and over, and have been re-answered many times, until someone makes an FAQ, so that people can be directed to the FAQ first, to see if their questions are covered, instead of browsing through pages of forum posts. And instead of wasting effort asking a question that has already been answered, the effort can be used to perhaps ask a follow up question. A wiki is much better suited to maintain an FAQ than any forum software out there.
• People makes suggestions on forums and what not. Many suggestions have been raised, merits and pitfalls debated, concepts refined, and perhaps been refuted by a very sound reason of why that's not going to happen while we still use silicons to make computers. Then often somebody else comes along, and make the same or similar suggestion, and many efforts go into repeating the process of discussing the merits and pitfalls and refinement and perhaps proof of infeasibility. Now, we can reduce that effort by telling everyong to go read the gazillion previous discussions on suggestons, before making their own (just to avoid repeating any past suggestions), or we can organize what has been discussed and debated in depth, and present them in an organized way. If a user had an idea, found people already discussed in-depth about it, and read the organized summary of each side of the argument, that might enable him to jump to a next refinement of the idea, instead of starting from square 2. A wiki is much better suited to do this kind of organization of information than any forum software out there. I don't give a Lyssa's dime about whether Anet reads those organized listing of suggestions or not, any good ideas produced this way will eventually trickle into Anet's ears via one channel or the other. I want it to help other players to see the results of past discussions/debates on suggestion ideas, so we can all benefit and continue where the players as a collective left off on each idea, instead of individually repeating/restarting discussions that has already been done before. -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 16:31, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Which again begs the question of the scope of this wiki. All in all, I think we seem to be moving towards "a wiki that documents all aspects concerning Guild Wars", rather than just "a wiki that documents the game of Guild Wars". -- ab.er.rant 01:39, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I have been neutral on this issue, whereas Biro and Anja have stated their views that this wiki should be just about the game documentation. All I care is we get this figured out asap, whether the project belongs here or not, and if not, whether we should see another existing wiki to move to, or start a new one from scratch. The earlier we figure it out, the earlier we can get started. -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 06:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

(ri) IMO, I don't believe a suggestion page belongs in the main namespace, but what about having Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Suggestion box or even Guild Wars Wiki:Suggestion box where users can add links to their suggestion pages that exist under their namespace. I think maintaining a centralised article would just be a huge headache and subject to vandalism. The only purpose I can think of having a suggestion box is for arenanet to peruse them and perhaps implement players' ideas. Other than that, you just look at them and think "good/bad idea" and that's where it ends. If the suggestion pages were linked from a community portal type page, it would be easy for people to access, easy for the creators to maintain and protect. - BeX 08:17, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd argue that it needs to go a single step further to be really useful. It needs to tell what the suggestions are. I'm thinking about having a sorted bullet-point list, with links to details or variations on a theme on the user pages. The list is broad in scope. For example, instead of listing all race ideas, we could have a few broad categories like humanoid, animal/insect, other. This gives a searchable at-a-glance list of ideas, and links provide all the information about the possible implementations of this. Alaris 10:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

That's where the maintenance would become an issue. If people keep adding descriptions about their pages there will be repetitive and subjective information and the page would end up huge. It would pretty much just end up having all the suggestions in the article, which is something I think we want to stay away from. And you'd end up needing to write a policy just for submissions to that page, which defeats the purpose of free idea exchange. - BeX 10:10, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Whatever you do, some people will use it wrong, and we'll just have to teach them. A list of links will be much easier to keep, for sure, but searching through them will be hell. So here's what I propose. I'll add a few rules at the beginning of the page, insisting that details are left to the user pages, and will be removed. In fact, I'll go do this on my user page right now, and anyone reading this, feel free to go there and make changes. Because once I'm happy with it, I'll move it to a public page. Alaris 11:09, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

You will move it to a public page even though the discussion here is still going and there's still many disagreeing to this happening? Easy there.

I personally also disagree with having such content outside of userspace. It's completely subjective content and userspace was made for that. Since it's so unavoidably subjective it's going to be a PITA to try to refactor/moderate/scrap that content outside userspace. If some way of making the public aware of these pages is needed, grab Category:Player suggestions and have fun with it, create as many subcategories as you want; as Rezyk and Aberrant said, there's no reason why we can't make this category link easily accessible. But please do not move this content out of userspace, it's where it belongs. If you move it out of userspace, you're moving it in community space where everyone can hack to pieces/modify to something else whatever you write, and this is simply a bad idea if you remember that we're dealing with content so subjective that the reason "but I like it that way..." is a perfectly valid and acceptable one. --Dirigible 11:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

(RI)(Bloody Edit conflict - curse my long-winded replies)I've been avoiding this discussion as much as possible, mainly because I loathe this idea with the fiery passion burning in a thousand suns. I'm sticking with the in-game documentation school of thought - while there are no restrictions on this sort of thing in the User: namespace, it's not the sort of thing that belongs in:

• Main: namespace is for articles regarding in-game; it's the actual, factual, content section. Obviously, suggestions are not factual, in-game content.
• Guild: ... Duh.
• Gamelink: No.
• Guild Wars Wiki: While this is probably the strongest option (aside from User:), the GWW namespace has always, at least to me, seemed to be the place for all things regarding the operation of the wiki itself. If you take a look at everything in this namespace, you'll see what I mean - every single page in there is about the various things that need to be done/rules to be followed for this wiki to keep running. A purely subjective page that has nothing to do with the wiki itself has no place there.
• Image:, MediaWiki:, Template:, and Help: - I would hope that it's obvious why a page like the one being proposed here would not fit in any of these namespaces.
• Category: This is the only option, combining it with User: that I might be able to agree with - categories are an easy way to group pages like this, which means that it would be simple to make suggestion pages in the User: space and still have a place where they were all gathered.

Of course, I still feel that it's somewhat pointless - Gaile has specifically said on multiple occasions that the Wiki is not a place that ArenaNet looks for suggestions. While I understand your gripes about the fan forums, they really are the place for this sort of thing, because they are specifically designed to hold purely subjective content. I don't want to see anything like this on the wiki at all, though, people are free to do as they wish within their Userpages. If we make an actual page, one that's not a self-categorizing list (i.e. Category:), we end up with having to clean it up fairly frequently, as well as having conflicts with the actual point of each namespace. Even when I made that GWW:HELPERS page, I had to fix the alphabetical order a decent number of times along the way, simply because people (who were fairly well-versed in wiki-ing in general) failed to read instructions. Thinking that putting instructions on a page will stop people from doing something is, quite simply, naive. For a quick sum up, my main objections are:

• There's no good place for it, aside from userpages. A category would make sense to keep these together, especially as we already do numerous categories linking userpages (i.e. Users that enjoy playing Monks, or whatever that one was).
• The GWWiki isn't a place where ArenaNet looks for suggestions, so it's somewhat pointless.
• The wiki isn't really a place for this sort of thing; as I said before, I subscribe to the in-game content philosophy.
• Frequent cleanup would be required on a page like this (as proposed), even if you put instructions on the top. We've got enough stuff to do already =P
• Even if you don't like it, the fan forums are the place for these suggestions, especially because ArenaNet actually looks at the suggestions there.

I don't want this on a public page, or, honestly, on the wiki at all. Once again, there are no restrictions on this sort of thing on userpages (which is good; that's supposed to be an almost completely free place for people to put what they want), but there isn't really another place for it. As usual, my 2gil. MisterPepe talk 12:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Thoughtful post. Thanks. Here's a few quick replies:

Re: "in-game documentation school of thought": I subscribe to this, generally, except for exceptions like this one. ANet is responding to the community and their needs, and there are pages documenting these interactions.

Re: "where it belongs": I'm listening to suggestions. I'll look into Category, because that might indeed be a pretty good option.

Re: "Gaile has specifically said on multiple occasions that the Wiki is not a place that ArenaNet looks for suggestions": if you build it, they will come. The point here is not to build subjectivity into GWW, but to provide a place where the broad ideas can be searched, and links to these ideas can be found.

Re: "While I understand your gripes about the fan forums, they really are the place for this sort of thing, because they are specifically designed to hold purely subjective content." The broad categories of things that people asked for is not subjective, and it often does influence the Guild Wars universe. Discussion of the specifics or implementations, however, is purely subjective and indeed should stay in a forum, and I have no intent of putting this on the Wiki.

Re: "clean-ups": I do see your point, and it is a valid concern. I for one am willing to put in quite a bit of effort maintaining that page, because I think it would be that valuable.

Thanks all for the feedback. I do need to put in more thought into this (as I knew all along, this is no small project). Alaris 12:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

You do, of course, realize that suggestions can be submitted directly to ArenaNet through the support feature? Of course, that's neither here nor there. Moving on:

- Category is by far the simplest (and best, IMO) option, especially for implementation - it allows for subcategories, and adding a page to the list is as simple as adding, say, [[Category:Player suggestions|{{PAGENAME}}]]. Subcategories could include interface suggestions, race suggestions, class suggestions, etc. The best part about this (still IMO) is that it means all of the content can remain in the userspace while still being easily accessible.

- Whether you admit it or not, these suggestions are completely subjective. The whole idea of a suggestion is "Put this in, I think that would be cool" - which is completely opposite the factual documentation nature of a Wiki. While we have made some slight exceptions (the Guilds section comes to mind), even those have a basis in verifiable, in-game facts.

- As for the personal responsibility regarding a page/section, I've made that same comment before, and gotten shot down. Thing is, they were right - the whole idea of a wiki is about a community-driven effort, and one person being in charge of maintaining a section goes against that guiding principle.

As a final note, looks like it's time to archive again =P MisterPepe talk 13:03, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

The point of this is not so much for ANet's benefit, but for the community. I'd love to be able to quickly see if an idea has been proposed, and to add it if not. It also helps others see whether this is a new idea, or a variant on one, and where the idea fits in.

Most suggestions are subjective by definition, but for example, requests for a Trade Hall is not subjective. It's well documented that lots of people are asking for it. This is where suggestions become "objective" in my mind.

I see your point about personal responsability. Thanks for pointing that out. It does seem like the Category suggestion is by far the most agreeable and workable way to implement this, with actual suggestions maintained on user pages. How do we handle links to forums, or multiple variations on a theme? Alaris 13:33, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

If the only thing appropriate on this wiki is to use categorization to link user space suggestion pages together, then I would advocate not putting it on this wiki, and have the project hosted elsewhere. I'm not interested in just a portal of links to a bunch of player suggestions. I'm interested in collaboratively organizing the suggestions, and organizing the discussions, the pros and cons and the refinements of it. Simply categorizing user pages isn't gonna cut it. -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 16:22, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

My idea was just one category linking user pages that has suggestions, but I suppose multiple categories might work too. Want to search suggestions? Use the wiki search on the user namespace. I'm opposed to having a fullblown set of pages that compile and summarise suggestions that are being discussed in GW forums all over the internet. Why would people purposefully come to the wiki and search for suggestions other players made when they won't even search the forums they frequent? -- ab.er.rant 00:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I strongly oppose any inclusion of subjective material like this in the main space of the wiki. This kind of thing belongs on fan forums praising/criticising/discussing Guild Wars, not in a wiki which documents Guild Wars. If people wish to maintain lists and discussions in their userpsace, then they should do so, but mainspace should not be given over to this, nor should it show links to such lists/discussions - that in itself gives an erroneous air of their being "official" suggestion lists/discussions. And with so much work still to do in the mainspace I think this wiki's community should be organising themselves into collaborative projects that are more constructive than a vocal minority attempting to influence the developers and the future direction of the game in general. That is most definitely a fan forum's - or separate wiki's - function. And as for the subjectivity of such lists, the "rules" for inclusion, et al, here's a glaring example of how flawed it already is even before attempting to maintain it... (Quote from Omigawa "...kiddie supported posts such as LOL MAKEUP PLS. Fan forums are terrible...." Wth? I don't particularly care whether the developers in future include a way to add make-up to your character's appearance. But it's still a valid suggestion from someone. Just because the suggester cannot articulate themself very well doesn't mean it isn't valid. You will never see me criticise another editor for their use/misuse/abuse of the English language; you will see me criticise editors who do that to others, however. This is why we are all allowed to proof read, correct and edit. Have an idea for something in an article? Have poor grammar? Go ahead and add it - someone else will fix it. That is the idea of a wiki. And final point on that quote - "kiddie"... Are "kiddies" not allowed any input? They play the game same as everyone else. And how are they defined? Someone who has an opposing view to yours, or a view that doesn't fit into your loftier grand plans for the game? Are they not going to be allowed to contribute to - as the organisers intend it - the "official" LOOK!!-DEVELOPERS-PLEASE-READ-AND-DO-THIS list? Are all animals equal, but some more equal than others..? It is a terrible idea. Take it outside to a forum. Please leave quietly and close the door on your way out. Fox (talk|contribs) 05:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

First of all, I'm not trying to argue that the project should be on this wiki at all. Anyways, having multi-level categories for user pages isn't going to help either.

• Let's say, somebody comes up with a trade improvement suggestion. There are ridiculous flaws in it. What can I do? Make my own suggestion on my userpage just to point out a glaring flaw of his suggestion on his user page, when I don't even support the suggestion? Write something on the respective talkpage which he might completely ignore and might not be noticed because there's a flood of other discussions on the same talk page?
• Let's say, 12 people have their own minor variations of how the chat system can be improved. They are all extremely similar (and the similar part is very long), with just minor differences. Having 12 different articles that are highly similar, with only minor variations, just makes the organization of information that much harder. Instead, we can have just one article, describing the core concept of the idea first, then list the variations and each of their trade offs. But if I make such an article in my userpage, that's just gonna add a 13th article to the category on a suggestion that isn't even mine (and potentially one I do not support), and if someone browsing the category come upon my article relatively last, or if I have been away for a while so it's not updated with later ideas, and somebody else has to make a new version of the overall article in their own user space, we just end up with 17 user space articles of highly similar and redundant content that other users need to plow through.
• Search on the forum? Search results are already going to return lots of threads that are highly repetitive, with lots of non-useful comments. That's the exact problem that using a wiki system to organize suggestions is trying to help with. The wiki organizes the data, organizes the results of the discussions (including tradeoffs, technical diffculties, disagreements of different user demographics), things that are completely unorganized on a forum, even after you perform a refined search. THAT is the reason why users would come to a wiki (I don't care if it is not this wiki) to look at an organized presentation of suggestions made by other players in the past.

My point remains that:

1. Using categorization (either just one category or multi-level category) on userspace suggestion articles is not utilizing the wiki platform's ability for collaborative editing and organizing data. Because certain people were not thinking about organizing the information via collaborative editing, that is why to them it seems there's no point putting it on a wiki and things could've just stayed on forums.
2. Having this project on another wiki (and not in userspace) is going to be much better than putting it on this wiki's userspace.

I am looking for a collaboratively-editable way to document, organizae, summarize suggestions and tradeoffs/opinions associated with the suggestions, so that people don't need to browse 10 pages to read stuff that is 80% redundant.

I don't give a Grenth's Finger where the project is located, but forums and categorized Userpages by their vary nature do not welcome collaborative editing. Please keep the collaborative editing part in mind when responding, much appreciated.-User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 14:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't forget about this discussion, Pan. And that's just about some silly profession guides, yet it's causing rage while admins are giving and getting warnings. This proposal is a few miles further, we are talking about completely subjective likes and dislikes, we are talking about making space for my idea that GuildWars should implement a way for my elementalist to drink camomile tea with her other ele buddies in Ascalon ID1, or that they should add a skill that makes you invisible and lets you fly, or that they should give +100 attribute points to characters who max out the Survivor title. Please don't forget the past, don't forget about failed experiments we've had before. Don't forget about the builds section and the reasons why it got nuked. And now it got moved to a separate dedicated wiki, and just look how well that's going *cough cough*. Wikis are not suitable for every topic on the face of this net, they have their limitations as well. This is one of them.

Bottom line is that highly subjective content like those suggestions shouldn't step out of userspace on any wiki, and definitely not this wiki, I think. Of course, you're welcome to try setting up a Wikia or something and see how that goes, but I'm not optimistic. --Dirigible 12:27, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I see the problem with the profession combo issue on GuildWiki as people getting silly tunnel visions, and only want to list positive advices on the article instead of trying to actually analyze tradeoffs and miniority opinions on the issue. It's the equivalent of someone proposing to delete the entire Margonite article just because Karlos or somebody else heavily disagree with I as to which of http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Margonite#Notes is the cannon (and no one ever put that Notes section in the article to present the different views; at any given time, only one point of view is on the article, while other editors who disagree simply remove it). If people continue to behave that way, it's gonna lead to the demise of the "Effective <profession> guide" articles, some of which are actually of decent quality currently.

Build section was, I felt, a conflict between "ownership" and "collaborative editing", as well as trying to place a value on a build by the popularity with a certain demographic of users (vetting) instead of actually analyze why certain things with certain builds not work (they get discussed on the talk page, but the article itself does not attempt to organize and summarize the discussion).

So I see the problem with both as being the sub-community involved were not keeping the collaborative spirit in mind. That might not be fair to all parties involved or fully accurate, but that's how I see why they failed as well as what can fix even those problems. Anyways, I'll be looking around for wiki hosting options for the next few days. -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 13:15, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that a category is often not an effective substitute for things like deep organization/summarization/etc, and would only suggest one here to provide very basic and objective organization -- basically to act as a simple portal into otherwise-obscure userspace pages. The bulk of the collaboration you seek should still be done within pages (some things are simply best left to "manual" lists and such) rather than directly through categorization. I also don't see why userspace on this wiki isn't a viable way to meet your want. Sure, we've inherited some strange culture where any userspace page should generally not be edited by others, but you could still create a single userspace article that covers all the content you want and welcomes collaborative editing by its very nature. --Rezyk 01:59, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Good points. However, if I start such a thing under my user subpage, would it actually be ok to make it prominently visible/accessible to the general users? And if there is a way to reconcile "making subjective content easily accessible" on this wiki, is it not just a decorated hack to create a pseudo namespace on the wiki? -User:PanSola (talk to the File:Follower of Lyssa.png) 15:00, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

What kind of prominence is needed? What if there were a Game suggestion article that gave general info about the suggestion process (that ArenaNet watches the forums, etc) and also linked to a category of userspace suggestions/lists/summaries? Wouldn't that be an appropriate place for users to find it? This also begs the question: If this project was put in userspace here and not prominently displayed as a main feature, could it still get as many views/edits compared to being prominently featured on a more obscure wiki?

Regarding your second question: I would see this kind of project as content that is generally directed by a single user rather than the community (even if collaboratively edited by the latter). To me, that's really what user namespace is all about -- rather than just hosting personal details and private sandboxes -- so I don't see it as a hack.

--Rezyk 04:49, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Drop research

This is starting in more and more articles now: A box called drop research on the talk page, where users can list their individual drops. While the idea might be worthwhile, it is horribly cluttering the recent changes, with no way of filtering, since all edits take place in the TALK namespace. Please, please keep all that data in one (huge) article, so people wont edit 20 articles in a row to put in their drops after every few hours of playing guildwars. --Xeeron 13:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

Keeping it in individual articles seems to make more sense, structurally. I don't think recent changes clutter is sufficient reason to stop doing something that has utility. For example, look at Wikipedia -- their "recent changes" updates so quickly that it's impossible to keep tabs on it. Should they throttle down article edits to maintain the utility of the recent changes script? —Tanaric 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

I was about to write the same thing, but Tanaric beat me to it :) if the information is valuable then I don't think that we should be asking people not to contribute it. LordBiro 15:21, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

As one of the drop research contributors: I know we create many little edits to many pages (as I go through my screens and add all data in one session). There were concerns to include that informations into sub pages instead of talk page, but that would not reduce the changed. Starting one big article for all drop and salvage researchs will very fast result in one huge article, which cannot be edited easily. There were also concerns that the informations are not gathered at the material article, because informations are needed for material (such as "can be salvaged from") and weapons/items ("salvages into"). That would result in double edits, so I prefer to gather that information where they occur (as while salvaging items and getting items dropped).

I don't know wether we could "hide" that salvage and drop research edits by creating two namespaces (e.g. "Dropresearch:Hand_Axe" and "Salvageresearch:Hand_Axe" - and I don't know how easy it is to link these pages into original namespace (Hand_Axe). - MSorglos 05:19, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Having a different namespace would solve the problem for me: It can be ignored in recent changes via the invert selection mechanis and it also seems to fit better to have drop research in a normal namespace, not a talk namespace. After all that is all information, not discussion about the article. I dont know how others feel about creating the namespaces though. On guildwiki, the namespace regime was quite strict, but it seems to be more open here (witness Game link: and Guild:). --Xeeron 05:30, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I say UGH at a namespace, but it's not a bad idea I suppose. May I suggest Research: though? It would probably come in handy for other projects too. - BeX 05:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

(edit conflict)Errr, dont make me whack you over the head with a straw man ;-) I never said that we should ask people not to contribute it, I said it should be contributed in one single page. On wikipedia, I would not care, but ... we are not wikipedia. One difference being that our contribution rate is actually low enough to make the recent changes a very valuable tool. Vandalism rarely lasts longer than a few minutes here, simply because we have a good group of recent changes patrolers. Furthermore, most important discussions are still only being noticable via the recent changes, because we have no (and apparantly no need for) up-to-date portal which keeps track of them all.

So when weighting to gains of having drop research on Earth Scrolls on the articles talk page instead of one central article versus going from a useful recent changes to one which has stopped working as a means to gain information about the wiki, I'll decide for one article and recent changes. --Xeeron

I have to say that I disagree with having all the research on one page. I've seen Tanarics page and it's huge. I imagine multiple people trying to edit that all at the same time would be a complete and utter nightmare. As long as users make sure to have an edit summary and try to consolidate their edits into one big go at a time, then I think the problem would become manageable. - BeX 05:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Maybe it'll help if we first figure out how we're planning to use the gathered drop data. -- ab.er.rant 05:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

"...we have no up-to-date portal which keeps track of [all the most important discussions]..." ← Community portal, Requests for comment.

On topic, a separate namespace is maybe not a bad idea. Wikipedia just implemented a new Table: namespace a couple of days ago for holding different tables; I think something like that may be useful here as well. Maybe a "Data" namespace? Salvage info, /Collector subpages, those could all go in that namespace. Or maybe it would be overkill, not sure... --Dirigible 05:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

The community portal is a great idea, but unfortunately people dont care enough about it to keep it up to date. Example at hand: This discussion, which seems to be quite hot atm, is not there and the last two substancial edits where two weeks apart. --Xeeron 09:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

This discussion is not even a day old yet, it's just over a page; still youngish. :) The discussion above this is listed on the CP, for instance. --11:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Namespace is overkill, but a project for this kind of stuff is definitely needed, something that gathers the data to one place. (not one page, multiple pages, but a main page for the project with links to the others) -- (gem / talk) 07:06, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

In response to Aberrant's query, I was involved to a point in the implementation of this procedure based on the formatting of the weapons location section. The bloated location sections found on GuildWiki, sometimes stating only species, others entire list of mobs which if looked at are usually of the same species and/or profession. The reason for this is to lessen the information on the main weapon articles for which regular users will look to. Once enough research is done to create a valid hypothesis, users will know exactly what species/professions drop certain items and they will know where to farm to find these items. End users rarely care what is located on the talk pages, yet they want and should receive the most accurate and specific information the GWW community can provide. The value of this recorded information, imo, trumps any pet peeves some users may have with any RC spikes that may come from it. Also, I have yet to see any spikes come from this that shares little difference than the spikes that come from new users not using the preview button, crusades, template changes, mass deletions, and the like. I commend those thinking of ways to appeal to Xeeron's request, though the additon of another namespace is indeed overkill and the introduction of a project section would not actually lessen the amount of edits, nor allow Xeeron's request to filter out the research edits. — Gares 08:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I would just appeal to those users doing the research to collate large amounts into a text file if they know they will be performing a great deal of edits. For instance I know I have about 500 screenshots to go through, and I'd started doing edits to a single page all in one go, rather than adding the data one screenshot at a time. It should help ease the RC strain. - BeX 08:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to clarify something, I personally couldn't care less about the RC spam, that's not the reason I find value in the idea of a separate namespace (which wouldn't even do anything to the RC spam); I don't buy Xeeron's argument about using the RC to find important discussions, or his other argument that just because our activity is relatively low, we should artificially keep it so. Nonetheless, I think a separate namespace is a more refined solution than using /Collectors subpages in a namespace where subpages aren't even enabled, or dumping a table that keeps growing on an item talk page. As I wondered above, it may be overkill though. =\ --Dirigible 11:09, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

<ri> The argument for a new namespace seems to be so it can be filtered out of the recentchanges list, but the Talk: namespace can already be filtered out, so I don't see why that is necessary. --Rainith 11:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

If the correct solution is maintaining a proper community portal, we shouldn't even consider implementing a new namespace as a quick hack. Let's get together and work on the community portal instead. —Tanaric 11:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I am opposed to multiple namespaces if it can be avoided.

Skills get loads of edits, some people might not care about them, let's produce a skill: namespace. Repeat for locations/weapons/armor/missions/quests. I seriously think we need to shake off this mentality that adding a new namespace is not a big deal. LordBiro 11:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Filtering the talk: namespace is clearly not a solution, since there are many edits in there which are not drop research related. I already suspected that having a special research namespace would run foul of wiki namespace purists ;-) but in the end, I was the only one in the whole discussion who was worried about usability of recent changes, so maybe I am just the odd one out. If that is so, there is no need to change anything, the talk page concept is working apart from RC issue. --Xeeron 12:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Quick note

This wiki is different from guildwiki.net, there are now two types of guild wars wikis. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Destiny .

There are actually more than just two. - BeX 23:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Yup. There is also the GWO Wiki, PvXwiki, the Guild Wars Wikia (in four different languages), and I'm sure there are more too. --Santax 07:37, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Yet, there is only ONE official wiki. You can find it here -- Rohar (talk|contribs) 08:58, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Upcoming wiki upgrade

Hello everyone! I'm here with some awesome news that I think you'll all be happy to hear! Due to the immense popularity of this wiki and the sheer amount of traffic that's hitting it constantly, we will be upgrading the infrastructure of the wiki servers, which will allow the site to receive even more traffic and activity with minimal impact on the site. This means that the site will perform faster and handle smoother regardless of increased usage.

We'll be doing this upgrade on Tuesday of next week, and will be posting a downtime notice for this time. We predict that the upgrade will go smoothly, and the downtime will be minimal, but I wanted to mention it just in case.

Anyways, here's your heads up! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Note to self: start planning things on the 22nd of May, other than lurking on Offi-wiki and hitting F5 on the Recent Changes page. Great stuff Emily! I noticed the wiki was indeed slowing down noticeably and already 7000+ articles have been created. It's going great, even better that there will be a better infrastructure soon. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 19:06, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Great news! And CoRrRan, I really like the way you refer to this wiki as the "Offi-wiki"! Nice! -- ab.er.rant 21:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

FYI: For posting the downtime notice, MediaWiki:Sitenotice will show at the top of every page (at least it should, I believe it's part of MediaWiki default - although if it doesn't work, come config may be required to add the needed hooks to make it show).

Just thought I'ld mention it for whenever you had planned for putting up the system downtime notice. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Offi-wiki (mentioned in upgrade section above)

Quote Ab.er.rant- "I really like the way you refer to this wiki as the "Offi-wiki"" I like calling it that too: can anyone recall who first came up with that name? And yes, great news about the server buffs :) Fox (talk|contribs) 10:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Good stuff Emily :) LordBiro 14:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Good to hear. Although, I am on the Offiwiki more than 12 hours a day, because my other pc broke down, I will be bored during the short downtime XD. ~ BlackGeneral File:Blackgeneralstar.png 15:02, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

How do you pronounce Offiwiki? Its giving me a headache trying to make it sound something other than "Offal Wiki" which is NOT what I want to hear ;). I pronounce it "Wiki" and you can clearly hear the Capital Double You, when I say it. -- Rohar (talk|contribs) 17:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I say it: Off-E-Wiki =P ~ BlackGeneral File:Blackgeneralstar.png 17:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Heh, sounds like a wiki for off-licences (liquor stores, non-Brits^^) --Snograt 17:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Yuck, GWW is better :P -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 18:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Guh Dub Dub? -- Rohar (talk|contribs) 19:21, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Ger Wee Wee? --Snograt 19:45, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

As the Minister of Silly Chats, I declare this chat far too silly. -- Rohar (talk|contribs) 19:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Ahem. guys.. I coined the term Offwiki a long time ago, *points to userpage history* --Jamie 20:24, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

But it's Offiwiki! :P -- ab.er.rant 21:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

=O Ab.er.rant don't pwn Jamie too hard. :P ...jk -- File:Blackgeneralstar.png (General | Talk) 22:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Not sure exactly what the clique is talking about, but offwiki flows better than offiwiki. --Jamie 19:40, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Not at all! ;) Offiwiki is alot easier to pronounce, for me :) - anja (contribs) 19:55, 18 May 2007 (EDT)