Category talk:NPCs with elite skill

uhhh what the fuck? --adrin 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Overly large? I haven't seen complaints about Category:All guilds. In any case, i am not sure if it is at all useful given that the only npcs we care about having elite skills are bosses.--Fighterdoken 01:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Many people seem to want to use the argument that because something isn't in use yet, then it must not be useful, and try to come up with other "reasons" to cover that. As far as the separation between NPCs and sub category of bosses that have elites, we could do something like that. However, it seems that more people are interested in just deleting something that one person (or a few) doesn't think is useful. I wish there was a way to also tag the page itself with "This page is a candidate for keeping around because it actually is useful despite some who refuse to see the benefit. 42 - talk 04:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, you come up with the reason why this IS useful. Convince us. Give us an example of a practical application for this category that isn't already covered by something else in a more practical way. Personally, if I'm looking for elite skills, I'm going to go to the lists of elite skills, not some NPC list. -- Wyn talk 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The name has the usefulness in it. "Personally, if I'm looking for elite skills, I'm going to go to the lists of elite skills, not some NPC list." That is you. That means that if someone else is going to look at an NPC list for NPC attributes or, I don't know, NPCs with elite skills, or something that has to do with NPCs, then they are automatically wrong because they don't look things up the same way you do? Wyn, there is not only one way (or sorry, I should say there shouldn't be only one way) to look up information. Your way works for you, why do you assume that because that is the way you look it up, that everyone else should be forced to figure out how you look it up, and use your way?

Using that argument to the ridiculous example that needs to be used (to show how wrong that point you are trying to make is), that is like saying that your parents just fed you solid food from the beginning because that is what they ate, and how they did things.

Prove to me that every single person that ever makes use of this wiki is just automatically going to look things up the same exact way you would. Convince me of that. It is not going to happen, because you know it isn't true. The only thing that forcing things like this to go one specific way does is to potentially piss off people who might not share that same viewpoint, and in the case of this wiki being a help to people playing the game, it is no good if it isn't helpful. 42 - talk 04:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Strangely, I didn't see a reason of why it is useful in that large chunk of text. 74.215.145.113 04:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is gonna look at a list of NPC's and click links based of name guesses of what NPC has what skill? Looking up skills by zone lets you see what skills will appear in the near-future. Looking up by name lets you know where the skill you want is. Looking up by NPC at most tells you what skill someone you just encountered has, which would be easier accomplished by typing /help. 75.175.21.24 04:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just thought of an addition/change that could be made to this, to make it useful; using it as a parent category for profession specific subcategories, where each profession has it's own subpage. For example, a category of NPCs who have elite Assassin skills and that page have on it, the NPCs that have an Assassin elite skill. That page could in turn be a sub category to NPCs with elite skills. If someone was using an Assassin, and wanted to find out the bosses they would need to go to capture elite Assassin skills, they could use that. Obviously, there would have to be one for each profession, but that would work just as well, and it would solve the "usefulness" issue that Wyn seems to have a concern with. 42 - talk 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Elite skills already have their own table, and many bosses already list their elite skill. A few clicks accomplishes what this category would be for. I'm all for organization, but when it can be done much easier an alternate way.... -- Wandering Traveler 05:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) List of elite assassin skills with capture location --JonTheMon 05:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
Again, you are all (well, mostly) presuming that someone is going to know automatically a lot of the little ins and outs that you do. And as far as not finding a reason, then read again, and try not assuming as many others that everyone will think the exact same way you do 74.215.145.113. Here is an idea, try things that someone who has no idea of all the little ins and outs of the wiki would try. Gauge how useful something is on that experience and that viewpoint, instead of always assuming that everyone else knows what you know. 42 - talk 06:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, I just did a search like someone would do from the game, for "npcs with elite skills" (all lower case as many people who search from the game are likely to do), and guess what. Not one thing on the first page was of any use at all. Actually, checked the first 3 pages, still nothing useful for what was being searched for. That is what keeping useful ideas out just because you don't happen to see the usefulness is doing. 42 - talk 06:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if i were to do a search, i would look for "elite skill", since i probably don't even know what "npc" means. And the article for elite skills links to all the relevant lists.

Could you explain how it would benefit random_user_001 knowing that a Charr Ashen Claw has an elite skill?--Fighterdoken 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

@42: I bet if I searched for "bosses in elona" I won't find anything. Know why? Because I used the same bad search you did, and didn't try a second one. People searching for "Bosses" will find an actual category that already exists, which is otherwise identical to the one you're cluttering up RC with. You'll also notice its subcategories are quite unfinished. That should give you something to do. ~Shard 06:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

FD, most people who play these kinds of games have a strong clue what NPC means, because that term has been around for a lot longer than online games have been.

Shard, thanks for proving my point about many people using the mind set that anyone who makes use of this wiki is expected to know everything about how it operates right off the bat, and if they don't then they are stupid.

Besides which, the recent changes I am making are to my user pages, and are tables with more information than just category list. See List of Charr bosses, and Dervish Bosses. The dervish list isn't done, but it shows how it will look when it is done. The other boss lists I am working on are the same idea. 42 - talk 17:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would someone search for NPCs with elite skills instead of just elite skills or bosses? And category:Bosses is not just listed at the bottom of Boss, but also in the See Also section of the page, so it's not like it's hidden or anything. --JonTheMon 18:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Many of the users (most of them probably don't even have a wiki user name) of this wiki are more interested in playing the game, and to force them to have to go digging for useful (to them) information in a system that they may or may not be aware of how it works, "just because it is somewhere else", is just going to frustrate a lot of them. Why is it that no one else seems to see this point? They would search for NPC information on a page or in a category (if they knew how to navigate in the wiki) marked NPC because, here is a wild idea, it is information about NPCs. 42 - talk 20:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Btw Jon, Bosses aren't the only NPCs that have elite skills, although the bosses are more likely to be the ones being looked up, make Bosses with elite skills a sub category of this one. 42 - talk 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a "see also" is digging for information. And I don't know who would want to look for a generic list of NPC's with elites that aren't henchmen,allies for a mission/location, bosses, or monsters in a mission/location. --JonTheMon 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

People who just want to play the game will a) look to see what elite skills they want (for capping) and thus will search for the skill itself and go to the bosses, or search for the elite skills by area to see what's coming up for their profession to cap, b) look to see what skills a creature they'll be facing in the next mission or quest will be using, regardless of whether it has elite skills or not, so they can figure out what counters to bring, in which case they will search for the mission, quest, or area and look at the monsters' pages from there, or c) look at the henchmen pages to see which ones would be most useful to bring in a high-end area. If you can explain why anybody would want to look up which non-boss foes have elite skills (other than wanting to cap skills from a non-boss, in which case your article would be simply misleading), then I'll support your idea, but as it is there are better alternatives no matter what a user is looking for. Just because someone could search for it some way (just like I could search for all creatures that use Flare) doesn't justify it having an article dedicated to it (as there is clearly no Category:NPCs with Flare). --[ Kyoshi ]::[ Talk ] 21:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Documentation

Many people have missed the point (and I have as well until now) of one overlying thing in this discussion. I remember Wyn posting this somewhere, and it took me til now to find it here, after me saying the purpose of the wiki is to be helpful to the people who use it.

"No, the intent behind the wiki is to document Guild Wars."
(BTW, thanks for the idea of making the quotes more readable Wyn.)

Both of these categories (elite skill and unique)are valid categories for the documentation of Guild Wars.

"Better yet, you come up with the reason why this IS useful. Convince us. Give us an example of a practical application for this category that isn't already covered by something else in a more practical way."

Wyn, the reason for categories is to be an index, a mini general guide to the categorized item (in this case the GWW). Just because some people use it as a search engine (which is already provided by the wiki itself) doesn't automatically invalidate a legitimate category distinction. The category section is like an index in a book, it is not primarily intended to be a search engine, although it can be used for that as well. This is more an issue of proper and complete documentation of Guild Wars, and as such, people can and do look up information in an index as well. The index in a book doesn't get down to the detail level of a search engine could, it has many general categories and subcategories, and lets people know where to look (page numbers in a book, links to more specific articles here) to get more details of that information. An index doesn't have entire categories missing because some people might not want to read that specific information. 42 - talk 22:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that {{unique}} may be relevant document-wise. On the other hand, the category asociated to {{elite}} will just be confusing or redundant (depending if you list non-boss npcs which for practical purposes are irrelevant).--Fighterdoken 23:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is only redundant if you consider the category system to be a very limited search engine designed to have very few usable options. First and foremost, it is not a search engine. The category system of the wiki is more like an index. Just because some people find stuff in that index the way they want, apparently means that someone else who might be looking for a different bit of information shouldn't be allowed to, and if they try to make it so that someone else can, then that person is wrong as well. The example I have used in many places is that not every single person who uses this wiki will necessarily want, nor should they be forced, to look up information they want to in only a couple of ways. That is also presuming, I am saying this again because people refuse to see this point, not everyone who uses the wiki will automatically have the same skill level as the people who make use of it, and edit it, almost every day. I get told that I am acting like they "have their heads up their ass", when all I am trying to do is to make this wiki more usable to the greater number of people.

I remember trying to say that the main purpose of this wiki is to be helpful, and being told by someone else, it is to document the game. To me, and if it is one or the other isn't the point. What good is the documentation if you can't find it? I try to add an additional documentation factor to the wiki, another way to look up information, and get my hand slapped (figuratively). Somewhere, I don't remember if it was on this wiki or another one, to "be bold". Watch out if you do that, because apparently that isn't allowed anymore. 42 - talk 02:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This category does not create a new arrangement of information that has significant value. Plain and simple. This is in no way superior to the lists available at elite skill. And just 'cause you're told to be bold, doesn't mean we'll just go along with it. --JonTheMon 03:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"NPCs with elite skill". That's like 90% of the NPCs. I'm not sure why you would care to find out whether an NPC has an elite skill or not other than for capping its elite skill. If you are, it's much more efficient to just find the elite skill by searching for it rather than going through an index of NPCs hoping to find the one with the right elite.

"Somewhere, I don't remember if it was on this wiki or another one, to "be bold". Watch out if you do that, because apparently that isn't allowed anymore."

Be bold all you want. You just have to realize when you need to stop. Failing that, you need to realize when the community is telling you to stop because you're doing more harm than good to the wiki. --RIDDLE 03:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To restate what's already been said, this category is unnecessary. Nobody is ever going to use a category containing every NPC with an elite. Documenting the game is fine, but it gets out of hand when you link every page to every other page for trivial reasons, like "Skills starting with the letter N." There are already many possible ways to find whatever boss/elite you're looking for. List ONE use for this category you want to make, because I can't. ~Shard 03:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just chip in with what I've already said at Category_talk:Drops_unique. "Nobody would ever use it" is not a strong counter. There's plenty of examples of such things in the fact, not just categories. It's not like this is the only "All of" category, and it's not the only "going to be really huge" category. Take a look at these: Category:All titles, Category:All towns, Category:Skill icons, Category:Spells, Category:Stackable items, Category:Swords. Can you think of why people who use those categories rather than their related page (Title, Town)? So... why have them? Spells is huge - useless? Stackable items is pointless - who the heck cares about a whole category of stackable items, I just want to know if a specific item is stackable. A category of weapon type? Why won't I just go to their corresponding weapon type page and see all the nicely formatted tables? There's plenty more such similar categories, so I'm not sure why you guys are against 42's effort to add one more bit of categorisation that we're already doing? (And just to add again, I don't like that template either; it's much better to fold it into NPC infobox or just drop it altogether). -- ab.er.rant 14:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Spells is big because it has to be: it's not an enchantment or hex spell, so it has to be a spell. This category, however, could possibly include every non-boss monster, since most enemies get elites in HM. And one thing you're forgetting is that categorization can aid in list creation via DPL. Granted, List of spells broke the dpl, but that's because category:spells is kinda a catch-all for spells. --JonTheMon 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent)
It is also my understanding, since I have not worked with it myself, that the DPL has a size limit of like 200 entries or something like that. It might be something else I am thinking of, or the limit might be way off what I think. This category actually, now that I have been able to sit back and think about it some more, could be a parent, to Bosses with elite skills, and sub to that, Assassin, etc. It could be a parent, then Allies and Bosses, under bosses assassin, warrior, etc. and under allies, could be broken down into campaign subs, for one example.

All I have seen time and time again is people saying that "well, I don't look things up that way" (my paraphrasing here), without stopping to think that that is the point of view from people, who for the most part, usually know quite a bit about how the wiki works, and many of the different ways to get around it. It also seems to be generally accepted that because how things are done for however long means that no one else might have a different idea. Not everyone that makes the use of this wiki will know that specific way or ways. And many people seem to forget that the people who work on it aren't the only ones who will be making use of it.

I got told recently that I am trying to say everyone else is wrong. That is not the case. All I am trying to say is remember who this wiki is here for, everyone who plays GW. It isn't just for the people who maintain it, or just the people who only play the game and could care less how the information they want to find is put in here, as long as they can find it when they need to. It is there as a resource for people who play the game. Trying to tell the people who look up things differently than you, or might be interested in information that you aren't, that they should only be interested in the same information, or should only want to look things up the same way you do, to me, seems very disrespectful to them. The people who don't bother to sign in and get a wiki account don't mean any less as far as being legitimate users of this wiki. 42 - talk 00:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Nobody is ever going to use a category containing every NPC with an elite." Your view of that Shard. I don't happen to be so self-centered to think that I know what everyone else will think. Nor do I think that my way of looking things up is the only way to do things.

""Nobody would ever use it" is not a strong counter." And yet, Aberrant, that doesn't keep people from trying to use that lame excuse as a justification time and time again against putting a new (one that isn't in use) idea into play. What I think is happening is that many of these categories were put in place place back when people actually considered that there might be more than their way to look something up. (Some, like the Category:Skill icons can be argued from their side that it is a necessary one, watch out Aberrant :P.) I also noticed a certain name on the start of many of those categories.

"This category does not create a new arrangement of information that has significant value." Then I guess I am not trying to make this category usable for you. Despite what you might think, this already is a category (even before I created the category page and started flagging pages as belonging to it), it just isn't fully documented. "This is in no way superior to the lists available at elite skill." I never intended it to be "superior", just available to people. "And just 'cause you're told to be bold, doesn't mean we'll just go along with it." I don't have a problem with people having different opinions of things than I do. See my viewpoint on that at the beggining of this post of mine. Or see almost any post of mine proving a point that many people apparently refuse to see.

I have seen that someone else is trying to get new ideas and things going; many of these seem to be similar in intent to mine. I am not going to say who because I happen to agree with that person's mindset of trying to improve the wiki for the most people, and I don't want the "community" to take it out on them for doing things I think are a good idea. I have also noticed that some of the people who are apparently against my ideas are for very similar ideas presented by this other person. I am starting to wonder if it is in fact the idea that many people are against or the person presenting it. I could care less if it is the second; I will continue to try suggesting (and implementing when I can) changes that I think will improve the wiki for the most amount of people, even if they may not benefit me specifically. 42 - talk 01:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And, Shard "List ONE use for this category you want to make, because I can't." Try reading the name. 42 - talk 01:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because you can make a category doesn't mean you should. Why not have a "Category:NPCs with skills"? That's a valid category, but not really that helpful. How about "NPCs that have more than 1 skill"? Or "NPCs with elite skill and at least 1 other skill"? There's a lot of ways to arrange data, but some decisions have been made about what should and shouldn't be retained. --JonTheMon 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Just because you can make a category doesn't mean you should." Just because you don't happen to find a use for something is a reason to say someone else won't? And yet you still try.

Thanks for trying to disprove a valid point. Didn't work, but thanks for trying. Still doesn't change a thing. If you want to make those categories, I am not going to say you shouldn't. I am not of the mind that everyone else should be expected to think like me. But while you're at it, you might want to get help from Shard. I believe he suggested a category of skills that start with the letter "N."

I have proven time and time again that this is a valid category, and one of many reasons for it is because it is a valid category. The name says also why it is, and I have posted in the section below this further proof why this is valid. People's continued insistence to refuse to see this is not my fault, nor should a legitimate improvement to this wiki be turned down because "I don't find it useful". Aberrant has also given supporting evidence (Thank You Ab), and has actually suggested an improvement to an idea. Instead, it seems people insisting it be deleted, and not even consider "well maybe if we did it this way instead, it might work better."

As I have said on other discussion pages in repeated proof of a point that too many people still refuse to see, this is a category issue, and a category is for looking up information. You do not throw out an index in a book just because it has information listed in there you don't happen to want to look up. An index in a book is serving the same function as the category system does here. Jon pointed out that in an index in a book, you look up the page number the item you want is on. And that is correct, in a regular paper book, that is how it is done. If this were a strict electronic version of a book, you would be able to click the link in the index, and go right to that page. Oh wait, you can do that here. Curious.

Wikipedia definition of Index as used in publishing

"An index is a list of words or phrases ('headings') and associated pointers ('locators') to where useful material relating to that heading can be found in a document."

Sounds very close to the function of the categories in use here. 42 - talk 05:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, FD, I do appreciate you chiming in at least partially in my favor on this discussion, but in reference to your "redundant" issue, go take a look at a technical book index sometime. I am sure that there are entries in there which show up in multiple areas. 42 - talk 06:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Users who are Human Beings. Holy shit, I just came up with a new category. Who knows, we may have someone looking for human beings. You may not be looking for human beings, but damnit, someone else will. Throw that common sense nonsense out the window, despite the overwhelming odds that every user on here is going to be a human being.

You see, this is how the category is consider bad. It is redundant. Valid or not, it's still redundant, since the OVERWHELMING majority of NPCs will have an elite skill, with the exception of town service NPCs and some ambient vanilla NPCs.

In fact, if I'm in the position to suggest (and you are in the position to listen), may I suggest your efforts are better spent at defining non-service NPCs that have NO elite skill? Or enemy NPCs that have no elite skill? These (at least the latter) satisfies the camp that is concerned about the category being unnecessarily huge and the camp that is concerned with just redundancies. This would, in effect, also achieve the purpose of what you're trying to accomplish here since (if done properly), one can reasonably assume that if an NPC doesn't belong in the "no elite skill" category, then it must have an elite skill. You accomplish the same thing, but with less effort. --RIDDLE 06:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit, I actually almost laughed at that joke Riddle (at least I presume it was a joke). By the idea and the definition of categories, there is almost always the potential that items in one category could be in another category, or sometimes more than one other. Go look at the categories pointed out by Aberrant, even better, go look at ALL of the categories, and tell me how many of them are "redundant," or "useful," or "needed." Also, take a look at how long they have been in existence. Apparently, the OVERWHELMING majority of the community doesn't seem to have a problem with them being here.

This category identification has been proven (repeatedly) to be valid, has been proven to be an actual category (by definition of the word), and has been proven to be appropriate. All that has been proven by the other side is that some people don't think they would find it useful. So, by extension, they are insisting that no one else would find it useful. I guess this category isn't there for them. Would they like it if someone else thought that they shouldn't be able to look up things a certain way? Not very likely. They would probably say something about it. Why do they insist that it not be there for anyone else to make use of?

And unlike people like you, I actually DO listen to other people's reasonable, let me emphasize, reasonable, points. I do not get ostrich disease and stick my head in the sand and ignore facts. I also do not consider my way to be the only way everyone should follow. I never had any question that that is how YOU consider that category bad.

Riddle, if you want to add the category "users who are human beings," go for it. I am not going to sit here and tell you not to. Despite arguments used by opposition to the valid points made by me for "documented" addition of this category (This is already a category despite repeated failed attempts to prove otherwise, see my additional point below), repeated use of those arguments does not make my points invalid.

You can suggest anything you would like, I will give it proper consideration. Might I suggest something in return. If you want to argue a point, feel free. Don't disrespect a different point of view by claiming (or implying) it is invalid because you don't happen to agree with it. 42 - talk 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So you don't consider any category illogical or lacking in usefulness? --JonTheMon 02:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the main page of this wiki, in fact I will re-post it here so it is clear. "Welcome to the official Guild Wars Wiki,

the comprehensive Guild Wars reference written and maintained by the players."(my emphasis) In case there is confusion, look up the definition of comprehensive.

Stop trying to claim I am using an argument that I didn't. I said I wouldn't tell you you couldn't do it. However, I would post my opinion in support of a category that falls under the "reason for this wiki" as listed above. To use one of your ridiculous examples, this does not apply to making a category "pages that are in this wiki.".

In certain cases, there are some categories that would actually be redundant (like the actual legitimate example I provided above, not the ones that you claim). All that proves is you are not understanding these points:

- You apparently didn't read that statement on the main page and/or understand the meaning of the word "comprehensive."

- I never said they would be useful to everybody.

- This wiki is more like an electronic book than many people want to accept. You would not rip out entries from an index in a book that had information listed in a way you didn't want to look it up.

42 - talk 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You're going to have to re-post your actual-redundant-category because I cba to find it in your walls of text. And it's not taking away the information on which NPCs have elite skills, it's just saying an arrangement of data isn't useful. You don't have to have every single arrangement of every piece of data to be comprehensive, you just need all the data. And if a book had too many indexes (which are what categories are), then you'd pare down the indexes to the more useful ones, so that those don't get flooded in the less useful ones. --JonTheMon 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

One more valid point...

intended for those that will probably refuse to see this one as well.

Definition of category from wiktionary definition of category "A group, often named or numbered, to which items are assigned based on similarity or defined criteria."

I think it is safe to say that one NPC that has an elite skill or drops a unique item is similar to another one that does the same thing. Sounds similar to me.

From the definition of categorization from wikipedia definition of categorization

" ... Ideally, a category illuminates a relationship between the subjects and objects of knowledge."

NPCs that drop a unique item or have an elite skill have a "relationship" in that they both do the same thing.

Jon, that is the typical attitude that is the real issue here. Because you refuse, sorry, don't see the usefulness to you, it must be useless to everyone else as well.

In case you are wondering, I also posted this above proof that this is a valid point on the other category I am trying to keep in play, Category:Drops unique.

42 - talk 05:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not Wiktionary or Wikipedia... - J.P.Talk 17:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

JP, is that somehow supposed to change the definition of "category?" Go read the line at the top of the main page of this wiki. I will give you a heads up, you might want to look up the definition of comprehensive too. 42 - talk 06:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Just because it's defined as "X" on the dictionary doesn't mean we apply that meaning. This is why people ideally should become familiar with this wiki before they start proposing changes to the non-challenged customs.

Also, you need to understand something. This wiki is not an "all-inclusive" encyclopedia of everything Guild Wars related, and every possible variant of such things, but only of what is deemed relevant as per concensus. And current concensus is that a list of "every npc who has an elite" is useless information because it serves no practical purposes (on contrast with, let's say, a list of every boss who has an elite).--Fighterdoken 07:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

42, given the strong opposition, I doubt you'll be able to convince them otherwise. A better course of action might be to do as you mentioned above, try to work on alternatives, say change this to a parent category, to give the subcategories a bit more purpose and focus. It also helps if you can address one of the points that was brought up - almost every NPC has an elite skill in hard mode (that does sort of make the category redundant if every single foe goes into it). -- ab.er.rant 06:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is truly the case then the entire wiki needs to be looked at all over and remove potential confusion issues like this. Don't sit there and claim "well this goes against guidelines" when that claim isn't supported, and then tell someone "it goes against consensus," when they try to do something that follows the stated guidelines, and expect them to not have an issue with it. It is called consistency.

In regards to that, if you don't apply that definition, then you shouldn't be using the word.

Aberrant, the problem is, I use common sense, and I do not stick my head in the sand to ignore a valid point of view even if it differs from mine. I get told my ideas and suggestions don't follow guidelines (which no one has yet been able to give definitive proof of that). I try to adjust to that idea. For my trouble, I get told that, in effect, "We don't care if you think it is a good idea or even if you have proof, we think our way and that is it." People like to tell others to follow the guidelines, except when that is inconvenient for their side of the discussion, then "consensus" gets thrown around. 42 - talk 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)