Category talk:Unofficial terms

Proposal to Remove PvP Derogatory Lingo

Some of this category has real value, such as "Orders" or "Nuker". These are terms new players will come across when forming groups in casual play and when moving into group farming such as elite missions/instances and they can learn their meanings by coming here. The first is specific to GW (Orders) and the second is a general MMORPG term (Nuker) - both have value to educating players about the game. PvP lingo however does not contribute to the game and documenting it here does nothing other than to endorse it and hinder these communities. Terms such as "QQ" or "Lern2play" are not terms players use in a constructive way, nor do they have any value other than being used as an insult, documenting insults isn't constructive for the game or the wiki, it only gives endorsement to their use. I would argue terms such as "ragequit" are different from the previously mentioned insults as it is used to define an action by players, where a word such as has no specific meaning other than "bad" or "new" (implied inexperience or uninformed) or simply to describe a bad player. By using the the word "noob" instead of one of the aforementioned meanings a player is implying an insult rather than constructive criticism. I propose we remove the derogatory lingo from the glossary as they are unhelpful to the community and the wiki and are usually localised to specific groups and circles which may appear to be more dominant simply because they are more vocal. Dancing Gnome 02:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I was new all things MMO when I first started guild wars, and particularly when I first started the PvP side of the game there were a lot of contractions I didn't understand - and this included more obscure insults (I hope they were directed at me! ;) and simple things like gg. I don't see there is any harm in defining them - they aren't high traffic and they're there if someone needs them. People basically won't see them if they don't look for them. Most of the entries are neutrally written and aren't targets for vandalism or jokes or targeted abuse. --Aspectacle 04:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Taken from Talk:QQ: It'd be dumb and counterproductive. Our job is to provide a comprehensive, easy-to-search resource on everything they might find in-game; taking out stuff like this article in a harebrained attempt to promote carebearism (while defeating the point of a wiki) is simply unacceptable. -Auron 01:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

+1. — Skuld 05:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't to promote "carebearism" it's to not endorse or support in any way these terms. I understand the comment from Aspectacle about providing a definition to a word they hadn't heard before but my argument is to remove words from the wiki glossary which not only don't contribute to the community but go as far as to take away from the community. These words/phrases don't need to be clarified and they don't need to be used, they are example of poor human interaction via the Internet. The wiki makes decisions on what is best for the community and the wiki and I believe articles like this, for the reasons I stated above, are not good for the community. Increasing the standard of human interaction from "QQ more noob lurn2play" to "gg" or even a simple nothing can only be a good thing. These words only exist to aggravate the people they are used to describe, why would we want to contribute to that? Dancing Gnome 05:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Words are not agents. People are. Backsword 05:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when is ignorance better than distastefulness? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say people should become ignorant of the meanings to the word, nor did even go so far as to imply their removal from the wiki would have any impact on their use in PvP. The percentage of people who learnt the meanings of these words from the wiki is likely close to, if not exactly, 0%. Words like this will be picked up simply by being in the community where they are used. My point for removal is their presence here is a negative one which endorses negative language and behaviour - language and behaviour that takes away from the community not adds to it. Would you ever expect a gaming company to have a section on their website, made by them, with the purpose of helping their players which included words like "noob" or "lern2play" in the expectation that it helps their players? Would you expect it to appear on the Guild Wars website? The proposal isn't ignorance, the proposal is to remove it from the wiki on the basis it detracts from the community as opposed to contributes and its presence here is an endorsement contributing to the problem. Dancing Gnome 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By that reasoning, we should remove the 'Common Scams' section from Scam because people in the Guild Wars community will learn what they are by being in the community, and we're promoting people scamming by listing them.

Consider: almost every mainstream dictionary of the English language includes listings for common expletives. Documenting terms used in-game, derogatory or not, is no more endorsing them than a dictionary endorses swearing. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point that these do nothing to add to the community, only take away from it. The example of the scams is a bad one because their purpose is to inform players about a potential scam so they don't fall for it (and I'm certain any intelligent person would have to consider if the potential scams section does more good than harm), these articles have no positive contribution to the community, they only take away from it. This a glossary not a dictionary. Glossaries specificly choose words relating to a subject and in common use around that subject. It's arguable that these words are in common use but more importantly including them in the glossary is endorsing them in the game, kind of like saying, "these words are the generally accepted words within the GW community and are commonly used to express their meanings by players, so you go use them too". I have the Oxford English Dictionary and every expletive word I looked up had "vulgar slang" written before it was defined. None of these words have anything in their definitions comparable to this. The dictionary is also not a go-to guide for words to be used as insults. No-where in the dictionary will you read anything like; "Heralded as 'Yo momma so fat...' for gamers." These pages take away more from the community than they give. It's ridiculous they are even up here. Dancing Gnome 04:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a specific problem with that particular quoted phrase, so why not simply remove that from the article? Rather than being deletionist, why not work the articles into something that is contributing the community. Can you honestly argue that knowing what the terms means is worse than not knowing? If you think such terms should have a note on them to the effect of "this term is generally considered derogatory in use" or whatever, then add it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the articles as a whole for several reasons, specific phrases and problems seem pointless to change when the entire articles should be removed imho. I don't think this is worth someone's time to re-work - they shouldn't be here. Phrases and sections I quote are just examples of why they shouldn't be here - they are insults, not anything that is helpful, positive, constructive or needed. Keeping them here is a victory for the people who use them. Dancing Gnome 10:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you're attempting to just ignore the fact that insults exist, as if that'll make them go away. It won't. I've already explained in my response to you on User talk:Aiiane what the community gains from having them here, and I've yet to see you bring forth anything the community really loses by having them here - the insults will still exist and be used, I doubt anyone who is going to use them cares about whether a wiki "endorses them". Again, it's exactly the same situation as the scams page - it's better to make people aware of it than to attempt to secure against it through obfuscation. Leave attempting to police social interactions up to the actual venues in which said interactions take place. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither QQ nor lern2play are insults until it's meant as such, in my eyes. If we would draw this to extremes, we would have to remove any word from wiki that can be/have been used as an insult, and people are quite creative. - anja 10:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This wiki's job is to provide users with a guide to the game. Whether you like it or not, this lingo is part of the game. We do not try to censor or control people to our own ideologies. QED. — Skuld 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

TBH "part of the game" is from someone's perspective and an argument can be made to the extent in which these words are commonly used and thus not part of the game (they certainly aren't part of my game, but other words which aren't here my community uses), but I won't bother with that anyway. A guide to the game wouldn't include words you can use to insult other people in the perceived community - that's stupid and ridiculous and defending it is even more absurd. I disagree with these words not being insults, that's a foolish notion and either made by someone unaware of their usage or simply naive - they don't have any purpose other than griefing other players but if you guys want to support that I've tried to stop it. Bad decision imho but it's not my wiki. In response to Aiine's other country and tour guide example, that's a ridiculous example to draw parallels with - they are hardly the same thing. These words would be used by immature little kids in RA when you beat them, or in PvP when you say a build is imba or overpowered and they reply with QQ. There is no need for them to be here, it doesn't matter that they exist or not, the wiki doesn't document EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of Guild Wars - nor should it. There is a scope for the wiki and this simply shouldn't be included in it. Having these words here is a form of acceptance in the community and perpetuates their usage within it. People are likely going to get upset with other people in PvP. When people see articles like this they think, " oh Guild Wars, that's right, we say QQ when someone complains or criticises or loses and we say lern2play when someone doesn't play as well as I do. That's just what we do in GW, it's even on the wiki," which is ridiculous. Skuld's comment, this is not an ideological argument as much as you might like it to be. This is simply weighing the benefits vs the costs of specific content with the community as a whole in mind. This is not censorship or controlling, I'm not proposing bans on the wiki or in game if anyone uses these terms, I'm saying they are more harm to the wiki than good and I don't see any good coming from their presence here. Accepting it on the wiki is like saying "it's ok to do this/talk like this" because this is generally accepted speech within game as demonstrated by the wiki. QED. A wiki with members who can't recognise when something is harmful and will even go as far as defend said harmful thing, going as far as to accept it as part of their game, whether it's existence is purely based on griefing or not. It's a sad reflection on users when articles like this are defended simply because they exist and deleting them is an action, where it is easier to take inaction. If you think people should be reading about how to insult other players or "yo mamma so fat" on the wiki, feel free to disagree. This discussion h as become pointless and I'm not going to push it any more. I still disagree with their presence and I think this shows poor judgement on many users behalf but like I said above, the wiki doesn't belong to me. QED. Dancing Gnome 05:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)