Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 9

Thank you

→ moved from Help:Ask a wiki question#Thank you

Hello and sorry to bother you. I am just writing to say that without your website and all of its' contributions from players, editors and background folks, people like me, who don't know anything, and are only allowed to play after homework and house chores are done would quickly lose interest and motivation to play Guild Wars. From the bottom of my heart I want to thank you all at GW Wiki. You have no idea how much I appreciate this website. Thank you, ty,ty. --Rene Rider 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On behalf of the community, thank you for the kind words :) -- ab.er.rant 02:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And you're certainly welcome, too. :) Don't hesitate to consider contributing if you happen to find somewhere you think could be improved, either. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture standardization

One of the things that’s long bothered me about this wiki is that there is no set standard for the pictures of items. This often results in things like Shield of the Dead. Yes, the item is in view, but it is painfully obvious that the uploader went the extra mile to make sure his full FoW and weapon were in view. In my opinion, the Long Sword picture is a perfect way that it should be done. The character has nothing visible equipped but the long sword, and the picture is clearly focused on said long sword. The majority of the character is not visible.

I realize that with some rarer items it can be difficult to obtain quality photos, and as I am retired to FA and newbie helping these days, I am certainly of no assistance in this field, but some sort of standard for photos of weapons/armor/minis would be very nice to have in place.--Ryudo 04:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I find it amusing that users like to get their characters into the shot despite the fact no one will recognise it as their char. And I'm enough of a prick to love to just to save those images down and crop them :D (yea, I cropped Shield of the Dead already). -- ab.er.rant 09:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is actually the Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Images that explains how images should be taken to be uploaded. Any image that doesn't meet those standards, can and should be tagged as {{image update}} so they can be replaced, or corrected. -- Wyn 12:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to know what I've been doing is right lol, whenever I see an image uploaded in that way I add the image update tag. Another section I've noticed that it happens alot is the special gloves/gauntlets and have already tagged the ones that aren't doing what they are supposed to (focusing on the gloves) for image update. I just rarely get a chance to crop and reupload the images I tag :( --Kakarot 14:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There is this project that was working on it, though I think it has rather fallen into inactivity, and could really use a jump start. I've tried to update those I could, but I'm horrible at screenshotting hostiles. And some of the armor that needs updating is not stuff I have/want. -- Wyn 14:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

New users

Lately I have seen many new users who get themselves in trouble because they continuously edit their own user page without understanding or having read GWW:USER. Usually a nasty situation develops, when older users warn these new users of the fact that they are breaching policy. Unaware of how things work on this wiki, the new user sometimes feels offended or harassed, even though the one that made the new user aware of their error did so with the best intentions. I believe these rows with new users are bad for the community, not because I mind spending some time showing new users around, but because these arguments sometimes discourage new users from becoming active editors on the wiki altogether.
I had the following idea: if users attempt to create a page for their guild, a line saying "Are you creating an article for your guild? If so, please read our guild pages policy first, or your submission may be immediately deleted!" appears below the editing field (see, for instance, here.). Wouldn't it be a good idea to do something similar for the User: namespace? Like, a line saying "Are you creating a user page? If so, please read our user page policy first."? Would it theoretically be possible to implement this for first-time edits to user main pages, and perhaps something similar for user talk pages (in that case referring to Guild Wars Wiki:Talk pages), or am I allowing my imagination to be carried away a bit too far now? — Why 21:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be possible, however, it would also appear anytime someone was creating a subpage for an existing userpage, since it's triggered by a new page in the User namespace (at least the guild page message is triggered when someone is creating any page in the Guild namespace so I assume it would be the same). I have had the 'new user' experience a few times, and it is generally easy to unruffle feathers with a little patience. I'm also not sure how much good that kind of notice does as there a gazillion guild pages out there that don't follow policy. -- Wyn 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

One option would be creating something similar to Wikipedia's warning form letter templates, although the last time we did that with [[Template:Welcome]], it didn't work out that well. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates to be put on user pages are a really really bad idea. Even the best designed template makes the user who receives it feel objectivized. Much better to put a short personal note up than pasting a template. --Xeeron 11:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you guys are probably right. On second thought, I'd prefer a personal approach more than an automatic one myself too. — Why 12:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Would a Javascript script with the message below the edit window modified for users who aren't autoconfirmed be possible? This of course in conjunction with personal messages when necessary. calor (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Why is talking about any sort of message on the user's talk page, or user page (template or not), I believe he's talking about adding the language in the edit screen like you get when you try to create a guild page and in bold it has the message he quoted. -- Wyn 21:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What Wyn said. I do not think it's really necessary any more though, after reading your comments. — Why 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions, take 2

Last time the suggestions sections were discussed, we were left waiting an answer from Arena Net regarding some key issues. While some questions have yet to be answered, we got some input about the suggestions from Regina, on her talk page. What would you people like to do? Discuss the possibility of deleting the suggestions sections now, or wait until we get some more answers? Erasculio 12:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm just afraid that deleting them without a firm position from ArenaNet on where people should be directed instead is simply going to make the staff talk pages the mess that Izzy's and Gaile's used to be. Right now, the GW suggestion page is not getting that much traffic, I mean, in the week since it was converted to the GW2 suggestion page format, there have been 11 pages created, and a few added to the personal suggestion page list. So I don't see that as being so much of a problem. The GW2 suggestions on the other hand, generate a huge volume daily, and if that is left to go back on staff pages, I'm afraid we will never see any of them again. -- Wyn 12:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on Regina's reply, I would consider redirecting people to the fansite forums, while deleting any suggestions from the Arena Net staff's talk pages (IMO, her comment on "people started posting suggestions to staff talk pages, it would get unruly, like what happened to Isaiah's talk page -- until the community started assisting with management of that process" is a sign that she, at least wouldn't mind if the community helped in removing suggestions from her talk page). But of course, before doing that we would need a policy on suggestions and etc. Erasculio 12:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So we go from a allowing suggestion pages in the ArenaNet area to having to further police staff talk page.... I'd rather just see the scratchpad of the GW2 area done away with. -- Wyn 12:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we'll be getting definitive answers from ArenaNet any time soon, so I think we should, to put it bluntly, do what we want.

I'm in favour of deleting the suggestion areas and, as Erasculio says, removing suggestions from ArenaNet staff talk pages and pointing them to forums. I doubt removing suggestions would be as sysop-only as the maintenance on Izzy's talk page is as the only maintenance necessary would be to remove suggestions, and suggestions are easy enough to spot. Considering this, I think maintaining three or four staff talk pages is a lot less work than maintaining a namespace. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Regina that forums are better than wikis for discussion. However I also feel that wikis are better than forums for describing, summarizing and collaboratively editing. If we're going to keep suggestions, I think we should use some form of peer review system to organize them by quality, however if we nuke suggestions here, there's still NikiWiki, and there may be other similar fansites. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A "peer review system" and "[organisation] by quality" isn't done well on a wiki - that would most likely require discussion and/or voting (which we've already discussed in long length). So if we do keep suggestions here, I don't think your preference of peer-review for this wiki would be feasible (and perhaps not wanted). -- Brains12 \ talk 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been in favour of deleting them for quite a while now so I'm biased with regards to this issue. Just want to add that if we do delete, then we should still keep ArenaNet:Guild Wars 2 suggestions, but change it so that it links to List of fansites and that NikiWiki that's been around longer than GWW. Also, if we delete, this is a good time to finish up Guild Wars Wiki:Talk pages and adding in a section to cater for ArenaNet staff talk pages and a section for volatile talk pages. -- ab.er.rant 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If we reach consensus in favor of removing suggestions, I think the process should go something like this:

1. Consensus is reached on the community portal
2. A revision to Guild Wars Wiki:Article retention is written up and proposed.
3. Notices are placed on the main suggestion pages, the suggestion nav bars and the RFC board (as well as possible the site notice box), stating that the removal of suggestions is under serious consideration, pointing to the article retention policy revision proposal.
4. The proposed revision to article retention is discussed, and consensus is eventually reached.
5. After the policy revision is implemented, all suggestion pages in the ArenaNet namespace other than the personal sugestion indices are deleted under G4.

In other words, if we are going to do a suggestion purge, I don't think we should do it quickly, casually or discreetly. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am also in favor of doing away with the suggestion pages. I also agree with Gordon that it shouldn't be done "quickly, casually or discreetly". Lets all try to come to an agreement in the matter and work our way from there. I also like Ab.er.rant's idea to keep the pages and inform people of the appropraite places to go to post such suggestions. However, if we get rid of Guild Wars suggestions and Guild Wars 2 suggestions should we get rid of skill suggestions as well? It would not bother me if we did away with those with the other suggestions. --Shadowphoenix 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing at a time SP :) suggestions first, we'll deal with skil feedback later. -- ab.er.rant 04:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think we have to do this slowly as well. I'm wondering if it would be better to also make a Suggestions policy just to explain the matter more, like what was done with the builds (that are mentioned in the Article retention policy but also have a policy on their own). I also agree with Aberrant in that it would be a good time to work on the Talk pages policy. Erasculio 08:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There will be rioting on the RC, but I will support removing them following Gordon's above mentioned plan. So maybe step 2 should get started as a draft at least along with reviving Guild Wars Wiki:Talk pages with the additions mentioned. -- Wyn 08:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I'm currently neutral about suggestions on the wiki. IMO deleting all the suggestion pages immediately after step 1 would drop a huge drama bomb, if we're going to be removing them, I feel that we should do so in a way which minimizes drama and grievances. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Imo, the only real advantage of fansites over the wiki in terms of suggestions is that we would not be the ones dealing with it. In effect, it amounts to leaving other people to deal with the mess, because we don't want to. As such, I do not support deleting the pages. I could be convinced if someone explains that the suggestions do not have any value per se, no matter where they are voiced. --Xeeron 13:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there are some differences. For example...

• Forums have moderators, who keep discussions under control. The wiki has sysops, who have a different role. Conflicts thanks to this have caused some discussions earlier this year.
• Forums have a better design for discussions. There are no edit conflicts, no problems with indents, rather a linear sequence of posts with the ability of quoting specific parts of a comment and reply directly to is. Here long discussions often become a big wall of text somewhat hard to read.
• Many forums have more experience with handling suggestions than the wiki does. GWO and GWG have been dealing with suggestions for years now.
• Some sites, like NikiWiki, have many features dedicated to suggestions that the wiki does not have, like a rating systems, giving higher reputation to people with good suggestions so their votes have a higher input, and so on. Brokun's list here addresses most of those concerns.

IMO, the most important thing is that suggestions are something too resources intensive that fall outside the main goal of the wiki. They are part of what forums are for, so it doesn't bother me to have suggestions there, but here I think they're a bit out of place. Erasculio 15:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, by "letting others handle the mess", the efforts of the users currently involved in suggestions housekeeping can be channeled back into our primary purpose of documenting Guild Wars, not the wants and hopes for Guild Wars 2. GW1 suggestions has more reason to be retained than GW2 suggestions. -- ab.er.rant 09:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Aberrant, most of those pages are suggestion, and things have been moved back and to. Disallowing suggestions on them, while maintaining the 'complaints' parts would not be easy. It would be very maintenence heavy and would cause massive drama. Backsword 02:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not embrace individual user-space as the best home for it all? Not only to ensure manageability, but as a place where collaboration on very subjectively-guided content can thrive more organically. --Rezyk 11:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with individual users maintaining their personal suggestions, however, limiting suggestions to only registered users is not how the wiki works, and we have already had that discussion ad nauseum over the changes to the GW suggestion pages. Personal suggestions can still be created in userspace and linked to on fansite forums, but if we are going to do away with the suggestion pages of the ArenaNet namespace it has to be all or nothing imo. -- Wyn 11:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we could allow players to have suggestions on their userspace as long as it's not linked from any central "Official List of GW2 suggestions" page or anything like that. Just like builds - plenty of users have builds in their userpages, and that's ok since the userspace policy doesn't forbid that (and has no reason to do so), but if someone made an article in the mainspace with a list linking to userpages builds, it would be deleted. I agree with Wynthyst in that things like this are excluding IP users, and so would not really work as the only way to submit suggestions. Erasculio 11:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If, instead of completely deleting the suggestions pages, we instead simply made them lists of wikilinks to an individual's user page for suggestions... something along the lines of 1-entry-per-user only, and then they can link to whatever sub-items they want from inside their own page. Then you still have a central page that someone who is looking to peruse suggestions can go to without having to browse through everything else in the User namespace, but you also eliminate issues like edit conflicts, giant pages, etc.

Essentially, the suggestions page would simply because a bulleted list of users and their "main suggestion" page in their userspace, like this:

• Aiiane - User:Aiiane/Suggestions
• Example - User:Example/Suggestions

et cetera. Alternatively, it could simply be implemented as a category (and then redirect the ArenaNet namespace version to the category version). Since the actual comments are kept in a much more distributed layout, it allows for much more flexibility in how they're handled - if someone wants to show support for another's suggestion, they can just link to it from their own page, thus increasing the chances it might get seen. If someone wants to discuss a suggestion, they can do it in user talk - in an area that has some form of guidance to it (namely, that it is, to some extent, dominated by a given user).

By limiting it to one entry per user, you keep things equal among individuals, no hogging the spotlight allowed.

What do we lose? We lose a little bit of organization, in that there's no central place for any given topic of suggestion, and the same suggestion might be repeated multiple places. But I think that's worth the trade off given that the current system isn't working but totally eliminating the section seems less than ideal.

Wyn and Erasculio, you say that it's unfair to IP users, but I can't agree with you here. If an IP user wishes to post a suggestion, there are other means by which they can post it if they do not wish to post it here, but why should be deny everyone the ability to post simply because some people do not want to register here? We cannot cater everything down to the lowest common denominator or we might as well not have anything above IP users in the first place. We are not "limiting suggestions to registered users", but rather we are limiting personal content to registered users, I see no issue there. The benefit of registering has always been to allow personalization above the simply anonymity of an IP, and this is nothing different; suggestions are simply another element of personalization. User registration is not that high a barrier, and while I think that it is indeed worth it to take into consideration the impact on IP users, I also think that it's important to keep things in perspective and not go on a great IP crusade. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Such lists already exist. Also, this has already been discussed in regards to how the Guild Wars suggestions should be formatted, ArenaNet_talk:Guild_Wars_suggestions#make_suggestion_page_neater.3F (and more things below that section). The outcome was to have the same format as the Guild Wars 2 suggestions. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, I have no problem with people creating and maintaining suggestions in their userspace. I simply do not feel we should then provide only those users an 'official' link via the ArenaNet namespace. They can link them on whatever fansite forum they choose, or on other user's pages. I simply believe that if we are going to remove the suggestion pages from the ArenaNet namespace, which is the topic under discussion here, it needs to be all or nothing. -- Wyn 18:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wynthyst. IMO, Aiiane's idea isn't completely inviable; it could be done and it would work. I just don't believe it would be worth the trouble - we would be limiting content from IP users, and while it is minor content, it's something which isn't really worth creating this kind of division for, IMO. Removing everything would be, in this light, a bit fairer than keeping only the userspace suggestions. Erasculio 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to keep this decision as transparent as possible, should we add a notice to the suggestion pages that this discussion is going on? I would guess that not a lot of the suggestion posters visit the community portal for news. -- Wyn 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Removing everything would be, in this light, a bit fairer than keeping only the userspace suggestions." - To me, it doesn't seem fair to registered users that we're denying them an opportunity simply because a small subset of individuals doesn't want to take the time to register an account. Again, I think catering to the lowest common denominator here is just a case of misery loving company; it doesn't make anyone happy. Userspace is open to everyone. Those who choose not to take part in it are making a conscious decision. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

We have never discrimnated against Anon users before, Aiiane (other than bcrat elections) so I see no reason to start now. The simple fact is that the wiki is not the proper place for suggestions. Even in the form you are suggesting they still would be difficult to maintain. The logical answer to this problem is to completely remove the suggestions and let ArenaNet find a different "offical" area for this. --Shadowphoenix 00:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is that anything that we can't offer to everyone, we shouldn't offer to anyone. Why then, do we have userpages? Why then, do we have custom signatures? Are we not "discriminating" by allowing people who register to have these benefits? No, we're not, because it's not discrimiation. It's simply something that's required to be able to feasibly offer a given service, exactly like providing centralized links to suggestions in a feasible manner is. It's like saying a theme park operator is discriminating against small children if they open a rollercoaster and require participants to be at least a minimum height to ride, for safety reasons - there's no malicious intent, it's just what's necessary for offering the service in a viable manner. The whole "discrimination against anons" argument is extremely arbitrary and honestly detrimental to the overall potential of the wiki. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Regina has pretty much outlined ArenaNet's plan to do nothing official regarding any GW1 suggestion vehicle other than continued use of fansite forums and direct email, but possibly having something for GW2 in the future. She also agrees that forums are better places for suggestions. As far as denying someone an opportunity... we are suggesting to deny no one anything other than an official namespace area for posting suggestions and that we would be denying to all, not just the few registered users who have posted personal suggestion pages. It's those few, in my estimation that are the lowest common denominator that Aiiane speaks of, rather than the large number of unregistered users who come here to do nothing other than post suggestions, most of which end up being deleted after much editing by the rest of the community. Any registered user is free to create suggestion pages in their userspace. It will just be up to them to link them in places where ArenaNet staff will find them, other than staff talk pages (even that could be negotiated on as long as it was kept to a single link with discussion occurring on the suggestion page talk, rather the staff talk), aka fansite forums. -- Wyn 00:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is when you look at the net effects. The experience of an anon who wants to post a suggestion will not change with your suggestion, Wyn. All you're doing is hindering everyone instead of hindering a few. How exactly is your suggestion situation an improvement for the anon user, Wynthyst? Answer me that. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all Aiiane, it's not my suggestion, it's a suggestion that was posted by Erasculio, after long debate regarding the changes that were suddenly made to the GW Suggestion page, after inquiry to ArenaNet via Regina as to whether or not they would provide an alternate vehicle for suggestions, after a suggestion here by ab.be.rant, etc, etc, etc. This is not an all of a sudden suggestion, and you are right, it does not make it better for the IP, it does not make it better for those registered users who have personal suggestion pages, it does however make it better for the wiki community as a whole, imo, as the quality of every suggestion that is called into question causes conflict and disruption, the communal editing, and deletion of suggestions has caused numerous instances of NPA violations and bad feelings between community members, and the entire area is maintenance intensive with little or no benefit to furthering the primary purpose of this wiki. As Regina pointed out, there are numerous fansite forums that have been and are used by the player base of Guild Wars to submit suggestions to ArenaNet, where there are dedicated moderators, and where discussions are easily maintained, (since forums are designed for discussion). Removing suggestions from the wiki really does not make it that much more difficult for anyone to submit a suggestion, it just makes maintaining this wiki easier and allows us to concentrate on the primary purpose of documenting the game. -- Wyn 01:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Builds wipe for suggestions section... interesting. -Auron 01:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not your individual suggestion Wyn, I'm sorry, I should have worded it "the suggestion you're supporting".

It does not make it better for the wiki community as a whole. A blindly deletionist mentality is not helpful. As you and others have stated, suggestions will still exist in userspace regardless of what is done with the suggestion page. A list which is extremely clear and objective in its rules, has nothing to do with "calling things into question", because the way I proposed it was specifically to avoid letting value judgments have a role. 1 link per user who chooses to opt in. That's it, period. As I said, the exact same thing could be accomplished by linking to a category page. It is a tool, not an endorsement. How exactly is maintaining a list of names "maintenance intensive"? You're letting your feelings for the original suggestions format carry over to others, without considering in depth. If you don't want to maintain a list of single-line entries, then don't, I will if no one else wants to. But please don't bring maintenance issues into it when they're obviously irrelevant for what I'm actually proposing. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are back to allowing suggestion links ONLY to registered users, and I have made my position vividly clear on that throughout the discussions that lead to this proposal. As for maintenance intensive, well, there will have to be someone watching that people are following the rules... which you know as well as I do they won't be. Anyway, I have said my peace on this issue. -- Wyn 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You have made your position clear, yes, but I have yet to see any actual reasoning as to why it's beneficial to the wiki to bring everyone down to the level of an IP user. As far as I can see it's just an arbitrary desire you've acquired to not let anyone do anything an IP user couldn't. So, when are we deleting userpages? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aiiane here. Maintenance effort for a single list page is about 0 and maintenance effort for user pages would not change with or without the list. Furthermore, the arguement against allowing users to use their user pages (with a link going there) because anons do not have a userpage is flawed, that is not discrimination. What prevents anons from posting the stuff in the user talk namespace for the IP address anyway? --Xeeron 14:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Then, why not allow IP user pages? --Rezyk 03:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Without going into that old discussion, and without touching the erronious claims being repeated here earlier; that would be no help here; as IPs change, the benefit of userspace, one person being in charge of it, would go away. We would have no way of telling if an editor once used the IP the page is under. Which meakes it just like the common pages are now. Alternativly, noone would be able to maintaine the page if we only allow that IP to edit it. Backsword 03:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what situation would need prior-IP verification. If two unverified people want to manage the same piece of user content differently, they can each do so in their own userspace. --Rezyk 07:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on the current suggestions, too many people make their suggestions and then just leave. If we allow any IP to edit any IP suggestions page, we would have plenty of room for vandalism (and not the obvious kind, like replacing the suggestion with profanity, just rewording it so the result does not have the same meaning as the original idea). If we require people to have the same IP to edit a page, users whose IP change dynamically would be unable to edit their pages, and would maybe make a copy of the same suggestion with only a couple different lines. IMO, all this just isn't worth it. Erasculio 07:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to deal with IP user page ownership disputes. Anyway, IMO if there's going to be extensive discussion of IP user pages, it should be forked off into a separate topic. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I just think that we have repeatedly stated that IP contributions are as valuable as registered user contributions, so to now say.. "Oh, but if you want to submit a suggestion to ArenaNet you have to be a registered user" is hypocritical. Simple fact is that the majority of the suggestions being submitted come from IP addresses rather than registered users, and so allowing suggestions from only registered users feels wrong. -- Wyn 09:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it hypocritical? I like small children and value them just as much as I like adults, but that doesn't mean having them ride rollercoasters is any more feasible than if I didn't like or value small children. Furthermore, as you have stated yourself, there are other ways to suggest things to ArenaNet as well. It's not as if an IP user would be completely unable to interact with ArenaNet whatsoever were we to maintain a list of registered users who have decided to maintain suggestion userpages; again, nothing is lost by allowing such a list to exist. You keep trying to portray this as inflicting harm on some set of users, yet it's entirely constructive in nature. You say allowing suggestions from only registered users "feels wrong", yet you don't "feel wrong" about utterly removing suggestions entirely? I simply can't believe that you would rather sacrifice everything than preserve a portion, simply because you want to drag everyone down to the level of someone who doesn't feel like taking the time to make an account. It's not as if the account creation process is difficult, time consuming, or restricted to any specific set of users. Having an account is not a high barrier of entry, and should not be considered such to limit the content of the wiki. Yes, IP edits are just as valuable as registered edits, but they are not more valuable than registered edits, either, so why are we going out of our way to overcompensate in order to accomodate them? The suggestion pages should be scaled down to a system which can be feasibly maintained, such as the one I have proposed (you cannot seriously tell me that my proposal cannot be maintained, can you?) and no further. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's probably not too much of a stretch to say that most of these IP suggestion-userpages wouldn't be maintained by those users. In effect, I think we'll be shifting suggestions from one namespace to another (ArenaNet to User), and most will be left unmaintained and unmanaged; the majority does come from IP users, and those IP users don't usually hang around. -- Brains12 \ talk 10:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of the even halfway plausible suggestions come from registered users. Correlation does not imply causation, but still... Vili 10:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Aiiane has a good point (the edit above). It seems like people are in favor of cutting something, but have not decided on what yet. In general, people who do not log in usually don't like to maintain pages well enough to be orderly. Also, in general, IPs do not care for politics of this nature and sometimes plain ignore them. If the suggestion pages go user-space only, most anons would not miss it or even notice its absence. I don't think we should get rid of the suggestions that are already up, but do something like archive them for use by A-Net later. A category of something like "User Suggestions" would suffice, but I'm not sure of the idea of allowing only one suggestion. It's a little too limiting, though it has the general upside of making a user think harder about what they want to say. --Antioch 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One entry per user is not the same as one suggestion per user; that entry could well be an index. Backsword 16:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like very much to delete all the old suggestions. Without doing so, I think we will have some contributors adding suggestions to those archives, given how they wouldn't find a new area for suggestions entries. Erasculio 17:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not having a prominent link to the archive will take care of 90% of the edits, having a big red DO NOT EDIT template will take care of 90% of the remaining 10%, and the 1% that still edit, I'd be happy to revert. --Xeeron 18:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There's also always the option to simply protect the archive page(s). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather just delete them as well but I think Aiiane's idea of a page of userspace links is a good middle ground of keeping the situation under control while still retaining a way for users to be heard. It's up to ArenaNet to read them (much as it is now; they read them sometimes, so they say).

As for the old suggestions, I'm against archiving. Just delete. No point archiving something if we're not planning on making them visible or editable. Do something similar to GWiki builds wipe; just announce the wipe and tell people to backup what they want.

And Wyn, I don't think it's discrimination either. Suggestions here are not a "submission" to ArenaNet. It's just a medium in which thoughts are posted, much like a forum (obviously, I'd be rather silly to accuse game forums of discrimination because they force me to register just to reply exactly once, but I digress :P). While most of the suggestions come from anons, most of the problems come from anons as well, and most of the deletions are also on anon-created suggestions too. That's an indication of what will happen to anon-space suggestion pages as well - anonymity tends to breed nonchalance. -- ab.er.rant 03:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(stopping colon abuse) I'm a bit confused. My suggestion is already moved into my userspace. Is that getting deleted or not? Vili 04:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we won't delete userspace suggestions regardless of how this discussion turns out. It's whether we are going to retain any links from the ArenaNet namespace to your suggestions page. -- ab.er.rant 04:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. In that case, I'll post blatant advertisement all over my userpage. Vili 04:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Aberrant (look, a Christmas miracle : P). If keeping a list to userspace suggestions is a necessary compromise, ok. I would still like to delete the old suggestions given how they would be out of place here. IMO, doing something along the lines of the builds wipe in GuildWiki would be good. Erasculio 12:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with this compromise - delete ArenaNet-namespace suggestions, keep/create a list of users with suggestions. -- Brains12 \ talk 14:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

@Aberrant, this is the 'Official' Guild Wars Wiki, sponsored and hosted by ArenaNet. By placing a link that's called 'ArenaNet interaction', and providing areas for people to leave feedback and suggestions, people who post in that space have a reasonable expectation that they are in fact making an official submission to ArenaNet. That is all I'm trying to say.

I am fine with deleting all the current and archived ArenaNetspace suggestions and if everyone else agrees to keeping the personal suggestion links page I will not argue, though I don't agree as I think it sets a bad example of the elitist mentality that is already very pervasive on this wiki. -- Wyn 14:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it elitist if anyone can be a part of it with a bare minimum of effort? No one who wants to be a part is being turned away. If anything, this is less "elitist" than the old system, where a seasoned user would often have more support in editing/merging suggestions than a newer user would. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Elitism is a part of life, Guild Wars, and this wiki. So...deal with it. :\ If you put up a big notice that "You must have a registered account to post suggestions" or such, I can't see how that is discrimination. Surely 99.9% of people who come to this site have an e-mail address, or can make one in five seconds.

I also find it amusing that no anons have come forth to agree with this "we are being oppressed!" mentality. Think of the children. Vili 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

So, wiping all current suggestions, keeping only a list to userspace suggestions? Is that the plan? Erasculio 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be my plan, if I was a member of the administration. Here's a +1 vote instead. Vili 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If we wished to keep some sort of anon contributions, we could just make a scratchpad. Little effort by us, little use by anet, but we can say "they can contribute" --JonTheMon 02:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought we decided against the scratchpad just a few days ago. o_O Vili 02:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The scratchpad is probably the worst aspect of the suggestions area; I wouldn't like to see another one. Plus, registered users would continue to post suggestions there instead of in userpages (because it'd just be quick and easy (rather than organised and useful)). -- Brains12 \ talk 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(RI) To begin the bureaucratic process, a proposed policy change to GWW:CONTENT has been created here. Erasculio 22:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, yesterday Emily mentioned in her journal that they're working on an official response to the suggestion pages question. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is mostly relevant to one question, and we should thus wait to decide that onbe until we get said response. Until then, just delinking from the portal and mainpage could be done. In addition to remving the createboxes ofc. Backsword 11:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Backsword on this one. -- Salome 11:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While I wouldn't be happy with waiting indefinitely, given how Emily has just mentioned this one day ago, I think we could wait a couple more weeks before continuining this discussion. Erasculio 11:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Concensus

Seems to me we have consensu to do away with the common suggestion areas. Userpage issues can (and should) be dealt seperatly, as they don't actually affect other namespace. So I'd suggest that any issue with userpage formating or IP userpages be raised on GWWT:USER.

Leaves two questions as I see it: How we go about tit, and what we'll have instead.

For the first issue I'd suggest we immediately delete the cratebox functionallity, as it's dishonest to let people m,think they are making suggestions when they're going to be deleted. Remanants of scrachpad to be archived. After that we let a bot tag all relevant pages with a tamplate informing users that the page will be "removed" and if they want to 'save' it, that they should move it to userspace. After a set time, we either delete or hide those pages, as discussed earlier. I think we need to give it more than the usual three days, a bare minimum of a week but preferable two or more.

On the issue of a replacement page, I know some have voiced a preference for having none. However, I don't think this is a solid idea, as it would lead to people posting suggestions all over the place. It also seems an overreaction to the current state; if avoid the subjective and stick to providing relevant info, as is generally done on the wiki, we should be fine. So, some thoughts on what a replacement page could include:

• Information that Anet sometimes read the suggestion forums at major fansites. Link either directly to those sites, if we know which ones they are, or to list of fansites.
• Info on nikiwiki and the suggestion community.
• The list of userpage suggestions, and instructions for how to make one yourself. (no all users have those skills).
• A link to planned updates, so people don't waste their time suggesting things that is already comming. (eg account wide HoM)
• A list of suggestions there are Anet respinses on, since this is information valuable to users. An objective criteria for inclusion should keep it problem free.

Backsword

"we let a bot tag all relevant pages with a tamplate" - couldn't we add a message to the sitenotice instead, with an ifeq:namespace|ArenaNet? I imagine people would remove some templates thinking it'd save their page (or they won't read it properly and think it's an ordinary deletion tag). We could also add a message to MediaWiki:Noarticletext for the ArenaNet namespace so we also inform people trying to manually create a page. -- Brains12 \ talk 18:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit unhappy with the old stuff getting deleted, but I wont stand in the way of consensus to remove it. However, I'd like to move (as in, wiki move function) all the stuff into user space to preserve the history. Original authors can have a go at it first, but instead of deleting everything that is left, simply move it into my user space please (or wait for me to do it if a designated time period is over). --Xeeron 22:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(RI) Given how we're in the beginning of Holiday season, and we won't get an answer about this issue anytime soon...What do you people think of keeping the current suggestions, but forbidding the creation of new ones, until we get our reply? Erasculio 18:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue with that is that we'd need something istead, and that brings back the issue of what, including where else to point people. Which is one of the things we want to hear from Anet on.

Still, there is some point to it, and we could at least do basic clean up, things we might have done anyway to make managaing things easier. We could get rid of the vestiges of the old scratch pad for Anet, still used sometimes. Also, there was my suggestion to get rid of the createbox. We could do that. The stuff needs to go eventually anyways. Backsword 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to say something

LOL. -- NUKLEAR IIV 20:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

High resolution images

Big thanks to poke for getting these up. mad props. Anyhow, I've some ideas for improvements to the gallery and linking. Improvements: separate by profession, add text for each image, and make clicking on an image override redirect. My linking suggestion is put it on Skills or each profession page. --JonTheMon 21:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

For normal wiki visitors it won't be very interesting to see the high res image on a skill page, it would just add unnecessary load for them. But if you have a nice idea what to do with the images, just say so.. For now, I think a simple list is enough.. poke | talk 21:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant, put a link to the gallery on either the Skill page or each profession page. Not have an individual hi-res icon on each skill page. --JonTheMon 21:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I see :D poke | talk 21:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

i like this. finally gw skill images are avatar-able ^^ - Y0_ich_halt 13:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on how this should be linked/displayed? --JonTheMon 19:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but added the link to Skill now. poke | talk 22:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How easy would it be to separate the skill icons by profession and put a label by each picture? --JonTheMon 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Both would be quite easy but the label wouldn't look good. In their normal size, the images are 248x248px - imagine a small label at the side - that would just look bad. We could put a label to the button though.. Hmm. I'll think about it :) poke | talk 22:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There you are: Gallery of high resolution skill icons (see navigation at the top) poke | talk 23:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Search box

Since we now have an updated version of MediaWiki, it should be possible to move the search box with a simple edit to MediaWiki:Sidebar. I would personally love to move the search box up to the top, or just below the navigation box, since it's one of the most important and used functions on wiki. What do you say? - anja 20:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the Search right where it is; I'm used to it there. You can also add Guild Wars Wiki to your Google search which should be somewhere in in the top of whatever browser you're using, which would make this sort of sitewide change unnecessary. Vili 20:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Top left (right under the logo) should make it a bit more visible, and possibly more used, so it would be a good change.--Fighterdoken 20:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think right under the navigation box would be good. I think directly under the logo might stop people from using the navigation links. As for adding it to google search, you have to have that loaded for it to be of any purpose, and many don't, including me, I dont' like a lot of junk added to my browser.-- Wyn 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm used to it as it is now, too. But if you would like to move it up, I wouldn't have a problem with moving it above the support portlet. poke | talk 21:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the only link I ever use on the support portlet is the admin noticeboard anyway, which I can add to my custom portlet. No objections. Vili 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What Wyn said. --Xeeron 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What Wyn said. --Antioch 21:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree for under the navigation box ~ Kurd 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I like where is it is :P But as long as it's not right at the top, I don't have a problem. -- Indochine talk 21:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have it added to my browser's search thingy, but I agree with Wyn nonetheless. Nbajammer 21:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Camels. Wikipedia has it like that as well, so it adds some familiarity for viewers. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Wyn, not that I ever use the search box but still... --Kakarot 22:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I hate u wiki, your the bane of my existence, and u also suck nuts.--218.214.2.29

Good to hear. Now let's all go back to the regular programme. -- ab.er.rant 08:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wyn got it right! Under the nav box would be the perfect place! --Shadowphoenix 16:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral on moving to the top. Ups and downs there. But cetainly, get it moved above the support box already. Backsword 16:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Done on moving above support. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 10:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Isaiah Cartwright

As Izzy's last contribution to that page was on 29th October and his last contribution to the wiki on 1st November, what do we want to do with that page? Our reasoning for the stricter enforcement was so that Izzy could easily read sections and comment on them; however, even though the talk page is clean, Izzy hasn't contributed for two months. Keeping the page clean is rather pointless. I tried my best with that page, but I'll be stopping with the extra enforcement now - there isn't much (if any) point. If Izzy returns and starts posting again, I'll go back and do whatever's needed (if we intned to continue that extra enforcement). -- Brains12 \ talk 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If he comes back (is he working on GW2?), then we can easily pick up where we left off with enforcement. For now, Pling, you can stop all your work on that page. Thanks. calor (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Is keeping Izzy's page clean something that requires sysop powers and responsablities? — Jon 21:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think people would listen more to an anon or a sysop? calor (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly an anon... If it's something that's actively backed and encouraged by sysops, should it matter who is doing the actual edits? — Jon 22:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. calor (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I ask because it's something I would be willing to take up and carry out. I'm not as active as most of the people around here, but I stop by atleast once or twice a day. I've modded for clan forums for various games, and handled much more sticky and volitile situations before, so I think I can handle it. I also ask because I've been looking for something to give a bit more meanign to my time here beside hawking recent changes when I have time to kill, and this seems like something I could do to help. As long as my actions on Izzy's page are sysop backed and encouraged, things should go off without a hitch. — Jon 22:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly try, but I'm guessing you'll get a bit more resistance than Brains does since they will realise you're not a sysop and try to create more trouble. But then again, it's the same old thing of getting a sysop in to look at the issue and put the lid on it. So it might be fine. -- ab.er.rant 16:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Would I be correct in assuming that disscussion as seen in these three topics is ok, as long as it follows it's current path? — Jon 19:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No. It's not a forum for everyone else to discuss balance issues, it's a place for people to talk to Izzy. The opening comments for those sections may have been appropriate, but the rest doesn't belong there - it's chit chat that belongs on balance suggestion talk pages or some such page. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense. Although, the same thing plagues Emily's, Regina's and Linsey's pages, as well as forum threads. As long as the page/topic is open to the community, your inviting community discussion as well. While users may have jumped in and began discussing matters, the question still remains for Izzy to answer. Often times, the community answers questions just as well as the person who's page it is, and to whom the question was directed. Even if Izzy were to answer the question right away, your still going to get user input.

I could turn your arguement completely on it's head, which I think I will. What about everyone else's talk pages? Topics get hi-jacked there all the time, and people take off running and have quite massive discussions that often don't involve the person who's page it is anymore. At such a place as the wiki, where just about everything is open to just about the entire communtiy, to cut discussions off at the roots seems a little unfair to me. Who are we to decide what discussion get's to go on, and what doesn't? Keeping Izzy's talk page clean of NPA vios flame-baits and such is good, but cutting off discussion of an honest question (even if it is for Izzy) feels heavy handed to me.

There is always location, location, location. If we were to move or deleted the topic, the question goes with it. Killing questions because users also wish to discuss it (which they should be able to) also feels heavy handed. It seems unfair to me to cut out all discussion that is not direct conversing with Izzy. even if we cut out said discussion, his page would still be unruly,and lengthy, but full of unanswered questions, users steamed at no answer or answers a long time in the making, and other users steamed that they are unable to answer or discuss issues that they are fully capable of.

In my opinion, it's ok, still relates to the topic, is still valid, and also presents more sides of the issue, which is usualy a good thing. If you feel action is needed, go ahead, I'm not going to stop you, revert it or anything, but I'm not going to act against those three topics. I see where you are comming from, but don;t entirely agree with you, which is why I'm going to leave the decision and action up to you in this case. — Jon 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat everything that was in the earlier discussion, so I'll just point you to said discussion - Guild Wars Wiki talk:Community portal/Archive 6a. You're missing the main point - Izzy's talk page isn't every other talk page. As I said though, I'm not going to continue with this, but my opinion is that you're not understanding the reasons for the extra (← the essential word here) enforcement. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Would I be correct in assuming that the proposed change to the talk page policy, to put special exceptions for ones like Izzy's, is therefore a failure now? Vili 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Not at all, since it will still benefit us in times of need. There are going to continue to be 'volatile' talk pages, and Izzy's may become one again when he starts posting again. -- Wyn 22:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No, I don't think the change is a failure - other people/sysops can carry on the enforcement. Whether we want to continue the extra enforcement on Izzy's talk page is part of my opening comment; do we want the enforcement to carry on for that page, or do we want it to stop? If we decide the former, I won't be taking part in the enforcement for the time being (which is the other part of my opening comment). The proposed change can still be accepted because it talks about the system as a whole, not anything specific to Izzy's talk. So basically we're reviewing the situation on Izzy's talk page. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

@Brains: I apologize. Allow me to review the original arguements and then come at this forma different angle. — Jon 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that was a LOT to take in one sitting, so I've got a few questions to help sort things out a bit more. Let's take it one at a time. Do we want balance discussions, suggestions, and things of their variety on the wiki or not? — Jon 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't want them on Izzy's talk page. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, location and volume are the issue then. Ok, I have a rough idea, lemme work out some kinks. — Jon 00:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

NPA vios are easily removed, and [balance] suggestions/comments are easily moved to the appropriate place. I have a format that I believe can solve our remaining problems. The community link would be where other users can give input and discuss the issue or question, without them swamping Izzy's page. Questions relating to a specific skill may easily link to the appropriate skill feed-back page if needed. The tricky part is enforcing it, but what part of keeping Izzy's page clean isn't? Imo, it looks easy to navigate and rather user friendly, and keeps things simple for the most part. — Jon 01:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be cool in the future, as it would actually allow people to voice their opinions on the subject instead of getting them removed, while still being easily navigated or whatever you call it. If someone seriously disagrees with this they should learn to think... Mini Me 14:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would work. The problem is that Isaiah doesn't know how to use the wiki properly. He mentioned how he could not edit his own userpage thanks to the high number of edit conflicts he kept geting. A page with questions for him but also a community discussion section would be basically the same thing, so many edit conflicts that he would hardly say anything. This could be lessened by moving the community discussion to the talk pages, but then it would be pretty much the same as the skill feedback section. Plus, the last time we tried to do something long these lines, it failed.

In the end, Auron's original point still stands. The wiki is not a forum, and it doesn't really work as a forum. We have no sign that Isaiah has read his page even once in the last months, or that the skill feedback section is anything more than a big waste of space. We have asked Arena Net about this and Emily mentioned a reply in being worked on (ta-da), but unless they somehow convince us that those pages are really useful... IMO, we should delete all of them, everything that assumes Arena Net is going to read player feedback. So the GW suggestions would be removed, the GW2 suggestions would be removed, the skill feedback would be removed (and players would be allowed to discuss the skills in the skill article's talk pages, knowing that they are not giving suggestions to Arena Net, rather just talking among themselves), and so on. The only things that would be kept are the pages we know Arena Net reads (the bugs pages, given how those are frequently updated by Arena Net). Erasculio 14:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh right.

I guess you're right about deleting them, unless Izzy actually POSTS something there, or any anet member posts ANYWHERE, delete them. Half of those pages are filled with bullshit anyway. Mini Me 15:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of that layout is two-fold. One, simplify it and lay it out more clearly so Izzy has an easier time navigating, and move the community discussion to another page, so Izzy isn't constantly swamped be EC's and can actualy get a post in. I'm going to take a current topic from Izzy's page and fill it in with the layout to demonstrate a bit better. — Jon 18:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look here for a complete example. — Jon 18:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate pages to existing suggestion pages seems rather pointless to me. Backsword 05:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Some datapoints: 1. Reading the earlier section on suggestions and the policy draft would be enlightning. 2. A distinction has to be made between users such as Izzy that has explicitly asked that his talk not be used as a forum, Linsey that has explicitly said that it should, and the majority who has not stated anything. 3. A distinction has to be made between replies to the question and treating it as the topic header for a forum threrad, which is the usual problem. Backsword 05:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)