User talk:Aiiane/ArenaNet namespace proposal

See also Talk:Developer Updates#Hey guys...wiki question!.

Advantages/Disadvantages

Please, feel free to edit the last two sections of the proposal page if you can think of any additional advantages/disadvantages to this proposal, and if you desire, elaborate upon them here. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an Arenanet namespace would better suit those particular pages. However, would this mean also moving the pages like this into that namespace as well? If so I would not have an issue with that, just simply curious. --Shadowphoenix 05:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The namespace would be designed, as stated in the proposal, for pages centered around communication, not documentation. Gaile Gray is a documentation page, and thus would not be part of such. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clarifying on that --Shadowphoenix 05:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, however, if people think it would be more appropriate to include them, I won't object. But at least to me, it seems more like anything documentation-wise should be in mainspace. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A big issue with current pages is 1. Redundant requests. 2. Stupid requests. Anyway we can set up some sort of deletion policy for both of these?--96.225.185.222 06:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what can a separate discussion/communication page do that hasn't already been done in the current user pages? Typically, most users tend to archive their own pages to keep track of things. Maybe I'm not too clear on what this aims to do. It seems only like a separate page, really. --People of Antioch 06:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See the "Advantages" section. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea considering the arenanet staff user talk pages are more requests than just general chatting or stuff involving the wiki. This will generally slow down all the spam arenanet staff members get on their talk pages. Good idea Aiiane ;) — ク Eloc 貢 06:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Control

It should probably be clarified who is expected to have general control over the pages, in the sense that User space is controlled by the individual user, Guild space is controlled by the individual guild, and main and talk spaces are controlled by the community. (I don't mean absolute control overriding policy nor limiting direct/bold editing, just who has "general directing control" in case of disputes of direction.) --Rezyk 06:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think that given their nature, general "control" would be up to ArenaNet, should they choose to exercise it, but for the most part open to improvement and maintenance by the community as well, as most of the existing pages which are candidates for consolidation also are. Thoughts? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 06:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's generally the right/necessary direction to go with. (EDIT: New talk space to still be managed by community though) --Rezyk 08:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. This sounds like a good idea. With the recent changing of ArenaNet personnel I can see how making some of the pages that have been created under Gaile, Izzy and so on might be better off in a more job position oriented section than for the current job holder's page. I would think that the different section/pages of the ArenaNet namespace would be watched over by the respective employees. Yukiko 09:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally a good idea, and I'd support this level of control. I think we need to specify excatly when we consider an Anet member to have is to be considered as having made a basic choice, not open for discussion, and when they've made a normal edit, in order to avoid drama on this. Backsword 20:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Excluding role as wiki host

Another point of clarity is that (I believe) the role of this space should exclude ArenaNet's participation as host of this wiki -- stuff like GWW:RFTA and Guild Wars Wiki:Reporting wiki bugs would stay in Guild Wars Wiki namespace. This also relates to keeping the scope of arbitration clear. --Rezyk 09:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, "wiki administration" overrides "arenanet communication". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. Your statements seem to imply that anything the GFTA and Reporting Wiki Bugs pages are outside of the arbitration comittee's jurisdiction. -- Gordon Ecker 10:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You misread, Gordon. What Rezyk is saying they're outside of is "the proposed scope of this ArenaNet namespace". (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So the reference to arbitration is only citing an example of another situation in which scope should be clearly defined, right? -- Gordon Ecker 00:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration has no jurisdiction over the actions of ArenaNet within its role as the host of the wiki. If their participation in this new space was taken as tied to their role as host, would all of it lie outside arbitration? (That's the issue I'm seeking to avoid.) --Rezyk 07:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The actions of ArenaNet are outside arbitration. Namespaces themselves cannot be outside of arbitration, because it affects all non-ArenaNet users regardless of where they are editing. (Potentially, I suppose ArenaNet users could be involved in arbitration, but I only see that happening under the rarest of circumstances, and probably would have far more complications then where any edits took place.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thumbs Up

I think this idea makes a lot of sense. If any of you recall, when the whole Suggestions page idea first arose, I placed it right off the main. However, ArenaNet's feeling at the time was that it would be best to have such pages linked off a member's page, so mine was elected to serve as the lead to the Suggestions and Bugs pages, and that's where we built those sections over time. Later, we moved Bugs to MikeZ's page, and I have been pondering the Suggestions pages ever since: Where to place, how to archive, and so forth.

At this point, I would definitely support placement of these pages in a more visible and more general area. Of course, mine is just one opinion, and ultimately I feel that Mike O'Brien would be the one to provide the ArenaNet position on this, just as he was the one who made earlier suggestions on page placement. -- Gaile 20:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

yes please! make it so! along with this space i hope that it is super organized before its put up and that it gets linked on to the main page so people know exactly where they can post stuff.75.165.117.200 06:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Request placed!

Hi guys! I just wanted to let you know that I put in a request for these namespaces (ArenaNet and ArenaNet talk) to be created both here and on the Guild Wars 2 Wiki. I'll keep you posted about the status :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again everyone! These namespaces are now up on both wikis. Poke, I confirmed that the ID is the same on both sites. They're set to 200 and 201, so feel free to sic your bot on them. Let me know if anyone notices anything abnormal with them so I can pass it along! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great work, thx Emily! --Xeeron 22:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay, great :) poke | talk 11:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Now we just need to figure out what to do with it. Backsword 12:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should create some kind of "front page" for the namespace, which later contains links to all existing pages, and where we now can discuss about how we will use the namespace.. What do you think? poke | talk 12:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I had a similar idea. Obviously, we should inform relevant Anet members that have user feedback pages, and ask them how they want it done. Be good to have something to link from that page. Also, the unanswered questions project, probably in bits, should be moved there. Backsword 12:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What about ArenaNet:Contents? poke | talk 12:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Was just about to suggest ArenaNet:Portal - anja 12:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That is good as well ^^ poke | talk 12:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There we are: ArenaNet:Portal. poke | talk 13:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)