User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Wiki Topics/March 2007
From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
| Archives by Topic |
|---|
Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Now that GW2 has been annouced, will ANet want to make an offical wiki for that too or will you guys want the content combined here? Might be good to know and start organizing it early so that it can get a head start unlike this official wiki which is trying to catch up. I started the discussion here. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 16:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
- I would imagine it would be a big one-wiki thing, and the name Guild Wars Wiki doesn't specify chapter orentation. So best guess is no, this will be the wiki for GW1, and GW2.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:204.112.204.142 .
- I would actually guess the exact opposite - two different wikis. As it takes place in the same area, but at a later time, it would grow increasingly confusing to have a single article that's split in two - one part describing how it relates to the original series, and one part to how it relates to GW2. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:11, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Yup. The best example would be Ascalon City. If you put GW1 and GW2, we'd now have to differentiate between pre-Searing, post-Searing, and 100+ years in the future. I'd say that's needlessly confusing to players who only started in GW2. -- ab.er.rant
21:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- As an update, it appears that Mike O'Brien is checking into it with his IT dept.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:00, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
- Yup. The best example would be Ascalon City. If you put GW1 and GW2, we'd now have to differentiate between pre-Searing, post-Searing, and 100+ years in the future. I'd say that's needlessly confusing to players who only started in GW2. -- ab.er.rant
- I would actually guess the exact opposite - two different wikis. As it takes place in the same area, but at a later time, it would grow increasingly confusing to have a single article that's split in two - one part describing how it relates to the original series, and one part to how it relates to GW2. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:11, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't see a problem in having the complete (GW1/2) content in this GWW. Just create an Ascalon "main-page" summarising that there exist two versions of the city (or three with pre-searing). Then simply link to the different pages for Ascalon-GW1 pre-/post-searing and Ascalon-GW2 from there. Wiking 22:27, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- That seems like a really good idea. I'll see if that's a presentation that we might consider. --Gaile
23:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, the downside of that solution isn't that pretty, from a usability point of view; too many disambiguation pages and the wiki becomes a mess to navigate without clicking links at random trying to figure out where you really want to go. What's the purpose of keeping both games on this site (aside for not needing to click on an extra link in your bookmarks to go to the second wiki)? If we keep the games separate on their own sites, it drastically lowers the amount of confusion and extra work needed to keep everything from getting chaotic. If there's material from this wiki that will need to belong on the other one, it can be copied easily since both sites would have compatible GFDL licenses. Everything we do here on the wiki aims to keep the information as accessible and intuitive as possible; needlessly mixing in one place the documentation for two different games goes against that idea, and is ... I'll just say, not cool :P . --Dirigible 23:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- I agree with Dirigible - from a useability standpoint, it'll be much better to have two wikis. They should have links to each other from the main page, and inter-wiki linking available between them to simplify cross-referencing; but from what has been mentioned so far about GW2, it would be far too confusing and unweildy to try to contain them both in a single wiki. Aside from the basics of places and objects with shared names between the two - you also have articles on fundamental game mechanics and user interface and controls that already appear to be different between the two. For ease of site navigation, use, and not to mention everyone's sanity, it's several times better to use two wikis for the two different game series. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- I also agree with Dirigible. For a player new to GW (1 or 2), coming here and doing a search for "Experience" would give him two very different results - it would make it rather confusing for him which is the proper one. Having two different wikies would make it easier to "complete" this one (as GW1 content is likely going to be stable after GW:EN) and then invest fully on GW2, while being able to use different templates and alikes, without the risk of incompatibility. Erasculio 00:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- If you consider the objective of the creation of this official wiki--that is, tieing the wiki directly to the game--then yes, having two wikis is obviously a good idea. It may, indeed, be the only workable one. But the idea of points of demarkation into the Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 articles also has a certain appeal. I don't necessarily see where they are mutually exclusive. But then, numerous points of replication within the two structures probably would not be as objectionable as it would be on, say, a website and in fact their creation, editing, and presence now would ease the establishment of a base for the second project in the future. In other words, because Guild Wars 2 will be a new game, it would appear most likely that a new wiki would be the way we will go. Which is why that very thing is being discussed with our IT Department. --Gaile 02:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- If you consider the objective of the creation of this official wiki--that is, tieing the wiki directly to the game--then yes, having two wikis is obviously a good idea. It may, indeed, be the only workable one. But the idea of points of demarkation into the Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 articles also has a certain appeal. I don't necessarily see where they are mutually exclusive. But then, numerous points of replication within the two structures probably would not be as objectionable as it would be on, say, a website and in fact their creation, editing, and presence now would ease the establishment of a base for the second project in the future. In other words, because Guild Wars 2 will be a new game, it would appear most likely that a new wiki would be the way we will go. Which is why that very thing is being discussed with our IT Department. --Gaile
- I also agree with Dirigible. For a player new to GW (1 or 2), coming here and doing a search for "Experience" would give him two very different results - it would make it rather confusing for him which is the proper one. Having two different wikies would make it easier to "complete" this one (as GW1 content is likely going to be stable after GW:EN) and then invest fully on GW2, while being able to use different templates and alikes, without the risk of incompatibility. Erasculio 00:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- I agree with Dirigible - from a useability standpoint, it'll be much better to have two wikis. They should have links to each other from the main page, and inter-wiki linking available between them to simplify cross-referencing; but from what has been mentioned so far about GW2, it would be far too confusing and unweildy to try to contain them both in a single wiki. Aside from the basics of places and objects with shared names between the two - you also have articles on fundamental game mechanics and user interface and controls that already appear to be different between the two. For ease of site navigation, use, and not to mention everyone's sanity, it's several times better to use two wikis for the two different game series. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, the downside of that solution isn't that pretty, from a usability point of view; too many disambiguation pages and the wiki becomes a mess to navigate without clicking links at random trying to figure out where you really want to go. What's the purpose of keeping both games on this site (aside for not needing to click on an extra link in your bookmarks to go to the second wiki)? If we keep the games separate on their own sites, it drastically lowers the amount of confusion and extra work needed to keep everything from getting chaotic. If there's material from this wiki that will need to belong on the other one, it can be copied easily since both sites would have compatible GFDL licenses. Everything we do here on the wiki aims to keep the information as accessible and intuitive as possible; needlessly mixing in one place the documentation for two different games goes against that idea, and is ... I'll just say, not cool :P . --Dirigible 23:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- If GW2 takes place 100 years in the future wouldn't at least *some* of the places be named the same? That's just 1 more reason why there should be another wiki for Guild Wars 2 -- Scourge
02:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- If GW2 takes place 100 years in the future wouldn't at least *some* of the places be named the same? That's just 1 more reason why there should be another wiki for Guild Wars 2 -- Scourge
Presuming inter-wiki linking would be in place by then, I think it would be cool if we could link to from Ascalon to GW2:Ascalon, or something similar. LordBiro 05:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- We could try the idea of Wikipedia for other language version of the wikipedia. There is a link in the left bar to the same article in different languages. We could use it to have links to the GW2 version of the article. --
(gem / talk) 06:14, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- No, I don't think that makes any sense Gem. Surely we would use that for different language versions of the wiki(s) once they launch? LordBiro 06:49, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
An important point for GW2 Wiki, on my mind, would be to lauch it at the same time as the game and to initially reserve the name and the minimal syntaxe of some models such as skills, NPC, Weapon, Object... Well, all summary models for description of in-game content. The interest would be that it would make possible to initially integrate the wiki in the game -making some informations accessible in game and, why not, if a good vandalisme protection, making possible to add info directly from the game- and that fansites will be allowed to organise them database in consequence when creating it so that the wiki will be the center database for sites. I think there will always be fansites even if there is an official wiki^^.--Ttibot 09:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- Just a small note - I think it would be better to launch the GW2 Wiki before the game is released. Right now we already have some information about it - by the time of the Beta, we will have enough information to begin the Wiki. Erasculio 09:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, I am sure that we will be doing that. That's why Mike O'Brien is working with our IT folks now, in fact. --Gaile 15:28, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
- As Gaile said, he has been. Thought others knew when I linked to it above but HERE it is again with Mike's last comments on it for any that may have missed this. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, I am sure that we will be doing that. That's why Mike O'Brien is working with our IT folks now, in fact. --Gaile
GWW
So, why make a Guild Wars Wiki?--Eloc 19:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- It's a fair question, and we have a lot of interesting background that you can read on the Guild Wars Wiki:FAQ. I hope that's helpful to you. --Gaile 20:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Ok then. That said, will there be a builds page on this site where people can vote on builds and stuff?--Eloc 20:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- You'll find the discussion on that here Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy/Builds. --Dirigible 20:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Curses! I have been foiled by my slow typing and overly thought-out responses! Here is is anyway: Wow, that's a whole extra can of worms =P Currently, we're looking at something along these lines: Guild_Wars_Wiki:Policy/Builds Voting is a weak and easily abused system, at least as far as builds are concerned, and we haven't agreed to even post builds at all =\ Whatever we end up doing there, it's not going to be like GuildWiki - it's leaning more in the direction of guides and descriptions of historically significant builds to avoid having to deal with the trash that the builds section on GuildWiki has become =P MisterPepe talk 20:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Keep in mind that, while this Wiki is hosted by Arena Net (and so it has all benefits linked to that), it is run by the community, so the answer to your question would not come from Gaile - it would come from all of us. Erasculio 20:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Wow. Good answer. MisterPepe talk 20:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Is that the proper way to reply? Or should I have had used a :::: indentation when replying to Eloc, so it wouldn't appear that I'm replying to you? Ahhh, this wiki thing is nice but it's kinda confusing : D Erasculio 20:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- No, it was perfect. I just meant that your answer was covering an important topic, and in a simpler way than I would have. Unlike usual, I wasn't even being sarcastic XD MisterPepe talk 20:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- (edit conflict)Just to clear up the confusion over indents, the post you're replying to should have one less indent (thus, your comment has one more). That way, it's easier to read and figure out who's responding to who. However, not many people follow that, so I'm usually the one who's going around fixing the indents. xD — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- I see, thanks to both of you : ) Erasculio 20:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- (ugh) stupid edit conflicts. Am I allowed to make a page saying User:Eloc Jcg/Builds? Which I basically right down my builds and people can give comments on them to make them better? I don't care if there is voting or not.--Eloc 20:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- I see, thanks to both of you : ) Erasculio 20:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Is that the proper way to reply? Or should I have had used a :::: indentation when replying to Eloc, so it wouldn't appear that I'm replying to you? Ahhh, this wiki thing is nice but it's kinda confusing : D Erasculio 20:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Wow. Good answer. MisterPepe talk 20:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Keep in mind that, while this Wiki is hosted by Arena Net (and so it has all benefits linked to that), it is run by the community, so the answer to your question would not come from Gaile - it would come from all of us. Erasculio 20:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Curses! I have been foiled by my slow typing and overly thought-out responses! Here is is anyway: Wow, that's a whole extra can of worms =P Currently, we're looking at something along these lines: Guild_Wars_Wiki:Policy/Builds Voting is a weak and easily abused system, at least as far as builds are concerned, and we haven't agreed to even post builds at all =\ Whatever we end up doing there, it's not going to be like GuildWiki - it's leaning more in the direction of guides and descriptions of historically significant builds to avoid having to deal with the trash that the builds section on GuildWiki has become =P MisterPepe talk 20:11, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- You'll find the discussion on that here Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy/Builds. --Dirigible 20:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Ok then. That said, will there be a builds page on this site where people can vote on builds and stuff?--Eloc 20:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- I think the Idea of Guild Wiki 2 is a geat idea. Seeing as how the two games will not be connected other that the hall of monuments. Morimoto 23:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
french official wiki?
Hello Gaile. I've got some questions about the future official french wiki : will it be really set up? when? Do you already have a french speaking staff member in mind to act just as you in this wiki (if can you give me his contact so that i will not diturb you anymore with thooses questions)? The unnoficial french wiki : http://fr.guildwars.wikia.com is under GFDL liscence so that it will be possible to exchange with the official wiki. It is very important for us to know when the official wiki will come. The sooner will be the better so that we could organise in consequence : make our models compatible with the official wiki so that will could share easily our content and give a boost to sections wich are not redondant with the official wiki. It would be very helpfull if you could give me an exact answer to all thoose question. Thanks. --Ttibot 10:59, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- Bon jour, Ttibot. I understand your questions about a French-language wiki, and you can be sure that we do have plans for such a wiki in the future. However, we are using the English-language wiki as a "pilot program" and will then branch into other languages in the future. At this time we do not have a timeline for the opening of an official Guild Wars Wiki in any other supported language. I would imagine that it will be several months before this happens. You may find some of the information that I wrote about a German-language wiki helpful in understanding our plans, since the plans would be similar for a French-language wiki. I hope that this information is helpful to you, and thank you for getting in touch. --Gaile 15:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks, that is helpfull. I will be the contact between thoose two wikis. You can leave messages on my talk page if you have further information to give/request to me. --Ttibot 17:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Other ArenaNet users...
I recently stumbled across User:Emily Diehl. How many others of you are hiding here, eh? :) (I know Mike has a user discussion but no page...) Armond 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- It is possible to see a list of registered ANet contributors in Special:Listusers. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Ooh, thanks. Didn't think that page would have the tag for them. Fancy coding, that. Armond 23:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Concept Art from the PC Gamer Article
Gaile, could you please provide an opinion on this, thanks! :) -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 16:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
- I would also be curious if the image of Gwen at http://www.guildwars.com/press/releases/eyeofthenorthgw2/eyeofthenorth.php is available for our use. As it's used on the official site, the PC Gamer copyright doesn't prevent use as it would if using a magazine scan; but it's also not listed in the gallery; so it's a bit of a gray area to me (no pun intended). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- It doesn't seem as a gray area to me, to be honest. Quoting Mike O'Brien here, "go ahead and use whatever you like from the Guild Wars web site", which if you read it in the context used there means the entire site, not merely the gallery. Not sure why that picture would be an exception to that. --Dirigible 21:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks - I had forgotten that comment. I was still thinking in GuildWiki terms there for a moment ... for fansites, that image is a gray area, but not for an official site within the guildwars.com domain :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Originally I tagged the picture as it was a pcgamer scan, it has since been replaced, so the only issue in my opinion now is, do you delete the original version so the violation is not still on the server. If you see what I mean. --Lemming64 21:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- I would recommend deleting the image and replacing it with the official-site-provided image. Is that within wiki protocols? --Gaile 01:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- Aye, Rainith has already deleted the potential-copyvio image a while earlier, the version that's up now is the safe one. --Dirigible 01:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
- I would recommend deleting the image and replacing it with the official-site-provided image. Is that within wiki protocols? --Gaile
- Originally I tagged the picture as it was a pcgamer scan, it has since been replaced, so the only issue in my opinion now is, do you delete the original version so the violation is not still on the server. If you see what I mean. --Lemming64 21:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks - I had forgotten that comment. I was still thinking in GuildWiki terms there for a moment ... for fansites, that image is a gray area, but not for an official site within the guildwars.com domain :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- It doesn't seem as a gray area to me, to be honest. Quoting Mike O'Brien here, "go ahead and use whatever you like from the Guild Wars web site", which if you read it in the context used there means the entire site, not merely the gallery. Not sure why that picture would be an exception to that. --Dirigible 21:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
- Materials on our site may be freely used on the Guild Wars Wiki, as Mike O'Brien stated. I need to get an opinion on scanned images. It's our art but it's on their publication -- definitely need clarification. But whether from the Gallery or inserted into a press release or part of a product or events page, the www.guildwars.com website assets are available to the Wiki. We have some Terms of Use prohibitions against our materials' use outside the website or wiki, but those do not apply to our own official wiki. Just for further information: The reason we're careful about asset use is that we need to prevent a company from taking our website design, wholesale, and trying to parade as "official" when, in fact, the site is a gold-selling, cheat, or exploit site. (Sadly, this has happened.) We also ask that fansites use logos and choose their names wisely, to avoid confusion between their site and the official site. Please let me know if you have further questions and thanks for the care you're showing in establishing clear and direct processes. --Gaile 01:10, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
