Talk:Frozen Chest

ha ha, the day the article is made, ANet nerfs them. :) --Karlos 17:00, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * What if somebody reads about Frozen Chests and doesn't know what they are? They come to guildwiki and they get nothing. This is why we should keep data that are changed, with the appropriate notifications! Shandy 21:23, 9 March 2006 (CST)
 * Thats a good point. If we decide to keep these articles, it should be made very clear that these are not included in the game. Maby a tag for things removed from the game. Something like --Gem 21:51, 9 March 2006 (CST)
 * I cooked up a suggestion for a article template. --Bishop 22:10, 9 March 2006 (CST)
 * Nice. Let's use that for now. --Gem 22:11, 9 March 2006 (CST)
 * I second that on the legacy template. It's a great idea! Shandy 22:57, 9 March 2006 (CST)
 * Umm, we need to get the Lost Strongbox page back then. Are deleted pages completely lost? --Gem 00:10, 10 March 2006 (CST)
 * On Wikipedia, admins can see and revert lost/deleted pages. However, it may be a toggle in mediawiki and may or may not work here. --Bishop 03:48, 10 March 2006 (CST)


 * Ain't that a B? Karlos was right. The day I made the article, they nerf the thing. Maybe ANet is following me, watching my every move? Hmmm... *shifty eyes* --Gares Redstorm 03:56, 10 March 2006 (CST)


 * *sigh* Another wonderful decision that is completely lost to Oblivion. :( We have a policy in place that we do not record how the game was unless it has something to do with how the game is. So, we do not care that Chain Lightning was powerful. We do not care that "Whats-His-Name the Meek" used to stand around Stingray Strand doing nothing, we do not care that there used to be unlocked chests prior to Sorrow's Furnace. Sorry guys. This article is leaving unless someone can establish a present in-game relation to it. --Karlos 04:23, 10 March 2006 (CST)


 * Unsurprisingly, I think that's a mistake. Not only because there's no reason not to keep historical data for those interested therin, but because it (imho) is an integral part of what makes a wiki truly useful: that one has access not only to present data but also to historical (and for non-deleted articles, that is still the case). And furthermore, denying the past, to put it bluntly, only serves to make understanding the present more difficult... or, in other words, how things are always has something to do with how things were. Still, if this has indeed been the subject of policy discussion earlier -- which I'm sure it has, but it can be quite hard to dig that stuff up on this wiki -- I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I simply disagree with that policy, and I'll leave it at that. --Bishop 18:29, 10 March 2006 (CST)


 * I've disagreed with almost every page deletion to too obsolescence that has occured whilst I've been around. I suggest we bring this policy up for a vote. Or at least vote on having a vote, if that'll pacify the bureaucrats amongst us. I simply can't think of a really good reason to delete this information. The wiki is impovorished by the removal of such information, which somebody, somewhere, might find useful. Shandy 19:26, 10 March 2006 (CST)

To reach a compromise, how about create a page that obsolete things redirect to, or make this page ONLY contain the legacy template. So whoever is looking up information that is old, will find out that it is no longer in the game, as opposed to not finding anything. This is assuming other ppl might read about the "Frozen Chests" on other gw fansites, thought it still exist, and come look it up on guildwiki. We would stay inline with the "no historical trivia that doesn't affect the game today" policy, but we also provide information (the fact that something is no longer in the game, and only this fact) in case ppl try to look things up here. -PanSola 20:24, 10 March 2006 (CST)
 * It's a solution, but why not just have a page with a legacy tag - I know I would be curious as to what 'Frozen Chests' were, and unsatisfied with finding out merely that they used to exist and no longer do. Why do we have to stick to this (as far as I can tell) pointless policy? Shandy 20:32, 10 March 2006 (CST)
 * Are we going to come into agreement on this? Shandy 20:04, 13 March 2006 (CST)
 * I would like to have the pages remain in the wiki with the legacy tag, but someone would have to create the deleted pages again (Mingas the Meek, ...)  21:09, 13 March 2006 (CST)
 * Deleted pages can be restored with a couple of clicks. I would like to see legacy tags or similar, and I wouldn't be against putting a history section on skills showing changes and links to the update 21:20, 13 March 2006 (CST)
 * My opinion, though not as sought after as most :D, is that GuildWiki is a Wiki site devoted to all things Guild Wars, past, present, and future. I like reading about what there was, what there is, and what is to come. I was chatting with a guidmate/leader of the guild and he said that used to for elite caps you had to cap the skill as the boss was dying and something like Hundred Blades could be found in the Ranik area as we were having a discussion about how that elite skill, found so late in the game, relatively sucks. Also reading here and there about how there were towns in beta that no longer exist. This stuff is very interesting to me and I assume a lot of other people as well. A history section would be a great thing indeed. --Gares Redstorm 22:22, 13 March 2006 (CST)

There are a few issues that I find wrong here, I will state them and then, with regards to further action, we'll see how it goes: Now, in terms of where to go next. If people want to proceed with this, then I ask we put it up for voting in the community portal or style and formatting talk pages, decide that we will do it and what shape it will be in, then enact it. Not make up templates and policies on the fly. --Karlos 03:13, 14 March 2006 (CST)
 * 1) I am against rewriting policy in general. Simply because we are already too big, too diverse and never seem to make up our minds on anything. One constitutional element of success for any organization is stability and being able to know that there are actually policies in place. The Policy was decided by the very founders basically of this joint, so it probably had strng merit (especially since not one of them saw a problem with it in the yesteryears). I understand that nothing is set in stone and there are no gods among us, but there has to be a consequence to actually voting and deciding on something. e.g. That, for example, the topic may NOT be brought up for a "re-vote" until a year has passed by. Something like that. It can't be that Fyren, Karlos and Tanaric (for example) decide in June that historical data is pointless and hard to maintain, then 6 months later, Gares, Shandy and Gem decide it's useful and easy to maintain and so forth. I am pretty OCD, so I am always against chaos.
 * 2) Historical data in article is cute and cuddley. No one is denying that. But, is it "useful"? I say no. If I start a new character today, one that I had played 1 million times before (like my ele), I will not benefit in any way, shape or form from my knowledge of how the elementalist profession "was." Knowledge of the fact that "Conjure Lightning" used to remove enchantments but no longer does will not help me this time around. I find it interesting and new players I meet in-game are always fascinated by all those cute and cuddley things I seem to know about how Mingas the Meek used to exist. Interesting does not equal useful though.
 * 3) Historical data in an article is no joke. If we start allowing stuff like "Chain Lightning used to kick butt but now just pushes butts around" then we are opening the site up for a war of ridiculous edits about information that, again, is not that useful (though extremely entertaining). The only way I, personally, would accept the addition of historical data into the wiki is if it was strongly codified and regulated. Because I see little benefit and lots of headaches coming from it. I would suggest somthing like: A "History" section for articles (any article) that summarizes in bullet points the changes done to an item with direct links to the "Game Update" that effected the change. Anything less to me would be an unnecessary headache.


 * I want to make my point of view a bit more clear. I DO NOT want to have historical things noted on otherwise useful pages. It irritates me to see pages where something is said and then the next sentence states: "Oh by the way, forget about the last 10 lines as this was removed from the game in ... update." But I DO like the idea of having some sort of page or a redirect for the pages of the removed things such as Mingas the Meek or Frozen Chest. It seems that many things changed in the latest updates are documented in some pages very poorly, mostly with a small additon like the example I gave. These should be corrected. The matter of deleting or keeping the pages isn't that important to me thou, I would just like to see the above-mentioned comments removed. 03:21, 14 March 2006 (CST)