GuildWiki talk:Article retention

I believe this policy article somewhat accurately reflects the growing consensus in GuildWiki talk:Criteria for deletion. As I think the issue being discussed is significantly different from the topic in criteria for deletion, the discussion might be better suited to this talk page. &mdash;Tanaric 16:03, 3 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Good idea Tanaric.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:24, 3 September 2006 (CDT)


 * We've needed this article for ages anyway, regardless of the historical argument. &mdash;Tanaric 18:51, 3 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I was willing to drop the discussion there, because after having repeated all my arguments twice, I dont see the point in repeating them a third time, however I would not call blanking the page "growing consensus" seeing how of the 5 people active in the discussion in the last week, 3 are opposed. For something as important as a policy article, I feel consensus should be more strictly interpreted. --Xeeron 05:23, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * My apologies Xeeron, I clearly misread or confused the arguments on that talk page. I will reread and rewrite this proposed policy. &mdash;Tanaric 18:36, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Unverifiable?
What about screenshots? I've still got screenshots from the Halloween 2005 event. And there's enough witnesses to corroborate the existance of Rift Warden battles. None of the holiday pages are protected, and it appears that this "no new eddits after a week" thing is pulling a policy out of thin air. I'd be okay with "no new information unless you can back it up with a screenshot or N witnesses". -- Gordon Ecker 21:02, 3 September 2006 (CDT)


 * You hit the nail on the head&mdash;this is, in fact, pulling a policy out of thin air. Hence the big box that says "this is a proposed policy." :)


 * My theory is that GuildWiki has reached a certain critical mass. For every time-limited event from now on, it will be completely documented within a week after the event ends. Most are fully documented before the event concludes! I personally don't think it's worth the hassle to deal with ancient information. I don't want to have to decide whether your screen capture of a Fury rune is real or duped&mdash;there's little, if any, benefit to retaining that information anyway, since nobody in-game even remembers the damned things anymore.


 * If you disagree with my stance on retrodocumenting ancient history, please explain why. &mdash;Tanaric 21:33, 3 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, I didn't notice the proposed tag at the top of the page. As I understand it, the purpose of category:unfavored builds is to serve as a sort of build scrap heap for people to rummage through and salvage some workable ideas out of. One solution might be to split unfavored builds into viable but sub-optimal or excessively narrow builds which are retained and unviable and generic builds which are deleted. As for ancient history, I don't see any problem with letting the historians argue about Runes of Fury, evil Gwen and Rift Wardens as long as it doesn't spill over onto the rest of the wiki. Wrathful Storm is missing a screenshot, so we haven't reached critical mass yet. -- Gordon Ecker 02:51, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think we should allow ourselves get into a situation where certain content on the site is impossible to verify. Taking refund point as an example, if someone were to come to the site today and say "this isn't actually how refund points worked, they were very similar but you may not have noticed that they are affected by X", they may well be right, but unless another person can verify this then we will never know for certain.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:59, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * As a quick wrap-up of what I already argued at GuildWiki talk:Criteria for deletion:
 * The legacy tag should be big and clear enough to disencourage edits to legacy articles
 * Therefore we should not blank the articles but leaving the information to be easily reached
 * I still disbelieve that the issue mentioned above will be grave enough to justify blanking of articles. Among the possible remedies short of blanking, protection or allowing only edits backed with screen shots have been mentioned. --Xeeron 05:23, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * To reiterate my points, while I am in favour of a summary of the previous content of the article, I am not in favour of protecting pages unnecessarily. The history of the article would be linked from the legacy tag, so users who are curious as to the previous content of the article should be able to see what used to be there. I wouldn't even mind if we linked to a particular entry in the history.


 * Regarding edits only backed with screenshots, I think that's a strange one. With events that's fair enough, but what screenshots could you take to prove the behaviour of refund points? One showing before reducing an attribute? One showing after? Before this feature was removed few people would have that this worthy of taking a screenshot, and even now those people who have could easily reverse the order of the screenshots and say "every time you increased an attribute you would be given a refund point, see, look at the screenshots?". Screenshots are unreliable for all but the very simplest of removed features.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:42, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * The point I was trying to make is that the claim that there is "no way for us to verify the information so long after events occur", which is the only argument the proposed policy uses against the creation of new articles on old legacy content, is based on a false assumption. Screenshots can verify information after the fact, and, in the specific case of refund points, the prophecies manual, which can now be downloaded from the official guild wars site, can also be used as a source. -- Gordon Ecker 20:39, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Gordon, I think there is a difference between existing articles and creating articles. If someone say edited the Wrathful Storms article to say that they used Breath of Fire, with no proof. Or edited to remove Meteor Shower. And all he had was his word againt the existing article. Well, then we can have a policy that the article pre-Legacy is proof against all unproven edits. But for an article created from scratch, how can we verify such things? Yeah, for refund points and what not, that's fine. But what about articles that do not provide proof? Articles that say things that have proof and other things that don't? What do we do when such articles are disputed? --Karlos 21:34, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * We could maintain a policy of extreme skepticism with regards to any new, post-legacy information. This would mean that when partially supported new information is added to legacy articles, only the supported parts of the new information would be retained without overwhelming concensus, while completely unverified new legacy articles would not be retained. -- Gordon Ecker 00:52, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Legacy articles
I don't get all the extra restrictions you guys are doing. Blanking and protecting. This is absurd. If you are going to keep legacy content (which I am against), then you should just keep the article as is and tag it with Legacy. If an article (like any article) becomes the target of repeated useless edits, then protect it, otherwise it is just an article on the wiki. Again, I want to note my disdain and dislike for this whole "use protection to indicate article is complete, we don't want your edits" approach. Please revise this approach. We have not even tried to see how the legacy tag by itself will work. As you guys have already said, make it clear in the tag that editing the article other than for correcting mistakes or adding important content is highly discouraged. --Karlos 16:27, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I didn't know blanking and protecting were proposed ideas but I agree with you, awful ideas! Since when do we protect stuff just because it is finished? This is totally against the idea of the wiki and is sure to upset people! Blanking, what is the point of that? Either keep it visable or not at all! I delete blanked articles if there is nothing valuable underneith and I wouldn't see this as any different!


 * I do agree that we should keep legacy stuff but with just a clear notice stating that it is legacy and if possible a link to the game update that removed it &mdash; Skuld 16:41, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * To clarify, the argument for blanking and replacing with a summary is a seperate argument to blanking, replacing with a summary and protecting. I condone the former but not the latter.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:59, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Again, I apologize. I actually agree that protection in this sense is probably unnecessary. I clearly did not read the other talk page clearly enough, and I've embarassed myself as a result. &mdash;Tanaric 18:36, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't really see what worst case scenario people are trying to prevent with restrictions on the creation and editing of legacy articles. -- Gordon Ecker 20:39, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Although the protection stuff is pretty irrelevent to me, it seems that most here have understood it in the wrong way. It was suggested that the article is protected if we blank it and replace with a legacy tag. If we leave the article as is, just adding the tag, then ofcourse don't protect. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Builds
Written build evaluation is a guide article to help authors avoid common mistakes while creating builds. I will replace the link with Builds on the wiki which is a proposed policy article on builds (of course the link should be reverted if build on the wiki does not become policy). --Xeeron 05:23, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Rewritten
I've rewritten this to better express the middle ground between "don't keep legacy" and "lock legacy down." I hope this makes up for my earlier asshattery. &mdash;Tanaric 18:52, 4 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Support. I am pretty happy with the current version of the article and would agree to that becoming policy. --Xeeron 09:52, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I like retaining the data, and adding a big header to the top marking it as old data. LordKestrel 13:35, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Strongly Oppose. Actually, the current "compromise" is a pointless joke. Current de facto policy is to delete.  The new "compromise" is to add the tag, add a summary, AND keep the original article?  That is no compromise; that's a 100% reversal of existing practice.  The original policy, and any attempts at compromise were thrown out the window, and the concept of keeping the content remained. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:48, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree with Barek andoppose the current wording. There were some people who wanted to have all legacy articles kept, and others who wanted all legacy articles deleted. I'm sure you can appreciate that calling "keeping all legacy articles" a compromise seems inaccurate! :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:12, 5 September 2006 (CDT)
 * It does look like a compromise, if you look at it in a black/white scenario. If you look at it as one side wanting to delete and purge, and the other side as leaving it intact, leaving the article, but putting a header on it showing it's legacy would be considered a compromise :) LordKestrel 13:35, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, yes and no LordKestrel. The reason we delete articles is because "we don't document how the game was, only how the game is", which I agree with. The main argument against keeping all articles on historical subjects is that it would be difficult to confirm the details of such an article. The main argument for keeping all articles on historical subjects is that we should document everything. Personally I feel a fair compromise would be to say that we keep a summary and point the users to the history of the article.


 * Basically, I think that if we'd kept historical data from day one then we would have created a legacy tag some time ago and used it on every historical article, so I don't see how it can be classed as a compromise. I hope that makes sense :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:53, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * P.S. Hi again LordKestrel :D  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:58, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I can see the point of those claiming this is not a compromise. One side wants the articles gone, the other wants to keep them, there is hardly a middle way (no having some summary what the article was about does not count for me, how would that help people wanting to read up on GW history). That being said, blanking all articles can hardly be called a compromise either. --Xeeron 14:34, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * The rewrite still maintains the fallacy that historical information is inherently and universally unverifiable. Also, I have been told that the original justification for the "no historical content" was the small number of users on the wiki at the time. I have also been told that the talk page where that conclusion was reached no longer exists. -- Gordon Ecker 22:20, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Every possible compromise between a black and white set of positions will be called a pointless joke. Honestly, this argument has gone around in circles for far too long, and there are an equal number of good comments on all sides.

I, personally, am in favor of deleting all historical content... but that is not de facto policy, despite what Barek says. Look at Wintersday 2005 for proof of that. We've maintained historical content since the first time-limited event.

Because we currently maintain legacy information and because there is a significant body of editors who wish to continue maintaining legacy information, it seems clear to me that we must continue to maintain legacy information, despite my personal feelings on the subject. My initial write up of this article contained too much personal bias, considering the charged feelings on both sides&mdash;I'm personally in favor of removing whatever we can. This version is considerably watered down, from my perspective, but it also poses no threat to the wiki, which is my primary concern around here.

I purposely limited the scope of this proposed solution&mdash;it's about article retention, not information retention. I don't expect a patch history in every skill article defining how it's been tweaked over the years. I don't think anybody is advocating that (and if they are, we appear to be wholly ignoring them, thank goodness). This is specifically about content and terms that were once used every day and no longer are. I think that I can stomach keeping the information around, as long as it's clear that it's no longer relevant.

I still think the best solution would involve replacing the article with what the concept used to mean, and removing details that are no longer relevant from a utility perspective, but I got just as much ire from the other side when I suggested that.

Since apparently the word "compromise" is what's pissing everyone off, please replace it in all cases with "Tanaric's Version-o'-Policy so we can all move on with our lives." &mdash;Tanaric 15:47, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Hahaha. :D That's a good one! Seriously: This discussion was far closer to a consensus before my school started and I had to leave the wiki for some time. What's the problem if we originally were almost okay with this? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Wiki is using Song of Regurgitation! Isn't that what Rainith and I complained about in that thread in Criteria for deletion? That there was no closure or consensus per se? I think, though, that we should move on folks. Barek, I personally want these articles gone, but adding a legacy tag that states clearly that the information is obsolete and discourages further editing is enough for me. I am against creating articles from scratch and I think Tanaric's wording reflects that. --Karlos 16:54, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * In honesty I am not in favour of keeping historical information in articles. My point of view from the beginning has been that retaining articles would be useful because if someone tried to find out about refund points and found nothing they might think that refund points still existed in the game but that we have not documented it.


 * The policy says that we "retain the legacy article below for those interested in Guild Wars history". Isn't this information preserved in the article history? This is why I modified the legacy template so that it would be clear to users that the information that used to be there was no longer maintained but was available in the history. I don't see the point in having the original article below when it has no current value and would be difficult to maintain.


 * I apologise if I have repeated myself unduly :) I realise that I've probably made my views very clear by now. I'll try to leave it at that!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:02, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Tanaric, you too have fallen for the word games of claiming special event entries as an example of a change in policy. Since before I started on the wiki, all legacy content was deleted except special event articles, which were treated as an exception to the practice that many, including yourself previously, acknowledge was the unwritten policy of the site.


 * If you follow the discussions back far enough, you find that the original positions in this discussion were (a) Delete all legacy / historical content except special event entries vs. (b) Keep all legacy / historical content and add a legacy tag. It appears that the proposed "compromise" is to do as option b stated and also to add a small summary.  That is what I pointed out to be the joke.  Calling it a compromise may be a face-saving attempt by those who are just tired of the debate, but it's actually a complete surrender, not a compromise, call it what it is really.


 * Granted, it's hard to find a middle ground between flat out delete vs save in entirety. Those who wanted to keep the content had a good argument by stating that someone may read about a game mechanic item or a strategy/trick that is no longer in the game, and think that the wiki was incomplete.  But, a tag with a summary satisfies that requirement.  The sole argument for keeping more than that centers on "why not?".  No useful value of the historic and no longer usable content has ever been given.


 * Several who had insisted on keeping the content seemed satisfied with the blanking proposal, as the history remained. Lets face it, if a skill is nerfed, the history is kept on the history tab, not in the article.  Why should game mechanics and strategies be treated differently?  A group remained that opposed it, as they viewed this compromise as inadequate.  Yet, those who advocate keeping the content have failed repeatedly to show any value to keeping the content other than for curiosity's sake.


 * As many who were debating for deletion, then who compromised by supporting blanking, are now just sick of the constantly regurgitated debate by those who want their way and no other options suffice, I too will join them in waving the white flag.


 * However, I would like to point out the irony in that while other articles such as Frozen Chest and Book trick could be restored and tagged under this proposed policy, the current wording of the proposed policy (which those who advocate keeping content are supporting) states "We immediately delete articles that attempt to document history. There is no way for us to verify the information so long after events occur."  By that wording, the article that started this debate, Refund point, would be deleted as it was created in August of this year.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:42, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the obvious compromise is to hide legacy information in its own category, or maybe even its own namespace (if practical), so that it's easier to avoid. As I've said before, I don't see any threat posed by legacy articles, and I don't think anyone has claimed that they pose a threat. The strongest argument I've heard against broader retention policies is that they might pose an inconvenience for the people who want to maintain legacy articles. The problem I have with most of these proposed 'compromises' is that they would, as written, end up deleting, removing or blanking some content that would be retained under the current de facto policy, such as unfavored builds, some NPCs and dialogue from past and future events, or the entire Beta Weekend Event article, which was created more than six months after the last BWE. By the way, is our current build retention policy written down anywhere? -- Gordon Ecker 22:20, 5 September 2006 (CDT)


 * On the issue of the special events articles and why they were kept, I think a major misunderstanding or misrepresentation is taking place. The reason no one thought twice about keepeing them is that, at the time, it was perceived that these events will be recurring. Therefore, deleting Mad Kin Thorn's article in 05 only to remake it in 06 made little sense. This will be proven true/false soon as Halloween comes about. But it was NOT the intention to retain special event content as an "exception" to the "no retaining historical content rule." This is a misrepresentation of why these articles are maintained. In face, if it turned out that these articles are a one time thing, then I would advocate for deleting them, or starting a separate section for game history. --Karlos 04:46, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

External Websites
It is my understanding that we do not maintain articles on external websites (such as Photics). Not only is ther no need (just link to the site and let the reader figure out what it is), but it opens the door for shameless advetizement as well as haters. I edited that section to reflect this. --Karlos 23:11, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

Removed historical content section
Since I'm clearly in over my head on this one, I've removed the historical content section, in an effort to get the rest of this article accepted as GuildWiki policy. As much as I think the historical question needs to be codified, the rest of this does too, and it seems a lot less contested than historical/legacy information is.

I'll let the rest of you continue discussing legacy information without my intervention, because quite frankly it's starting to upset me, and I'm not one to let a website make me angry in the real world. :)

I'm now seeking consensus for the article, as it currently stands. Any comments/dissention?

&mdash;Tanaric 04:59, 6 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Hehe Tanaric, much wub! You've done a great job with this article. Historical content aside, I think the policy is fine.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:29, 6 September 2006 (CDT)


 * As above, I am supporting the current version (or parts thereof). And count me out of the deletion debate, we are discussing in circles already. --Xeeron 08:15, 6 September 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm in favor of everything except the part about builds, which I believe should be resolved in GuildWiki talk:Builds. I don't really care what policy the builds community decides on, I just don't want the two policies to contradict eachother. I've added a commented-out line that basically says the build retention policy is being dealt with elsewhere with a link to Builds. And, now that the section in question has been changed to just point to the builds policy, I'm in favour of the policy as written. -- Gordon Ecker 19:21, 6 September 2006 (CDT)

Since noone objects and this discussion seems to be closed, I'll give the current article the policy tag. Of course, we should not forget that the issue of legacy articles is still unresolved. --Xeeron 10:11, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

individual players and organizations
This policy doesn't explicitly say taht we don't keep articles on individual players or about play organizations (besides guilds). I would like to add that because we seem to enforce this anyway its a logical corollary from the no guilds section. Specifically, it would be useful to add because I want to cite this article for new users who violate such things. Any objections? Would anyone care to write such sections up?&mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I must agree, although I feel that the userpage exception is too unnoticeable. Also, I don't think you should ask others to just write two lines of text instead of making them yourself. ;) --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 19:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)