Talk:Elite skills list

This is just a rip off of Elite Skills Location but organised slightly differently. I used to make it look tidier, but if you disagree with this please say so. :) 22:13, 12 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * This page is beautiful, Biro! &mdash;Tanaric 22:36, 19 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * ...but I'm still moving it to Elite skills list, as the plural interferes with Elite skill. A merger might be even better; do it if you think so. :) &mdash;Tanaric 00:30, 20 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Nah Tanaric, I think that name is fine :) And I don't think a merge is necessary really. 03:08, 20 Jul 2005 (EST)

Lots of Pages
So, we've got this page, Elite Skill Locations and the pages that links to. I think is is redundant. My suggestion is those other pages should be inserted (, etc.) into this one instead of maintaining the content in two places if that can be managed and still keep the pretty formatting here on this page. --Fyren 23:57, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Here's what I propose source for the page to be: [source for User:Fyren/Test2]. A couple changes would have to be made to make it look like the page is now.  All the double equals for headings in the various individual pages would get changed to triple and the header text would be removed.  (And I guess rename all the pages so we don't start another case crusade.)  Elite Skill Locations would get axed since it doesn't serve much purpose anyway.  We can link to the individual pages from the profession pages, if we want.  --Fyren 06:04, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)

Wow, that's pretty cool, Fyren. Implementing. &mdash;Tanaric 20:58, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Check your test page. I edited the format of the Warrior page to use subheadings and definition lists.  It's more semantically correct and it reduces the width of the page, which is good for its columnar formatting now.  Any comments beofre I do the same to the rest? &mdash;Tanaric 21:10, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I had been wondering how to use definition lists. This is looking very good (even if the page might be looking a little large). I say go for it Tanaric, I was unhappy with the initial linking page but could see no better option, this is quite an elegant solution Fyren, well done.
 * Incidentally it will be useful to add a to this page so that people realise that they shouldn't be adding new skill information here.  03:19, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Just looking at Fyren's page, if we removed the text from the top of the individual skill location articles (they are self explanatory after all) and increased the headings (i.e. h2 becomes h3) then the format would look much more accurate. Of course, the individual pages would be less complete, but I think it would be worthwhile. 03:24, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I hope you dont mind Fyren, but I changed the Warrior section of your example to point to a test page I created, where all the headings are reduced and the text and category info is removed from the article. Any opinions on the way it looks? I'm not certain I like the altered headings. 62.254.64.17 03:34, 4 Aug 2005 (EST) 03:35, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I was actually going to do that myself and revert the real warrior page for now, but you got to it first. Anyway, about the formatting, it's less wide but much longer. I think I prefer it the way it was on the warrior page (besides the bullets which don't really matter).  --Fyren 03:51, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I replaced the necro skills on the test page with an alternate version of the warrior skills that I prefer. --Fyren 05:04, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)

I replaced ranger with another version of the Warrior skills that I prefer. It fixes the readability problems with the first mockup Biro and I did, and it fixes the width problem with Fyren's. While I prefer Fyren's mockup (length-wise) on my screen, if I reduce my resolution to, say, 800x600, it becomes a bit messy. &mdash;Tanaric 16:09, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I prefer Tanaric's here. I think it makes more sense to promote the headings in Elite skills list than it does to demote the headings in each individual location page. 20:54, 4 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * If Tanaric wins, does he get to go edit all the pages? If so, I vote for Tanaric.  --Fyren 16:35, 7 Aug 2005 (EST)

lol 21:30, 7 Aug 2005 (EST)

...I hate always being right. &mdash;Tanaric 09:24, 8 Aug 2005 (EST)

To revive the dead discussion a little (and get back to seriousness), my order of preference is mine, Biro's, then Tanaric's. I don't like the horizontal lines from the headings in Tanaric's version. If the argument against mine is low resolutions, at 800x600 all three of the formats end up wrapping lines either because the location or the boss name is too long. --Fyren 11:00, 21 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Horizontal lines are just from using a == heading for each. I thought it helped set them apart; I was going for max differentiation, since Biro's (which was based on an early design of my own) was way too hard to pick apart.  I could easily knock all the headings down a notch, to see how it looked.  Or you could, because I'm tired and won't get around to it for at least a week (moving into college, helping the freshmen, etc.) &mdash;Tanaric 15:00, 24 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I tried making my own version, but after some changes I saw that I'd made Tanarics version only with bullets instead (User:Kaarechr/Elite_test) ... so I favor Tanaric's version. kaarechr 20:22, 24 Aug 2005 (EST)

LordBiro's version looks a little cramped as the attribute heading and skill name heading (even the location heading) are too similar in size/font; there's no clear distinction between the various headings. Tanaric's looks a bit weird with the attribute heading having an underline, and then another &lt;hr&gt; line after it. perhaps it would look better with the &lt;hr&gt; line above the attribute name? or maybe its just my wiki/browser settings :/


 * I've got no idea what you're talking about. Screenshot with notes? &mdash;Tanaric 15:00, 24 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I think he means that "axe mastery" is underlined since it's a link, and under that there's the horizontal rule. If so, I agree that the lines look bad together.  --Fyren 15:34, 24 Aug 2005 (EST)

my vote goes with fyren. I think fyren's version looks quite professional actually.

firefox 1.0.6, 1024x768 (i have no desire to try looking at the pages in different settings) --Crusty 10:30, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)

I also guess we should link the boss names, since they (should/will eventually) have their own articles. --Fyren 10:55, 22 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Actually, if the boss pages exist and have the info that can be there, should we have the zone they're in listed on this page? Of course, a lot of these bosses don't have pages yet.  --Fyren 18:05, 24 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * In my opinion we should remove either the boss names or the zone names, because the necessary information will be in either the respective boss/zone article. This will also make the article a bit easier to read in my opinion. kaarechr 20:22, 24 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * If we're going to go one way or the other, I'm in favor of removing boss names. In fact, if we're going to do that, we aught to remove all boss articles as well, except for obvious exceptions for important bosses (Eidolon, for one, and Dark Lich for two).  However, if we plan on keeping boss pages in the wiki, we should keep both on this page, as it allows for a lot of information at a quick glance. &mdash;Tanaric 23:11, 24 Aug 2005 (EST)

Updated my test listing User:Fyren/Test2 to include Kaarechr's and modified mine a little. There isn't much consensus on which to use. Long ago, Biro said he liked Tanaric's, Kaarechr also does, and I assume Tanaric does (where did he go?). Crusty and I like mine. Removing locations or the boss names didn't get much response, either. --Fyren 23:49, 5 Sep 2005 (EST)

my 2gold
I like the title style used in the middle example, underlining the attribute really makes it stand out. But for the content I think the third option i better, keeping the boss name on the same line as the skill is easyer to follow with the eye.

Don't change this page
The Elite skills list as it stands now is great. It's very nicely formatted and finding the skill your looking for is quick and painless. It's superior to looking in the profession quick lists if all you're looking for are elite skills. Any example I've seen that adds more info just makes it harder to read.

We don't need "Location" pages. There is no reason at all to maintain pages listing all elites for profession X with their locations. If you just want to know the location for a skill, you check the skills page. It's faster to find, and more intuitive to those updating pages. It took me some time on the site before I even found the location lists, but I've been using the locations in the skill pages since day one.

If, on the other hand, you want to know what skills can be found in a given mission or location you check those pages to find out all the skills available in the region. That way you don't have to check the profession list for both your professions.

I believe that these are the two most common methods for searching for an elite you want to capture. No other form of tabulation makes this job any easier, but it does make maintenance more difficult. I think there are times where it's okay to ask the user to actually follow a link to gather more information instead of trying to put it all in one place. This is one of those times. --Squeg 07:35, 29 October 2005 (EST)


 * The main reason I brought it up in the first place was to remove one or the other so we don't have to update both the locations list and this list. There was yet another list, but that has since been deleted.  --Fyren 07:44, 29 October 2005 (EST)


 * I agree that those location pages are no longer needed. It seems like they may have been useful before, but have since become obsolete/redundant.  Has anyone ever objected to deleting them?  All the discussion I've found seems to be just regarding the format of this page. --Rezyk 08:37, 29 October 2005 (EST)


 * I've just added all the info from these "elite skills with location" articles to the location articles wherever it was missing. I also added links to all those sections to Index of Skill Lists. --Rezyk 11:03, 29 October 2005 (EST)

I disagree with the page Elite_Skill_Locations being marked as a candidate for deletion because of "utility of these pages is now covered elsewhere". It's a simple page, with 6 links on it, one to each class. Because of the simplicity, it's quick and easy to use. Just because the same info is available on a more cluttered page somewhere doesn't mean the simple page should be deleted. imho. 67.182.143.162 03:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with anon 67.182.bla.bla. Squeg above lists two scenarios. Either I am going to a location and want to know what elites are there, or I am looking for a skill and want to know where to find it. There is a third scenario. I am completing my elites and want to see BOTH all skills missing and where they are so I decide on where I will go capping today. I just went through that scenarion with my E/Me and truth be told, the Elementalist Elite skill Locations and the Mesmer Elite skill locations were all I used. Awesome pages. I am opposed to removing the. This page is a LOT less useful than those lists. --Karlos 07:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ordering of attributes
Currently I can't figure out how those attributes were sorted... Sure, there aren't a lot, but still confusing.

I propose to put the Primary Attribute first, followed by the rest in alphabetical order, and finally non-attribute. It's not the way the game orders it, but the ingame ordering is even more confusing (from the Hero window, order of Ranger skills is: Beast Mastery, Expertise, Wilderness Survival, Marksmanship). -- PanSola 05:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Check your "Skill Menu". :) --Karlos 08:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The "Skill" window either sorts ALL attributes alphabetically ignoring profession, or it doesn't care about profession at all. Somehow I don't think we want to do either.  The "Hero" window on the other hand, DOES group attributes by profession, but otherwise has a odd ordering within each profession.  This is why I propose something that is neither, and which makes sense still. -PanSola 10:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Imagine you had one profession. What would the skill menu look like? Bingo! Since we can't assume what combination the user has, we list each set of attributes under its profession alphabetically with non-linked at the bottom. Just like the skill menu. I like it this way. I see no merit to listing primary attributes at the top. Right now it;s alphabetical, if I want to find Prot. Prayers, my eyes will scan quickly and find it, not spend a minute trying to decipher how the attributes are listed. I just see no merit to your design while the present one is full of merits. --Karlos 11:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I presented my idea because the current is NOT alphabetical. Or at least when I looked at the mesmer box, it wasn't.  So I figured, since there's no consistent system, might as well suggest one. -PanSola 12:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Canthan skills
Can we split this into prophecies and canthan ones.. this isn't useful now =( Skuld  09:39, 25 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Seconded. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 09:41, 25 April 2006 (CDT)

Yes, the changes made recently to this that put Canthan elites into this page made it much less accessible... however, come Friday, won't it become better this way? I guess we should wait and see before doing anything. -The Uglymancer, 5:03, 26 April 2006

I split into the 2 games, the page is looking a bit big though, I think it needs either the table of contents putting back or split into 2 lists Skuld  07:31, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

If this has been split into Tyrian and Canthan, should it not also have some skills removed from Tyrian and moved into a 'Core' supplement?
 * Elites are not core afaik Skuld  10:00, 3 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Core Elite skills include
 * Charge, Battle Rage, Cleave, Devastating Hammer, Hundred Blades
 * Checked above at a priest of Balthazar, but am too tired to edit page now

Request TOC
Could someone mock up a table of contents for this page? It's rather large now. | Chuiu 14:37, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * If no one beats me to it, I will later today. --Rainith 16:01, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Done. --Rainith 20:59, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * So thats how you make a fake TOC ... thanks. | Chuiu 21:01, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah, feel free to use it elsewhere as you see fit. --Rainith 21:05, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

So decision on this?
There seems to be a bit of tussle going on about adding a link to this website: http://dumbgame.net/eliteskills/ Why not? Or why should it be added? Can we get some sort of decision on this instead of participating in edit wars. --Draygo Korvan 16:55, 24 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The answer is obvious. Remove all of the external links, or move them into the talk page or something. None of them are source material for us any more and we objectively tend to have the best and most up to date info all around. 149.9.0.25 17:03, 24 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm against having the link. All other reference links are to fansites; that one is a specific guild website.  While the specific page has minimal reference to the guild, I still don't see a compelling reason to make an exception in our policy against links to guild pages (even the Xennon site links to a url that's not within the referenced guild's site - although I could argue removing that one as well).  There are enough references available already via fansites without having the headache of creating a precedence for special case links to guild sites. --I am 161.88 17:07, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Well edit wars are pointless. But if the link on that page linking the persons guild page was removed you can easily argue that it qualifies because it contains no advertisements for any particular guild. Remember guild sites are hosted on some of the community sites and thus share the same domain. So you cannot disqualify this page if the advertisement for [SIN] was removed. --Draygo Korvan 17:11, 24 May 2006 (CDT)


 * In this case, it's not a community site; the guild's url is the root url. I'm still against the link.  The Xennon link is at least in a different url address, even though it does the same - although as I said above, I would argue it should be removed as well.  Neither site is source material for our site.  The fansite info is sufficient. --I am 161.88 17:17, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Clarification: In the early stages of this wiki, it appears that Xennon's data was used as source material in some cases, which likely explains why that link has been allowed to remain. However, our data has evolved beyond those original entries, and I do not believe that a reference to that data is warranted any longer.  The Archangel data has never been used as a source.  We are a repository of fan information; not an internet directory. --I am 161.88 17:23, 24 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Notwithstanding the fact that that link was added by the author of the site in question who has no other contribution on this website, there are several issues with the data on that site. For example, it consistently misspells the Dredge as Drudge. 85.90.166.105 17:13, 24 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Kepkhet Marrowfeast - Prophet's Path - Spider :/ The site has nothing to offer Skuld  02:34, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

I have added this link back with a prominent disclaimer. Relevant thread from guildwarsguru.com. The reason that I am adding this back is: The disclaimer should serve as a deterrent for people wishing to trust these other sites over GuildWiki. Koyashi 06:20, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * None of the other three links are sources for us either.
 * There have been several accusations made that GuildWiki practices censorship. Regardless of the merit of these accusations, just their existence is harmful.
 * The links harm no one.


 * I believe the other links were actually added when GuildWiki WAS using those site's info to acquire the capture info. The information has since been independently verified, but when GuildWiki was starting out in this department, information from those links were used.  I find that disclaimer notice plain arrogant, which I think is worse than censorship accusations. - 07:17, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * A historical accident should not be used to discriminate against one particular link. As I noted above, none of the other links are current sources for GuildWiki. Either all links should remain, or none should remain. Do you have a suggestion to modify the disclaimer message to be less arrogant? Otherwise I will remove that entire section. Koyashi 07:26, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * See Animal companion and Damage for how I would word it. With the exception of the Guru link on pets, I do believe GuildWiki has surpassed in completeness and correctness to all the other links GuildWiki references.  The links remain as credit to where GuildWiki's own research/data-collection comes from. Of course, this solution does not apply to Archangle's link, and will not work as a solution to the issue we face here. - 07:38, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

I do not understand why their should even be a debate over allowing this website. Xennon has a link to his formal guild in the text "Created by Xennon of Durance Of Fate" just like http://dumbgame.net/eliteskills/. The guild link is not for advertising SIN's guild site. The link to [SIN] is there to give credit to the individuals who participated in this endeavor as I believe that Xennon displays his former guild site for the exact same reason. We [SIN] created this website because Xennon stopped playing Guild Wars and thus did not update his website with current data for 5 months. Having multiple websites for elite skills serves the purpose of information validation to the Guild Wars user as well as removing the dependency of being able to reference only one source of information. Why does a Guild Wars user have to rely on stale information from Xennon when GuildWiki is unaccesible because it is having SQL errors(See article below). The belligerent attitude of users like Skuld that believe "The site has nothing to offer" and then remove the link are just hurting the Guild Wars community by denying them another source of legitimate information. The existence of ArchAngels' elite skills listing and the intended purpose of displaying his link here is to help support the Guild Wars community just like GuildWiki - Pigeon


 * Note: User:Pigeon is most probably "Pigeon Poop", one of the administrators of the dumbgames.net site. As to the substance of the objection, GuildWiki serves the community by merely existing. When it has SQL errors, it ipso facto cannot point anyone to the dubmgames.net site. 63.211.169.142 09:41, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * We are not asking GuildWiki to refer users to our site. We are asking that the information be made available ot the GuildWars community. You are missing the point! The website is there to help people. Removing our link only denies the Guild Wars community of another available resource! Pigeon


 * You are the one missing the point, actually. Look at Main Page. GuildWiki is a "wiki and guide" for Guild Wars, not a repository of links to community works. We document the game, not sites about the game. Koyashi 09:53, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * As was said above: we are not an internet directory. The other sites were once sources of information, so they have a legacy reason for being listed.  The same cannot be said of this link.  As for the comment about it being a valuable resource; I can think of many other guilds that might make the same claim in specific areas.  I really do not see the benefit of creating precedent here and openning that door.   --24.19.168.170 09:57, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Pigeon, I'm not going to ask you to agree with Skuld. But when adding the link, please do note where you are adding it to, and the notes associated with it.  The current existing links are what GuildWiki referenced when it was in its infancy.  By adding your link to that section you would be implying GuildWki used the elite skill data from dubmgames.net back in mid 2005.  We are listing those sites as credits, not as alternate resources for the community.  If dubmgames.net wish to be a resource for the community, get itself on to http://www.guildwars.com/community/fansites/.  THAT is the best way to make the site available to the rest of the Guild Wars community. - 10:06, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * My main objection is the edit wars that are going on and continueing to go on. The link should remain off at this point unless the greater Guildwiki community wants to allow it. We probably need a vote on this measure and guildwiki's policy on external links. I dont think guildwiki needs any of them anymore and simply removing them all would be the best method. A wiki is a continuously evolving peice of work as information becomes outdated or uneeded it needs to be removed. If people like pigeon want that information availible they can simply contribute to the wiki themselves. I like the maps that are used on dumbgames they are nice clean and pretty good lookin. --Draygo Korvan 10:08, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * With the current disclaimer above the links, I see no problem with legacy links that were once used as source/reference material. I also wouldn't object too much to all of them being removed either.  Links to other fansites are already available elsewhere, so these links are ultimately mainly redundant to the fansite links. --24.19.168.170 10:14, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

Note: I am not an admin, just another contributor. But to me, repeatedly re-inserting the link with the discussion as it stands borders on vandalism. If you see value in adding the link to this page, discuss the merits here BEFORE adding it back in. Thus far, it appears that few are swayed by your arguments. Ignoring that fact and inserting it anyways enforces the image of vandal, which actually hurts your chances of developing further converts. The opinion of vandals carry very little weight. --24.19.168.170 10:12, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Vandalism is "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property". Unknown contributors gratuitously removing our link is vandalism. Another example of "Vandalism" would be deleting the imbecilic statement made above by an individual ignorant of the definition of "Vandalism". On the contrary, providing this link is "something that provides a person with guiding information" - definition of "guide" by Merriam Webster. "GuildWiki" is a guide. The inclusion of the link is "something that provides a person with guiding information", fitting the definition of the word "guide". It is not turning GuildWiki into "a repository of links to community works". That could only happen of GuildWiki contained no additional content but external links. I thought it was appropriate to include the link is because the website does provide additional pertinent information to "guide" the Guild Wars user. Originally it just said "External Links" and was not apparent that these links were only intended for the purpose of giving credit for previously referenced works. [User:Draygo Korvan|Draygo Korvan]] thank you for understanding our intentions of the website is to provide additional support to the "Guild Wars" community. If you wish to use our maps for GuildWiki, please feel free to do so. I ask that you just give Archangel his deserved credit for his hard work by including the link as a reference. Question: Shouldn't the inclusion or exclusion of the website be based on the relevant impact to the "Guild Wars" community. Does adding the link hurt or help the "Guild Wars" community? Isn't the ultimate objective to help "guide" the "Guild Wars" users? -Pigeon


 * You and Archangel Avoca are desperately seeking credit, but the entire purpose of a wiki is to disclaim authorship and not overtly credit anyone. Your contributions will be obvious when looking at an article's history. If you so dearly wish to improve the quality of information on GuildWiki, contribute the maps yourself to GuildWiki (removing all credit texts from images as noted below). However, even if you don't contribute anything, someone else will step up to the plate. If you do not wish to contribute to GuildWiki, then you have no business requesting a link to your site. GuildWiki is not an Internet directory. 212.112.241.159 11:55, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Anon had a valid point. And insulting and belittling other wiki contributors by calling their posts "imbecilic" does not help your cause either. --I am 161.88 11:57, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Ironically, we are being insulted by saying we are credit seekers and vandalising this website. Adding our website does not make it an internet directory. 'GuildWiki is not an Internet directory' point is just moot. A contribution to the "wiki" can also be informing users of a "guide" in addition the comprehensive content they provide. "We [SIN] created this website because Xennon stopped playing Guild Wars and thus did not update his website with current data for 5 months. Having multiple websites for elite skills serves the purpose of information validation to the Guild Wars user as well as removing the dependency of being able to reference only one source of information", previously stated above. It has nothing to do with "Credit Seeking". It has to do with whether this link belongs in a guide. My question is why are the replies adverting the obvious question of whether or not this link is a valuable resource to the Elite Skills Guide? Why are you opposed to helping support the "Guild Wars" community? -Pigeon


 * Adding a link which was not a legacy source does convert the current meaning of those links into being nothing more than a directory of outside sites. "We are not a directory" is a valid reason not to expand the list beyond it's intent.  We fully support the Guild Wars community by providing a seperate link to the Guild Wars listing of official fansites.  As for vandalism, attempting to insert it once, then taking it to the discussion page would not be vandalism.  Continually re-applying the change while ignoring the comments on the discussion page not to include it, at least for now, is  an activity that borders on vandalism (although I would not classiffy it as vandalism at this point - more of a violation of the do not re-revert policy to me). --I am 161.88 12:45, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

Xennon should be given credit like everyone else (through edits). He should not be glorified and put on a pedistal, because no other user of this website is. If you want to give people credit give everyone credit in the same manner. If someone has a link; than anyone should be able to. If you have no objections I will start adding boss locations via images (and put the url to my website on the image as credit to my work is being deserved). If you want to give people credit everyone should be able to earn it in the same way.
 * Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, via we are not Wikipedia 85.214.59.14 11:37, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * No it is not ok to give credit on images Skuld  11:39, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Why is not ok to give credit for other users yet it is ok to give credit to Xennon. Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical? - Pigeon


 * They are different issues.
 * The link to Xennon's material dates to a time when we had little to no content of our own. It's a legacy link, that as I stated previously, I honestly feel could be removed at this stage as most of the data has since been independently researched within the wiki community.
 * For image contributions, we do not allow links to off-site images, and all on-site images must be released under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. --I am 161.88 12:06, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

"but the entire purpose of a wiki is to disclaim authorship and not overtly credit anyone" If you aren't here to credit anyone then why give references. Wow! This is funny!
 * We aren't here to credit the people who provide the contributions. However if we are ripping information from other sites, we credit the sites being ripped.  And no, ripping from your own site does not count as ripping. - 18:08, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

Ok, Focus People
There are two issues here. Please separate the discussions for each issues so we don't stay off topic.

Discussion 1: Should the new link to that Elite Skill List be removed?
I say yes, it doesn't add anything. It's just a mirror of our site (probably even used our site to some degree). On the flip side, it gives them publicity and it provides little benefit to the user. So, yes, should go. --Karlos 13:55, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I still fall back on "we are not a directory". For other Guild Wars community references, follow the link in the fansite article.  The new link added here was not used as the raw source for contributions, and can be safely purged regardless of the decision on the other links. --I am 161.88 14:07, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

The comments stated above by Karlos are completely slanderous. The creation of http://dumbgame.net/eliteksills was completely created by the cooperation of [SIN] guild members and many other Guild Wars players. We never plagarized any other skill listings information. This is why we do not have maps of Sorrows Furnace. If you have been to our website you would have seen it is not mirror of GuildWiki as well. Our interface was a unique creation of our own. Some people prefer our style as I am sure that some people prefer the style of GuildWiki. Please do no insult us be saying we plagarized any material or created it for publicity either. We never have recruited members from our website. If you had read my statements above you would know the purpose for why we created the website. Many people prefer the comprehensiveness of our skill locations as well as the detail our maps provide. The "Guild Wars" community have already responded with praise and other positive feedback for instituting this web-site. It offers many benefits to the user. --Pigeon


 * I am sorry, but we do not care how you created your list or what the Guild Wars community thinks of it. It is pretty clear that the general sentiment here is that we do not need to link to your site. You and Archangel Avoca have no significant contributions on the GuildWiki, and the claim that you are adding a link to your site from the GuildWiki for the interest of serving the Guild Wars community is of dubious merit. The GuildWiki serves the Guild Wars community by itself being the source of information that you think we should link to. Either help us with the Guild Wiki, or let us go our separate ways. Koyashi 15:28, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * At this point my gripe is not about having our website listed, it is about the slander about our work and our intentions on creating this website. We had nothing to gain from creating this website except the gratification from the Guild Wars community. Koyashi, do you think we did this so women will be flocking around us? Do you think we did this so we could be some iconic figure in the Guild Wars comunity? Koyashi, do you see ads, er. excuse me, "SPONSORS" on our website like GuildWiki? Surprise! We don't have any! You can see we didn't do it for the fortune! Koyashi I disagree with your opinion saying that our website did not contribute to GuildWiki elite skills "guide". Ultimately, if that's how everyone feels, then so be it. I am asking that you or your users don't slander our website. How would you feel if we said that Koyashi contributions are insignificant to "GuildWiki"? -Pigeon


 * GuildWiki is big, the ads are there to support the site Skuld  16:39, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Your intentions in creating your website, however honorable, are irrelevant to whether the GuildWiki should link to it. How did your link contribute to the GuildWiki's store of information? It didn't. You place far too much value in the link and far too little in what we are trying to achieve in the GuildWiki, which is to document the game Guild Wars. To answer your last question, I already contribute with the implicit assumption that my contributions will be judged harshly for value, and deleted if found useless. You are valuable as a contributor, but your contributions may have no value. In this case, people generally seem to agree that the link to your site adds no value to the GuildWiki. Koyashi 16:44, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Pigeon, Dude, I did NOT accuse you guys of plagiarism. I even CAN'T do that to begin with, because our very license says yuo can take EVERYTHING off this wiki, we don't care. All I meant was that players gathering that data must have benefitted from the wiki at one point or another (everyone does), I doubt you would argue that, but even if you do, it's not that important. To stay on topic, why should we keep this link benefit wise? It does not offer new info, maps, nothing. --Karlos 16:48, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Just to qualify Karlos' comments; the license states that everyone has the right to redistribute the contents of the wiki, "provided they [contents] are never used for a commercial purpose". That's clearly not the case with your site; but it needed saying in the unlikely event that others who happenned to read this got the idea of using GuildWiki content in a commercial venture (book, etc).  That sort of thing would be a violation of the license; but most other use is free. --I am 161.88 17:42, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * If you guys feel it truly has no value to GuildWiki, I am sorry to hear that. I felt our website could contribute to GuildWiki by offering another source to colloborate data for elite skills. I respect your decision though to not have it listed. Ultimately we justed wanted the community to know the resource existed. If I placed far too little in what GuildWiki was trying to achieve I wouldn't have lobbied so hard to have the website listed. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.149.214.94 (talk &bull; contribs) 17:03, 25 May 2006.

Discussion 2: Should we remove the link to Xennon's site?
This is a difficult issue to resolve. There is no glorification of Xennon or putting him on a pedestal here, we are bound by our very own information sharing license to make it clear when we copy from other sources that we note down those other sources. For 99% of the content here, that's as easy as the user's name being noted in the history with the exac edit he made.

For flat out contributions, like images we got from Guru, we place it in the edit notes that Image is a donation/gift from Guru.

But for a site that served as our reference for no less than 4-5 months while we built our own list, how do we state that? Do we go to each elite skill article and leave a note? I think leaving a note at the bottom of this page is sufficient on our side. It gives credit where credit is due and is not overly intrusive. If people hate that it is in somewhat advertizing for Xennon, well, tough luck, he DID provide us with all that info and we ARE obliged to state that. --Karlos 13:55, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, but since that time, the data has been re-researched, updated, corrected, and flat-out rewritten in many cases. I feel it's safe to remove that link at this stage, as the wiki community now has its own independant research on this data.  For the history of when the data was sourced directly from Xennon, the history of this page also reflects that accredidation, so I see no issue with removing it at this stage. --I am 161.88 14:03, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * What have we copied from Xennon, for reference? I seem to recall that Xennon himself was adamantly against us using his map images. If it is simply the information of what bosses have what, then Xennon is not the author of that, and we have primary sources (the game itself). When you have access to primary sources, you are not required to cite previous transcriptions in the humanities, to give a data point. Now, if we have copied original text from Xennon, this comment does not apply, and I would agree that citation is required in that case. 195.169.149.213 14:09, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Maybe it is possible to have an external resources article where we can list useful external resources and credit them if they were used. A critera would have to be established for pages to be eligable however. As far as this page, I think we have evolved past xennons original data and have been up to date so much faster than xennon . Guild-hall and guildwarsguru should be removed due to them not remaining current. --Draygo Korvan 14:15, 25 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The GuildWiki perhaps owes Xennon a bit of gratitude for helping it along in its early days, but the GuildWiki repaid him with a link to his site for all these months. I think we have to ask the question: what purpose is served by linking to Xennon's site today? By Xennon's own admission on that guildwarsguru thread I linked to above, he no longer maintains his list and has stopped playing the game. Should the GuildWiki link to sites that the GuildWiki knows to have currently inaccurate information? In my opinion, such a link does no one any good. Also echo all the comments above which state that the information in the GuildWiki no longer relies on anything we got from Xennon. The presence of SoC confirmations in their talk pages should prove that the GuildWiki has independently verified/obtained this information. Koyashi 15:22, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

Let me explain the situation. When dumbgame.net was added the title of the page was "External Links" not references. This is why it was added, because it was an external link to a site that explains elite skills. Then the argument against it being there was that that was a spot for references, but external links is not what references should be listed under. There is no arguement of if it is a reference or not; IT IS NOT. BUT, the title read "External Links", and hence it was posted. If there is going to be an "external links" section it deserves to be there. From what I have read there should be no "legacy" links because Wiki is by the people for the people, and credit should not be given to any one soul. If Xennon gets a link, then so should every other elite skill listing. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.242.132 (talk &bull; contribs) 15:44, 25 May 2006.
 * difference is Xennon didn't add his info to the wiki. Other contributor took info from Xennon's and put it on the wiki, thus the historical reason to credit Xennon's. A subtle, but major difference. - 17:53, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

Eliminate Section?
Time to take off and nuke that entire section from orbit, methinks. Who's with me? 194.47.250.233 12:58, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree completely. The links are legacy - to refer to the original sources from before we had our own collection of information.  Since that time, the wiki has grown considerably and all information has been re-searched and re-re-reseached independently by wiki contributors.  Any reference to the rest of the Guild Wars community can be reached via the fansite links that exist in multiple articles. --I am 161.88 13:07, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I see you've already eliminated the section. While I agree and won't revert it, I think you should have waited for additional opinions on eliminating the information.  But then, that's just me.  Someone else will revert it if they disagree.  Otherwise, I think we're better off this way - the data isn't currently a source of our data, and viewing the history pages can show it for when it was relevant. --I am 161.88 13:25, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I am neutral as to whether the section should remain or not, but I agree with 161.88 that the actual nuking was done hastily. One and a half hour 20 minutes with no response to a discussion point does not mean we have reached anywhere near consensus. - 17:56, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Uh, look at the discussion above. I've never seen the GuildWiki so much in consensus on any issue. Koyashi 17:58, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * 3 ppl agree and one disagree? That's not much, and I don't think that all happened within the span of the 20 min when anon asked "Who's with me". - 18:01, 25 May 2006 (CDT)

Link not working...
When i use the link on the main page all that happens is this comes up:

Database error From GuildWiki Jump to: navigation, search A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "MediaWikiBagOStuff::_doquery". MySQL returned error "1030: Got error 127 from storage engine (localhost)".

What do i do?


 * This is a common problem with this wiki it seems. I get it at times too.  Either try again to reload it or try again later. It's not specific to this page.--SK 01:07, 25 May 2006 (CDT)