Talk:Terror Shield

Looks like this item indeed is a fake. Quoting Gaile Gray: ''I am thinking the whole Terror Shield is very questionable. Our designer and I have both not heared of them. Maybe a "creative image work"?'' See here. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 05:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Its very possible it is, the only reason I added it was because of [this video]. It looked pretty convincing to me.  We can always remove this artitle and all mention of the shield later if it does turn out to be fake. | Chuiu 13:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Gaile Gray's statement seemed to confirm that the shield is fake. But Isaiah Cartwright's statement implies it may be real. I added a note about the possible hoax to the article until we have a confirmation. --Fisherman's Friend 06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The first time Gaile was asked about the IDS, she said something like she thought it would go away after the holidays, but it sounded more like she had never heard of them before. The popular story is Izzy added the IDS to make people stop bothering him about their existence after the fake images or whatever from months ago.  Maybe he added a shield to go along with it.  --Fyren 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was confirmed a fake by Gaile it seems. You can read the topic here. I have to say though, they did a nice job faking it, heh. Sorry, but I'm too sleepy to edit it myself! -Talonz 04:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, I think Gaile's comment on page two of that topic settels the discussion. But I agree, that's a rather good fake. :) --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 15:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I know of a few people who could pull it off since the GW.dat file has been hacked its quite possible that somebody with that information could have created their own personal server and replaced a shield image thus creating a new shield. | Chuiu 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No need for their own server, the textures and text are all client side, so they'd just have to hack those changes in the data file, load and take a few screenshots. Other people would just see it as a normal shield. --theeth 22:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How to treat items that do not exist?
I'd prefer not to see the article deleted, people are liable to hear about it and then look it up on the GuildWiki, I think this article should just make it clear that it's a fake. --Xasxas256 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to group this under a new headline. I had the same thought. This item certainly has a reputation by now and chances are that, if deleted, it will be re-entered by someone who didn't read Gaile's statement nonetheless. However, I'm a little uneasy about keeping articles about myths and hoaxes. I'm sure it will bring some problems. For example, how do we categorize an item like this? Does a shield that doesn't exist belong into category:shields? Make a new category:hoaxes? --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 05:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would we need to give it a category? We have already agreed that not every article belongs in a category.  And yes, I think we should keep this article, possibly put a link or mention to it in Scams.  --Rainith 12:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, no need to create a category that will probably only have one or two articles in it, I'm still in favour of keeping the article though. It should be very obvious that the item is a fake though, bold font a big colorful box, whatever saying so. As for mentioning it in the Scams article, that sounds ok too but it's not really an in-game scam is it, unlike the ones currently in the Scams article. --Xasxas256 21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In reference to Stabber's point, I think this article should stay and even be mentioned in scams. It is an in-game scam at the moment. Maybe in a few months it will fall into oblivion. --Karlos 16:01, 10 March 2006 (CST)


 * Long term, the right answer may be to have one page with Fake Items, and have redirects to that page. I think we want at least that much (i.e. most of us agree that we shouldn't try to delete all references to fake items from GuilkWiki).  I don't strongly object to having one page per item (like real items), but it seems like it may be overkill (and, frankly, encouraging other people to do similar things so they can be famous too). --JoDiamonds 23:09, 10 March 2006 (CST)

Revert: Process for it
I removed the description of how the Terror Web was created. While some part of it could likely be worked back in, I didn't see the overall value in it. I was also concerned as a texture editor, while not a "hack" to gain strategic advantage, it does venture into a gray area where it's a third party program that modifies the user's in-game experience - so I'm not sure how ArenaNet would clasify that as to "The Expectations" re hacks for a fansite. I could see an argument both ways on this, so would like a discussion before its added back in. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:27, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * There's nothing really wrong with his edit. --Fyren 17:24, 15 September 2006 (CDT)