GuildWiki talk:Criteria for deletion

Delete vs Keep

 * Moved from Talk:Refund point

I hope I'm not implying any bias by being the article's creator, but this reason for deletion ("We track the game as it is, not as it was") seems a little silly. If items or skills began disappearing and were accordingly removed from the wiki, new players using the wiki might not know or believe that the items/skills ever existed. I checked the policies and I don't believe this is listed as a reason for deletion anywhere; moreover, is Guildwiki not meant to be a repository of knowledge for all things Guild Wars? Pardon the clichéd term, but to say that something doesn't belong in the wiki just because it is no longer in the game but once was seems almost a little Orwellian to me.

P.S. If this is an acceptable reason for deletion, then the Denravi Sword article should be reviewed as well. 404notfound 19:38, 13 August 2006 (CDT)
 * the denravi sword still exists in the game, my monk has one. no one has any refund points. this point has been argued quite a bit. i, personally, agree that we should track the historics, but with a historic tag like the unfavored tags, but the community doesn't agree. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 19:41, 13 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Items and skills have disappeared from the game and they have been removed from the wiki, hasn't seemed to cause much confusion. --Rainith 19:45, 13 August 2006 (CDT)


 * None of which changes the fact that the very narrow criteria in criteria for deletion do not include one word about things no longer in the game. If the admins want a different deletion policy, they can either discuss it among themselves or allow a public vote, and then update criteria for deletion to conform to the new criteria. -- Gordon Ecker 00:47, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * See Talk:Frozen Chest and Template talk:Legacy. --Rainith 02:09, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I do agree that if we are going to say "historical content should not be kept" then it should be codified in GW:DEL. However, I do not feel as strongly now as I once did about deleting historical data. I do wonder if it makes sense, in some cases, to keep certain information. Let me clarify my point:


 * I do not believe we should include information in skill articles about how a skill used to work. This applies to articles on items or missions or anything else in the game.
 * I'm not certain whether we should keep articles that explain a term that may be available on the internet that relates to Guild Wars but is no longer in use. For example, if Kurzick/Luxon faction was removed then I'm not necessarily opposed to the article Faction (Kurzick) or Faction (Luxon) remaining.


 *  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:54, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd also throw in an exception to the updated policy for any obsolete information that has relevance with regards to plot, lore or backstory such as removed quests, the Luxon and Kurzick settlements and various holiday events. -- Gordon Ecker 06:20, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Couldn't hurt, could it? Guild Wars has its own lore with Stuff That Used To Be. Might be interesting, just give it a bit tag screaming "This article refers to items/events/NPCs that have since been removed from the game; this information is no longer accurate, and only serves for posterity" or something like that. Got your bases covered that way. Of course, I'm contradicting my own "just because it's interesting doesn't mean it's relevant"-theory there, but I forgive me. --Black Ark 06:39, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Backing up indent because narrow columns are hard to read ...
 * This subject has been debated many times; this isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last. To help reduce the frequency of these debates - or to at least contain them at one location, I do feel that the documented policies should be updated to better document the defacto policies of past practices.
 * My view on keeping articles vs. deletion is that we're a game guide and fansite - but I don't recall the site ever claiming itself to be a "repository of knowledge for all things Guild Wars". As such, here's my take on what to keep and delete:
 * Articles that describe game mechanics, quests, missions, skills, weapons, armor, etc - anything that can be utilized currently - should only contain information relevant to the current state of the game.
 * Keep Articles that describe special events and the related items and NPCs - documenting the event to which they were related (if an item or NPC becomes a regular component later, just document the current state, don't mention 'introduced in' such and such event - also, do not add in NPCs retroactively, only NPCs that were adequately documented during the event should be kept).
 * Keep Articles describing weapons that have been fully removed from the game, mentioning that they are no longer available (items still remaining should not be documented as 'changed' or 'nerfed' as of such and such date - just their current stats should be shown).
 * Delete Articles describing game mechanics that no longer exist (such as Refund Points, etc).
 * Delete Articles describing no longer relevant strategies (such as Book Trick, etc).
 * To me, it's more important and informative to document what's relevant to current players - strategies and game mechanics that are no longer relevant to the game do not serve any value to newer players except to confuse them with no longer relevant trivia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:21, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I moved this here since it is more to do with general policy on deletion than it is to do with refund points specifically.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:34, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree that articles describing game mechanics should only contain information regarding the current state of the game. I agree with every point you make Barek, except that I do not agree that having an article on refund points that is clearly marked as historical will confuse readers.


 * As I said above, if ANet were to remove something that plays an important part in the game at present I no longer think I can justify omitting that from the wiki completely. The reason for this is that so much documentation outside of the GuildWiki exists that is not as well maintained as our documentation. I would rather a reader came here and found out that refund points no longer exist than they came here and thought we did not bother writing about refund points.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:42, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * What if a user has heard mention of such things as Refund Points or the Book Trick, and comes to Guildwiki for answers? You'd expect us to know these things. And we do. Or... we did. --Black Ark 12:10, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree with Barek in most points, but I also think that we should keep articles which some players might search for. Especially new players might be interested in the removed chests or book trick as they are mentioned in numerous other fansites. We can easily delete such articles as the useless NPC near Fisherman's Haven who was removed from the game as no one will probably search for him anyway. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * You'd better not be talking about Crafter, that guy is awesome! A lot of people are interested in the mystery of Gwen or whatever, I have to be honest, my care factor for her it pretty low. But Crafter, now that's a real mystery, this guy in the middle of nowhere selling armor, but not all armor, only certain types for certain professions. Why is that? How did he decide whom he'll craft armor for, why is he standing just there, wouldn't he get more business in town? I think that was one of the first articles I ever edited, it was and still is the primary reason for my continued existence here! If he did pack up and leave that would only serve to further his mystery, we should really have a category for Crafter lore but there wouldn't be enough articles to put in it, indeed that's how mysterious he is!


 * Ok think hard, how are you going to tie this in with the actual issue being discussed here...!?...Well firstly I think that the Book Trick is incredibly well known in the game, I think the GuildWiki would be poorer for not documenting it. (Just keep watching this space, I'll somehow tie Crafter in.) I mean people still say Tombs occasionally and our article documents it previous incarnation. Just because something has been removed from the game doesn't mean that people don't still refer to it.


 * Either way I know where I'm going to when I get home from work tonight, to Stingray Strand and see if Crafter is still there. Even if he has gone I won't be disappointed, the mystery and his mystique only grows and his memory will live on in the hearts and minds of those he has crafted for and of course his legend will be documented on the GuildWiki, as it should be. This would have to be the best thing I've ever written on a discussion page, I'm taking my pants off right now! --Xasxas256 21:14, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Not Crafter, the NPC found between Fisherman's Haven and Sanctum Cay that never even had dialogue. Though, suprisingly, there are more of those NPCs out there, one I ran into the other day in Twin Serpent Lakes. Another was in Talmark Wilderness. Anyways, I've always been a "knowledge is power...and interesting" guy, so I support legacy and I think I did in the last discussion we had about it. -Gares 22:17, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * So you're telling me I wrote all that crap for nothing? /shakesfist. Seriously that's all I've got, that and perhaps /bangsfistondesk and /putsfistthroughmonitor. Although if I did that it might become a removed item, I wonder if they'd document that here at work. I forgot about the interest factor, I also think that it's interesting to see what was. --Xasxas256 22:30, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Barek's proposal is very well thought out, and I strongly support this becoming policy. I would support an outdated information article that briefly summarizes popularily-referenced, yet non-existant information in the game, like the book trick and refund points. The articles deleted due to the push to document only the current state of the game could simply redirect to that single outdated info article.


 * Justification: if the wiki only documents the current state of the game, "refund point" and "book trick" no longer exist in-game, and thus should not exist on the wiki. However, no matter how the game is updated, outdated information does truly exist in-game, and thus should exist in the wiki as well.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 23:29, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think it's a good written description of our current, slightly unofficial, policy and I also agree with it. But I personally would prefer a template which includes a banner and category. If you search for Book Trick it shouldn't the 10th link on a page called "outdated information" I reckon, it should be on an article called Book Trick which clearly states that this game tactic is no longer valid and is kept for historical purposes. --Xasxas256 23:40, 14 August 2006 (CDT)


 * As outlined by Tanaric, the search wouldn't bury the item because an article under the original name would still exist as a redirect to the central article - the redirecting page would show prominently in the search. The bigger problem to me is that the central article would either be too vague to give any meaningful information about the subject, or would grow excessively large if subject sections were added within the article for each subject removed from the game - so I really wouldn't want to see that method.
 * I must admit that, while I'm not convinced to change my opinion on this, I can see some merit in the argument to change towards keeping some legacy articles. But I wanted to spell out a bit more my reasoning for being against it.  For me to change my opinion, these issues would need to be overcome.
 * One of the bigger problems that I see with keeping legacy articles is how to handle false rumors of items, NPCs, game mechanics, or strategies that supposedly were once in the game but were removed - as we can no longer confirm/verify info on removed items, how do we prevent the buildup of well written fiction posing as legacy facts? I see these periodically already - a legacy tag just makes them harder to fight.  Do we go from memory?  Have a disclaimer in the banner?  Have a discussion to try to reach concensus on if it being a real legacy subject?  A well written fake could draw on enough pieces that were real to make someone question their memory; or even be originated in other forums - resulting in a large population who would claim that they heard that such-and-such was once true so they would argue to keep it, making it harder to fight the fluff.
 * The other problems that I see are how to maintain the quality of articles after it has been created and tagged as legacy. Again, false rumors would result in periodic changes.  Over time, as old-time players drop out, this becomes harder to patrol and keep clean.  Then there's just the style and formatting questions: how much is adequate to keep - all the detail or a summary?  Do we try to recreate articles for subjects that were previously removed before allowing for legacy tracking?  If so, how far back - to initial release, or even items that were in beta weekend events but were released prior to actual release?
 * Some of these are higher concerns than others; but to me they all would need to be resolved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:24, 15 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Start now. Keep writing the articles. Should Anet implement changes that render the articles out-dated - or as it were, candidates for a legacy-tag - then tag `em, protect `em and put them in the archives for those interested. With articles that date too far back (Wossname the Meek, Signet Rings) stuff that's too fuzzy; stuff that was too experimental; stuff that had no real merit to begin with when it was even in the game - keep them under the blanket. Things that did have an impact (removed quests and events, Book Trick, Refund Points et cetera - stuff that's still in people's memory); rewrite those articles. Tag `em, protect `em. Sounds good, right? I know. And still people think I'm just a pretty font. --Black Ark 01:35, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

Personally I think that we should not have one large article, as it could get out of hand. I will outline the process that I would like to see occur should an element be removed from the game.


 * Refund points are removed from the game.
 * The refund points article is altered to reflect this.
 * Articles pointing to refund point are altered.
 * Refund point is marked as legacy/historical.
 * After a short defined period the article is locked to prevent future changes, including S&F changes.

I think it's important to lock the article because, as you point out Barek, changes could be made to the article in the future and we would not be able to substantiate any claims regarding the removed entity. i.e. someone could now claim that if you type /refund you would get a refund point. We have no means to disprove this.

New historical articles are a different matter. I'm not sure how they should be treated.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 01:39, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

P.S. Just had an edit conflict with Black Ark, I pretty much agree :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 01:39, 15 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Just a quick short note that I generally favor keeping articles of things that have been removed from the game, as long as they are clearly marked as such and all links to it are updated. The article doesn't take much space on the server, nor does it use much bandwidth, so keeping it doesn't hurt much, even if it's for reference / historical documentation only. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 04:39, 15 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Same here. I'm in favor of keeping pretty much everything except out of date skill information, because anyone looking for information on previous versions of skills can check the edit history on the skill pages. -- Gordon Ecker 04:49, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

Thanks for the note Lord Biro, been slacking on my wiki time lately. Getting too hard to keep up with things here. :(

As far as this issue, I am against it. (Big surprise, I know) :) There are several categories of "obsolete" information in the game: To me, none of these types of information is useful one month after the fact. On the flip side, it is information that is very hard to maintain. Locking up articles (a solution too many have been throwing around lately) is simply a solution I refuse to adapt for anything but the most dire situations. Locking an article simply because a user edited it and we no longer have the means to verify the edit flies against everything page protection is for. Since when is Page protection meant as a "we don;t nee dmore info, thank you" tool?
 * Items: Items that have been removed from the game or nerfed permanently.
 * Game mechanics: Skills, attribute points, limits on attack speed, ....
 * PvE storyline/locale: There didn't used to be a Sorrow's Furnace, there was that Meek guy by the water near Sanctum.
 * Player culture: Tactics/expressions that have gone obsolete. e.f. Book tanking, UW 55 soloing, Air Spike with Chain Lightning.

What if we had it wrong to start with? Someone edits What's His Name The Meek's legacy article to say that he was level 10, not 15, and he was right. How do we know? someone edits the Nerfed Super Axe article to indicate that it was extremely useful in farming Griffons in the Desert. This is not incorrect information. Why remove it?

I think we adopt a common sense apporach, If users create articles for an item over and over, then that's an indication that maybe we should leave a note that says the item is a farce or is no longer there (like we do with Silver Armor or like we should do with Terror Shield). But I don' think we should make it policy to record the game as it was (opening a whole can of worms) just to please a few curious readers.

I am, however, too tired with this system of re-hashing debates over and over and over and over. So, I am done. Do as you all wish. --Karlos 05:28, 15 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The wiki has a whole lot of weird quick references and such which only a few persons use. I don't think that keeping or deleting a page should be decided by the amount of users searching for the info. If even a few people are looking for the info, we should have it. There is no harm in having the articles, but there might be some benefit to someone. Why not do it? I'm personally against protecting the pages thou. I don't think that people will go adding false information. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2006 (CDT)


 * And now refund point has been deleted out of process despite the general concensus despite the general concensus here that the page should not be deleted until after the deletion policy is formally revised. -- Gordon Ecker 04:58, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

The good thing about being away is that answering to debates is so much easier: Most of what you want to say is already said hehe. My point of view is that old content should be kept with the legacy tag. That way there is no possible confusion about what currently is implemented in the game, but people searching for it find the information. Btw, in 10 years time, you will all be very happy to review the book trick page and say "ahhh the good old times". Or look at the dragon festival missions again and laugh while thinking about the fun you had playing dodge ball. The objection "we dont have a way of proving stuff is correct" is not irrelevant, but I doubt it will ever become a problem. In general we should stop editing once an article becomes legacy, but even if someone comes along and changes lvl 15 to 10 (and I doubt many will), would it really matter? --Xeeron 06:38, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * if we are going to even entertain the idea of preserving historical content, could one of you admins restore Template:Legacy? if this is not possible, i can create a new one. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:13, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I still disagree with this in concept - but if its going to be done, a legacy tag is a must. I'll go ahead and restore the tag.  If the discussion continues and it is decided to remove it again, that can be done later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:18, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * If we are going to keep historical stuff, then restoring Frozen Chest and some other old friends might be wise. Are we going to keep it all, or just those things that we think might be searched for later? One more thing: We want all Legacy articles to be removed from other categories and added to Category:Legacy. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I personally don't think we should go to too much effort to resurrect old articles. I purely believe it is a case of reducing the number of deletes brought about by game updates.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:22, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i'd like to see those pages back, if someone can fondly remember it, then that's fine, but i don't think admin's need to go digging in delete logs for stuff. this should not be a dumping ground either. those pages will have to be rewritten to show their historical status. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:28, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Some, such as Frozen Chest and Lost Strongbox, it's nothing but pressing two buttons to restore the information. That only works, however, if the name is the same as the original article's name. -Gares 14:42, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Personally I think everyone is jumping the gun. This has not met the criteria laid forth in Policy to change the policy. That states that a concensus must be reached that the policy should be changed. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a consensus is: An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. And the whole group does not agree that this policy should be changed. --Rainith 16:04, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * are you sugguesting awaiting a response from every registered user, including the inactive majority? how far do you intend to define consensus? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:26, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I didn't think this meant changing the policy since these "legacy" articles are not specifically under the criteria for deletion. Some would say they match up with the not marked for delete statement of "The page's content is unique or useful". However, it's how a user perceives the statements. The policy is fine, though somewhat vague. It was my understanding this was about perserving historical references of in-game world of Guild Wars. -Gares 17:07, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Unless there's a reference in an existing policy someplace, I think this is another instance of needing a policy. Past practice, which has been the defacto policy since before I started contributing to the wiki, was that the site documented the game as-is, not as-was.  However, entries related to special events have been allowed to remain regardless.  The outline that I provided several posts up was what I believe should be documented policy based on this past practice - changes, if any, should be made from that point.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:20, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I believe no one is disputing what our policy IS and that there is a request to change the policy. As such, I agree with Rainith that people are jumping the gun. Gares, we have erased "was" content before, a LOT. Sarah, Consensus is defined as the overall proponents in the dispute reaching a middle ground and moving forward. It is not defined by a set number of people. I believe the champions of the "legacy" tag should first exert effort in convincing those who are still stuck at "we don't record legacy" that we will. Once we agree that we will, then coming up with a template or undeleting one is really a trivial task. I think it's more important to mark that as it stands now, recording the game as it was is STILL not acceptable content with the exception of the special events (which I personally would not mind seeing gone). --Karlos 21:51, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think we should have a vote on what to do with each of the roughly half dozen categories of historical information (game mechanics, strategy, items, events, NPCs, monsters, quests and anything I'm missing). I'm in favour of zapping obsolete strategy and game mechanics and keeping everything else. -- Gordon Ecker 22:25, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I would like the following things to stay:
 * Special event stuff: These are allready kept. The articles wouldn't be useful to create for a few days only and they really are interesting to read later.
 * Removed in game stuff like the chests, NPCs and such: These might be refered to in other fansites. Some of them have been a big part of the game earlier, like the removed chests.
 * Removed game mechanics: Refund points and others might still be refered to on other fansites. I don't feel so strongly about this stuff, but if verythign else is kept, why not keep it all?
 * I'm not sure if I forgot anything, but generelly I think (at this time) that everything should be kept as I cant come up with anything that shouldn't be. I would also be happy if only those things with significance are kept, like the refund points and the frozen chests. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * gem brings up a point i'd not considered. is the absense of something relavant to the game? not everyone comes to the wiki without preconceptions. they might believe that this chest exists or +15% always or whatever. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 00:04, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Exaclty my point. And has been for the whole time. Good that someone noticed it. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Regardless of which decision we eventually come to, I think most of us can agree that the policy needs to be more clearly defined. -- Gordon Ecker 00:36, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I can actually get on Wiki now ;). In response to Karlos' "we have erased "was" content before, a LOT", that is a practice, probably due to someone first deleting one article, then snowballed with others following. That is usually how these practices first start. Just as if someone took initiative and began running with this and it snowballed, a new practice would be born. As this discussion lingers on, I find myself more neutral to the subject. I still think this has potential, but I doubt there will be a compromise, and as the past has shown, nothing will change. -Gares 07:49, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Past practices (that have been running for in excess of a year now) established a defacto policy of deleting as-was content, regardless of it being recorded. By the admission of all those who want to change that practice, it has been the established practice in the past.  Any attempt to change would require an agreement, just as changing a properly documented policy would require. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:23, 25 August 2006 (CDT)


 * so what was the final disposition? keeping legacy or not? we've a category and tag set up. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:13, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I believe the tag and category should be deleted until this is resolved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:23, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * so we are 12 days in and no forseeable agreement. lovely --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:37, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

theoretical builds debate
See GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Builds

signing delete tags
does anyone actually sign delete tags in main namespace articles? could this policy be changed to reflect? --Honorable Sarah 11:53, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't know enough about template scripting (have learned from trial and error), but is it possible to insert (three tildas) and have them automatically convert to the user's name?  I'm not sure if the substitution of the user's name will actually function from a template, so it would require some testing.  As it is, I frequently double check history on many delete requests. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:05, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * none of the existing delete tags, no any of the deleted delete tags, have signatures. since signing edits to articles is not accepted beheviour, why should a delete tag be different? this policy should change to reflect the current process --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:20, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * That's right. All you have to do is check the page history to see who places a delete tag. Is there a reason why a signature is needed? -Gares 12:18, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I can just as easilly continue checking the history tab, so I'm more or less indifferent on changing the policy. But, if it could be added to the delete tag, then I would support that as it saves a step for me and any other admin that checks for some deleted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:31, 25 August 2006 (CDT)