Talk:Frozen Chest

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


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


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


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


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

To reach a compromise, how about create a page that obsolete things redirect to, or make this page ONLY contain the legacy template. So whoever is looking up information that is old, will find out that it is no longer in the game, as opposed to not finding anything. This is assuming other ppl might read about the "Frozen Chests" on other gw fansites, thought it still exist, and come look it up on guildwiki. We would stay inline with the "no historical trivia that doesn't affect the game today" policy, but we also provide information (the fact that something is no longer in the game, and only this fact) in case ppl try to look things up here. -PanSola 20:24, 10 March 2006 (CST)
 * It's a solution, but why not just have a page with a legacy tag - I know I would be curious as to what 'Frozen Chests' were, and unsatisfied with finding out merely that they used to exist and no longer do. Why do we have to stick to this (as far as I can tell) pointless policy? Shandy 20:32, 10 March 2006 (CST)