Is it just me or is this quest no longer available? -- TurningL sml.gif 15:18, 30 March 2006 (CST)

Neither this one of the Luxon one is available anymore, the settlements are established now. --Rainith 15:38, 30 March 2006 (CST)
Damn, missed 2 x 2.500 easy XP. >:( -- TurningL sml.gif 15:44, 30 March 2006 (CST)
Gotcha beat. I missed 12 x 5000 xp (both quests per character) + 12 x 250 Luxon Faction Points + 12 x 250 Kurzick Faction Points. :( --Gares Redstorm 04:47, 1 April 2006 (CST)


Why delete this when we keep the Christmas quests? Did we ever decide on what we are going to do about historical data? I am all for wiping this out, but I thought there was a push to chronicle them some how. --Karlos 17:00, 30 March 2006 (CST)

I am a proponent of the teachings of the great philosopher Karlos, who writes, "We do not maintain how the game was, but how the game is." — Stabber 17:38, 30 March 2006 (CST)
The great philosopher Karlos was faced with much opposition in a nearby talk page and suggestions of Legacy categories and the like. Thus, the great philosopher Karlos wanted to make sure, as he always does, that there are processes in place, not individual human whims (because he prefers the Dredge more). The decision of that discussion, affects this quest. That is all the great philosopher Karlos is saying. --Karlos 18:15, 30 March 2006 (CST)
Well.. I know my opinion on this matter. I'm certain that we lose nothing by keeping this article (stamped with the legacy tag). If we get rid of it, then new players who perhaps hear references to this quest won't have an easy explanation at hand. It might not be particularly utilitarian but I don't think there is anything wrong with keeping legacy articles just for the fact they are interesting. Shandy 18:32, 30 March 2006 (CST)

The following is moved from talk:Establish the Luxon Settlement:

Quest no longer available? -- TurningL sml.gif 15:39, 30 March 2006 (CST)

If it's no longer available, I suggest saving the existing content on this talk page, just in case when Factions comes out this quest is avaialble again. Assume of course, that only the article gets deleted and the talk page remains. -SolaPan 16:59, 30 March 2006 (CST)
I second that. The content should be saved for historical interest regardless of the fate of this page itself. --Rain Over Pebbles 23:52, 30 March 2006 (CST)

It would be nice for histrorical referance but it would not work as a guide for people who still have the quest since when u go into the zone the level 24 boss is still there but it just gets complted right away.

Why would ANet take back these quests so soon before the release of Factions? And when only 3 of my 15 characters have done it? :P At least one of my accounts has around 2000 Luxon and 3500 Kurzick points. Shhh.... --Gares Redstorm 01:21, 31 March 2006 (CST)
The quest is not available to take it new. But it is available if you have not done it yet. Before the Update of March 29 I did the Kurzick settlement quest. I failed to finish the Luxon settlement quest. Today the buildings were there on both spots. While there were Kurzick people at the Kurzick settlement, there have been still the Ettins at the Luxon settlement. After completing the quest, getting the payment and returning to the settlement the people of Luxon had arrived. We may not know exactly when this quest will be finished yet. As long as there is a player out with an open quest on that, it may still be valid until the next update will erase it from the logs. My opinion: keep it with a special remark on this situation. As I am a newbie in changing content here, I would suggest that somebody more experienced than me will find a decision with this information. -- Michael57 03:38, 31 March 2006 (CST)
Why delete this? It is definitly more relevant and interesting than Snowball. And as mentioned above: We can never be sure that there is no character left that has this quest. --Xeeron 06:08, 31 March 2006 (CST)
I had accepted both quests on all my characters. I'd finished the Kurzick on on all and Luxon on one, so I still had two Luxon quests active. However, today, as soon as I walked out of Lion's Arch, the quest was completed, and I was able to walk back in to pick up my reward. --adeyke 14:19, 31 March 2006 (CST)

By all appearances, this was intended to be a fairly short term quest, leading up to the preview. I think it's definitely useful to keep something around for historical reasons (players are probably interested in knowing that there are such things as quests that exist for short periods of time, and the history of them, as much as they would want to know about holiday events). I don't know that we need to keep it exactly the way it is, necessarily, but maybe just a big fat ==NOTE== would suffice. Basically, this is something players would want to know about, so we should keep it. We show the history of Tyria, as presented currently in the game. I see no compelling reason not to chronicle major events in the history of the game itself, as long as we are very clear on the subject. --JoDiamonds 06:56, 31 March 2006 (CST)

Keep it. The quest is still there for people who accepted it, and I like keeping historical data around, although it should be marked with an obsolete or historical tag. LordKestrel 09:57, 31 March 2006 (CST)

I'm in favour of keeping the article, and it seems like most of the other people here are as well. I think we should keep it, and have a vote on changing the wiki's policy on historical articles. From what I've heard, that policy was decided ages ago in the early days of the wiki, well before the Mad King or Wintersday events. -- Gordon Ecker 11:14, 31 March 2006 (CST)

No opinion directly on the issue of keeping/deleting legacy stuff. I find this and the luxon quest more likely to return when Factions is released, compared to Wintersday and Halloween stuff (which would still be celebrated still, but perhaps the celebration will be different). But as I mentioned above, even if this article get axed, I'd advocate archiving the content somewhere (probably on the talk page), at least until Factions comes out so we can see whether ppl who bought both chapters will have these quests or not. If not, then they can be completely axed. -SolaPan 13:47, 31 March 2006 (CST)

Unlikely, as the actual settlements are, well, there already. Still, I would keep these articles. I think they're still moderately useful, and I don't like the idea of not explaining major stuff in the game updates list. --130.58 15:32, 31 March 2006 (CST)

I know I would be puzzled if I would find some information on a former quest and I wouldn't be able to find the information here. As much as I would like my information up to date and as short as possible, I would not like to miss an explanation here. As was mentioned above, any final decision should be postponed until the Factions release is out. We may not know what the upcoming release will do to this quests. At the same time there are at least 2 named NPC's in each settlement. I would think there is an option on additional or changed quests. -- Michael57 15:31, 31 March 2006 (CST)

I have mixed feelings on the subject of historical data. While an argument can be made for keeping historical data, care must be taken to ensure that readers do not think that this quest is still available. In order to do that you would need a template to put at the top of the page, the article would have to be reworded (possibly rewritten) to ensure that it doesn't give the impression of being current, and the article would have to be recategorized or decategorized. I don't like the idea of having uncategorized articles in the wiki, and I don't like the idea of having a "Legacy" category, or a "Old Quests" category.
The reason that we didn't have historical data in the early days of the wiki is, I think, mostly down to the number of contributors. There is far less value in maintaining historical data than in current data, and having few contributors early on meant that we had to focus our time on certain areas in order to catch up with the older fansites. Providing historical data seemed (and still seems) somewhat redundant. However, I can understand the argument that if you were to find details of a quest elsewhere and not here you might think the Wiki is incomplete, and I certainly don't want to give that impression.
So there I am, torn between the two options. My head says no to historical data, my heart says yes, and my stomach says "you haven't had breakfast yet! stop typing!" <LordBiro>/<Talk> 16:48, 31 March 2006 (CST)
Ok, 2 arguements from me:
  1. This is not a historic quest, as people can still have this quest active in their quest list. And we cant say anything for sure till factions is released.
  2. Even if it was a historic quest, we should keep it. The easiest way to deal with that would be creating a legacy note template. --Xeeron 18:06, 31 March 2006 (CST)
It's trivially easy to make sure users understand that the quest no longer exists (and I would be amazed if it came back, given what has actually happened in game; it would make no sense at all). We just slap a big colored bar like the {{spoiler}} tag at the top of the page, with a small explanation saying what happened (links to more current informaiton about the settlement, etc.). Even if people don't like that exact idea, it seems not hard to find something that will work quite well.
All things being equal, adding a "Legacy" tag and Category (and removing other categories) onto a page isn't much harder than deleting a page outright (and more importantly, catches people who would try to re-add it because they don't know it was removed from the game). It certainly seems right to me to have a Legacy Category, for people who actually want to know what has changed in the game (that isn't strictly covered in the updates). I don't know why anyone would object to such a category, but I guess someone can tell me. =) --JoDiamonds 22:23, 31 March 2006 (CST)
This is turning into a more general discussion about the legacy option. For starters I would keep the current data as it is (maybe some added comments because it is not available for somebody who did not catch it before the last update) until the Faction release. The second point of the current discussion is connected but it serves for a more general option and should be disconnected from this discussion. The general option should be discussed on a general level to make sure that the wider community is able to join there. -- Michael57 04:26, 1 April 2006 (CST)

I feel, it should be clearly marked historical, and for that matter sos hould the wintersday quest. There should also be a new section in the quests page were these two could be filled, along with the wintersday quests.

Yes, we need a category for historical quests, If quests from Wintersday are sticking around so should such quests like this. There is no reason to delete this page nor the other quest --Jamie 23:05, 4 April 2006 (CDT)
Some annon user added a comment that this quest is no longer avaliable so I corrected the spelling and put in a notes section but I am aware of the fact that the Wintersday quests don't have a similar comment and we need really need a "historial quest" tag on them all. --Xasxas256 18:20, 17 April 2006 (CDT)

Votes Category?

This article had a tag on it for Category:Votes; however, as I didn't see a vote being called, just open discussion, I've removed the category tag for now until an actual vote takes place (or is the vote tag now being used to flag what the wiki users perceive as controversial or policy making decisions? If so, who/what guideline determines that threshhold? I missed it.) --Barek 00:23, 18 April 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.