Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Article retention 2007-12-24

We need some sort of policy describing what types of content we will have, no? Perhaps we could import the GWW one and modify it appropriately? --Edru/QQ 04:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of it would be a fine copy/paste, except perhaps guilds, builds, and future events, as everything we're mentioning is in the future. Calor (t) 04:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if we are the ones who will be making policies. But assuming that's the case, as most here do,I think the general structure, with it general 'everything related to GW2 except....' is preferable to a 'nothing is allowed except...' style. I'd prefer it be named content scope as it applies for sections within articles as well as full articles. Backsword 11:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I'd prefer to see "everything but" instead of "nothing but", and i don't care what it's named as long as it is suitable. Content scope is fine. Calor (t) 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Bump. Should we have something like [[:Category:Articles possibly not relevant to GW2]]‏‎ so they can be revisited later for stuff like Elona or Cantha, or should they be deleted for now? --Dirigible 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That category would make sense, and I'd support making it. I'd have to disagree with the deletion of Elona and Cantha articles however. They've got fairly significant sections in our only Guild Wars 2 Lore, their state has been roughly defined and has significantly changed from Guild Wars 1. Yes, possibly not relevant, but of interest to everyone who's coming to this game from Guild Wars 1. --Aspectacle 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Seeing as some are recreating them, I don't mind having such a category for showing "inactivity" until such time that we know for sure. -- Plingggggg \ Talk 23:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Original work

I've replaced "original work" with "an uploader's own original work (which is released under the GFDL when it is uploaded)". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Guilds

Woo, can of worms time. Is it necessary to retain any information whatsoever on player guilds? (with the exception, perhaps, of championship winners and the like). Things got a bit out of control on GWW, and there are now dedicated wikis for player guilds. Is their inclusion here really necessary? --Santax (talk · contribs) 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. I've argued that for a long time on GWW, as I think that player guilds are no more relevant than player prices. So far, no one has really objected to the lack of inclusion of guild pages on this wiki, and I have already updated one of the proposed article retention policies to remove them. Feel free to do the same here. Belar 02:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to, I think the issue maybe warrants a bit more discussion. Although to be honest, I can't see a whole lot of support for Guilds on here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see a need to support guilds. If in the future that becomes something the community would like to have, we could always change the policy, but I don't agree with guild support even on GWW. Erasculio 11:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the concept, both here and on GWW, but just to note... do we even know Guilds (as we know them, anyway) exist is GW2? :/ – Emmett 11:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

they will, because (somewhere, I can't remember where) they've said that guilds aren't racial based (so you could be one race and your friends can be others). That suggests there will be a form of guild. I'm opposed to storing guild articles though. ~ PheNaxKian 11:44, 25 August 2009

I don't see any problem with having the namespace, but for now I think we should work with the assumption that we won't need a player guild namespace or documentation, since we're not exactly sure how it'll work. We can always edit things later when and if things change. --Kyoshi (Talk) 21:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a decision that should be made when the game is up and running, and we know how guilds will look like. --Xeeron 13:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Original series

I think this should be made a little clearer for people. As we've been having people who think that there shouldn't be a link on a lot of pages... I like this though. I like the whole proposal as well. Ariyen 17:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)