Talk:List of fansites/Archive 2

Placement

I suggest moving to an alphabetical listing to preclude any more 'who goes where in line' issues. Redshift 20:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded DemonicFahrir 20:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The table is sortable by ascending and descending order in any of the attributes, initial placement does not matter one iota. 22:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not in theory, no, but in practice as we have "Smaller, new fansites should not put themselves on top, give the veteran, bigger fansites the respect they deserve !!!!" and "Im sorry, how is place on a list relevant?" edits, then an alphabetical inherent listing might nip it in the bud. Redshift 23:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is getting silly with the constant re-ordering. However I think the list should be sorted by language first of all, or else it will become even messier. Is it possible to order it by language first, alphabetical second, and then bold or otherwise highlight sites that have been active for more than 1 year (or something similar)? Yalu 20:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

If you click the sortable button next to name and then the one next to language, it will auto-sort by language first and alphabetical order second. Highlighting or bolding entries would need to be done manually, the wiki software has no way of knowing how long a site has been active. 04:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding Felix. The request to change the order of listing isn't so that the list is sorted in any manner, it is so that there is a rule set to how the list is naturally ordered when the page is first loaded. The last couple of edits to the page have just been about changing the order to the listing and having a rule set for how the list is organized would prevent any kind of squabble as to which sites are first on the list naturally. Making it alphabetical rule would be the easiest, but a possibly better way of organizing them would be to find the date of creation (estimation would be fine, doesn't need to be exact) of the site and list them oldest at the top to newest. This would give the veteran fansites their due and the idea that 'new sites would inherently have less content due their newness' would make the potentially more informative sites at the top of the list. That way as well we are not ordering the list in a way that the sortable columns already allow the list to be sorted. Mattsta 05:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I do understand what you're proposing. I just don't think the effort of manually reordering and maintaining the list is worth the result when a single sort click will achieve the same thing. As for any sort of order based on seniority, there are plenty of older fansites that have been abandoned or were never incredible sources in the first place. It won't really help users find useful sites any better, and wikis should be organized with users in mind, not the honor of unaffiliated fansites. 07:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Having followed the discussion so far, I'm still proposing an inherent alphabetical listing. The end goal is for something simple and neutral to abide by. With that in mind, I can't say that I'm in support of additional or prior sorting to alphabetical listing, in part for reasons that Felix has already covered. Prior grouping by language is not necessary because the table is sortable by language and this does not directly address the initial issue. Also, the first field is the name of the website, not the language, and having to find the language and then alphabetize is an unnecessary inconvenience in editing. Potential 'language bias/ordering' is also not something that should come into play. As for age, age, as Felix said, is not an indicator of quality, nor is a fansite owed anything in what should be a neutral listing. If people want a fourth column of founding date, that's completely open to discussion, but again does not, in my opinion, resolve the issue. TL;DR: Having not seen any reasons specifically not to do so, I stand by the idea that an inherent alphabetical rule to entering a fansite on the list is the simplest and most neutral guideline. Redshift 12:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone wanted to alphabetize and maintain the fansite listing I would not oppose it. 18:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It is done. - Infinite - talk 19:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Infi. Redshift 10:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's also a good idea to catagorize the fansites by language? Dagoh 10:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

'Allo. As per above, I still believe categorizing by language before alphabetical order would make things too complicated, and one can easily click to sort by language if needed. (Note that alphabetizing was more of an entry issue, and less of a use issue.) Redshift 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This list is getting full

As this is slowly turning into a List of Guilds I think it may be time to resurrect the discussion on notability, and define a clear set of rules, actually make a second list of guild sites, or let this list degrade into a massive list everyone is overwhelmed by. --zeeZ (talk) 23:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd argue that guilds have no place on this list, unless these guilds provide an actual fansite alongside their guild's site. - Infinite - talk 00:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and i'm not sure, but i think there some people trying cheat the alphabetical order using "Guild Wars 2 - Name of the website" instead "Name of website" without the "-". --Qoff 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

In the same vein of what zeeZ is saying, I personally am doubting the utility of this page as it is. In a way it seems a little tangential in that here is a page haphazardly documenting other places that are documenting the game. I am not sure if that passes my understanding of what belongs in the mainspace. Just glancing down the list, it brings up a few questions:

• Is a list of fansites part of our purview? Is a listing of other sources of news useful, especially with impending release?
• Is this page likely to relay visitors to other language communities, and again, outside of redirecting to other language versions of this wiki, is that part of our purview?
• If at all, how and why does this page differ itself from any official Fansite Roster that Anet might have, and if it does differ, what is this page's role in providing an alternative means of publicizing for any links?
• Lastly, what qualifies a link to be on this page instead of a user page?
• Lastly lastly, do we want to wait another two years to answer these questions? ;)

I am curious to know what others think about this. Redshift 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, it's not something that adds value to the wiki at all. That is what references are for, at most.
• If users rather use a wiki in their native tongue (or another language that isn't English nor their native tongue), they should be free to do so. If we're going to promote something, promote wikis that offer what we fail to.
• This page is essentially a chaotic list of would-be-or-wouldn't-be acknowledged and linked to by ArenaNet. It should migrate to the official forums, if they will offer such luxury. If not it should become part of the fansites' communities. We're not a free advertising wiki; we handle main space advertising as unwanted, thus this list should be unwanted.
• Only officially acknowledged and supported fansites should be listed here (and the article should be moved to reflect such).
• No, we should sort this issue out before the BWE (or at least before release) if anything.

- Infinite - talk 17:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I would rather delete this. We are documenting GW2, the game. Not GW2, the fansites, or GW2 the community, or even the GW2 website (assuming ArenaNet would make a list like this in the GW2 website). This is a great example of something that only adds maintenance work without really adding much to the wiki. It's something that began in GW1W due to some issues over there, but we really don't have those issues here. Erasculio 00:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

We can make server pages for each server with a guild list and maybe a 1-line short explanation on where the name comes from (like [[Anvil_Rock| this]]). That way people can find out more about the guilds on their server, where guild/server forums are etc. It's up to the guilds then to list themselves there. Server names could then link through to any wvw ladders Anet would provide later on. --Ee 05:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually had a longer response to this written up, but after EC here's the TLDR: WoWwiki did that server guild list thing and it ended up being totally useless because nobody updates/removes their guild from the list when it moves servers, disbands or goes inactive. In a few years, those pages will be equally useless for GW2. -Auron 08:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree with Infinite's initial statement, Qoff's, and argue that the only outright thing we should keep are other language wikis (as Infinite says, linking to wikis which deliver we don't - I count other languages to be such) - everything else is, imo, subject to deletion. I am not against deleting everything else, or perhaps even the wikis. I am however against creating guild lists on server pages (hell, I'm against creating pages for servers due to how they're named after physical places in the game, accessible or not). Konig/talk 07:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I say delete this article, create a differently named article for other language wikis and add it to the navbar (I created the article at List of non-English wikis). If/when ArenaNet does their recognized fansite program again, we can document that. 07:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Sites with a massive userbase (like Guru or Wartower) or ones with unique resources (like PvX for GW1) should be mentioned *somewhere*, and this page is a better place than none. I'm not a fan of separate articles for each - a category could link to all of those separately, but for the most part the article would just be a short blurb and maybe a screenshot of the forum with a link, and that can be done more easily with a list. The list can be useful as long as it's pruned, but small one-off sites with nothing to offer and pretty much all guild sites need to be removed. -Auron 08:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but we'd still need to find some metric for determining whether a site is noteworthy and we'd have to deal with people adding their sites to the list. I really don't think we can just search through all the GW2 tweets and facebookings because they linked a lot of crappy little blogs and stuff. 08:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll also point out that Regina mentioned this page in one of her recent posts. So while I'm not a fan of the thought of maintaining such a page, I agree with Auron that there is apparently a need for a page such as this. We need to make sure it is really very easy to maintain. -- aspectacle  13:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should only list fansites that receive repeated mentions via Guild Wars 2's Twitter and Facebook accounts? - Infinite - talk 14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How many would that give us? 01:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any ideas on how to improve this, but I can certainly say that it is currently useless to me. I can hardly pick out the truly important sites, like GW2Guru, out of the mish-mash of vanity guild sites. —Dr Ishmael 22:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose just starting off by cleaning out the guilds, since we seem to be all in agreement that those don't belong here. Once those are gone, we can take a look at what's left and try to figure out a criteria for notability or whatever. -Auron 22:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Done that. Sorting out the rest can be done now. - Infinite - talk 23:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As a temporary route to go, I suggest dividing those of large community importance (e.g., GW2Guru) from the rest as I think those will end up remaining regardless so long as we have this kind of article. Konig/talk 01:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't think this is ever going to work if we use subjective definitions such as "large community importance". Erasculio 01:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the only things that we should link to are the *major* fansites (I know it's subjective, but we all have a pretty good idea of what those are [Guru and Wartower]) and the alternative language wikis (and PvX if and when it gets started.) Those are the only things that should go on the list, and everything else should be purged. We could have some vetting system for what constitues a major fansite, but I think it's pretty clear what is and isn't one at this point in time. Aqua (T|C) 02:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Erasc; I think that's pretty much what we have to use. If we put down a list of rules, someone is going to try to wikilawyer them to get their guild page/forums listed. If we just say "only major fansites with lots of traffic," then we can remove the ones that aren't major (which is most of them) and add others if it becomes apparent they're large/frequented by much of the community. -Auron 01:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that, in general, protecting pages is baed and antithetical to the open nature of wikis, but in the interests of minimizing maintenance and possibly drama, maybe it's warranted for this page? At least semi-protected, so that random people can't just pop in here and continuously try to re-add their guild pages. —Dr Ishmael 03:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I recently removed a couple of general mmorpg-related sites with no clear dedication or section for GW2. It's pretty easy to look at URLs and domains and determine if the site is actually dedicated to GW2, or if it's a general social networking site with space for GW2, or like those sites I just removed. Also removed one inoperating fansite. Mediggo 11:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion to delete the article

At this point I'm in favor of deletion. This turned from a totally bloated list of random sites to a constant stream of changes because people disagree on what qualifies and what doesn't. I'm not a fan of either version, so off with its head. --zeeZ (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If this page is just going to deteriorate into a revert war over one website that isn't really a "mainstream" fansite, then I think there are only two options: deletion or protection. This page is quickly becoming more trouble than it's worth, and if people are going to rage about their site being taken off the "GW2W lists of fansites" then perhaps it would be better if this list didn't exist at all. Alternatively, we could just make a list of the main ones (read: Guru, Wartower, and any other truly mainstream sites) and then protect it [at least from anonymous editing.] Neither option is really that good, but if this is going to be a magnet of unnecessary drama, then drastic action should be taken before it becomes a real problem. Aqua (T|C) 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I still say delete it, maintain a list of non-English wikis, and wait for Anet to do something with fansites. 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I second deletion. It sounds like it is entirely going to be so much more trouble than it will be useful. If we create a page for the more mainstream ones, and protect it, then we will eventually be bombarded by requests to be added from any fansite. So in short, I feel that deletion would be better than protection. Venom20 00:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm against deletion. We document the game and non-official sites are a big part of how people interact with the game. The current argument in favor of deletion is roughly: "it's too much trouble to manage." I think the solution to that is to establish objective criteria for inclusion. For example:

1. ANet-recognized GW1 sites that have a GW2 section/counterpart (e.g. GW2 guru).
2. Sites that appear in the top ten for Google searches. e.g. GW2 recipe search
3. Sites highly ranked in Alexa (perhaps > 1,000,000), e.g. gw2db.com
4. And, of course, the site must have a primary GW2 section or be dedicated to GW2.

Anyone else can try to grow their numbers by linking from the talk page. (Reminder: the above are possible criteria, but not necessarily the best ones; the idea is to show that it's possible to objectively determine what belongs on the page.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am personally not inclined to retain the page as is. This wiki does document the game, but I believe that essentially documenting the documentation of the game is outside of the scope (in part because in doing so we are no longer talking about GW2, but about a site about GW2). Establishing community-established, self-imposed 'objective criteria' still renders this page a list of 'somehow-qualified fansites,' which again invites and doesn't really resolve the current situation. Furthermore, I don't think that we should be taking the lead on this--I'd support a listing of ArenaNet-approved fansites as it might occur and should be their responsibility. This is not to say that members of this community aren't able, as many have already been maintaining this page, but in my opinion, that's the only real 'objective criteria': a decision that isn't subject to self-submission and continuous verification while still documenting the game of GW2 directly. The only other grouping is alternate-language wikis, which I view as really outside of the subjectivity question at the heart of the matter. Redshift 02:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Redshift. I believe this is the kind of thing ArenaNet should give to players, not expect us to make for them. If ArenaNet makes a list of GW2 fansites (just like they have a list of GW1 fansites), then we could link this article to that list, and period. If we have a list here, I doubt very much ArenaNet would bother making a list of their own. Meanwhile, this is too much work for too little gain - documenting a list of GW2 websites is not documenting GW2, the game, nor does it help us to document the game. Erasculio 03:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

ANet has done a poor job of this for GW1; I don't expect them to do better with GW2. (1) They very infrequently update their list (either to add sites or drop ones that are no longer maintained). (2) Their lists are incomplete, e.g. the official list has long ignored Guild Wiki, which has long been a popular primary (or alternative) resource. We are much better able to introduce players to information like this.

There are lots of things we document that are about pointing to non-ANet alternatives, like GW2 on Wine, unauthorized game mods (e.g. for GW1, TexMod), and so on. I still think we're saying, "hey, it's hard to maintain a list, so let's not do it;" instead, I think we should be looking for as many ways to help point people to useful resources as possible. This wiki will the best resource, but it won't have everything people want to learn... or it won't always have it in a format useful to everyone. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I am against neither deletion nor retention-under-strict-guidelines. However, with TEF's list, I would add three things: 1) It cannot cater to a single guild (or alliance should they come into play) at all (e.g., Guru2 has a guild section, but the website itself does not cater to guilds), 2) Exceptions only exist upon an official fansite listing, and 3) semi-protect the page to prevent IP who will inevitably ignore the criteria and add their own site onto the list. Konig/talk 06:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protecting sounds good to me. If they can't be bothered to request adding of their site via talk page, I doubt that they're noteworthy or enthusiastic fansite to begin with. Mediggo 06:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I support the additional suggestions (esp. not guild-specific site and semi-prot). I'd also say we start from near-scratch: start with the fansites on the official GW1 list that have GW2 counterparts/sections...and separate the list of non-English wikis. I'll make a mock up in the next day or so (unless support for "delete" is overwhelming and it's a moot idea). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not in favor of deletion; if we really can't come up with criteria, just put Guru, Wartower and the non-english Wikis on there and call it a day (as that would be a more useful page than nothing). The page will require a bit of work, but it's not at a point where we should throw up our hands and give up. We can make it useful - we just have to make criteria and stick to them (TEF's suggestion is a solid start). Wikipedia came up with arbitrary notability requirements for info sourcing and it ended up working decently well, we can do the same - and we should definitely try before just quitting. I don't have a problem semi-protecting the page though, most people seem to be in favor of that.

And as usual, I'm also against waiting for ANet to make a list and then copy pasting that. 1. The list will be equally arbitrary; ANet will have a small team throw together random criteria, and all guilds listed will be held to that. Quite honestly, we can make a better one - because we have more input from more sources and a hell of a lot more time to discuss it. 2. ANet sucked at maintaining their list of GW1 fansites - in fact, the entire program kind of died when Emily lost interest in it. That won't be a problem here. 3. What's the point of copypasting a list from guildwars.com? Why wouldn't we just... link to it? A copypasta page is less useful than a deleted one. -Auron 08:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Waiting on official listings is not proposed as an ideal, but even though it might be equally arbitrary, it wouldn't be arbitrary reliant on our part. We can make this page useful, yes, but this is contingent on us collectively establishing a means of criteria and a willingness to maintain this page. I don't think it unfair to say that it would be a third chance for this page (and hopefully one that works), and I do think it a valid reminder that the initial arguments are not simply limited to amount of effort but the suitability of this page in terms of this wiki. How comprehensive of a reference are we? Is redirecting to other resources really part of our methods?

This said, if we want to keep this page, then we need to commit to it. Organize it, vet it/request through talk, semi-protect it--whatever means, long or short, that make it so that there isn't a fourth conversation about this page along the same lines. Redshift 11:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a useful page for many users of the wiki, and it wouldn't be that hard to maintain. I'm in favor of keeping, protecting, and standardizing. Manifold 16:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Example, using one set of objective criteria

I've created a sandbox of what the article might look like if we applied the criteria above. This seems like an orderly and manageable list.

I've probably thrown out some useful sites because I didn't investigate every site on the list. Here's how I came up with the very small set:

• I kept any site that was listed on the official list of GW1 sites and had a similar URL on the original list.
• I included any site that included "wiki" as part of its description.
• I included any site that I learned about from several independent sources, which amounted to GW2 DB and Luna Atra.

Since there are obviously some useful sites that didn't make the cut, we can use them to test our vetting process.

• It cannot be a guild-specific site and it must have a GW2 section (not just a few articles).
• It should meet one of the following criteria:
  1. Hits: e.g. US sites show up greater than 1,000,000 rank on Alexa for the US region.
  2. Popularity Influence: shows up in top 10 in a Google search (e.g. GW2 DB shows up when looking for GW2 recipes).
  3. Utility Community consensus: person requesting its inclusion on the list makes a strong case as to why it's worth the screen real estate. Someone has made a good case that the site is worthwhile and the community has agreed.

If our vetting process works well enough, a small number of sites that I threw out will easily get restored. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, nope and yep. There's absolutely no point comparing US region hits for many, many European, non-english fansites, and about as less point using Google search as criteria as a good portion of Google results are 1) personalized and 2) region-dependant. I only agree on the last criteria, that we should accept requests to add fansites on talk page. Mediggo 06:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind what I wrote above, read it a bit more carefully now. Mediggo 07:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Unless there are objections, I'm going to replace the current list with the smaller version in my sandbox. (I've updated the criteria/phrasing to show that any site can get added, as long as the community agrees. But, by default, we start with the smallest list.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Know Your Fan Sites

Dragon Season is not a guild site. It got removed though. :/ We would like to be back on that list, if that's not a problem. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Tilion (talk).

I'm no wiki addict, but I believe I am in a position to speak for other fansites too being a fansite owner myself. DragonSeason is not a guild it is very much a fan site that even does double duty to deliver Guild Wars 2 news to english and the Greek audience. Compare their very non guild atmosphere to some other podcasts that directly impose their guild to their audiences. I won't name them from the list, but people editing here should know better before-hand. ~Peter, GuildWars2Live.com --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.9.19 (talk).

I restored your site to the list. It does appear more of a fansite than individual guild's social network. If anyone disagrees with this, edit as you see fit. Mediggo 09:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Tilion (talk).

I'd like to say here that this list is in no way official, and that while some discretion is preferred, nobody can actually be held responsible if the list is not up to date or if one of the "fansites" is actually directed almost entirely to their guild audience. My personal opinion is that simply taking news feed from official sites, or publishing links or embedded videos they did not make, does not count as a proper fansite, even if they consist of community speaking certain language or grouped by other ethnic qualities, unless they explicitly mention they are in no way a guild site and don't organize their community as such. But like I said, that's just my opinion. To me Dragon Season looks like an exception to previous especially since they translate some/all of their publifications and site itself. Mediggo 09:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

In general response, please understand that no offense is intended if a site is removed. With regard to "people editing here should know better before-hand," I'd say I have to disagree and that this is partially why this page is at a crossroads. I believe that it should not be the responsibility of the wiki community to verify or ascertain the nature of sites added here (and to continuously check on it and to maintain it as ZeeZ has kindly been doing), and it might just be that with the nature of the wiki as oriented towards verifiable in-game documentation that this site is not conducive to a page of this kind. There is a large discussion directly above about this issue; if there are recommendations or comments you would like to make, please feel free to add your voice to it. :] Redshift 10:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As a closing note to the above, it is the editor's personal responsibility to accurately identify their fansite in the notes section. We have zero obligations to actually visit a site that has been added, regardless of what the notes may state. - Infinite - talk 13:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed sites

Per discussion above, I've reduced the list to official GW1 fansites with a GW2 section and a few others that met other notability criteria listed on the page. Those removed can be found in the article's history and my user space. (I'll keep that active for a few weeks or so, to give anyone a chance to request the addition of their site. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Recommended addition: GW2 Database

⇒ Originally posted 17:07, 14 May 2012 at User_talk:TEF/sandbox/List_of_fansites#GW2DB

• Suggestion: GW2DB
• Utility: so far, the best list of recipes I've seen. (Also presents other data in forms different from GW2W.)
• Value to GW2W community: 3+ [Scale: (1 (useless) – 5 (invaluable) scale)]

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It is part of Curse.com and also has (by quick glimpse) rather fancy, interactive map. As such, it might have potential value to anyone who prefers old-style database as their game reference. Mediggo 06:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Added. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Recommended addition: GW2 Builds Dot Org

⇒ Originally posted 17:08, 14 May 2012 at User_talk:TEF/sandbox/List_of_fansites#GW2 Builds Dot Org

• Suggestion: GW2 Builds Dot Org
• Utility: so far, among the best skill building tools I've seen (all dimensions on one page). (Also, allows logged on users to save builds and others to comment on them.)
• Value to GW2W community: 4+ [Scale: (1 (useless) – 5 (invaluable) scale)]

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely recommended, their skill data is often times even more up to date than ours and they even offer links from their skills directly to GW2W. The interface is better than many of its "competitors" such as luna-atra, which had some trait mismatch and laggy response the last time I compared the two. gw2builds also uses Google login instead of its own, which is something I count towards ease of use. Mediggo 06:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Added. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the utility of the sites, but I am confused as to why there was a 5-hour window for comment on this site and GW2DB before being added. Were these initial suggestions ported from somewhere else? What's the rush? Redshift 07:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason to delay adding sites to the list? After all anyone can still comment and request their removal if they seem unviable somehow. Mediggo 08:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems at odds to construct a process and set of criteria that relates itself to community consensus and tries to solve the issue of arbitrary addition and then to pre-date comments (as they were added according to history of this page on the 18th and not the 14th) and to provide a five-hour period of comment before deciding community consensus has been reached based on one response. In essence, imo, o'course, the discussions above all hinged around delayed addition of sites to the list; were there no reason to delay then they wouldn't have occurred. Redshift 08:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously consensus cannot be created by just a handful of users but being bold can speed up the process. If there is no opposition to the edits, for a suitable amount of time of course, then it becomes the new consensus, no? Mediggo 08:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Speeding up the process does no good if it undermines it, and granted, this ventures into the valleys of subjectivity. I'm afraid I don't have much more than that to say at the moment; I just wanted to comment on the matter at hand. Redshift 09:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Redshift raises a good point about speed. I made a bold decision that the two sites were ok to add based on the following:

• GW2DB: that site is already in the top-10 list of Google results for "GW2 Recipes," which means it meets an objective criterion. In addition, it received recommendations from two frequent contributors who have demonstrated that they prefer a reduced-list.
• GW2 Builds: that site doesn't have the objective popularity of the first, but I learned about through four independent routes: in-game from two unconnected sources and two different forums. My suggestion was endorsed by Mediggo.

Both recommendations were made on the date of the time stamp; there was no predating. However, they were originally posted to the sandbox list (linked above).

Put another way, I made a bold decision that those sites would/should have made the first cut because they met the listed criteria and thus, one supporting recommendation was more than sufficient. In retrospect, I think Redshift is correct that there's no rush to update the list and waiting would add to the credibility of the process. I don't think it's worth the time to remove them just to prove a point, but I also won't object if someone else wants to do that. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

And I agree on that. I'm definitely not saying that we should slap as many fansites there as quickly as possible and hope nobody will make it to discuss anything before changes are made, no. I'm just stating my opinion... that I think being bold here is okay. Every autoconfirmed user can revert additions here and bring the discussion back on table if they feel some changes were made too quickly or there is something else wrong. Mediggo 17:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; it's much appreciated (and I apologize for coming across overly emphatic on my part). I was again mostly concerned about the process, in that I would like it to be the solution that it seems to be, but was worried that the initial additions that I interpreted as being the first of this process were possibly setting a confusing precedent. I am not against being bold, but in this specific situation, and with my own interpretation of the circumstances, I indeed felt like these first additions were establishing a 'new consensus' in terms of process/waiting for consensus that would not be as constructive in the longer term. Redshift 21:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Project Tyria

I'm adding Project Tyria because it meets the default criterion: it's a fansite made prominent by ANet, specifically in this post by Rubi Bayer. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Recommended addition: GuildWars2-Online.com

http://www.guildwars2-online.com is one of the main Spanish fansites there right now. We have nearly 4000 members, with more than 70,000 posts and growing. We have lots of daily activity, translating all articles, news and other content in Guild Wars 2 almost instantly.

The Alexa Rank is 121.657 (Global Rank) and 2.643 (Rank in ES) (today May 31, 2012) and Google (ES region) we appear in the top 10 results. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naiade (talk • contribs) at 13:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC).

Considering that there is currently not a single Spanish-language fansite on the list, I think bringing GuildWars2-Online.com on it would be a good idea. I think it's a little confusing that the site name or URL is in plain English and not giving out a sign of Spanish community that lies within it. Just an observation. Mediggo 13:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to add it based on Naiade's criteria, the fact that each of its forums has a recent post by a different person, and because the suggestion was made over a week ago without any objections since. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)