Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Community portal

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
(Redirected from GW2W:CP)
Jump to: navigation, search

Community Portal

Lost in a sea of projects, formats, and debates? Look no further! These are the current hot topics, and you can find previous topics here.

To begin a new topic on this page, use the "+" button at the top of the page.

If logged in, you can also add this page to your watchlist to track any changes and stay on top of things!

Old topics are archived to these subpages.

Removing Sensitive & Public-Facing Data from Anet Employee Pages[edit]

Due to the recent Reddit witch hunt, which so far seems to have resulted in Chris Cleary deleting his reddit account, and past occurences (JP debacle), I would like to propose to remove all kinds of public-facing data from ArenaNet staff member pages. The wiki as a neutral place should not provide the means for an angry mob to look up vital information such as twitter, reddit and/or other social media accounts. Yes, social media accounts are mostly publicly accessible, but we should neither "serve it on a silver platter" nor enable people. Similarly, we need to ask ourselves whether it is morally acceptable to add profile pictures taken from streams or other sites to employee pages. Yes, taken from streams those screencaps would technically count as ArenaNet property, but without explicit permission of the staff members in question, we should not have these images on their pages, else it counts as violation of privacy. Thoughts? User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 20:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I support it. I'd hate to see the wiki became a way for (angry) users to track down developers' social media accounts. —Ventriloquist 20:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Assuming you're including LinkedIn on here, agreed b/c that data's just too close for comfort. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 20:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I support it as well. Some might argue, that angry users can track down developer/employee social media accounts even if they are not on the wiki, but removing them here makes it A) harder to get and B) avoids any kind of backlash the wiki might get for providing the info. As for images on the employee pages, at the moment i would generally remove them (if the image wasn't explicitly added/provided by the employee) and maybe create a form were employees can grant us the rights to use a picture/provide one them self. Same idea could be applied to the social media accounts. Almdudler (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good, Alm. And yeah, LinkedIn URLs should be removed as well. If there's no dissenting voices, I'll give the employee formatting style sheet a look and go through staff pages tomorrow. User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 21:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Just tell me what exactly you want removed/deleted and I can crawl through them with a bot (assuming there's quite a few staff pages) -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 21:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I support Inc's proposal as well; I've always been a bit hesitant listing LinkedIn information on devs' wiki pages for this very reason, and the pages are easily reachable from Google if someone needs to update relevant job title info. --Kossage (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I have no object, just a question: what if the staffer themselves put it on their own page? - Doodleplex 22:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I would say in all cases, curate the information (i.e. look at the history) to see if the staff member appears comfortable with what's present. G R E E N E R 00:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This is now done. The only thing left for discussion is whether we should be removing images as well. 80% looked fairly "private" to me. User Incarnazeus Signature.pngtalk 08:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Although the removal of the links do make these pages less useful, I can understand the purpose of this. However, I object to the removal of screencaps of official videos. These are neither private nor sensitive, and they were provided while these employees represented the company in an official capacity. They also provide no benefit to witch-hunters. I agree that some review could be done on the licensing of existing images; some are listed as "Public Domain" when they are unlikely to truly be so. However, I would encourage this review to be done carefully without a guilty-unless-proven innocent approach. For example, the image of Stéphane appears to be a personal photo and not one provided by ArenaNet, but on closer investigation it was uploaded by Stéphane himself. Likewise, the image of Jon Peters doesn't have any obvious source, but a little research reveals that this is from the official Guild Wars 2 pre-launch blog. While some staff images may have been sourced inappropriately, many were not. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 13:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey, can we slow our roll on this stuff? I didn't even see this topic until I got into the office this morning and already people are changing formatting guides and talking about bot edits. This is a major change to the way we document something, and it should not be done in a hurry. - Felix Omni 13:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
to be fair it was just my suggestion to use a bot and it wasn't followed up. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I object strongly to all of these changes (not least of which how quickly it was pushed through.) The wiki is not beholden to angry reddit mobs any more than ArenaNet itself is, and we should not be preemptively removing content based on speculation of what Joe Theoretical Angry Gamer could do with it. Many of the blogs and social medias Inc removed have been displayed for nearly a decade with no apparent issues. We don't preemptively protect articles to prevent vandalism, we only do it if they're actively being targeted (as we did with the "JP debacle," which took all of 10 minutes). Why would we remove information that's of real interest to users with zero evidence that it's somehow being misused? Frankly, I find it distasteful and entirely counter to our community values that some of you distrust our own user base to this extent. If we are to document ArenaNet employees at all, then it's entirely valid and valuable to provide additional background and context about them via their own chosen, personally curated platforms- which, by the way, are also often cited sources of lore and trivia on the wiki. Should we go through all our articles and delete every cited dev tweet and post as well? Of course not.

Now, I do think it's important that we accommodate ArenaNet employees and former employees if they personally request we remove their information, as several have done with their displayed photos recently. Stephane has communicated that to them, and they have plenty of ways of contact us if they want to. For anything beyond that, I do not see a need. - Felix Omni 19:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The wiki is here to document the game, not arenanet's staffers, so I don't think its a big deal imo. Employees choosing to post on their own personal LinkedIn pages doesn't qualify for reposting without their permission. Sure, if they've added links to their own pages, leave them, but I wholeheartedly agree with the early consensus reached last night, their backgrounds don't really have a place here.
Sure, angry man can track them down outside of the wiki, but that's not our problem if they know how to google. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 20:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
LinkedIn is a joke and nobody uses it except tech recruiters. I'm talking about the twitter links, reddit users, personal blogs. Stuff the devs actually use, which provides actual and ongoing insight into both the creators and the game itself. And again, I don't care what imaginary angry man does. It's not relevant to what content we do or do not display. - Felix Omni 20:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Twitter links and links to personal, not-game-related, blogs is something that should absolutely go. When developers put 'opinions expressed here are mine and do not reflect the views of my employer' in their bios, that's a sign that maybe we shouldn't link to that on their wiki, game-related, article.
"...I don't care what imaginary angry man does. It's not relevant to what content we do or do not display." Since an 'imaginary' person won't convince you, how about a real one? When the whole JP scandal happened, a lot of people were not aware of who she even was. Then other users would give them the wiki link, so they could see for themselves who she was exactly, and what work she did. Unsurprisingly, the link to her Twitter was right there. Did the majority of the tweets aimed at her come through the wiki? Of course not. But did it make the process easier? Absolutely.
Ultimately, we're discussing the removal of non-wiki-or-game-related content here. How does a link to a dev's LinkedIn benefit the wiki, or the dev's article? Sure, you have a more in-depth look into their work history, but is that something the wiki should foster? I don't believe so. We're not removing this information from the web, we're just removing it from an article about the dev on a wiki they worked on, which is not something I see as a bad thing. —Ventriloquist 13:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
JP's twitter handle was visible here for all of 3 hours. We didn't even have an article on her until the day after the tweets happened. You really think the wiki was a significant part of that? If anything, the JP situation shows that ArenaNet employees do represent the company and the game on social media, even if their bio includes a little disclaimer.
I'm seeing LinkedIn specifically come up a lot here. I'll concede that LinkedIn profiles are not useful information to include in articles, primarily because they are not useful information at all. We could remove those, along with any listed non-ArenaNet job history for employee articles, and I wouldn't object. - Felix Omni 14:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
And why was it up for such a short time? The revision literally states what has been said, it "only serves as an avenue for continued drama". Devs "represent" the game in the sense that they feature it on their dash, but their views do not reflect the job they work for as such. Why should we link to that? That's my main concern - putting LinkedIn aside, as you agreed - what benefit does linking to their Twitter have? You can argue that they post some lore tidbits here and there, as Peter Fries used to do, but it's far and few. Of the other links, I'd support leaving Reddit in, especially if it's a GW2-only account. —Ventriloquist 15:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
In that case one editor made a judgment call to remove it based on real and evident harassment toward the dev, and I think that was fine. But since the RMT fracas that spurred these proposed changes is already over, I'm glad this discussion can move away from knee jerk reactions and toward "what is actually useful for readers?" Reddit usernames and maybe official forum profiles (I think we've listed those on a few employee articles) are definitely useful for tracking dev responses that are specifically relevant to the game. I still would prefer to keep social media links (but not linkedin) because I think there's real value both in the occasional nuggets of game-related content they post, but also in providing a way to engage postively with devs. - Felix Omni 15:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If we're talking about 'wiki-usefulness', what is the reason for including staffers previous jobs? It's not related to the wiki nor game at all — the same reason we don't want to include links to their social media platforms profiles. ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I find the work history can be interesting if a dev was previously an intern and was then promoted to an actual dev/artist or some-such. It's also interesting to see if a dev has previously worked on other games or if a voice actor is particularly famous. I can see an argument for not including non-ANET history, but then there's weird blank spots. I do question on artist pages if linking to their deviant art/artspace/whatever page falls under the "too personal" umbrella? Because again, those are interesting and nice to have easy access to. --Rain Spell (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I think linking at least Art station should stay, as even ArenaNet themselves posted some links in the big PoF-related concept art article or what that was. ~SimeUser Sime Maraca Choya.pngTalk 01:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree that art blogs should stay, I randomly clicked on one artist's blog the other day and found some GW2 cinematic concepts and gifs that I'd never seen before. That's definitely relevant to the game. As far as job history, I think showing what an employee's roles at ArenaNet have been is pretty uncontroversial and should be retained. Where they went to school and what they worked on before and after ArenaNet, maybe less so. For voice actors we can link to their Behind The Voice or IMDB pages rather than giving a history of their work here. - Felix Omni 15:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Summarizing our conversation, feel free to edit this list when decisions are made. Keep discussing below:
  • We have valid reason to limit access to or remove certain information from employee pages. We're a game wiki, not an internal business database. We have no good reason to store large amounts of personal data on non-public figures.
  • Some employees contribute certain bits of information themselves and that's fine. The issue arises when contributors go full on-stalker and find personal pages such as employee's personal non-work twitter or facebook, etc. Even if the contributor means well, this easy access to someone who is NOT a public figure is questionable and can very quickly turn to DOXing if someone is nasty enough.
  • To fix this we want to do the following:
  • Update guidelines, forms, and templates for the ANET dev pages. These guidelines should outline what pages and information are "expected" as a hazard of the work place and what pages and information is too personal.
    • Artists with public facing Deviant Art/Art Station pages are fine. Public facing blogs should be fine. (I'm guessing exceptions made where necessary, if ever.)
    • Voice Actors should link to their IMDB pages, etc.
    • Developers and similar may have a work portfolio website. Unsure if this should be linked.
    • Images are ok if taken from an official GW2 stream or if submitted by the Dev themselves. Use a place-holder otherwise.
  • General Work history while employed with ANET is acceptable. Before and after is a bit stalker-y, but in certain cases may have relevance. (easter eggs, references, etc.) Use discretion.
  • It was brought up that a custom form be created for Anet devs where they can volunteer certain bits of information themselves. (i.e. pictures.) Accessibility issues?
  • On the subject of information removal, the jury is still out.
--Rain Spell (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
"Developers and similar may have a work portfolio website. Unsure if this should be linked." - going to vote no on linking to that one. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 11:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
If we're talking about like, a front end developer's list of previous clients' websites then no, we don't need that. For a game designer or gameplay programmer... maybe? I'm not really sure what that would look like. I think we could judge it on a case by case basis if it ever came up. - Felix Omni 14:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking in the cases where a designer or programmer may have made their own "business card" website. I don't think it would be necessary or useful to list client websites.--Rain Spell (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Do you have any examples of those handy? - Felix Omni 15:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Now that I'm looking I can't find any. I've seen them a few times on reddit where a programmer or web developer has their own professional website. I think that's a reasonable equivalent to an artist's artspace, etc. I'm really just throwing it out there because we're trying to set new guidelines, and so we can get all our bases covered. --Rain Spell (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow. As just a fan of the game, and its creators, I am saddened by the proposed removals of information. It seems such a pessimistic view of the playerbase and users of the Wiki. It seems to me, anyway, if someone wanted to harass an employee, there are plenty of ways to do so without using the Wiki. Seems unfair to punish the majority just because someone _might_ use the Wiki unresponsibly. I am especially disappointed to hear pictures were/are to be removed. I think many enjoy putting a face to forum posts, etc. Just my two cents. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Removal of pictures is only related to pictures obtained from sources other than official ArenaNet videos/blog posts. ❄The F. Prince❄ (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

New guideline draft[edit]

Okay, after letting this percolate for a couple of weeks I've considered the above discussion and written a revised draft of the employee formatting guideline, which can be found here. Please offer any feedback here on the community portal. - Felix Omni 18:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good. Do we want a section in the infobox that says if they're currently employed by anet? A simple yes/no question answer? Just so you don't have to scroll through to the work history.--Rain Spell (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Well upon checking, it turns out that the infobox does have a former parameter, which if set will auto-categorize the employee in Category:Former employees. However it's not actually displayed in the infobox, or in the template usage section for that matter. We can change that pretty easily. - Felix Omni 14:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this is a nice compromise. Seems to show the most important information, and leaves room for additional content. —Ventriloquist 22:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, it's been a month with no objections and given a couple of (well-intentioned) contributions today conflict with the draft I'm going to go ahead and move it up to "live." I'll go over existing employee articles and bring them in line with expectations over the next few weeks. - Felix Omni 15:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Wiki popups[edit]

Hi all, Darqam has suggested something really interesting over on Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration - might be worth discussing if we want to get behind this idea and make it happen. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I love this new (to me) feature in the regular Wikipedia. My vote is a resounding 'Yes!'. Inculpatus cedo (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Updating the runes and sigils[edit]

Hey there, I had a silly idea after looking at some wiki pages after the sigil and rune change. I didn't realize every recipe was entered manually. While updating the stats should be fairly simple, though time consuming, I feel like updating the recipes will be way more complicated, even though I imagine most of them will be standardized. Especially when you consider they are split between the different crafting professions and some have to be discovered, etc. Anyway, all that to say I played with the API a bit and made what is hopefully a more or less practical list of every recipe that's been changed with this update.

Being unsure where to put all that info, I made a project page for it: Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Sigils_and_Runes_update. If you're willing to help update everything, this might help a bit, you just need to search on the page the name of the rune/sigil and then copy/paste the recipes. It's not perfect, but I hope it's helpful. Sk8er Of Bodom (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

That's absolutely wonderful! Thank you so much for pulling that giant list of recipes from the API. G R E E N E R 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Acquisition of the Orrian temple marks for the LS4E3 collection[edit]

Hey all, I've come across some oddities when obtaining Orrian temple marks for The Tyrian Service Medal collection. In the last week, I got two of these marks when completing a defense event (Lyssa & Grenth), one of these when failing the defense event (Balthazar) and two when completing some pre-events (Dwayna & Melandru). I also failed to get one after completing a pre-event (Grenth).

I went ahead, assumed it could drop from any event in the chain and edited the mark pages accordingly, but it does seem like a very bold claim that can hardly be justified (item descriptions only talk about capture completion, game updates only talk about completing defense events for precursor collections and I didn't think of taking any screenshot). Any thoughts about what should appear on the pages? Aikan (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure I've received a mark during a pre event for Dwayna too.
My personal preference would be only to state which events have positively dropped it, and add them individually to the pages, rather than assume all events and verify later. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 12:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll modify the pages along these lines.
I'll also mention this as an anomaly. That way, people who need the mark and see the page won't necessarily wait for the capture event while others may work. Aikan (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Release v Requires[edit]

To quote from the discord "I'm getting so confused about release, I don't want to touch them anymore x.x" — JP and "I'm actually not sure I understand when we would or wouldn't use it now." — Adeira Tasharo, I think it may be better if we change the "release" parameter to "requires" instead. Less of a "when was it released", which can be confusing when things are released later on instead of with the initial big bang, and more of "in some way, this thing requires X to be obtained". - Doodleplex 01:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have a similar mindset. Knowing when something came out is quaint, like trivia, but rarely pertinent to the reader. Knowing if a release is necessary for the content is useful information, like the notes section. G R E E N E R 02:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree, especially for newer editors having the parameter/template named "release" can and most likely will be confusing., which could be avoided by changing the its name to clarify it's purpose. Information about when something was released, is of little value for the average user and can easily be done by mentioning it in the Trivia or Notes section. Almdudler (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
If no one objects before Thursday, I'll start the change with J.A.R.V.I.S. (it's a holiday in the US and I have the day off). - Doodleplex 01:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree, but the only issue I have is with content introduced in festival releases. Having requires = Halloween seems... odd. Nevermind, I forgot we stopped using those. Anyway, sounds good to me. —Ventriloquist 19:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
We may be able to remove it from many of the templates altogether by using other available information. An NPC or event that takes place in an expansion zone would require that expansion. If an item is non-tradable and it’s only method of acquisition is via an NPC/event/achievement in an expansion zone then it too will require that expansion. If an item is acquired during an expansion but is tradable, can it be traded to players without that expansion? If so then it does not require that expansion and does not need to be labelled. The only things that truly need to be labelled are specializations and masteries. J.Tesla (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
This is true, and to an experienced editor or player, that would be easy to figure out, however to those who aren't that savy, it would cause more questions I think. Additionally, the parameter is also used to categorize if something is HoT or Pof or whatever content and indicates on the page itself that it's from <x> thing. So I don't think removing it completely is a good idea. - Doodleplex 00:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I only wrote down half my idea. I meant that instead of writing it into the infobox we would query the existing information such as location and acquisition and use that to determine and categorise its requirement. The end result with the little icon in the top right and content category would be the same as it is now without needing the “release” parameter itself anymore. J.Tesla (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
That sounds out of my technical knowledge completely so I have no idea if that's possible or not; it also sounds a lot more complicated than the current set up. I'm not opposed to the idea, I'd need to see how it would work, and have other people who are more code savy than myself give it the thumbs up. In the meanwhile I'd still do the switch, just in case the idea doesn't work so that everything would still be categorized correctly, as long as you don't object. - Doodleplex 02:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
So basically doodle you're volunteering to edit every single page with an infobox with the "release" parameter as well as all of the infoboxes and templates that set what the parameters called? I think we should for the time being set the infobox to use {{{requires|{{{release|}}}}}} rather than a straight swap, otherwise we might make data display incorrectly inbetween changing the template + the page. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yeah, that sounds like a better idea, making it accept requires, swap it all out, and then remove release. You do the code, I'll do he bot stuff. - Doodleplex 21:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

That was the collective "we", I'm not editing anything before the weekend, burning out at work. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 22:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh sorry. Then what you pasted above is all I need to do then? Just to make sure I don't break anything. - Doodleplex 22:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay plopped in what you said, and everthing seems good. Running J.A.R.V.I.S now to switch from release to requires. If anything starts getting loopy just talk on it' talk page and it'll stop. I except the switch to take pretty much all day so I'll be checking it here and there but otherwise it should be a good boy. - Doodleplex 16:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Name convention for bounty pages?[edit]

Hey all, I'd like to add the locations of the new LS4 episodes bounties. Is there a naming convention for the bounty pages? I see some of them include the rank (Legendary Seneb the Desecrated or Champion Vebis the Inquisitor/locations) while others don't (Starcaller, Vebis the Inquisitor). Aikan (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of the bounties have Champion/Legendary rank as part of their names, some of they don't (differs from map to map). Though I think Seneb shoud not have the rank (as Sandswept Isles bounties are all without it), need to check it ingame. EDIT: Yes, he doesn't have Legendary in name. Also some of the events also have lowercase champion whereas other uppercase ingame, it is a random mess basically.~SimeUser Sime Maraca Choya.pngTalk 20:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
If there's one thing we can thank Anet for, it's naming inconsistency.--Rain Spell (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Unimplemented content on the wiki[edit]

A couple of points should preclude all others in this discussion:

  1. This wiki is hosted by ArenaNet. While ArenaNet takes a hands-off approach to how the wiki's built and maintained, the community does not have complete free rein in what appears here.
  2. Accessing game assets from files like the .dat is against the Terms of Service, as brought up by our liaison, Stephane.

Now for the meat of the discussion. We have documented on this wiki a fair amount of unimplemented content; we also have the penchant for adding more. Some items that we have document the beta. Some content describes ideas which were dropped from development. Other items [[Mini Corrupted Troll|appeared temporarily in the API]]. And yes, some items were pulled from the game's .dat file.

I would like to hear the community's thoughts on how we should handle current and future documentation of unimplemented content. G R E E N E R 17:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

To me "Unimplemented" means "it was in the game during some beta state, but didn't make it to the final game", ie beta content that players saw but it didn't stay around. I've never been a fan of "unimplemented" tags on "things we found while dumpster diving into the game's files" since in a way, that is speculation: there's no way of knowing what something found in the files true purpose is/was if it isn't in the game and was found because somebody was snooping around. The exception to that would be the paper bag hats since it was stated to do be the result of an ArenaNet staff member goofing around, we know it exists because somebody was being goofy. The only other exception is Marjory's Everliving Blade, that item I would like to see what's what with Stephane. The rest? Honestly if it's just something somebody found while poking the game files, I honestly feel that it should go cause it's documenting stuff we weren't supposed to know/have/whatever. There is one more thing to that should probably be brought up now: some things that have been found and have pages aren't meant for players outside of China. So they exist, but we'll never see them. I sort of feel that those should either be documented as sort of a trivia thing on a page somewhere, but I don't think we should have pages for them either. - Doodleplex 21:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Of the existing unimplemented content, there's certain articles that I'd delete, and that's mainly stuff that was clearly never meant for players to view (NPC weapons, 'large bundle' articles) and items that have nothing about them aside from a single ID (plenty of mini articles, such as [[Mini Coyote]]). The others are, in my opinion, worth keeping because it's interesting to see how the game developed, and what exactly was planned to be implemented (Party Animal, adventures for the HoT expansion); they provide a historical value when compared to other articles. I think it mostly comes down to how much informational value an article holds, for players and the wiki users alike. —Ventriloquist 21:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
What if perhaps the "unimplemented content" had other sources other than the game files? I feel like if there were at least one other source, there'd be less issues. Either that or some of it would probably fit nicely as trivia on appropriate pages. - Doodleplex 21:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The fundamental reason the wiki exists is to document the game. Personally, I feel that unless anet explicitly says to not document something, it could negatively impact the well-being of someone, or there is a pressing reason on a case-by-case basis to leave some things undocumented, we should document it. The more we restrict our content, the less likely people will be to depend on the wiki for information. Thrain | contribs 21:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should document unimplemented changes. We did so on GWW with zero causality; this list of unimplemented skills can solely from the gw.dat, and there was next to no complaint about them. Obviously GW2 is a much larger game and has been getting new content far longer, so obviously there's quite a bit more in the gw.dat. Ultimately, I would document unimplemented content if it falls under three categories: 1) items or ideas from development that were dropped (e.g., Bowl of Cabbage Sautee); 2) it was discussed in a blog post but never made it into the game (e.g., Bar Brawl); or 3) it has an active (or has been active for a lengthy duration before being removed) chat link ID therefore people can link and, therefore, /wiki the item in-game. This is especially true for the last, as some people who have the codes may link them causing confusion if nothing shows up when folks search for the item.
If, however, it was something only showed up for a short time and has no real search value - e.g., [[White Mantle Sunderer (large bundle)]] (which, actually, is probably the bundle that you get from Counter Magic (skill) while fighting the Legendary Bandit Executioner) - or is something in-game but cannot be linked to (e.g., the Krait Spear skin that seems to have started this discussion), I see no real reason to keep. Removal of things would be a rather case-by-case basis in the end, but I do not think that we should remove all unimplemented content, or even most of it, that we know about. Some people find this trivia entertaining to go through (I know I do). Konig (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that needing another source is a good criteria. For one, most implemented in-game stuff doesn't have another source . For two, sources tend to disappear; two of my best resources for researching gw2 went under a few years ago, and even the main forum archive is a black hole you were lucky if google could penetrate. The two nonstandard Quip weapons/skins were confirmed by one of the devs to be Scarlet's weapons from her first appearance, but I doubt I could find that page any more to cite it :/ SarielV 20 x 20px 07:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I echo Konig’s opinion here. And as part of his third suggested criterion, I propose to add that anything with a screenshot of a unique appearance is worth preserving. Some of these are not “unimplemented”, because use by an NPC is itself an implementation. It seems totally illogical to me to be removing interesting articles where the research has already been done. I’m not sure how I’d explain to someone why the wiki once had in-game screenshots of the School Uniform town clothes, for example, but someone campaigned to have them removed. — Dashface User Dashface.png 07:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Previous discussions here and here for reference.
First of all, the semantics. I think we need three separate categories:
  • Discontinued (Could be unlocked in the past, no longer available)
  • Removed (Could be unlocked in the past, but was removed later)
  • Unimplemented (Could never be unlocked).
Unimplemented refers to player/wardrobe availability, not game implementation. Skins not present in the game files are considered concept art, be them artwork or renders.
As for my project: Every skin has a chat link which you can preview ingame (including the aforementioned [[User:Lon-ami/Skins/Krait Spear (skin)|Krait Spear]] ). Also, I didn't find them by meddling with the game's files, if you think that's an issue. I just checked codes one by one, inputting them myself ingame. Did a first round for 8600 entries, then did a second round with a whitelist, using the API as a filter, reducing the entries to 3125. And yes, it was a pain. The way the game works, every skin used ingame, either by players or NPCs, has a wardrobe entry. If it doesn't, then it's part of another model (Which seem to be the case with the Monkey King and his staff), or it no longer exists.
I am however planning to browse the game's text files, just to see if I can find any item strings associated with these skins, since most of them have no names. The method above isn't viable for items, since there's more than 300,000, and many of them can't be linked ingame. I won't find any new skins using this method, only potential item names associated to the ones I already found.
Finally, my primary goal with this project isn't "documentation of unobtainable skins" on itself, but bug reporting for polearm/spear misplacements. The wardrobe is a huge mess, where they recycled polearm/rifle/staff skins for harpoon/speargun/trident skins, but then someone also made unique skins for those, but they forgot to upgrade the items and the wardrobe, or sometimes there's an unique spear skin, but they still pushed the polearm skin, forgetting the spear skin actually exists. It's a disaster, and half the time it doesn't make any sense. I mean, look at this thing, does it ring any bell?
I still insist my additions are no different from the ones already in the wiki, like [[Fargate Opener (skin)|Fargate Opener]] and [[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]], so if mine are to be excluded, then the rest should follow through. Obviously, I'd rather see them all in the main space, but the rules should be the same for every skin.
@SarielV What? Scarlet and Quip? Now that's interesting.--Lon-ami (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Sariel, you could probably ask Stephane to get that information for you and add it as trivia on Quips page or something. - Doodleplex 03:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"Unimplemented refers to player/wardrobe availability, not game implementation. Skins not present in the game files are considered concept art, be them artwork or renders." Gonna disagree greatly here, Lon-ami, but unimplemented content is - simply put - content that was never put into the game's content. For sake of simplicity, I'm ignoring chat links (chat links existing != exists in wardrobe btw; wardrobe is specifically and solely what we see from the bank) since while accessible in-game, they're not available from any content thus unimplemented. Things that are in the game but unavailable to players are simply in the game but unavailable to players and don't have a specific categorization.
To use an example: Marjory's Everliving Blade is not unimplemented content. It is implemented, but it is unavailable to players as it is an NPC-only weapon. Same would technically go for Sohothin prior to Path of Fire if it didn't use the FDS skin at the time (it does now, but it is also a limited-time bundle for players now like Caladbolg). The Krait Spear in question above is not unimplemented content, it is merely an NPC-only weapon. IMO there is no need to split Marjory's Everliving Blade from [[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]] because they are, effectively, the same thing. One is the NPC-only skin for the NPC-only weapon. I believe we have them separated only because
Regarding "many of them can't be linked ingame", these things have little need to document since they do not exist in a form viewable by any means to players in the game, especially if they overlap with "most of them have no names", which are nigh impossible to document due to the lack of a name to document them under. If - and it's a needless if IMO - we were to document these, then it should be on a singular "list of unimplemented skins" (not to be confused with List of unobtainable wardrobe unlocks, which is about historical/discontinued skins).
Lastly, I want to point out that there is no, and never was, such thing as polearms. Some weapon sets have two skins for spears, yes (though Wolfborn is not one), but polearms never existed. Harpoonguns or Tridents having duplicate skins is a thing that exist too, and they should be documented IIF they can be linked to/have a name associated with the chat link.
ADDENDUM: Do we know when a skin chat link is for an unimplemented weapon or for a bundle? E.g., [[White Mantle Sunderer (large bundle)]]; how do we know it's a bundle, exactly? If it is, it's likely just the one-skill bundle players get from using Counter Magic on Sword of Vengeance while fighting the Legendary Bandit Executioner. Such a thing would be both implemented and able to be further fleshed out. Konig (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's where you're mistaking the "model" with the "skin". Weapon models are obviously implemented, since they're in the game, but weapon skins aren't, since you can't get them. That's one of the big reasons why I added the " (skin)" suffix to the pages when I created them, even when most of them didn't need it. Model=Implemented, Skin=Unimplemented, Item=Unimplemented/Doesn't exist.
Again, the wardrobe is full of hidden skins, so you can't take that as a point of reference. You could use the API to see what's available or not, but then Fargate and friends have to go.
I find the term "unavailable" confusing, since it could imply it was available at some point, but it isn't now (discontinued, not available at the moment). "Unreleased" could work, but then again, it implies it could be released some day (coming soon, to be released later). "Unimplemented" leaves no room for confusion, since it's obviously something that isn't obtainable, since it never existed in the first place (as an obtainable skin).
Also, I think it's pretty bold for you to question the polearm issue, when there's multiple concept art, the weapon type is still used internally to this day (, , , , , ), and the Wolfborn Harpoon I linked above is an obvious greataxe. Here's a full list of potential polearm skins for your pleasure.
Finally, I don't think bundle skins are worth documenting. Most of them have no names and no icons, and they will never be obtainable, since you can't apply skins to bundles. They use the wardrobe system, but they are obviously not intended for player usage in any way whatsoever. Taking screenshots of the preview panel is an entirely different thing though.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that guessing chatlinks is equivalent to scraping the dat. If we didn't ping it from something we actually have, it isn't something intended for us. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I second that, and Stephane agrees with this as well(can screenshot from discord if needed). Also if you're going to debate over the polearm, do that on it's talk page instead of here, more appropriate. That being said, I think we're in agreement about the "White Mantle Sunderer (large bundle)"/bundle skins being deleted. I also do like Konig's list, providing you include things like reddit comments as well, since we've gotten confirmation on a a few things that way as well. - Doodleplex 01:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Lon-Ami: There is no distinction between "model" and "skin", they're the same thing ultimately. The "hidden skins" in the wardrobe are almost exclusively gemstore skins (or some other super hard to get skin); anything else is intentionally hidden because they've never been implemented, so yes, it is viable. The term "unavailable" in no way implies something was ever available, that's just not how English works. And that article you linked is 100% player stipulation, those are all spears; "polearms" is a term created by players (called such because some look like halberds rather than spears), even in the earliest rendition of that page, and is ultimately just "land spears"; they were eventually scrapped as a weapon but then returned as an aquatic-only weapon. Further disagreement on that, however, can be brought to my talk page. I will agree bundle skins are not worth documenting.
@Alex: I would disagree since it's something available in-game. To me, dat diving is external. Either way, I don't see dat diving to be harmful for documentation purposes; as said, GWW did this extensively without qualm.
@Doodle: For "my list", blog posts could be supplemented for "developer comments" ultimately. Blog was just an "official" outlet I was thinking of. Konig (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
How is there no distinction between model and skin? There's multiple models with no skin (present in the game's files, but not ingame), and models used in multiple skins too (rifles and staves recycled as harpoon guns and tridents). There's also many weapon models which are part of another model, meaning they have no skin id either, even if they're present ingame. Speaking of "implementation", many models implemented as skins are not implemented as items in any way whatsoever. To leave things clear:
  • Model: 3D files with textures, multiple attachment points, and multiple dye channels.
  • Skin: Wardrobe entry with a selected attachment point, designated materials for the dye channels (cloth, leather, or metal), skin type (sword, boots, etc), class (for armor weight), and default character animations (how you hold it). Has skin id.
  • Item: They can contain skins. Has item id.
This is basic technical knowledge. A skin is not a model, and a model is not a skin. I know there are multiple unused models in the game's files, but I'm not covering those in this project.
And again (I'm really tired of repeating this) every weapon skin used ingame, by players or NPCs, has a wardrobe entry. No exceptions. Gem Store skins aren't the only hidden thing in the wardrobe.
As for polearms: Just preview the codes I provided you, ingame, and check their weapon type.
The likes of Fargate Opener, [[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]], School Uniform, and Paper-Bag Helm 4-Pack were found using datamining (by finding the item first, the skin second). If they stay in the public space, so should mine, right?--Lon-ami (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
You're talking about source material, I am not. For all intents and purposes, for the purpose of the wiki, there is no difference between the model and a skin, even if it's a duplicated skin. Do you have any source telling us that "every weapon skin used ingame, by players or NPCs, has a wardrobe entry"? Because I'm 99.999 with a lot more 9s % sure that you're making this up off of your own conclusion. Wardrobe entries likely have to be coded into the wardrobe itself - after all, the wardrobe didn't always exist in the game, while many of these "hidden skins" have.
And as for "what remains in public space", it seems you're under the impression everyone here is saying all that should remain in your user space? Because that's not what's been said. That said, while I would need to go through what got moved into your userspace, I think it should be rather self-explanatory which fall under my three points (which it seems Doodle and Dash, at the very least, agree with). Konig (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we're getting slightly off topic. However as a result of getting off topic, it does actually further the idea to me that if we have unimplemented content, that we need information from somewhere other than poking things with a stick(that we should or shouldn't be poking) so we know the why/what/etc so we don't have debates like the one above about the polearm/pole weapon. - Doodleplex 23:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
It's basic technical knowledge. What source do you need? You're asking me to prove the Earth isn't flat. First you tell me I made up polearms, when in the previous reply I linked you not one, but six items containing the polearm weapon type, which you didn't even bother checking. I don't know, learn database basics? Base64 encoding/decoding? Datamine yourself until you understand how the game is built? Or do you want me to ask ArenaNet for a full disclosure signed by every member of the company?
I think the problem here is trust. Again and again I've been doubted, and again and again I've proved my points were correct, with concept art, screenshots, and chat links. What else do you need? All I see are cries of "you don't have proof", yet I keep on giving, while you give nothing in exchange.
Back to the topic: Prove my entries are different from the ones already in the main space. If you can't, then mine deserve to be moved back. If you can, or if you vote to remove "unimplemented content" from the main space, then move the remaining pages to my user space so I can keep documenting them in a single location, instead of two.
And quit with the double standards.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Talk:Polearm (weapon type). Polearm/pole weapon discussion there, not here. - Doodleplex 19:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"Prove my entries are different from the ones already in the main space." For starters, the fact that User:Lon-ami/Skins/Krait Harpoon (skin) comes up with no name when you plug in the chat link in-game. Red flag #1. No name, no way to properly document it as an individual weapon, and it is clearly not something meant for players to ever utilize. So no need nor point in making it an article. It's clearly an NPC weapon or bundle, and the latter doesn't get skin pages while the former doesn't need pages at all.
Second example, the historical appearance of Flamekissed - there is zero need to create a separate page when merely an image and trivia note will do. A separate page will do absolutely nothing but bloat up searches. Konig (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
By the way, the majority of the pages in the Unimplemented content category are, as far as I can tell, content from the betas that didn't make it into the final version of the game, hence the category's description and why it was made in the first place. So an "everything or nothing" result is unlikely because of that. - Doodleplex 19:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

After reading the above, I believe there's general agreement that we can go beyond our mandate of just documenting the game. If ArenaNet has released information about a topic publicly, be it on a blog, through another website, during a beta, on Guild Chat, etc., then the content is fair game to document on the wiki.

Skipping over all of the grey area, we come to what may end up in the black for documentation. ArenaNet is company with its own intellectual property. They own their IP as well as this wiki. It is their right to decide when and how their IP gets released to the public, which is one of the reasons why digging through the .dat is against the EULA: they own what's in the .dat.

I am going to reach out to Stephane to see if ArenaNet would like to comment on this issue. They may choose to overlook the topic much like they did for the gw1 wiki, but as pointed out, gw2 is a different beast. If they do choose to comment, then we should also be aware that it's year-end, and the marketing team is quite busy with the roller beetle races and who knows what else. It may take some time before we hear from them, if at all.

Thank you all for commenting on this topic so far, please feel free to continue the discussion. G R E E N E R 00:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Greener you asked me once if I would be able to ban you. Right now, I can't, you can un-ban yourself, but you are wrong here. Guild Wars 2 Wiki:About states the wiki is hosted by Arenanet, but it doesn't say "owns", because the wiki isn't owned by anybody, it's a volunteer group effort. We should be able to figure out the best course of action on our own without having to ask ArenaNet what to do, because we're the ones running this thing, not them. Additionally, the official stuff you're looking for I think is on the wiki already, albeit in a place nobody ever looks: Guild Wars 2 Wiki:General disclaimer. " should be clearly understood that information that has not been officially released by ArenaNet pertaining to the game should not be posted to this website....Any information in violation of this policy is subject to immediate deletion." If you were looking for an official stance, we already had one it appears. - Doodleplex 03:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much Doodle for that important distinction. I was quite wrong about the owning vs. hosting. Thank you also for finding the link to the general disclaimer, and pointing out that the important part is the community coming to its own consensus. G R E E N E R 06:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Anyway so upon finding the disclaimer, I think we really do need to be careful about our "grey" content. As of now, I think if it was found in ways that does not include the API(since anybody can check that), and if it hasn't been referred to by an ArenaNet staffer, past or present, in some way, that it either be deleted completely, and if the content is relevant/appropriate as being a line of trivia, that can be added elsewhere. I believe this should apply to both userspace and main space, since while users can use their space to do with as they like more or less, they shouldn't be using it to do things that would be tagged for deletion in mainspace articles, that does strike me as being a bit of a double standard that we shouldn't be doing. As for stuff found only in the API, I'm not sure. I kinda feel like if we can't find anything about something found via the API in over a year that it should be reviewed to see if it's actually in game, or exists only in the API and therefore probably shouldn't have a page. - Doodleplex 01:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
If I setup a project page to review the unimplemented content we already have, then we can figure out the context for how we found it. It'll help if we know what the common groupings are. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 19:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a little late but I wanted to add my $0.02 about the line from the general disclaimer that it is generic enough (as "pertaining to the game" can be lawyerspeaked into meaning "is part of the game") that it can be attributed to any and all future content as well thus subjugating Category:Future content and Upcoming changes and features and similar pages to the same controversy. Since "officially released" would dis-include things like employee twitter or reddit accounts, too, as I'm not sure they're technically considered official. This would also pretty much include almost all concept art images as they're drawn primarily from third party sites the artists have uploaded images to. I'm pretty sure no one, including ArenaNet, would like to see such a widescale wiping. So I suggest sticking to the simple notation of "can players run across it (e.g., via blog, forum, chat links that provide item name, api, or Anet comments on third party sites) and does it have enough information to merit its own page". Konig (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
After taking a looking into that category, the only thing I find questionable is Tigris Opal, the majority is pretty much birthday presents. Otherwise, I like Alex's idea. - Doodleplex 04:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay I'd now like to invite other users to see which pages they disagree with the proposal for on Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Unimplemented content/list. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 21:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with most of it. If it appeared in the API and was removed later, then it's an obvious mistake.
However, I don't like the "it's popular" as an excuse to keep things. Anyone can go to reddit now, post about something, and make it popular. The only skins I would save are the paper bag helms, and only because they were directly acknowledged by an ArenaNet employee. The rest should be gone, which includes:
An alternative is to allow everything that has a wardrobe chat link (no items, only the skins). For those arriving late to the party, here's a few of them. I'm documenting them as a personal project, but I'd be willing to adapt them for the main space if they're deemed worth of it.
Also, I think historical skins deserve their own separate pages (most have different icons, and their chat links still work). While that's being discussed, I'd like to have these two pages restored+moved to my user space:
If people agree, they can be moved back to the main space (together with my other historical pages). If not, I'll keep them as part of my personal project.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Historical like a sub page that the skill pages do you mean? Eh, nah I don't think that's needed the few pages where that applies it fits better as trivia, so I vote no. Also if most of those user pages is made up of content you found via chat code scraping, those should be flagged for deletion. Reason being, since if those sort of pages aren't allowed in the mainspace due to not being intended to be found by players/not officially released, they shouldn't be allowed in userspace either, double standard. Otherwise, I'd suggest you just make/remake the pages you want instead of waiting for people to figure out what to do with them, it's faster and easier for your project that way. - Doodleplex 00:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
The advantage of historical pages is they have their own category, making them easier to be found.
As for those deleted pages, I'd rather recover what I already had than remake them. Less work for me, and less wasted space for the wiki itself, so stop removing the red links until it's done. And anyway, if pages with datamined icons and chat codes are fine, I don't see why mine aren't. All of them are present in the game in one way or another, I'm not dealing with unreleased weapon models.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I've delinked pages that Alex deleted today. Additionally, if the pages you requested to be moved are restored ans moved, the original links would need to be delinked anyway afterwards, all there is to it. As per your request, I've left your proposed user page links alone for the time being. That being said, if there's a decent number of skins that were drastically changed(excluding icons since those change fairly often over all items), then perhaps a sub page, but only if there's a fairly decent number. And that info should probably be put elsewhere as not to de-rail this conversation.
In regards to this conversation, excluding the half a dozen items still up for debate(three of which are likely to be deleted), it looks like 99% of the pages that still exists that are flagged as Unimplemented is content encountered during a beta or things ArenaNet staffers have provided information from. Everything that got deleted was content that was found in the .dat/data-mined that had basically no information, or what little information did exist was moved as trivia elsewhere if deemed appropriate/suitable. I feel and think that based on that, moving forward if content is found via methods that are less than official it either needs confirmation from an ArenaNet employee in some way or be added simply as trivia on a more appropriate page. Otherwise, it simply isn't appropriate to be on the wiki, in either main or user space. - Doodleplex 01:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I suggested deleting the pages, but keeping the images as trivia concept art inside related pages. As long as the weapon model is physically visible ingame, as NPC gear or terrain props, we aren't really "leaking" something, just showing a better picture of something that is already there.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding "no user space", screenshots should be fine, right? As long as they appear in the game in one way or another. The only sensible information is the chat code, which I don't care about removing (half of my entries don't even have one anyway, since they're historical skins).--Lon-ami (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Depends on how you got the screenshot. If we wouldn't be able to use in main space articles because of how it was obtained, then I'd have to say no. So use your judgement based on that. - Doodleplex 15:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
As long as it's already present ingame, how the screenshots are obtained is kinda irrelevant. Now, if it only exists at the .dat (chat code or render), then yeah, it shouldn't be around. None of the screenshots I uploaded so far qualify for that though. That said, I sanitized my pages a bit, removing chat codes, item references, and other bits of data, so they shouldn't be a problem anymore. Now it's just a screenshot plus notes on where it appears ingame.
I would like to see both [[Fargate Opener (skin)]] and [[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]] moved to my userspace, where I will remove the sensible data as well.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Providing the screenshots are not from a chat link obtained via dat diving/data mining/chat code scraping, they're fine yes. However if they are from one of those, please replace them, they aren't to be on the wiki. This seems to be the general consensus based on project Alex started, and because of that, no, those pages shouldn't be restored and moved to your userspace, they were obtained via poking things that shouldn't have been poked, hence why there were deleted. They don't belong on the wiki anywhere peroid. Done. - Doodleplex 04:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

So you're telling me to wait for the NPC wielding them to stand in a good pose for a screenshot? The result will always be considerably worse, not to speak about the waste of time it's going to be for whoever wants to take those screenshots. I assume this file [[:File:Fargate Opener.jpg]] is to be deleted then? Good luck taking an ingame screenshot to replace it.
As long as the chat codes and other sensible information are removed, preview screenshots should be fine. You are not showing anything that isn't already available ingame, for everyone to see.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh well, I guess you should delete this one too: File:Fargate Opener vs Warpblade.jpg, since it's from the preview chat code as well.
Anyway, I'd wait for more people's opinions before going on a delete spree. Your (in my opinion ridiculous) anti-preview stance is going to mean the death of multiple main space files.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
For the record, all weapon images that are previews should be replaced by wielded images, and I know a few editors work on that. Preview images are only useful for when things are new / hard to get, so that we have something. And it isn't an "anti-preview" but an "anti-can't-obtain" to be fair. Konig (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Changing Living World Season 1-4[edit]

So I'd like to change the Living World Season 1, 2, 3, and 4 so that, like the page for Heart of Thorns and Path of Fire, they are overview pages of the content for that particular season. I'd move the story synopsis to it's own separate page, which is already done for HoT and PoF. I feel players would be better served this way, to have a page dedicated to telling them the maps, currencies, achievements, chapters, etc instead of kind of clicking around and guessing. I'd like to know what other people think though, before going forward, especially because since I wasn't around for LWS1, I would need a decent amount of help with that. - Doodleplex 02:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)