Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Practices and processes/Archive 02

Speculating?

I for one do not want speculating with redonkolous accusations in the mainspace... Hard to enforce but really, its just getting out-of-hand on Mesmer. The articles should be about changes to a) the article itself or b) changes to the content that have been unveiled through official sources. The argument really doesn't belong on mesmer and I insist that a policy be made that pretty much states "that speculation outside of mainspace is fine (ie: userspace or alternative websites)". The policy can be removed once game is released or kept for future possible installations --up to the community. - Lucian 5:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The only out of hand part is that people are arguing against the anti-speculation stance. Aside from that, the fact that speculation clutters up pages has been discussed and agreed upon, so "documentation" in PnP may be appropriate, but policy it is not. --ஸ Kyoshi 05:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So what, move the speculation (if deemed speculation) to user talk? - Lucian 5:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think we should do (and what I've done to the Talk:Mesmer fiasco). If it shouldn't be on the mainspace but shouldn't be archived or deleted (ie. pretty much all the speculation), it should be moved to the User talk page of the original poster with a "moved to/from" tag slapped on it.

I think a policy (or other formal "this is how it works" statement) should be made on this because there's a pretty basic process for how speculation devolves: one or more editors speculate on a talk page, an anti-speculation editor comes along and tells them they shouldn't and is either ignored or argued against, prompting more argument, which spirals out of control. A GW2W:SPECULATION policy could simply be linked and the spiral cut off by a non-arguable (at least, on that talk page) official statement. ~Ekko (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Main articles:No, never, without exception. Talk pages: Doesn't matter either way. If things get "out of hand" then they can be archived (as per what's done with the Profession reveal talk page). I don't think it's worth the effort to make a rule that's gonna be ignored until a few months after the game's release. There's also no need to be so damn uptight about what should and what shouldn't be on wiki articles. We're humans, not robots. Stress kills and doing "The articles should be about changes to a) the article itself or b) changes to the content that have been unveiled through official sources." just leads to more stress over something that's for a game. I also highly disagree with "The only out of hand part is that people are arguing against the anti-speculation stance." as that's pure silliness to even need a "anti-speculation stance." But I digress. If a discussion on speculation is started ignore it and archive it once it dies out. <--- best thing to do as it avoids situations like the Mesmer page.

tl;dr version It's not a big deal so long as it isn't on the main article and so long as it isn't presented as facts on the main article (the issue the unofficial wiki ran into which confused a baker's baker's dozen of people on various lore aspects). And merely archive speculation discussions when reasonable to do so.

shorter version than shortened version: You guys are getting so uptight with your policies and craptastic rules that you're making stuff for absolutely pointless shit.-- Konig/talk 05:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Calm down Konig... Not good to quickly archive a discussion. It was just a suggestion. I like speculation like every other guy... A policy may be too much but a general sentence --sure. - Lucian 6:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I answered in sentence fragments. May the grammar god strike me down. - Lucian 6:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Konig here. Lets not make a community which is unfriendly and have rules which make it hostile to newcomers. For the newbs lets assume they're here because they're looking for likeminded souls to talk with and make sure their first encounter with contributors here is more helpful than hateful. -- aspectacle  06:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see that...I will have to agree. - Lucian 7:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am and have been calm. I just find it ludicrous (and I have to say that's rather easy-going for my view) to be so strick about things. And I didn't mean to quickly archive, but rather ignore them if you don't like it (rather, don't comment), until it dies out, then archive (particularly if it gets big). No need to move to user-spaces (especially since most of these cases will likely be ip's). -- Konig/talk 07:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"lets assume they're here because they're looking for likeminded souls to talk with": then they're at the wrong place : P Newcomers should come here because they're interested in learning more about the game or because they want to help document the game. Those who are looking for people to chat to are happily invited to go to GW2G or wherever.

You people shouldn't try to make solutions that give more work for those implementing a fix than to those causing the problem in the first place. If there's speculation... Just delete it, period. Moving to userspace is time consuming, doesn't really add anything to the wiki and is not practical, considering how often speculation comes from IPs. While one or two bits of speculation don't really matter, some talk pages are becoming "speculation central" (those linked to the profession reveals); just delete each and every piece of speculation that appears there, and it will be solved.

I also wouldn't bother with a policy for that. First because we don't have policies here; second because that's rather obvious, since the purpose of an article's talk page is to discuss said article, not to serve as a storage for fanfiction. Erasculio 09:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Deal with speculation just as you would deal with a trolling attempt: Ignore it. It will calm down and eventually be archived with no harm done. --Xeeron 11:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, admins are expected to stop trolling and deal with trolls instead of allowing them to run rampant through the wiki. Erasculio 11:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see speculation as that disruptive on a wiki for an unreleased game. This entire community is here based on the speculation that this game is going to be worth while playing when it finally comes out. Plus, I just can't see how a newb is to know that this isn't the right place to ask questions or be excited about the game and you lot can be downright rude about trying to stop the first time offending speculators. As Xeeron says, and as is recommended behaviour for trolls, ignore them and they will stop. -- aspectacle  12:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

And again, we don't ignore trolls; we ban them : P No matter how much a "newb" someone is, knowing the reason why this is a wiki and not a fansite forum is one of the most important things for anyone who comes here. The most problematic talk pages even have big notices telling people to stop speculating and go somewhere else for it.

In the end, what benefit does allowing speculation to remain on the wiki brings us? Nothing. There is no good reason at all to allow speculation to remain there, considering how it doesn't help us in documenting the game or in improving the wiki's ability to document the game. Erasculio 12:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I like the way that we're handling things at the moment - archive it right away. The issue is that we're spending too much time discussing the matter and explaining every writ and worry in detail. We already know how it should be handled and are just not doing it - that's how this shit starts getting out of hand. I suppose we could just outright delete stuff, but then you'd still have the ones that will try to contest the issue and then we'd need consensus to support the deletion. Sounds like it would be the same work of a different kind.(Xu Davella 12:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC))

I second Xu's post. We should even expand the anti-speculation approach throughout the ENTIRE wiki, tbh. - Infinite - talk 12:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty comes when someone posts something about the content of the page, there's a few comments about it, then someone speculates, there's a few comments about the speculation, and then some more comments about the article, and it becomes jumbled. For example, the top thread on Talk:Mesmer. Konig made a statement about the page, BookofTyria made a speculation, and from there it was both speculation and page-related. How do we deal with these? Manifold 16:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

@Infi: I see no reason to explicitly ban speculation outright everywhere. (You really can't restrict the content on other user's userspaces.) And Manifold raises a very real point. Aqua (T|C) 16:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Edit conflict) "Deal with speculation just as you would deal with a trolling attempt: Ignore it. It will calm down and eventually be archived with no harm done." We did that for a while with Talk:Professions reveal, but the size of that page was at one point over 100,000b (scroll to the bottom), which is ridiculous for being filled with useless speculation and even more useless outcries of opinion, and which is larger than Shadow Form's talk page on GWW has ever been. We had a discussion about this already on the admin noticeboard and none of these voices to allow speculation were heard then, which makes me assume that none of you saw how much of an issue it became.

It's clutter that doesn't belong in the mainspace, and there are any number of forums or user spaces to host it on instead. That said, "policy" we will not do; that's the whole reason we have this article. "Practices and processes" are not to be enforced, but "what is considered best for the wiki" is to be done, and we'll document what we think that is at the time on this page.

Moved or archived, I don't care which. But we already tried leaving it alone and it got out of hand.

(Edit in response to Manifold) Well, stop it before it starts, if possible. If it gets jumbled, then tell them to stop and simply remove any statements that keep it up. If it's not too much trouble, just remove the speculation in the "jumbled" area, compile it, and send it off. --ஸ Kyoshi 16:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like things are working people up for reasons that are beyond me. If someone speculates something (be it an IP or a user) in a new topic, then politely inform the user that speculation belongs in a userspace, then move the topic. If someone starts mixing in speculation into a topic about an article (or information on the article), then again, be polite and try to steer the conversation back towards the valid topic. If the speculating user is new, politely leave a message on his/her talk page about speculation in main space and be done with it. There is no need for a policy, there is no need to be rude, there should only be a need for understanding. "then they're at the wrong place" yeah, I believe this statement has a whole lot of wrong here. We shouldn't be trying to exclude anyone. Everyone has something valid to say (so long as it's not spam). Sometimes people make mistakes and put things in incorrect locations. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone likes the atmospheres of fan sites. "You people shouldn't try to make solutions that give more work for those implementing a fix" recall that anyone trying to fix something on this wiki has volunteered to do so. At any time, if a workload is too much for someone, they can just stop doing it. This is just my 0.02. Venom20 16:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If user space is properly maintenanced, I suppose it's fine there. - Infinite - talk 16:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So, is it agreed that we a) politely inform speculator that its not the place and move it to their talk and b) not to be rude about it, just move it and c) if we dont want to contribute, just ignore it? - Lucian 16:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I still think the misplaced discussions introduction was an effective one. At least for main space. - Infinite - talk 16:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

So... move it there and tell the user that if they wish to still talk about it, it'll be there? - Lucian 16:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

But then we'd need to monitor whether it's running out of hand. Moving solves almost nothing. Speedily archiving does. - Infinite - talk 17:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think, ultimately, both solve nothing. - Lucian 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving to the userspace solves the issue of speculation in the mainspace, and so does archiving. But moving allows people to speculate in appropriate places, which should decrease the likelihood of people doing it in the mainspace (because they'll have an outlet). It also will be more "newbie-friendly": there's a place for speculation and this isn't it, not "NO SPECULATION EVER EVER EVER". ~Ekko (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it, I do agree with Ekko on this. Moving to the user space in particular allows the conversation to continue while keeping it out of the way, and (compared to speedy archiving) it also seems a lot less rude toward the people who come here.

@Infinite: "If user space is properly maintenanced" What exactly do you mean by this? --ஸ Kyoshi 22:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a fan of the moving, makes the gw2 community nicer as opposed to speedily archiving. - Lucian 22:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean that once speculation is on user space, the applicable users needs to not let it run out of hand. - Infinite - talk 22:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) (Edit conflict) "The issue is that we're spending too much time discussing the matter and explaining every writ and worry in detail." Just wanted to quote that since I agree with this 100%. "We had a discussion about this already on the admin noticeboard and none of these voices to allow speculation were heard then, which makes me assume that none of you saw how much of an issue it became." My reason: I'm not an admin, I don't look at that page. I got here via requests for comments. Don't make silly assumptions like that. "It's clutter that doesn't belong in the mainspace" I still hold my ground that a talk page is not mainspace as per the Special:Search namespaces. Talk and (Main) are separate. "I think, ultimately, both solve nothing." That's right. For one reason: This so called "problem" cannot be solved because it's not a problem unless you think it is. Always archive old discussions. If a discussion is getting huge and/or off topic, you can split it and archive the older half. There is no "solving" this "issue" because it's only an issue in your mind's eye.
GWW never had a speculation "issue," and this wiki's "issue" will only be gone once you realize it isn't an issue. Discussions of any kind get huge, and those should just be archived once done. As Ekko said, you need to allow people an outlet. So let them have that outlet, then just archive once said outlet is done with. No need to get into huge ass discussions over it. -- Konig/talk 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say; lovin' the Derv updates. Sometimes it's better to draw a clear line. The talk pages are meant to discuss the CONTENT of a main space article, not the effects of it. Some things just don't contribute anything and that's why forums exist. - Infinite - talk 22:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The "issue at hand", really, is the fact that there is no clear stance. All I see are a bunch of people running in ciricles, including myself, on a pointless topic. The classification needs to be addressed. Also, GWW was made after Guild Wars 1 came out and there is alot of speculation on Winds of Change and other GWB material. This wiki is for a game that hasn't even been fully released and lacks alot of info. Its' only safe to assume that there will always be speculation on this wiki on articles that don't need it. I do agree with both Konig and Ekko; "we need to allow people an outlit". That is true but a perfect outlit would be a forum or a namespace other than mainspace. That, I think, is what this discussion should be about. Archiving a dead discussion is also fine but a discussion that is becoming far too carried away, that will need to be moved. Speculation in any way on a article thats mainspace, regardless of the classification of its' appropriate talk page "just [doesn't] contribute anything [to the wiki] and that's why forums exist." Go ahead, quote me away, that template has been way overused in this discussion already. - Lucian 22:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, lets just drop this because this discussion is going no where. Easier to follow GWW example of just ignoring it and not feeding it. If it gets carried away, quietly move it... no biggy. I think this discussion should end because its not about where speculation belongs but if anyone should do it at all and thats not what I asked wayyyy up above. I asked if we should move it to the appropriate non mainspace or talk page for mainspace. So lets just continue doing what we do and just ignore it. It'll die down once game is released anyway. Anyone agree with me? - Lucian 23:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"It's not a problem unless you think it is." It is indeed a problem when my watchlist is not informing me about discussions relating to a page, but rather to things I must at least scan to figure out whether they are relevant. Everyone has limited time to edit, and the less of that spent separating the wheat from the chaff, the better the wiki will be. Manifold 23:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"The talk pages are meant to discuss the CONTENT of a main space article" You know, this is being tossed about time and time again, yet I've noticed that no one has bothered to point out where this is ever said. -- Konig/talk 00:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be said anywhere (in a policy or article or whatever) for it to be the case or for people to think it is the case. (Although it's being said wherever people are saying it, so you've almost answered yourself.) pling 00:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my point, Pling. It is not some written-in-stone rule that talk pages must be talking solely about the content of the article. It's just that some people want that to be the case when it isn't. These things can and will always change - that's the nature of the wiki. To impose one's opinions on the wiki is just seeming to make folks here... power-mad. Though they don't even have power (no more than the next wiki'er, that is).

It's getting ridiculous. -- Konig/talk 00:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder when "the wiki is not a forum" is going to be questioned, too... I doubt it's said anywhere. Do we also say anywhere that we don't document WoW on this wiki, too? Erasculio 00:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that'll ever be questioned. It isn't a forum. But people tend to use that statement in the wrong way. A forum is a message board - which this clearly isn't since anyone can edit anything and there are no "posts" merely edits and comments (aka summaries) - yet people use that as if a forum was a place to spout anything on the mind. That's what a blog and livejournal is for. For the "WoW" thing - this is the Guild Wars 2 Wiki, that's where it's said. :P (Your argument is attacking the wrong points). -- Konig/talk 01:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

By saying Eras is attacking the wrong points Konig, means that you acknowledge that there are other, better points. Aqua (T|C) 04:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"It is not some written-in-stone rule that talk pages must be talking solely about the content of the article." Seeing as there are no "written-in-stone" rules on this wiki (isn't that exactly the purpose of PnP? kind of a redundant point, then), you're correct. But we still act in the interest of improving the wiki. Would you argue that this is useful or productive to the wiki? I would argue that it is directly detrimental to have so much unhelpful discussion on a page used for documenting a changing "event", and as Manifold says, it's also annoying and time-consuming to be updated on the page, then check it and see that nothing useful has been added.

I would have less problem with speculation happening on talk pages had it not gotten so out of hand the last time we left it alone, but it is better suited to the talk pages where it won't clutter itself around discussion related to the page. --ஸ Kyoshi 04:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. We have consensus on the fact that speculation should, at the very least, be cut down to a micro-manageable size - a small bit of speculation here and there that would usually end after the third or fourth comment. And the way that we are tackling the other speculation is to politely tell users to stop, move the discussion to a talk page, or archive the info immediately. We are using three very useful tools to combat speculation - but we're waiting for someone else to do it, and then joining in after them. Consensus is reached, now what? Are we introducing a fourth measure? Should we implement a widespread "this is not a forum" message across the main space? Are we expanding on the practices or processes or, dare I say it, introducing a policy that no one will read? Are we going to delete these comments right off? How are we going to determine what is heavy speculation? What are we going to do if someone argues the point? It doesn't matter if we implement one or a hundred ways to combat speculation - if you don't persist with our measures that we have and actually enforce it, then our practices will hold no ground. Kudos to everyone agreeing with the idea that this isn't really the issue it's being made out to be.(Xu Davella 09:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC))

IMO, saying "Kudos to everyone agreeing with the idea that this isn't really the issue it's being made out to be" is contradictory to the rest of your paragraph - if it isn't the issue it's being made out to be, then clearly there is no need for a widespread "this is not a forum" message across the main space.

I don't understand why are you people so resilient against simply deleting those comments. They wouldn't be lost forever (page history), it takes only a couple seconds to delete a comment, and those who would complain about the deletion are more or less the same that would complain about the current practice of fast archiving (and so far there have been very few complains about that). Does keeping the speculation help in any way the wiki goal's of documenting GW2? Erasculio 10:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Question time!; If speculation is so dense, and all active, are the other contributors meant to fish for the discussions about the content of the page? Why even bother with a list of fansites if people can converse freely on this wiki, eh? Also; why does everyone (lots of you) think that we - by taking action against speculation - are going to lose contributors. Yes, they will and is meant to stop speculation, but those contributors have no record of any meaningful edits in the first place: It's not a loss.
And; Those contributors will eventually come back, be it for the next reveal, the release, or during the actual game. GW2W is not just the official GW2 wiki, we're currently also the biggest and most accurately informed wiki by miles. We're not going to lose any contributors here by taking the forum-esque environment away and appoint them on the purpose of their user space. And deciding a course of action based on a handful of contributors who are not helping us document the game is not in direct favour towards the wiki. - Infinite - talk 11:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with deleting comments - it actually is a faster (and more effective) way of dealing with speculation, but it would feel like a kick in the nuts for someone who acted in good faith, and not get the chance to understand what they should have done. You're also right, there is no real need to sprawl a 'non forum' message across the board - my point was that regardless of what we decide to further incorporate into this 'anti-speculation', nothing is going to have any effect unless you actually use it. Deletion is a nice, bold move to propose, but even if it was implemented, the number of people that actually utilize the 'speedy archive' method would be the same people that would refer to deletion as well. We've just got to be less sensitive to people's reactions (myself included) and just get on with it. -Xu Davella 12:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"{{{1}}}" No, which is why I agree with the solution which is this - and if the moving idea was practical (hello ip!), I'd agree with that too. I am not arguing for keeping such large pages - but rather that it there shouldn't be a "rawr no speculazionz!!!1!11!1!" set in stone rule like others appear to be arguing for.

@Era: I'm only against removing comments due to the fact that there's no reason to delete them. It isn't vandalism. It isn't detrimental to the wiki unless it gets out of hand. So moving or archiving is far preferred compared to the unnecessary action of removing. If everyone else agrees on it then I won't be a sore thumb and say "no! never grawr!11!!" or anything like that. I'd just prefer a different approach, and moving/archiving isn't that much more work than deleting.

"why does everyone (lots of you) think that we - by taking action against speculation - are going to lose contributors." I'm not sure whoever said that... but regarding "Why even bother with a list of fansites if people can converse freely on this wiki, eh?" - because I'd rather not see this become some super-strict website. If there was a way to move comments from the wiki to a forum, or rather be having this wiki connected to a forum, then I'd agree with that. It isn't to prevent "losing comments" or the like (as Era said: we have the history), but merely that I'd dislike the strictness of the wiki - and I'm sure there'd be others. We wouldn't lose contributors to editing articles, but we'd lose them for everything else (myself included, most likely; I cannot stand those kinds of groups). -- Konig/talk 20:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As supporter of misplaced discussions (read: for speedily archiving speculation that is running out of hand or has extreme likeliness of doing so), I am inclined to say that harmless speculation can exist. I'm not saying I would have it exist in main space; small, oversightly discussions about speculation can be easily left around and properly archived when died out.

The problem is the chaotic, huge-ass speculation topics that just loop on and on and on. Those should move to userspace, or be moved to misplaced siscussion counterparts before they become too massive to handle. Personally, Lucian's gunner page and Holy's guardian speculation topics on his talk page are both prime examples how speculation can have a home on a wiki, without causing harm. There can and very much SHOULD be leeway, but as much as possible off the main space. - Infinite - talk 20:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

^This. And sorry for assumptions on both points, Konig. The first was out of frustration and the second was genuine curiosity considering what you said, because I couldn't tell what you were saying. --ஸ Kyoshi 21:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)