Talk:List of unobtainable wardrobe unlocks

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This reddit link might provide a bit more info on items missing from the unlocker. -Darqam 01:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Listing seasonal items?[edit]

Hexed Outfit is seasonal, available via merchant on Halloween, while Ghostly Outfit and Grasping Phantom Glider likely will returns next Halloween (esp the glider given the seasonal BLC changes). Should those really be listed as "unobtainable"? They are obtainable, just 'not right now'. Maybe, if such is needed, we include a list of seasonal frequent-returning items? Konig (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What if we clarify its status in a table? I've thrown together a basic one as an example. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 10:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
If I'm here to find things that are unobtainable, that to me means no way to get them period. The Hexed outfit can be obtained during Halloween, and most Gemstore outfits/items(excluding that Mordy one, I think that was a Heart of Thorns release special item only it's a Wardrobe Unlock item. Still hasn't returned to the gemstore, still pretty ugly IMO), eventually return to the gemstore, so they're not completely unobtainable, they're just not currently available, but will be back at a later date. I've changed the tables a bit as a result, changing the "maybe coming back" to "Notes" to give more detail as to why it's unobtainable and removed the gemstore items/Hexed Outfit as they will return eventually. - Doodleplex 19:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
But the Hexed Outfit is completely unobtainable. Will it return next year? Likely. Can I get it right now? No.
I'm imagining that this page will be helpful to newcomers more than anyone else. The kinds of things that can be listed should be completely irreplaceable through unlimited gold, gems, and effort. Anything tradeable, even if there are none listed on the Trading Post, could be theoretically obtained from another player. And enough gems will unlock every single thing in the Guaranteed Wardrobe Unlock. By this definition, I believe that completely unavailable seasonal items belong here. There are three main categories to consider: seasonally unavailable (Hexed Outfit), unavailable with no indication of when or if they will return (Eir's Legacy Longbow, Celebration Hat), and never available to anyone (Reforged Caladbolg). Perhaps the page could divide these by sections first, then by type. Armor/Weapon/Mini headers are not particular required, as this could be a table column. With the introduction of the Guaranteed Wardrobe Unlock, which covers most things, I'm not expecting this article to be particularly long. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 20:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, when I saw the page, I saw "completely unobtainable", and the Hexed Outfit has been a reoccurring seasonal item(and the only seasonal item I can think of that's not a gem store item or from the Wardrobe Unlock) since it's introduction in 2014, so that could be a note on the bottom of the page as being only "Seasonably available". Also technically any gemstore item could never return (pretty sure Eir's bow will come back at some point), and there already is a page for that and Gem store stuff in general. - Doodleplex 20:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
This was the best name I could think of for "List of stuff that other people have that you definitely can't have today". Seasonal unavailability is one thing that does it, and Gem Store rotation is another for very recent items, like the Crystalline Dragon Wings that you removed from the page. (Available somewhere still?) Less interesting to me is unimplemented content; that could really have its own article, especially if the items are datamined only and don't display in the Wardrobe. I'm familiar with the Gem Store storage pages. I consulted Incarnazeus' work extensively when putting together Gem Store availability tables. Sure, Eir's bow will probably come back at some point. So will the Antitoxin Injector, probably. But for now, they're both unobtainable wardrobe unlocks. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 20:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding items that have a means of acquisition, but the currency is unobtainable[edit]

Should we include these items? (i.e. Battle Historian claim ticket items). Edit: Sorry, not those, the weapons obtained through Gift of Heroes Sythe 21:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, technically they're unobtainable, with the sole exception of if you still have the old currencies... So I don't see why not. Konig (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Listing things never intended to be unlocked?[edit]

I see a few items listed that aren't in the wardrobe yet and likely never will be. Marjory's Blade, Fargate Opener, School Uniform. Do they fit the purpose of this list? SarielV 20 x 20px 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer to see the page in three sections: Seasonal, Unavailable, Unimplemented. Also, if something isn't in the Wardrobe, it's not a Wardrobe unlock. -- Dashface User Dashface.png 20:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree with having these 3 sections, if I can give my two cents. Although I'd add that some wardrobe unlocks are hidden until the account unlocks it, so what is in the wardrobe or isn't is not so clear sometimes. Unless we use something like 'everything listed in gw2efficiency' (which is backed by the API), in that case it should be clear I guess. --KillerRabbit.1946 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
There are many hidden items in the wardrobe - most of which are gemstore, but some PvP skins which have since become available as well (either through Unlock or other methods). Hidden wardrobe items are usually for the "expensive/hard to obtain" stuff. Easiest method to determine if something can be unlocked or not is using the Guaranteed Wardrobe Unlock combined with the wardrobe. Unless it's a gemstore or ascended gear added post September '16 it'll definitely be in one of the two. Konig (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't recall any PvP skins that were hidden, only Gem Store skins. SarielV 20 x 20px 17:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Was pretty sure the alt Legionnaire spear was hidden, and Destroyer Scythe, but could be wrong. Anyways, in regards to the Seasonal/Unavailable/Unimplemented: I see no reason to differentiate between the latter two, mainly because for a long while Canach's Backpack was in wardrobe but not 'implemented' in an obtainable way. I would consider items like Reforged Caladbolg and Fargate Opener along those lines. For Seasonal, I agree that they don't really belong here and I think having a [[List of seasonal wardrobe unlocks]] might be generally better to have. Konig (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Section for Novelties?[edit]

--— Cronos 12:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Krait Spear (skin)[edit]

How could these be unimplemented, if NPCs use them? They're weapons exclusive to them. Just because something isn't available to players does not make it unimplemented content. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.png 00:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, every weapon/armor/bundle skin you see ingame is linked to the wardrobe, with no technical distinction between the ones we can use and those we can't. We'll never know for sure if they were supposed to be implemented for players or not. Unless it's an obvious bundle skin, I'd say it qualifies. I'm planning to document as many of these as possible, double checking them with the .dat information.--Lon-ami (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
"We'll never know for sure if they were supposed to be implemented for players or not."
It's just this kind of speculation we should avoid if possible.
Edit:If these are actual items in the game's data, I'm all for it documenting them as weapons for these NPCs. But speculating whether they're unimplemented content for players is not what we should be doing. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.png 01:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I already told you, every single skin used ingame, either by players or NPCs, is registered on the wardrobe. They need to be there to be used, it's how they reference the models from the game's files. There's literally no difference between Warpblade (skin), [[Fargate Opener (skin)]], and [[Krait Spear (skin)]]. Wardrobe visibility and chat code permissions vary, but the core is identical, everything is a skin, with Bundles having their own hidden category as well.--Lon-ami (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Even if it is in game, I do remember Vent or Alex deleting a similar page since the item was never intended to be used or accessed by players. And Lon-ami, I've already asked you before to stop it with the speculation. Feel free to theory craft all you want on your userpage(s), but unless you have solid proof, please don't make anymore pages like this one. - Doodleplex 01:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
What solid proof do you need? These models exist ingame, you can log in now and see them by yourself, if the screenshots weren't enough. What's the difference between the likes of [[Fargate Opener (skin)]], [[Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued)]], Worn Voltaic Spear (skin), Paper-Bag Helm 4-Pack, and the pages I created?
If you want to redefine what the "unimplemented" tag means and replace it with some kind of new "skins not available for players" tag, then fine with me, but I firmly believe these pages need to exist. Hell, what's the negative? Do they hurt anyone? Or you just want to delete them for deletion's sake? In any case, they inform people those skins they just saw some enemy wield can't be obtained in any way whatsoever. You want me to get their wardrobe ids from the .dat, and render their models manually if the chat links are disabled? What do you actually want?--Lon-ami (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Belinda's Greatsword (Imbued) is based off an actual weapon that with stats that never made it into the game, same for Fargate Opener. "Worn Voltaic Spear (skin)" is from a skin from a PvP weapon, so there's nothing hard about that one(we have a picture of it in game additionally). The paper bag helmet container and skins was an ArenaNet artist being goofy, so sure fine. The pages you made however, are fully created based on your own speculation, which is not what the wiki documents. Additionally, even if they are in fact things you can find in game, to quote Ventriloquist "...I'd like us to not document things clearly never intended for players (NPCs' weapons, story-bundles etc.) " which is why I tagged it and the other pages you made for deletion. Simply put, we don't document speculation nor things that are never ever meant to be used by players. That's it. The end. - Doodleplex 03:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The major differences between them and yours are chat links and connections to items in the itemdb.
As the author of two of those pages and a contributor on a third, I can weigh in on their history. Fargate Opener and Belinda's GS were responses to datamining done on reddit; in both cases it was widely assumed the skins would be released (the data for FO should have made it obvious that at least that one wasn't necessarily true). I investigated them and wrote them up because I thought there would be interest in the information since speculation was already growing. I wrote up the Fargate "staff" because I was familiar with it and thought the coincidence interesting. Worn Voltaic Spear is actually in the wardrobe and has been since it was released; much like Seasatchel and Destroyer Scythe, no one at the time had it, so no one knew how to get it. However, the only people interested in it are completionists, but the article at least tells them that they'll probably never cross off that one square on their list.
I don't really have much business telling anyone what they can document. My own history has a LOT of fringe stuff. But I generally have more to go on than just a picture. If you're going to post this as a skin article, there should be a way to see this in a player's hands, not in a krait's.
I can tell you a few things about your spear: assuming it exists, it's probably two different skins for main hand and offhand, and probably neither are spears. If you can find any items that actually use those skins, they'll probably look a lot like Fargate Opener statwise i.e. NPC-only. But is anyone actually wanting these things? SarielV 20 x 20px 08:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
And how do you know those I linked above were ever intended for players? Just because you happened to find their wardrobe links? Every skin used ingame, even those players can't acquire, is registered at the wardrobe. Even the bundles, which like the [[White Mantle Sunderer (large bundle)]] have sometimes leaked out. Caladbolg Origin (skin) has been around since release as a bundle skin too.
There's pages for items with nothing, not even a model, like [[Mini Steam Ogre]], and others for obvious test objects, like [[Fargate Opener (staff)]], yet those are fine?
Also, here's some preview proof for the Whisper Secret's Spear, so I guess you can remove that delete tag now.
Again, why shouldn't these pages exist? What's wrong with them? It's not like they break anything, confuse players, or ruin the game.
If there's something you disagree with, well, talk about it and change it, that's what wikis are all about. Some of them have unconfirmed weapon types, because I haven't bothered checking the .dat yet. [[Krait Spear (skin)]] went that way because Dreamthistle Spear being used the same way and manner by toxic krait.
So yeah, there's a double standard here. Either delete all "unimplemented weapon" pages, and list them in a single article, or let them all be. Wikis are for documenting things after all, specially if they appear ingame.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Simply put, this isn't a skin available to players, nor does it have an ID, nor does it have an icon, nor is it shown to be an actual skin anywhere, except for its visual appearance. For all we know, it could, as Sariel said, consist of two parts. Or four. Or the spear could be twenty different spear textures wrapped into one, but all of that is not in the area of the wiki's interest. You're asking us what's the harm in creating this article, and to that I reply, what's the benefit? How will documenting the various weapons used by enemies in the game help in documenting the game, when we base it off of speculation as to what it is? —Ventriloquist 19:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
They do have an ID, every skin used in the game, either by players or NPCs, has a wardrobe ID. NPCs can't wield them if they don't go through the wardrobe first, period. It's how it works, ask any dataminer or datamine yourself to understand it. Of course, we don't know the exact ids, and it would be quite the ordeal to find them, since they're usually encrypted. I talked with other veteran dataminers, and a white list could work. If I came back tomorrow with chat codes for every single of these pages, what then?
Again, the pages I created are no different from those which already exist so, either allow everything, or don't allow anything at all. I don't care about giving these an individual page each, or putting all of them together in a single page, but the rules should be the same for every unimplemented skin.
As for why it's useful, a player looking for a skin used by some NPC should know if it's available for him or not. If you don't find the page useful in any way whatsoever, well, that's just you. As long as it doesn't hurt the rest of the wiki, why would anyone be against it? It's not like you'll be forced to update it or anything.--Lon-ami (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You ask a lot of questions you already know the answers to, but let me try to cover them. 1. I can tell that a skin that's been in the game since it's inception and has never once been in a player's hands is not intended for players. There's a certain logic to that. 2. You haven't proven this thing is actually a skin and not just part of the model. There ARE blank skins. 3. Every skin has an ID number. That doesn't mean every skin is registered with the Wardrobe. Whitelisting at the game's back end is the registration with the Wardrobe. This gives it visibility. The process has failures, as you have pointed out, but to say that all skins are registered is not strictly true. 4. You say it would be an ordeal to find the id for your skin, and that there is nothing separating your article from the others. The other articles have verifiable and verified data. Yours doesn't. Someone thought that ordeal was manageable. You're making excuses. 5. If you came back with actual data tomorrow, that would be a start IMO. But I'm not the one you need to justify this to. 6. You didn't ask, but for as much as you appear to have, I think you should put all these unobtainable undocumented skins in a collection like Doodleplex's common model project. Skin articles are for presenting data, while you've got the makings of a good gallery. 7. If you don't like an article, you too can insert a delete tag and see what happens. It wouldn't be the first time I've kissed good work goodbye. It wouldn't be the first time I've kissed bad work goodbye. Just ask Vent. But to say that they all need to go because you didn't do your homework is just petulant. SarielV 20 x 20px 06:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
So the only thing that matters for an unobtainable skin to deserve its page, is to have its wardrobe links accidentally leaked or found? That sounds arbitrary as hell. Some obscure test weapon with no model deserves a page because we know the id, but other weapons constantly wielded by NPCs don't? And how can you tell [[Fargate Opener (skin)]] was ever supposed to be usable by players? It might have been a test model for all we know.
Also, every skin is in the wardrobe, period. It's how the game works, you can ask any dataminer if you don't believe me. There isn't a distinction from a technical viewpoint.
Weapons are almost never part of the NPC models. In the case of the Krait Spear, there's multiple different krait models using it, and also other kind of NPCs like File:Sunspear Paragon.jpg.
Again, the same rules should apply for every article. I'd rather talk about it before spamming delete tags on someone's else work.--Lon-ami (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind us documenting NPC weapons, but these articles should also be written as such. Not as unimplemented weapons for players. But like Sariel said, they need actual data that can be verified. Either via .dat or by the developers themselves.
And can you verify that this NPC weapon uses that question mark icon? As far as I know, it's an actual icon in the game, and not to be used as a placeholder in this wiki. Hence renaming it wasn't necessary. If the weapon has no icon associated with it, it should be left blank. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.png 14:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
(Reset indent) "Again, the pages I created are no different from those which already exist so, either allow everything, or don't allow anything at all. I don't care about giving these an individual page each, or putting all of them together in a single page, but the rules should be the same for every unimplemented skin."
I'm not against deleting the other articles. Sariel knows I've deleted them in the past because I (without any objections) didn't deem them as something the wiki should document. It's the same reason "MONSTER ONLY Moa Unarmed Pet" was deleted, and a plethora of others. I don't discriminate on which articles to delete, which is why this article is no exception. Like Sariel suggested, tag the ones you feel like should be deleted and if the discussion reaches a consensus, we'll likely do so. However, there is a very important distinction between your article(s) and most of the ones in Category:Unimplemented content - yours is based off of speculation on how the game works, even if it is supported by 'veteran dataminers'.
There is no skin called "Krait Spear", "Royal Ascalonian Spear", nor "Mordrem Spear" in the game, but the ones you created based on its usage on enemies' models, and that's what most of the users above me have an issue with. It was not created after seeing a chat link, or an ID number, or a random entry in the wardrobe, which is where the problem lies. Had these skins any in-game basis, we would keep them. —Ventriloquist 16:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not speculation on "how the game works", it's how it works in real life, period. Everything wielded by players or NPCs has a wardrobe id. If it doesn't, then it's not a wielded item, or isn't used in the game at all. You need me to write a thesis on how the .dat works?
The names I gave the skins are obviously temporary until I verify their real ones. Many don't even have one to begin with. Same for the weapon type, only reason I gave them one in the first place is because the infobox displays a bug if I don't.
I suggest you calm down and let me do my job, you're all far too hot-headed with the delete function. I will however hold creation of new pages back until I find their respective ids, if that makes you feel more comfortable.--Lon-ami (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Since we don't know their actual names (if any), you should figure it out in the Userspace first and then transfer the info over. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.png 17:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
So I'm jumping in on this with possibly only part of the info, but here is my take on it, viewing this given my experience with my mini dat-icon project and how *I* view the wiki.
- To me the wiki mainspace should only contain (to the best of our abilities) pages which resemble the entities name within the game. If that entity name is unknown, a temporary page could be made under a user space, or with a very distinct placeholder name (similar to that of my uploaded icons with just the <id>.png).
- I also believe that we should not be merging skins (as far as we can tell) not meant for players and those meant for players. There is quite a significant distinction between "Hey this sword appeared in the dat and we've seen a player/character wield it in a trailer" and "I see a random npc hold this".
- That being said, I think having information on NPC only armor/weapons/others is a GREAT idea, it simply needs to be very clearly demonstrated as such. This would have to be agreed upon for a format, but I could see this reflected in either the name, infobox, or page structure.
- I think the main issue is that most people here (I say this based on personal experience, no real science) come to any search content to find information on what *they can have for fashion*, not what a random npc has. That said, there would definitely be some which come looking for npc styles, but this should in no way be merged into "player only fashion wars" or even general information.
- tld: Information only pulled from dat should not be present in mainspace without further confirmation; NPC fashion wars is cool, but should not be merged with player fashion wars. -Darqam 17:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
To flesh out what J.P. said, this is a project of yours (documenting skins not available to players) and I'm aware of why you feel this is something the wiki should document. But look at it objectively - you're trying to create articles on something that doesn't have a name, a weapon type, a functioning ID, icon, nor a preview image that's not a screenshot of the enemies - it's not a lot to go from. We're not being hot-headed, we're discussing the best way to approach it (if even at all). To summarize my thoughts (I won't speak for the others), I have an issue with the skins because they lack everything that makes a skin, and as such it's not something we should document due to the lack of information that is available to players.
If we were to document everything that exists in the dat files, we would have massive amounts of articles with no useful information for the players - most of our readers expect the information they read to be applicable to them in-game, and as such, it's fairly confusing when someone clicks on a Krait Spear skin article and sees that it's only an NPC exclusive skin that they weren't even aware of existed in the first place. The issue mainly stems from our definition of what a 'skin' is and how it functions - so far we've documented skins only available to players or the ones (the rare few) that somehow made their way into the wardrobe. Anything beyond that deserves a discussion, which is what we're doing here. We're discussing if this is something worth implementing. Discussions requires consensuses to decide if the articles'll be kept or deleted. So far, it doesn't seem like something the wiki community feels comfortable having on the mainspace, and I wouldn't say it's an unreasonable feeling. —Ventriloquist 21:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe all of these fake skin things could be moved to the user who made them's user pages so they could play with them there? Seems like a win for everyone. 174.225.135.133 22:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Most of the concerns should have been addressed already. I started updating the pages with active chat links and screenshots of the preview panel. I have additional material for updates and new pages, but I'm waiting to double check a few things before continuing. If you know how the .dat works, you know the skins are in there somewhere (as I wrote multiple times, every skin used ingame by either players or NPCs is in the wardrobe, no exceptions), but it takes time to find the right ones and any additional information attached to them.
Again, most of you have a severe lack of trust and patience. You can't expect people to contribute with fully finished versions of everything the very instant they log in, that's not how things work, and answering to that with delete requests (instead of trying to help) will only drive potential editors away. Have that in mind for the next time.
As for the format thing, I agree completely. I want to document these skins somehow, and I definitely do not want them to get mixed in with the rest. No idea on how to split them properly though, so I'm sticking to the basic skin templates for now. Replacing the unimplemented tag with something else could be a good start. Maybe leave Category:Unimplemented content for the items, and create something different for the skins? Like [[:Category:Unavailable skins]], with its own notice template?
Also, for anyone good at getting icons out, the krait spear here has an unique icon (you can see it by previewing it ingame with the chat link I provided). So far, the rest doesn't seem to have any icons of their own (they use icons from other skins instead), and if they have them, they got lost in the .dat. Feel free to look around and see if you find anything matching these skins. Many of these polearm/spear skins seem to be a mess, and I'd wager many qualify as actual wardrobe bugs, which I would like to report to ArenaNet after they're properly documented.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Leave .dat diving to reddit, etc. We are already treading on thin ice with Anet with our own dives for icons. Main space is for documenting the game, not the .dat; unimplemented content has a high threshold for being documented here, and what we have currently is always always up for debate. Creating main space articles for NPC skins and then giving them names as though they belong to a set is not appropriate. Feel free to move the pages to your user space and continue your project there. Finally, do not be dismissive of honest advice from others, thank you. G R E E N E R 01:08, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I really do not approve the use of 'unobtainable'. It's an NPC weapon skin, and should be called what it is. And what does 'Technically part of the Krait weapons set.' mean? Does it have actual ties to the set? Assuming things based on aesthetics isn't solid proof. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.png 13:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
All the unobtainable skins have been moved into my user space: User:Lon-ami/Skins, so I guess the discussion is over, unless there's a shift of opinion in the future, in which case we could talk about moving them back.
For now, I'll focus on my original goal of documenting every unobtainable skin, so if anyone is interested on the topic, just keep an eye on that page.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Unobtainable items and skins[edit]

After the conversation above, I guess there's old pages that deserve the same treatment. There's way too many of them, so I'd rather list them here than update them with delete tags one by one. I'm considering these two conditions for deletion:

  • No public ingame appearance, meaning it was found through datamining of chat codes.
  • Public ingame appearance, but obviously unintended, like test objects, bundle skins, etc.

Candidates for deletion: (so far)

There's many more in Category:Unimplemented content that could qualify too, but require some research first as to how they were found.

Also, if there's an agreement to delete these, I would like to have some of them (mostly skin pages) moved to my user space instead, so don't instantly delete them without letting me save them first.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't part of the above conversation, but I'll put it simply like this: If it has or ever had a chat link (thus could be previewed or linked to in some manner), then it deserves a page. GWW documented unimplemented content too, I don't see why this wiki shouldn't. If it was in a blog post, then it deserves either a redirect to its equivalent released version with a trivia note, or its own page.
90% or more of those things you linked - as well as some things moved to your userspace - have chat links. They deserve a page. That is my stance, because we can find it in the API and show it off in chat.
That said, I do think there might have been "act before thinking" before and that resulted in kneejerk reactions because you've done such before despite others telling you to discuss first. Either way, tagging all of those pages for deletion is a bit of a kneejerk reaction though, don't you think? Would just be a pain to remove them, whether they're kept or moved. Konig (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, some might call it petulance. In fact, someone already did. SarielV 20 x 20px 04:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Current discussion on this topic at a much higher level can be found here: Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Community portal#Unimplemented content on the wiki. Your input on the topic is valued and important. G R E E N E R 23:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)