User:Emily Diehl/Wiki discussions archive

Parser functions and other extras on GWW

I notice that we don't have all the extras from Guild Wars Wiki installed here. Particularly parser functions [1]. Some of the templates being ported over here aren't working because they rely on it. --Valshia 21:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh...that extension must have gotten lost in the installation process. I'll put a request in for that right away. Thanks for letting me know :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note, I would like to see all extensions (except the escapes-one) installed on the "old" here as well. poke | talk 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, since it's sort of necessary given the arrangement ArenaNet has with its wikis, I've created the Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Requests_for_technical_administration page as a port over of the GWW one. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys...as an update, we do have all of the extensions that are installed on the GWW installed on this wiki. However, there are some underlying issues that are stalling our activation of some of these. We've expedited a request that will fix these issues, so we should have everything ready to go by the end of the day. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hiya guys! ParserFunctions should be functioning now :) Let me know if you see anything else that's missing. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Emily :) poke | talk 23:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki linking request

Hi guys! I heard back from IT, and here's what they need you to decide for us to set up interwiki linking:

Questions that need to be answered:

• What interwiki prefix do you guys want to use for each wiki?
• Do you guys want hard or soft redirects? (See: here for more information)

If you guys can start talking about these two points, we can get the interwiki links enabled. I'm assuming that you will want to put a primary focus on figuring out what prefixes you want to use (for instance, GWW:, GW2W:, etc), and figure out the hard redirects question after this, but it's up to all of you to decide. Just let me know :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GWW: and GW2W: (GWW2: would be another good alternative for linking here) are certainly the most obvious prefixes for linking between the two wikis, and we can always add more if we need them, right? Also any prefixes we already have on GWW for linking to other wikis (the only ones I know of are W: and Wikipedia: both for Wikipedia, but mebbe there are others I don't know of) would be good to port over.

I don't see any reason we should need to hard redirect over to GWW, particularly since the compatible licenses let us put a copy of any GWW articles over here (with proper attribution, of course), so I'm thinking soft is fine, but others may disagree. - Tanetris 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

GWW is the given for this wiki, I'd think. For GWW, I think it might be better to bring up there, as not everyone interested might read this page. Backsword 22:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean GW2W for this wiki, Backsword? --brains12 • (talk) • 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll hold on on this request until I hear from you guys. Just keep in mind that once we leave the office tomorrow, that I won't be able to guarantee any tech requests until after the holidays. In other words, pick your brains and let me know what you guys decide as soon as possible :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am interested as to why you chose to announce (sorta) this wiki a day before the holidays when you might not even be at work to carry out technical requests and such. PS, noone pick me please. --brains12 • (talk) • 23:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we wanted to make sure that the site was live before the holidays to give people have the chance to play with the site over any breaks they may have from work/school (since many people do like to do things like this when they're relaxing) :) Some of the timing details ran into unforeseen and unpreventable snags, but in general, that was the overall idea. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank the guys who run all this ArenaNet for me for getting this up before my week-long break, as I will be spending a lot of time on my computer. And w: for Wikipedia, gw: for GuildWiki, gww: for GuildWarsWiki, and on the other wiki, GWW2: or GW2W: for prefixes, if possible. And what are hard/soft redirects; I've never heard the term before? Calor — talk 23:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt GuildWiki will be a prefix here. --brains12 • (talk) • 23:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But they still undeniably have loads of info over there, and we won't know what we need until release or near-release of GW2, as Gaile and ANet staff have confirmed minimal bean-spilling of info. Calor — talk 23:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As a PvX admin, I have to QQ slightly at the lack of "pvx:" prefix. :P That said, I don't see where it'd be needed, except in userspace, unless this wiki has a drastically different way of dealing with builds. (Also, in all likelyhood, PvX will have a second site for GW2 builds, so even if we were to use it, we'd have to wait a while before knowing what to integrate. Unfortunately, when I suggested the name PvXwiki, I hadn't thought ahead to what we'd be calling our GW2 version, so I can't help you there.) Armond 05:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

So... W: for wikipedia pvx: for pvx wiki, gw: for guildwiki gww: for the offical wiki annything else? We need to see if there are such things as builds befor you make pvx2... RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 08:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Iirc, they stated numeral times they'd keep the 8-skill skillbar system (wich means, builds). Might be wrong, though. --- -- (s)talkpage 08:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

K, just making sure. Loads of things are going to change though. RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 08:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, we need no special prefix for links to articles on this wiki. (Intrawiki links), this is about links to another wiki only. Backsword 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) A slight problem with using GWW and/or GWW2 - those are often shortcut prefixes (GWW: is a shortcut prefix on the other wiki, and GWW2: will most likely be here), and thus it'd be very hard to tell whether something was meant to be an interwiki link, or was simply copied over from the other wiki and someone forgot to change a prefix. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true. But it should be a passing problem; most copying will happen now at the start. Backsword 16:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It'd still be odd to see things like [[GWW:GWW:RFTA]] or the like. Since interwiki linking is generally not something done on a day to day basis, I'd think a prefix such as GuildWars: and GuildWars2: would be both easier to distinguish and just as workable. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We'll, you'd only see it when editing, and since the convention is lowercase for interwikilinks, it'd be more like

[[gww:GWW:RFTA|]]

I wouldn't mind something else, but prefer something short since avoiding the length of urls is the point. Backsword 16:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We should have a Guildwiki one, just incase there is some content over there. We have some awesome stuff there remember. RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 16:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

But GuildWiki only holds GW1 information. Any GW1 information that might need to be linked to from GW2W can already be found on GWW. I think that we should be leaving GuildWiki and PvXWiki behind with GW1, since they are not relevant to GW2 and therefore it will be unnecessary to use interwiki links between them and us.

And re: interwiki redirects...I think that it may be necessary in some cases to redirect from GWW to GW2W (or if not redirect, then simply have a notice on (for example) a GWW page saying that the article the user searched for can be found on the Guild Wars 2 wiki, and a link). There's no point in keeping an article on Madgaer on GWW - although it exists in the game, it is much more relevant to the Guild Wars 2 setting. Conversely, there's no point in keeping an article on Shiro Tagachi on GW2W. Yes, he has a place in the history in the Tyria, which we would ordinarily keep, but once again, it is more relevant to the original series. We want to avoid a situation where we have 2 articles for everything, even things we don't need. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning PvXwiki, it's most likely going to be carrying over to GW2 builds(assuming GW2 has a skill system which involves builds). We've already purchased some possible domain names for a GW2 PvXwiki. So, PvXwiki is going to be relevant to GW2. --Edru viransu 16:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys! Right now, I'd like to focus on the abbreviations you'd like to use for the GWW and this wiki, since having those in place would be really helpful before the break. Definitely continue to discuss other interwiki links you'd like to see, I'd like to hold on asking IT for those until after the new year, since there are a lot of opinions both for and against these other links. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Right now I am seeing that people seem to think that "GWW" and "GWW2" (or "GW2W") are the most functional. Did I miss or misinterpret anything? :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In lower case ([[gww:Page title]] and [[gw2w:Page title]]) it would be perfect I think. poke | talk 21:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

w: for wikipedia br12 • (talk) • 21:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia:Test. This is enough imo :P poke | talk 21:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "gw1" and "gw2" ??, those are short and not already used. ([[gw1:Page title]] and [[gw2:Page title]]) Coran Ironclaw 17:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

In any case, for now, I have temporarily created the {{GWW}} template for interwiki linking. — Ebañy Salmonderiel 19:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Decision

So have we reached consensus on interwiki links? gww: and gw2w: are already being used widely across the wiki, although they are broken, which is all the more reason to hurry this process up a bit. If possible, could we decide on hard/soft redirects at a later date? A decision on those isn't urgently needed, and could just delay interwiki links being implemented. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just popping in to see if these are functional, as I did pass this along before the holidays. I'll do a follow-up on the interwiki links, and let you guys know when they are ready. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Create Account page

Would it be possible to put some sort of warning on the Create Account page letting people know they don't have to recreate GWW accounts and can just log in? I know it's on both Talk:Main Page and GWW:User:Emily Diehl/Official Guild Wars 2 Wiki, but there's already been one person to miss it, and there will almost certainly be others. - Tanetris 21:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope you're not talking about me... I never make mistakes ;) -- scourge 21:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Or me - I would never do something like that. O_O --Aspectacle 21:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

he meant warwick i s'pose >.> - Y0_ich_halt 21:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that you guys can add these notices to the Special:Allmessages page, but if you'd like me to do it, just let me know. I'll be here, on the GWW, and tying up last minute website details all day. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like MediaWiki:Userexists would be the best place for it, but all those pages are protected, so I'm afraid I can't do it. A sysop could, but I haven't seen one around so far. - Tanetris 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be on the main page. --Xeeron 23:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm ok I missed that, I know I'm one of those who doesn't read an entire page. Is it possible to delete User: Mage Montu, I'll use my GWW account. Sry forgot to sign. MageMontu 09:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol i spent like 10 minutes trying to make a new account before figuring out it was already here :P --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

So..

Why did you not give everyone an equal chance to get this started up, hmm? The exact same complaints were there when you created the first wiki, you let GuildWiki people get in first, and they started all the policies and basically shaped the thing. Anyone else has no chance of putting there voice in, don't tell me otherwise. — Skuld 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If we'd have opened the doors of a completely blank wiki to everyone, we felt that it would be more confusing to some then beneficial. Don't you think it would be weird as a new wiki user to see a new Guild Wars 2 official wiki, and then see a blank site? By putting links on all Sysops and Bureau's pages, and putting the notice in a place that people who are already very active on the wiki would be sure to find it (you saw it even though I didn't make it onto your page), we figured it would get word out in a low-key enough way to make sure that news about the wiki got out gradually. And, since wikis work in a word-of-mouth way, we knew that the information would propagate itself through the community far better than us risking confusion by an announcement would.

No slights were meant :) This just seemed to be one of the more effective ways to go about things. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You asume this strategy is better than a blank slate. May I draw an unreasonable parallel, an oppressive dictator being put in charge, rather than just an empty island with all the resources available? — Skuld 22:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being that clear here, but do you realise you just sysopped a bunch of people, who can basically do whatever they want with their mediawiki rights? There are no policies for them to follow, they could ban you right now and you couldn't do anything about it. — Skuld 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Snap, might want to think about undoing until we've got poilicy RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 22:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading into the intent too much, Skuld :) It's always hard to do things in a way that's going to please everyone, so it's not really worth debating. Just make the most of it, enjoy the wiki as it develops, and help the rest of the community to build it up into something awesome. As far as the Sysops go, there is no way to open a new wiki without having some kind of admin structure in place. Since it's our stance not to play that role ourselves, the only logical thing that could be done would be to grandfather the existing Sysops and Bureaus into place until policy can be set here. I'm sure that you guys will be able to figure those details out in the near future. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That`s not the problem, Emily. We can set a timeframe by which all admins need to be reconfirmed to deal with that. The problem is with keeping this wiki semi-hidden, instead of making posts on other GW communities to make them aware of this, so they can start contributing on the policies and guidelines of this wiki now, at the very beginning. Changing things later is always much more difficult (watch the endless and frustrating-for-all-parties admin debates on GWW happening right now for a concrete example), it presents an unfair bias against the non-GWW players. --Dirigible 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, at least we know that most of the people debating and deciding the policies over here will have at least some experience of a wiki environment - if your average John P. Forumuser sees a link to GW2W and thinks "oh wow, a guild wars 2 wiki!", he could end up getting stuck into policy debates straight away. And as we know already, policy on the Guild Wars Wikis is decided by mob rule, so where the majority are inexperienced at this sort of things, we could face major policy setbacks, slow project startup time and internal conflict. Of course this scenario is an unlikely one, but I still feel that we should get at least the bare-bones of the wiki laid out before opening the floodgates, as it were. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely not our intent to keep the site hidden, and if the community feels that it would be best to announce the wiki's presence early, then this is definitely a possibility we can all discuss. It's a challenge to figure out the best way to launch something like a wiki. By nature, it's a website that will start out essentially blank. Also, wikis tend to be somewhat of an enigma to many folks that are not familiar with them. If we'd have posted an article on the main site announcing the "new GW2 wiki", people that didn't understand may visit the site, see a blank page, and grow confused and even upset about the state of the site.

I think that it's really important that we have some kind of a platform to stand on before we open the doors to everyone via the main site. This isn't to say that we want to keep the site's existence quiet, though :) We only posted on Sysops' and Bureaus' pages first because we wanted to make sure that folks were around to start on core things like policy and general layout before we took steps that could lead to crazy vandalism and other wiki-centric problems. We figured that this would give enough of a gradual flow of traffic to prevent a lot of possible issues that could stem from a blanket "here's the site" announcement.

Anyways, we're very interested to learn what you guys think that we should do. In no way did we intend for anything to seem sneaky or limited to "privileged" folks. If you guys want give suggestions on ways that we can proceed from here, please share your thoughts! I'm going to be around here all day, so feel free to commence a discussion :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd pose this question, will the GW2 Wiki get equal access to original press releaesed information at the same time as publications to allow us to document? Or no... Drago 06:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Drago! It's unlikely that we'll be able to post exclusive information to the wiki at the same time we send it off to publish. For instance, if a magazine wants to do a GW2 feature, we wouldn't be able to put any of that content onto the site before the article is released. This doesn't mean that you guys can't pull information from features that are already published and on the shelves, though. Once it's public information, it's free to use on the site. I don't really know about the details of what official ArenaNet folks can and cannot post and what time frames we can post them in. I think that this will vary on a case-by-case basis, and we'll be checking and double-checking before we say anything. On any unreleased project, we all have to be very careful about the information that's provided, since so much is tentative. I'm especially paranoid about it just because I honestly don't know where these boundaries are sometimes and I'd hate to accidentally say something that could get out and be misconstrued (I won't even tell my family and friends about projects...hehe). You all know how much we support the wiki, though, so if there is any content that we can provide, we'll definitely push to do it. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Privacy policy

You added Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Privacy policy. While I am sure this is legally required, I am quite unhappy with the fact that it is very much tailored to a company web page not at wiki. For example "When users submit sensitive information via our website, that information is protected both online and off-line." borderlines being a lie on here, since any information "submitted" to the wiki is totally free for everyone to view, and in fact, it would be very hard for a user to ever remove that information. Is it possible to add a big box or intro to that page, explaining that this is a general ANet policy and that there are differences between how ANets webpage and this wiki work? --Xeeron 00:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we can definitely add some kind of additional information to our legal pages, but I would have to talk about the details of this with our legal team. I know that we have to be extremely careful about the way things are worded on any of our public websites, since there's a level of liability present for us that may not be there for a fansite or other type of exclusively-player-created website. I wish I understood these details more, but the legal complexities surrounding any online content (especially with wikis, their licensing, and other web 2.0-style content) are extremely involved and are often very confusing. I'll do some research into this and see what can be done to make things as clear and simple as possible. Until then, please feel free to keep adding onto this topic. If you guys see anything that we should clarify more, that may not apply/make sense on a wiki, or have any other thoughts, just let me know. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hiya again, Xeeron. I wanted to let you know that I just brought this topic up, and the team is looking into it now. Thanks again for pointing it out :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki cache bug

I didn't find a bug report page with a quick search, but I guess you'll forward this to IT when they get back from the holidays. This bug appeared to me a few minutes ago. I did a harrd refresh (ctrl+f5 on my Opera) and when the page refreshed, the wiki showed me like I'd be logged in as User:Brains12. This is a cache bug that we had earlier at GWiki, but it doesn't allow access to the users preferences or anything, it's just a visual and irritating bug. I don't remember how it was solved on GWiki, but someone will most likely be able to find the solution from the archives. -- (gem / talk) 23:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's happened to me and others as well. I've "become" User:Jioruji Derako and some people have (rather unfortunately) "become" User:Eloc Jcg. It mainly happens when you click on their images. -- br12 • (talk) • 23:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We had the same problem early on on GWW, and it was solved nicely, iirc. So, Emily, advise goes to bug report and bug fix archives :) - anja 23:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys! I actually passed this along to the IT team before I left for holiday break, so they are aware of the problem and are working with some of the network engineers to track it down and resolve it. I'll give you an update as soon as we are back in the studio and I get some news. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, Emily's getting the skuldflexes. Armond 06:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not IT's still off, or what, but take a look at the conversation (if you can see it) at User talk:Calor/monobook.js when you have the time. It's pretty much the same problem as above, just well-documented by all of us. More fun for IT to figure out as to why users are being logged in as other users. Calor (t) 00:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

that's one rly disturbed conversation ^Teo^ 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hiya guys! I received an email from IT this morning that told me that all caching issues should be resolved. If anyone has any other problems pertaining to caching, please report them to me on the reporting wiki bugs page. Thanks so much for your patience with this weirdness ;) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Emily :) poke | talk 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in

this link. -- Armond Warblade 09:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. If it's an issue with the algorithm itself (which it sounds like), I don't think it's going to be anything that we can really address. I haven't personally looked at the code behind the recent changes page, but if it's like a lot of the rest of the MediaWiki code, it's pretty complicated. Since the "random page" function is usually used for a novelty spin-the-wheel style of reading, I'm not sure it's something that requires attention from IT. It's funny that it seems to rest on pages like that, though :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A more suitable place would be the MediaWiki wiki. -- (gem / talk) 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreachable articles

Hi Emily, because of the recently installed interwiki links we have a problem with one of our articles. As you can see on our List of candidates for deletion or the deletion category itself, there is an article named "gw1:Guild Wars Utopia". Because of the interwiki links we are not able to reach this article, so we cannot delete that article so that it is no longer displayed in the deletion category.
Could you please pass that issue to the IT so that they will look into that problem and maybe delete that page on the server-side? Thanks. poke | talk 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, Poke! I'll pass this along. I am not sure when the team will be able to get to the deletion, since our main wiki folks are actually out of state working on some things in another data center, but I'll put it on their radar nonetheless. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm, looks like my email got eaten. I am going to re-send :) Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about this! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Shared wiki preferences with GWW

Heya Emily, as you know when a user creates an account here they get a GWW account also which shares preferences. In (not so recent) discussion some thought it would be good to have the wikis separate without linked preferences. Discussion skidded to a halt on the question on whether it was actually possible and if it was whether the side-effects on the infant wiki would be worth it - noone could answer for sure. I'm hoping for an answer to either rule the option out or make it real.
Is it possible for the two wikis to have separate preferences now that the second wiki has been set up and has content? Is it something IT is willing to spend time on if that was what we decided we wanted? --Aspectacle 22:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit unclear as to what you mean by separate preferences. Are you talking about players automatically receiving accounts on both wikis, or is there concern about user preferences sharing across the two wikis (like watchlist/recent change preferences/etc)? -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The sharing of sigs across the two wikis is the main problem, as it basically mandates that we have the same sig policy here as on GWW, and most people didn't like GWW's policy. Lord Belar 22:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

However, I think there would be interest in information on both aspects if you are able to provide it, as a few have stated they don't want people to get GWW accounts when they sign for a GW2W account. Any information on the topic of the joined wikis would be helpful. --Aspectacle 22:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as preferences go, I can talk to IT and see if it's even possible to only partially share account information. I'm not positive if it's possible to exclude certain database table references that are currently being shared between the two wikis without having to create completely separate user tables for both sites. As far as that goes, I know that the initial goal was to not require players to sign up for an account on both wikis, so at this point we don't intend to separate those user databases.

We may make future changes to the way players access and sign up for the wiki, so I'll bring up the concerns again and keep you guys updated on anything we determine. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is really unrealistic that this wiki will have a signature policy which will be totally different from the current one on gww. When this wiki gets more active and gww contributors start taking part in (policy) discussions, this wiki will end up in many similarities - including something like the signature policy.

And if people don't like the signature policy on gww, I wonder why they don't take part in the discussions when it's going to be changed?! (There was a draft accepted just yesterday) poke | talk 06:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with those that want separate signatures or logins. I just want to know whether it is possible or not - because I suspect that while the discussion surrounding it has died the topic will come up again. Ideas were being formed, the start of decisions made, without all of the necessary information.

Yes, there are some very reactionary opinions against GWW here, mainly from those outside of the GWW community and it seems that voices in support for GWW style policy are not nearly as loud or as zealous. It will be interesting to see what the final policies will look like. --Aspectacle 09:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Brief wiki outage coming!

Hiya everyone! I just got an email from our IT folks saying that they'd like to take the wiki down for some maintenance on Monday (March 24). They said they'll be doing it from approximately 2:00 AM Pacific until 6:00 AM Pacific, so the wiki will most likely be unavailable during those times. I am going to get an outage notice on the website and post it on the wiki bugs page, but I'll leave it to guys to decide whether one of the dismissable site notices should go up about the scheduled downtime or not :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The wiki's still a little unused at the moment, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to use Sitenotice. What sort of maintenance will they be doing, out of interest? (And thanks for fixing the caching issues :) ) -- pling | ggggg 00:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good idea. I'll play around with the site notice. As far as the maintenance goes, I think they are doing some stuff to our backups. I don't know any concrete details, though. By the way, the change of username really threw me. I knew that was your icon XD -- Emily Diehl (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Although, I'm guessing a MediaWiki version upgrade of GWW is in store ;) (Yep, new name for the GW2W - didn't like my old one so I though fresh wiki, fresh name :) ) -- pling | ggggg 01:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Aww looks like I was wrong about the upgrade :P -- pling | ggggg 01:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking to the GW2W from the GWW

Heya guys! Here's a topic I've been thinking about that I wanted to send past you. When this wiki first started, we didn't announce it anywhere because it was blank. Even though there isn't much content here now (since we haven't really announced much), the structure of the site is coming along and I'm seeing a lot of policy drafts getting written.

My question to you all is when do you think we should move forward with promoting the wiki? I don't think that we will announce it on the official website just yet (we'll probably steer away from this until we have more official GW2 content ready to go). I do think that we should consider putting the link to the site back on the GWW homepage, though. It would be nice to get more folks over here to weigh in on policies so everyone that wants a say can have one before the wiki explodes with content and all the policies are already decided.

As I always say, this is a community-driven wiki, so I don't want to just do something without talking to you guys first. Just consider it/discuss it, and give me your thoughts :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I for one would not like large numbers of people coming over so soon. While I don't want to try to hide it or discourage people from contributing here, we've already had problems with people thinking that we make GW2 here or that we have the beta date, etc. If we are going to have a link on the GWW, then we need a strong disclaimer about the function and content of the wiki. Lord Belar 02:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a few pages on the GWW that already link to here - The Movement of the World and Sylvari to name a couple. There is also a link from the GuildWiki main page, so this wiki already has some publicity.

I do think there will be some redundancy in content - i.e. Guild Wars (1) articles on the Guild Wars 2 Wiki when there is a perfectly good wiki for that purpose - but I think we have just enough users to make sure the content can be regulated at a safe level. We are getting such articles at the moment anyway, but they are being handled fine for the time being. Vandals could be taken care of relatively quickly: most of the grandfathered sysops are active on the GWW so should be easy to contact for emergencies. As Belar says, though, maybe the content regulations should be worked out first. I shouldn't think we would have too much of a lasting problem with a GWW link. -- pling | ggggg 02:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer to keep this wiki as it is now until we get some more content and so more interest in creating policies. At the moment we have too much policy drafts and still no real idea about how we should continue. And I think we are not ready to let lots of visitors in here.. poke | talk 15:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's really been decided upon yet, but hopefully it will soon. I'd prefer to keep the wiki fairly closed until the policies, structure, etc. are set, and we have GW2 content to add (so there is more than the same content and GW1 stuff). Calor 15:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, guys. I can see your reasoning with keeping things how they stand for the time being, so I'll make sure that we respect that request on our end and hold on announcing the wiki until you're ready (although we weren't really planning on doing this until we released more content anyways...hehe). I'll check in periodically to see where we're at for content policies and such. When you guys feel we're at a point where we can start linking off the GWW, just let me know :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Friends

hey emily i got this realy good question i met alot of wonderful people on gw 1 the problem is i dont know them in real life will i be able to have the same friends in gw 2 or even the same guild i think that should be in faqs :D so do we have the same friends Dwgsong 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh.. if those people want to be friends with you, then yeah. But it's really got nothing to do with the game itself. It doesn't belong in the FAQ either, it's pretty much common sense. -- Pling \ talk 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well i think it has allot to do with. Its just like been capable of reserving names form GW1 by activating your respective Hall of Monuments. Maby if the friend(he/she)has their hall of monument active, their name stay in your friend list. Bu the guild thing, hmmmm i don't know about that thats allot of trouble dragging some old SQl dumps('m sure they use that to store Guild member) to a brand new game. Me as a game dev i would not want to do this even if its all automated^^! But also as a player i don't want to rebuild the guild and type everyones name and pay well over 30k for re-envites and

if we have guild halls with the same concept as GW1 ma i would have to spend 5mil to buy 5 Full Guilds again:{ --161.38.223.219 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki down

IMO http://www.guildwars.com/support/networknews/default.php would be a more appropriate redirect target than http://www.guildwars.com/support/. Also, IMO it would be useful to add a news item to the "latest headlines" section on guildwars.com. -- Gordon Ecker 03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you guys are working to fix this, but can you tell us what happened? Was it a freak thing, or triggered by some edit the wiki servers didn't like? calor (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed (before it went completely down) that the Halloween Art Contest 2008 page was missing...and the Halloween Art Contest subject on Regina's page was missing (ONLY the art contest subject)...hmm I hope it'll be back up tomorrow... Shew 03:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys! Yes, we currently have a large number of people working to resolve the issues. Unfortunately, I can't provide any additional details, because I haven't been given any specifics at this time. For the time being, we've redirected the wiki to our support page, and I'll try to keep this updated when I learn more. We're definitely working on it, though. I'm still in the office at 8 pm on election night (when I have a house full of people watching on my TV without me :( ). It's high priority :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes...the election...:(...I hope all goes well for the next 4 years... Shew 04:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

↑ I apologize for making that comment.-- Shew ♠♠♠ 00:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki issues

Hi guys! I'm sorry for the sudden downtime. We're currently working to restore everything back to it's normal state. I'm going through reporting issues right now. I see the one with ImageMagick being unable to display thumbs properly. If anyone see anything else, please give me a yell immediately so I can pass it along to the team who's working on it at this moment. Thanks again, and I'll post more about what happened in a little bit. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again everyone! We believe that we've corrected all of the issues that have popped up on the site. I am going to head home and watch the site from there. If anyone experiences any additional difficulties, please let me know here and I will pass them along. We apologize for the issues. I'll go ahead and post a little about what happened in my journal tomorrow. It's nothing terribly exciting (basically an obscure config that didn't get pointed to a new database after the big wiki upgrade), but I'll fill you in anyways :) Thanks for your patience, and have an awesome night! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki upgrade coming Monday!

Hi guys! I just wanted to give you a heads-up that we'll be doing the upgrade to 1.13.2 here and on the GW2W on Monday. Since there are a bunch of DB changes, the upgrade duration is a little longer. The scheduled downtime is from 4:30 am Pacific (so 12:30 pm GMT) until 8:30 am Pacific (4:30 pm GMT), so somewhere in the range of four hours.

I'm going to post a network news post on the website, but I wanted to give you guys advanced warning so you can get a maintenance header in place for the weekend. For the curious, here are the SVN MediaWiki patch notes for the 1.13 snapshot. Yay for new features and bugfixes! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

GW2

it's been some months... so are you willing to give us any information about gw2 now? :D - Y0_ich_halt 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

As Regina has said on her GWW page a few times now, it's not like each of the dev's has decided they don't feel like giving out information today, it's a decision by management to keep the lid on everything, and when they do finally decide it's okay to lift that lid, I doubt we'll have to ask to get info. - Tanetris 01:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Emily

I just noticed u have an acc here too :P good luck with building a home! - Wuhy 02:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I pop in here periodically, but reside primarily on the GWW (for now). -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.15.1 Upgrade

Hi guys! Tomorrow morning we'll be upgrading both the GWW and the GW2W to MediaWiki version 1.15.1. We'll also be installing the final pending RFTAs and making sure that all extensions are identical and up-to-date on both wikis. I'll be posting a notice on the website about this, but I wanted to give ya'll an advanced heads up anyways! Thanks :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the upgrade or not, but I'm occasionally getting this message when I try to edit pages: Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in. I've never gotten that message until today. Just letting you know in case it is a result of the upgrade.-- Shew 01:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, Shew! I'll ask the team to check into it. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been getting the error anymore, so I guess it fixed itself. Thanks, though!-- Shew 12:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I asked the team to look into it when you reported the issue and they were able to figure out the problem. Thanks again for your report, and let me know if you ever notice any other issues so I can pass them along. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Emily, I've been getting an error whenever I try to upload a certain piece of concept art to the wiki. "The file you uploaded seems to be empty. This might be due to a typo in the file name. Please check whether you really want to upload this file." I have tried changing the image's directory and its file name, but nothing has worked yet. Its size is 4.94 mb, if that helps at all. I noticed that the wiki has been down off and on this afternoon, so maybe you've already noticed the error. I thought I'd let you know just in case the upload error is not my fault.-- Shew 19:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. It worked eventually. :p -- Shew 03:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Could support be moved below search?

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask or whatever. But I was kinda wondering if it was possible to move the support below the search bar, here in gw2w. It happens far to often that I click Report a wiki bug when I want to get to the recent changes C4K3 Talk 14:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --pling  16:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming maintenance this Thursday

Hi guys! I've been notified that the team would like to perform an emergency maintenance on the site this Thursday at 5:00 AM PST. You may have noticed some performance issues with the wiki over the past few days, and I'm pleased to say that the guys have figured out what's been causing these problems. They also believe that they've finally been able to nail down what's been causing the wiki to hiccup when admins protect pages, so we're hoping that this maintenance fixes that issue as well.

If one of you guys could please post a maintenance notice for that time, I'd really appreciate it. I'd set the notice to say 2 hours, but we don't believe it will take that long.

As a final note, we won't be pushing the 1.15.2 changes just yet. We'd like to make sure that these upcoming changes are functioning properly before we throw anymore variables onto the pile. Once we're sure everything is stable, we'll schedule another maintenance for that small update.

Thanks guys! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but /giggle at it being on April 1st. Mat Cauthorn, The Botanist 18:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no this wasn't an April Fool's joke :) We'll need to adjust the time of the notice, though, as the team ran into an additional bit of maintenance they'll need to perform before they can do the wiki changes. I've been told that they'll do these updates to the site on Monday, April 5 instead (same time). Sorry for the confusion! -- Emily Diehl (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Emily :D -- pling 21:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would really want to know how you fixed the protecting pages issue. I've been having that with one of my wikis as well... --Tera 08:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll check with the guys and see, Tera. I can't remember the exact details :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ;-) It's been driving me nuts... --Tera 15:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights

Hi Emily! I think it's best to come to you about this.

(Link) "Content obtained from Guild Wars 2, its web sites, manuals and guides, concept art and renderings, press and fansite kits, and other such copyrighted material, may also be available from this site." should probably be changed to "Content obtained from Guild Wars and / or Guild Wars 2, its web sites..." as I've noticed some imagery from the original Guild Wars floating around. A F K When Needed 16:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"their" rather than "its", then. - Tanetris 14:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning and MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning2 (the edit-screen text) would need to be modified to reflect both games' content. pling 00:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki maintenance

Heya guys! I wanted to pop in and let you know that the operations team has informed me that they will be moving both this wiki and the GW Wiki to their new datacenter homes on Monday, August 16. They expect the maintenance window to last from 6 am PST to around 2 pm PST, although they hope to have it completed in a shorter time.

I apologize for my absence around here lately. I've been up to my nose in tradeshow and GW2 stuff, so I've had to focus all of my energy on that stuff. Once things simmer down, I'll be back to posting and responding to questions. Bear with me! :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Emily! --hnzdvn 17:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Righty-o then, thanks for the info Venom20 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries! I wanted to mention something else. On August 16, we're going to actually make the wiki read only for a time while the DB is moved. So the wiki will likely be up the whole time, but it won't be editable for the period of the maintenance. Please keep that in mind so you're not worried about what's going on when you can view the site but not edit it. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Emily. Hope the move will be successful. Ariyen 06:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Okay, I don't know if you all at community knows, but there's new fake emails going around about Guild Wars 2 and beta keys. I just have received such an email and I sent the report to NcSoft. Ariyen 22:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They twittererererered about that, I'm actually looking forward to getting those mails, at least a change from all those blizzard scams! --zeeZ 22:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

^

I wonder if AneraNet will contact me in-game while I play Guild Wars 2 to inform me of special promotions like Bilzzard contacts me about Cataclysm beta keys when I play WoW. A F K When Needed 22:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the link zeeZ. I have gotten one spam email on Guild Wars 2 , compared to about 20 or so on that Blizzard fake emailing scams on Cataclysm or Account. You'll still have those trying to do scams. I wonder if hotmail will close their free emailling or buff up their security. Most (in the original detailed area) emails I've gotten gaming wise and spam wise has been from hotmail pretending to be from ncsoft or blizzard. Ariyen 07:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)