Template talk:Guild Wars series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MMOG logo This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on the the assessment scale.


I've reverted the template back to the original because:

a)Fair use images are not allowed in templates (see WP:FAIR)
b)All of the character and location articles have been deleted, thus there's no need for the new format.

Feel free to object and/or revert.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undone reduction

I have undone this because I see no doctrinal reason to leave out mentions of future games in templates. The articles on these expansions are properly sourced to reliable print publications, and each future game is manifestly notable given how a number of premier print publications are front-paging them over the month of May. If there is a policy or guideline against mentioning future games in navigational templates, please point me to it. Eric Sandholm

I agree with including GW:Eye of the North - I have no debate on that one being included.
But, I'm not so sure of including Guild Wars 2 - I'm still thinking about it myself - curious to hear other views. It's technically a different game. By all reports the game engine, environmental interraction, skill usage, story lines, user interface, etc will all be changed for Guild Wars 2. On the other-hand, it takes place in the same game universe (roughly 100 years later) and will carry-over many known in-game species, and reportedly even some form of benefit from accomplishments in the original series will be accessable in Guild Wars 2. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to Guild Wars Eye of the North was removed again. The removal of the link gives the edit summary "games that exist in speculative form only are not core topics"; however, we now have information from a media partner of the publisher that confirms the name of the game, several of the game features, and an overview of the general storyline of the game. If the article were a candidate for AfD, then I could understand the reason given in the edit summary; but the information we have eliminates the WP:CRYSTAL issue that existed this time last month.

From a more practical standpoint - many players of the game will be seeking information on the upcoming release. By not having this navigational link, it encourages readers to erroneously expand on the information contained in the root Guild Wars article, rather than seeing that the confirmable information already exists in the Guild Wars Eye of the North article. --161.88.255.139 22:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

These users should seek a news site. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That argument for not including the link to it ignores the facts given in the initial paragraph for including it. If you trully believe the article Guild Wars: Eye of the North to be speculative, nominate it for AfD. If the article is deleted, then obviously no link belongs in the nav box. If it survives or not even nominated for AfD, then the link should be restored to the nav box. --161.88.255.139 22:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Sourced speculative comments are often appropriate for Wikipedia. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that those speculative comments are a core topic in an article series. Just because an article exists doesn't mean it has to be linked in a navbox; navboxes link core topics, and leave comprehensive lists to articles, lists, and categories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, do we have different deffinitions of speculative going here? I read speculative as being something based on opinion, guesswork (including educated guesses), or an interpretation of available hints/clues. From your statements, you seem to also be including confirmed preliminary information as being speculative. The cited source in the Guild Wars: Eye of the North article is a media partner of the game publisher (listed as such on the game developer's website). The magazine has published content that was provided to them by the game publisher. While this content is preliminary, it is not speculative by my understanding of the term. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe? I was able to see MiB's point; I just hadn't been aware that WP had a practice not to include this type of related content in nav boxes. But I want to see his reply to your query now. --161.88.255.139 23:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
They're future predictions. They're speculative in that they're promotional claims, and the game may or may not have any of these in the final product.
Part of an encyclopedia is a historical perspective. I'm not saying we need to sit on recent events, such as the announcement of an upcoming game, but we need to look at it as a preliminary annoucement, not as the product that it will someday be. This will be a core part of this topic when it is near enough to release that there is more to say about it than the speculative, promotional preliminary descriptions, but right now the Eye of the North article is about speculation and predictions, not an expansion pack. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You keep calling it speculation, but it is all reliably sourced. If Wikipedians are not empowered to publish original thought, they are certainly not empowered to deem properly attributed material to be speculation. What proof do you have, after all, that the material published in PC Gamer is likely false? It seems to me that you want all future events to be ipso facto unreliable, which might be a fine philosophical position, but it is also soapboxing. Your core/non core distinction is a baffling one. ArenaNet's future depends on finishing these games satisfactorily, so these games are surely at the core of the Guild Wars topic. Already there are in-game representations of elements of Eye of the North, and it is scheduled for release not half an year from now, which means that ArenaNet are dead serious about it. I imagine they will lose a lot of goodwill (thus, sales) if they back out of their announced release plan for Eye of the North now. Guild Wars 2 might be more speculative given that its release is at least 2 years away, so I will readily agree to leaving it out of navboxes for now. Eric Sandholm 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

All interested folk are pointed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive24#Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes, where they might find a fuller explanation for User:A Man In Black's actions. The locus of discussion is a (disputed) guideline, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Olympic Games navigation box links to games until 2022 and 2024, for which the only information is who is 'considering' making a bid for hosting them. I'd say adding information about GW:EN and GW2 is quite reasonable. Not just because of precedence, rules, and guidelines, but for a much more important reason: People interested in the current three campaigns, are likely to be interested in hard information on the future chapters as well. Never forget who we are making this encyclopedia for.--Per Abrahamsen 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What hard information? All we have is promises from the developer. That's a fair bit away from hard information. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard information might be the wrong word as people obviously put different meaning in it. Sourced information is the phrase to use, as always on Wikipedia.--Per Abrahamsen 06:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem: The information we have is nothing more that promotional material from the developer. I only skimmed through the PC Gamer article; but what I read never stated that they actually saw a demo or any playable content for GW:EN; their words were repeatedly "we have been told by ArenaNet ..." or "ArenaNet says ...". This is at best vaporware at this stage; not sourced material, it's merely marketing. --76.22.17.84 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

ArenaNet is a source. You can at best (or worst) say that it is not multiple sourced, which is a common requirement for scientific publications. It is not, however, a requirement for Wikipedia. --Per Abrahamsen 06:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the edit war

Instead of solving the conflict, people are simply reverting each other back and forth. It is silly and can only lead to page protection and blocking. Let's negotiate like adults please. Eric Sandholm 20:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)