Talk:The Great Hall of Qo'noS (pre-Season 4)

Confusing
If no-one disagrees then I shall blank this page and turn it into a redirect for First City. I think its confusing to keep an article for something that no longer exists. --Zutty 23:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * *nitpick on* As far as I know the map is still in use for one of the KDF missions (at least a variant).*nitpick off* On a more serious note, I don't agree with blanking it. You'll never know when you might need a good reference to how the game was in the past. --Dukedom 09:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Dukedom on this. However, there should be a really obvious warning on the top of that page to indicate to users that this article describes a Klingon player hub that is no longer available and only listed for archival purposes. Regards, --RachelGarrett 11:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not so willing to let this one go as easily. The wiki is supposed to be a clear and incisive reference guide to the game, not to simply be a repository for every bit of trivia related to it. First of all, why would users want to know what the old Qo'noS looked like, or where the NPCs used to be? Second, even if they did want that they could look in the revision log. Yes, the map does still appear in the mission, but that should be documented there, not here.
 * I kind of see your point of view, and in general I wouldn't be in favour of blanking an article, but I think this is an exceptional case. The wiki is still a real mess and I dont think it helps matters to leave a now stale major article like this one hanging. What about when the currency overhaul goes live... are we going to update this to say 'when Emblems used to exist, you would have traded them in here...'? It seems to me that it will make less and less sense to keep this as time goes on. IMO better to just prune it away now. --Zutty 17:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, then we'll have to wait for others to weight in on this, because I'm also a firm believer in documenting what has been an important part of the game. Actually, I would argue that we should find a way to archive the old store prices and currencies somewhere instead of erasing them. However, you are right that it does not help the Wiki if that sort of information is likely to be confused or interfering with articles describing the current state of the game. Maybe this is a reason to introduce a new namespace that would exclude these sorts of articles from the default search. Regards, --RachelGarrett 17:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the harm of leaving this one because we can clearly mark it as removed due to the whole article being about a removed item. Being an article, it doesn't get in the way of anything else or complicate our efforts to keep our content up to date. I don't think there's any real need to adopt either a save-everything-old or a remove-everything-old policy; we make the call on the case in hand. I believe in this case, we mark it clearly, we link to the First City that replaced it, remove it from categories related to current content, and then don't worry about it. Content we edit away out of pages would still be accessible through the page history, as Zutty points out, but deletion removes any accessibility for regular users. Blanking it would preserve the history, but that choice would confuse almost anyone who came across this blank article. &mdash; Eyes  [[Image:User-Eyes-Sig.png|link=User talk:Eyes]] 18:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright then. The removal of the categories helps, and the top notice is fairly clear, though I'm still going to change 'is' to 'was' in the introduction. I still think it adds nothing to the wiki though, and I would be strongly against archiving costs of things in old currencies and so forth. There is still an awful lot of out-dated and misleading information here on the wiki, and I think it will compound that problem 10-fold if we are to somehow keep track of and reconcile the current state of the game with all its previous states. We'll end up with huge bloated articles with notices all over them that are totally inconsistent and unreadable. --Zutty 11:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) I'm not advocating a save-everything policy. Just saying it's easy enough when the removed content corresponds exactly to one of our articles, it's easy to keep. And personally, I do find some value in. I remember once finding a map in Guild Wars while I was still pretty much a noob to the game that included an arena I couldn't find. It was nice that GuildWiki kept the article for the arena and marked it as removed from the game, letting me stop wondering why. This case is probably less helpful, but still, better to just sever it from current content as much as possible and not delete it because that's just not much work. But for other stuff that can't be so neatly and easily severed, I'm only for it if we have an editor willing to do the work involved in nearly severing it (i.e. transferring to some kind of historical article). &mdash; Eyes   12:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)