GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.
Talk:Guild Wars Nightfall/Archive
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the.|
Disagree with deletion
- . "Guild Wars Nightfall" is actually registered trademark and domain names.
- . Someone will come in and put this information in someway or the other
- . Thus its best if we preemptively write a neutral version that disclaims all the rumors.
-PanSola 07:19, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
- I, too, strongly disagree with the delete tag. That NCsoft registered the trademark and the domains is no rumor or secret. It's an official fact. --Tetris L 07:37, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
- I tend to agree with the deletion or better yet making this a redirect. I don't see a problem with mentioning in the article for Campaign Three that Nightfall is believed to be the name of the campaign based on the trademark and domain name registration, but until/unless ANet reveals the official name I think at best this should be a redirect and nothing more. --Rainith 22:55, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
- Not when stated at the very top of the Campaign Three article is: No title has been officially announced so far. Note: NCSoft has officially trademarked the name "Guild Wars Nightfall" and registered the domain names www.guildwarsnightfall.com/org/net. However, it is unconfirmed whether this is the tentative title for campaign III or even any future Guild Wars campaign at all. But you may be correct, I too am a firm believer that most people are stupid and can't really read.
- I do think that us having the article at all lends it much too much credence at the moment though so I agree with the delete request. --Rainith 23:17, 17 May 2006 (CDT)
- What PanSola said. Trying to hush it up Nightfall is pointless. If you read through any forum thread about Chapter Three on any major GW website, the name Nightfall usually pops up quickly. I'd rather be proactive and have a neutral (as neutral as possible) article about it, stating nothing but the known facts. Drawing conclusions can be left up to our readers.
- Whether we should mention Nightfall in the Chapter Three article is a very different matter. See Talk:Chapter Three#Guild Wars Nightfall. --Tetris L 01:45, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
- I have to say, I agree with this article, but I don't agree with any link to Chapter 3. For all we know Guild Wars Nightfall could be the name of NCSofts next staff night out. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 03:26, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- Yes, I know that PanSola. What I am saying is that I don't want the article deleted. If the majority disagree with me and the article is deleted then I don't think that we should speculate in the chapter 3 article that this name has anything to do with chapter 3. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 03:38, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- Minor point: I agree we shouldn't speculate in the chapter 3 article that this name has anything to do with chapter 3. However, because it is a fact that speculations are flying around, I believe we should state that the existing speculations in various forums are not backed by any official announcements, and remain as they are, purely speculations. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:53, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- It has become clear that the actual problem is how to handle the speculations in the Campaign Three article. The discussion about that should be continued in Talk:Campaign Three. As for this article, I think we all agree meanwhile that the article is justified, and that it is okay as long as it states nothing but facts. Hence I'm about to remove the delete tag. Or do we have to put it to a vote? --Tetris L 04:00, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- I'm late to the party, but I think this article should be deleted. There has been no official confirmation by Anet or NCSoft that "Guild Wars Nightfall" has anything to do with Guild Wars. Interested people can read the speculation in Talk:Campaign Three#Guild Wars Nightfall, but speculation should be left to talk pages and fansite forums. 188.8.131.52 04:04, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- There has been no official confirmation that "Guild Wars Nightfall" has anything to do with Guild Wars????? You're kidding, right? Oh, sure, despite the "Guild Wars" in the name it may be an expansion for Lineage II. C'mon, how obvious can it be. :rolleyes: And even then ... the article doesn't say that "Guild Wars Nightfall" has anything to do with Guild Wars. :p --Tetris L 04:26, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- Your personal opinion about the relationship of "Guild Wars Nightfall" (or, more precisely, "GUILD WARS NIGHTFALL") to Guild Wars notwithstanding, there has been no official confirmation of any relationship. And that is the standard we have required of information about future releases of Guild Wars. I see no reason to back down now.
- 184.108.40.206: Again ...the article does not say that there is any relationship between Guild Wars Nightfall and Guild Wars, or any future release of it. Quite the opposite: It points out that there is no official confirmation for any such a relationship. Now, please explain again why you want the article deleted. --Tetris L 05:04, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
And despite all that: Yes, there is confirmation that it's related to GWars. Guild Wars is a registered trade mark. Shandy 04:27, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- Fact: There exists official (US Patent & Trademark Office) confirmation that GUILD WARS NIGHTFALL is a registered trademark of NCsoft.
- Fact: There does not exist any official confirmation that GUILD WARS NIGHTFALL is related to any future Guld Wars campaign or projects, in developement or not.
Now, tell me, what is wrong with presenting the above two pieces of information with a Neutral Point Of View? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 04:51, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- Keep the article, it's "information" about "the game." There is no refuting that it's information, not rumors, and there is no refuting that it's very much the kind of information we already have here. The speculation is not there, so it's fine. --Karlos 05:29, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
this reminds meof when rockstar registed GTA: Bogata as a trademark good times--Kerotan 08:20, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- I completely agree that this page should exist. It currently seems to be in good shape; it could certainly be written "wrong", but then the issue is merely content, not existence or whatnot. --JoDiamonds 09:08, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
- Enough of this already!! The article states nothing but undisputable facts, and nobody has given an even remotely compelling reason why it should be deleted. Consequently I'll remove the delete tag on Monday as the latest, if nobody beats me to it. --Tetris L 09:18, 19 May 2006 (CDT)