Talk:Relic:Ruby Gem of Respite

Jump to: navigation, search

Since these (and the other relics tagged for deletion) can still be acquired in game from sealed relics, why are we removing individual pages and where would we expect people to get the info? (This parallels the recent discussion on the old marks) Artifact (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Are you 100 percent sure they can still be acquired from sealed relics? If I recall correctly, these were removed totally from the game, and can thus not be acquired anymore at all. --Ravanel (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (EST)
I am 100% sure I'm in possession of a Sealed Adamant Gem of the Moon (purchased from the AH post U2). What else would it produce if not an Adamant Gem of the Moon? I'm kind of afraid to test it now :) I concede you can't acquire a Sealed Adamant Gem of the Moon anymore, but just like I was corrected about the old marks - Guardsman's Marks can still survive if in a vault, for example - the sealed relics didn't disappear with U2.... just the ability to acquire new ones went away... so the relics can still come from somewhere, if in _very_ limited supply. Artifact (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)
Well, we don't have the info for all of the old relics, or pages for every one that we do have info for, and those pages I marked for deletion weren't linked to or from anything - they were just floating out there. Since there were only pages for a handful of them, I figured they should be deleted. I have no real preference, though, if others feel strongly about it. :) Kadi (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2012 (EST)
I disagree about removing these old pages. Some of those relics can indeed not be acquired in-game anymore, but they certainly are in-game still. E.g. the Adamant Gem of the Moon and the Adamant Gem of Dreams are better than the current relics, and many players cherish them. That's why I added the text about their situation instead of deleting them. These pages can still be of value to people who want to know about them! We usually only delete information from the wiki if the subject is removed entirely from the game (so also from people's inventory etc). --Ravanel (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2012 (EST)
So does that mean we should revert the deletion requests (and also link to them from the retired relics page)? --Artifact (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (EST)
It does. --Ravanel (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2012 (EST)
Done (reverting the delete requests anyway) --Artifact (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2012 (EST)
Just a comment on keeping versus deleting versus using obsolete:
  • We always keep all pages that were about items, NPCs, quests, whatever that exist or once existed in-game.
  • We usually only delete a page that was in error, doubled another page, left-overs from merges, or other pages that no longer fills its purpose but they were never about items, NPCs, quests, whatever that once existed in-game.
  • We make pages obsolete, using the Template:Obsolete for items, NPCs, quests, whatever that is taken out of game and is no longer available. This is easy for quests and NPCs and anything else that simply is not available/accessible any longer. Not so for items though...
Exactly as Ravanel explains, they may exist in inventories for a long time after they were taken out of use; it is a big gap between obsolete and extinct. However, at one point or another we must mark pages as obsolete but we do not have a clear policy on when that should be done for items and that is a problem. Personally I would think that "obsolete" can be used as soon as the item is no longer available, otherwise a "blurb" must be added to each page telling the facts, and later on it will still be made obsolete. When is the best date for that? And who will remember to eventually do that? That is why I prefer doing it right away, but are there good reasons against that?
Zimoon (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2012 (EST)
@Artifact: if only... I don't think it works like that. Either that sealed relic was from before the update, or it will give something else. There are no means to acquire these relics directly anymore. Some do have similar names, though. --Ravanel (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2012 (EST)
All depends as to what you mean by acquire. I use "acquire" to mean, "If I break a sealed relic, I acquire the relic, and the sealed relic is lost/destroyed". In that sense, since it is possible to trade the sealed relics even post U2, it is possible to acquire them. I agree there are no new sealed relics being added, so that if you see gaining the sealed relic as "acquire" then there is no ability to "acquire". --Artifact (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (EST)