Template talk:Inactive guild

Does it automatically tag it for deletion? Or does it just say that & we have to manually add the delete tag? &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  04:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It automatically acts like a deletion tag, so after the time period, the tagged guild is pending deletion. poke | talk 12:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  22:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Message
Would it be possible to add the two links that appear at the bottom of the Delete template; what links here and page history; to this template since it acts just like a delete template? -- Kakarot  02:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * uhm, why? There is a history link on the top, so adding a small link into the template doesn't really help.. And what links here is available from the toolbox, however I think what links here is useless when deleting guilds because of inactivity. It doesn't matter if a guild page is linked from 100 pages or only from 1, as long as it's inactive. poke | talk 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I'm lazy and don't want to scroll :P -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 14:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * read my last sentence again :P And you have to scroll anyway to be sure that you tag all used images for deletion :P poke | talk 14:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just remembered why I included What links here, lately I've found a number of inactive guild pages that still have a redirect from either the mainspace or a mis-capitalized version of the guild name so it is still useful although probably not enough to warrant the added links. -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 03:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging guild pages incorrectly.
According to http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/GWW:GUILD a guild page should only be marked for deletion if it qualifies on TWO criteria. 1, that the page hasn't been edited in 6 months, and 2, that the listed contact is inactive.

I'm concerned that this template doesn't specify the 2nd criteria, and therefore guild pages are being marked for deletion when they shouldn't be. My guild has had this happen to them. Yes their page hadn't been editted in a while, but the guild leader has been playing GW every day, and the guild's webpage is active, and as such should NOT have been deleted as per the 2nd condition.

This template needs editing to comply with the current policy on guild pages. 86.20.251.52 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The template is not really the problem here, but the deletion process itself. Usually, people that manages the guild pages tries to contact players in the contact list before performing the deletion, but the contact attempt may fail from time on time. This is why pages are deleted one month after being tagged, instead of the usual "3 days" limit.


 * Users who created the guild articles have to make themselves responsible for them if they want to "keep" them. The current policy already gives a 6 months without edits timeframe before the tag, and gives one more month of grace before the deletion. If a user leaves his guild article unatended for 7 months, i don't think he really has anyone but himself to blame for the deletion. After all, we are not really obligued to try to go to every e-mail, webpage or forum trying to find users to ask them if their guild is still alive.


 * In any case, there is currently a policy change proposal that would solve this by eliminating the deletion of guild articles because of inactivity.--Fighterdoken 22:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To speak for myself, I always check urls to guild pages or forums to get information about the activity. If your guild page was deleted, just feel free to request undeletion; as long as the guild still exists, you'll get all your content back. poke | talk 22:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand from my guild leader that he has requested an undelete of the guild page concerned. The guild page itself was more of a general information about the guild and what we do, there isn't anything that needed updating, when the basic information is the same as it was previously we still do PvE etc, etc.. 86.20.251.52 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ri) I have been complaining about people tagging guilds as inactive in error too, and could not understand why editors persisted in disregarding the second criteria. Guilds with active forums listed on the wiki page are getting tagged left and right. Now I understand why, the template wording implies just Wiki inactivity is enough. To me it is imperative that the template includes BOTH criteria for being tagged as inactive, to avoid editor confusion regarding the policy. --Lensor ( talk ) 07:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest the following rewording:

"This Guild article has not received any edits in over 3 months and also do not list an accessible active website or forum. It is therefore assumed to be inactive or disbanded, and will be moved to historical content 3 months after tagging per our Guild pages policy. To prove that your guild is still active, either edit your article to reflect any changes that have occurred within the 3 months, or remove this template with a note on the talk page or in the edit summary." --Lensor ( talk ) 08:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how such rewording would solve the issue. People would still mischeck (or half-check) contacts.
 * If, on the other hand, you are saying that we should change GWW:GUILD to point out that guild articles that include links to a forum or web page cannot be tagged as inactive as long as such forums or webpages exist (regardless of activity on them), i guess that could work, but it's a matter to be discussed on the policy talk page.--Fighterdoken 08:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A reminder can't hurt. As it stands now, the template is in direct conflict with the policy, and many editors seem to go with the "interpretation" of the template. Basically the template has changed the policy without changing the policy. --Lensor ( talk ) 08:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that the people who tags reads what the templates say. I know i don't :).--Fighterdoken 08:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * *Shrug* you might be right. But in any case it would make it more evident when a guild is tagged in error, even to people not familiar with the whole policy (like people visiting the wiki page to check out the guild).--Lensor ( talk ) 08:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(ri) Actually, I'll go ahead and change it. If anyone thinks it is wrong to include both criteria in the template they can revert it, but they better be able to motivate how it makes any sense having only one of the two criteria listed. --Lensor ( talk ) 10:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Text change.
Per the recent discussion on the community talkpage, I am going to propose a change to the text of this template. I propose:


 * This Guild article has not received any edits in over 3 months. If this is not rectified the Guild will be assumed to be inactive or disbanded and the article will automatically be deleted, per our Guild pages policy.

To prove that your guild is still active, either edit your article to reflect any changes that have occurred, or remove this template with a note on the talk page or in the edit summary.

Any comments? -- R i ddle 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine based on Riddle's original policy proposal. I've suggested that we not bother with tagging for deletion (so we can remove wholesale, rather than one at-a-time); that would require some minor rewording of the text above. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 22:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This Guild article has not received any edits in over 3 months. If this is not rectified the Guild will be assumed inactive or disbanded and the article can be deleted, per our Guild pages policy.

To prove that your guild is still active, either edit your article to reflect any changes that have occurred, or remove this template with a note on the talk page or in the edit summary.


 * I've updated this to better reflect the potential form of the new guild policy. -- R i ddle 00:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Works for me. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)