Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild pages

Proposing historical content change.
Per the recent discussion on the community talkpage, I am going to propose a change to the Historical content section of this policy. I will try to implement TEF's idea because it was widely well received. The goal of this change is to hopefully put more responsibility of maintaining guild pages to the guilds. Removed text shall be struck through, new text shall be italicized.


 * Guild pages will never expire.
 * A guild page s will be tagged as inactive guild if both of the following two conditions are met: it has not received any edits for 3 months.
 * Condition 1: Wiki inactivity - The guild page has not received any edits for 3 months.
 * Condition 2: Inactivity outside of Wiki - Any listed forum and/or website has not received any GW-related edits for 3 months.
 * Any guild member or user of the Guild Wars Wiki may remove the inactive guild tag if they know that the guild is still exists active.
 * If a guild page is tagged as inactive guild for 12 months and has not received any edits to indicate that the guild is active, the guild page will be tagged for deletion.
 * If a guild is disbanded, a former guild member or user of the Guild Wars Wiki should tag the guild page for deletion.
 * Guild pages will be considered historical and tagged with the historical guild if one of the following two conditions is met:
 * Condition 1: Wiki inactivity - The guild page has been tagged as inactive for 3 months.
 * Condition 2: In-game inactivity - The guild is known to have been disbanded.
 * The historical article is to be moved to a historical page  for reference purposes
 * Historical guild page content will be limited to primary information and guild cape image. Additional images and content will be removed.
 * Users may only remove the historical guild tag if the guild is in fact still in existence.


 * Steps to archiving historical guild pages can be found here.

The final result should look something like:


 * A guild page will be tagged as inactive guild if it has not received any edits for 3 months.
 * Any guild member or user of the Guild Wars Wiki may remove the inactive guild tag if the guild is still active.
 * If a guild page is tagged as inactive guild for 12 months and has not received any edits to indicate that the guild is active, the guild page will be tagged for deletion.
 * If a guild is disbanded, a former guild member or user of the Guild Wars Wiki should tag the guild page for deletion.

Due to the nature of the updated policy, the section should be named 'Inactivity and deletion'. Any comments? I would especially like to hear from the man himself, TEF. -- R i ddle 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments on proposed changes

 * I took the liberty of numbering the bullets above, so that they are easier to reference. (The final policy can have numbers or bullets, depending.)
 * (3) I don't think that we should tag the guilds for deletion. I prefer the policy to read, If a guild has been marked as an inactive guild for 12 months or more, its article can be deleted at any time. → That allows us to not worry about stale articles for months and then purge at will, in a one-time project (we might never find the need to delete).
 * (3b) I don't think the sub-point is necessary: (i) stale articles will be marked as inactive in any case; (ii) there are a tiny number of folks that will be responsible and mark-for-deletion articles for disbanded guilds; (iii) the more likely scenario seems to be that a disgruntled former member decides to play havoc with the guild's article (so let's not encourage that behavior).
 * I think everything else fits with where the discussion was leading.

(As a side note: this is/was a group effort; I think my primary contribution has been to collate everyone else's suggestions into one section early in the discussion, which helped everyone to realize how close we were to agreement on most of the ideas.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I proposed tagging for deletion as a means to get the sysops' attention. I figured that we would use a speedy delete instead of the standard delete process, so the sysops can delete straight away. Someone will probably keep a DPL of expired guilds, but the sysops might not necessarily read it.
 * The subpoint was meant to reinforce the idea that the guild is responsible for their page, but I see your point. I'll be fine without it. -- R i ddle 23:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Any last comments?
I figure everyone has been busy the past few days with the Arenanet Open House, but do you have any last comments on GWWT:GUILD? I think there was one issue that didn't seem quite resolved to me: Tagging for deletion. I figure that we'll be using a speedy delete tag (Probably G4: Housekeeping) and that tagging is not entirely necessary. The hope with the tag is to get sysops' attention to a page that needs to be deleted, rather than initiate a delete process. Anyway, I can change the text around from "will be tagged for deletion" to "will be promptly deleted." How does this sound? -- R i ddle 17:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, You shouldn't make headers like that, I thought he was getting Permab& for a second. -- Briar  User Briar Sig 3.jpg  The Spider  17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly prefer it to read, can be deleted after 12 months of inactivity — there's no need to specify anything further. Part of the goal of the policy change is to put more of the burden of guild article maintenance on the guild members and reduce any efforts by the wiki community. Even a speedy delete tag requires (a) someone being familiar with the delete codes and (b) an admin to delete.


 * Tagging and deleting both require active responses from us; saying that we can delete allows us to leave the articles (if they aren't cluttering) or simply delete them all in one fell swoop. The first possibility is the least effort imaginable and the second puts it into the realm of special projects, rather than perennial janitorial work. (I'm also thinking about a year from now, when there will be more staff available for GW2W and fewer here.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Final Product


 * A guild page will be tagged as inactive guild if it has not received any edits for 3 months.
 * Any guild member or user of the Guild Wars Wiki may remove the inactive guild tag if the guild is still active.
 * A guild page can be deleted after 12 months of inactivity.


 * I have also updated Template talk:Inactive guild Will this work? -- R i ddle 00:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wasn't there also something about changing the inactive guild tag to include a date stamp for when it was added? That way if someone does decide that they want to do some cleanup, they can see when the page was tagged.  --Rainith 01:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding a time stamp makes sense. Also, Riddle: did you mean for 15 months of net inactivity (i.e. 3 + 12 more)? or 12 months total (i.e. 3 + 9 more)? (either works for me; I just want to make sure that was what you meant). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 01:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rainith: I don't remember seeing that. I was thinking the date stamp would be for when the page will be deleted. Currently, the template has a parameter for a date stamp, but we could just remove that and make the date stamp automatic. Should the date stamp be the date it was tagged, the date it expires, or both? Is there any advantage to having a date stamp for the day it was tagged?
 * TEF: yes, it would be 15 months of net inactivity. -- R i ddle 03:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Entirely possible that I'm just misremembering things. I was thinking just a simple date stamp for when the page was tagged so that it would be obvious when it was okay to delete.  So if the page was tagged with inactive guild on Dec. 9 2009 you would see that in the notice and then it could be deleted if you looked at that page today (as an entirely arbitrary example).  Up to you or whomever as to including the day or just month/year.   And I was thinking an automatic stamp.  If someone wanted to figure out an automatic stamp that would add 12 (15?  I'm confused now) months on to today's date and say This page may be deleted on XXXX if no edits are made to it. that would work too.  Just something so that a clear date is there and people adding the tags don't have to work for it (i.e. do the math from today's date) as the point of this whole revamp seems to be to make less work for people.  :)  --Rainith 04:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So, we tag on date X and the tag says (words to the effect):
 * As of [today], This page has been inactive at least 3 months.
 * On [today +12 months] (or any time later), we can delete the page (since, by then, this article will have been inactive well over a year).
 * It's easy to prevent this: just make any change (PS: don't forget to remove the tag).

Does that summarize what we've been saying so far? — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 04:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. --Rainith 00:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)