Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild pages/Archive 2

From Guild Wars Wiki

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion or voting on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild pages.

Moving on

Okay, so, the formatting guide at Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Guilds is finished. Can we finally get this ratified and move on? =P MisterPepe talk 12:30, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes I'm itching to start a guild write-up. :-)

_Biscuits 12:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Should be okay now. If no one complains before tomorrow evening, let's make it a policy. --

(gem / talk) 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

/agreed and sure that most would be happy to start writing guild pages.--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 13:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

One little niggling thing... this wiki is an encyclopedia, so shouldn't articles be written in third person, instead of first person. If I were looking to make a page on an extremely notable guild like, say, Amazon Basin or a fictional guild like Ascalon's Chosen then I wouldn't be able to. I doubt that we'll get many notable guild leaders registering so if we want to populate the guild namespace at all, I suggest making this change before it's too late. --Santax 13:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

A wiki is not an encyclopaedia at all, a wiki is a community based collaboration, Wikipedia is a wiki based encyclopaedia, but wikis in general do not have to be and this one certainly isn't. --Jamie

13:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd say we were an encyclopedia... a comprehensive compendium that contains information on a particular branch of knowledge. But anyway, back to the point that needs to be addressed before this goes off-topic... :P --Santax 13:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

So, to clarify, you're talking about historical guilds that have disbanded but you still feel deserve a place on the wiki, even though they no longer have members to create the article? Because, if you're talking about 3rd person in articles, then you didn't actually read the Guild:Example Guild page =P I'm also not really sure where the "guild leaders" comment came from - there's nothing in the guide or policy saying that it has to be written/maintained by the GL at all. I know that, at least for my guild, I'm going to be the one writing it (heck, I already did) and I'm not even an officer =P To be fair, it actually doesn't even say that the person making the article has to be a guild member at all - so, hypothetically, you could go and make that Amazon Basin page, but it would probably get tagged with the {{historical guild}} marker. If you were trying to say something completely different from these three possible meanings I got from your comment, please try and clarify, because I'm somewhat confused :? MisterPepe talk 13:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that 3rd person must be required just like in any other article in the wiki. --

(gem / talk) 13:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah. Gotcha. I agree, though I don't actually think we'll be able to get guild articles to conform to NPOV (heh). I've added the phrase "Just like any other page on the Guild Wars Wiki, all guild articles must be written in third person format." to the formatting guide. MisterPepe talk 13:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I dislike the part that goes "Guild pages that violate these standards are subject to deletion at any time". It seems harsh and may somewhat scare guild members from editing. It also would need to have deletion policy amended to cover it. Since deletion of these guild pages may prove very controversial, why not just leave them to the General Deletion (delete tag) process? (We'd still have speedy deletion criteria for the cases of pure vandalism and attack pages) --Rezyk 14:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

What happens when a Guild wants to remove their page from the wiki? What happens if a Guild Leader wants to remove the guild page, but the guild members do not? --Rezyk 14:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Where did you see "Guild pages that violate these standards are subject to deletion at any time"? I didn't find it. I think the deletion process should be the same as for other articles, except that they should have the inactiviy deletion. If some members of the guild want the article deleted and some not, it should be discussed on the talk page just like any deletion request. --

(gem / talk) 14:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's near the top, right before the first header. Regarding deletion, I look at the matter this way: What is the purpose of these Guild pages?

A) To form our own reference library of guild information

B) As a convenience to individual guilds

If the answer is A, or both A and B, then I'd tend toward deletion like mainspace articles' (General Deletion; keep unless consensus to delete). If the answer is B and not A, I'd tend toward deletion like userspace pages' (General Deletion + Speedy Deletion U1; delete if user or consensus wants). Some things in the current draft which make me feel "B and not A" is appropriate are:

"Guild pages should generally not be created or maintained by non-members."
"A guild that harms or frustrates the Guild Wars Wiki may forfeit their privilege of having a guild page."

--Rezyk 18:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Interesting point. I see guild pages as both A and B actually. Something like: "Guild pages on the wiki are meant to be a repository of information on current/active guilds and as a convenience for members of these guilds to provide more information about themselves to others." -- ab.er.rant

04:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

We were so close to making this policy... /doh --Jamie

06:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I was all ready to stick my guild stuff in there :) To be honest, to me and (I would imagine) the majority of contributors, Guild pages will be pretty much a vanity thing with the added convenience of a new method of recruitment. Still, gogo guild pages, say I --Snograt

06:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Aye, a guys gotta love vanity, especially for guys like me who are proud to the leader of their guild :) --Jamie

07:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

So why are you all sounding like this was defeated?--Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 07:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

(@Vallen) - no, not defeated: delayed. Got an itchy keyboard finger ^^ --Snograt

08:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Me too. I created one and had to save it and mark for deletion. Thought it was passed already at that time. My bad. :) --Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 10:55, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rezyk: I removed the note from the top of the article. It was contrary to the stuff under the deletion heading. I also modified the deletion stuff a bit. Please review it and comment. --

(gem / talk) 07:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I like those changes; I interpret it as deferring it to deletion policy, which is appropriate. I guess my concerns in general are quelled IF we all agree that we should eventually add something like "speedy delete if guild leader or all editing guild members want" to deletion policy (and keep in mind that this would also apply to ~~historical~~ important guilds). If we don't have this, my worry is that we could end up pissing off a guild that wants to remove themselves from the wiki, or inadvertently get mired in guild politics. If we don't want this, I suggest we make it clear somewhere that we might keep guild pages up against the wishes of the guild, and reexamine the parts I noted above as pointing to "B and not A". --Rezyk 12:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, given that the site's governed by GFDL, once the guild page is up, it's up to the community to maintain them and decide whether to keep it or not, not the guild members. -- ab.er.rant

12:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

The GFDL just makes that real-world-legal. Whether or not it is wiki-legal is up to us. =) One way or another, it will still be guided by community consensus...I'm basically just asking: "Is it the current consensus that we will generally allow any guild (or its leader) to remove themselves without requiring an explicit community consensus at the time?" I'm getting more worried that we're not all on the same page here (not even regarding myself, but between others). You said it'd be "up to the community to maintain" the guild pages, but doesn't that directly contradict "Guild pages should generally not be created or maintained by non-members"? --Rezyk 13:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

What if a guild that is well known and "important" wants to remove their guild page? Isn't the idea especially to document those guilds? I would just handle guild page deletions like any other deletions. Consensus is needed, it doesn't matter if the users are in the guild or not. --

(gem / talk) 15:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not opposed to taking this as our own documentation project in part, and relying on General Deletion, but then it seems like other pieces of the draft don't fit well with that. Suppose that important guild wants to delete, but it is refused by the community. Who exactly will maintain and continue documenting that guild? Again, the current draft says "Guild pages should generally not be created or maintained by non-members", so would it only be maintained by the people who want to see it gone? Or worse, what if the guild then thinks that trying to get this part invoked is a good idea? -- "A guild that harms or frustrates the Guild Wars Wiki may forfeit their privilege of having a guild page." --Rezyk 16:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Valid points. I guess the easiest way is to allow deletion if the guild decides that they want it deleted. (How do we verify guild membership?) --

(gem / talk) 16:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm thinking that in the general case it should be okay to guess at it from who has been editing the page or is claiming to be a member. If/when that's not rigorous enough, we could have the guild page itself list which user accounts should be considered the primary editors or guild leader (which might be good for other purposes too), and go by that as long as it hasn't been disputed. If it ever is really really disputed, then any admin can ask to verify in game, right? --Rezyk 17:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

That's true. I think it's better not to list wiki users on the guild page, mainly for the same reasons why only a few in game contact names should be listed. --

(gem / talk) 17:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

That's fine with me too. --Rezyk 17:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

So what should we put in the deletion policy? -- (gem / talk) 17:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'd still like to see ab.ber.rant's response and if he's okay with this direction for now. I guess we can still try hashing that out in the meantime. How about speedy delete criteria "GD1: requested by the guild leader or all active editing guild members"? --Rezyk 18:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Might be okay. Want to hear others opinnions on that. --

(gem / talk) 18:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I might have missed something, but what's to stop me from saying I am in guild [ABC]? I can't see a system where we check people's guild in game working. LordBiro 18:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you mean regarding this deletion process, or in general? (Note that the current draft already has an administrator may ask the primary editors of a guild page to prove that they are members of the guild) For this deletion process, even if you claimed to be a member, that's not enough to satisfy the criteria if there are any real members around. --Rezyk 19:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to keep holding this up, so I edited the proposal into something that would satisfy my concerns about deletion. I don't know exactly how ab.er.rant or LordBiro feel about this version, but if we want to adopt this, I have no current objection. --Rezyk 20:30, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Better than I thought it would be. :) This'll be a policy tomorrow in the evening if no one objects. --

(gem / talk) 20:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

*thumbs up* -- ab.er.rant

23:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Supported. And I'll go learn Python to write a delete-bot, just in case. :) —Tanaric 03:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Learning Python is easy, I suggest you start with The Holy Grail. ;) --Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 13:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh dear.... :P LordBiro 14:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

That hit the spot. I'm lauhing aloud here, hope no one is watching. --

(gem / talk) 14:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I've made this a policy now. -- (gem / talk) 13:38, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Woohoo! *gets writing*

_Biscuits 13:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Can't believe this was actually accepted. Cheers guys, lets hope this goes well. :) --Dirigible 14:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Alliance link

The policy states no guild page should link to a page outside the Guild: namespace, but the alliance navbox contains a link to the Alliance page. Kind of picky, but I wanted to link to the territory article but when removing the link noticed this flaw. _Biscuits 23:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Links pointing out of the Guild: namespace are perfectly fine. The policy only prohibits redirects in either direction and inbound links from the main namespace. So links to Alliance and territory are perfectly fine. :) --Dirigible 23:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh OK! Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding. :-)

_Biscuits 00:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you add that in? I misread it the first time around too. Does this mean we can link to members on the wiki? - BeXoR 00:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep, definitely. The only purpose of disallowing redirects and inbound links is to make it obvious that almost everything in the Guild: namespace is player-created content, and that it has nothing to do with ANet. Hopefully it's clearer now. --Dirigible 00:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

That definitely helps clear things up. People who jump straight to the 'disallowed' section may still get tripped up on the last point if they've not read your note in the previous section.

_Biscuits 00:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather keep the Categorically Disallowed section free of any exceptions, to be honest; it's a very important section and its message shouldn't be diluted if at all possible. Furthermore, I don't think a clarification is really needed there, since the word "link" isn't used even once in that entire section. Maybe we could add a couple of examples in the formatting guide, though? --Dirigible 00:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Links to and from user namespace should be specified as acceptable. - BeXoR 00:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not disallowed. Only links from the main namespace is disallowed. -- ab.er.rant

04:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

'Multiple guild' guilds and categories

See this for a list of guild pages that redirect to Guild:Xen Of Onslaught. This is a guild divided into many guilds due to huge member base. Should those redirect pages be categorised like normal guild articles categories? I suppose it would just add to confusion to have them in the categories, but I want to make sure in the early phase of the guild name space. -- (gem / talk) 14:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I specifically skipped it when I was making those, simply because I thought it was pretty much all taken care of on the main page. If we wanted to categorize them, I'd say just do it as a "Guild Redirect" - since it's not the actual article, we'd really be categorizing the same article a dozen times =P MisterPepe talk 14:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, but there really isn't a reason to have them if they aren't visible somewhere. Category:Guild redirects might be a nice idea. --

(gem / talk) 14:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Guild userboxes within Guild namespace

I made a userbox for members of our guild to include on their userpage. Currently it's a sub-article of my userpage, (User:Biscuits/SoT), but it would make much more sense for it to be a sub-article of the Guild page (say Guild:Scouts Of Tyria/Userbox). I'm unsure of whether this is allowed or not. In the policy it says no guild page may transclude any page outside the Guild and Template namespaces, but there is nothing about a User page including content from the Guild namespace. _Biscuits 08:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I personally see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed. --Dirigible 09:04, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I like the idea. --

(gem / talk) 12:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Nice idea. I've had a guild userbox on my userpage for some time now and this makes sense. Do you think it would be ok to have a link to the guild userbox page on the guild page as well so any guildies visiting can find the userbox easier? --Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 13:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I made a change to my guild page to demonstrate my thoughts on the above. Looks easy enough. Click here to see the userbox link under the Contact information header and then click it to see my guild page userbox. This is an example and if it's decided that it's a bad move I will gladly remove it but in the mean time, let me know if this looks good or is good and if you would approve. Thanks.--Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 13:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I just put the link to ours on the Guild's talk page. There seems to be agreement that this is OK, so I'm going to move it over to the Guild namespace. :)

_Biscuits 14:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Alliance navbox

This is sort of related to the above, but I decided to make a new heading for it. Guild:Scouts Of Tyria made Guild:Scouts Of Tyria/Alliance Navbox, which is meant to ease the updating of the alliance member list. Instead of updating every single guild in the alliance they can just edit one single page. I think this possibility should be mentioned in the formatting guide page. -- (gem / talk) 14:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

1st problem (possibly)

Well, it looks like we may have our first problem guild page, but not in anyway that I would have guessed. See Guild:Dudele dulci, I don't know what it translates to, it may just be vandalization. What is the policy for this sort of guild page? --Rainith 12:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

The correct name for the guild page is Guild:Dudele Dulci. I'm guessing that "Hai tu hoasca prinde-ma hai tu hoasca prinde-ma" means "Are you sure it's supposed to be here, this page is blank, dude" in Romanian. Adding a del tag to the mis-capitalised page now. --Dirigible 12:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I ran it through a (poor) translator and it "prinde-ma", mentioned twice, seems to mean old hag... LordBiro 13:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Google, "Prinde-ma, daca poti!" is the Romanian title of that "Catch Me If You Can" Spielberg movie. :| --Dirigible 13:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I got our resident Romanian, an ex Dudele Dulci member to translate. It means "Come on old woman, catch me".

_Biscuits 18:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Dirig was way off. :P - BeX 18:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Guild namespace header

Hi guys! With the introduction of the wiki in-game, you can see that we've been getting a large amount of traffic and a large number of guild pages are being created. Some have detailed content, others not so much. After seeing how we're progressing, I have some thoughts.

To start, I think that we all should be very cautious of chasing away new users by instantly flagging pages with less than optimal or attractive content for deletion. Keep in mind that a large number of players visiting the wiki may have never encountered something of this nature before, and simply may not know how to proceed. While we do need to be careful of senseless vandalism, I think we also have to be careful of being too harsh on users that just may not understand.

I propose that instead of flagging guild pages for deletion, that we flag them with the {{guild}} header instead. This will direct them to the policy pages and the help section on how to make an attractive guild site. It also looks less menacing than a delete header.

On the same line, do you guys think it would be valuable to run a wiki bot that will place this header on pages created under the Guild namespace? This would keep us from missing pages in the fluster, and would make sure that all Guild pages have this intro information on them at their creation. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions for this?

Anyways, this is really exciting to see so much activity :) Let's figure out a way to both welcome new folks that could end up being great contributors and cut back on the vandalism at the same time. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with this. -.- I'm here to help but, its going to be completely flooded. Need to kind of group together for this one. I agree with not flagging with a delete tag instantly. Rather, we should just inform on every Guild talk page of the policy we have here, and they can change accordingly. Along with a welcome note of coarse.

And something else, the guild cape images will also not be under policy, keep that in mind =) -- Image:Blackgeneralstar.png (General | Talk) 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been immediately deleting guild articles that don't meet policy, but I've been simultaneously leaving an informative welcome message on the contributing editors' talk pages so they know how to come back and recreate their article. I'll keep doing this until we decide on a better solution as a group, as it's the strictest interpretation of current policy.

As far as running a bot, I don't think that is beneficial. Bots are good when a large body of articles need updating. However, they can't really monitor new articles well -- at least, not without hammering the server, and it's not running at its best anyway.

In the meantime, I've added a bit of informative text to MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning, which appears right below any page edit box. Perhaps this will help.

—Tanaric 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is recent changes going to be perma-swamped with guild pages like it was for builds on guildwiki? -FireFox

18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

At least for the next few weeks, probably, though I imagine it will die down. Guilds are in a separate namespace for exactly this reason -- just omit them from your recent changes view. —Tanaric 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Guild pages in a non-English language

They're being blanked right now and replaced with {{bad guild page}}, with a very vague handwaving towards the guilds policy and formatting guideline, even though neither of them even mentions any language requirement... Anyways, lets discuss this. What do we do with those guild pages? Do we want to restrict it in any form?

I personally want to keep those pages here on the wiki. WoWWiki has the following requirement in their Guilds policy, and I'd be comfortable with it here on the GWW:

"At least three (3) sentences in English containing useful information about the guild. E.g. purpose of guild, contact information, recruiting state, rules, style of play, etc. After these sentences, the main article may be in another language if the intended audience is non-English."

How does everyone else feel about this? --Dirigible 13:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the small edge of a huge wedge. The wedge being non-english articles in this wiki. I am somewhat opposed to that, but is all depends on what likelihood we put on official other language wikis starting up soon. If they do start soon, I am all for disallowing non-english guild pages here (as well as articles). If they do not start soon, forbidding non-english guild pages would be quite discriminating in my mind. --Xeeron 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if they are blanked with {{bad guild page}}, and I did a few this morning, it should be because they did not follow procedure. I can't understand the language, but I can see when something does not coinside with policy regardless of language. I have noticed that some non-English guilds have written their language and then used a translator application to write the English version of it below. I think that's a very clever idea, though the translations sometimes do not come out exactly right. — Gares 17:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i have done pretty much the same, the {{bad guild page}} has only gone on pages that aren't following the correct formatting. I was unsure about the different languages so I therefore decided that if they are following the policy and formatted correctly etc, I would leave them. I understand this is the English wiki, but currently GuildWars in other languages links here, so i feel that simply deleting them, especially if they have followed the formatting, is a bad idea.--ChronicinabilitY

18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Like Gares, I haven't bad guild page'd any foreign guild articles because of their foreignity (yeah, I'm using it). I believe the official implication is that the wiki is English-only (the new F10 panel states so, anyway), but I believe an exception should be made for guild pages. I quite like your suggestion, Dirigible, with the minor addition that, if other-language Guild Wars Wikis come to exist, the main non-English body text be replaced by an interwiki link to the appropriate-language guild article.

A set of language categories for guild articles would be appropriate too.

—Tanaric 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also comment on this. -- Mike O'Brien 18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This site should stay English. Make em their own site for other languages and they can do w/e there. It can get confusing if everyone is speaking a different language.--Eloc 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Until we figure this out, we all need to be respectful of other languages. Despite the difference, all players posting guild pages are fellow Guild Wars players and should be treated in the same fashion as any other player. I'm concerned at the language used in some of the delete notices being posted to guild pages. Calling a widely used non-English language "gibberish" is not something that anyone should be posting here. If you have a doubt as to the validity of the content of a guild page, please flag it politely. --

Emily Diehl (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Since more and more guild pages in foreign language are written, we should decide whether to add something like "At least three (3) sentences in English containing useful information ..." to the policy or not. I think the three-sentence-solution is great and will work till other-language Guild Wars Wikis come to exist.

Der moon 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should not disallow guild articles (or even articles in other languages in certain circumstances) until that language has its own wiki. I'm not sure how I feel about the 3 sentences rule, but it's better than disallowing foreign language guild articles. LordBiro 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Guild image naming

There is currently no regulations either in policy or formatting about naming of guild images. Shouldn't this be included, and conform somehwat with the user image naming? - anja (contribs) 17:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah i was thinking the same thing, something like userimage policy. Start with User <guildname>, Max size 100kb ~ Kurd

17:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe Guild <guild name>. - anja

(contribs) 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wups, that what i meant. Tnx :P ~ Kurd

17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We need this one fast! --

(CoRrRan / talk) 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please revert and discuss if someone disagrees. Also, see section below. -- ab.er.rant

09:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Deviation from formatting

I would like to propose the deletion of this line: "Guild pages should not deviate from the style and formatting guideline for guild pages in formatting or content without excellent reasons." I believe formatting concerns should not be part of policy. It should only be concerned with content and correctness, not formatting and presentation. Leave all mention of formatting to the guidelines page. Note that template tags do fit in here. I'll go post this on GWW:GUILDS after this. This was brought by a new user who's wondering why there are overlaps and conflicts between this policy and the guidelines. By removing this line, we can apply the following rule (or something like it) more naturally: If a guild page is in violation of this policy, tag it with ~~{{bad guild page}} or~~ {{guild cleanup}} ~~(depending on how the discussion on Tanaric's page goes)~~. If there is also a violation on another policy, tag it with {{delete}} instead. If the only issue is about non-conformance to the formatting guidelines, leave the page as it is and just tag it with {{guild cleanup}}. -- ab.er.rant 09:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I support that. Guidelines are just that - guidelines. If you are enforcing guidelines on the policy page, then the guidelines become policy, which totally defeats the point. Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and struck bad guild page from your comment, as that's clearly not the way we're going. —Tanaric 22:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Guild image naming

This is crazy, I had to reupload once a guild image because of this policy, now I am notified another change in this "policy", and now should I reupload it again? No, I revert it, since it was approved by only 4 users, with no consensus. This policy is completely useless bureocracy, the template "guild image" it's enough, there is no need of a naming policy. --Lumenil 21:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. Otherwise we get flooded with Cape.jpg, cape.png, guildcape.JPG, myguild.png, guildcap.PNG, gw102.jpg, 44343241354653.jpg, etc. --

(gem / talk) 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? useless bureocracy. Just paste the template in the image page and move on. --Lumenil 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I care -FireFox

21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people who contribute to this wiki actively do care. Remember that you can't alone change a policy when more people have first decided to make it what it is. Up to this point you are the only one against the policy and multiple users support it, including those who said "agree" in the above discussion and those who tag images for deletion accordingly. --

(gem / talk) 21:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It was only proposed YESTERDAY, so I dont think there has been enough time for common users to realize that this useless policy has been proposed. --Lumenil 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Guild image naming policy has been around since the guild namespace was created afaik. I also approve of it strongly. --Lemming64 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello? can't you read 2 sections above? That rule was introduced YESTERDAY. And without any reason, apart of annoying common people who don't care about images names. --Lumenil 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have read that now, basically as i understood it the naming policy was a guideline previously then, because that is how I was already naming images prior to that. But anyway whilst it may "annoy" common people who have to deal with the image list pretty much.. never. The people who do the grunt work, would like you to abide by a pretty simple rule. I don't mean to be rude, and I apologise if I come across so. But, seriously, it is easy to abide by, and a pain in the ass to deal with if it isn't there. --Lemming64 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This rule has been a guideline since the day that guild articles were allowed and people have been living according to it. It was just recently added to the policy officially as we found that it needs to be there so that people follow it even now with the influx of users.

What comes to the usefulness of this rule, it might not be of any use to you, but it is a great help to those who maintain and contribute to the wiki daily. --

(gem / talk) 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Read my talk page please. I was asked to abide once, and I kindly complied. Then, someone decided that just the guild name isn't enough, so I am asked again to reupload the SAME IMAGE!! So, is a common user supposed to upload 3 times the SAME IMAGE just to please 5 or 6 users that can't decide which name it should have? An for what, since the template clearly states that those are guild images? I repeat, this is crazy. --Lumenil 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is far more than 5 or 6, and the average user will only have to upload 1 image... Please also note the large bold text asking you to read the policy before making edits anywhere on the site. -FireFox

22:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done the name change for you. The rule is clear. If someone gave you the wrong instructions then note them that they are wrong. --

(gem / talk) 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(RI)It is definitely more than 5-6 users that want this policy, I can name 5-6 people just in my guild. --Lemming64 22:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with gem/Firefox/Lemming64.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - when you look at it from the point of view of one guild, it doesn't matter at all and is useless. When you look at it from our point of view, who are maintaining the actual Wiki, and then realise that literally several hundred guild pages have been created in two/three days, and many of them have multiple images, you should hopefully see why some sort of naming policy is useful. I also stringly support the need for it to exist. Ale_Jrb (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think that this guild image policy has been particularly well implemented, and I can sympathise with Lumenil here. Automatically tagging images for deletion is unfriendly, in my opinion, and it's no wonder that some find it frustrating.

Regarding the policy itself; ArenaNet asked that we would introduce an image naming policy so that readers could clearly distinguish user images from non-user images. This is because they were concerned that images would be confused as being "official".

I don't believe the same rules apply exactly to cape images.

I think the naming of guild capes with the guild prefix should be a strongly encouraged guideline, and we should ask users to comply with this guideline whenever possible, but I don't think we should automatically delete cape images that do not meet this guideline since it does no one any harm.

The same is not necessarily true of guild screenshots/logos/banners; I think these items probably should use the guild prefix. What do you guys think? LordBiro 22:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a point in treating cape images and other images differently and to me it's pretty clear that especially non-cape images need this rule, so why not make things easy and have the rule treat both cape and non-cape images? The automated tagging is indeed rude, but that's not the thing we are discussing here. --

(gem / talk) 22:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately without a policy in an area like this a guideline will be completed ignored and we will be inundated with strangely named images (as we have been!). A better solution may be to tell people that you have moved their image and perhaps have a few nice souls fixing some stuff for them. --Lemming64 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(RI) As Lemming64 mentions, experienced has proved that without an enforced policy things are probably going to just spiral downwards. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that guild articles have not been around long enough for experience to have proven anything.

I would also argue that automatic image tagging is what we are discussing here; tagging is taking place as a direct result of this policy. The reason cape images and other images should be treated differently is because they have different contents. ArenaNet wanted a user image policy to prevent people from mistaking user content for official content; this does not apply to pictures of capes so why put delete tags on these images? The argument that we will have loads of "confusingly" named cape images is irrelevant; it's more hassle than it's worth to force people to re-upload files when the original files cause no one harm. LordBiro 23:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't referring singularly to guild images when I referred to experience. As for causing harm, it causes trouble if they're randomly named when it comes to including them into pages, as well as updates - what happens if two people use Image:cape.jpg in their guild pages, and then one of them uploads an update to the other's image to make it match their cape? I'd argue that the naming policy makes sense because the existence of guild pages and the corresponding formatting means that many images of the same nature but with subtle differences are going to be uploaded, so if nothing else the policy should exist to minimize confusion.

However, I would not be averse to creating a temporary tag asking people to re-work an image into a less ambiguous name that is not the deletion tag as an intermediary step, if the simple deletion-tag-only method is viewed as overly hostile.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the policy, in its current state, is fine. -FireFox

01:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Biro, by your argument, I'm getting the thought that certain lines in GWW:IMAGE should be removed - specifically the part about using descriptive names for images. "Ascalon.jpg" is thought of less preferable. Similarly, "cape.jpg" is also less preferable. If "cape.jpg" is harmless, then I see no point in having the policy recommend longer descriptive names, since we aren't going to really enforce it. The only rule should be that the relevant template tags be present. -- ab.er.rant

03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested that people be allowed to call their image "cape.jpg", but "HoK Guild's cape.jpg" or "House of Kyan cape.jpg" don't use a guild prefix and don't present a serious problem in my opinion. I would say if our current image policy prohibits a certain image then we should take action, but we shouldn't be telling people to move their image because it doesn't start with the word "guild" if it is otherwise a perfectly sensible name.

It seems I am in the minority here anyway, so I will concede defeat for now :P LordBiro 09:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

more image naming stuff

How about protecting some of the obvious image pages for certain names so they could not be uploaded too. Things like cape.jpg/png guild cape, etc. This might cause some people to rethink what they are doing? --Lemming64 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like a BIG RED SIGN saying DONT REPLACE THIS IMAGE!!!! ~ Kurd

09:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sysops can salt pages so that they can't be created, and as far as I am aware (could be wrong) the same can be done to images. No need for a sign. About the proposal, I don't support or not-support yet - I'm thinking about it. Ale_Jrb (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any time when the image might otherwise be used, except as perhaps an example on Cape. --Lemming64 00:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is amendment necessary?

Guild:Order Of The Red Bear listed the total money in their guild bank and their guild weapons list. Not sure if they might have removed it by then (since another user suggested that they be removed). As our policy prefer that guild pages remain rather static, and we have disallowed it from being used for member news, chat, recruitment, and, full member list; should we specifically mention that guild assets like these are also not allowed. -- ab.er.rant 03:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Guild pages should be relatively stable. Do not list such information as who is online, what the guild's current rating/rank is, etc. (It is OK to list the final ratings from past ladder seasons.)" covers this already, in my reading of it - things that change from day to day, such as inventories/bank totals, have no place on a Guild page, and I'd say that the existing policy makes that clear already.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

images on both guild and user namespaces

See #Guild userboxes within Guild namespace and User talk:Biscuits#Guild Image: SoT-Emblem.jpg. What should be the appropriate naming and tag for these images that are used in an inclusion contained in the guild namespace, but are only ever included in the user namesspace? Biscuits 10:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If the template is in the Guild namespace, that's what the image should be after.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects from guild tags to guild articles

I'm interesting in opening guild pages via a /wiki guild:tagname from the game. In a town, only tags are displayed, and typing the name of a non english guild is difficult. So I created some redirect pages (guild:tag -> guild:guild name but these pages was tagged for deletion... Policy violation.... My suggestion is to allow the creation of guild:tag page. If this tag is used by only one guild on the wiki, the page is a direct rediction to the guild page. In case of a tag shared by several guilds, a page of Disambiguation (Category:Disambiguation ou un truc comme Category:Guilds Disambiguation) is to be written. Kiki Of Argenteuil 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

~~Could you provide some more information? What guild name does not work? LordBiro 11:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)~~

I would agree with this most of the time if your ingame see alot of players ingame with the same tag or shouting [EG] FTW, you will not know the full guilds name (In this case Example Guild), you go search for Guild:EG and you get redirected to Guild:Example Guild. The Great Tomato 11:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) What he's suggesting is that we permit redirects such as Guild:KaiZ → Guild:The Kaizen Order. This would allow someone to type "/wiki guild:KaiZ" ingame, and end up at their guild page here, if it exists. This allows you to look up someone's guild even if you only know their tag (which is all you'll see in-game).

I like the spirit of this idea, but it sounds like it could be very messy to maintain in a usable state. =\ --Dirigible 11:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I share Dirigible's thinking - there are some tags that are incredibly popular, and it'd be difficult to maintain the disambiguation pages.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"Some tags that are incredibly popular", surely only one guild has a tag (they are individual, and every guild only has one tag each), or are you referring to there are lots of uppercase/lowercase variations of the same one? The Great Tomato 11:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood the initial question, apologies for that.

Tomato, I don't believe Guild tags are unique. Certainly not across regions anyway, an American and English guild might both be called [ABC]. I don't know if tags are unique per region though. LordBiro 11:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I always considered Tags to be unique across the world, so then you would not have trouble having 2 guilds with exactly the same tag in the same GvG even though one may be from America and the other from Europe. The Great Tomato 11:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And i apologies for my english ^^.
I'm sure tag are not unique on a territory, because i found a les Chevaliers D'Or [CDO] sharing the same tag la Confrérie du Dragon d'Or [CDO]
Anyway, in the Category:Guild_stubs there is the whole list of guilds... So i think Disambiguation is possible.... Tag disambiguation will be more precise than searching a guild in the Category:Guild_stubs... Kiki Of Argenteuil 12:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed, tags are not unique on any level. I for one am against guild tag disambiguation pages, for a couple reasons. The easiest to defend is that we'll like end up with articles like Guild:Tag Ass and Guild:Tag Rape, or any other variety of vulgar 3-4 letter words. —Tanaric 12:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, yes tags can be shared by several guilds. Second, the idea sounds ok IF it is maintainable. I am not at all concered about Tag:Ass or Tag:Rape. Given that these are actual ingame tags. Since they are allowed in the actual game, they should be fine here as well. --Xeeron 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am heavily against this especially as tags are shared. You'd be surprised how many guilds have the same tags as everyone and their mother has their own guild. --

(gem / talk) 13:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Xeeron, you have changed my mind, but not because of what you said. See, tags like that actually aren't allowed in game; at least, not by the strictest reading of the Guild Wars User Agreement and the Terms of Use. If people making such articles end up creating a list of guilds that ANet needs to ban, and on ANet's own server, well... I get the feeling that the guild won't be around too long for me to care about the tag article being there. :) —Tanaric 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Now that I see why Kiki wants those redirects, I think they may be quite useful. But I too share concerns regarding disambiguation. Yes, we can have disambiguation pages. But the problem is, it'll involve alot of monitoring. The potential for guilds that share the same tag to start messing around by removing all other guild names and simply redirecting to their own guild can't be ignored. This is alot of unnecessary maintenance headache. Is there some way of redirecting the in-game guild search to use the search engine instead? -- ab.er.rant 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, I agree... maintenance will not be easy... But can we create this index automatically, using a mecanism like category?
As a wiki noob who discovered template and category yesterday, I think it may be possible to insert tag like [[Category:tag GuildTag]] automatically using the guild infobox template... In game, a /wiki category:tag guildTag will open the disambiguiding pages...
Arf... Acceptable solution but a bit heavy compared to /wiki guild:guildTag...
The top will be to open a new namespace (tag: for example) technically identical to category: so in game, we can /wiki tag:GuildTag...
And then turning tag: namespace into read only -if possible- will prevent page hacking!
Is this a interesting idea or i'm definitively a noob ?? Kiki Of Argenteuil 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is merit in the idea, but I still don't think we should implment this. --

(gem / talk) 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Me neither now it seems as if there would be too much hassle keeping it "good", so can we close this discussion? The Great Tomato 17:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

While the category would work, I don't like it. It feels like a hack, in that it's using the category mechanism for something it wasn't intended for. Given that the current majority seems to be opposing this, I think it would be best to just keep this as it is. I'm not at all certain ppl even realise that you can search. The maintenance is probably too much for a rather small gain that doesn't seem to be in high demand. -- ab.er.rant

00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont think many people are outright opposed to this, only worried about the maintance. We can put this on ice till calmer times on the wiki (i.e. when most guilds have finished creating their pages). --Xeeron 09:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments, but it seems awkward that there is a search box, I can search for what I see, which is only a guildtag as mentioned above, and get nothing... I feel a more elegant solution than 'nothing here' is needed especially when many users don't know about namespace and disambiguation. Can't think of one, though... :( Sonya Gladgul 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You can thank MySQL for that one; it won't index any words shorter than four characters by default. It can be changed, but it's a pretty ugly kludge to use simply for this particular issue, with potentially a heavy hit on performance (we'd have to lower it to 2 characters for it to be usable). There must be a nicer way to handle this. =\ --Dirigible 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add something to the guild infobox template to make it automatically add each guild page that uses it to a "Category:Guilds by Tag" with the display name set to "<tag>/<guildname>", so that the category would alphabetize it by the tag first and then the guildname?

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible to get the guild infobox to autocategorise the pages. But no, you can't change the name that's displayed in the generated category pages. You can only specify a sort key. The name that appears is always the name of the page. -- ab.er.rant

00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... that almost makes me wish we had included tags in article names for guild pages.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought again of this problem and tried ~~that~~ (page removed, contained a dpl list with all guilds and their tags). The only problem is that there is no method to auto-sort for Guild tag and it is limited to ~700 (?) Guilds in one table.. But we could make a big Guild index page which lists all Guild pages for A, for B, for C, ... with their relating guild tags. By this way, someone could just use CRTL + F to search for a Guild tag. poke | talk 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

foreign language

What is the deal with foreign language page, I for one have no idea for example what a French guild page says like this one. For all I know it could be saying LordBiro is a poopoo head! Anyway you catch my drift. Until we have in place foreign language wikis with foreign language mods this is definitely a grey area. --Lemming64 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, we generally suggest that Guilds should have at least 3 lines of English on their page, then whatever they want in their own language. I don't know if we are, but I think we should start insisting on this, personally. Ale_Jrb (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild pages#Guild pages in a non-English language. --Dirigible 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I support that. Ale_Jrb (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

another issue with language

I found that User:Siegfried (talk) created his guild page Guild:Devil_Or_Genie and as this is a french guild, he created french categories such as Category:Guildes_PvP and Category:Guildes_Française. I notified him that it would be usefull to use existing the categories. I got his response my page of guild is also in the Categories "Category:PvE guilds and Category:French guilds". But we can't not creates categories in another language? and I don't know the answer exactly. I tagged the french categories for deletion, as they are a duplicate of the english ones. If other language wikis exist, there would be no question regarding wether these categories may exist. I don't know how to handle such categories here as we only have an english language wiki. Thanks for comments. - MSorglos 13:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

hello, I have remove the bonds relating to categories of pages in French of my Guilds:pages
to afflict for the nuisance. Siegfried (talk)

Until there is a French Wiki, I suggest that we stay with English language categories. I have no problem with Guild pages being in whatever language they like (as long as there is some English on it to), but creating new categories is perhaps going a bit far. I would argue against having English categories on the French Wiki, for example. Ale_Jrb (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's stick to English categories for now... or we'd be seeing dozens on category names in dozens of languages... -- ab.er.rant

15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

if you start having categories and guild pages in other languages then they are going to start to think that they can upload information pages about missions, quests, etc. So we keep saying that this is an english wiki, so lets keep it as a english wiki with only english topics. The Great Tomato 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Paradon me for being a multi-language wiki nub, but with other language wikis what happened to the english written guild pages? I understand nothing gets translated but eh nevermind, I suppose the necessary french written guild will be in their french wiki, etc... --Jamie

18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that stops people from joining an english speaking guild, when they want to join a french one. The same goes for english people looking around probably do not want a french guild if they do not speak french, or have basic french. However then along comes the talk about if a guild welcomes players from all languages, do they have to list all their guild information in all the languages on multiple wikis? The Great Tomato 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Moderation

I'm not how to phrase this delicately, so I'm just going to blast ahead and say it. I don't think we have the capacity to moderate Guild articles and images to an acceptable standard, at least without making significant compromises in other areas in the wiki. We had enough trouble already looking after user images, meaning that we had to take a small amount of time off actually documenting the Guild Wars universe to tag and warn and delete. Guild pages signnificantly aggravated this problem and blew it completely out of control. Fortunately there's always an admin, a user with GuildWatch or sometimes even a well-meaning user or IP online at any given time of the day to patrol Recent Changes and correct the problem. But let's face it, that's not what we want. What we want is people documenting the game, and enjoying it. Most of the time, RC is dominated by edits to the guild namespace, user namespace, image namespace or user talk namespace. I think we're losing sight of our original vision here. When the admins came over from GuildWiki, I doubt they pictured this, this or this.

Now I'm not going to say I have a solution in my head right now - I don't. That's why I'm posting this here, so we can help think of a viable solution together, as a community. Isn't that what this wiki set out to be, anyway? A massive, collaborative, community-driven project? --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok 2 parts to my answer. First, the image policy is a bit harsh. I know that it is better to have all user/guild images be easily recognisable by name, but if the amount of work to police too hard, that I would be in favor of droping that policy. Second, remember that we are having a huge and temporary(!) influx of new editors right now. Everyone wants to try out the new F10 function, everyone wants to create their guild's wiki page. Sooner or later, all those pages will be created and only new guilds will still create new guild pages. Furthermore, new editors will learn about the rules, if they create their second guild page, they will be much more likely to create one adhering to the policy.

So all in all, my point is: Give it some time. I feel that the tide will go away soon. --Xeeron 10:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, this is only the beginning. I'm sure once the tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of guilds gets created, things will slow down a bit. Hopefully. Haven't heard the sysops complaining about the number of files they have pending delete yet :P

AS for wanting them to contribute... well, giving them some personal guild space might actually make it more likely that a small number of these new users start getting interested and savvy in wiki code and move from the guild namespace and into the main namespace. I've already seen several new users actively helping to tag "guild cleanup", so I think it's still under control, for now anyways. -- ab.er.rant

10:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is too much work for the existing sysops they could always think about creating more, which is prudent as the wiki grows anyway --Lemming64 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a possibility to move images would exonerate the sysops a lot ;) poke | talk 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a madhouse (literally) with guild page creation, editing, and uploading images for said articles as well as non-compliance with GWW policy. There can't be that many guilds in the game :P, so I would hope all this will peek in time and slow considerably.

While I believe people are good until they do something wrong, I think most, but not all, of these editors will never be heard from again after they have made their mark on GWW, i.e. creating their guild page and/or user page. I'd love to have all of them stick around, learn the policies and code, and be valued contributors, but you can't force anyone to follow that path.

As to the admins complaining about additional work, I can't speak for the rest of them, but I wouldn't be volunteering here unless I didn't have fun doing what I do and cared about the site and it's growth. All it takes is dedication from everyone, or most everyone, in the community and I see that happening. :D — Gares 18:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd second the comment regarding an ability to move images rather then requiring re-upload and delete, but perhaps that's wishful thinking. ;) Aside from that, I can't think of anything to say here that hasn't been already said.

(Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving images would be a great option indeed. Is it possible with some kind of extension? If it is possible without huge drawbacks, I support adding an extension to make this possible. Ofcourse a single user with the time and willinness to reupload the cape images with correct names would be enough.

What comes to the recent workload, I enjoy having masses of articles and images to delete. If you look at the deletion log, I've got thousands of deletions within a week. :) Not complaining. I'm not currently able to document the game as I don't have time to play, but helping the wiki with things like this is what I enjoy greatly. --

(gem / talk) 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Regularly changing information

How are the following two lines of the Guild page policy to be combined, to me they feel completely opposite to each other: Guild pages should be relatively stable and Guild pages of guilds that /../ have not received any substantial edits for 1 month will be tagged with the {{inactive guild}} template. I suppose the basic point is to clean out Guilds that dont exist, but I still find it funny that the policy states on one hand that regularly changing the page is not allowed (ie being active), but at the other that you have to change the page regularly or else the guild will be tagged as inactive--Lensor (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, as well, and I think the key word here is 'relatively' when talking about the stability of the content. I don't think guild pages are supposed to remain untouched, but rather that they shouldn't run the risk of becoming a central meeting point or communication device for the guild, nor a constant 'Recent changes' annoyance. Sort of like User pages, but more. I think. Honestly, I still think the idea of guild pages is quite new in terms of how content like this really fits in here in relation to everything else, and time will tell how their usage and usefulness evolve. - Thulsey

- talk 09:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) Good point actually. On the one hand, we don't want the players to start using the guild page as their membership roster or homepage. And on the other hand, we would like to have some way to clean inactive guilds (that could potentially have been disbanded). The idea for the inactive tag is that, if you see your guild page tagged with it, all you have to do is remove it, and we'll leave it alone for another month or so. :) -- ab.er.rant

09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that disbanded Guilds should not be included on the Wiki. But the current policy gives s

Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild pages/Archive 2

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents

Moving on

Alliance link

'Multiple guild' guilds and categories

Guild userboxes within Guild namespace

Alliance navbox

1st problem (possibly)

Guild namespace header

Guild pages in a non-English language

Guild image naming

Deviation from formatting

Guild image naming

more image naming stuff

Is amendment necessary?

images on both guild and user namespaces

Redirects from guild tags to guild articles

foreign language

another issue with language

Moderation

Categories

Regularly changing information