Category talk:World guilds

I disagree with the deletion because from Guild Wars District prospective International is not the same as North American, Asian , etc. International in Guild Wars is really thought of as non Asian or American. The meaning of district in the game should be aligned with one in Wiki. So the guilds that have members that have different home districts should be called 'World Guilds' otherwise players in America will think of International guild as of an European guild. I hope this make sense for people who play the game...--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:HH LEADER (talk).

This is really not true, this category was deleted because it is redundant to International, which means just what it says, of ALL NATIONS. Please sign your comments. -- Wyn 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) International doesn't mean just non-American or non-Asian, and it certainly doesn't mean just European -- "international" means between different nations both in-game and in "real life". Also, Europeans have their own districts -- the international districts aren't reserved specifically for Europeans, they're for anyone in the world (i.e. international). If Americans think "international" means European, that's their own lack of knowledge, not in-game or real-life fact. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The World is redundant to International?

What is wrong with having World category? Since when World is redundant to International? I would think all nations reside in the World, not wise versa. Don’t you agree? toI understand you doing housekeeping on categories and while doing so unsuspectingly creating separation between people by nationality ' /slash' territory. Can't say how 'Americans' think being not from America, but My heart aches when I see 'nationality' category on GW Wiki and I beg you to remove categorization by nationality for we do not want neither real nor virtual nationality based wars nor anything that may encourage it, do we? Language is another matter but again I just have created 'Multilingual Category', which was omitted in the language section. Your comments seem harsh and undeserved. With due respect HH LEADER 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Many, many guilds categorize themselves as nationality specific, so you can be assured that it is not something that is going to be removed. Also, your World guild categorization IS totally redundant with International guilds. As has already been explained in the comments above. This has nothing to do with promoting separation but you are also being biased against what you seem to think 'Americans' think.

"International or internationally most often describes interaction between nations, or encompassing two or more nations, constituting a group or association having members in two or more nations, or generally reaching beyond national boundaries. (from: Wikipedia)"-- Wyn 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) From dictionary.com (definition of "international"): transcending national boundaries or viewpoints.

From Category:International: This is a list of guilds which don't require a specific language or nationality of members.

From Category:World guilds: This is the page contains a list of guilds that do not assotiate themselves with any particular territory or nationality.

While it's true that, strictly speaking, "international" implies merely the involvement of two or more countries, whereas "world" implies involvement on a global scale, given that the way we define an "international guild" is nearly identical to the way you define a "world guild," I think it's pretty clear where someone might see the redundancy. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that you don't define "world" as being a subset of "nationality." In that sense, I can see why you might take issue with "international," but, as far as ease of reference is concerned, it makes much more sense to define "international" within the context of "nationality," much in the same way that it makes sense to speak about black in the context of colors, even though black is not, strictly speaking, a color. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

While I can see the language differences between world and international, they are not big enough to warrant a new category, which might actually only make it more confusing for guild browsers. I think it would be benefitial to be listed together with the other international guilds, instead of creating yet another category with almost the same meaning, housing fewer guilds. The difference between the two would not be apparent to the average user, imo - anja 18:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anja's comment is doubly true since, by definition, every guild listed in "world" would be listed in "international" anyway. *Defiant Elements* +talk 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I must protest against racially charged comment by Defiant : "it makes much more sense to define "international" within the context of "nationality," much in the same way that it makes sense to speak about black in the context of colors, even though black is not, strictly speaking, a color." Slipping to the color analogy as an argument in the discussion about nationality is completely unacceptable and I believe was done on purpose. Can it be assumed that the next step this team plans is to categorize guilds is by the color? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:192.102.253.14 (talk).

Erm... I apologize if you construed by comment as being racially charged; I wasn't using the word "color" to mean "race," I was using it to mean "hue", a la color. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) :Ok, this discussion is going from ridiculous to absurd. We are talking about the categorizing of information on a wiki, Defiant Elements' statements are not in any way racially motivated, it's simply that the term international is most correctly categorized under nationality, as the term black would be most appropriately be categorized under color, though both are technically neither, meaning international is technically not a nationality but rather a mixture of nationalities, and black is technically not a color, but rather the mixture of all colors. Let's keep this in it's proper perspective. -- Wyn 03:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that black is the lack of visible light, but for the sake of sanity, I'll abstain... Calor 03:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To Wynthyst: No, this is not a discussion this is rather a Guild vs 1 well coordinated personal spike attack. It is safe to assume that all respondents know well each other and protect each other to death. "Ridiculus", "Absurd", "lack of knowledge, not in-game or real-life fact", not sane, - just a few samples of argumentation used to enforce "the double true" arguments with double confidence. And how this team knows what is "apparent to the average user"? Are all users seem to you as average? I think it would be best if you just delete this page along with the discussion to avoid the shame. I have already removed World tag form the Guild page and will encourage other Guild leaders to remove any nationality tags. Please avoid retagging my Guild to International as you did in the past... And I do hope that your heated emotions will not go to the game or real life. Peace to you all. HH LEADER 14:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bye.

Few things before you leave, however; we don't delete pages to cover up mistakes. Not that there were any made here, mind you; definitely not anything to be shameful about. But either way, that's not the wiki way.

Lastly, "average wiki user" is used to describe... guess what? The average wiki user. It's not used to show that all wiki users are average. It's just referring to the people who couldn't give a shit about these huge discussion that occur on talk pages. They just look stuff up and maintain a user page. There are a bunch of those users, and those users are who Wynthyst was referring to. -Auron 14:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are 2 issues here which are being mixed together: using nationality to categorize guilds and using the term "international" vs "world". I'm only going to address the second issue. IMO, "world" is a more encompassing term which could be better. However, "international" does flow a little better and for most players "international" = "world". And since this is already in use, status quo wins for now. --JonTheMon 14:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to say that you have made a lot of assumptions without seeming to understand much about how the wiki works in general. All of your posts are visible to anyone who cares to check Recent changes, a link in the navigation bar on the left. They are also all welcome to comment on them. The fact that the commentary you have received on your views have all been in opposition should tell you something, but you appear to have decided that this is some personal attack in some grand conspiracy to create a political view of the Guild Wars universe. I have tried to explain the purposes of the categories to the best of my ability, as well as my decision to delete the original World Category as a means to consolidate and clean up the category structure so it could function at a more optimum level. It was not then, nor are my comments now meant as a personal attack of your views, or as some grand political, moral, or ethical stance. I simply am trying to help the wiki, whose function is to gather and distribute information, function at an optimum level. -- Wyn 14:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting debate. The Wiki is, of course, built by its users and ultimately what they say goes. (I refrained from changing Staffs to Staves, eg, though Staves is the correct plural of Staff. I figured the average user just wouldn't get it.) Personally I see a big difference between World and International, World is one territory and International is crossing many territories. Our guild, Ridirian Guides, has members from Europe, the US, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and South Africa. That makes us international, at first glance. But we are one guild, so World is more appropriate, imho. Our allies are from Europe, UK, US and South Africa. So the alliance is not World, but International. Just my 2c.Humble Goshly 10:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)