Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Guilds/Archive 1

Template

I like Qanar 04:35, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I like it too. I'd add a few things though:

• Tag
• Recruitment info URL
• Member list URL
• IRC channel (if any)
• Voice com server (if any)
• Size (by number of members)
  • Small (<30)
  • Medium (30-60)
  • Large (60-100)
• Date of founding (roughly)
• Predominant language (if not English)
• Country (if not international)
• Age requirements (if any)
• Achievements (must be listed on http://www.guildwars.com/community/notableguilds/)
  • Tournament/ladder rank
  • Guild of the Week
  • The Scribe
• Date when the information on the article has last been updated or verified by a member.

There are two things I'd change:

1. I would not let each guild upload a screenshot of their cape. Instead, I'd create a gallery of all symbols (similar to this one on the official website), in black/white, and let people use those.
2. I wouldn't give the "prominent members" a separate section, to avoid ego boosting and bragging ("Hey, look, I've got my own guild! I'm the leader, I'm important. Join me, I'll make you an officer, so you'll be listed on the official wiki too."). I would keep the list of members as short as possible, as such lists are notoriously quickly outdated. Instead, link to the member list on the guild's website. I wouldn't mind to allow guilds to create a category for their guild where members can add their user pages. This way people have the option to contact a member right here on the wiki.

Last but not least, I'd make the category tree much more detailed, as this will be the way of searching for a guild for people who want to join one.

I'll modify the template draft accordingly later today. In the meantime, please comment on my ideas. --Tetris L 05:27, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Looking at the example again and thinking about it, I'd like to see the free text description gone alltogether. In most cases it'll basically be just a summary of the data table, and the text is very prone to be used for bragging. --Tetris L 05:34, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I actually feel the exact opposite way about the free text description. It should be encouraged further, like in MisterPepe's example page. Most people who are part of a guild are proud of them, and these things that they are proud of are what makes guilds different from one another. Some may be proud to have ranked top X in the last ladder, others may be proud to have a very friendly and casual atmosphere between the guild members. Some may be proud of how even new players are encouraged to get involved with all guild activites, others may be proud of being the first guild to run 8 touch rangers in GvG. Let them say so, it doesn't hurt anyone, and it provides a bit of color and variety between different guilds. MisterPepe's page about XoO I linked to above looks very appropriate to me. --Dirigible 05:46, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Free text is prone to be used for all those things that lead us to disallow guild pages on GuildWiki alltogether: Bragging, false claims, defamation of opponents or former members, etc. The less free text, the better, IMO. Free text shall go to the guild's website. On the official wiki, let's stick to factual information. --Tetris L 06:04, 13 February 2007 (PST)

We're going round and round and round and round and round on the same topic. Please take a moment to think about the ramification of that requirement. No one can verify anything about guilds (with a few notable exceptions). Verifiability is not enforceable. The whole point of {{guild}} is to disclaim any responsibility to this end. Boasting and defamation are already disallowed by the Project:Guild pages (proposed) policy. S 06:11, 13 February 2007 (PST)

The policy right now explicitly disallows false boasting, defamation and attacks of any kind toward any other guilds or individuals, so any page that contains them can easily be kept under control (delete the relevant passages, leave a message to not re-add them again), exactly like it would be done with any other page on this wiki. Everything else, as I noted above, I see no problem with, since it goes hand in hand with being proud of one's guild, which is something to be expected from anyone who cares enough about their guild to put a page up for them in the first place. --Dirigible 06:19, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I think we agree on one thing, at least: The discussion should be kept in one place. So let's continue on Project talk:Guild pages. --Tetris L 06:25, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Partial implementation

Tetris's comments in italics.

• Tag

Done? If this sort of idea (floating guild tag to the right) is appropriate, a special purpose template can be created. Mocked up using {{shortcut}} for now.

• Recruitment info URL
• Member list URL
• IRC channel (if any)
• Voice com server (if any)

All the above folded into a miscellaneous "Other" header.

• Size (by number of members)
  • Small (<30)
  • Medium (30-60)
  • Large (60-100)
• Age requirements (if any)
• Predominant language (if not English)

Not sure about the size adjectives, but now has a table line about members

• Date of founding (roughly)

Added

• Country (if not international)

Not sure of this

• Achievements (must be listed on http://www.guildwars.com/community/notableguilds/)
  • Tournament/ladder rank
  • Guild of the Week
  • The Scribe

Not sure of this

• Date when the information on the article has last been updated or verified by a member.

All articles contain a last-modified date at the bottom already. Is anything more necessary? S 06:51, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Ready?

Can we start creating guild-pages? (Qanar talk) 07:05, 16 February 2007 (PST)

No. The Project:Guild pages policy is not yet ratified. S 07:32, 16 February 2007 (PST)

How will we know when this is ready to go? Perhaps info should be placed on the Guild page when it is. — Biscuits (talk contribs) 17:24, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Completing the formatting guide

This guide should be completed sometime soon to get the build section working. I have an example page at User:Gem/Guild formatting, which reflects my ideas on the guild pages. The text under the first heading should be pretty free to include anything seen as important, but it should be kept fairly short if at all possible. I wouldn't suggest adding more headings unless I missed something really important. A small fact that people might not notice, which should read somewhere is that the guild cape image name should start with the word 'Guild' just like user images are required to start with 'User'. -- (gem / talk) 16:55, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I'll make us a guild info box template which can be used to present the basic information in a tidy box just like on a monster or location article. -- (gem / talk) 17:04, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Any comments on my guild formatting example and the guild infobox? -- (gem / talk) 18:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

The green is okay... I guess. otherwise its okay VoIP & IRC channel, my pve guild don't really use this, never really got into it for personal reason between the guild, I am guessing it is there for a reason but I am also guessing if it is there then it should be an optional field which can be set to display:none if no value is added? --Jamie 19:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

(edit conflict) The box looks fine, although Bexor might have ideas on the colour choice. :) Perhaps make the VoIP and IRC disappear if they aren't specified? For guilds which GvG I think it could be interesting to possibly capture things such as their current home Guild Hall and any build types which they favour (not in the box, but on the page)? --Aspectacle 19:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Specifying guild hall in there seems a good idea. But I'm not sure about type. Might be difficult to get all the guilds to use it properly as it's not very intuitive as to what should go there. -- ab.er.rant 19:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I presume that many of those fields will be optional, is that correct? LordBiro 19:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah. Feel free to edit the box. I just didn't have time to add the optionality (lol, is that a word?) and wont have today. -- (gem / talk) 01:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

It sure is. --Jamie 03:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

(Resetting Indent due to being too lazy to type that many colons) As far as Guild Hall is concerned, I can think of a lot of reasons why guilds might not want to have that information publicly available (See: Celestial Tournament) - at least, in the last tournament, a fair portion of the work was information gathering on the other guild, figuring out what GH and what builds they were likely to use - BuildWars ftw. Eh, whatever, it's a good thing to have a option for, at least. In general, I like the formatting guide that Gem's come up with, though I may have to differ from it slightly to avoid making a page for each of the ten divisions of my guild (I'm in XoO =P - see my Guild formatting sandbox). BTW, if anyone wants to mess around with formatting ideas, feel free to change anything you like there. Any chance of moving this along at all? I really hate having unratified policies now that we're live =P MisterPepe talk 12:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't think about guilds divided into multiple guilds due to size and specific interests. Those should probaby be hosted in one article named after the main guild, but the names of the other guilds should also exist as redirects to the main article.

Could someone edit my guild infobox to not show those fields that are specified and also add the guil hall and other wanted options? -- (gem / talk) 16:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Done I think, might need a little road testing :) --Lemming64 12:21, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've tried it in quite a few different ways, and it seems to work just about perfectly, including the optional fields (thanks for that, btw). I think we just need to fill out some guidelines, and we should be good to go. We should probably also make sure that we mention an actual policy for multi-division guilds (Like Gem said, probably one article with all the names as redirects). Looks like we're getting there =) MisterPepe talk 20:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Other random thoughts: if we have a {{user image}} tag, should we have a {{guild image}} tag? It's probably not too big of a deal, as most guild pages should be pretty small image-wise (i.e. a cape screenie), but categories are always good. MisterPepe talk 13:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Addition of a guild navbox? & related guildwarswiki user pages

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild pages

possibly? I can see how a navbox would be nice with space for 10 guilds etc, shouldn't take too much work to make one and then possibly guild wars wiki users who are in that guild? --Jamie 06:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

What I mean to say is, I think we should make an alliance navbox, which can be attached to the base of a guild page, which can contain up to 10 guilds, possibly adding the head of the alliance guild on a separate line to the other 9 guilds. also possibly including (optionally) the Guild Wars Wiki Users who belong to that guild, it is with their consent, this would be in the main body content of the page, I can see issues with that section, but a Alliance NavBox would be quite useful. --Jamie 13:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

How about this? -- (gem / talk) 08:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Looks good to me, possibly including the lead guild in the navbox title, it's popular for guild's to refer to their alliance as the "<Lead guild> Alliance" --Jamie 09:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Or you could have it as a variable if an alliance wants to refer to itself as the l33t ganker alliance or the frog lovers alliance etc. :) --Lemming64 09:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Changed it to alliance name. I'll also remove the alliance leader part of the guild infobox as it is no more needed after this. -- (gem / talk) 10:47, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The "Guild:Guild name" looks messy, I say in the final version of the Guild NavBox, we pipe the links to exclude the "Guild:" part. --Jamie 19:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Example guild

Okay, I tried to take the infoboxes and formatting guidelines and make an example guild page: User:MisterPepe/Sandbox Gem, as part of it, I did have to edit your guild infobox template - the naming convention on the guild cape was too irritating for me to mess with it - I made it so that if an image is specified, it will use that one, otherwise, it will attempt to use the naming convention that you put in there to start out with. I think I even remembered to update the usage section on that page, which is surprising, at least for me. If we decide to use this page for an actual example, I'll probably have to take out most, if not all, of the jokes, but they kept me amused while I was making the page. That's all that matters, really =) Anyway, if you have any suggestions/comments, either say something or fix it yourself =P MisterPepe talk 14:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Are The Forsaken Shadow Knights of the Golden Phoenix of Great Valor and Honor for Ascalon Dragon Tamers Society Against the Dark Forces of Mordor recruiting? LordBiro 14:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

... Yes. In other news, I'm working on a new draft of the formatting guide. It'll probably need some cleanup once I finish, but it's better than what we have now. Did anyone else notice that the "layout" section in the current version talks about the way a guild is setup, rather than the page layout? =P MisterPepe talk 17:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Reverted the stuff that was added under the layout. Bleh...

Your example looks great. :) -- (gem / talk) 18:01, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

[TFSKotGPoGVaHfADTSAtDFoM]: Best guild name ever! -- Dashface 07:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Formatting guide draft

I finished a first draft of the style and formatting guide, and I've replaced the old version with it. As usual, questions, comments, concerns, snide remarks, and money are all welcome. MisterPepe talk 19:14, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm thinking some of those points are more appropriate in the policy page. Things like image use, no recruitment, no attacks, etc. are more policy than formatting guidelines. Those are the rules that must be followed, rather than style that should be adhered to. -- ab.er.rant 19:39, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough, I was just running out of things to write about in there =P All of those things are already on the policy page, I just kind of wanted to reiterate them here. If you'd rather they were removed and left to be on the policy page alone, that's fine; I think it makes a little more sense to repeat it here, but I'm fine with whatever. MisterPepe talk 19:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes a formatting guide should be an example of how to format the page, like the other formatting pages :) --Lemming64 19:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

There's an example linked at the bottom. With Guild pages especially, there's a lot more subjectivity than in other articles. While some degree of formatting makes sense, we can't regulate every single aspect of this with one template like we did in the other formatting pages =P MisterPepe talk 19:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep, which is why I just thought all the "must" stuff goes into the policy page, and all the "should" and "recommended" stuff be here. I'll go add a link to the policy page under general guidelines. -- ab.er.rant 22:16, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Alliance Navbox

Sorry about the new section, but it was getting messy up there. I've created an alliance navbox now. see: User:Jamie/Guild Navbox, there seems to be a formatting error but this is the first time I've ever created a template so if someone could fix it up? If this were pushed into the main space, I'm in two minds about the name Template:Guild navbox or Template:Alliance navbox? on the one had it is an alliance navbox... but on the other it is associated with the Guild namespace... --Jamie 12:03, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Guild Navbox imho. It is used to navigate between guilds. -- (gem / talk) 12:24, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I updated the formatting article to match the naming choice "guild navbox." Looks great, thanks! Looks like we're just missing the {{guild image}} template now. MisterPepe talk 13:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I made a pretty basic {{guild image}} by totally ripping off the user image template =P Anyway, anyone who wants to should tweak colors/formatting, because I've got nothing ;) I also moved the Example Guild page into the Guild:namespace and reuploaded the cape image, just to make it ready to go. Are we almost at the point of being able to call this formatting guide complete, or do we need to wait a while for consensus to build? As far as I know, the Guild Page policy is pretty much waiting for ratification because this guide isn't finished - once it's done, we can start to push that policy along again. MisterPepe talk 14:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, well I think there is something up with the navbox template I made, I'm not sure it's formatting is just right, it seems to be too tall when it has no optional values in. As far as policy I'm looking forward to this going live very soon :) --Jamie 14:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll tweak the example guild page a bit, but otherwise everything looks fine to me. -- (gem / talk) 14:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Sweet. It looks like we're pretty much at a consensus, then. Unless there are any major objections, I'll probably take the "under construction" tag off of the top tomorrow and kick the discussion back over to the policy page. MisterPepe talk 18:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I modified the example guild page. Explanations on the talk page. I also removed the build stuff from the formatting guide. I don't think that it belongs to a guild page. -- (gem / talk) 19:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that it makes sense to at least have a small section about build types the guild favors - though, of course, that's something that really only would apply to PvP guilds. I don't really see what useful information a PvP guild could put on there that doesn't mention build types at all =P Even if it's just a simple "Balanced, Split, Pressure, or Spike," it's fairly useful for knowing what kind of build it is. I know that you come from a primarily PvE perspective, so I was trying to make this section friendly for PvP players as well - some guilds are only famous because of the types of builds they run (certain bloodspike guilds I could mention XD ), so it would make sense, at least to me, to mention that sort of thing. I'm not talking about a full team build, just a general description. If you really think that there should be nothing of the sort, I'll go along with that, but I just want to mention that I do disagree somewhat. Up to you =P MisterPepe talk 19:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

That fits perfectly under the general information of the guild. No separate heading is needed. It's such a small thing anyway, just like you said, taht a heading wouldbe overkill. -- (gem / talk) 19:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

{RI}Fair enough. I'm going to make a small edit to the "overall description" section of the formatting guide to make that clear. MisterPepe talk 19:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Ready part 2?

Is the formatting guide ready? I think so. now we can move to the policy to get it accepted. -- (gem / talk) 12:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think so. I'm going to remove the "Under construction" tag. MisterPepe talk 12:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Mixed PvE/PvP guilds

How do we treat those? I was thinking of labeling them as PvX (with categories like Category:PvX guilds), but not too sure. Maybe it's better to just use both the PvE and PvP labels for those guilds, instead of a mixed hybrid one? --Dirigible 15:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

PvX categories exist allready, so I'll just add it to the example. -- (gem / talk) 15:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I just created them. Was second-guessing myself tho, but as long as everyone's happy with them, then it's all good. :) --Dirigible 15:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the PvX category is bad. People looking for PvP would have to look in 2 sections. Having a combined category isn't the best way to do it: let guilds have PvP, PvE or both categories. 121.220.58.45 09:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a big problem with that. Many guilds just copy paste the categories from here. Now we are able to ntice that something wrong when a guild has all 3 tags, PvE, PvP and PvX (I've used this page to look those mistakes up). If we only had the PvE and PvP categories, people would still just copy paste the stuff from here, but we would no longer know if the guild really is PvE+PvP or if the categorisation is just a mistake.

Also, many players are interested in a PvP-only or PvE-only guild. This system also makes searching for those very easy. Imho the sytem should not be changed. -- (gem / talk) 10:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki error?

Could someone check the article history and tell me why ta long piece of text comes there with my edits even hough I don't add it there myself. I just make a small edit and suddenly the diff shows that I added that large piece of text although I didn't. It is getting irritating. -- (gem / talk) 16:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

This is a known problem discussed in some other places and it also happens on GuildWiki. I don't know more about it than it's a problem with pre-tags. - Anja Astor (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Just what I thought, good to know I guessed right. :) -- (gem / talk) 17:46, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I also found out that editing the whole article and not sections sometimes makes it not to happen :P - Anja Astor (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Good to know. We could ofcourse use something else than the pre tags. -- (gem / talk) 17:53, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Categories

We're not even into the weekend yet and there's a huge influx of new guild articles. After the weekend, the number of guild articles will jump even bigger. I'm thinking that the current categories that we have aren't enough. I propose we insert another layer of categories between Category:Guilds and the existing ones - namely, territory/zone categories. So we can then divide them into, say, Category:America PvE guilds, Category:Europe PvX guilds, Category:Japan recruiting PvP guilds, Category:Taiwan HA guilds, etc. I think this would make it easier to filter out guilds should someone really be looking for a suitable guild to join. If necessary, I'm thinking we can break things down by timezone too :P -- ab.er.rant 10:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps include Kurzick / Luxon in that, in case of guilds looking for Alliance partners. AT(talk | contribs) 10:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone could edit the userbox to autotype like this that would be great, I really daren't fiddle with auto categorising as it always goes wrong! --Lemming64 10:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, we should've added autocategorisation to the guild infobox earlier. But that would require more fixed parameter values. -- ab.er.rant 10:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Separation from policy and definition clarification

I've reworded the general guidelines section such that it is now in deference to the policy with regards to the guild and guild image tags. I've also added a point that guild pages are not meant to be homepages, which might help cut down on the more "personal-styled" guild pages I've seen.

An issue I would like to bring up is the infobox. Are we requiring that all guild pages use the infobox? Are is it optional as long as the other parts of the guidelines are conformed to? Since we're not doing auto-cat. it's currently optional. What if someone comes up with a creative way of displaying the info inside our infobox yet did not use our infobox, and the rest of the page conforms to guidelines. Is that a bad page? Are guidelines about 100% conformance? That would make them policy. 50% conformance? Probably too low. 80-90% conformance? -- ab.er.rant 10:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should have an infobox of some kind - but if they've made one that looks nicer, or matches the page better than the default one, but still contains the information, I say good for them - it makes a nice change from the one-line-guild pages that we're having to delete/blank/tag. Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines should be recommendations not strict-laws (as described on Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting). If someone produces a design that is more useful than the current design then we should reconsider our formatting rules, not force them to rewrite their article. LordBiro 10:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Alliance pages?

How are we handling these? I've seen at least one page for an alliance in the Guild namespace already - should we have a separate namespace for these, or require them to mention that it's an alliance rather than a single guild in the page title (i.e. "Alliance_Name_Here_(Alliance)"? Seems like we might need to add an additional bit to the guild pages policy to cover alliance pages, or something further. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Technically, they should be splitting that up into separate guild pages and using the {{guild navbox}} template, so I don't really think that such a policy is required. Either way, since this is a user talk page (albeit a highly-visited one over the last couple of days), we should probably be having this discussion at GWW:GUILDS. MisterPepe talk 20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Moving replies there. As for the actual issue, the page includes general information about the alliance as well that wouldn't be suited for individual guild pages, hence the reason I'm wondering about policy - if it could be split up that easily, I'd probably tag it for deletion with a note to incorporate it into the guilds' pages. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see why most, if not all of that extra information, could be put in the alliance leader's page in a separate section. For example, Guild X is the leader of an alliance that concentrates on lorem ipsum sic dolor amet, and continuing on in that fashion. That rules section in there really seems to be the main part about the alliance, and that would be pretty easy to fit into that leading guild's page, IMO. As usual, just my 2 plat. MisterPepe talk 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Alliance info should be on the leader guilds page. No alliance articles, just guild articles. -- (gem / talk) 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and tagged the page I mentioned above for deletion, and I'll keep an eye out for any others. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There are all sorts of highly prestigious alliances out there- how do they use a wiki page? It's nearly impossible to find content when a page title doesnt describe the info youre trying to find. Any large alliance that is known as an alliance, and not a guild, will be misrepresented, and it will be harder to find information about that alliance. If alliance pages are not allowed under Guilds, than it should have its own separate section. Alliances are basically larger guilds, after all. Jinn Master 03:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(RI) Did you read the Large Guilds section? I'm a member of Guild:Xen Of Onslaught, and that worked out fine, even though it's a guild of over 600 members and 10+ divisions. It's not a hard rule to deal with. MisterPepe talk 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember that alliances are typically known by the leading guilds name, so this shouldn't be a problem in most cases. -- (gem / talk) 10:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We could ofcourse let the alliance name be used as a redirect. Guild:Alliance name would redirect to Guild:Leader guild name. -- (gem / talk) 10:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To me an alliance is not a guild and a lead guild not an alliance. The information about an alliance on the lead guilds page clutters the guilds information. So to me there should be a seperate page with information about the alliance. (I have seen that more alliances have the same idea as the above mentioned alliance) Miss Carlina 11:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well ,what do you suggest we do when the alliance name is the same as the lead guild name? Guild:Alliance Awesome Guild if the lead guild is Guild:Awesome Guild? -- (gem / talk) 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Then they could just add alliance to the end or the front like you did.The easiest solution to the problem though, would be to add an Alliance: heading, so that none of the guild pages would be crammed, and Alliances like mine, where all the leaders have equal say, and the name has nothing to do with any of the guilds, can have separate pages. A guild page should have its history, a list of officers and leaders, and static members. It should have some geography of the guilds members, and their favorite activities. This could differ greatly, and many times does, from a guild to an alliance. And, no offense Pepe, but XoO is not the best example. You aren't an alliance, your one huge guild. Each individual branch has a different purpose, but that happens in many large guilds- you just needed the extra space. Jinn Master 14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Weighing in with my own opinion here, I'd personally suggest that if we do decide to allow separate pages for alliances we simply require them to be named as the alliance is in-game and end with "(Alliance)", a la wikipedia's disambiguated pages. So for instance, Guild:The Imperial Guards Alliance would become Guild:The Imperial Guards Elite (Alliance). (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to list alliances ¬_¬ LordBiro 15:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We already do to an extent, via the alliance navbox. But given that alliances are a innate feature of the game, why shouldn't we list them? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I can understand having a navigation box to group guilds by alliance, and I don't have a problem with this. My concern is that alliance pages just become more elaborate versions of the navigation template. Alliances don't have a lot of functionality within the game, and as such I don't think they are deserving of independent articles. LordBiro 15:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point in that regard, but some alliances have added a lot of "functionality" independently of the game mechanics, plus there's still the point for guilds that don't wish to identify a particular leader. But all in all, that's why I'm somewhat in favor of just allowing an (Alliance) page rather than creation of an Alliance namespace, so that it can mostly just catch exceptions rather than become the rule. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

While I personally am against having separate articles for an alliance - the leader's guild article should suffice, I would like to point out that your identifier should ideally be lowercase, i.e. (alliance). :) - BeX 15:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think that we shouldn't have alliance pages, only a link to the alliance website which should include the information. Ofcourse the leader guild is able to list alliance info on its page if they want to have the info on the wiki. -- (gem / talk) 17:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(resetting indent) I agree that there shouldn't be alliance pages. If people want more about their alliance on the wiki, they can add it to the lead guild's page. If they don't want to have that, they can make do with the alliance box. Ale_Jrb (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the middle. And I have arguments for both sides.

For: "Why not?" This simple question has been the reason why guilds, builds, and fansites are getting pushed. If we're allowing guilds (and I didn't really like that in the first place), why are we disallowing alliances? Why not an alliance namespace? Like guild pages, they're no harm. What if I'm interested in the activities of an alliance but am interested in a guild that's not the guild leader. It won't ever occur to me that the alliance info will be on the guild leader's page, especially if the guild page specifically states that no guild is actually considered "the leader".

Against: Can't we just teach guild pages how to include subpages? Can we just ask the guild leaders to create a subpage out of the alliance nav and add whatever they want about their alliance there. Then each and every guild in that alliance should just include that subpage, making their alliance info visible on all the member guilds. -- ab.er.rant 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Image naming

Both this page as well as GWW:GUILD mention the restrictions regarding image-naming in the Guild:-namespace. Isn't this superfluous? If not, then this page should ALSO note that the image should be named Guild <guild name> <image name>. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 00:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted to bring up a discussion on that too, but kinda got sidetracked by the cleanup template and tag-non-conforming-images-with-delete issues. I actually didn't much see the necessity of forcing "Guild <guild name> <image name>" but that seems the convention and it does make things more elegant for those who prowl the image lists. As for repeating that line in the policy here, well, I suppose we should. -- ab.er.rant 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Language

Shall we have a language rule in the main policy, as this is the english wiki, and alot of non-english guild pages are popping up. - File:Drago-sig.gif Drago 01:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the formatting page, but feel free to join the discussion already in progress on this issue at this link. MisterPepe talk 01:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Question: deletion because of not following formatting guidelines

Have started with taking a look at some guild pages and, if they hadn't yet, added to new guildpages the Guild tag as is obligatory as stated in the guild pages policy. During that I also stumbled upon a guild page that has the header for cleanup at the top. That states the page will deleted if the way the information is displayed is not adjusted so that it corresponds with the guild pages formatting GUIDELINE. I am confused now, cause I understood that pages should only be nominated for deletion if they are not in line with the standing policy and that the formatting guideline is exactly as it says merely a guideline on how to display it.

Example is Guild:Avalanche_Ro. More examples can be found by just following the links to all alliance members with the exception of the alliance leader. All these guilds in this alliance are nominated for cleanup and automatically marked for deletion if the format does not correspond with the formatting guideline. I too see that the contents of these pages are not giving much information, but if that is all the info they wanna give (or can give atm) then that is their business, isn't it? So should the clean up tag be changed so that it does not automatically lead to a marking for deletion? Or should it just not be used for Guild pages if the only thing wrong is that they do not follow the guidelines? Or am I the only one thinking that a page does not need to be deleted in such a case, even if the creator/maintainer does not respond within 7 days? Gode Fridus 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the sysop who mainly does the deletions nowdays, so I think I'll post my views here. 80% of the pages tagged with the template need to be deleted due to other policies anyway, for example we have a speedy deletion rule for pages that don't provide information on the topic of the page, which in this case means that the guild page should provide information of the guild. I've deleted hundreds of guild pages with "The best guild ever" or similiar content and no actual information. Sometimes the users who tag the guild pages are overzealous though, I've removed the tag from many guild pages. Imho there is no problem with the template and the automatic deletion tag. -- (gem / talk) 17:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

All users are entitled to remove the cleanup tag if they feel their guild page meets it, further discussion can be had on the talk page. I think in the specific cases you are referring to there is almost no information on that page besides a link to the guild website. It wouldn't take long for a member of that guild to add a little more to actually make it pointful to read. As is often said a red link is better than a page with little to no information. --Lemming64 18:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the really quick feedback! I probably stumbled upon an overzealous tagger in this particular case. Don't have problems with applying the tag in the way Gem describes it, after all in the examples Gem gives the policy is not followed. Placing only a link to a Guild's offshore site is not much, but at least it points to a place where there (probably) is more information about the guild (since that then is external it is very well possible that they have a more biassed description there). Would be nice if those would put a bit more on the wiki page though. Gode Fridus 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Large Guilds - sub pages

Is it alright for a large guild such as Guild:The Imperial Guards Alliance or even any guild pages to have sub pages? - i have created a test version of how this would look here: User:The Great Tomato/TIG Alliance sandbox however i'm not sure whether this would be alright to implement into the main one - although I am aware that several guild pages do have sub-pages about members, pvp, pve, etc. The reason that I want to make these guild pages is so that we can show more information without cluttering up the main page with 10 guilds worth of officers and information, whilst keepign the same information that is relevant to the entire alliance on the front. (if you have any ideas of how i could improve the sandbox version please let me know - I got the idea of having the Navbar from User:Lensor) --The Great Tomato 17:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Subpages are fine, they were enabled on the Guild namespace for that reason iirc. -- (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No problems with subpages. But are you sure you want other guilds as another guild's subpages? It certainly deviates from the guidelines are they are. Are you also planning to create redirects for the member guilds to the subpages? -- ab.er.rant 17:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed previously - it deviates because it's a special case, where, while the guilds are separate due to the limitations put in place by ArenaNet, they form one single community that doesn't care for the boundaries, and thus it's more important to have info about the group as a whole rather than the individual guilds. It was found preferable to create the single guild page rather than attempting to implement Alliance pages (see the 'Alliance Pages?' section above). Edit: ab.er.rant, you participated in that discussion! Had a bit too good of a time this weekend? :P -- (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my understanding of it the last time was that the alliance page can be a subpage of the leader guild. And all member guilds will either just include that subpage or link to it. The Great Tomato's proposal appears to be where the pages for member guilds themselves become subpages of another guild. -- ab.er.rant 01:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am proposing to have Guild:The Imperial Guards Alliance as the main introduction to the alliance then that is then split down into the 10 guilds e.g. Guild:The Imperial Guards Alliance/TIGE --The Great Tomato 12:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When I understand this correctly, there is no guild with the name The Imperial Guards Alliance. So what if somebody creates this guild? poke | talk 12:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already covered that :P ingame i have two accounts one in TIGE and the other in a dummy guild called 'The Imperial Guards Alliance' - so as long as my other account stays there and does not disband it i can be assured that no-one else will be able to claim ownership of it --The Great Tomato 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok :) poke | talk 14:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The other alternative would be to have the alliance page be under the name of the leading guild (since that's what the alliance is named, anyways), and then have the other member guilds as subpages of that. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Credits on Guild pages

For main space articles, we do not permit edit credits within the articles. What about Guild pages, such as the current version of Guild:Ravens Shadow? My personal opinion is that the "History" tab should be sufficient contribution on Guild pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to get this removed from our guild page but the officers turned against me. 2 against 1 go figure. Hanks Gotcha 01:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Barek, since it is a wiki and anybody can add to the pages one person should not take credit for the guild page. Just like in the case with other articles. --Sktbrd341 01:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to take credit for something on a wiki is pointless, especially one with GFDL on it. Yet on the other hand, we don't currently have anything that forbids it. -- ab.er.rant 01:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's kind of a gray area, which is why I asked here rather than flat-out removing it. I'm not aware of anything that expressly forbids it in the main article space, but we remove it there without questioning the action. The real question here is if we treat Guild pages more like main-namespace content, or more like user-namespace content. Either way - I agree that they're pointless due to the site being GFDL anyway; and even without that issue, they're redundant to the "History" tab. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that we have rules on cleaning up guild pages and a defined purpose for guild pages, I'd say guild pages are more like main space articles. -- ab.er.rant 01:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree with this. Perhaps a clause of this type should be added to the guidelines? There is no need for crediting on a wiki, really, and for guild articles (which we are considering as basically mainspace articles), I don't think it should be there. Ale_Jrb (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely no credits on guild articles. That's what the histroy is for. -- (gem / talk) 15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Should this be interpreted as a generally accepted practice, or does in need to be spelled out with a note under General_guidelines saying something like "The History tab provides all contribution credits for the page, do not include them in the article text"? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Both, really. The former provides justification but the latter provides visibility and more solid acceptance. --Rezyk 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It should really be in GWW:GENFORM. - BeX 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean on top of wherever it gets added here, if that is decided. - BeX 03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree ... if it's appropriate to state it here, then it's even more appropriate to state it there. I'll start discussion on the talk page for that one too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Having it on the general formatting rules is a good idea, but I think that duplicating the same text on this page is unnecessary. -- (gem / talk) 07:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

CreateBox

To start your guild page, enter your guild name here (use the exact same format and capitalization as in-game, and without the tag, so that it can be automatically linked): <createbox> editintro=Template:New guild editintro preload=Template:New guild preload prefix=Guild: buttonlabel=Create Guild page width=50 </createbox>

---

Here's a starting point of a quick form for guilds. It uses Template:New guild editintro and Template:New guild preload. Please look it over or fix them up, and we can also see about showing this box with the name filled in whenever someone goes to a non-existant guild (like from the in-game link). --Rezyk 02:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks good to me, Rezyk. Should we go ahead and make this pop up whenever someone reaches a guild page that hasn't been created yet? The implementation should be easy, I think; a simple {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACE}} | Guild | The CreateBox code | The regular page non-existant page message}} in MediaWiki:Noarticletext should do it, if I'm not mistaken. Hopefully it will result in less guild pages getting deleted because of formatting issues. --Dirigible 19:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though I have 2 suggestions on top of that:

• Add default={{PAGENAME}} to the CreateBox code to try and auto-fill it in that context.
• Keep the regular non-existent page message around in addition to displaying the CreateBox, to minimize UI differences.

--Rezyk 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This should do it, I think. MediaWiki:Noarticletext. Example: Guild:Nonexistent Guild. --Dirigible 00:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I tried adding some comments to Template:New guild preload, but I'm starting to worry that they may be more confusing than helpful. Anyone has any thoughts on this? --Dirigible 00:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor comment: I find the fact that the end of the ignore tags is always in the next line very confusing. It makes the comments much harder to read. --Xeeron 09:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to give another hint to that autocreate-box that users have to add content to the created sections? Actually many pages are created with not much more information than the guild name. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Since someone asked about this at http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk%3AAdmin_noticeboard&diff=597737&oldid=597693 let me use ResChant on this. Is there any problem with adding this to the formatting guideline? --Xeeron 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"This Guild article does not meet the standards set in our formatting section"

Can we please slow down with the spam of {{guild cleanup}} on guild articles? Since the addition of the CreateBox mechanism above, the majority of the articles are fine from a formatting point of view. Yes, they often don't have information in all sections, but that's what {{guild-stub}} is for, isn't it? Just because they still haven't added all information doesn't mean we need to delete even the stuff they've already added. Thanks. --Dirigible 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you suggest they should be tagged with guild stub instead, or not touched at all until a later date? One example would be Guild:The Beer where they have actually added no info whatsoever. But, it may also be that they are working on it atm, I don't know that. I just want to know if you (and others) think we should leave it or tag it with stub or something else :) - anja 22:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I think the cleanup tag is fair 99% of the time, if they make the page and we immediately delete it I could understand, but if they make the page like The Beer did with no content except a guild name it is fair game a week later if nothing new is added. The fuzzy line comes around how much content do we consider to be enough, a filled out infobox, a capeimage? Clearly if you have the infobox with some information and some information in the main section you are safe. But where is the line for cleanup to be removed as the content is then adequate?

Also if we were to have no cleanup on articles created with the createbox, which have the correct format, we will have hundreds of stubs waiting for the {{inactive guild}} tag with next to no information. --Lemming 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My argument is what it's always been: we are treating guild articles as a burden instead of like any other article, we have a double standard in our deletion practices concerning guild pages vs articles that reside elsewhere on the wiki. We don't delete user pages because they have little information, we leave them as they are; nor do we delete mainspace articles when they have little information, we add a stub tag to them. If guild pages are "fair game" to be deleted because they have little content, then please, lets also delete Moon Shell, Quarry Quandry, The Toy's Story, Noben and the rest of other articles in Special:Shortpages that have even less content than many of the guild articles we've been nuking. It's obvious that I won't be able to convince anyone to leave them as they are, so at least lets just add {{guild-stub}} to them. Even if they don't return to add that info, what's the harm? Guild stub was made for these articles, the description is perfectly appropriate, "key elements of this guild-related article are incomplete".

Yes, I'm suggesting that we stub them, and no, I'm not talking about extreme examples like Guild:The Beer. I'm talking about guilds that have added info in the infobox, or that have added info in the other sections. A stub tag gives them a chance to work on it, that cleanup tag doesn't.

Don't forget that we only started using {{guild cleanup}} to appease Tanaric and others during the initial boom of the guilds section, it's not part of any policy; it was either that or have them blanked/deleted immediately, it was a necessary compromise. Now that the formatting issue is no longer a problem, can we slow down a bit with the deletions, and give people a chance to build on these pages whenever they get some free time? To be kept in mind is that the guild section is probably the main way through which new users start editing the wiki, so it's obvious that in the vast majority of the cases the result is going to be "lacking" from our perspective. Being more patient with them seems sensible to me.

And yes, even {{inactive guild}} is better than {{guild cleanup}}, one month is better than one week (plus {{inactive guild}} can be dealt with more easily than the other one). --Dirigible 23:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me, is there any hidden reason why the createbox is not on the article here? --Xeeron 22:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the createbox comes up automatically when you start a new page in the guild namespace. Also I see your reasoning Dirigible, I just want us to decide really where the line is, If there is none fine and we allow everything or somewhere in a scale of things. Just it is hard to know what to delete or tag without a specific clarification. --Lemming 00:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(To bring this back up) Personally i feel that if a page has no information on it what so ever, it should be marked with {{guild cleanup}} - if something doesnt have any contact information it should be marked with {{guild cleanup}} as if a guild is listed then they should have some way of contacting the guild even if that guild is not recruiting ("Contact information should be listed"). Although if something is missing like the guild introduction then it should be marked with {{guild-stub}} ("A small section regarding general play style, preferred build types, and philosophy of the guild is encouraged").

Should we reserve the {{guild cleanup}} for articles that need re-organising and 'cleaning up' where every thing is confusing and messy (and then I must admit that giving someone a week to bring it up to standards is harsh)? Or should we create a checklist to which you must look at and see whether the page should be marked for cleanup, as a stub or both?

@Dirigible: In your opinion then would it be better if we extend the length that someone has to cleanup the page (2/3 weeks? a month?) to allow people to have the oppurtunity to develop it further - although if they didnt do it on the day they set it up (or within a week) then what chance is there that they will go back and finish it at a later date? - if it is deleted, then if and when they want to remake it at a later date and this time put more effort into it (rather than leaving an empty shell or an incomplete article) then they can there will be nothing stopping them from remaking a page that has been deleted (or am i mistaken?) -- The Great Tomato 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Guild cleanup also means that 'useless' pages eventually get deleted as how are guild pages like Guild:Divine_Angel serving any purpose? They dont have any information on them (apart from the limited bit in guild infobox) - once again i go back to my point if they cant be bothered to sort it out within a week what hope is there for them to go and sort it out (and if they do suddenly decide that they want to improve it then they can remake it) - to keep only guild pages that are 'serving a purpose' as i see it -- The Great Tomato 17:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If this is a suggestion to extend the clean-up duration, then we can discuss it as I don't have any particular objections to extending it a week or two. But to say it's double standard, well, I'd say that's one of the reasons the namespace got created in the first place. (and as a side note, there's really no harm in them not following guidelines either, so it's a bit difficult to argue from the "no harm" perspective without changing the policy). -- ab.er.rant 02:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomato: In order of preference, from the ideal choice to the least desirable one: forever, 99 years, 98 years, 97 years, ... 2 years, 1 year, 6 months, 1 month, 2-3 weeks. Your pick.

Can you please define "useless pages" for me please, Tomato? What's your criteria that determines whether a guild page is useful or not? If it's going to cause the deletion of guild articles, it's only fair we're all aware of what "useless" means. Also, please note that the contact information is not required in the policy. Why would you delete a guild page because it does not have contact information? If Idiot Savants [iQ] creates a guild article here tomorrow but doesn't add contact info since they're not interested in recruiting and don't want anyone bothering them, why do we care? Member recruitment is only one of several possible uses for these pages; don't forget that their main use is probably simply informational. Like for the other guild you deemed "useless" and suggested be deleted, the question is: since it offers something positive to the wiki (some information about their guild) and has no negative side effects (unless the ANet servers are already low on server space), then what's the harm in leaving that guild page where it is?

Aberrant: It's a double standard because it's unlike what we'd accept anywhere else on the wiki. If we delete articles because they need cleanup, then please go through Category:Cleanup and nuke everything, why don't you? Same with not sticking to our formatting guidelines, same with not having "enough" content (even though they have more content than dozens of articles elsewhere), etc. Please don't rewrite history: we did not put the guild articles in a separate namespace so we could call them "fair game" to be deleted for even the most trivial reasons (from a wiki-perspective); we put them on a separate namespace for a) tidiness (different content from the main encyclopedia, like builds, user pages, etc), b) so those not interested could filter them out (part of the compromise with those that opposed the section from ever existing), and c) for easy removal if we ever decide to pull the plug on all of them (again part of the compromise). --Dirigible 11:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion then are you happy cluttering up the guild page list with pages such as Guild:Divine Angel, Guild:Dragones Salvajes, Guild:The Incorrigible Ale Hounds, etc... - they have no purpose on this wiki, they have no information whatsoever (except maybe a tiny little bit in the Infobox - but how is that of any use?) - that is how i am defining 'useless'.

Even if [iQ] set up a guild page on here i would expect them to list something - a GWW contact, a forum, website, ign, whatever - but there should be some way in contacting every guild on this Wiki without just having to leave a message on the talk page.

Coming back to my point that I made earlier - what do you think about pages that actually need cleaning up? (as in they are very messy and disorganised) - giving someone a week to clean up their page despite the fact that information is on there, and if they don't then it will be deleted. Although hopefully if someone has put lots of work into their guild page - as soon as it gets modified they would leap into action and fix it. But I would be happy to give all 'useless' pages and pages that need sorting out 1 month to cleanup or they will be deleted - whats your view on this?

And btw i do think that we should be keeping the ANet servers clean and tidy :P -- The Great Tomato 13:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The first of those guilds you listed has some information, the other two don't; that alone makes lumping them in the same group a fallacy. Your definition of "useless" is ... lacking. They certainly do have a purpose, just like every other wiki article, they provide information about their topic matter. Using the argument "but it doesn't have enough information" is unacceptable until both these aspects are taken care of first: a) articles on other namespaces need to be subjected to the same criteria, OR a case for why guild pages should be treated more harshly than articles on any other namespace needs to be made, and b) we need to define what "enough" information is. Until then, why isn't some information better than no information? Especially since some information makes it easier to build upon in order to add more content, instead of needing to create the article again?

Again, please point out for me why contact information is necessary, instead of simply claiming that they need to make it available. If someone has no interest in recruiting new members, if the article simply provides information about the guild, then why would we care about them making their contact info available? Just drop your message on the talk page, just like we do everywhere else on the wiki, including userpages.

And as for the articles that need cleaning up, I thought I'd answered that already. No, ideally I don't think they should be deleted at all (even though anything over the current "one week" is certainly an improvement). If it's hideous enough, someone will fix it, otherwise why not let it be until the authors get around to it? If cleanup == timed delete, then Category:Cleanup should be fun to deal with. --Dirigible 14:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What is a guild page? A guild page is something created by a member of that guild to document it - no one outside of that guild, should have any involvement in that page (when i say that i mean adding info). Whereas an article outside of the guild namespace is an article where anyone can contribute as we all have this information available to us. That is why they should be treated with a 'firmer hand'.

What is enough information in my book is something like this Guild:Children Of The Dragons while although very basic it has everything there. It has a link to contact them on, it says a bit about their policy on recruitment and it has a general introduction to the guild and what it is about and based.

Under Guild Wars Wiki:Guild pages#Categorically disallowed: "Guild pages shall not be used to contact the guild members". Userpages are not a very good means of communication if that person rarely logs onto GWW (and has no email alerts), or if the page is created by an IP address (which a growing number of them are). And just because they are not recruiting does not mean that people do not need to contact them for other reasons, or perhaps they are hoping that they might make an exception? Rules are made to be broken. Even if you can't see that, then perhaps you should look at the pages that have either no recruiting policy clearly stated or are just ambiguous for instance Guild:Acolytes_Of_The_Fading_Moon, Guild:Army Of Twelve Monkeys, Guild:Blood Pact Knights, Guild:Forever Crimsoned, etc... Should they not be required to list a contact (especially the first one - as it sounds as if they are recruiting) or just say 'We are not recruiting at the moment but if you need to contact us you can get to us at efgwubfw@whatever.com or ingame on efg wubfw' its not hard (even a guild email is good if they dont want to be hastled in game but at least it is a way for any player to contact them easily (as yes, some people can't use GWW yet alone write a message on a guild page).

"All guild articles should try to conform and adhere to the guidelines presented here, to maintain consistency in all guild pages", consistency? does that mean... that all guild pages should have the same content and either all have contact information or not?... I think it does :O "Contact information should be listed", can we get a definition of 'should'... 'to express what is expected', and as we all know from the previous quote all guild pages are expected to obey to policy for the guild pages style and formatting, so that means that having contact information is expected and people should not deviate from that - WOW. (All of these quotes can be found at Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Guilds and the definition of 'Should' came from Merriam-Webster Online)

Concerning the topic of the cleanup template and supposedly nuking anything that it sits upon: You should know that, that rule of deleting things with the cleanup template on does not exist in the mainspace as LordBiro says: "The date is only for guild cleanup since there are so many guild articles that are started and then abandoned" (can be found here) how can a mainspace article be abandoned? The information that lies on that page will always be relevant and never go out of date. Whereas a guild page CAN be abandoned and go out of date - and then the only reason that a guild page should be allowed to stay for a long period of time is if they are noted as being a 'notable guild' by ANet. -- The Great Tomato 17:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for misunderstanding one of the reasons for having a different namespace. But all the same, being in a different namespace is reason enough for having slightly different rules right? We handle articles in the "User" namespace differently, we handle articles in the "Guild Wars Wiki" slightly differently as well.

Back to topic. Dirigible, can I know your stand on this a little more? I get the feeling you would be in favor of the removal of {{guild cleanup}} and {{inactive guild}} entirely. You said to slow down. But how exactly slow should it go? 1 day? 1 week? 99 years? The problem with "guild cleanup" at the moment is that there's no clearly spelled out guidelines on when to apply that, so there's no agreed method for people to fall back on. I don't slap on the cleanup tag if a guild page is missing some sections, like contact info. I feel that as long as there are some things that adhere to convention, the page is fine. But I have no problems with slapping the clean up tag on one-liner guild pages and pages that have nothing more than the minute amount of info on the infobox. I just feel that if they can't be bothered to even at one sentence to describe their guild, then they probably won't be bothered if we delete it. Stub it? I feel that if we're going to move towards a more lenient stand on guild pages, retaining even very empty pages, might as well also remove the extra clauses that deal with how we clean up guild pages. -- ab.er.rant 02:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes i have to agree with you on this - maybe i do go a little ott with the contact info bit, but it shouldn't just be the information in the infobox as chances are as i have said before what are the chances of them coming and sorting it out? Very little. We do need to look at both {{guild cleanup}} and {{guild-stub}}, this could involve gettign rid of the automatic delete on the cleanup one to behave more like {{cleanup}}, and just use it on ones that need sorting out (but maybe not more info needed), {{guild-stub}} - only labelling articles which have more than just the infobox, but they are still missing some points, however without them the article still is okay. And perhaps a new template to give guild pages with just the info of the infobox, a chance to modify the page and then if nothing is done - delete.

Sorry for my points earlier, I was stubborn and just didn't sit back and look at the broader perspective (and i hate debates lol - but i hope that we can now make progress and define some new rules/uses) -- The Great Tomato 09:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

GWW:GUILD and GWW:GUILDS

Could the redirect for this page be changed from GWW:GUILDS to something else, perhaps GWW:GF or whatever? I think I've been linking to the wrong page sometimes when trying to link to the policy page :S. br12 • (talk) • 20:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)