Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Guilds/Archive 2

Tighten this?

I think this formatting page needs to be a little more strict. Some Guild pages are getting a bit out of hand. See Guild:Order Of Numenor for one. Like, look at all of those images and stuff. — ク Eloc 貢 18:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that you should stay away from that page ;) I don't really mind it being that way, tbh. - anja 18:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am staying away from it. I just used it as an example, that's all. — ク Eloc 貢 18:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, i would agree with this - guilds need to know what they can and cannot do, and no making exceptions. Every guild's page should have an equal opportunity to be creative, and if they want to do something different then they should bring it up in discussion so the whole community may have this change made not just one or two getting something allowed because they stir up such an argument when you do anything *cough* such as the example posted by Eloc *cough* -- The Great Tomato 20:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that page. It's a form of expression and will either deter people from reading it, or attract potential members. It's not obviously trying to break with policy or anything. Biscuits 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw one guild had changed teh colors of their guild page and they weren't allowed because it was different wit the templates but ive seen other pages where it was either not noticed or allowed. I don't want to say that there needs to be a rule for everything, but you may wish to be slightly more specific in some cases. —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 23:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well they violate the rule of too many images for sure. And they are using the {{Guild hall infobox}} on a Guild Page (←I don't think that's against the rules, but it certainly is uneeded) — ク Eloc 貢 02:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unneeded should not turn into a not allowed. Personally, I don't really want to bother with arguing with guild page writers about the technicalities of their formatting. The formatting guidelines laid up here are only strongly encouraged, not strictly enforced. The most important and most enforceable sections in the policy are "Naming and contents" and "Categorically disallowed". A friendly reminder for the other sections and for the guideline is fine, but no point pestering or annoying them over it. As Dirigible and Xeeron are most likely to say, "What harm is there?" If someone wants to turn their guild page into something huge, unwieldy, or ugly, then it's really their problem if no one bothers looking at them. -- ab.er.rant 05:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with ab.er.rant, anja and biscuits. I don't mind guild-pages being customized to their liking. However, I just ran across Guild:Frontline Py and noticed they've got a black {{guild}} box. That shouldn't be allowed in my book however as that is an important notice and modifying it like that removes notice consistency/readability, and perhaps isn't. I have yet to actually read this whole formatting guideline, only read parts of it so far. :P — Galil 13:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you nuts? If anything, we should promote guild pages more, do new things with them (contests? interesting guild of the week? which guild, A or B, can complete Mission X first? which guild has a best designed userpage? get roleplaying guilds to mix together, special events, maybe even on-wiki, not necessarily in-game? special highlight on the most important guilds there've been in GW?). In other words, right now that namespace is the equivalent of Grand Theft Auto: sandbox free play. We should be giving this whole namespace some goals, a purpose, restructure it a bit so there's more to do than just create new guild pages and deleting those that violate GWW:GUILD.

And you go and suggest that we should be restricting it even more. Boggles my mind. --Dirigible 15:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Nationality Categories

I think the nationality categories, as of now, are not really fulfilling it's function. More guilds filter their members by language spoken than by country/location of origin. Given that, i think it would be better if we allow guilds to categorize into "Guilds by language spoken" and "Guilds by territory" instead of just nationality, as the formatting guideline forces. I feel it would allow users an easier way to look for a guild to join this way. I mean, i could be looking for a non-language restriction guild in the america territory and, as of now, if i use the International guilds category, i could easily end in a portuguese-spoken-only guild that plays in the Europe territory (with their timezones).--Fighterdoken 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you on the fact that some guilds search for members on language spoken rather than nationality and so these categories should be created - but I dont think we want to get rid of the nationality categories either. Territory does not need to be taken into account due to the fact that it is now possible to change from Europe to America to Asia (more parts will be available soon) back to Europe as many times as you want now easily from within the game, so there shouldn't be guilds looking at that really. But it might be a thought to sub-divide international guilds into continent so that while they take players from many different countries they are just those from South America. So we would need these:

Category:German-lang guilds - for guilds that want to filter the language that they recruit

Category:German guilds - for guilds that specify a nationality/country requirement

Category:European guilds - for guilds that recruit internationally but within a continent -- The Great Tomato 00:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, i feel territories also should be created, since they group users with (usually) similar timezones. In any case, i agree that nationality could still stay, as long as it's allowed to include categories for language at least.--Fighterdoken 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

how do you make your own guild page ive been looking FOR EVER! and cant figure out how can someone help me please?--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Frazieca (talk).

Ingame, hit F10 and scroll down, click on your guilds name. Then follow the instructions on how to make one. — ク Eloc 貢 06:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Size

There should be a page size, length size requirement as well many guilds have VERY large (and colorful) pages...--Dominator Matrix 03:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

wrong proposed guild cape image type?

Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Guilds#Images says that guild cape images should be .png files, yet (almost?) every guild uses .jpg files for it. Even the example picture name does exist as .jpg file. —ZerphaThe Improver 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best to change the guideline to .jpg rather than .png seeing as that is the primary format screenshots are saved as. --Kakarot 18:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed. It was from a "leftover" example I believe. -- ab.er.rant 01:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Guild Hall expansion template

Hello, everyone. My guild made our Guild: page today, and while making it I decided that we needed to include the current status of our guild hall. Rather than simply copy/pasting the table from the page Guild Hall, I made a template for it. I figured it would be easier to implement, meaning more people could benefit from it. After a few hours I had completed it, and had even received word of a couple of errors I had looked over from another user. It is thoroughly documented in the area. The template appears to be at this point completely bug-free (I'll vouch for it, it's been through testing) and I was wondering exactly how long the template should have been in use before it earns mention in this article. I realize that this page is unprotected, however it is official policy and I'd hate to do something stupid unintentionally to get myself IP banned. Anyway, any answers to my question would be appreciated, especially from the powers in charge here. Thank you for reading my incredibly long comment. I await your replies.

For reference, the template is located at Template:Guild hall expansion. An example of how it would appear can be found at the bottom of the page or on (if it's okay for me to link to this) my guild's page at Guild:Winter Guardian Knights --Vorith 07:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The only problem that occurs with this template is due to the right float coding it breaks the section edit options. -- Wyn 08:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New guild tag suggestion

I would like to suggest that a 'New Guild' tag be added to the template when people click on the in game link to create a guild page. It would be a version of the guild clean up tag that would allow them 7 days to get content on the page, or it will be deleted. I went through all the new guild pages that were created in the past 7 days (92 total) and 30 of them had no content at all. That's a whopping 33%. I believe that this would eliminate, or at least greatly reduce the number of empty guild pages that simply end up getting tagged for inactivity 6 months after they are created. -- Wynthyst 09:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could modify the {{guild-stub}} tag for this. -- ab.er.rant 14:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That could work, I would just like it to be more noticeable than the guild stub tag is now. -- Wynthyst 20:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Customizable colors

Good day. I'd like to bring up the suggestion for being able to customize the foreground, background and border colors with three optional settings in the Guild infobox template. I believe that any guild page that's using a text background color which differs from the default one would greatly benefit from that, plus it's not so hard to implement. A test version of the new infobox is available for review here. Dmitri Fatkin 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The only issue I see with this is that colors have been determined to represent specific things on this wiki and are used primarily in infoboxes, and navigation bars, see the color chart. This makes things identifiable easily. -- Wynthyst 20:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a customizable option, which is meant to aid with the design of guild pages. If the pages are using a standard design, there's no necessity to specify these parameters at all, and if another color is utilized, having it shown in "yellow-white" wouldn't fit with the rest of the elements. Dmitri Fatkin 20:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This leads to a larger issue, which is simply "how much free will do we wish to allow in the design of guild pages"? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this leads to a discussion on the guild pages policy which pretty much sums this up. Until concensus in that page is reached, i don't think it's wise for us to policy this kind of thing, specially if there are precedents of not being enforced in the past.--Fighterdoken 23:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And also the proposed policy change which that discussion lead to. --Kakarot 00:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be noted that {{Guild infobox}} isn't the only template being affected by this color scheme war. I've been seeing quite a few knockoffs of {{Guild hall expansion}} floating around (see Guild:The Coven/Expansion for one such example. When and if a final decision is made, it might be worthwhile to make sure it is applied to all of the guild page templates such as {{Guild hall expansion}} and {{Alliance nav}}. -- ՄօՒւեի (talk•contribs) 00:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As the expansion template is not part of the current formatting guidelines, I am not sure that is something we can address.-- Wynthyst 00:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I was really referring to the greater discussion here, rather than the problem with the {{Guild infobox}} specifically. There is also an ongoing debate about color schemes of the entire Guild page, (see here) and my comments were meant more in reference to the overall disagreement. -- ՄօՒւեի (talk•contribs) 00:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're trying to address a specific problem here, to be exact, the cases when default coloring of Guild infobox spoils the presentation of the page. No doubts, it would be nice to have a Guild hall expansion coloring discussion also, yet, this is a matter of another proposal. Thanks for bringing it up though. Dmitri Fatkin 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem (as pointed above) is a bit different. It's about if we are going to keep allowing "personalization" of guild articles, or if they are going to get "wiki article" status, and thus formatting being enforced. Until that is clarified, deciding on the customization of the infoboxes/tags should be secondary.--Fighterdoken 01:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I could care less, but if we're going to assign them a strict wiki article status, that would hammer 50% of guild pages, due to one reason or another. Guys, please consider this page before proposing such far-going suggestions. It's about players telling of their own guilds, and it's unpractical to decide their fate in terms of how to represent that info.

Also, such policy would eliminate all pages composed in foreign languages. Dmitri Fatkin 01:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The official guild wars website really has nothing to do with any of this. This is a discussion about the wiki guild namespace formatting.-- Wynthyst 02:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what in the world does GotW has to do with guild pages here? These are pages about guilds. Not pages for guilds. There's a big difference. The original idea was to allow some customisation, but some editors have been going overboard. It's more important to decide how much freedom to give. And no, I do not support allowing changing the base colors of our infoboxes and tags; those are meant to be kept identical across all pages of similar content. As for the language, yes, there have been calls to restrict guild pages in foreign languages because this wiki is the English language wiki for GW, so it can be argued that guild pages should at least have an English version. -- ab.er.rant 02:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also having Guild pages in other languages makes it more difficult to monitor whether it follows policy/guidelines or not. If the creator doesn't have a good enough understanding on English to create an English version as the main page it's possible they don't understand or haven't read either the policy or the guideline. --Kakarot 02:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sweet Lord, we're going a major off-topic... :) "Yes, what in the world does GotW has to do with guild pages here?" -- read through presentations of the guilds, you'll see that they're pretty different, based on guild history, goals and play style. Why should it differ here? Dmitri Fatkin 03:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, every guild is different, that doesn't mean we have to have different layouts on the wiki guild pages.. they are perfectly able to create their websites in whatever style suits them. These aren't websites, they are wiki articles.-- Wynthyst 03:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Going by your own choice of example, notice also that they're all presented with a consistent style, and not individual page layouts with different colors or column layouts. I'm not sure you realize that this isn't the Guild of the Week section. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I do. And what I don't is: why can't a custom guild infobox be used if it aids the page design (not the layout)? I'm not talking about some very custom code, and I'm pretty much sure you're aware of what I'm talking about.
In the end, why can't the guilds with such necessity (described as excellent reason) be granted a permission to do that? Dmitri Fatkin 03:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

See Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild_pages/draft 052508#Formatting. It might give you more of an idea of why I think the way I do.

Also, in my opinion, your guild at least does not have "excellent reason". Wanting to change the background of your page to a teal color is not a pressing reason in my book. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is if there were such exceptions in the past. My concluding suggestion would be: if the guild asks to use a customized infobox template for its page because of its design (different background, fonts, customized images), then they should be allowed to do that. The other solution is expanding the standard template itself, which returns us to the beginning of this conversation. Dmitri Fatkin 04:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is, as has been pointed out before how much leeway guild pages should be allowed in design. Currently the only namespace that has no design restrictions is User where people are allowed to completely design their own page. Every other namespace (including Guild) has a formatting guideline established and a designated template. The fact that a few guilds have gone outside this is an issue that is being addressed currently. -- Wynthyst 05:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the fact 80% of these pages are the clear ones, and it's not because their creators have bothered to read the guild formatting guidelines. ;) If we're coming to suppressing the entire idea of creativity and enforcing some newly-produced communistic rules -- I don't mind. Let's bet which guild page gets deleted due to a user request first. Dmitri Fatkin 05:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"communistic rules" is pretty much what wikis are about. It's just that instead of having to convince an elitist dictatorship if you want to change the rules, you have to convince the community. :p Biscuits 10:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the idea of "suppressing creativity" does not come into question, considering the fact that we're not promoting or encouraging creativity in the first place; this is not a guild website. Those pages exist for the sole purpose of documenting existing or well-known guilds. -- ab.er.rant 15:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)changing

But GWW:FORMAT states Please note that these guides are meant to be a help, and shall be seen as a recommendation rather than strict law restricting creativity. If in any case the standardized formatting doesn't fit the purpose, you are free to modify it. -- Tomato 16:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

However, that line was also written by a single individual back in Feb. 2007, far before we even had the thought of guild pages on the wiki. I do agree, however, that strict restrictions are better off on policy pages, hence the proposal policy draft. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I read that line as "guidelines are not absolute, feel free to go against guidelines if there is valid reason to"; I don't take it to mean, "feel free to go against guidelines if you don't like it". I don't bother with arguing about what font or page colors a guild page should be allowed. I'm just against any modification of our standard guild tag and guild infobox. Also, just to note, I tend to ignore guild pages that don't use our infobox, as long as they clearly provide the proper basic info we requested about guilds. -- ab.er.rant 03:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly how I have read that statement also - there's nothing wrong with it imho. Dmitri Fatkin 04:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've modified {{guild infobox}} and {{alliance nav}} to use a neutral gray color, so that they would not directly clash with any page coloring, while still maintaining a standard. Is this an acceptable compromise? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Until the customization matter is clarified, it should be left intact, the way it was. Dmitri Fatkin 14:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The change to gray was perfectly acceptable. I don't believe the customization of guild page templates is going to be allowed, as there is seemingly no real support for it.-- Wynthyst 16:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Change "accepted" then, as a matter of no choice. :) Dmitri Fatkin 18:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Large guilds

Is a clarification/reword/something needed on this to make it more clear when and when not should users put a redirect instead of creating a guild article? I have seen already a couple of cases these last weeks, so...--Fighterdoken 00:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

{copied from User talk:Wynthyst)I guess I don't understand what was intended by large guild. As the game functions, each guild can have 100 players, they can't get any larger than that. The way I have interpreted the large guild section of GWW:GUILDS is that if there are divisions within the 100 player guild, pve, pvp, gvg, etc., those divisions could be outlined/detailed on a subpage of the Guild. Anything above 100 players becomes multiple guilds that form an alliance, whether they function as a single guild, each component has its own name, a specified leader, officers, members, and as such needs it's own page. Even if that page is a carbon copy of the main page with the mentioned details adjusted. We don't host Alliance pages, however, an alliance "site" can be achieved through use of a nav bar linking each guild as Tomato has done with his (His is a bit special as the Alliance name is actually a dummy guild he established in game as a placeholder (so it appears there are 11 guilds in his alliance). I would like the guideline to reflect the function of the game.-- Wyn 08:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Expanded infobox

(message copied from Template talk:Guild infobox)

In an attempt to alleviate the issues of having multiple 'floaters' breaking the section edits when people use both the infobox (which is required) and also the Guild expansion template created by Vorith that has become very popular, I have combined the two here I would like to make it an alternative infobox template for those who wish to provide all the information on their guild page. You can see it in use on my guild page. Comments? -- Wyn 08:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So at the moment your guild page doesn't follow guild page policy Wyn :P

Anyway I'm fine with this new guild infobox. Would it be better having two guild infoboxes; I'm guessing that is what you mean by an alternative infobox; or having just one with all the options and if you don't wish to use certain ones; like the guild services they don't show up as already happens with the present guild infobox. Out of the two having just one infobox would probably be better since you'd only have to have one example on the formatting page and also shouldn't be too hard to implement. --Kakarot 14:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense if you are smart enough to figure out how to make them go away if you don't want them, which currently I'm not, and yeah, I know my guild page is out of policy atm, but I needed an example and a test zone :P -- Wyn 15:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'll update your template to do that :) --Kakarot 15:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It needs a few other adjustments too, I tried to make the guild hall picture like the cape picture where it took the default picture unless you specified a different one, but it didn't work right... was gonna ask poke to help me, but if you want to, that's cool too :D -- Wyn 15:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Which guild hall picture do you want as default? The one at the top of each guild hall page, in the case of the first one listed it would be Image:Burning Isle icon.jpg. If that's the one you mean we will need to figure out if they should follow the naming [[Image:<guild hall> icon.jpg]] or [[Image:<guild hall>.jpg]] as presently it's a mix of the two. If they were all following the same naming pattern it would be a lot easier to do, while it's not impossible at the moment it's just not as easy. I will save the changes to make them go away if the parameter is not specified. --Kakarot 16:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Vorith's template already has that option set, what I wanted was to make it possible to substitute a different image if they wanted (so I added the hallimage variable, but the default image no longer works :() I'm horrible with the #if statements.-- Wyn 16:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I should be able to get it to do that in the same way that the cape image currently does. I was more wondering which naming was preferable since really it would be best if they all used the same naming pattern, as well as checking if that was the image you wanted. Just going to check if all guild halls also have an image in the naming [[Image:<guild hall>.jpg] first and will make the change. --Kakarot 16:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok I've checked if all guild halls have an image in the naming [[Image:<guild hall>.jpg] and all except Druids Isle do include an image. One possible solution would be to use a switch function which would also solve any problem with different ways people could write guild hall names, I could set it up so that if a person used for example either Druids Isle or Druid's Isle it would still show the same image. Having said that I would prefer a consistent naming; not sure which of the two would be best; and possibly a consistent size for the images (pixel-wise). --Kakarot 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

... I've made the change and although it worked perfectly on all three tests I did, on your guild page it doesn't seem to work. I've tried changing the hallimage parameter to "Guild Gems OF Destiny Wizards1.png" which doesn't seem to work, at least not on your guild page. Nevermind fixed ...--Kakarot 18:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, didn't even realize this conversation was going on. Anyway, yeah, I like Wyn's idea of putting the Guild Hall stuff in the standard infobox, the only reason I made {{Guild hall expansion}} was because there was no way to include expansion progress stuff in the {{Guild infobox}} - I'd be fine with it being put in the same box if it fixes the edit link-breakage (which it does). I probably would have put it in the infobox myself, but at the time I made it I was fairly new to the wiki and didn't want the sysops to eat me for editing the template. Basically, as long as someone goes through Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Guild hall expansion and fixes people's infoboxes, I think it's a great idea. Also, I think there are several versions of my template that have been copy-pasted for reasons unknown to me and in most cases not changed at all, which would need deletion. Anyway, yeah, I approve. :) --orith is so fail 23:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's one of the copypastes I was talking about. I'm not sure how many there are, this is the only one I've found so far. --orith is so fail 23:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we would leave it up to the guild page editors themselves to change over. There are far too many guild pages using the double template. The new template would be available on new guild pages. We could add a temporary notice on the {{guild}} template to let them know about the change. -- Wyn 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've got a newer version worked up at User:Vorith/Sandbox which includes a sub-heading for Guild Hall information, a hall picture like my old one, and is fully collapsible - if you don't give it any information about the hall, it doesn't show any. My guild's page is using it temporarily for demonstration purposes. There's one question I have though... does our Wiki have the StringFunctions extension? At the moment, the template has a redundant parameter called "isle" which is in theory identical to "hall" which it uses to determine what isle the guild's hall is on. The problem is that I can't use "hall" even though "isle" is obsolete, because many guild pages have links in their hall parameter. For example, my page's hall parameter is [[Isle of Jade]] rather than Isle of Jade. This would break the picture thing, because it would end up linking to [[Isle of Jade]].jpg, which doesn't exist. One solution I can think of would be to automatically strip the "hall" attribute of any square brackets before using it, but that would require an extension, as ParserFunctions can't perform operations on strings. An alternative solution would be to use "hall" but then inform guild leaders that they will need to remove any brackets from the parameter value themselves. We're going to have to provide a link to an instructions page on the boilerplate anyway, so this might be viable. --orith is so fail 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed that GWW does not support StringFunctions. To implement these ideas we have had, we will need to:

• Move User:Vorith/Sandbox over Template:Guild infobox (don't do this yet, fixing up the docs)
• Move User:Vorith/Sandbox/Boilerplate over Template:Guild
• Move User:Vorith/How To to Help:New functionality of Guild infobox (or something like that)

Not saying we should do this right away, just saying this is what whoever it is will need to do once we decide to do it. --orith is so fail 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest based on what I saw on Wyn's guild page and your guild page Vorith I prefer the look of Wyn's myself. --Kakarot 02:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It's exactly the same, except mine is wider because of the forum URL. Wyn copied it from exactly the same template that I did. Either way, mine functions differently, I've done more work to it since the version Wyn used. The look isn't the point, and can be changed anyway. --orith is so fail 02:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Nothing personal Vorith, but yours has unnecessary information, the 9/13 isn't needed, and the bar saying Guild Hall isn't needed, and mine has the guild hall name right above the image. I believe Kakarot also made the hall image customizable. I don't know why you are duplicating the effort here if you say the look doesn't matter.... and quite frankly it's making me a little nuts atm. It's not like I didn't give you full credit for the services portion of it, even though I changed how that functions a bit. Your 'to do' list is quite frankly more than minorly insulting to the effort both me and Kakarot have put into my version, which I will remind you I asked your opinion and feedback on way back when I started this. -- Wyn 02:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I'll mark all the pages I made for deletion. Do whatever you want, I don't even care that you didn't look to see that I actually added some really useful things to the template. Honestly, though, you don't have the right to be insulted by the fact that I made a template and pointed out to you the documentation I made for it. I was trying to make an honest attempt to help you, like you asked me earlier, and now all I get is grief for it. I'm starting to regret having signed up for this whole wikicode "helper" business. /drama --orith is so fail 02:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really cranky today, had to go to the dentist, so I'm not being in any way politically correct, for that I apologize. I just don't like it when the waters get muddy with multiple versions of the same thing. This isn't a competition. If you see changes you'd like made in what I've proposed then discuss it here, and we will work together to make the changes in one place. Instead it felt like you just bulldozed the effort Kakarot have put into the version I proposed and decided that your version would be the one getting used. (as per the items in your 'to do' list) The fact that I asked you about this weeks ago, and really didn't hear anything but the initial response lead me to believe you weren't interested in participating and then I go away for a day and come back to find you've basically recreated the whole thing. -- Wyn 02:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I wasn't attempting to "bulldoze" anything, I was simply trying to re-do what I had done earlier but self-reverted when it didn't quite work. My intent was to use my expertise with wiki markup to provide a template satisfactory to all parties, and the only reason that I re-copied the stuff from {{Guild infobox}} instead of making the edits to your version was because the tables were apparently set up differently, and when I tried it on your version the formatting got jacked up. My version and the accompanying documentation was merely an attempt to expedite the process of getting this functionality implemented, since it appeared that not much editing was going on anymore, and something was said that made me think my knowledge of certain functions was required. It's obvious now that you neither need nor want my help, though, so go ahead with what you were planning to do before. My apologies for the inconvenience. --orith is so fail 04:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I give up, I withdraw my proposal....-- Wyn 04:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Just curious but what extra functionality does yours add that was even needed and what couldn't of been added to the template that Wyn had created? Based on what I saw of the coding the only difference to the top half (what the original guild infobox was) was an increase of the colspan and an extra parameter (expansion) that removed the guild hall info completely which to me seems kinda pointless to add yet another parameter to do something that was already done automatically on Wyn's by simply not including the parameters; in the same way that the original infobox did. As to the bottom half yes you added the progress number but that's not really necessary and could of easily been added to Wyn's, as to having it remove the price when acquired again that could easily of been added to Wyn's version and although it is in her userspace I would have to contest it's deletion as I think it's the better version partly due to the fact that you can either use the default guild hall image for the guild hall selected or a user selected one, and yes I realize that you could add that to yours but it was unnecessary to create a second version of the template which doesn't really do much more than the other except add things that weren't needed, the main things being an extra parameter which removes the guild hall info completely, the addition of guild hall progress and the removal of the price when acquired. --Kakarot 11:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I slightly changed the message Vorith added here, because it was very confusing. On guild pages, it gave no clue which template was being talked about. Also, do we really need a line of text shouting the template is going to be changed on each and every guild page that uses it? — Why 12:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to <noinclude> that. It's just a note for people who view the page, not for pages the template is transcluded into. --orith is so fail 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've removed myself from this project as requested. No further lecturing is required. Thank you very much. --orith is so fail 00:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, I didn't mean to lecture you in any way, I was just wondering what happened to some guild pages. Thanks for fixing it :) — Why 12:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

lol that was kind of confusing. I didn't mean you were lecturing, I was talking about the others. :P Also, you're welcome. --orith is so fail 18:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)