Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild pages/Archive 2

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Moving on

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

Yes I'm itching to start a guild write-up. :-) User Biscuits sig.pngBiscuits 12:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Should be okay now. If no one complains before tomorrow evening, let's make it a policy. -- Gem (gem / talk) 12:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
/agreed and sure that most would be happy to start writing guild pages.--Bane of Worlds (talkcontribs) 13:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
One little niggling thing... this wiki is an encyclopedia, so shouldn't articles be written in third person, instead of first person. If I were looking to make a page on an extremely notable guild like, say, Amazon Basin or a fictional guild like Ascalon's Chosen then I wouldn't be able to. I doubt that we'll get many notable guild leaders registering so if we want to populate the guild namespace at all, I suggest making this change before it's too late. --Santax 13:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
A wiki is not an encyclopaedia at all, a wiki is a community based collaboration, Wikipedia is a wiki based encyclopaedia, but wikis in general do not have to be and this one certainly isn't. --Jamie (Talk Page) 13:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd say we were an encyclopedia... a comprehensive compendium that contains information on a particular branch of knowledge. But anyway, back to the point that needs to be addressed before this goes off-topic... :P --Santax 13:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
So, to clarify, you're talking about historical guilds that have disbanded but you still feel deserve a place on the wiki, even though they no longer have members to create the article? Because, if you're talking about 3rd person in articles, then you didn't actually read the Guild:Example Guild page =P I'm also not really sure where the "guild leaders" comment came from - there's nothing in the guide or policy saying that it has to be written/maintained by the GL at all. I know that, at least for my guild, I'm going to be the one writing it (heck, I already did) and I'm not even an officer =P To be fair, it actually doesn't even say that the person making the article has to be a guild member at all - so, hypothetically, you could go and make that Amazon Basin page, but it would probably get tagged with the {{historical guild}} marker. If you were trying to say something completely different from these three possible meanings I got from your comment, please try and clarify, because I'm somewhat confused :? MisterPepe talk 13:36, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I think that 3rd person must be required just like in any other article in the wiki. -- Gem (gem / talk) 13:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Ah. Gotcha. I agree, though I don't actually think we'll be able to get guild articles to conform to NPOV (heh). I've added the phrase "Just like any other page on the Guild Wars Wiki, all guild articles must be written in third person format." to the formatting guide. MisterPepe talk 13:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I dislike the part that goes "Guild pages that violate these standards are subject to deletion at any time". It seems harsh and may somewhat scare guild members from editing. It also would need to have deletion policy amended to cover it. Since deletion of these guild pages may prove very controversial, why not just leave them to the General Deletion (delete tag) process? (We'd still have speedy deletion criteria for the cases of pure vandalism and attack pages) --Rezyk 14:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
What happens when a Guild wants to remove their page from the wiki? What happens if a Guild Leader wants to remove the guild page, but the guild members do not? --Rezyk 14:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Where did you see "Guild pages that violate these standards are subject to deletion at any time"? I didn't find it. I think the deletion process should be the same as for other articles, except that they should have the inactiviy deletion. If some members of the guild want the article deleted and some not, it should be discussed on the talk page just like any deletion request. -- Gem (gem / talk) 14:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
It's near the top, right before the first header. Regarding deletion, I look at the matter this way: What is the purpose of these Guild pages?
A) To form our own reference library of guild information
B) As a convenience to individual guilds
If the answer is A, or both A and B, then I'd tend toward deletion like mainspace articles' (General Deletion; keep unless consensus to delete). If the answer is B and not A, I'd tend toward deletion like userspace pages' (General Deletion + Speedy Deletion U1; delete if user or consensus wants). Some things in the current draft which make me feel "B and not A" is appropriate are:
  • "Guild pages should generally not be created or maintained by non-members."
  • "A guild that harms or frustrates the Guild Wars Wiki may forfeit their privilege of having a guild page."
--Rezyk 18:43, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
Interesting point. I see guild pages as both A and B actually. Something like: "Guild pages on the wiki are meant to be a repository of information on current/active guilds and as a convenience for members of these guilds to provide more information about themselves to others." -- sig 04:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
We were so close to making this policy... /doh --Jamie (Talk Page) 06:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I was all ready to stick my guild stuff in there :) To be honest, to me and (I would imagine) the majority of contributors, Guild pages will be pretty much a vanity thing with the added convenience of a new method of recruitment. Still, gogo guild pages, say I --SnogratTrigsig.png 06:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Aye, a guys gotta love vanity, especially for guys like me who are proud to the leader of their guild :) --Jamie (Talk Page) 07:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
So why are you all sounding like this was defeated?--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 07:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
(@Vallen) - no, not defeated: delayed. Got an itchy keyboard finger ^^ --SnogratTrigsig.png 08:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Me too. I created one and had to save it and mark for deletion. Thought it was passed already at that time. My bad.  :) --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 10:55, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Rezyk: I removed the note from the top of the article. It was contrary to the stuff under the deletion heading. I also modified the deletion stuff a bit. Please review it and comment. -- Gem (gem / talk) 07:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I like those changes; I interpret it as deferring it to deletion policy, which is appropriate. I guess my concerns in general are quelled IF we all agree that we should eventually add something like "speedy delete if guild leader or all editing guild members want" to deletion policy (and keep in mind that this would also apply to historical important guilds). If we don't have this, my worry is that we could end up pissing off a guild that wants to remove themselves from the wiki, or inadvertently get mired in guild politics. If we don't want this, I suggest we make it clear somewhere that we might keep guild pages up against the wishes of the guild, and reexamine the parts I noted above as pointing to "B and not A". --Rezyk 12:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, given that the site's governed by GFDL, once the guild page is up, it's up to the community to maintain them and decide whether to keep it or not, not the guild members. -- sig 12:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
The GFDL just makes that real-world-legal. Whether or not it is wiki-legal is up to us. =) One way or another, it will still be guided by community consensus...I'm basically just asking: "Is it the current consensus that we will generally allow any guild (or its leader) to remove themselves without requiring an explicit community consensus at the time?" I'm getting more worried that we're not all on the same page here (not even regarding myself, but between others). You said it'd be "up to the community to maintain" the guild pages, but doesn't that directly contradict "Guild pages should generally not be created or maintained by non-members"? --Rezyk 13:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
What if a guild that is well known and "important" wants to remove their guild page? Isn't the idea especially to document those guilds? I would just handle guild page deletions like any other deletions. Consensus is needed, it doesn't matter if the users are in the guild or not. -- Gem (gem / talk) 15:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not opposed to taking this as our own documentation project in part, and relying on General Deletion, but then it seems like other pieces of the draft don't fit well with that. Suppose that important guild wants to delete, but it is refused by the community. Who exactly will maintain and continue documenting that guild? Again, the current draft says "Guild pages should generally not be created or maintained by non-members", so would it only be maintained by the people who want to see it gone? Or worse, what if the guild then thinks that trying to get this part invoked is a good idea? -- "A guild that harms or frustrates the Guild Wars Wiki may forfeit their privilege of having a guild page." --Rezyk 16:21, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Valid points. I guess the easiest way is to allow deletion if the guild decides that they want it deleted. (How do we verify guild membership?) -- Gem (gem / talk) 16:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm thinking that in the general case it should be okay to guess at it from who has been editing the page or is claiming to be a member. If/when that's not rigorous enough, we could have the guild page itself list which user accounts should be considered the primary editors or guild leader (which might be good for other purposes too), and go by that as long as it hasn't been disputed. If it ever is really really disputed, then any admin can ask to verify in game, right? --Rezyk 17:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
That's true. I think it's better not to list wiki users on the guild page, mainly for the same reasons why only a few in game contact names should be listed. -- Gem (gem / talk) 17:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
That's fine with me too. --Rezyk 17:48, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

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

Well, I'd still like to see ab.ber.rant's response and if he's okay with this direction for now. I guess we can still try hashing that out in the meantime. How about speedy delete criteria "GD1: requested by the guild leader or all active editing guild members"? --Rezyk 18:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Might be okay. Want to hear others opinnions on that. -- Gem (gem / talk) 18:04, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I might have missed something, but what's to stop me from saying I am in guild [ABC]? I can't see a system where we check people's guild in game working. LordBiro 18:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Do you mean regarding this deletion process, or in general? (Note that the current draft already has an administrator may ask the primary editors of a guild page to prove that they are members of the guild) For this deletion process, even if you claimed to be a member, that's not enough to satisfy the criteria if there are any real members around. --Rezyk 19:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

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

Better than I thought it would be. :) This'll be a policy tomorrow in the evening if no one objects. -- Gem (gem / talk) 20:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
*thumbs up* -- sig 23:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Supported. And I'll go learn Python to write a delete-bot, just in case. :) —Tanaric 03:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Learning Python is easy, I suggest you start with The Holy Grail. ;) --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 13:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh dear.... :P LordBiro 14:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
That hit the spot. I'm lauhing aloud here, hope no one is watching. -- Gem (gem / talk) 14:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

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

Woohoo! *gets writing* User Biscuits sig.pngBiscuits 13:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Can't believe this was actually accepted. Cheers guys, lets hope this goes well. :) --Dirigible 14:35, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Alliance link

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

Links pointing out of the Guild: namespace are perfectly fine. The policy only prohibits redirects in either direction and inbound links from the main namespace. So links to Alliance and territory are perfectly fine. :) --Dirigible 23:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh OK! Thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding. :-) User Biscuits sig.pngBiscuits 00:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Can you add that in? I misread it the first time around too. Does this mean we can link to members on the wiki? - BeXoR 00:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Yep, definitely. The only purpose of disallowing redirects and inbound links is to make it obvious that almost everything in the Guild: namespace is player-created content, and that it has nothing to do with ANet. Hopefully it's clearer now. --Dirigible 00:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
That definitely helps clear things up. People who jump straight to the 'disallowed' section may still get tripped up on the last point if they've not read your note in the previous section. User Biscuits sig.pngBiscuits 00:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd rather keep the Categorically Disallowed section free of any exceptions, to be honest; it's a very important section and its message shouldn't be diluted if at all possible. Furthermore, I don't think a clarification is really needed there, since the word "link" isn't used even once in that entire section. Maybe we could add a couple of examples in the formatting guide, though? --Dirigible 00:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Links to and from user namespace should be specified as acceptable. - BeXoR 00:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
It's not disallowed. Only links from the main namespace is disallowed. -- sig 04:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

'Multiple guild' guilds and categories

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

I specifically skipped it when I was making those, simply because I thought it was pretty much all taken care of on the main page. If we wanted to categorize them, I'd say just do it as a "Guild Redirect" - since it's not the actual article, we'd really be categorizing the same article a dozen times =P MisterPepe talk 14:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, but there really isn't a reason to have them if they aren't visible somewhere. Category:Guild redirects might be a nice idea. -- Gem (gem / talk) 14:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Guild userboxes within Guild namespace

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

I personally see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed. --Dirigible 09:04, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I like the idea. -- Gem (gem / talk) 12:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Nice idea. I've had a guild userbox on my userpage for some time now and this makes sense. Do you think it would be ok to have a link to the guild userbox page on the guild page as well so any guildies visiting can find the userbox easier? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 13:23, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I made a change to my guild page to demonstrate my thoughts on the above. Looks easy enough. Click here to see the userbox link under the Contact information header and then click it to see my guild page userbox. This is an example and if it's decided that it's a bad move I will gladly remove it but in the mean time, let me know if this looks good or is good and if you would approve. Thanks.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 13:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I just put the link to ours on the Guild's talk page. There seems to be agreement that this is OK, so I'm going to move it over to the Guild namespace. :) User Biscuits sig.pngBiscuits 14:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Alliance navbox

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

1st problem (possibly)

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

The correct name for the guild page is Guild:Dudele Dulci. I'm guessing that "Hai tu hoasca prinde-ma hai tu hoasca prinde-ma" means "Are you sure it's supposed to be here, this page is blank, dude" in Romanian. Adding a del tag to the mis-capitalised page now. --Dirigible 12:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I ran it through a (poor) translator and it "prinde-ma", mentioned twice, seems to mean old hag... LordBiro 13:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
According to Google, "Prinde-ma, daca poti!" is the Romanian title of that "Catch Me If You Can" Spielberg movie. :| --Dirigible 13:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
I got our resident Romanian, an ex Dudele Dulci member to translate. It means "Come on old woman, catch me". User Biscuits sig.pngBiscuits 18:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
Dirig was way off. :P - BeX 18:23, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Guild namespace header

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck with this. -.- I'm here to help but, its going to be completely flooded. Need to kind of group together for this one. I agree with not flagging with a delete tag instantly. Rather, we should just inform on every Guild talk page of the policy we have here, and they can change accordingly. Along with a welcome note of coarse.
And something else, the guild cape images will also not be under policy, keep that in mind =) -- 19px (General | Talk) 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been immediately deleting guild articles that don't meet policy, but I've been simultaneously leaving an informative welcome message on the contributing editors' talk pages so they know how to come back and recreate their article. I'll keep doing this until we decide on a better solution as a group, as it's the strictest interpretation of current policy.
As far as running a bot, I don't think that is beneficial. Bots are good when a large body of articles need updating. However, they can't really monitor new articles well -- at least, not without hammering the server, and it's not running at its best anyway.
In the meantime, I've added a bit of informative text to MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning, which appears right below any page edit box. Perhaps this will help.
Tanaric 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Is recent changes going to be perma-swamped with guild pages like it was for builds on guildwiki? -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
At least for the next few weeks, probably, though I imagine it will die down. Guilds are in a separate namespace for exactly this reason -- just omit them from your recent changes view. —Tanaric 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Guild pages in a non-English language

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

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

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

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

This is the small edge of a huge wedge. The wedge being non-english articles in this wiki. I am somewhat opposed to that, but is all depends on what likelihood we put on official other language wikis starting up soon. If they do start soon, I am all for disallowing non-english guild pages here (as well as articles). If they do not start soon, forbidding non-english guild pages would be quite discriminating in my mind. --Xeeron 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if they are blanked with {{bad guild page}}, and I did a few this morning, it should be because they did not follow procedure. I can't understand the language, but I can see when something does not coinside with policy regardless of language. I have noticed that some non-English guilds have written their language and then used a translator application to write the English version of it below. I think that's a very clever idea, though the translations sometimes do not come out exactly right. — Gares 17:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i have done pretty much the same, the {{bad guild page}} has only gone on pages that aren't following the correct formatting. I was unsure about the different languages so I therefore decided that if they are following the policy and formatted correctly etc, I would leave them. I understand this is the English wiki, but currently GuildWars in other languages links here, so i feel that simply deleting them, especially if they have followed the formatting, is a bad idea.--ChronicinabilitY User Chronicinability Spiteful Spirit.jpg 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)
Like Gares, I haven't bad guild page'd any foreign guild articles because of their foreignity (yeah, I'm using it). I believe the official implication is that the wiki is English-only (the new F10 panel states so, anyway), but I believe an exception should be made for guild pages. I quite like your suggestion, Dirigible, with the minor addition that, if other-language Guild Wars Wikis come to exist, the main non-English body text be replaced by an interwiki link to the appropriate-language guild article.
A set of language categories for guild articles would be appropriate too.
Tanaric 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please also comment on this. -- Mike O'Brien 18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Until we figure this out, we all need to be respectful of other languages. Despite the difference, all players posting guild pages are fellow Guild Wars players and should be treated in the same fashion as any other player. I'm concerned at the language used in some of the delete notices being posted to guild pages. Calling a widely used non-English language "gibberish" is not something that anyone should be posting here. If you have a doubt as to the validity of the content of a guild page, please flag it politely. --UserEmilyDiehlStar.gif Emily Diehl (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Since more and more guild pages in foreign language are written, we should decide whether to add something like "At least three (3) sentences in English containing useful information ..." to the policy or not. I think the three-sentence-solution is great and will work till other-language Guild Wars Wikis come to exist. User Der moon sig.png Der moon 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should not disallow guild articles (or even articles in other languages in certain circumstances) until that language has its own wiki. I'm not sure how I feel about the 3 sentences rule, but it's better than disallowing foreign language guild articles. LordBiro 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Guild image naming

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

Yeah i was thinking the same thing, something like userimage policy. Start with User <guildname>, Max size 100kb ~ KurdKurdsig.png17:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe Guild <guild name>. - anja talk (contribs) 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Wups, that what i meant. Tnx :P ~ KurdKurdsig.png17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We need this one fast! -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Please revert and discuss if someone disagrees. Also, see section below. -- sig 09:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Deviation from formatting

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

I support that. Guidelines are just that - guidelines. If you are enforcing guidelines on the policy page, then the guidelines become policy, which totally defeats the point. Ale_Jrb (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and struck bad guild page from your comment, as that's clearly not the way we're going. —Tanaric 22:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Guild image naming

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

Yes there is. Otherwise we get flooded with Cape.jpg, cape.png, guildcape.JPG, myguild.png, guildcap.PNG, gw102.jpg, 44343241354653.jpg, etc. -- Gem (gem / talk) 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Who cares? useless bureocracy. Just paste the template in the image page and move on. --Lumenil 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I care -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 21:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
A lot of people who contribute to this wiki actively do care. Remember that you can't alone change a policy when more people have first decided to make it what it is. Up to this point you are the only one against the policy and multiple users support it, including those who said "agree" in the above discussion and those who tag images for deletion accordingly. -- Gem (gem / talk) 21:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It was only proposed YESTERDAY, so I dont think there has been enough time for common users to realize that this useless policy has been proposed. --Lumenil 21:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The Guild image naming policy has been around since the guild namespace was created afaik. I also approve of it strongly. --Lemming64 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello? can't you read 2 sections above? That rule was introduced YESTERDAY. And without any reason, apart of annoying common people who don't care about images names. --Lumenil 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have read that now, basically as i understood it the naming policy was a guideline previously then, because that is how I was already naming images prior to that. But anyway whilst it may "annoy" common people who have to deal with the image list pretty much.. never. The people who do the grunt work, would like you to abide by a pretty simple rule. I don't mean to be rude, and I apologise if I come across so. But, seriously, it is easy to abide by, and a pain in the ass to deal with if it isn't there. --Lemming64 22:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This rule has been a guideline since the day that guild articles were allowed and people have been living according to it. It was just recently added to the policy officially as we found that it needs to be there so that people follow it even now with the influx of users.
What comes to the usefulness of this rule, it might not be of any use to you, but it is a great help to those who maintain and contribute to the wiki daily. -- Gem (gem / talk) 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Read my talk page please. I was asked to abide once, and I kindly complied. Then, someone decided that just the guild name isn't enough, so I am asked again to reupload the SAME IMAGE!! So, is a common user supposed to upload 3 times the SAME IMAGE just to please 5 or 6 users that can't decide which name it should have? An for what, since the template clearly states that those are guild images? I repeat, this is crazy. --Lumenil 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It is far more than 5 or 6, and the average user will only have to upload 1 image... Please also note the large bold text asking you to read the policy before making edits anywhere on the site. -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 22:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've done the name change for you. The rule is clear. If someone gave you the wrong instructions then note them that they are wrong. -- Gem (gem / talk) 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Concur with gem/Firefox/Lemming64. Aiiane-a.gif (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - when you look at it from the point of view of one guild, it doesn't matter at all and is useless. When you look at it from our point of view, who are maintaining the actual Wiki, and then realise that literally several hundred guild pages have been created in two/three days, and many of them have multiple images, you should hopefully see why some sort of naming policy is useful. I also stringly support the need for it to exist. Ale_Jrb (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think that this guild image policy has been particularly well implemented, and I can sympathise with Lumenil here. Automatically tagging images for deletion is unfriendly, in my opinion, and it's no wonder that some find it frustrating.
Regarding the policy itself; ArenaNet asked that we would introduce an image naming policy so that readers could clearly distinguish user images from non-user images. This is because they were concerned that images would be confused as being "official".
I don't believe the same rules apply exactly to cape images.
I think the naming of guild capes with the guild prefix should be a strongly encouraged guideline, and we should ask users to comply with this guideline whenever possible, but I don't think we should automatically delete cape images that do not meet this guideline since it does no one any harm.
The same is not necessarily true of guild screenshots/logos/banners; I think these items probably should use the guild prefix. What do you guys think? LordBiro 22:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a point in treating cape images and other images differently and to me it's pretty clear that especially non-cape images need this rule, so why not make things easy and have the rule treat both cape and non-cape images? The automated tagging is indeed rude, but that's not the thing we are discussing here. -- Gem (gem / talk) 22:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately without a policy in an area like this a guideline will be completed ignored and we will be inundated with strangely named images (as we have been!). A better solution may be to tell people that you have moved their image and perhaps have a few nice souls fixing some stuff for them. --Lemming64 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

I would say that guild articles have not been around long enough for experience to have proven anything.
I would also argue that automatic image tagging is what we are discussing here; tagging is taking place as a direct result of this policy. The reason cape images and other images should be treated differently is because they have different contents. ArenaNet wanted a user image policy to prevent people from mistaking user content for official content; this does not apply to pictures of capes so why put delete tags on these images? The argument that we will have loads of "confusingly" named cape images is irrelevant; it's more hassle than it's worth to force people to re-upload files when the original files cause no one harm. LordBiro 23:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't referring singularly to guild images when I referred to experience. As for causing harm, it causes trouble if they're randomly named when it comes to including them into pages, as well as updates - what happens if two people use Image:cape.jpg in their guild pages, and then one of them uploads an update to the other's image to make it match their cape? I'd argue that the naming policy makes sense because the existence of guild pages and the corresponding formatting means that many images of the same nature but with subtle differences are going to be uploaded, so if nothing else the policy should exist to minimize confusion.
However, I would not be averse to creating a temporary tag asking people to re-work an image into a less ambiguous name that is not the deletion tag as an intermediary step, if the simple deletion-tag-only method is viewed as overly hostile. Aiiane-a.gif (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 00:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I feel that the policy, in its current state, is fine. -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 01:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Biro, by your argument, I'm getting the thought that certain lines in GWW:IMAGE should be removed - specifically the part about using descriptive names for images. "Ascalon.jpg" is thought of less preferable. Similarly, "cape.jpg" is also less preferable. If "cape.jpg" is harmless, then I see no point in having the policy recommend longer descriptive names, since we aren't going to really enforce it. The only rule should be that the relevant template tags be present. -- sig 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I never suggested that people be allowed to call their image "cape.jpg", but "HoK Guild's cape.jpg" or "House of Kyan cape.jpg" don't use a guild prefix and don't present a serious problem in my opinion. I would say if our current image policy prohibits a certain image then we should take action, but we shouldn't be telling people to move their image because it doesn't start with the word "guild" if it is otherwise a perfectly sensible name.
It seems I am in the minority here anyway, so I will concede defeat for now :P LordBiro 09:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

more image naming stuff

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

Something like a BIG RED SIGN saying DONT REPLACE THIS IMAGE!!!! ~ KurdKurdsig.png09:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sysops can salt pages so that they can't be created, and as far as I am aware (could be wrong) the same can be done to images. No need for a sign. About the proposal, I don't support or not-support yet - I'm thinking about it. Ale_Jrb (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't think of any time when the image might otherwise be used, except as perhaps an example on Cape. --Lemming64 00:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is amendment necessary?

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

"Guild pages should be relatively stable. Do not list such information as who is online, what the guild's current rating/rank is, etc. (It is OK to list the final ratings from past ladder seasons.)" covers this already, in my reading of it - things that change from day to day, such as inventories/bank totals, have no place on a Guild page, and I'd say that the existing policy makes that clear already. Aiiane-a.gif (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

images on both guild and user namespaces

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

If the template is in the Guild namespace, that's what the image should be after. Aiiane-a.gif (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects from guild tags to guild articles

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

Could you provide some more information? What guild name does not work? LordBiro 11:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with this most of the time if your ingame see alot of players ingame with the same tag or shouting [EG] FTW, you will not know the full guilds name (In this case Example Guild), you go search for Guild:EG and you get redirected to Guild:Example Guild. The Great Tomato 11:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) What he's suggesting is that we permit redirects such as Guild:KaiZGuild:The Kaizen Order. This would allow someone to type "/wiki guild:KaiZ" ingame, and end up at their guild page here, if it exists. This allows you to look up someone's guild even if you only know their tag (which is all you'll see in-game).
I like the spirit of this idea, but it sounds like it could be very messy to maintain in a usable state. =\ --Dirigible 11:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I share Dirigible's thinking - there are some tags that are incredibly popular, and it'd be difficult to maintain the disambiguation pages. Aiiane-a.gif (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"Some tags that are incredibly popular", surely only one guild has a tag (they are individual, and every guild only has one tag each), or are you referring to there are lots of uppercase/lowercase variations of the same one? The Great Tomato 11:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I misunderstood the initial question, apologies for that.
Tomato, I don't believe Guild tags are unique. Certainly not across regions anyway, an American and English guild might both be called [ABC]. I don't know if tags are unique per region though. LordBiro 11:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I always considered Tags to be unique across the world, so then you would not have trouble having 2 guilds with exactly the same tag in the same GvG even though one may be from America and the other from Europe. The Great Tomato 11:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And i apologies for my english ^^.
I'm sure tag are not unique on a territory, because i found a les Chevaliers D'Or [CDO] sharing the same tag la Confrérie du Dragon d'Or [CDO]
Anyway, in the Category:Guild_stubs there is the whole list of guilds... So i think Disambiguation is possible.... Tag disambiguation will be more precise than searching a guild in the Category:Guild_stubs... Kiki Of Argenteuil 12:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Confirmed, tags are not unique on any level. I for one am against guild tag disambiguation pages, for a couple reasons. The easiest to defend is that we'll like end up with articles like Guild:Tag Ass and Guild:Tag Rape, or any other variety of vulgar 3-4 letter words. —Tanaric 12:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
First off, yes tags can be shared by several guilds. Second, the idea sounds ok IF it is maintainable. I am not at all concered about Tag:Ass or Tag:Rape. Given that these are actual ingame tags. Since they are allowed in the actual game, they should be fine here as well. --Xeeron 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am heavily against this especially as tags are shared. You'd be surprised how many guilds have the same tags as everyone and their mother has their own guild. -- Gem (gem / talk) 13:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Xeeron, you have changed my mind, but not because of what you said. See, tags like that actually aren't allowed in game; at least, not by the strictest reading of the Guild Wars User Agreement and the Terms of Use. If people making such articles end up creating a list of guilds that ANet needs to ban, and on ANet's own server, well... I get the feeling that the guild won't be around too long for me to care about the tag article being there. :) —Tanaric 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi all, I agree... maintenance will not be easy... But can we create this index automatically, using a mecanism like category?
As a wiki noob who discovered template and category yesterday, I think it may be possible to insert tag like [[Category:tag GuildTag]] automatically using the guild infobox template... In game, a /wiki category:tag guildTag will open the disambiguiding pages...
Arf... Acceptable solution but a bit heavy compared to /wiki guild:guildTag...
The top will be to open a new namespace (tag: for example) technically identical to category: so in game, we can /wiki tag:GuildTag...
And then turning tag: namespace into read only -if possible- will prevent page hacking!
Is this a interesting idea or i'm definitively a noob ?? Kiki Of Argenteuil 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
There is merit in the idea, but I still don't think we should implment this. -- Gem (gem / talk) 17:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Me neither now it seems as if there would be too much hassle keeping it "good", so can we close this discussion? The Great Tomato 17:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
While the category would work, I don't like it. It feels like a hack, in that it's using the category mechanism for something it wasn't intended for. Given that the current majority seems to be opposing this, I think it would be best to just keep this as it is. I'm not at all certain ppl even realise that you can search. The maintenance is probably too much for a rather small gain that doesn't seem to be in high demand. -- sig 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I dont think many people are outright opposed to this, only worried about the maintance. We can put this on ice till calmer times on the wiki (i.e. when most guilds have finished creating their pages). --Xeeron 09:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the above comments, but it seems awkward that there is a search box, I can search for what I see, which is only a guildtag as mentioned above, and get nothing... I feel a more elegant solution than 'nothing here' is needed especially when many users don't know about namespace and disambiguation. Can't think of one, though... :( Sonya Gladgul 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You can thank MySQL for that one; it won't index any words shorter than four characters by default. It can be changed, but it's a pretty ugly kludge to use simply for this particular issue, with potentially a heavy hit on performance (we'd have to lower it to 2 characters for it to be usable). There must be a nicer way to handle this. =\ --Dirigible 16:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to add something to the guild infobox template to make it automatically add each guild page that uses it to a "Category:Guilds by Tag" with the display name set to "<tag>/<guildname>", so that the category would alphabetize it by the tag first and then the guildname? Aiiane-a.gif (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's possible to get the guild infobox to autocategorise the pages. But no, you can't change the name that's displayed in the generated category pages. You can only specify a sort key. The name that appears is always the name of the page. -- sig 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... that almost makes me wish we had included tags in article names for guild pages. Aiiane-a.gif (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought again of this problem and tried that (page removed, contained a dpl list with all guilds and their tags). The only problem is that there is no method to auto-sort for Guild tag and it is limited to ~700 (?) Guilds in one table.. But we could make a big Guild index page which lists all Guild pages for A, for B, for C, ... with their relating guild tags. By this way, someone could just use CRTL + F to search for a Guild tag. poke | talk 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

foreign language

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

AFAIK, we generally suggest that Guilds should have at least 3 lines of English on their page, then whatever they want in their own language. I don't know if we are, but I think we should start insisting on this, personally. Ale_Jrb (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Guild Wars Wiki talk:Guild pages#Guild pages in a non-English language. --Dirigible 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I support that. Ale_Jrb (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

another issue with language

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

hello, I have remove the bonds relating to categories of pages in French of my Guilds:pages
to afflict for the nuisance. Siegfried (talk)
Until there is a French Wiki, I suggest that we stay with English language categories. I have no problem with Guild pages being in whatever language they like (as long as there is some English on it to), but creating new categories is perhaps going a bit far. I would argue against having English categories on the French Wiki, for example. Ale_Jrb (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's stick to English categories for now... or we'd be seeing dozens on category names in dozens of languages... -- sig 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
if you start having categories and guild pages in other languages then they are going to start to think that they can upload information pages about missions, quests, etc. So we keep saying that this is an english wiki, so lets keep it as a english wiki with only english topics. The Great Tomato 17:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Paradon me for being a multi-language wiki nub, but with other language wikis what happened to the english written guild pages? I understand nothing gets translated but eh nevermind, I suppose the necessary french written guild will be in their french wiki, etc... --Jamie (Talk Page) 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that stops people from joining an english speaking guild, when they want to join a french one. The same goes for english people looking around probably do not want a french guild if they do not speak french, or have basic french. However then along comes the talk about if a guild welcomes players from all languages, do they have to list all their guild information in all the languages on multiple wikis? The Great Tomato 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Ok 2 parts to my answer. First, the image policy is a bit harsh. I know that it is better to have all user/guild images be easily recognisable by name, but if the amount of work to police too hard, that I would be in favor of droping that policy. Second, remember that we are having a huge and temporary(!) influx of new editors right now. Everyone wants to try out the new F10 function, everyone wants to create their guild's wiki page. Sooner or later, all those pages will be created and only new guilds will still create new guild pages. Furthermore, new editors will learn about the rules, if they create their second guild page, they will be much more likely to create one adhering to the policy.
So all in all, my point is: Give it some time. I feel that the tide will go away soon. --Xeeron 10:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yea, this is only the beginning. I'm sure once the tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of guilds gets created, things will slow down a bit. Hopefully. Haven't heard the sysops complaining about the number of files they have pending delete yet :P
AS for wanting them to contribute... well, giving them some personal guild space might actually make it more likely that a small number of these new users start getting interested and savvy in wiki code and move from the guild namespace and into the main namespace. I've already seen several new users actively helping to tag "guild cleanup", so I think it's still under control, for now anyways. -- sig 10:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
If there is too much work for the existing sysops they could always think about creating more, which is prudent as the wiki grows anyway --Lemming64 16:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a possibility to move images would exonerate the sysops a lot ;) poke | talk 18:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a madhouse (literally) with guild page creation, editing, and uploading images for said articles as well as non-compliance with GWW policy. There can't be that many guilds in the game :P, so I would hope all this will peek in time and slow considerably.
While I believe people are good until they do something wrong, I think most, but not all, of these editors will never be heard from again after they have made their mark on GWW, i.e. creating their guild page and/or user page. I'd love to have all of them stick around, learn the policies and code, and be valued contributors, but you can't force anyone to follow that path.
As to the admins complaining about additional work, I can't speak for the rest of them, but I wouldn't be volunteering here unless I didn't have fun doing what I do and cared about the site and it's growth. All it takes is dedication from everyone, or most everyone, in the community and I see that happening. :D — Gares 18:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd second the comment regarding an ability to move images rather then requiring re-upload and delete, but perhaps that's wishful thinking. ;) Aside from that, I can't think of anything to say here that hasn't been already said. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Moving images would be a great option indeed. Is it possible with some kind of extension? If it is possible without huge drawbacks, I support adding an extension to make this possible. Ofcourse a single user with the time and willinness to reupload the cape images with correct names would be enough.
What comes to the recent workload, I enjoy having masses of articles and images to delete. If you look at the deletion log, I've got thousands of deletions within a week. :) Not complaining. I'm not currently able to document the game as I don't have time to play, but helping the wiki with things like this is what I enjoy greatly. -- Gem (gem / talk) 21:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Should we allow categories like this one to exist? Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It's getting worse and worse. This like Category:Guild The Chaos Theorie Category. I am of the opinion that we regulate exactly what sort of categories are allowed. And in my book, guild-specific categories should be disallowed, just as we define what guild pages are for, we should also define how guild pages should be formatting and organised. There is no reason why guild-specific categories is necessary. A guild page itself already sufficiently links to all its relevant members. I do not believe that anyone would actually browse for guilds by category name. I propose that guilds are not allowed to create their own categories. It would be like creating -- sig 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
100% totally and completely agree. [[Category:Thulsey]] would be ok though, right? :P - Thulsey Zheng - talk 03:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
100% totally and completely disagree. I think any categories that begin with the word "users" are fine. There's absolutely no reason to restrict this. —Tanaric 03:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So I can have a Category:User if I wanted to. But are we also not restricting guild categories to Category:Users in So And So Guild only but also allow Category:Guild So And So? -- sig 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the string "users" at the beginning is what's important. I think Category:User is useless, but Category:Users who like, even if it's a bit silly, should be fine. —Tanaric 04:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I could simply tag everything in my user space to be in Category:User, because I want to :P (hypothetically-speaking of course). That's exactly what's happening with Category:Guild The Chaos Theorie Category. It includes everything that has to do with that particular guild. -- sig 04:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't mind somewhat random categories, but I do mind if they're redundant with the functionality of a guild page - for instance, users who are members, or a listing of subpages - both of those should really just be elements of the guild's page, if anything. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Aiiane. Even though there is nothing wrong with the idea of these categories, the information could and should easily be represented on the guild page, so the category should not be needed. Imho we should disallow these. -- Gem (gem / talk) 15:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So we should disallow them simply because the list can also be placed on the guild page? I dont buy into that (even if the guild page would allow for 100% of the same functionality): If there is no negative outcome of having those categories around, I dont see any reason to delete them. --Xeeron 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI) I'd more say we should disallow them because it encourages "bad" practices (and I put that in quotes because I don't mean that in any condemning way) - we should be encouraging use of the guild page for it because it's cleaner and better organization-wise, not to mention easier to maintain - if a guild disbands, it's a lot harder to go sort through a bunch of categories related to it for removal than it is to just remove the guild page (especially when you consider that until you remove any auto-categorizing templates from their pages, the category will still exist and potentially be recreated as an article). Guilds are an exception to the general wiki policy of not allowing information that changes regularly; guilds can often change, and there are a lot of them that do so every day. Thus, I think it's in the wiki's best interest to attempt to keep guild-related items as self-contained to the individual guild pages as possible. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a side note. Guild pages are not exempt from the rule you mentioned Aiiane. In fact, this policy specifically states that guild pages are not allowed to contain regularly-updated information. -- sig 03:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, bad wording on my part - while the pages content isn't supposed to contain regularly-updated information, guilds are, by nature, regularly changing, being formed, merged, allied, or disbanded, and so their very existence as articles is somewhat in juxtaposition with the rest of the wiki which is based on somewhat-static information and more in the style of a reference. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I get your meaning. Exactly. This is similar to builds over at GuildWiki. I still think we should define a fixed set of categories for all guild pages and only those are allowed. But people don't seem to mind the potential clean up problem so I'll just ignore the guild-specific categories. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by on {{{2}}}.
I was a bit imprecise, too. I don't like the Category:Guild etc categories for many of the same reasons as Aiiane, but I do like the Category:Users etc categories, regardless of whether they deal with guilds or not. —Tanaric 07:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the categories for users in such and such a guild is going a bit over the time, if we just show people how to look at the guild pages "What links here" page it would probably be all most of them needed. --Lemming64 12:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You're asking "What's the benefit?" and I'm asking "What's the harm?". Just because there already exists a method likely to serve this purpose does not preclude interested editors from creating another method that does the same task. —Tanaric 15:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
We could simply make a user box which would easily link the user page to the User in Guild X, I think its a great idea, as the policy on Guild Pages does not allow for such pages to list a roster, this would help a little in showing the users on the wiki who belong to the guild. -Jamie (Talk Page) 16:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Not everyone use infoboxes. And they're besides the point; this is about the categories. I can accept having Category:Users in so and so guild, but how should guild categories that also include guild images be handled? Delete the category from the image and rename the category? -- sig 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
"What links here" is an excisting tool, sure, but it is inprecise as it shows, well, every link. To me, the solution suggested by Jamie sounds like an excellent one; Allow Categories like "Users in Guild x". Then allow links to the category on the guild page. User box optional. Solves the problem with overcrowded Guild pages as well as give ease of navigating through the Guild members. :) --Lensor 12:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if we're going to allow categories such as this, they need to be unified "Guild" or "User" at the beginning--so that we may keep them all in one player. User and Users or Guild and Guilds....doesn't matter which, just choose one. Jack 16:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Regularly changing information

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

I was wondering about that, as well, and I think the key word here is 'relatively' when talking about the stability of the content. I don't think guild pages are supposed to remain untouched, but rather that they shouldn't run the risk of becoming a central meeting point or communication device for the guild, nor a constant 'Recent changes' annoyance. Sort of like User pages, but more. I think. Honestly, I still think the idea of guild pages is quite new in terms of how content like this really fits in here in relation to everything else, and time will tell how their usage and usefulness evolve. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 09:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
(conflict) Good point actually. On the one hand, we don't want the players to start using the guild page as their membership roster or homepage. And on the other hand, we would like to have some way to clean inactive guilds (that could potentially have been disbanded). The idea for the inactive tag is that, if you see your guild page tagged with it, all you have to do is remove it, and we'll leave it alone for another month or so. :) -- sig 09:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that disbanded Guilds should not be included on the Wiki. But the current policy gives some funny results: Once the guild page is set up, as it is not allowed to include any information that is "changing" in nature changes will by neccesity become infrequent. At that stage, the page editor will basically have to "make up" a substantial edit every month to avoid getting tagged in the first place, or wait for the tag so he or she can remove it to prove the guild is not inactive. It just feels like there must be a better way to prove the guild is active than having to contest an inactive tag every month. I could easily see a scenario where an active guild would set up a basic Guild page following the guidlines to the letter to document their Guild for the Wiki, include a link to their Guild web page or forum, and never look back. Neither should they have to, as long as the information given on the Guild page remains correct. I think therefore that "no substantial edit in 1 month" should not be enough to tag a guild as being inactive in game. I would rather like either a longer time frame, or an addition that if a guild forum and/or web site is given, also those have to be inactive for the inactive tag to be implemented. To me that would be a much better measure on whether or not the guild is in fact still active in game, in contrast to whether or not they are active on the Wiki.--Lensor (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with a longer time span, one month would require us to do a major tagging process every month, adding to the allready huge list of stuff to do. 3-6 months might be better. -- Gem (gem / talk) 11:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No policy requires any editor to do anything, Gem. When somebody sees a page that violates policy, they'll mark it. Most things don't need a process. :)
Beyond that, though, I actually agree that this section of the policy is dumb, and I argued against it back when we drafted it. I don't think any activity requirement at all should be in policy. If a guild closes its doors, one of three things will happen:
  1. The guild is independently notable, so many editors will know it closed and the article will be marked for deletion.
  2. The guild is not notable, but somebody stumbles upon it via the guild recruitment categories, contacts a listed officer, finds out it was disbanded, and marks the article for deletion.
  3. The guild is not notable, it is not in a recruitment category, and nobody visits it ever, thus causing no harm.
Having a couple orphaned dead guild articles is not a big deal. If we find 'em, we can nuke them.
Tanaric 13:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I didnt think about it that way, but you are right that there is really no reason to be in such a hurry to get rid of "inactive" guilds. The phrase "reasonable doubt" comes to mind. To me, that a Guild entry is not regularly edited does not imply that the Guild is inactive in game, just that it is inactive on the Wiki, which is not the same thing. I think it is better to have inactive guilds listed than to delete active guilds just because the members are not active on the Wiki (especially a risk for smaller guilds whose Wiki entry will be visited too seldom for anyone to notice, or care, that they get tagged as inactive).--Lensor (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with just extending the limit to say, 6 months or a year, and be done with it. We don't keep outdated information in this wiki. We tend to either rewrite the article, or either move or tag the outdated information with a little note saying it's outdated. So why not have a little mechanism here that helps with pruning guild pages. I think if the members of a particular guild couldn't be bothered to even check in on their guild page once every half year, then it's likely they don't care about it anymore. -- sig 14:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Members of a guild aren't really the primary beneficiaries of a guild article -- non-members looking to join are. Non-members are not allowed to edit guild articles. Thus, a guild article could very easily fulfill its primary purpose without being edited once since its creation. —Tanaric 14:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. This requires, in my mind, a better definition of what was expected from guild page contributions in the first place. A policy in place that defines proper usage is much more useful than some poor soul checking in on a guild page every 6 months or a year. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 14:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Non-members are not allowed to edit guild articles?! Since when? And how can you even reliably tell who is a member? And since we're allowing guild pages whose guilds are not actively recruiting, what's the point of allowing them, since they obviously don't benefit anybody by your reasoning. -- sig 16:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
From the policy article:
"Guild pages should generally not be created or maintained by non-members. In case of doubt, an administrator may ask the primary editors of a guild page to prove that they are members of the guild."
I didn't say guild articles only benefit those who are recruiting, I said they primarily benefit those who are recruiting.
Tanaric 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The non-members editing thing should be taken with a pinch of salt, I often find myself making small edits to clean up the formatting of a page if the guild members are a little inexperienced and can't get an image to work or the like. That seems like fair use if you ask me. But I fully agree with the policy of non-members creating and contributing the bulk of the article being disallowed. --Lemming64 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
And how, exactly, do you enforce that? My guild's page was created by someone who was not, at the time, a full member of the guild. He was in the process of being voted in, and is now a member, so no foul. I'm in favor of a very clear policy on all counts that can be pointed to when need arises. We have recently been discussing issues such as 'what constitutes frequent updating' and guild rosters in our guild forum. I understand that the mere nature of guild pages conflicts with the concept of a wiki for documenting static information in the game, but... the game is a dynamic one that changes over time anyway. My proposal: scrap certain limitations and impose limitations that can be measured. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 17:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you enforce anything here? Through the persistence of editors to monitor changes, If I see someone making a non destructive edit to a guild page I am not going to start yelling policy at them on their talk page to prove they are a member. With areas like this any policy has to be used practically and enforced realistically. I don't think you need to make a policy "small edits by non members are ok" it is really a common sense thing. If I go in and fix a small chunk of code to make something work I wouldn't expect repercussions for being helpful just because I am not a member of that specific guild. --Lemming64 17:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, this is why we don't need to touch that part of the policy. -- Gem (gem / talk) 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Tanaric, the quoted portion is very different from what you wrote prior to that. It may have only been an incorrectly used word, but my reaction was due to that incorrect wording. And apologies for replying like that, it was a bit over the top. I really need to get back into the habit of previewing and re-reading my own stuff before saving.
With regards to the purpose of guild pages, I believe I interpreted the purpose differently. Let me elaborate. I do not believe they exist primarily to help players locate guilds because I believe they are limited in their usefulness (unless proven otherwise). Recruitment is but one of the reasons, the other is documentation. It's meant for guilds to explain about themselves. And thus I see that if a guild is no longer being maintained, then it should be removed. If after 6 months (or whatever length of time), there are still no edits (or perhaps talk page activity), then I believe it is safe to consider the guild inactive and hence marked for deletion.
As such, I don't think that any guild page should be created and then ignored. Which is why we have the guild clean up process. We remove guild pages created by people who are not serious about creating and maintaining it. The {{guild cleanup}} tag is meant to clean up the initial stages. The {{inactive guild}} tag is meant to clean up the later stages. One of the primary use for the inactivity (for me anyway) is to allow deletion of fake guilds. If I wanted, I could go and proceed to create to create a guild page named after me. And despite the clause in the policy that says we can ask for proof, if no scams or problems take place, then no one will ask for proof. I don't want that, I don't want fake guilds to have pages here. This is about the only mechanism we have of removing them, unless Anet gets involved and provides a way to verify a guild's existence.
If I'm kind of alone in my view of things, then Thulsey is right. We need to expand the introductory text. -- sig 17:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I meant to include the word "generally" in my initial post. I don't think it significantly changes the meaning, but I was still imprecise.
I completely disagree that no significant wiki edits in six months implies a guild is inactive. On the contrary, I rather expect that once a guild gets its wiki article in a state it's happy with, they'll never touch it again. Why would they want to? What could they possibly add?
More importantly, I don't care about fake guilds. Go ahead, make Guild:Aberrant Is Great. If you wanted to, you could trivially make that guild in game. If one of us happens to know you're in another guild, one of us might ask for proof, but I think you're right -- most likely, the article would be allowed to stand. Nobody would ever see it unless 1) they found it through a recruitment category, which would inevitably expose the guild as fake, or 2) they already knew about it in advance, which leads me to believe they already knew the guild was fake and are in on the joke. What harm can it possibly cause?
Tanaric 19:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Pages like that clutter the categories, making searching for a good guild a lot tougher than it should be. -- Gem (gem / talk) 19:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(RI) But the core point stands; If a guild is not allowed to include information that is likely to be changed on a regular basis in the guild page, what possible reason could there be to "substantially edit" the page on a regular basis once the page is "finished"? If the guild keeps the same forum and web page, the same leader, the same in-game contacts, what is there to change? Formatting? It is a typical Catch 22. If the main (not only, but main) purpose of the Guild pages is to document the guilds, then why on earth should this demand regular edits? It is not like normal articles need to be edited to stay valid, they are just assumed to be valid until someone comes along and edits them, and even then some kind of evidence for the change is usually needed. I still think that Wiki inactivity by itself in no way proves that a Guild is inactive in game.--Lensor (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What need is there to edit to avoid the tag? The tag can easily be removed, and if the timeline is made 6 months instead of 1 month, it shouldn't be a big bother. -- Gem (gem / talk) 20:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
But that still means an active guild who is perfectly happy with their Wiki entry have to edit their page regularly (be it an actual edit or the removal of the tag). And why should they have to? Could you imagine the outrage if every finished article had to be edited regularly to not receive an "obsolete" tag and risk deletion? I think stronger "proof" than mere Wiki inactivity should be needed to tag (and ultimately delete) a Guild page. Even though 6 months before tagging is infinitively (or at least 6 times ;)) better that the current 1-month-rule, it is still a somewhat Kafkaesque rule to begin with; The only regular edits that are allowed is the removal of the tag telling you that you had too few regular edits...--Lensor (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to say that there is no rule that says that a guild must make an edit within each 6 month period, the only thing that needs to be done is removing the tag, which might not even get placed if no one does it and which anyone can remove. This means that well known guilds wont ever get tagged and random guilds might easily go unnoticed. Making a single tag removal twice a year isn't even a bother to anyone. -- Gem (gem / talk) 21:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing the tag is an edit..It even says so on the policy page. Anyways, you are probably correct that many guilds will slip under the radar and that removing a tag twice a year is not that much of a trouble (certainly much better than having to do it every month). But what I am trying to say is that in principle there is absolutely no reason why a Guild that is not making edits to their page should be tagged as "inactive" in the first place, especially given the current rules of acceptable content.--Lensor (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless you can present us with an alternative method to purge disbanded guilds, we'll just have to cope with this. -- Gem (gem / talk) 06:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
*points at fourth post*.. At the very least, if a guild page includes a forum/web page, also that should have to be inactive for the Guild to be tagged as inactive.--Lensor (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
As anyone can remove the tag, anyone can also check the website for activity. Also, the deleting admin would ofcourse first view the website before deleting, so that wont be a problem and we don't need to put that as a requirement to placing the tag. -- Gem (gem / talk) 11:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Pages like that clutter the categories, making searching for a good guild a lot tougher than it should be."

That's the first supporting argument for why we should care about removing guild articles. However, it's pretty vacuous. If somebody gets sidetracked by a fake or dead article, they can very easily mark it for deletion themselves, stating that in their investigation they discovered that the guild was fake or dead.

Tanaric 20:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, would it be a good idea to reword that section such that the inactive guild template is used for just such a purpose? -- sig 23:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for it, but as this would be a change in policy, we should follow the guidelines in advertising such a proposed change. —Tanaric 03:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm new to wiki's. The following might be some of the reasons there are problems related to some of the previous discussions as well as the one to which I am replying. My guild page is my first true large (to me!) edit in one. When I came to my guilds namespace, there was no direction. So I slapped some quick HTML together and lo I had a page! I knew it was not what I wanted to represent my guild but it had the necessary information. My goal was to come back on the weekend and work on it and make it right. I come back and have a notice that it wasn't to standards. Honestly, I wasn't happy seeing that I was marked for deletion by 'x date' if I didn't comply since there was no obvious standard listed when I first came to this space, just an empty HTML editor. In other words it appears to new users that we are ignorantly committing some major sin and are being threatened.
Now to this topic I am very confused after reading this discussion. I am told that I am non-conforming and ready for deletion in X days. Ok, I conform to your template (BTW Thanks for that, it went nicely) Then in the directions the community expects updates...monthly. Why? We can't add anything outside of the template apparently without an act of congress (or so it appears in this discussion page). This also brings up other questions related to this in my mind: Are we and our members allowed to use the discussion page to announce events? Does this count towards activity? If I understand correctly I can't make changes to the Guild:page to make announcements, except for major in-game reasons. I can assure you our guild is very stable, has been for over a year and will not be actively changing much. So what can I change to be actively updating monthly? So this gets back to Lensor's point. If there is no change in our Guild worth noting, why should we change anything? If there are no changes and we will be marked for deletion, why should any guild that is not a major player invest the time to add to the Wiki? Finally I'm hearing cross purposes in the discussion. Is this a marketing tool for guilds or a historical repository? If it's a marketing tool then let us use it as one. Allow us to announce things we think are important to recruit (including in game gold, inventories available for new players, etc.) If this is an encyclopedic, historical listing of Guilds, their web sites, and forums then make sure that goal is stated and understood. --Roybe 08:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, I find it curious that you say there "was no obvious standard listed" - on the editing page, there's a fairly large bold sentence about following the guild formatting page, directly below the edit box: "Are you creating an article for your guild? If so, please read our guild pages policy first, or your submission may be immediately deleted!" (with a link included). How would you propose that we make it more obvious? Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 13:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
My apologies on the misread of the editor page. It does clearly state to read the formatting guidelines. I would suggest then that since formatting is the uber problem it should either have it's own bullet point at the top of the formatting page... (i.e. Welcome to GW Wiki and read this first before moving on)or have it's own category at the top of the page discussing the importance of adherence. NOT be a single sentence link, put at the end of a listing dealing with esoterica of file naming. As far as making the link in the editor more obvious (other than making it bold red!? ;P) ...probably can't do that, however, helping new contributors understand that this is not a general use website, but an organized message center with editing concerns IMHO could be done better. Unfortunately, most of the guidelines I come aross, as well as discussions that help 'clarify' the issues are so bound up in a legalese that IMHO is so dense that most casual users (particularly those placing Guild pages) will make them either not post or make a mistake in formatting, be deleted, and never know that their page was killed. Personally if a page is badly formatted I would suggest a similar wording in the tag to read "Welcome aboard! Glad to see you are working on your Guild Site. Unfortunately the formatting is not what we are expecting please go to XXX to see an example. Just so you know (sic) it is expected that you copy and paste the example page there and adjust it to your needs. Note that because of this we will have to delete your page in x number of days if this isn't adressed as per the [insert guideline page here]". If possible the Guild contributor should be e-mailed to let them know that this process is under way. This combined with a prioritization of the user formatting on the guidelines page might work to our benefit.--Roybe 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Lensor has a point. The current policy is inconsistent, which policies never should be. Either the requirement to be "active" or the requirement not to post regulary changing info needs to go. --Xeeron 09:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Imho adjust the activity requirement from one month to 6 months or something. Guilds rarely stay unchanged for that long of a time, and even if they do, the members would still have enough time to remove the inactivity tag from the page if we only delete those pages after a few weeks from the insertion of the template. -- Gem (gem / talk) 09:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Suggestion--If the purpose is for historical listing of past Guilds in the game then rather than remove the article of a non-existent Guild, just remove the Guild-stub and Categories command from the HTML code. --Roybe 11:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The purpose is to delete articles of those guilds which do not exist anymore. We have different rules for those important guilds that we want to document even after they don't exist anymore. To make my idea more clear: After a guild page has no activity for 6 months, anyone can tag it with an inactivity tag. If the tag isn't removed for 2-4 weeks the article is deleted. -- Gem (gem / talk) 11:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I still dont like it. This system means that a very active but stable guild that set up a Wiki page that doesnt change (because nothing has happened to warrant a change) can find its Wiki entry suddenly deleted if they dont remember to check it for a delete tag every 2 weeks after 6 months.--Lensor (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Any suggestions for a better system to purge disbanded guilds? -- Gem (gem / talk) 14:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The two possible answers are: Do away with forbidding changing information (so that even stable guilds have a reason to edit their page), or do away with deleting guild pages due to inactivity. --Xeeron 14:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(ri) I guess I am just of the opinion that it is better to allow some disbanded guilds to exist that to unwittingly delete active ones. "Benefit of a doubt" and all. Somehow I think that to be slapped with the "inactive guild" tag and risk deletion, mere Wiki inactivity should not be the deciding factor (especially given that regular edits are discouraged by the guidlines). Maybe something like: Guild pages are subject to the "inactive guild tag" if the entry has not received substantial edits for 6 months AND at least one of the following: 1) A listed web page and/or forum is inactive 2) Guild contact persons can not be reached 3) Direct contact with guild contact persons has confirmed that the guild is disbanded.--Lensor (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the last suggestion. Inactivity tag is slapped if the guild is inactive for 6 months and one of the following is met: A) There is no website or other contact method listed B) The listed guild forum/website is inactive.
If the disbanding of the guild is confirmed, there is no need for the inactivity tag, the deletion tag can be used immediately. The inactivity tag could be in place for 2-4 weeks to give more than enough time for guilds to notice it. -- Gem (gem / talk) 14:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. (I didnt think about that there of course is a separate direct deletion tag that should be used if disbanding is confirmed). A nice longer time frame, and an added condition that if there is an active Web forum or other valid means of contact the entry shall not be tagged. --Lensor (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity tag changes

Here is the suggestion from above written more clearly. This is what the policy reads now:

Guild pages of guilds that are not certifiably important and have not received any substantial edits for 1 month will be tagged with the {{inactive guild}} template. Pages tagged so will be deleted after 1 month from the tagging date, unless challenged. Any user of the Guild Wars Wiki may remove this tag (which counts as a substantial edit).

And this is what we want to change it to:

Guild pages of guilds that are not certifiably important will be tagged with the {{inactive guild}} template if the following two conditions are met:
  • The guild page has not received any substantial edits for 6 months.
  • One of the following conditions is met: A) The guild article doesn't list a website or forum for the guild. B) The listed website or forum is inactive.
Pages tagged will be deleted after 1 month from the tagging date. Any user of the Guild Wars Wiki may remove this tag if they know that the guild still exists.

Ok to everyone? -- Gem (gem / talk) 15:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds peachy! I'm definitely in favor. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 16:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Seems like an appropriate revision to me. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reworded several phrases of that to make it more clear:

Guild pages of guilds that are not certifiably important will be tagged as {{inactive guild}} if both of the following two conditions are met:
  • Condition 1: Wiki inactivity - The guild page has not received any edits for 6 months.
  • Condition 2: Ingame inactivity - The listed contact (forum, website, guild leader, etc) is inactive or the guild article doesn't list a contact.
Pages tagged will be deleted after 1 month from the tagging date. Any user of the Guild Wars Wiki may remove this tag if they know that the guild still exists. --Xeeron 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise better, but I don't agree with the addition of having to check in game contacts for the existence of the guild. Most guilds list a few contact names, but it might take ages to find any single one of them online. -- Gem (gem / talk) 17:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If it takes ages to find them, they are most likely inactive, but you should at least try sending each one a PM once. --Xeeron 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. I'll agree with the wording then, I guess. (tweaked it a bit) -- Gem (gem / talk) 19:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks very good to me, I like that it clarifies that tagging demands both Wiki and in-game inactivity. I also agree that if in-game contacts are listed, one should try to reach them before tagging/deleting. If they cant be found with a reasonable effort (checking during the appropriate time zone peak times), one can safely assume that the guild is inactive.--Lensor (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Much better! Defnitely can agree with this! --Roybe 20:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to raise points that were not considered. Who do we trust for condition 2? Registered users? Anon users? Are the sysops responsible to try and verify that the contacts of a guild are all "un-contactable"? What about guilds whose members are active in a totally different timezone and they don't provide any forum links (or at least, a forum that is publicly accessible)? If someone posts a claim that a particular guild is inactive, what should be the next step? Can sysops delete that page after a month based on that single claim? Or is it necessary for the sysops or someone else to support that inactivity claim? -- sig 01:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good faith. :) Anyone can tag the article, but ofcourse a deleting sysop is required to check if the deletion is done according to policy or not before deleting the article, just like with other deletions. Most sysops play a lot and on very different time zones, so this shouldn't be a problem. -- Gem (gem / talk) 08:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
User:The Great Tomato has started tagging guild pages with the {{inactive guild}}-tag. I haven't been involved in this discussion (updated inactivity rule), but it looks like a consensus to me. Am I right? -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 14:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again this is all down to something being decided then the template not being updated to match as it still holds the old 1 month rule which is why i did it - however i am happy to revert all the guilds that I have tagged and just continue on my mission to label all guilds with the {{guild}} and {{guild cleanup}} templates The Great Tomato 14:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Be careful there: consensus looks like it has been reached, but the policy has not yet been updated, therefor, this suggestion is not in effect yet. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Correct. This is still in a proposal stage. Given the lack of any more discussion or opposition on the topic, it should be fine to update the policy. -- sig 01:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we get this discussion finished? I've seen the inactive guild tag being used again and I'd like to get this discussion finalised before we see more use of it. - anja talk 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to this? Are we or are we not making the change to the definition of an inactive guild? It would seem like an agreement... -- sig 02:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, this should be edited in: Guild pages of guilds that are not certifiably important will be tagged as {{inactive guild}} if both of the following two conditions are met:

  • Condition 1: Wiki inactivity - The guild page has not received any edits for 6 months.
  • Condition 2: Ingame inactivity - The listed contact (forum, website, guild leader, etc) is inactive or the guild article doesn't list a contact.

I'm seeing alot of nice-looking and long guild pages marked as inactive now. It'll put people off if they come back in two months and find their effort with their guild page lost. So if there are no more objections, I'd like to propose making this change quickly (as in one more day's time, if no one else does it first). -- sig 02:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection and also feel it would be a shame and a waste to lose guild pages based on the current {{inactive guild}} tag. - Thulsey Zheng - talk 04:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I especially like the "no tagging without contact" part. Go for it. (Might want to clarify if all contacts has to be checked, or just one if there are several listed) - anja talk 08:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


But guilds can't have the same name. If they did, then they can't be in the alliance together as it can't invite 2 for 1k and that would f*ck over the entire conclusion - you can't have 2 guilds with the same name--§ Eloc § 03:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you could even create 2 guilds with the same name... -- Scourge User Scourge Spade.gif 03:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't created guilds before, so someone tell me if this scenario is possible or not: Guild XYZ suddenly became famous overnight because they came up with a uber team build that no one could counter and proceeded to win the championships. This would earn XYZ a permanent page on this wiki because of their accomplishments. But then, some argument happened, and XYZ disbanded. A month later, I go and create a guild with the exact same name and the exact same tag. Does the game prevent me from doing that? If not, then I would need a disambiguation identifier to differentiate from the once-famous XYZ. -- sig 04:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly for names if you delete your character and never re-use the name it goes back into cycle. Meaning somebody else could come along and take that name. I would imagine that guild names would work the same. Trying to shed some light on the subject, will try to look into this and find out an exact answer. --Sktbrd341 04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to test it now. - BeX iawtc 04:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I was able to remake a disbanded guild with the same name. - BeX iawtc 04:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Then IMO I think the disambiguation identifier needs to stay just for any such cases that might arise. --Sktbrd341 04:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about guilds that are disbanded. I'm talking about current guilds who are active. 2 guilds can't have the same name, same goes with characters.--§ Eloc § 04:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about the section that you tried to remove. It should stay because of what has been said above. - BeX iawtc 04:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
."In the presence of naming conflicts..." How can you have a naming conflict if you can't have 2 the same name?--§ Eloc § 04:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Naming conflicts of articles. - BeX iawtc 04:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
How can you have a naming conflict if no 2 guilds have the same name?--§ Eloc § 04:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Read above. - BeX iawtc 04:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
(Edit Conflict x3) Because concurrency in-game is not directly correlated with concurrency on the wiki, due to retaining pages for historical guilds which have achieved notable status. Thus, it's possible that there could be a naming conflict between articles even though it's impossible to have a naming conflict between in-game guilds. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 04:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Aiiane I was having editing conflicts too, but you explained it a little better then what I would of. --Sktbrd341 04:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Very eloquent. :) - BeX iawtc 04:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't be making up words.--§ Eloc § 04:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Eloquent is a word... -- Scourge User Scourge Spade.gif 04:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Eloc, we know that two guilds with the same name cannot exist at the same time. But if you look at the deletion section of the policy, we have a clause that permits important and/or famous guilds to be retained using the {{historical guild}} tag. Which means that even if these guilds get disbanded, their guild article will remain. And if someone were to create a new guild using the same exact same name, he or she can, but then he or she can't use that name directly in this wiki, because the old guild's page is being retained. As such, a rule that explains how they should proceed in such a case needs to be retained. -- sig 05:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't you have two guilds with the same name in different regions? I thought that this was the case. LordBiro 07:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think so because you can be from different regions but in the same alliance. - BeX iawtc 07:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh right, I didn't know that actually, I thought alliances had to be made in the same region! LordBiro 17:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization redirects

Do we allow redirect pages like Guild:Druids of the Crimson Night? I've been seeing a couple of these and while I don't see any harm (even though I don't like them), I would like the policy to at least mention them. Do we disallow naming redirects for guilds? If so, it should be specifically mentioned, otherwise it's implicitly allowed. Or have this already been discussed? -- sig 04:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with that as they are not actually changing any of the letters they are just altering the 'O' in 'of' and the 'T' in 'the' from the lowercase version into the uppercase version. If they were altering the spelling then it would be a problem as potentially another guild with that name could exist which is in no way related to the other guild --The Great Tomato The Great Tomato 07:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that's fine, it's not like anyone else could use those guild names. I don't know if we need a policy, though. LordBiro 09:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If we allow it then no policy change is necessary I suppose. -- sig 09:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, people will probably ask the same question in the future so I suppose it makes sense to mention it somewhere... I think we should probably get post on requests for comment before making a change. Either that or produce a new draft, but that seems a bit OTT for a minor change. LordBiro 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Should we enforce that people put the {{capitalization}} template in to all Guild: namespace redirects of this nature? --The Great Tomato The Great Tomato 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
To differentiate capitalization redirects from sub-guilds? Hmm... the redirect tag is part of guidelines, so I'm not too keen on adding that to policy. -- sig 10:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont see any problem with capitalisation redirects (even without the tag). As long as there is no possibility of another guild having that name, it should be fine. --Xeeron 09:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Categorically disallowed

Ok I just had my Guild page edited for what seems was justified.

I was edited for the following rule "Guild pages, which include their talk pages, shall not be used as a chat forum, recruitment board or guild roster. Guild pages shall not be used to contact the guild members."

So can someone please tell what reason a PvE Guild would want maintain a Wiki Guild page?

Seriously someone should recheck these rules and perhaps reword them.

Example of the above rule reworded.

Guild pages, which include their talk pages, 
 * shall not be used as a chat forum,
 * shall not be used as a recruitment board 
 * shall not be used as a guild roster
Guild pages shall not be used to contact the guild members.

Still I disagree with this guild roster point. But if you are going to post something like that make sure it is more clear and more readable. Chik En 19:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So can someone please tell what reason a PvE Guild would want maintain a Wiki Guild page? - As a place to state basic information about the guild, history, and methods of contact - whether it be linking to a forum/website, names of leader/officers, or some other means. In addition, you've hardly reworded it, just broken it onto multiple lines. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right I just edited it for a minor attempt at clarity. Are not the names of Leader and officer(s) also member(s) of the guild? In my opinion that listing in part or as a whole of the member roster would still be a violation. It says simply "Guild Roster". I will make more of an effort to reword this to what is implied should be the wording.
Guild pages, which include their talk pages, shall not be used
 * as a chat room, forum, or communcations conduit of any kind, in realtime or otherwise, no exceptions.
 * as a guild roster, with the exception of listing guild leader and guild officers
 * as a recruitment board with the exception of stating your status towards recruiting 
    (example: Actively Recruiting)
 * to contact the guild leader or its officer(s) or its member(s) for any reason, no exceptions.

Chik En 21:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Listing the names of the leader/officers is allowed as a means of contact information. The intent behind disallowing rosters is that such information is generally highly subject to change, more so than typical wiki content is designed to be, while the leader and officers of a guild are much less likely to change on a daily basis. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
But that is only implied that Leaders and officer listing is allowed. The rule is no "Guild Roster" So how many other rules are implied? Is there a wiki page for these implied rules? I am just suggesting someone to update the policy for clarity. Chik En 21:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You are allowed to add some In-game nicks for contact information. But if somebody lists the complete guild roster - maybe even with a heading "Guild Roster" - it is not allowed. See also our formatting guides: "Contact information should be listed. This includes (but does not require) links to the website/forums that the guild uses, and a short (not a complete roster) listing of important in-game contacts. Note that only a list of names should be posted, not detailed information about the players." poke | talk 23:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the following acceptable

I would like to know if it would be acceptable to list what is considered active members of my guild. The reason is, my guild operates on a voting system. New members are voted in and voted out (although nobody has been voted out yet) And we are voted in based on what we consider active members. So if you wish to join us, those that are considered active are those that should welcome you or you would not get a passing vote. I would like to state this as our recruitment policy and list those members who are currently considered active and this would give me a valid reason to update it from time to time. So even though I am leader I am bound by my own rules that makes everyone within my own guild of the same rank as me with equal rights as long as your active. An example is we have 21 members in the roster and 12 are considered active so a 50% vote would need 6 in favor out of 12 for most votes. Would that be acceptable? Chik En 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that still falls within the reasoning disallowing guild rosters on pages - content that's likely to change on an extremely frequent basis. A better option would probably be to put such information on a subpage, as long as it's not transcluded into the main guild page. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 21:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I am a programmer and very lazy... ;) there would be no way for me to automate this... I could not see myself updating that list more often then once a month really maybe twice a month. But if a subpage is allowed for this, I would take that route instead. Chik En 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't see why you even need that. It's not like you're using the guild page for voting in/out (and you can't anyway). How often are your members going inactive? Not very often? Won't a simple list of in-game names to contact be sufficient? Just add those names who you think are most likely to remain active and trim the list when someone on that list becomes less active. Does the potential member actually has to pm each and every one of your active members personally? -- sig 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I simply thought it would be good to contain a list of the persons that would be considered the "Contact" list which is valid but not the entire guild roster which meets the policy page requirements. But yet give me a reason to edit once a month and keep the page current. Because they are who needs to be contacted in order to join us. I am following the rules 100% as far as I know.Chik En 03:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobody would've said anything if you just left it as a "List of Contacts" and edited it once a month :) Heck, people probably won't notice even if u edit it twice a week ;) It's more to prevent people from changing their guild page on a daily basis. -- sig 04:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been edited or halted recently on a few things I have tried to do. I get tired of doing things for nothing :) so I stopped to ask this time. Thought that would be best. I updated my user page which had a link to my guild page and the editor followed it and saw I had a roster and removed it. So any changes to my user page will lead to the guild page and it would be evaluated. :D Chik En 13:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If someone did something you object to, you are allowed to revert the first time it happens and then post a comment on the talk page to discuss it. You may question the edit if you feel that it was incorrectly done. To me, depending on how you worded your list of members, I wouldn't have removed a short list of character names. It may have just been some user being a little overzealous about editing guild pages. We want to prevent users from maintaining a list of current members on guild pages, so we added in that part about no rosters. But a short list of users to contact is perfectly fine. -- sig 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)