Template talk:Guild cleanup

We definetly need something like this, because people who aren't even registered are coming and creating pages about their guild...--TimOfDoom 11:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

They're welcome to do that - in the new 'help' window, there's a link to their guild page on this Wiki, which they are understandably creating. However, if the guild page doesn't follow the policy (and most of the formatting guidelines), you should tag it with this. Ale_Jrb (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Are they allowed to be in French/German etc. ?--82.71.72.46 20:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Oops hehe, that was me--TimOfDoom 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to {{delete}}

With the changes to the deletion template, should we have this template add a datestamp to the deletion tag? Easy way would be to just add | {{{1}}} to the {{delete}} call - of course, that would immediately add it to "Articles pending deletion" upon page refresh. There's probably also a way to add a timestamp that's of the same time the deletion tag was added - i.e. seven days past {{{1}}}. Third option is to just leave it as-is, and have it only put guild pages into Candidates for deletion, but it seems that would complicate life somewhat. Thoughts? MisterPepe talk 02:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, LB ;) I'm going to run the touchbot (I still think I need to come up with a better name for that...) again now. MisterPepe talk 07:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ranger can mean:

1. • A warden employed to maintain and protect a natural area, such as a forest or park.
   • Chiefly British. The keeper of a royal forest or park.

So I suggest touch ranger :P LordBiro 07:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

/groan MisterPepe talk 08:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please ensure you put the date in

If you do not add the 5 tildes, then even when the template has been on the page for more than 7 days it is not marked for deletion, so in future could you always ensure that you put them in - other wise it means we have pages which are slipping through the net unnoticed, and uncared for (and that makes Tomato sad) - however i'm not sure whether this is the same with the general cleanup template (i'll look at it next - when i have finished putting in all the dates on the guild ones (using the page history)) The Great Tomato 10:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Just looked at the general template for cleanup - that doesnt have a date to cleanup before its deleted (why would it?)

Yeah, the date is only for guild cleanup since there are so many guild articles that are started and then abandoned. LordBiro 10:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The {{cleanup}} tag is meant to mark a particular page as needing some reorganisation and changes to make it more consistent with existing guidelines or conventions, or just to improve its wording and structure. -- ab.er.rant 10:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

2 weeks as deletion deadline

Hi guys. I'd like to propose a suggestion for increasing the span of days required before potential deletion of an article from "7" to "14". To explain that, I'd like to note that we cannot be sure the majority of some guild's members is not temporarily away from GW Wiki/the game, especially when it comes to summer vacations. I mean, do all guilds actually check their pages every week? And if an article doesn't meet the requirements of formatting guidelines, it usually indicates that something was added to it in the past and that it's not totally an empty one.
Personally, I have gone through a situation of when my guild's article was tagged for cleanup while I was on vacation, and when I got back, my reaction was like: "Uh oh, I've got these 70 kilobytes of code to reconstruct in just a few days before the whole thing gets wiped, but my relatives are also expecting me to come back to our summer cottage tomorrow, how should I resolve that?" So I went with re-applying the cleanup tag with: "Will get it done after 5 days" notice because I had to leave the town again. And this brings us to subject of what could have happened if I didn't briefly return home and check the frequently-visited pages. Two weeks is what people are usually away from home when it comes to summer holidays, Internet connection issues or serious real-life affairs, so I wouldn't be too zealous with pushing the aspect which demands a daily, 24/7 patrol-like web connection. Dmitri Fatkin 13:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

automatically marked vs queued

I prefer that the text say that the article will be queued for deletion; marked (automatically or otherwise) implies that something changes on the guild article itself. But what happens is that it appears on the deletion queue page; there's no obvious change to the guild article. The current text leaves open the possibility that there will be another warning (which there needn't be); I believe "queued for deletion" is a more accurate statement of what will happen. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, if you really think so, you can change it back.. But leave out the link to the deletion list; that list is for maintenance only and there is no need to include it (and confuse with it). poke | talk 21:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)