Template talk:Guild infobox

default image

I edited the default cape image to use .jpg instead of .png There were only 2/20 guilds using .png already, and only one of those (RR) relying on the default value. The rest had specified their own jpg versions. Also, jpgs are much smaller file size. _Biscuits 21:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, that's a bit of a problem. See, still some people will want to use PNGs, because their losless (instead of lossy) compression. Maybe the template should search for both JPEG and PNG images (plus JPG have 3 extensions: .jpg, .jpeg and .jpe. But that can be changed w/o losing any image data). However, if there's no if, the next switch (| png = 1) should be implemented? —Faalagorn☎/⚔ 14:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You waited a year and ten months to think there was a problem? :P I don't think it's an issue, since it's easy enough to specify a PNG cape image. It's just the default that is a link to JPG if no cape image is specified. Biscuits 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed, when I made my original post above, there were only 20 guild articles. :) Biscuits 15:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I just joined a month ago :).BTW, it is possible. See w:Template:Infobox Person. Faalagorn☎/⚔ 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to overcomplicate it. If no image is specified, it defaults to a red JPG upload link. Players can chose to specify their own image instead, including PNG. Biscuits 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Language

Added a language line to the template for guilds to be able to specify their primary communication language. I used English instead of Not Specified because the majority of the guilds use English as their primary language (or so I imagine).Nicky Silverstar 16:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lanuage Category

i have input on line 49

{{#if: {{{language|}}} |
[[Category:{{{language|}}}_guilds]] 
}}

if sombody input an lanugage it input a category. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Nizu .

I have reverted your auto-categorisation. If autocategorisation should be applied, then it should be applied to all the parameters, not just language. I would rather this be brought up in GWW:GUILDS first. Because by adding autocategorisation, you need to also explain it in the formatting guidelines and explain what users need to do if they don't use this infobox (remember, it's not a 100% requirement that they use this). -- ab.er.rant 03:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Guild cape image

Seeing how there are tons of guilds with ugly red links in the box, can we change that parameter to default to no picture shown, instead of default linking to a non-existant picture? --Xeeron 14:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Imho leave the default as the image name, otherwise we will get another wave of incorrectly named guild cape images as everyone is required to type a name of their own for the image. A guild article without a guild cape image is a stub anyway, unles the guild really doesn't have a cape, in which case they could upload a white 1x1 pixel image to hide the text if they really care about it. -- (gem / talk) 21:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Add a Forum entry?

Think we should add a Forum link entry to the infobox?

Many guilds have them, but then again it may be redundant with the existing 'web' catagory.

Andovar 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not every guild gas a website, but does have a forum. or the other way around. Not all guild have a forum with their website. So I think adding it as a possible info box would not go waisted.DBZVelena | (Talk page) 18:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added the forum tag. Andovar 03:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Web and IRC Links

These are stretching the infoboxes to half the page width on some guild pages. Any remedy to this? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 03:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that they should then use a shorter url or sumthing. :P Actually does the wiki off site link markup work in the info boxes? If so then it just takes a bit more effort in making the link look shorter when its not in the coding. (I hope people actually understand what i mean... DBZVelena | (Talk page) 03:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe just add more details in the infobox instructions as to how to create a link reference (which I think is what DBZVelena means)

Like this: web = [http://some-long-url.com/guildwebs/my-guild-web-page ABC Guild] will display ABC Guild Andovar 10:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cape image name

Having the possibility to change the default cape image name has caused the uploading of hundreds of images with the wrong name lately. I would suggest removing the possibility from the template and going throuh all guild pages to fix this, also reuploading the images that werent uploaded with the default name. This would save us from a lot of extra work in the future. -- (gem / talk) 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, I suppose. I originally added optionality to the template just to get it to work in my sandbox page as I was messing with the Example Guild page design. It'd make sense to swap that out for "Image: Guild {{PAGENAME}} Cape.png" - the only thing that I'm worried about at all in doing this is image formats. There's no required image format (jpg, png, and a few others are all allowed), so changing the template to match this would also require converting some images (and regulating the image type, most likely). MisterPepe talk 10:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We could just have the template ask for the format of the image and default it to one format. -- (gem / talk) 10:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is true. MisterPepe talk 10:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, that sounds like a very painful job to fix the templates on ever single guild infobox usage (switching it from the specified name to an extension type). I'd still be fine with it, but it sounds... irritating. MisterPepe talk 10:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to go through all guild pages. Just look at my recent deletion frenzy to see how much I'm into repetitive work atm. (nice way to relax your brains) -- (gem / talk) 10:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would save time to just default the name and .jpg -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 01:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a pretty easy change if people want to do it. All we would need to do is change [[{{{capeimage|Image:Guild {{PAGENAME}} cape.jpg}}}|150px]] to [[Image: Guild {{PAGENAME}} cape.{{{capeimage|jpg}}}|150px]]. I'd suggest that we change the variable name "capeimage" to something different, like "imagetype," but whatever. MisterPepe talk 01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll change this to [[Image:Guild {{PAGENAME}} cape.{{{capeimage|jpg}}}|150px]] in a day or two if no one has any problems with it and at the same time I'll start going through guild articles to fix the template and reupload images with the correct name. The only problem someone can have with this is that there is no option to use a different size for the image, but imho that is a good thing. The functionality for that can always be added later on. -- (gem / talk) 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't an option to change the image size in the first place. It's been built into the template from the beginning, or did I miss something? MisterPepe talk 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was just pointing out an additional thing. -- (gem / talk) 05:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Number of members stretches infobox

The "Number of members" line is the longest in the infobox and stretches the whole thing.

Make it "No. of members" or something instead? Eerie Moss 22:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC

What's IRC?--§ Eloc § 05:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Internet Relay Chat, sort of a chat system with unlimited rooms and private discussions. I suggest googling it and trying it out. A simple way to try it out is to download a simple IRC-client like MIRC. -- (gem / talk) 05:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Leader category

I added a leader category --Hawk Skeer 12:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Protect the page?

It seems this page is repeatedly a target for guild people shamelessly advertising thier guilds (or just wiki newbies on accident thinking this is where you put guild info). Can it be protected from editing? After all, it doesn't do the rest of the hundreds of guilds on here any good when all their boxes suddenly start advertising another guild. --Hawk Skeer 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to protect it against just IPs and new users, sort of like on Wikipedia? — ク Eloc 貢 01:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to semi-protect it which blocks IP's but I think you need a plugin to block new users. Looking back it has never ever been vandalised by an IP so the only other option currently is full protection from everyone except sysops. --Lemming 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rank?

Would it be possible to add a spot on the template to display Guild Rank (GvG), Guild Rank (Peak) (GvG) or some other things like this? Just as optional fields, of course. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Style and Layout

I honestly find the layout a bit boring.. Is it allowed to copy the actual code and edit it so it just looks like the normal infobox but then for example another color? Or.. might make a variable that can fill in the template color? --Solo Uw Master 19:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone?--Solo Uw Master 12:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You should bring that up on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Guilds instead. poke | talk 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yo, Brains, I'm waiting for the last suggestion to come! ;) Dmitri Fatkin 13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is not another article infobox on the wiki where customization of the color is allowed. I don't see any reason that the Guild space should be any different. -- Wynthyst 19:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Name parameter

Why are we disallowing the infoboxes that may act almost exactly the same as the 'regular' one, apart from a subtle difference that the rest of the community may not want to be there in the normal one?
Personally, I'm speaking about the guild infobox that I use on the subpages of Guild:The Imperial Guards Alliance, which the only difference (seeing is believing [1]) in the template is a name parameter so I can get a guild name of 'The Imperial Guards Elite' rather than 'The Imperial Guards Alliance/TIGE' is that so bad? This also means that guilds which may want punctuation in the name, may have it in the guild infobox despite not being allowed it in the page name. -- Tomato 11:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As it was being discussed on the changes proposal page, the main problem is that "customized" templates are not kept up-to-date with the default template, and some users actually complain when you sync their version (from personal experience). In any case, i agree that we could implement the "name" parameter you mention, not only because of "sub-divition" guilds such as in your example, but also for probable cases of disambiguation that may appear in the future.--Fighterdoken 18:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it actually so constantly-changing/unstable code that it needs fixing every time someone introduces a new edit to the original template? What's wrong Kakarot's version of it? Dmitri Fatkin 18:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but that doesn't seem to stop people from ignoring the changes made, even if they are done once a year. About the other, i am not sure about which of all of kakarot's versions you talk about, but if talking about the current infobox, it's because it forces the page name to be used as guild name, which may not be the case for guild sub-divitions or in case of disambiguations, hence the need of a "name" parameter being allowed (even if not needed by default).--Fighterdoken 18:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Karakot's version allows for customized colors, which we are not allowing at this point. -- Wynthyst 18:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For Fighter: I was talking about this. The only problem I see here is that some users just don't like the idea of allowing customization, it's not about templates, really. Dmitri Fatkin 19:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i actually liked his idea. But just because i agree with you in this doesn't mean we should just go and implement it. Proposals changes not only need support, but also require trying to reach a compromise with those who oppose to the changes, as long as they have valid reasons.--Fighterdoken 19:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Tomato, guilds shouldn't have punctuation in their name since it's meant to be the same name as displayed in-game (which has similar restrictions). However, I can sympathize with your needs regarding your alliance's pages, since we already discussed how we were going to do your alliance's pages back a long time ago, no, I haven't forgotten those discussions. I think the name parameter shouldn't be an issue; it doesn't blatantly affect the display or consistency of the template, so I'll go ahead and add it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 19:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Expanded infobox

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

See my message on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Guilds. Wasn't sure which to place it on so feel free to switch the two around if you would prefer it the other way Wyn :) --Kakarot 14:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. :) Nice to have it a little less cluttered. Kakarot's idea of having the option for them to not show up is good too. What about making the 2nd half collapsible, and have an option to specify whether it's expanded to collapsed by default? ;) Biscuits 15:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

proposal withdrawn -- Wyn 04:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a little uncertain since this project seem to be iced at the moment. Is it forbidden to oneself combine the information into one box, or must it be the exact guild infobox that is used? Since it looks kinda ugly with the two sitting under each other at different widths. I have combined it on our guild page to show how I mean (will of course revert if not allowed).--Lensor (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just like the nav and disclaimer it must be the real one. Mainly so any changes takes global effect. We've had situations were we had to manually edit many many pages, and would rather avoid that happening again. It is also useful for references.

There is several ways for you to work around this, like adjusting the actual template, hiding it, or nestling the expansion code in a template called from the last parameter. That way it's possible to both comply and still get things exactly like you want them. Backsword 02:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. After playing around a bit I believe the easiest, and most future-proof, way would be to just add an "optional" parameter to the end of the template. (The current last parameter can't be used as it specifies two columns). This way users could add customized things (only Hall picture/only NPC list/collapsible etc.) without having to mess with the template itself. Would this be acceptable? I do not believe it would cause any negative effects. See my sandbox for how it could work.--Lensor (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm against changing the infobox. At one point I thought it was a good idea, I have changed my mind. -- Wyn talk 10:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you offer any reason why you think the suggestion is a bad idea? I cannot see any adverse effects, only positive ones.--Lensor (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am against this idea. Too many may over look the 'show' and not see what all the guild has to offer, like website, etc. I think it should stay the way it is. That way, you can see what you need to see.♥ Ariyen ♀ 04:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not talking about a "show" feature, just an extra optional parameter where one could put extra stuff if wanted. It would work like the example on my sandpage. Again, I think this would only add to the usability of the template. --Lensor (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Too many guilds already only provide information in the infobox. By adding all this additional information, the pages will become even less balanced between infobox and text information. I don't find looking at a page that has nothing but blank sections and an infobox that I have to scroll to see all of to be that desireable, and this expansion simply encourages that kind of page. -- Wyn talk 06:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Guilds still put the GH expansion info in a template, it is not like they write it out on the page. The choice here is not between "template + text" and "big ol' template", it is between "two templates that look ugly because they don't have the same dimensions so there is no way to present them in an aesthetically pleasing way" and "one template that may be bigger but at least it looks good". You may also note that my suggestion demands a quite advanced user to implement, since the user has to fill the parameter with content. Advanced users are less likely to make an empty guild page to begin with, so I feel you are overestimating the risk of more empty pages with large infoboxes.--Lensor (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, so I am the only one who thinks this is a good idea? I want to look at pretty guild pages, not ugly lopsided ones. :( --Lensor (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory template

I don't know if I should start a new section or continue in the above section, but anyway. Why is this template mandatory? Tehnically I want the same thing like Lensor: merge the {{guild infobox}} and {{Guild hall expansion}} into one template because it looks weird with two templates with diffrent width. So I made this change to my guild page and I was asked to revert it because the guild infobox template is mandatory. I understand the fact that there must be a way to show the informations for every guild using the same style and formatting on every page, but my table with the infos looks exactly like the default template: same colors, border, style, etc. The only diffrence is on the source page where is not a template code it's a full table.

So cant we just change the Guild page policy to something like: "The Guild page must contain the{{guild infobox}} template or an equivalent way to show informations about the guild"? So if someone wants to merge the Guild infobox and Guild Hall expansion templates is free to do it and we dont have to change the default template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparky Sharkinu (talk • contribs) at 09:41, October 13, 2009 (UTC).

The default template was made mandatory after several months of discussion and finally consensus on the present wording. Having only one template means that when something needs to get changed; either added functionality, a fix or something else entirely; only one template needs to be changed rather than that one and then searching out any guild pages that use a modified version of the template.

During the last discussion there was a proposal worked on by several users including Wyn and myself to more or less merge the two templates in a similar fashion to what you had done on your guild page but that seemed to stop after some kind of disagreement (can't remember what at this time and I've not got enough time to search the multiple archives of the discussion that happened in multiple places right now). This proposal while previously supported before the last policy change appears to be no longer supported by a number of the guild page policy interested people so at this time it is unlikely that it would gain consensus for that change anymore. --Kakarot 10:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Alliance?

I was just wondering why the template does not have a parameter for alliance. Can we add it? -- Large 17:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

We have the alliance navbox for that. poke | talk 17:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Age/Years Active

I added an "| age =" attribute so guilds can show how many years they have been active if they choose to do so. --Hawk Skeer(Talk) 16:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)