User talk:Shamayim Araboth/Archive
Archived 2008.02.11
Guilds
Hi there, why are you creating so many guild pages? Guild pages need actual content to meet formatting requirements. --
Brains12 \ Talk 00:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Can you stop creating more until there is consensus to go through all red linked guild pages and placeholder them? --
Brains12 \ Talk 00:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Chill - I don't read this often. I read the GWW:GUILD and am following the policy; what do I need consensus for? I am working through the red link pages and sorting them out - nobody else seems to be bothering with those :). Shamayim Araboth 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Wasn't concensus called "red is better than placeholder"?. Still, many of those red links are usually mispelled guild names, so it's not wise to just create them all.--Fighterdoken 00:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I read the guild Guild Wars Policy Page on Guilds GWW:GUILD and there is nothing mentioned about any "red is better" consensus there. If they are misspelled, they can be tagged or redirected to the right pages no? I saw that this was done on Sliver Armor... Shamayim Araboth 00:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Generally, it would be better to let the member(s) of the guilds create their own pages. Otherwise you never know when it's a real guild, a misspelled name, a guild that prefers to remain off-wiki, or a guild that was disbanded 6 months ago. -- Hong 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the members don't know how, or are worried about getting ganged up on by the police brigade for doing something wrong. My little project is to give them a little helping hand :).
Besides, it is unlikely that a guild has been misspelled more than a couple of random times - as you will see, I am not creating pages for those with 5 links or less. A guild which has more than 5 links is probably a real guild and likely to be spelt correctly.
If the guild prefers to remain off-wiki (even though its members are linking it) there is provision made for that in GWW:GUILD deletion section: In general, guild pages should not be kept if the guild leader or all editing guild members request deletion (although verification of current membership/position may be required, to prevent abuse).
A guild which was disbanded 6 months ago would be picked up as part of GWW:GUILD deletion section again: 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: In-game inactivity - The listed contact (forum, website, guild leader, etc) is inactive or the guild article doesn't list a contact.
Seriously, I don't see anything wrong with what I did. Shamayim Araboth 01:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) The consensus (small that it is at the moment) is at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Requests for technical administration/WantedpagesModification. Also, guild pages need more restrictions than normal articles (such as Silver Armour) as there are way too many guilds for each to have their own theoretical redirects and such. Guild pages are very rarely used and are only really for the creator's use compared to mainspace articles.
- Also, as Hong and GWW:GUILD say, guild pages should be created by the members of that guild, and not an "outsider" as it were. -- Brains12 \ Talk 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would be best if the people that are in a guild actually made their own page. Having every red-linked guild page created poses more problems and unnecessary work than having those red links. The majority of those created pages would have to be deleted (as you said) and it's not a small thing deleting hundreds of inactive or nonexistant guild pages every day because someone of that guild did not make the page. If someone wants to make a page for their guild, I don't see what's stopping them. It's easy enough to do it via the F10 ingame anyway, as there is a ready template to use. In my opinion, having unnecessary guild pages has more problems than placeholders.
- There's nothing wrong with what you did, but I think there is a much better alternative. -- Brains12 \ Talk 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, how about this then - you're the Sysop, get the ball rolling and publicise the better alternative; it's going to be a lot tougher for me if I just have to try and guess what your opinion is or isn't or what minute comment I have missed on some discussion page of an unrelated article ^_~. Shamayim Araboth 01:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It would be best if the people that are in a guild actually made their own page. Having every red-linked guild page created poses more problems and unnecessary work than having those red links. The majority of those created pages would have to be deleted (as you said) and it's not a small thing deleting hundreds of inactive or nonexistant guild pages every day because someone of that guild did not make the page. If someone wants to make a page for their guild, I don't see what's stopping them. It's easy enough to do it via the F10 ingame anyway, as there is a ready template to use. In my opinion, having unnecessary guild pages has more problems than placeholders. -- Brains12 \ Talk 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I already said I wasn't doing every one, are you not reading my replies? If 20 people have linked to a guild, I see nothing wrong in creating the placeholder then contacting them to see if they need help expanding it - sometimes it takes just that to help someone.
I most certainly did not say the majority would be deleted and I haven't put hundreds of pages in either. If you wish to discuss things with me, please read my comments properly and do not attempt to twist my words, change the meaning of what I say or dramatise the situation.
PS With all due respect, I am finding your response overbearing and unnecessarily draconian. I am trying to help out in good faith. Your opinion is just that and is similar to the hidden consensus you link above - neither were public nor obvious. Shamayim Araboth 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Archived 2007.11.25
You can use the Show Prewiew button before saving your changes so that you don't have to edit it multiple times. Also, it clogs Recent Changes if you don't.--24.192.17.91 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
