Wowpedia talk:Guild pages policy

Past discussions archived to...
 * Wowpedia talk:Guild pages policy/Archive01 Up to 27 December 2006
 * Wowpedia talk:Guild pages policy/Archive02 27 December 2006 to 7 March 2007.

Change to the Policy: Naming

 * Votes and comments archived to Wowpedia talk:Guild pages policy/Archivevote 23:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

This proposal is to make a change to Wowpedia:Guild pages policy.

See also a slightly different version (though written in a better way than mine) down below this page: Additional Options


 * Update: Changed See Also in Were you looking for...?

Current Version
We should change:

The guild pages should be the complete name of the guild, i.e. The Mighty Guild


 * * If the guild name conflicts with another article that article has priority, the guild page can be disambiguated by adding guild or the server name in parenthesis. i.e. The Mighty Guild (guild) or The Mighty Guild (Doomhammer).
 * * If the guild name conflicts with another guild article then the articles should both contain the guild name followed by the server in parenthesis. A disambiguation page can be created.
 * * If there is already a disambiguation page (because the guild name conflicts with articles that are already being disambiguated, then the guild can be added to the disambiguation page.

To:

Option 1
The guild pages should be the complete name of the guild followed by the server in parenthesis  i.e. The Mighty Guild (Doomhammer)


 * * There should be a disambiguation page at the page of the guildname, i.e. The Mighty Guild should become a disambiguation page. Guilds with the same name, but on a different server, can then be added to this page.
 * * If the disambiguation page collides with another article, the article gets priority and the disambiguation should be written at the top of the article in the form of: Were you looking for the guild The Mighty Guild (Doomhammer)?

Reasoning

At the moment, it's just too vague. The rules must be slightly stricter. With the current policy, we are just creating more work for us, as I will show in the following example:


 * Storm has been brought up in a previous discussion. Those guilds have been changed now and the page is now a disambiguation page, with the server in parenthesis behind it. Imagine that this disambiguation wasn't done, then we would most probably be facing a problem, seeing that the BC brings quite a lot of "Storm"s.

This small example already proves that it is important to change the proposal. However, another problem has risen aswell, the current vague rule is creating a gigantic Chaos. A chaos which will keep players away from using the Wiki. A good example of this is the following:


 * As some might know, I have been working on Server:Shattered_Hand_Europe. I have asked many players to add their guild to the list. Many of them also wanted to work on their guildpage on the wiki. Sadly enough, there have been 2 guilds who have gotten a problem, Skull Squadron and Grand Crusader. Skull Squadron has the problem of colliding with another guild (a Guild on Blackhand_US). Grand Crusader collides with a small fact of lore, not big, but lore nonetheless.  Consequences are that both are reluctant to start working on their guild page, which means in a smaller player flow for the wiki.

Confusion should be avoided at all costs. We, the mass editers, are used to the wiki. Many new persons aren't. Imagine if one of those actually has superior scripting and writing abilities. If he gets addicted to the wiki, it would be a great add to WoWwiki. Also, we want the wiki to attract persons to look things up, but if they can't create their guilds on it, they will be reluctant to check up other things aswell. This alone is a reason to make clearer and stricter rules regarding the naming of certain pages, both userpages as Guildpages. Today we are handling guildpages!

Notes: This change can still get a few small changes, concerning what happens if it collides with another real article. To me it looked as if putting a "See also" on the bottom was the best choice.

Option 2
Guild page name

The title of an article on a World of Warcraft guild should always be the complete name of the guild followed by the realm and two letter location abbreviation in parentheses (e.g., The Mighty Guild (Doomhammer US)).

Disambiguation pages

Use the rules below to determine when and how disambiguation pages for guild articles should be created. As always, wherever a disambiguation page is created, it should be linked at the top of all articles it lists. As well, guilds with similar names should link to each other. For example, on The Mighty Guild (Doomhammer US), include "''Were you looking for Mighty Guild (Shadowsong EU)?"

No conflict with non-guild article

If the guild name (without the realm and location information, e.g. The Mighty Guild) does not conflict with the name of an existing, non-guild article, then it may be either:
 * made into a disambiguation page for all guilds sharing that name, or,
 * if there is only one guild of that name, redirected to that guild's article.

Conflict with non-guild article

If the guild name is the same as the name of an existing, non-guild article, then: If a disambiguation article does not exist, create one at Articlename (disambiguation). Include links to the original article and any guilds of that name (e.g. create Conviction (disambiguation), with links to Conviction, Conviction (Steamwheedle Cartel US) and Conviction (Suramar US).)
 * If a disambiguation article already exists, add the guild page links to that article (e.g. add the link to The Sundering (Cenarius US) to the disambiguation page Sundering.)

Near conflicts

If a guild's name is slightly different from, but likely to be confused with, a non-guild article, redirect Guildname to the non-guild article, and create a disambiguation page at Articlename (disambiguation). For example if the guild name is "The Brotherhood of the Horse", which could easily be confused with the article Brotherhood of the Horse:
 * 1) Make the page at The Brotherhood of the Horse a redirect to Brotherhood of the Horse.
 * 2) Create a disambiguation page at Brotherhood of the Horse (disambiguation) linking to Brotherhood of the Horse and The Brotherhood of the Horse (Cenarion Circle US).

Reasoning

This is generally similar to the above version, but incorporates some changes based on the discussion below. Primarily, it requires the location ("EU/US" etc.) to always follow the realm name. This will provide greater consistency, and make guild article names easy to determine without having to check whether there is a US and European version of the realm. It also includes clarification on how to handle a couple of potential situations would could arise.

Option 3

 * Full policy text and proposal: User:Montag/Guild pages

All guild articles will be moved to the Guild namespace. From then on, all guilds will be created and maintained in the Guild namespace. Although all guild articles will still be in Category:Guilds, a guild article banner will no longer be required at the top of each guild page (thought this is optional). All articles will be followed by their server name and country code in parentheses. Example:. If only one guild exists with that name, it can make  a redirect to its own page. If more than one guild exists, the clean version will be made into a disambiguation page with a list of all those guild articles. 09:27, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Implementing the new policy
Sky sent me some guidelines on how to implement this policy effectively. It's going to take some repetitive work, but it's certainly not too big a task to take on for a couple dedicated people. I'll reprint some of the guidelines here:


 * 1) Check the history page to see if they have been updated since the beginning of February (date is arbitrary, so I figured just after TBC was released is the best date)
 * 2) If the article has been updated recently, we move it to Guild: and the proper parenthetical suffix
 * 3) If the article has been updated between 3 to 6 months ago, we tag it with Stub/Guild and wait out the appropriate 30 days.
 * 4) If the article has not been updated within the past 6 months (November?), we tag it with a speedydelete

Using these guidelines, we move as few pages as possible and clean out Category:Guilds. Sky's last suggestion involved making sure articles were sorted by guild name and didn't show up in the "G" section, but I'm pretty sure guild handles that properly. If it doesn't, we can edit it so it does. ~

I'd also love if someone made sure that new editors can easily and correctly start guild pages. That is, trace the path a new editor has to take from the Main Page to starting a guild article for their guild and make sure it isn't too confusing, too long or too obtuse. I may have some time for this myself, but it'd be easier for me if someone else handled it and wrote up recommendations for changes either here or on the Village pump. 11:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Discussion

 * I think that many authors of guild pages start at the corresponding server pages, where red links are. Though I have no idea how we can place a note there except on the server pages directly -watchout 14:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Speaking from personal experience, it was quite easy for me to go from the home page to find this page with instructions on how to correctly name my guild page. Also, shouldn't this policy be changed from Ratified to Adopted? Psyche 13:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * It is not Adopted until all guild pages are correctly named and have the correct templates according to the policy. I havn't checked, but is it allready done? Linkan 15:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Defunct Guilds: Delete 'em?
Often, when a guild runs dry and turns belly up, an author of the guild page will mark the page for deletion and go on with life. Sometimes, they merely leave a note saying the guild broke up and where some of the members went. In this case, should we delete the page after a certain amount of time, say, 6 monthes? Unless the guild made a true impression on the game, I feel any longer then this is rather silly. If a page hasn't been edited in a long time, it's also possible to check the Armory to see if any members are still in it. --Mikaka 07:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Alternatively, just look above! Wowpedia talk:Guild pages policy. :) --Sky (t · c · w) 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had this conversation before. :) User talk:Montag --Sky (t · c · w) 07:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Laurlybot Patrolling
As you may or may not have noticed over the last week User:Laurlybot has been cleaning up Category:Guilds. For a full list of what she does exactly to a guild page please check her user page. Note: I still run her checks manually so that i can babysit her while she is processing to approve the changes. Once she is stable i will set her up for a daily run.Laurly 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can/should bot remove the Tag

 * Assuming she finds a server for a guild and that guild does in fact exist on said server she is able to make sure the page complies with guild page policy. ex. She fixes the name, adds all the correct categories, makes sure its tagged  . Laurly 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The only categories she cant make comply with policy is
 * ,, – Choose the one which most closely matches your play-style.

My question is should i have her remove the tag? Once she is done the page should now complies with everything else. Should we wait for a human to come and add, , ?Laurly 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Guild Page Length
There are a lot of guild that have simply a link to there web page i SD'ed most of them but there are some others that simply have one line saying who the guild leader is or something like that. Do we want to require some size like must be more then 100 characters minus all the categories tags and template tags?Laurly 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sub Category
The bot has been getting confused on guild sub page's that appear in the guild category. Should these be in a sub category under the guild page itself? If they are then we will need a new tag that places on the page the same text but wont force it into the guilds category like does. If we allow them to stay in the guild category then potently we have a lot of pages cluttering that category up.Laurly 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with moving them to sub categories is that i will have to have the bot scan the sub cat to add SD if the guild is disbanded but thats doable.Laurly 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming Policy
We need a naming policy on these as well. i have seen "Guild: Guildname/progression",    "Guild: Guildname (Servername/progression)" ,"Guild: Guildname-progression(Servername)" and probably a few others.Laurly 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok thats it sorry i added so much. I signed each section to make it easer for others to reply there. Laurly 07:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirects
Removed information regarding the creation of redirects, they are unneeded. If the articles are named properly, conflicts are not possible. -- 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Members and History
The Guild Template mentions that things on the guild page could be related to Roleplaying or the like. Is that a hint to say that making pages for guild toons/members is ok? Like Guild:The_Claw_%28Deathwing_EU%29/Leord. Also, compressing over three years worth of history into a few paragraphs leaves much details out. What would be an optimal longest history section, or for that matter rules or guild progress? --Leord 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition to the policy - Images on guild stub pages
I would like to add to the policy a provision which would disallow images to be uploaded which are solely for use on guild stub pages (i.e., guild banners, logos). This will reduce the amount of clutter admins would have to clean up when a stub is removed after 30 days, and if someone wants to use a custom image, it encourages them to completely fill out their guild page. The provision may also help reduce any bandwidth theft. Thoughts/ideas? -- 16:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am reticent to create too many rules for guild pages. I can understand it as a guideline, but a policy to remove in-use images just makes me a little uncomfortable. 18:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for allowing one image for guild banner/logo, and everything apart from that is not needed. As been said before, WoWWiki is not a substitute for guild websites. 13:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Leave a Reason
I would like to propose a change or addition to the enforcement section of this policy encouraging users to enter a reason when marking a Guild page as a stub. The stub tag can be added for several reasons - the editor may be creating a page they intend to complete at a later time, an editor may find the page doesn't contain required information, etc. As a result, it can be difficult to determine if the problem has been corrected but the tag left on by mistake. Newer editors may also not be able to find why their page was marked as a stub.

The Stub/Guild template does currently have support for a reason to be supplied, although this does not appear to be documented at this time. The format for using Stub/Guild with a reason is the following: Reason.

Change to the Policy: List of guild members
This proposal is to make a change to Wowpedia:Guild pages policy.

Proposed change
We should change:

Posting the following types of information will result in your guild page being edited or deleted:
 * A complete list of guild members

To:

Posting the following types of information will result in your guild page being edited or deleted:
 * A complete list of guild members. A list of links to WoWWiki pages for a guild's characters, however, is acceptable.

Reasoning
There is currently no way to link a guild's page to the pages of its members. The link can only be one-way, from the character back to the guild. A savvy user could use "What links here" to access information about a guild's members, but an average user would not know to do so.

The specific situation that gave rise to this suggestion is a navbox I created for my guild. The box featured a list of active character pages and was designed to appear at the bottom of the guild page and the character pages. In a guild with more than a hundred characters, about ten were listed in the navbox at the time it was deleted.

One could argue that this change is redundant; that the policy already implies a non-complete list of members is acceptable. In practice this has not been clear enough to allow the sort of list I describe. This change would clarify the intent of the policy so that it is properly enforced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by.

Votes

 * Yes :


 * No :

Comments
What if a guild had, say, five members. If they were all important, would a full list be allowed? BobNamataki (talk) 13:39, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction shouldn't be whether or not the five members are important, but whether or not each of the five have WoWWiki pages that fulfill all the requirements of the player character page policy. If all five do, then yes, the guild should be able to list all five members.  Dmleach (talk) 12:23, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a character page on wowwiki indicates at least nominally that they have/do/will update the status of that character. One point to not having 'simple lists of members' is that it provides no particular benefit to anyone else.  Here, there is content for those particular members. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 00:42, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a big gap between 'A complete list of guild members [is not allowed]' and 'Links to player character pages on WoWWiki are not allowed'.-- 00:47, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * The original intent of that part of the policy, I think, is to avoid needing continual maintenance to guild pages, even to the point of being able to replace a guild's website. I am not pro-wikisquatting but I can understand having a partial list of some of the more important members, trending toward the entire guild is pushing it though.  So I'm not real sure where to draw the line. -- 00:51, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * While I won't argue the transient nature of character pages themselves, I would be hard pressed to argue against links to the character page. ... particularly if said character page had a link back to the guild. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:02, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree regarding the "big gap" SWM mentioned. The problem is that the list of links to character pages I created was deleted by an admin because the policy is not crystal clear. --Dmleach (talk) 17:19, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

There isn't anything like a roleplaying wiki for guilds is there? BobNamataki (talk) 10:57, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Ooh baby, a proposal from before the wiki split! I feel silly diving in, but hey, proposal's still open.

The rest of the policy makes two things clear about the intent of character lists on guild pages: They're primarily for giving readers contact info for guild officers; and they update infrequently (not "whenever a character joins or leaves"), to stop squatters using the wiki as a full guild page. Note that the policy does not mention character pages AT ALL. A list of officers may or may not include links to character pages, that has no bearing on whether the list is "legal". Keep in mind that with in-game mail, even the character's name alone (together with the faction and server already present on guild pages) serves as contact information. This is not to say links can't be included - but they should only be there if that character would be listed otherwise.

Let's talk about the proposer's usage: As an index to guild members' personal pages. To me this is a form of squatting - the wiki page was being used as a hub to organize open-ended amounts of information that any member chooses to post. The fact that member X has a character page is not relevant to an outsider. The fact that member X is an officer is what's relevant!

I would advise dmleach to think about what purpose the list serves. If it gives readers a picture of the rank structure and provides names of notable members in various positions, then label it as such - admins will see it serves an essential, informative purpose! If it instead promotes the fact that a number of guild members made personal pages, that is a job for the guild's own website - but feel free to document the link to that website!

Let's talk length: Currently the list should be "short". We could come up with a number for this, but I think the better rule of thumb is to look to the rest of the policy to see if the list's purpose is legitimate. If it's just an arbitrary collection of members, why is it there? On the other hand, if it is a list of key positions and those who hold them, the correct length would depend on the guild structure.

So let's come back to the policy language: I see no change needed, and certainly no change to predicate lists on the presence of character pages. The "what is allowed" section already makes it clear that member lists are to be short and purpose-oriented. Furthermore it seems silly to add a sentence about what "is acceptable" to the "Not allowed" section. An alternative to this proposal might be adding "A (short) list of important members and their roles in the guild" in the "What is allowed" section. For now, I vote no. - jerodast (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Guild/PC crosslinkage?
Perhaps it would aid the cause here, if... I can imagine ways of making this work. This isn't my area of knowledge, substitute a different template for PC, if applicable. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 22:02, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) PC also included current guild.
 * 2) Guild linkages to the character were by transclusion:
 * 3) Said transclusion caused the name to appear  if the guild on the character page and the current page (in the guild namespace) did not match.


 * I added a guild parameter for into PC/dev for character pages to link to their guild page (if one is created). Not sure if anything else needs to be added to insure it works well, but it could be merged over when someone with more knowledge of this approves it. Though leaving the realm and loc parameters empty will easily break it. 22:31, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Vote to recall
It seems to me that the Guild namespace is by and large unused, since about the time of the move from Wikia. I generated a list of all pages in the Guild namespace ordered by the date they were last edited and the user who last edited them here. Because the most recent changes are bots or otherwise site-wide maintenance edits it seems like they are just adding work to maintain. I believe it is time to recall the policy. The way I picture the ensuing changes if the recall is successful is this:
 * 1) Pages in the Guild namespace should either be moved to the main namespace (for especially notable guilds only, I'd say - multiple world firsts or otherwise acknowledged by Blizzard), or they would fall under the personal articles policy and be moved to a user subpage or deleted. (Due to the next step, they should be moved out of the guild namespace even if they are to be deleted because they will be much harder to restore otherwise)
 * 2) Once cleared, the Guild and Guild talk namespaces would be disabled.

Votes

 * Recall :


 * Keep :

Comments
Who gets to handle the deletion or keeping of "famous" guilds? Also, we still have WIP projects like the TCG cards and the portals that were left unfinished, it'd feel weird to me to start another one without finishing them first :o Xporc (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that if the recall vote passes we can start discussing the means by which it's carried out. --Dark T Zeratul (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)