Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Guild pages

I disagree. As long as the same considerations are used when making/editing a user page, this should be a carryover. I would also like to see the restrictions relaxed on guild pages in terms being formed templates. Yes, they should ideally point to guild web sites, but this is not always possible and using them for reasons prohibited on GWW (message board, etc) would encourage users to use the wiki more often and make contributions elsewhere here. -elviondale (tahlk) 13:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The Guild Page is ideal to direct would-be guild invitees, so they can think whether our guild is the right one for them. josəph 13:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (edit: added sig)

IMO the only people who read them are members and RC watchers RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 13:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, which really is the same audience as one's talk page. The current thinking is that policies need to be less restrictive, and last time I checked, this game was called Guild Wars -elviondale (tahlk) 14:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Do we have an NPA policy here? RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 15:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

/agree with elviondale. Keep the ability to create guild pages, get rid of all the ridiculous rigidity about how they have to be formatted and what they can be used for. I don't think we really need a whole policy for guild pages, though. Maybe a guideline. --Edru viransu 15:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Think I'll echo Edru here - regardless of whetheror not people read them, I think guild pages should be allowed, and I see no reason why there should be an entire policy about them. Is there a policy on how to write an armor article? Both armor and guilds are features of Guild Wars. Armond 15:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

allow guild pages imo -FireFox 16:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree: They cluttered the RC list and Wanted Pages on GWW. They were very rarely looked at except by members and RC watchers. And to Elviondale, user talk pages are used to communicate to the users a lot more than guild talk pages for guild members. For example, Eloc's talk page gets way more than his guild page. They are absolutely unnecessary. Calor (t) 18:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed policy, but agree that the restrictions on format and content should be relaxed from those on GWW. IMO allowing a broader use of guild pages would only increase the contributions to other areas of the wiki by people who otherwise may not. Learning that I could create a linked page for my guild is what brought me to GWW in the first place.-- Wynthyst 18:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

One way or the other, we'd better decide soon. Somebody's getting around to making guild-related pages. Calor (t) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I personly don't use GWW as there are so many Guild Pages. RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 21:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind. Guild pages in userspace, imo. --Edru viransu 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I used GWW because GW died after Wikia move. And I'm perfectly fine with people mentioning their guild in their userspace. Calor (t) 21:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you see as the advantage of using userspace, over using guildspace? Backsword 21:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, except that it doesn't clutter up the main namespace. I just don't want guild pages to have either official sanction, but I also don't want them to be forbidden in userspace. I'm going to write up a proposal of my own for this. --Edru viransu 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, feel free to wipe this one. ( I made it) RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 21:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Perhaps I worded my previous comment wrong, assuming that question is towards me. I don't want a page that's Guild:Name Goes here. If someone had, say two paragraphs and a pic of their guild's cape on their userpage, that's fine. And I really like Edru's idea now, for his reasons stated. Calor (t) 21:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want a world of Guild:xxx in RC RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 21:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

K, my proposal is here. It allows some notable guilds to have guild pages or their information collected, but other than guilds with actual tangible notability(confirmed inspiration for game events, dev members, winning tournaments, etc.), they would have to be kept to userspace. --Edru viransu 22:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Added link RT | Talk - A joyous wintersday to all 22:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok... here's a question to consider on this issue.... is Anet planning to integrate a guild link in GW2 as they have in GW? I guess, I don't see any reason why someone would be creating guild pages here yet when there is no such thing as a GW2 guild yet as there is no GW2 game. But maybe I'm just being reasonable... :P -- Wynthyst 23:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just leave this policy in the aether until Guild Wars 2 is actually released (or in beta), so we know exactly how guilds function, and whether or not guild pages here will have any significance. -- br12 • (talk) • 23:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly too early for a guild page policy at this point. We can start discussing it once we get to the last few weeks before release when we most likely have more information on how guilds work in gw2. -- (gem / talk) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, however its still called Guild Wars. If you have a problem with Guild: in the RC, filter it out. Just a few clicks and their gone. It should also be noted that there is officially no guild namespace at the moment. -elviondale (tahlk) 23:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally! Thank you Gem. I thought no one even noticed that oh-so-obvious thing about this proposal. Discussing about guild pages when we don't even even have a single piece of useful information on how guilds will turn out in GW2? Go discuss something else, like copyrights, personal attacks, content scope, adminship, and community behavior instead. A discussion on even user pages is better than this one. Guild pages are very trivial at this point. If any of you have a issue about the policy on GWW, go complain about it over there. It's way more effective than trying to set up something for something that basically non-existent at this point. -- ab.er.rant 02:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not one to brag, but read the comment above Gem's. Cough. -- br12 • (talk) • 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, let's kill the discussion. But don't delete the page, so we have a record ten months from now of the conversation and who said what and what valid points were brought up. Calor (t) 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages with content aren't deleted. But the proposal page should be deleted. -- (gem / talk) 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW I used guildpages when I was looking for a guild, it's not just guildies and RC patrol.reanor 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So did I, and I'm sure we'll be making a policy that allows guild pages (unless something really weird happens). But not now, let's see later on when the game is near release. -- (gem / talk) 00:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should allow guild pages before the public beta. -- Gordon Ecker 09:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

/agree. No GW2 guilds until then. Calor (t) 15:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)