A Villain Unmasked

Votes

Yes:

1. Yes Ralthor 17:37, 24 May 2006 (EDT) - (I wrote it so I like it, but I am sure some people can find some improvements)
2. Yes User:TopDread - (no comment)
3. Yes Mikk 06:42, 7 June 2006 (EDT) - (I love it!)
4. Yes Zonkk 07:31, 7 June 2006 (EDT) - (Looks good)
5. Yes Aeleas 11:05, 12 June 2006 (EDT) - (Looks perfect.)
6. Yes Schmidt 11:37, 12 June 2006 (EDT) - (See below.)
7. Yes Emcepticon 11:19, 15 June 2006 (EDT) - (It's silly to have pages that are nothing more than redirects, I agree wholeheartedly.)
8. Yes Kirkburn 07:53, 17 June 2006 (EDT) - ()
9. Yes Kitsunei 07:46, 18 June 2006 (EDT) - ()
10. Yes Muffinman 18:19 30 August 2006 (EDT) - ()

The YES votes are currently winning by 9-1. This policy will become ratified on June 19 unless the situation changes. --Mikk 13:56, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

No:

1. No Fandyllic 4:34 PM PDT 13 Jun 2006 - (I think these rules are overly restrictive... by this standard we should have even more restrictive policies for player pages.)

Comments

• If this goes into force, remember to touch up {{Stub/Guild}} and create [[:Category:Stubs/Guild]]. --Mikk 07:04, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

• I added a link to {{Violation/Guild}} to the article. This one should be brushed up A LOT if this goes into force. --Mikk 17:36, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

• Oh, and the {{Guild}} template should probably get a <small> pointer to the policy to make it easier to spot for people setting up new guild pages. --Mikk 18:20, 7 June 2006 (EDT)

• I strongly believe that guilds should be able to post recurring activities, such as "We go to BRD every weekend" or "We go to some high level each weekend: First weekend of the month, BRD; second weekend of the month, LBRS", etc. And I think upcoming activities that aren't normally recurring are fine, because it kind of gives you an idea of what they're planning so you can see whether you'd be interested. Everything else looks fine to me. Schmidt 11:37, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Phrased like that, yeah, I agree. I think we all agree that WoWWiki shouldn't be the guild calendar though, i.e. a replacement of their own site. Perhaps we can just rephrase the policy to reflect that better? --Mikk 13:55, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Accordingly, I added a "periodic events, if weekly or monthly periodic" as allowed on the project page. Restate as necessary. Also, I just rethought the events that aren't normally recurring. I'm not sure that's such a great idea, or at least I couldn't think of a way to word that idea, so I didn't edit that in. Anyone else can, if you want. Schmidt 14:23, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

I rephrased it in somewhat more general terms (didn't like the precise weekly/monthly requirement), but added emphasis on the fact that we want things that are useful to people outside the guild, not just existing guild members. ( = Don't wikisquat please). --Mikk 15:48, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

• I don't understand why upcoming events can't be posted on a guild page. For the the smaller guilds who occasionally participate in raids with larger guilds you can't always know on a regular basis when an event will happen. Someone please explain. BTW, I will probably try to start a recall vote of this policy if it gets passed as is, but only if many makers of guild pages complain (which is unlikely). --Fandyllic 4:40 PM PDT 13 Jun 2006

Because continually posting what's going on ("hey peeps, I just talked to the GM of <foo> and we're going to ZG with them tomorrow, so get online!") means they're Wikisquatting and should get their own server? --Mikk 17:46, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Yea thats my thought. The difference is using the wiki as your means of communicating with members and using the wiki to record information about your guild for the benefit of others. While I can see the benefit of posting the current schedule as an information source for others it seems to much like Wikisquatting for me and only really targets their guild members. I would probably make similar restrictions on player pages if I designed a policy for them because both player page and guild pages have the same problem. There are a bunch of pages with no/almost no links to them, uncategorized, and they don't provide enough information to be considered the least bit useful. Useless guild pages, however, far outnumber player pages, and with player pages you don't have to worry about wikisquatting. Someone could pottentially use their player page as a blog, but guilds are much more likely to wikisquat. --Ralthor 18:00, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Perhaps we can just tweak the text a wee bit to actually say what we don't want rather than try and beat around the bush? I personally wouldn't have a problem with e.g. a guild posting "We will open the Ahn'Qiraj gates on <server> on <date>". It IS kind of inter-guild communication, but it's a WIIIIDE audience. --Mikk 18:13, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Ok I removed the part about upcoming events and replaced it with the sentence below (slightly reworded) so it now has on it, "In general terms don't put any material on the page that requires it to be updated frequently or is only meant for members of the guild." --Ralthor 18:35, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

That seems better. I still don't like this as a policy. It should be a guideline. --Fandyllic 4:43 PM PDT 19 Jun 2006

A guideline doesn't let us omfgdelete pages that are utter useless bullmanure without having deletion votes running for half a year. :-(   --Mikk 18:03, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

lol Mikk. I guess you really want this place cleaned up. I feel that it should be a policy – enough to vote – but if it get's the {{vetoed}}, I can live with it. It would make the world a better place if all the guild pages were better constructed. But such a wish doesn't lend itself directly to policy. A firm guideline might be in order, where if we see a guild page with "bullmanure" in it and nothing of value, how about having a policy where we just clean that sucker up and get it out of here? How do you like that idea, Fandyllic, and everyone else? Schmidt 01:31, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

Yep. I can live with a policy that only consists of the "required information" that's currently here (I doubt anyone has a problem with that bit?!), and move everything else to a guideline. The "Don't Post" however I guess is an expansion of the old DNP section that basically said "don't wikisquat". I suppose Rustak should chime in here since he's the one paying for the bandwidth; it's not my problem =)   --Mikk 05:28, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

Well I am not sure what you would move, required information needs to be policy, DNP stuff is an expansion of another policy. You could move the allowed, but I think that information, while obviously more 'guideline' material, helps to clear up the difference between providing information and wikisquating. We could move that to guidelines, but it seems that that would mess up the flow if it just pulled out that part and tossed it into a guideline. One thing I keep forgetting to bring up here is a definite guideline type item. In Help:Guild_article, which I used as a base for this policy, there is a line in bad info that says, " Don't make a page for a dead guild – If you want a guild remembered, put it in the guild page of the live guild where members went. " If people agree with this we could add something like that to the guidelines since it is pretty much unenforcable.--Ralthor 08:58, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

• Whoop de doo. 200+ pages in the wastebin, err, sorry, Stubs/Guild category. The amount of pages that were nothing but 3 category tags with no content was staggering. As was the number of pages that was just an URL. I haven't been trying to count sentences (hah! only 2! in the bin you go!), but I've been a bit cranky about guilds not saying what server they're on. Makes the page a bit pointless imo.   Anyway, I foresee lots of work in 30 days (July 29). --Mikk 17:48, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

• Stating the Guild pages to be posted here should be geared towards prospective guild members. Listing of recurring battles or meetings should then only be shown for new member meet and greets, this would help the guilds and limit the guilds from posting their full page on here.

User:Muffinman 30 August 2006

Implementation details

• When old guild pages are found to violate policy, I assume that the reasonable thing to do is apply the 30-day limit to their violations (counted from tagging the page with {{Violation/Guild}})? --Mikk 18:20, 7 June 2006 (EDT)
  • Violation can just be fixed, they don't need to be deleted... I made a check list here of implementation items.

• [√] Add Policy page to its proper place. (I'm actually not sure where this proper place is, either leave it here or add it to WoWWiki:Writing policy and remove this page, where ever it should be consitent with where we plan on putting specific rules for page types i.e. WoWWiki:Fan fiction policy & WoWWiki:Lore policy.

This seems right to me. --Mikk 11:29, 18 June 2006 (EDT)

Done. --Mikk 17:21, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

• [√] Remove link on WoWWiki:Writing policy that says it is a proposal

Done. --Mikk 17:30, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

• [√] Update {{Stub/Guild}} with the 30 days deletion policy

Done (by Fandyllic ~5 minutes before I went to do it. Effin mindreaders =)) --Mikk 17:30, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

• [√] Add reference to WoWWiki:Deletion policy#Speedy Delete explaining that a guild stub can me marked for speedy delete if it has been marked as a stub for more than 30 days with no improvement. (None should be marked speedy delete until 30 days after this policy takes effect)

Done. I didn't specifically reference this policy, but rather said that violation of other policies can result in speedydelete. I specifically did not want to mention timeframes since it becomes a pain to update duplicate information. --Mikk 17:54, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

• [√] Update {{Violation/Guild}} to point to this page (or whever it ends up going)

Done. --Mikk 17:21, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

• [√] Deprecate WoWWiki:DNP policy#Guild pages and have it point here

Actually, DNP should explain that there are several "Do NOT"s in the writing policy and point at that in general. --Mikk 11:29, 18 June 2006 (EDT)

Done. --Mikk 17:21, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

• [] Update Help:Guild_article to reflect the new policy

Imo, it needs to point at the policy a lot more often. It's a bit too specific about things to put in the page and not. People might take it for policy. --Mikk 03:33, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

• [] Ensure Boilerplate:Guild is still a good starting point for a guild page and conforms to the new policy (I think it does)
• [√] Notify New Page Patrol Team of changes so they can ensure new pages conform to the policy.

Done. --Mikk 17:54, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

Thats all I can think of, the hard part will be enforcing those pages that already exist. In general probably do these things:

• When you find a guild page, ensure that it meets the required information. If it doesn't: add the content required. If you can't add the content: mark it as a stub.
• If you find a guild page in violation of policy, fix the violation and leave a note on the talk page. Or: if you don't have the desire to fix it or are not sure how to do it, mark it with {{Violation/Guild}} and explain the violation on the talk page.

--Ralthor 18:30, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

• All the quick stuff done. Only the tedious jobs left now. All yours, Ralthor :-)   (Well, ok, or anyone else. Not me =))   --Mikk 18:01, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

Implementation check

I was updating the Gilneas guild list and raid progression and ran into several duplicate guild names. For example, the stub on two different server lists pointed to Storm which had text for a guild on a third server, but not the first two. Per the instructions here, I created Storm (Gilneas), Storm (Firetree) and Storm (Icecrown). The first two are now compliant Guild pages and the third is a Guild stub. Storm is now a disambiguation page. Does it need to even be there or can it be a candidate for deletion?

On another note, though, I was also tooling through the list of uncategorized pages and categorizing guild articles, and applying the policy seems to be pretty straightforward. There is still plenty to do (I did not find this Policy until I was partway through, so I fear some of my work will have to be gone over again) but it should not take a long long time. Luci 06:04, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

Whoot! Great work! And yeah, the "Storm" page should be a disambiguation page; especially since a guild used to have its page there (ok, it was a stub but still =)). --Mikk 07:03, 29 June 2006 (EDT)

Policy Adjustment Suggestion - Article Naming

With the increase in actual and potential naming conflicts between the variety of Guild names and in-game terms and abilities, I'd like to suggest looking at modifying the policy to enforce Guild article naming to be within a certain namespace. I would suggest:

• Guild:Our Guild

or preferrably

• Server:Our Server/Our Guild (suggested by DarkRyder)

I understand there would be a bit of work involved if the change was accepted, and would be willing to assist in moving the related articles. I think it is important to continually be improving the methods of organizing as the Wiki grows and more users use it for both Guild-related purposes and in-game information. --Tusva 11:54, 7 November 2006 (EST)

I'd prefer [[Guild:Our Guild]] over the other suggestion. Tacking a guild onto the server name just gets too unwieldy. However, [[Guild:Our Guild]] doesn't solve the problem with guilds on multiple servers, so the current system seems good enough for now. I'd have to say that game terms and abilities have precedence over guilds, in most cases. --Fandyllic (talk) 9:25 AM PST 7 Nov 2006

As an extension of that, Guild:Our Guild could become Guild:Our Guild (Burning Blade US). And though I've definitely seen that normal terms and abilities have precedence, I'm concerned that the amount of manual disambiguation implementation that will have to be done down the road could be avoided by organizing them a bit better. Considering we also give name spaces to Quests as well, I guess I'm looking for a bit of continuity. --Tusva 12:32, 7 November 2006 (EST)

I agree with Fandyllic. I'm more in favor of the Guild:Our Guild format because some guilds do span multiple servers, although this is more the exception than the rule. I think the Server:Our Server/Our Guild format implies an inaccurate relationship between Server and Guild, since entire guilds do sometimes exhibit more complex behavior (multiple servers per guild, for instance). Guild:Our Guild (Our Server) looks better and allows for more flexibility. We could also use disambig pages to quell any confusion, or simply tack a tag at the top of the page, For the many guilds named Burning Legion, check Guild:Burning Legion (disambig).

Of course, there's always the nightmare of Guild:Burning Legion (Burning Legion US), but any of these schemes are going to have fun articles like that. User:Montag/sig 14:27, 7 November 2006 (EST)

I disagree. The relationship between server and guild is absolute, because that's how the game works. You can have a guild with the same name and the same players on another server, but it's not the same literal guild. Setting up a redirect from [[Server:New Server/Our Guild]] to [[Server:Old Server/Our Guild]] in the rare case that a guild conceptually spans servers seems like a lot less effort and confusion than trying to disambiguate all the popular guild names. --DarkRyder 12:39, 8 November 2006 (EST)

I'd just prefer having it like it is to be honest. The wiki way just names articles straight up as they are without complicating them, making linking easy, and guessing articles easy. If there's ever a conflict, disambig pages work just fine imo.   --Mikk (T) 16:12, 7 November 2006 (EST)

Second that. User:Montag/sig 02:11, 8 November 2006 (EST)

I guess I'm just a bit confused by the implemented naming conventions of Quests and Servers, as it would appear there is an effort to further organize article names by type, yet there is a lot of resistance to doing the same for Guilds, especially so since the names of the guild articles are completely arbitrary (meaning, whatever the GM decided to call it) and will obviously result in disambigs. Further, the confusion with the guild Conviction (Conviction (guild) Conviction (Guild) exemplifies the problem and would directly benefit from a new naming scheme. (Guild:Conviction (Doomhammer US) & Guild:Conviction (Steamwheedle Cartel US) for example, regardless of the former guild now being closed apparently.) --Tusva 02:30, 8 November 2006 (EST)

Creating a disambiguation is the easiest there.. People will find the guild they're looking for anyway :) --Tinkerer 03:06, 8 November 2006 (EST)

Is it really worth trying to disambiguate so many popular pages? The server I play on most frequently (Draenor US) already has guilds named Chimaera (mob), Destruction (talent tree), Illuminati (PC), Instance (!), Maelstrom (location), Relentless (guild on another server), [Valor] (talent tree), and Silithid Royalty (bosses). Eight conflicts on a single, backwater-ish server sounds to me like we have a potentially serious problem developing here. It would be nice to do what we can to resolve it sooner rather than later.

There's also the issue of how easy it is to find a particular page. If there's a policy that guild pages are found at [[Guild:GuildName (ServerName US)]] (or [[Server:ServerName US/GuildName]] or whatever is decided upon), then there is only one place to go looking for a guild page. Right now, that guild could be found at [[GuildName]], [[GuildName Guild]], [[GuildName guild]], [[GuildName (Guild)]], [[GuildName (guild)]], [[GuildName (Server)]], or [[GuildName (Server US)]]. (I've seen most of these variants already.) --DarkRyder 12:39, 8 November 2006 (EST)

Instead of re-linking every main article to a disambig page just because there happens to be a guild with that name, we can stick a tag at the top For other uses of Chimaera, see [[Chimaera (disambig)]], and include the guild on that page. It becomes a trade-off between strict organization and intuitive linking. However, standards are important for any sort of organization to take place. I think the [[Guildname (Server)]] pattern is best for linking purposes. It also clearly defines the article as a guild, since no other article needs to be followed by a server name. There are some out there titled [[Guildname (guild)]]; they would have "guild" changed to their server name to conform to this standard, should it be adopted.

As far as finding guilds, Category:Guilds lists all pages with the {{guild}} tag. Categories are much better as a navigational tool than namespaces. User:Montag/sig 13:12, 8 November 2006 (EST)

This is what we're doing already.

* If only guilds conflict, we use a disambig page at MyGuild which links to MyGuild (Server A) and MyGuild (Server B)

* If a guild page conflicts with WoW content, we put a "See also MyGuild (disambig) at the top of the article, which lists the guilds, and also the main article

  --Mikk (T) 05:54, 10 November 2006 (EST)

I like the idea of a Guildname (Server) format, it would at least do something to address a future of heavy disambigs. Any further input? Is this something that can be voted on in any degree? --Tusva 08:54, 9 November 2006 (EST)

Namespace them. I'm in support of namespacing guilds. Guild:Our Guild works best, I think. This problem stems from the fact that some guilds are named after Warcraft artifacts or terminology. It's confusing. In the event that two guilds share the same name, they should probably both be renamed to Guild:Our Guild (Our Server).--Hobinheim 21:24, 12 November 2006 (EST)

I don't quite like the namespace idea because it's somewhat redundant. If it's standard that every guild article is followed by its server, then we know the article is a guild page just by looking at it, which is essentially the problem the namespace solution would solve. You do away with the need for disambigs by putting notes at the top or bottom of main articles that coincide with guild articles, because the main articles are more important anyway. User:Montag/sig 01:07, 13 November 2006 (EST)

Bringing this up again, considering it still isn't very clear what the policy is around this. Either way, for the sake of sorting the guilds in the guildscategory, make sure the name starts with the guildname followed by the server (this means no Namespacing). Wether you put the server between brackets, or use a guildname/Servername with a disambiguation (hate that word ><) on the mainpage (the one called guildname) If it was already decided, then make it clear somewhere what the exact policy is. Don't make it something vague like "If it coincides, then add...". One rule which all guilds have to follow! That means that the ink must start with the guildname and end with the servername (with a distinction between US and EU) This was my 2 cents, now handle it! ^^ --Patrigan 21:24, 24 December 2006 (EST)

Guildnames and their WoWwiki space!

Just making sure it doesn't get forgotten, made a note on the Village Pump as well. We REALLY Must make it a rule in stone that a guild should ALWAYS be followed by it's server. At the moment, people just need to do that when it collides with another article. That can just give us extra work in the occasions that Blizzard decides toi do something with that word. Per example, Storm has been brought up. Those guilds have been changed and the page is now a disambithingy page, with the server between brackets behind it. Imagine that this disamthingy wasn't done, then we would most probably be facing a problem, seeing that the BC brings quite a lot of "Storm"s. So we have to change the Guild Policy article into saying that ALL Guildpages must be followed by a Servername in Brackets (what the guild policy page tells us to do now WHEN it collides). No more vague thingy aboutwhen colliding this and colliding that. No, it's simple to me. EVERYTHING must follow the Guildname (Servername) rule. Sorry, if I sounded harsh btw, but it's getting quite important now --Patrigan - Talk - SH (EU) 19:19, 26 December 2006 (EST)

I support this. -- Kirkburn (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2006 (EST)

As with all proposed policy changes... If you follow the WoWWiki:Policy votes process, pretty much anything you want can become policy. You'll even notice they even take effect when some important admins (like me) disagree. --Fandyllic (talk) 9:50 PM PST 26 Dec 2006