Template talk:Guild

Image in tag template

← moved from Project talk:Guild pages

This may not be the right place to address this ... but I see that the official wiki has the same shortcoming as GuildWiki when resizing .png images. There is a patch to fix that problem; but seeing as it's not currently installed here, can we use a different image, at least for now? In the current png resize, it's showing extremely pixelated, and the colors aren't being rendered correctly. --Barek 10:35, 14 February 2007 (PST)

This is because the wiki does not use ImageMagick for image twiddling. It looks fine in my test wiki[1], which does use ImageMagick. As a stopgap measure I can upload a 100x100 version of this image, but ideally LordBiro or someone should cook us a better image altogether. S 12:58, 14 February 2007 (PST)

For reference, the above discussion is about Image:Guild Emblems Circle.png, which has now been replaced. S 04:36, 15 February 2007 (PST)

As much fun as it would be, I managed to resist the temptation to edit this, adding a comment about my guild that would thus be included on every other guild's page. And if I am tempted, someone else will be as well, and someone will be unable to resist such. Ketai 03:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Suggesting it should be protected? - BeXoR 10:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Exactly so. For that matter, many common templates, even images like would be at risk from prankster vandals. While it may get them banned from editing, it may be worth it for those with no intention of editing anyhow, and such isn't a violation of the GW Eula so there wouldn't be grounds for banning them from that. In short, to someone with no intention of editing in the future, there are no repercussions to messing with commonly used templates. Ketai 01:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Protecting a page is usually seen as a last resort measure and is done as rarely as possible. Limiting editing access to any pages is somewhat against the point of a wiki. If someone vandalises an article, he (or she!) will get banned. If he (or she!) vandalises it again, he (or she!) will get banned again, for a longer duration. If multiple users (anon IPs and such) do the same, the page may be temporarily protected until the waters calm down; it really works on an as-needed basis. There's not much reason to prematurely worry about this, it takes (exactly) two clicks to revert a vandal edit, and minutes later the vandaliser himself (or herself!) gets banned. :) --Dirigible 02:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Guild Category

Would it make sense to add a guild category tag ([[Category:Guild]]) to the template? —MarkL (talk - contribs) 12:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

No, that would include all guilds into the top tier of the guild categories. - BeXoR 22:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

That's the whole point, it would include all guilds into the top tier guilds category. I don't see why that's a bad idea; why else would you even have a Category:Guilds? —MarkL (talk - contribs) 16:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Categories are like a tree, you only add an article to the most specific category. Then when searching through guilds, they are sorted more easily. Category:Guilds is the parent category for the sub-categories PvP/PvE/PvX/etc guilds. - BeXoR 00:28, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

---

Is it possible to use this template without it automatically adding the category? I'd like to use the template on a guild subpage, which right now results in the guild being in the category two times. (Or should the template only be on the guild's main page?). --84-175 (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTOC

what do you guys think about adding the NOTOC tag on this template, most guild pages are short and don't need it, it would get rid of a lot of white space. Perhaps it is better to leave it up to individual guilds but I don't really see the harm in imposing it. --Lemming64 15:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the TOC is useless on guild articles. The sections usually aren't long enough anyway. - BeX 15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm it didn't work when I tried it... --Lemming64 00:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You might need to use includeonly tags. - BeX 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't work either, it must be something to do with it being a special command. --Lemming64 21:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove The Box?

Can I please get rid of the ugly box and just keep the category(All guilds)? It makes my guild page look bad. I think it is rather useless and unneeded.

Project Gnome 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The box is not there for aesthetic reasons, it's there to show that guild pages are not documenting official lore - basically for everything that's on the box. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It was implemented for a purpose (namely, making it clear that guild pages are not official content, and making the policy explicit). Sorry, but you're going to have to work with it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to hid it?

Project Gnome 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is for it to be shown. So no, you can't hide it. You're simply going to have to work with it. The guild pages program was not designed to support extensive formatting, it is a courtesy, not a right. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well-Thanks anyways.

Project Gnome 17:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I've created two images, one to replace the original guild icon and another to replace the notable icon. They're more consistent with each other now. See them at User:Brains12/Sandbox/Template:Guild. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice... May want to try to make the yellow one into gold, and the grey into silver, but i think it could work better than having two totally different images as of now.--Fighterdoken 22:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah very nice Plingggggg, although I've never been able to find a really good looking gold colour and all the silvers I've tried tend to look the same as grey :/ --Kakarot 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been using this palette, which really doesn't contain gold and silver. Shiny gold and silver don't really go well with tango icons. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So... is there opposition to the change on images? :)--Fighterdoken 08:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am not so fond of the notable icon, it doesn't look like an award so much and I don't know if people will really notice the difference. I think I should at least mention that the current guild icon is used by loads of people on user pages and guild pages, so if you want to change it for the notice box, you should rename it rather than replace it as not everyone is going to want it where they have the old one. -- Wynthyst 08:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The notable icon is still relatively shiny and gold-like, and seeing as it would only be on a handful of pages, people will recognise that it's different to the normal grey icon. It also keeps the consistency between the two versions and doesn't make it look like a whole different template box -- with this version of the notable icon, one can tell that it's just a modified version of the normal template, but special and notable in it's own right. -- Brains12 \ talk 09:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

They look mighty nice, I'd say. I like the fact that they're similar, yet the notable one has just a hint of stand-outedness. Nice work, Plingggggg. :D 09:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)~

Thanks. Another thing - I added an inactive guild icon and a historical guild icon on the same page, so take a look and comment please :). The clock icon was taken from Poke's new policy template icons, so more wiki-wide consistency :P. -- Brains12 \ talk 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I like having them look like totally different template boxes :P-- Wynthyst 17:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer going for consistency here, and picking Brains' proposal. Also, guild users who prefer to have different template boxes could still use something like the {{Notable guild}} tag (wait, was it deleted?).--Fighterdoken 19:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait a little while just so any opposers can .. well, oppose. I agree with what you said about other users using the current guild icon, so it would be a good idea to rename them -- Image:Tango guild icon.png, Image:Tango guild notable icon.png, Image:Tango guild inactive icon.png, Image:Tango guild historical icon.png ? -- Brains12 \ talk 19:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Wyn - are you content in having these images, or do you think we should still have something different? -- Brains12 \ talk 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Plingggggg!!! :P
Edit conflicts aside I do like the new version for the consistency in the actual text of the guild tag but I prefer the original medal icon for notable guilds. However if the new icon is chosen I'm not too bothered. --Kakarot 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I am not sure if using different images for the inactive tag is needed (since i think we don't remove the guild tag anymore when applying it), but i guess they could work for the historical tag.--Fighterdoken 22:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since some time passed without clear opposition (yeah, no clear support either, i know) went ahead and did the change that Brains proposed.--Fighterdoken 07:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the new images were created in anticipation of the changes to the policy that might be coming. I am still against changing the notable icon at least.-- Wyn 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Images could still apply to the current state, which was one of the reason why i went ahead, but more than anything my intention was to put some consistency in the images being used on the guild templates (the medal breaks the mood when compared to other wiki icons). I wouldn't oppose a revert if it's decided (since it's a change "just for the looks" after all), but i would prefer the change to stay if possible.--Fighterdoken 08:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My opposition comes after the positive feedback I received from members of the guilds that were tagged as notable when that change was implemented in June. They were all very pleased with the 'award medal' and felt it gave their page something special, which is what it was intended to do. I don't believe the new notable icon will have the same effect.-- Wyn 08:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try a mixture of the medal and the icon above. -- Brains12 \ talk 12:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:User Brains12 notable guild ribbon.png, Image:User Brains12 historical guild ribbon.png. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with those images, they still give the 'award' feeling while maintaining a consistency w/the new ones.-- Wyn 13:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

New icons

I like the new icons :D lol — ク Eloc 貢 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

date on the template

why is it saying articles must be changed by September 2009?? that is sometime away. --Lemming 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The note is for changes that need to be made to existing guild pages as per the new policy, and was set for 6 weeks from today to give guild page editors time to make the changes. This primarily affects the foreign language pages that now need to provide English summaries.-- Wyn 21:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA!! I just realized my typo on the date.. sorry it's been a busy day. Talk about being blind deaf and dumb since you are the 2nd person to point it out to me and I still didn't see it. -- Wyn 22:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable guilds

Currently the guilds that are tagged as Notable are guilds that have been recognized by Anet on http://www.guildwars.com/community/notableguilds/ or http://www.guildwars.com/community/guildweek/ (GotW has been shelved by Anet since March, 2008). It has been suggested that this list should be expanded to include the GvG tournament guilds that have placed in the top 16. Thoughts? -- Wyn 13:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, high ladder ranked guilds and guilds that consistently place high in monthly tournaments should be notable.

Here's a bit of my reasoning; ANet thought that was pretty good for notability as well. Look at the top guild listed here - didn't win a tournament, just placed rather high. Most of ANet's notable guilds are out of date... guilds now that place as high as Lamer's Ultimate Majority did back then don't get regularly added to the list. However, that shouldn't stop us from adding them. -Auron 13:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why ArenaNet shifting resources away from Guild Wars 1 should prevent the wiki from making them look bad. -Binary 19:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for top GvG guilds, how many times do they need to be in the top 8/16? Once? Could be a fluke. Twice? Maybe, but might be restrictive if just top 8. Three times? I would definitely say notable at this point. --JonTheMon 19:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there's a definite number of times. Lamer's Ultimate Majority placed twice then broke up, and they're listed on anet's notable list, so two is a definite starting point. -Auron 19:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have asked Emily what the status of the Notables page is, and what their criteria is for placement on that page, to use as a guideline for which guilds we should include. I would like to wait to make any changes until we get a reply from her. She's been very good about answering questions. -- Wyn 14:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Usage of {{guild|notable}} for gold trims / mAT wins

Since gold trims have been given out via automatic tournaments for some time now, I'm not sure we should keep using gold trims as a measure of notability for guilds. There are likely countless guilds out there with gold trims now; far more than can reasonably be considered notable. horrible | contribs 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I moved forward with the List of fansites with the same reasoning in the past and as the outdated concept applies here too, it makes sense to remove it now. We can leave a note somewhere that points out what a gold trim used to signify in the Guild Wars community. - Infinite - talk 20:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)