Talk:Guild List

From Scrolls Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Is the wiki the place for guilds to advertise themselves?

Hello, as I've seen you have started to create several pages concerning guilds. The question is, if a wiki is the right place for that. In my opinion, one page "Guild" makes sense, where someone can find some information about what guilds are in general. However, I strongly disagree that the wiki should contain information about every single guild. Firstly, there is already a whole forum section for guilds. Secondly, wiki pages for every guild could lead to massive edit spam, as every guild would want to keep their pages up to date with all kind of information. And last, a wiki should only contain information about community stuff to a certain extent. This means that one should find information about vital community features, but not with all the details. The wiki is not the place for guilds to advertise themselves!
I would therefore ask you not to create any more pages concerning guilds until we (the whole community is invited to participate) have come to a conclusion about this topic. Thanks ;) -- Lukigamer 16:12, 30 January 2014 (CET)

Hey thanks a lot Lukigamer for this feedback. I really apprechiate to hear everybodys opinion on that, because there are good arguments for and against wiki entries for guilds. I'll remove it if its not welcome and thats why I didn't put more efford into it so far. And thats why I just showed a really rough scatch from how guild sites could find a place here in the wiki. I try to pick up every single aspect from you to share my opinion. First: I don't want the guilds to do advertise here. Therefore they have the forum and recruit section. The guild sites should only inform about the actual state. Name, founder, condition to enter, memberlist, goals, logo - done. Its way more compact then and more convenient compared to collect all the infos from the forum. Of course you will see a lot more editing here in the wiki, but this only affects the "recent changes wiki tool". I don't even think that too many find this and use this tool. (I may be wrong!!) I agree that the guild list doesn't have to appear an the main page. Therefore we could have guilds as a site for guilds in general, explaining it. (But come on ;) I think guilds in general are well known) But personally I don't think a short guild list is not a big deal to implement. If needed. I think at the end it is a matter of taste. For sure the forum would be enough room for guilds to present theirselves, but personally I think a forum is always way to messy. But I understand if guild pages would pollute the wiki to much. I'd like to hear more opinions on that! :) --Falkenbur 17:22, 30 January 2014 (CET)
Thanks a lot for sharing your point of view! I'm not sure if a wiki entry would provide a more compact overview of a guild. If I wanted to know more about a certain guild, I'd just search for its forum thread. I think all guilds have the information you listed above (name, founder, members, ...) in the first post of their forum thread and they seem to keep it updated. Further points we have to consider: what makes a guild a "guild"? If I started a guild and it had 2 members, would I then be allowed to have my own wiki page? Strict guidelines that define what is a guild and what is not would be required... Furthermore, the main problem with guild pages is that they're everything but objective. And a wiki should always be as objective as possible. Finally, just for clarification: I didn't mean to say that I don't want more edits in the wiki. Actually, it's exactly the opposite! ;) I just don't like to see too many edits that express some subjective opinions of guild members etc.^^
And yes, I'd also like to hear more opinions on that. ;) -- Lukigamer 18:02, 30 January 2014 (CET)
I agree with Lukigamer. A (single) page about guilds would be nice, especially as Måns hinted that they may add in-game support for it in the future; but I don't think the wiki is the right place for guilds introduction, and creating separate pages for each guild would be too much IMO. The problems I see with this are:
  • It's neither official nor related to game contents.
  • Wikis are meant to be neutral and fair, so if we start adding some guilds to this wiki, we should either add all other existing guilds (which obviously isn't viable) or clearly state criteria that they must meet in order to appear in the list (fame? ranks? number of members? public events?).
  • To me, it would be to a certain extent similar to creating pages for each player in the game, which of course is inappropriate. So what does each guild add to the game that justifies to mention it in the wiki so that every player (not being interested in joining it) can learn about it?
  • It would be hard to keep all of them updated, and their updating must not depend on their members as most won't/can't contribute to this wiki (including guilds in other sites than ScrollsGuide).
  • It would be hard to keep consistency (which could already be improved in existing pages).
If something is still to be added on the wiki, I think a guild list/table with direct links to their introduction and/or recruitment forum threads would be enough/more appropriate. However, IMO such a list would be better/more visible in a sticky thread of the guilds forum sections. It would require someone to regularly update the list though, or a shared spreadsheet could be used. But if you want to create such a thread feel free to ask a moderator to stick it in the forum (link him/her our discussion if necessary).
BTW, although it has less visibility, each user has their own page in the User: namespace (e.g. User:Falkenbur) in which there's no guideline to follow, so guild founders can also introduce their guild there (possibly in a subpage with the guild name)... Then we could create a category for user pages introducing guilds and link it somehow in the Guild article.
-- Fomtg 01:11, 31 January 2014 (CET)
Thank you both! Well, I want to mention something. I know that wikis stand for to be neutral, consistent and objective. But this is not wikipedia. So I really appreciate if we are very strict for pages with game related content to follow this rules, but on the one page per guild I don't see this rules that important, because as we all know they are not an official part of the game. As Fomtg mentioned I have this User:Falkenbur where I'm free to present myself in the way I think of would be the best, we could have a templet "guild" like guild:Strategic_Angels where we not necessarly have these strict rules of consistency and objectivity as well. That wouldn't hurt. The benefit compared to the forum: sure there are forum entries for every guild which are actuall (normally), but then it's up to the founder to edit this main page. Here in the wiki every or at least one member could take care of the page. But again: I don't really force anybody that we have to go for this guild list. I just thought it could be nice and wanted to start exacty this conversation. Not more so far. And I'm totally fine to delete it anytime. So I'll follow this discussion forther on for a while and we'll see. Thank you! --Falkenbur 10:45, 31 January 2014 (CET)
Adding a custom Guild: namespace is definitely a solution (you're not talking about templates, are you?). I'll talk to Kbasten to see if he can implement this, it shouldn't be that hard to do...
Regarding a guild list, I think it should neither be in the main namespace nor be linked from the main page, as contents in there is expected to observe principles we discussed earlier, whereas the list you suggest (if I've understood correctly) would only contain guilds that want to introduce themselves on the wiki. If we add a Guild: namespace, we could have such a list in let's say Guild:Contents, and then add a link to that page in the "see also" section of the Guild article.
As for Special:RecentChanges spamming, that's indeed a risk and something we need to consider. Maybe the number of people using it is limited, but I think it's used a lot by most active contributors and/or admins (at least, that's what I use the most). If using a separate namespace, we could add a notice when editing pages of this namespace to remind people not to abuse edits (strive to keep changes on the same page in one edit, use preview before saving, etc.)
-- Fomtg 18:40, 31 January 2014 (CET)