GuildWiki talk:Suggestions/Notable guilds

PvP Guilds
Obviously you start at the top, so that means gold capes. iQ, EW, EvIL, eF, blabla, and probably including people like HAnD/Me. What makes a guild notable beyond that? Since there's probably a number of them. Lord of all tyria 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal main criteria would be guilds that you have something to say about. I mean, "we are a pve guild that likes to do dungeons" isn't anything worthy of note. "This famous guild won such and such tournament and defined a new meta with some build." is noteworthy on the other hand. PvP guilds would probably be easier but there are notable famous PvE guilds too. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 18:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would LLL be notable? They are a Dutch guild existing since the betas. Gaile joined them on their 3rd birthday party (and LLL'ers spammed Guru about it... /ego-boost much?). But, besides that, they're nothing really special... --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol; just cause I drafted up the page doesn't mean I have a complete vision for how it will work. I want people to give their opinions on both teh merit of the suggestion and ways we can make it work or if we should just scrap it. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I lolled at
"Overlap in information from GWW"

go go nuke the mainspace then? --- -- (s)talkpage  19:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Con
Does that really matter? Notable guilds != any and every shitter pve guild. Lord of all tyria 19:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See the section below, we are now going to start documenting notable guilds. -- Shadowphoenix  19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Notability" is very subjective, everyone thinks their own guild is notable to them, so feel this has the possibilities of just inviting revert wars, plus as mentioned above, a site is growing up to cover all things GW guilds related, so maybe we treat this like with the builds section that effectively got exported over to PvXwiki. --Wolfie (talk|contribs) 03:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe admins delete the shitter guilds using their logic.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 03:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Clashing with GWG
Ok, Guild Wars Guilds has been up for about a month or so now and we recently decided to do exactly what is proposed here with notable guilds. We document them in such a way that it is made known that the Guild Wars Guilds community runs the page and not the guild. One of the major things that me and some of the others were (and still are) trying to avoid is GWG becoming "competition" with the other Guild Wars Wikis, the implementation of this might just make that happen. -- Shadowphoenix  19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "This is a list of all guilds that have been made notable by ArenaNet." Lord of all tyria 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? That is a sentence from a cat page... -- Shadowphoenix  19:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Guilds made notable by a-net. Would that include [QQ], who they removed from a ladder season. That guild was certainly notable, but would a-net say that? You're running a wiki about guilds, and GWW has a guild namespace. How is that NOT going to clash? Lord of all tyria 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think because we don't want wikia wiki's clashing? -- [[Image:Isk8.png]]  I~sk8   (T/C) 19:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Lord, read the info I have put up about the wiki on my userpages. "I in no way wish for the removal of the Guild namespace on GWW", "On GWW, guild pages exist to document the existance of the guild, which I agree with on GWW; however me and others think that guilds should have a resource in which they can advertise, discuss the guild, and be as creative a possible that is completely seperate from the game content".  Those are some of the major points that make it differ I suppose -- Shadowphoenix  19:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is different again, in that not every guild has a page, only the select few. Lord of all tyria 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know but we document noable guilds exactly the same as it is proposed here; that is unsettling for me I suppose... -- Shadowphoenix  19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This Guild Wars Guilds wikia site has nothing on it. Keeping information here would just make it easier for people to access relevant information and we could do a better job with the increased manpower here.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş   21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable guild is rather ill-defined
If one uses the criteria that it has a lasting impact on the game, then there is no such thing as a notable guild. If any particular guild in the game were to disband, the players would go join other guilds and have the same lasting impact on the game (usually none) as if their previous guild had not disbanded. Even for the pvp meta-game stuff, the impact only lasts until the next skill rebalancing. One could argue that winning Hall of Heroes many times makes a pvp guild reasonably well known, but as soon as they stop winning there, their impact is presumably gone--and the number of players who would recognize the guild name will drop off quickly, too.

And what, exactly, makes a pve guild notable? Lazy is cited because they're known for spamming lots of towns in recruiting, but even they're only noticed because they have so many guilds with exactly the same tag. If their 13 or whatever they have guilds all had different tags, with even their unusually heavy recruiting distributed among so many guilds, none of them would be terribly noteworthy.

There isn't a natural place to draw a line that includes some current guilds and not others. Any attempts at doing so would just create fights and wiki drama. Everyone and his neighbor's dog will wish to declare that his own guild is notable--maybe not at first, but once guilds whose all-time peak membership is 8 (and never more than 3 online simultaneously) add themselves, there's no reason for anyone else to hold back. Quizzical 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're too stupid to figure out what a gold or possibly even silver cape is, I'd just take the time to find a noose for yourself, attach it to something sturdy so that the noose is about your height+a foot off the ground, stand on a chair, put your neck in the noose, and push the chair away.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For starters, there is GW:NPA. But if you want nothing more than a list of guilds that have won tournaments, a single page with a list will suffice.  This seems to be a vastly more ambitious project.  Besides, a guild that won a tournament two years ago and is now inactive isn't notable for anything but historical reasons.  Quizzical 22:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying a team like [iQ] isn't notable for anything other than the fact that they won a tourney or two? Not the fact that they changed build wars forever? That they showed people that players with a good build can triumph over koreans with immeasurable skill? Not for anything like that? Not for bringing the power of AoE at VoD to light? Not for these glaring, historical accomplishments in GWs PvP history? This lack of reasoning only strengthens my reasoning of why your essays were so bad- because you have never played Guild Wars.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, admins delete using discretion anything that they consider to be not notable.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 02:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Replying to a comment about GW:NPA with completely off-topic non sequitur insults is perhaps not the best idea, especially when you have yet to address either of the main points of this section.
 * First, what makes a pve guild notable? The only officially determined metrics on the guild entail present membership--and that's something that both changes often and is unverifiable to those outside the guild.
 * Second, and more importantly, where do you draw the line between a notable guild and a not notable guild? Even if one had an objective metric of notoriety, there isn't a natural place to draw the line.  If we had a notoriety scale that went from 0 to 100, we could perhaps agree that a 100 is a notable guild and a 0 is not.  But is a 50 notable?  How about a 70?  You'd have to draw the line somewhere, and declare that for some number x, a rating of x makes the guild notable, and x-e makes it not notable, for some very small value of e.  So then you'd have a case where, say, a 62.8 is a notable guild and a 62.7 is not.  And a guild could repeatedly cross that threshold in both directions, to need to be added to and removed from the wiki.  And that's a much cleaner situation than we now have, with no such objective metric of notoriety.  Lots of random personal attacks don't constitute a solution to this.  Quizzical 04:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes a PvE guild notable? They were highlighted by Anet. That's it. PvE guilds aren't notable. I could go and right now, make a PvE guild and say it was notable for developing a farming build to farm something else that can be farmed by a million other different builds. PvE guilds, imo, shouldn't even be noted but people will disagree, so I say limit it to what Anet has had for their guilds of the day.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 05:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And as for your point 2, what makes a guild notable and not notable? How about mother fucking common sense? Give it a check out sometime, it's pretty nifty shit.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake.gif|19px]] 05:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * admins delete using discretion anything that they consider to be not notable ... Perhaps you forgot about the Acorns page which no longer is around. And guilds will be guilds. Its a game, not like your going to care about anything here when you get to the age of 30. Most people don't remembers those guild a month later, so why keep bringing them back and making pages no one is going to really look at. ky™  04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  06:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So if five people here think that a guild is notable, and three think it is not, what does the consensus say? What if it's 5-3 that it's not notable?  Again, where do you draw the line?  Are admins to primarily become people who arbitrarily say this guild is notable and that one is not?  That could be a disaster for a wiki that focuses predominantly on content where guilds don't really matter.  It's easy to gloss over things now that we don't have actual cases, but without any clear criteria, this would be a disaster waiting to happen.  Probably the easiest way out would be to either scrap the section or to declare that every single guild that cares whether it is notable is notable.  Quizzical 06:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  06:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, GW:NOT. And then... IMO, as there already exists a separate wiki for GW guilds, that one should be open for ALL guilds. GuildWiki mainspace should be free of these, as simply finding a consensus of this matter, whether to list 'notable' guilds or not. I don't wanna see people arguing over notable guilds, or a 'guilds wipe' in near-future, at least in this wiki. J Striker 07:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Defiant, you're ducking the issue. We'll have a binary decision in which we must say that yes a guild is notable, or else no the guild is not notable.  It isn't possible to compromise as is typically the case when dealing with the wording of a particular article.  The only way to reach consensus is for everyone on one side to drop their position and join the other side.  In many cases, that's not going to happen.  The alternative is for people to be overruled, in which case, you'll need criteria by which people can be overruled, and repeating a mantra of "consensus" won't work.  Quizzical 07:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @Quizzical: I am in no way ducking the issue. Consensus is a well-established method for dealing with content issues.  In fact, I'm a little confused by your attitude toward consensus; you're acting as if using consensus is somehow new... so... why don't I try using an example: let's say I add a particular skill synergy to a skill page which I believe is noteworthy.  But, a second editor disagrees with my opinion.  That editor can and may revert my edit.  Rather than resorting to a revert war, the preferred method for dealing with such conflicts is to hash out the problem on the discussion page.  In such an instance, you're dealing with a binary decision -- either the note belongs on the page or it does not, and, yet, somehow, that method of discussion/wiki-style consensus has worked since this wiki's inception (as far as I'm aware).  The same theory applies to notable guilds.
 * @Striker: I never said this was Wikipedia; Quizzical asked for a clarification on how consensus worked on wikis and I provided him with an appropriate link. I'm not saying that that link reflects GuildWiki policy.  Also... while I'm at it... part of the reasoning behind this proposal would be that it could potentially increase site traffic.  Assuming, for a moment, that this site is indeed dying, as some have contended, then your attitude seems to be: "the ship is sinking, but let's not try to patch the leaks because they might spring open again at some later point in time."  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  07:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * DE, you got almost exactly the opposite of my point... Firstly, you we're quite clearly referring to Consensus policy of Wikipedia. I can't see that one as a solution for deciding which guilds deserve 'notable' status and what not. For a single player, the most important guild is the one they're currently in at. That'll make opinions quite diverse, and the consensus is difficult to reach. So it must be all, which will greatly increase site traffic (and give the wiki other pros and cons of this project), or none, which means we will lose all those pros and cons. And finally... I don't want this wiki, the best source for all information about GW and it's community, to die away, as your assumed 'attitude description' seems to say. J Striker 08:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus does not necessarily mean you have to haggle over every new guild article. You do that for the first few, then you use that consensus to set up a policy with clear criteria that is then carried by consensus. Guild additions can then go out of consensus only when the written criteria are insufficient to decide the issue, or found to be flawed, or consensus underwent a major change. Consensus means you consent to a policy. Experience with the builds section shows that it is adviseable to form such a policy before embarking on editing a section that needs to be partly or entirely scrapped later as criteria emerge. With that in mind, I would ask you to provide clear criteria as to what makes a guild notable. Possible criteria I have seen mentioned here include
 * gold or silver rimmed cape
 * guild has been target of an action by Anet
 * guild has been associated with people who have a page on GuildWiki
 * --◄mendel► 10:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That last point I disagree with. GuildWiki people are not notable unless, you know, they're notable.  —ǥrɩɳsɧƴ ɖɩđđɭɘş  [[Image:Grinshpon blinky cake 2.gif|19px]] 12:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comparing this to content issues that people don't really care about completely misses my point. For a better comparison, let's compare it to a section on notable players.  Would we really wish to have an area to say, player X is notable, and someone else says, no he isn't.  And then player X comes in and says, sure, I'm notable, and someone else says, no you aren't.  A couple posts later and we have a full flame war.


 * Do you really want to get into constantly flame wars with someone claiming his guild matters, and someone else coming in and saying, no, your guild is irrelevant? Does not every active guild leader think his own guild matters?  This might draw in more players to post, but it would mostly be for a bunch of flame wars over whether various guilds are notable.  Bad content crowds out good, and that would do far more to kill the wiki than making no major changes.


 * To take a milder example, would appointing administrators work if we had to go purely by consensus? Too often, there is no consensus, and that's why we have bureaucrats.  Trying to declare some guilds notable and others not would be quite a bit more volatile still.  Quizzical 19:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I propose having clear criteria, set up front. No flaming if you can just point at them and say "by these rules, you're out and he's in". Grinshy, you need to oppose that criterium, not disagree with me. You can only disagree with me if you say that this criterium is not clear. You can oppose the use of that criterium, certainly. BUt now we're at the stage where we need more criteria to choose from, and then we can argue which ones are best (or best not used). --◄mendel► 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

my criteria
my criteria for notability would be...do you have enough to say about them that its worth making a page? and "we do dungeons and we have alot of members blah blah blah." It would be on a case by case basis, Part of the good thing about this would be that it generates activity and discussion &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 07:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I can imagine two different interpretations of notability.
 * 1) Notable guilds are those that people want to look up on GuildWiki. This criterium is pragmatic: if people want to look it up, we should have an article. By that reasoning, [Lazy] is certainly a notable guild/alliance. The difficulty is determing whether it is only guild members wishing to look up their own guild or others as well, and once you grant that guild members have a right to look up their own guild, you have to abandon "notable" and include "every guild that someone wants to write about". And why not? There should be a clear guideline as to what information goes on the main page, and what needs to go on the talk page or subpages. The advantage to this concept is that no decision about notability needs to be made.
 * 2) Notable guilds are those that you could write an editorial about. This is what Grinshy wants to do with [Qi]. If you want to have an "editor cabal" that holds power over what guilds get accepted or not, the proper place for these op-ed pieces is userspace. Make a user called "Notable guilds" or some such, and form a team that runs this user's userspace like a blog, with an index on the userpage and pages on the separate guilds on subpages. The separate pages could even reside in the userspaces of the separate editors, if DPLforum is used to organize the posts. The advantage of this concept is that since it is in userspace, no consensus is required to go ahead creating it or to run it. While I won't be contributing, I would gladly render technical assistance in setting this up. --◄mendel► 08:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If a notable guild is one that I could write a sizeable essay about, then I could do that for every single guild I've ever been in. That includes one that I was only in for a few days, as well as one that had its membership peak at somewhere around 8 and probably died completely well over a year ago.  Quizzical 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well do that then if you can get it past your fellow editors. --◄mendel► 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)