Talk:Leader

Decision?
So have we come to a decision regarding the articles Leader, Officer and Member? These three currently reside on the Category:Candidates for deletion page and I can't do anything about them unless I have something resembling a consensus.

As such, if you care to voice your opinion on this simply whack your name after Delete or Do Not Delete or Nominate/Vote for Other Options.

If you nominate a Other Options please explain, in detail, what you would like to see happen in the Discussion Section below as I have done so other people can consider your idea and vote for it if they wish.


 * Delete: Xeeron
 * Do Not Delete: PanSola Kidburla Xasxas256
 * Other Options:
 * Combine Leader, Officer & Member with Guild: William Blackstaff
 * Leader is disambig to Party leader and Guild leader --Karlos 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This vote will be considered closed when there are no new edit on this page for a few days and I'll go ahead and do whatever needs done (unless someone beats me to it) --William Blackstaff 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Other Options
If you want to suggest another option do so here, follow the format to make it esier for everyone else please.

Combine Leader, Officer & Member with Guild:


 * 1) Combine the Information from Leader and Officer into the Guild article, perhaps in a table as Tanaric suggested that shows the powers of the relevant ranks. Something like this: -- William Blackstaff



This gets confusing when new stuff isn't added to the bottom of the page ~_~" I vote AGAINST delete. Currently I don't care if it's a redirect, disambig, or a full-feature article. -PanSola 10:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also voting against, but I feel strongly that it should be a disambig. Kidburla 12:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well thanks for sticking up this article guys, when I created it I thought it was crazy that we didn't have a page for Officer Member and Leader. I don't want to see it deleted either, basically if someone types "leader" into the search field on the nav bar and hits Go it should take them somewhere, not say GuildWiki does not have an article with this exact name like it did before. I also don't know if Party leader needs an article. I think just having a Leader article and saying in it that "Leader can also refer to party leader, the person who created a party and can add more members to the party." So in short, I'd prefer to keep the article but I don't object to having a redirect but a disambig page is unnecessary IMO. --Xasxas256 05:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
It's a proper in-game term. At the most it'd be a candidate for Redirection, not deletion. -PanSola 00:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to have too much of a cry if you delete this, (and Member & Officer ) it didn't take me that long to create but as PanSola says it's an in-game term, it's not even slang or a acronym. If you've joined a big guild as a Member you might be curious to see what the Leader can do, when you search for the term "Leader" something should come up. That's why I created this article. If you're the Leader of your guild, you might want to know what the Officers can do before promoting people to that position. The Guild article does say a lot about the administrative tasks that can be done but it's not written for that purpose, they're spread right across the article. It also doesn't say for example that only a Leader can change a Guild Emblem. --Xasxas256 02:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If we keep the article (which I'm infifferent about), we should move it to Guild Leader, because plain "Leader" could be mistaken for "Party Leader" or any other kind of leader. -- 04:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What infifferent about it!!! Tetris L this is like the abortion debate, you can't sit on the fence!! Or hang on maybe infifferent means you passionately support it, keeping the article that is. Or perhaps not. Well I'm still up for keeping this article but changing it to Guild Leader sounds good to me. --Xasxas256 04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll pick a side then. :P Generally, I'm always in favor of keeping information together as much as possible, and split into separate articles only if necessary. That's because information scattered over separate articles is easily missed/overlooked, and because separate articles always mean some degree of redundancy. So, frankly, I'd rather keep the info about the Guild Leader as a paragraph within the Guild article. The Leader or Guild Leader article (if we keep it at all, and not turn it into a redirect) should be brief, pointing towards the Guild article for more detailed info. -- 05:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dump Leader, make Guild leader a redirect imo. --Xeeron 08:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if you "dump" Leader, you still have to make it a redirect or a disambig page, because the word "Leader" is used standalone by the game. -PanSola 08:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Does every word or term that's being used in the game warrant it's own article (even if it's just a redirect)? I'd say NO. Only if a term is frequently searched for or linked to we should create an article or redirect for it. Otherwise we'd open a can of worms. Gimme a minute or two and I'll think of a few dozend terms that are used ingame that we haven't covered yet. -- 08:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stupid Tetris L going against me, get back on the fence, I preferred you up there!! I think that knowing what each of the 3 positions can do is useful. It's useful to people who've only just got into RPGs and it's useful for people who've come from other games because the titles and their powers are likely to be different. It's also most useful if people can search for the term and go straight to the relevant article. I'm not opposed to the Guild Leader idea either but Leader would need a redirect because people would search for "leader" not "guild leader" as the wonderful and intelligent PanSola has said and you should all listen to PanSola more, this side of the fence is fantastic, next week The Who are playing live! Having all 3 positions redirect to Guild is ok too I guess but a fair bit of content from the 3 articles would have to be added. --Xasxas256 09:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Leader should be a disambiguation page (for Party/Guild leaders), Leader (Guild) a redirect. The reason is this: Suppose someone wants to link to the information about leaders in guilds. If Leader doesnt exist, they have to use the full pipe notation:  leader . But if leader (guild) is a redirect to guild, they can use the short pipe notation  leader (Guild) , which displays as just leader. So for example someone could say the leader is the only person who can buy a Guild Hall. Kidburla 15:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

My vote: Leader is a disambiguation page to Party leader and Guild leader. No need for Leader (Guild) and Leader (Party). --Karlos 16:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Chalk up another vote for Karlos's suggestion. --Xasxas256 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The need for Leader (Guild) and Leader (Party) is to allow use of the "short" pipe notation  leader (Guild) . See e.g. the bottom of Tanaric's user page, the "Un-Name Crusade". Kidburla 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The pages contain no content as of yet. Everything on them is already in guild. Further, the only time you'd ever reference these pages is within guild, so what's the point?

I consider these dictionary definition pages. The powers of a guild leader in his guild are detailed in guild. There is nothing else special about being a guild leader. There is no social effect, no visual identification, nothing. It is *only* a rank within a guild, and as such, should be contained on the guild page. This is the same reason there's no need for object or party member.

I realize that perhaps guild isn't the easiest to find a table of powers of the guild leader. While I don't personally find this useful, I can see the merit in it. I'd rather see a summary table of intraguild rank at the bottom of guild than seperate articles that merely spew a dictionary defintion and a link to guild... "Guild leader: the leader of a guild" is not a useful article to me. &mdash;Tanaric 16:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)