Talk:Girls on Top

Vote
Vote: Do we want information about guilds in the wiki?

(explain other in discussion)
 * Yes: Kidburla, Tanaric, Shandy, Durub, DragonWR12LB
 * No: TheSpectator, Rainith, Xeeron, Xasxas256, 84.175, Crusty, William Blackstaff, Foo
 * Only Guilds that meet some criteria of notability (to be determined):
 * Only Following strict rules (see below): Tetris L, Karlos, MRA,, PanSola
 * On notable event entries (ie: GWWC), list relevant guild names only: Barek

Discussion
It should be noted that a 'yes' conclusion on this issue would result in a major change in GuildWiki policy. The server administrators would need to examine such a change for technical reasons (server load) and wiki admins would need to examine the exact implementation details to minimize their own headaches later on. &mdash;Tanaric 17:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked about this a week ago and no-one replied... :'( Kidburla 12:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well on the GWWC page of GuildWiki, it linked every guild listed there to a blank editing article page. So if there is not a need for Guid info, linking to edit article for Guilds listed on the GWWC page should be removed. 202.160.31.165 05:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * He has got a point. :)
 * I think we might consider to allow pages for major Guilds
 * Guilds that have reached the GWWC finals
 * Guilds that have been ranked very high in the Guild ladder
 * Guilds that have been official "Guild of the Week"
 * The key point is that the guild article on GuildWiki must be very basic, containing only info that an admin can verify. Basically not much more than a link to the guild website. Because any other info can be edited by anyone, not only guild members, so it would be too easy to enter false information about that guild that you don't like. For example edit the page of Servants of Fortuna and add "SoF are lame and known IWAY users". It's true that we are lame, but we don't use IWAY. ;) -- 06:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think if the majority decided guilds are not to be on guildwiki (for whatever reason) then guilds shouldn't be on GWiki. I personally think it is a shame because the site could become a huge community resource, but that's life, eh? Did that vote to allow guilds ever get resolved? Shandy 08:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am against it for many reasons. We made a decision not to record the player history of the game.. Joe Schmoe was the first one to use IWAY and Girls on Top is the only guild with more than 50% female members. It's complete hearsay as far as I care, not many ways to prove it but more importantly it open up a can of worms. What if Jane Schmoe came later on to claim she was the first one to use IWAY? What do we do now? It also opens the door for spiteful editing. People who when talking about player X they say that he totally pwned player Y, then player Y gets miffed and edits the page to say player X stinks. Too many bragging rights at stake. Do we want to start a "re-vote" on whether or not to include information about players of the game and not just the game? --Karlos 11:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My position on Guild pages remains unchanged from the last debate too, that being that we shouldn't have them. In a worst case scenario we would could end up with a full on "guild war" of reversions back and forth on the guild pages.  Either that or the pages are locked and only editable by Admins.  Neither of which is a good thing IMO.  I think this page should be deleted and the page it came from about the world championship should be edited to remove the links to all the guilds.  --Rainith 11:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * While my personal opinion is that it is more harmful than helpful, the game is still called Guild Wars. So I believe we should have a vote on this before deciding that we are not allowing information about guilds on the wiki. Added vote here. --Xeeron 11:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As the "evildoer" who linked every guild reaching GWWC Regional Play-Offs i would like to excuse for stirring up some obviously old debate. I wasn't aware that there has already been a vote on this. Personally, i think this wiki should allow articles on guilds of greater relevance like guilds who have reached the play-offs. These competitions are an integral aspect of the gameplay of Guild Wars. Of course these articles should focus on facts like "BoA finished in the top 4 of the GWWC 2006 North American Play-Offs" and are neither intended as free advertising space nor critics corner. Such concepts work for Wikipedia, why shouldn't they work for GuildWiki? Just my 2 cents. --MRA 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning behind my vote: I'm in favor of moving toward a basic principle of covering anything that has enough notability (with respect to Guild Wars). --Rezyk 15:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the risks of having guild pages here, but I think guild pages on GuildWiki could be allowed if the following rules are strictly followed:
 * No free text articles. Guild pages must use a standardized form. We might even use a template. I have created a sample/draft for such a form here. Have a look and comment.
 * Guild must have a valid website URL.
 * No advertising, bragging, pimping, whatsoever is allowed, except facts that can be verified:
 * Ladder position (via http://ladder.guildwars.com query)
 * Archive ladder position (via http://www.guildwars.com/ladder/archive-ladder-preseason-p1.html)
 * Guild of the Week (via http://www.guildwars.com/gameinfo/guilds)
 * GWWC (via http://www.guildwars.com/events/championship)
 * Only registered users may create or edit guild pages. Anonymous IP user edits will be reverted.
 * Any guild page that does not comply with these rules should be deleted and edits reverted without any further notice or investigating. -- 15:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree to these (though the last few about reversions and anonymous users need to be hashed out). If Wikipedia can manage pages of pop singers, we can manage pages of Guilds. The only problem I see is the historical guilds. Guilds that were there and are no more. I also don't see having a website as being a necessity. --Karlos 15:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree as well that guilds should have pages in this type of format, it would add a higher quality to the wiki. I think the past guilds that once were but are no more SHOULD be included. For instance that Karlos used Wikipedia has articles on Elvis but is there an Elvis now? So perhaps infomation to include would be perhaps guild founder, foundation date, current leader, guild hall type, cape, and if it is gone now then the disbanded date. --DragonWR12LB 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to post information about guilds that reach a pre-determined level of notariety; but no need to create a page for each guild. For the guilds that reached the GWWC, just list them in that article, with links to their homepages (if one exists). Any further information will be too dificult to monitor for vandalism. For instance; if someone changes a guild page to show a different leader or a different cape, the normal review process would likely allow it to remain, as few would likely know if the change is trully legitimate unless they first went to the linked site, and possibly had to attempt contacting someone via that site to confirm. It's much simpler to link to their site within a relevant article, and let all data about them be updated on their own site. --Barek 22:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe all guild pages should be allowed, no holds barred. We already allow pages about individual users (User:Tanaric for example), so why not guilds? Guilds are much more notable and interesting than users anyway. However, I propose that guild pages should be kept in the Guild: namespace, for two reasons. First, it helps keeps a seperation of "fact-checked, rigorous GuildWiki article" from "ego article written by the party in question." Secondly, it's entirely possible to name a guild "Prince Rurik", so I'd prefer not to have article name collisions for stupid stuff like that.

Obviously, if rampant vandalism becomes an issue (we haven't had it on user pages; I've no reason to think it will happen on guild pages), we would close it down. Having the namespace there helps too. It aught to be possible to prevent pages from being created within a certain namespace if we decide to change our minds. &mdash;Tanaric 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I despise the idea of having information on individual guilds. I'm sure if we did have them, that they'd be involved in so many edit wars and vandalism. There are plenty of places where guilds can list their members and goings on. If we just have a simple basic box like User:Tetris_L/Servants_of_Fortuna which just details the guild's vitals then it's pretty useless in my opinion. It tells you very little and just becomes a target for vandalism. If we list information about a guild, the things they pioneered and the builds they currently run; it will be very hard to keep track of and who knows if the person making the wiki edit is a guild member. There will be constant edit wars, bitter people who just lost in GvG to them describing how they just got Ganked as well as bitter ex-members (read all the crap slung at Eternum Pariah from an ex-member on forums, in fact just generally look at all the crap slung at EP) and most importantly of all I don't think that guild info belongs on the Guildwiki, there's better places for it. We don't list the current price that people pay for an item, we never listed individual guild info in the past and we shouldn't start doing it now. --Xasxas256 05:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Xasxas256: The reasons you explained are exactly the reason why we have not allowed free-text articles about guilds on GuildWiki in the past, and why such free-text articles will probably never work in future. Having a standardized info box (like the one I suggested or similar) is the only alternative IMHO. Sure, the info box isn't as comprehensive as the guild info for example on the GWG guild database, but I disagree that it is useless. It is good enough to find out the basic facts about a guild, and most importantly: How to contact the guild. And it isn't very prone to vandalism. -- 10:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose useless is a bit harsh perhaps. But still that little box says very little and as you say the main thing is it gives a contact. But if for example I search for "Servants of Fortuna" I come up with your talk page Tetris L. So what I'm saying is lots of Guildwiki members say the guild they're in and what characters they have. You could also mention some of the Officers in your guild and if you look at Xeeron's page he links to his guild's website. To me that gives enough detail with out giving us all the Migraine of guild pages!. --Xasxas256 11:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Info on specific guilds is a stupid idea.
 * Guilds are too transient. The information regarding a guild changes way too often, players leaving/joining, new tactics, new websites etc etc. Guilds are constantly changing and who is going to spend the time to make sure this information is up-to-date?
 * Guild entries would require too much info. So you have an entry for the "top 50 guilds". what info do you include? The cape, guild name, founder, which guild hall they have, history of the guild? Bah! just link to their website. If the guild cares about people knowing about them they will have all that info on their site.
 * Its not a Guild who are strong; its the players/members. If you took the current number one ranked guild in the game and replaced its players with those of the lowest ranked guild, would the guild still be the same? The only information about the guild that doesnt change as its players do is the guild hall, cape and guild name (maybe some other things as well, but im mid-rave so im not gonna bother).
 * Information is too hard to verify. Who is going to make sure this is all up to date? Its far too difficult to verify that the information on a given guild is accurate. How do you know if the information for guild XYZ is accurate, or even up-to-date? Even if youre in guild XYZ you might no know what is going on.
 * how do you decide which "guilds of greater relevance" deserve entries? winners of the GWWC? bah! a pox on PVP i say! i only care about PVE so i would be more interested in "strong" PVE guilds. guild of the week? meh! (ok so this option is probably the best approach, not that i support it in the slightest) guilds ive played against and found difficult to beat? please ...


 * You want to mention guilds that have reached the finals in GWWC? why not link to the guilds website from the respective GWWC article (ie if guild XYX won in 2007, then the GWWC_2007 article would link to their website)?


 * the game is called Guild Wars, but it will always be about the players and community. Do we have an entry for every single player? Every character? thats just crazy.


 * ok thats enough ranting today. time to go back to work. i dont mean to upset anyone, i just dont think this is a good idea at all. --Crusty 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Crusty brought up a good point about what guilds would be included. Deciding on what guild can be placed in GuildWiki based on the fact that they were in GWWC or have won some seasonal event places an emphasis on PvP-focused guilds. What happens to the PvE-focused guilds, those guilds who could care less about fame and rank but wish to be the ones with the most rarest and unique items (whether found or purchased)? What about those whose sole purpose is to help others get good weapons, unlock skills and items, and complete all quests possible?


 * Also, using GOTW status as a qualification for being here is too broad. There are already thirty-two guilds of the week, with one more per week in the future. Also, I was just reading through a few of the GOTW at the main GW site and there's plenty of information about the background, history, conduct, and strategy of those guilds already; GW Guru also has a large compilation of guilds and their info. I don't think we should list guilds here as they are too numerous, too flexible, and ever-changing (as stated by others). --TheSpectator 20:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought "Yes, within limits" was the most sensible option originally, but, having read Crusty's response, I'm now convinced that the answer best answer is "No". If we force a template, then there really won't be any interesting content in any of the articles. Do we really want dozens (hundreds?) of articles that are basically about as informative and fascinating as phonebook entries? If we don't have strict template, however, I think there'll be too much vandalism. Also, we're likely to end up with a handful or very detailed articles about guilds that the most prolific editors have personally been in, and a relative dearth of information about the rest. I feel like the best policy to adopt here is "No guild pages." I think it would be nice for those who are interested to talk about their guild experiences on their User pages, however, as I do think that the information is very fascinating - but I believe that adding guild pages to the wiki will just result in 2-3 great articles amid a sea of absolutely craptacular ones, and I'd rather not see so many worthless articles injected into the wiki. 130.58 06:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're arguing as if we, the normal contributors, have to update the wiki on every guild. That is pretty crazy. What I was thinking is if a guild wishes to create a page on their guild as a reference to players in GW then he could. He could then even use the page as an organisational crutch and the discussion page would act as a kind of forum. It would be a great resource for the Guild Wars community, and I think a central list of guilds such as this, maintained by the guild members, would help foster a greater sense of community than X number of self-contained separate guild websites. Of course, this is rather a grand vision. Shandy 03:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As TheSpectator has said, GW Guru already has a one stop shop listing of guilds, we don't need the headache of duplicating a list here IMO. You could register your guild with http://www.anzgw.com/ if you want also want a forum. A Talk page is a poor excuse for a forum anyway and will fill up the Recent Changes with a whole lotta crap which only the few members of the guild care about. --Xasxas256 05:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never seen the GW Guru list of guilds, but I doubt it's wikified. What you guys think is a problem (stopping vandalism) is also the best thing about wiki. TBH, I just think having a guild page here would be so great, with the possibilities for linking information and instant guild-administration. Shandy 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Shandy brings up a good point. Allowing guild information on the site doesn't obligate us in the slightest to maintain it. Nobody has to keep the info up-to-date, or even accurate.  I can write on my User page that I invented the internet, the IWAY build, and that I won the GWWC; it wouldn't be true, but you guys would leave it alone nonetheless, because it's my user page.  I envision guild pages working the same way.  So what if guilds take credit for stuff?  Guild pages are distinctly seperate.


 * Further, I'm pretty disappointed that most of the 'no' arguments are based around "it might be extra work for us." That's idiotic.  You never have to do anything you don't want to do on the wiki, ever.  And if guild pages are implemented, and it's decided to change our minds after seeing it fail, I volunteer to clean up the mess.  Get a more concrete argument, please. &mdash;Tanaric 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My current concern is less about the amount of work required (I had already decided to just ignore the guild pages should the be implemented), than the waste of resources. If someone makes a guild page and the talk for that page then becomes what is essentially a forum for the guild members, how much more strain is that going to put on the already overworked server?  How many more instances of "Database error" are we going to get when we're trying to get to actual useful pages?  --Rainith 15:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not relevant to the issue of "should we." If we should host guild pages, but cannot due to technical limitations, that's fair... but it doesn't change this discussion whatsoever. &mdash;Tanaric 23:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think GuildWiki should do that kind of thing, though. The purpose is information. Sure, there's a lot of communication going on, and people can certainly have some fun with their talk pages, but the goal is to compile and peer-review Guild Wars knowledge, not to run a poor man's webhost for guilds. So I think the "use the wiki as a forum" thing should be readily dismissed. Most of what gets put on such a forum is either stuff that already has a much better place on GuildWiki (e.g. build or skill or mission pages), or stuff that we, at the moment, consider "spam".
 * I guess the question to be asking here is this: What is the mandate? Does it cover this kind of thing? I feel like the answer is "no," but I'd like to hear someone who's much more active and has been around longer explain just what the purpose of the wiki is. 130.58 02:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no mandate. However, since wiki is about community, and Guild Wars is about guilds, and the community in Guild Wars is based largely around guilds and guild interaction, it seems like the GuildWiki aught to recongize and embrace that.  I won't be crushed if the consensus is otherwise, though. &mdash;Tanaric 22:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My main concern with allowing articles about guilds is this: people will create articles in good faith. They will religiously update them, detailing the comings and goings of their guild, for a month/year/2 years (whatever). Eventually they will tire of it and cease to update it; at which point the information becomes useless. Of course, this could also happen to any article in guildwiki, but its more likely to happen to a guild's entry because of the small number of people (ie only the people in the guild, and maybe the people who've played against the guild) who will be able to verify it. Once the wiki becomes full of inaccurate information people are going to be less likely to frequent it, resulting in less people updating it yadda yadda yadda (which would be good for server performance reasons, but bad for the community).


 * OK so maybe im being a pessimist, but I dont think this would work in the long run. Someone mentioned that they would be willing to spend their time to clean it up if it turned out to be a bomb. Maybe we should try it, but id rather not waste someone's valuble contributions cleaning up something that (in my opinion) would be wasted being presented in a wiki format. To protect the integrity of the information about your guild youre only going to want a select few to have write access to the site displaying that information. Also, who's going to know more about the guild than its most active members (i would say guild leader, but ive known some leaders who have no idea)? It makes NO sense to have guild information displayed in wiki format, either on this site or another.


 * As a compromise: why not have an article that has a list of links to guild's websites? Any references in any guildwiki article could be pointed to the external link of the guild website (i wouldnt imagine there would be too many references, but you never know). What about guilds that dont have a website? Well if they cant be bothered setting up a free website, then why would they be bothered to update their wiki article? Linking to guilds' websites makes MUCH more sense than maintaining articles that can be editted by anyone, especially since articles in this wiki have to conform to the community's standards/requirements/limitations, whereas information on their own site only needs to adhere to their own standards. --Crusty 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I envisioned the guild pages as not part of the wiki 'proper'. I don't see any problem with a guild page falling into disuse. After all, wiki isn't paper. We're probably (and hopefully) never going to run out of space. And a disused page creates no load on the server, as I understand it. A used guild page does, but if it's being used, then surely it's worth it? Also, as the guilds would form a separate section of the wiki (a different 'name space') I don't see any problem with contamination, as far as I can tell I don't see how the situation you describe ("the wiki becomes full of inaccurate information people are going to be less likely to frequent it, resulting in less people updating it") is logical. The 'inaccruate information' is strictly limited to the guild pages. Why should people stop searching for the collector weapon information just because a bunch of guilds all claim to have perfected IWAY? Reconsider! :P Shandy 03:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... could work, I suppose. Do you see these things basically working like User pages, then? In other words, as a more-or-less freeform space to put whatever you want. Or more like actual articles? For example, if Guild X goes and wins every tournament in the world, would there be a page with a fairly dry and NPOV discussion of Guild X's strategy, history, &c., or would there be a page with whatever info Guild X thought was cool at the time? Because, actually, I see the latter working pretty easily (just like User pages, after all), based on your technical argument (that we've got space and any "useless" pages won't be visited so they won't eat any bandwidth). I don't really think we could pull off the former consistently, though. Or, rather, I don't think that we'd want to. But adding de-facto user-pages for user-like entities seems fine with me. 130.58 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I envision them as more like User Pages than articles. A NPOV page for guilds, maintained by the community at large would probably be impossible, I think. Shandy 04:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How to count votes
And the decision is? --Karlos 12:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, I would give it some more time. This seems to be an extremly controversial topic and we did have quite a few new votes in the last days. That being said, there is the possibility that we will not have an absolute majority for one proposal. I feel it would be wrong to simply implement the proposal with a normal majority. For example, at the moment, the majority of votes is for "No". However, if you take those votes for some form of guild pages together, you get more that for "no". On the other hand, some people voting for "Only Guilds that meet some criteria of notability" might choose "no" over "yes" if that were the only 2 features to vote for. So I propose that, in case the vote does not reach a definite conclusion (absolute majority), we have to hold a final vote between the 2 proposals with the most votes.
 * I know this will be some hassle, and I would not propose it for some simple "shall we name it X or Y" vote, but this one is important. PS: Moved 2 points to discussion. --Xeeron 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, this forces me to "game" my vote to what I see as possibly the worst option. Rather than go down that path, I'll opt to abstain from voting for the time being. --Rezyk 17:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the vote should be rephrased into several steps of binary questions (as ist is usual in your city council for example), starting with the farest-reaching decision first and then working out the details afterwards. For instance, the first step could be the question "Should there be information about guilds in the wiki?" with binary options If it should happen that "No" wins, the vote is over, otherwise the next step would be "Given the vote is a Yes, should there be restrictions on which guilds are welcome?" with options After this vote, we could start discussing the details ... Of course, the vote over the steps can be held in parallel even if some latter vote could become obsolete by earlier results. --MRA 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes (may be under some strict conditions, maybe no restrictions at all)
 * No (no way, never ever, this opens Pandoras Box)
 * Yes (only some guild should be included, some rules are needed)
 * No (every guild is welcome, maybe within some 'Guild:' namespace, maybe as standard articles)


 * Errr, I have problems understanding both of you =)
 * 'Insert 5 minutes thinking'
 * Rezyk, you could in theory give your vote to your second best variant, if that variant is closer to coming into the "final vote" than your first best. But you should never ever vote for your worst variant (since there is *always* one up for vote that is better then the worst).
 * MRA, the process you propose is even more complicated that a final vote (much so), and only works for proposals that can be ordered along one dimension. It could not deal with the 2 last proposals in this vote, since it is unclear which one is more strict. --Xeeron 12:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but that's not quite my position. My 2nd choice ("No") would almost definitely make the final round regardless, and I can try to get either my 3rd or 4th choice in with it.  Since I tend to believe that in a final round, my 2nd choice would end up beating my 4th but might lose to my 3rd, I am best off voting for my 4th to increase the likelihood of my 2nd being the final winner! (Disconcerting, isn't it?)  Btw, I don't mean this as an objection to your particular proposal (any nondegenerate voting system with more than 2 real choices is in fact subject to some degree of tactical voting); apologies if it seemed like that. --Rezyk 16:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I get it now. You are right, there is no perfect voting system for more than 2 choices. However I think most will not go to as elaborate length of reasoning as you do ;-) --Xeeron 08:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)