GuildWiki talk:About

hi i did not no any body could make pages!!!

This should be protected though. --Karlos 07:50, 28 October 2005 (EST)
 * ... and wikified and updated, maybe? -- 09:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Anything further needing wikified and/or updated? Looks like a great candidate for protection to me. --161.88.255.140 07:13, 23 March 2006 (CST)


 * Protected. Any glaring errors found here should be posted on an active Adminstrator's talk page.  --Rainith 07:19, 23 March 2006 (CST)

license version
Is it specifically binded to version 2.0, or whatever the newest version is? not that I would notice the difference, but the link points to 2.0 which isn't the newest. Just wondering -PanSola 11:18, 11 February 2006 (CST)
 * I agree, it's not clear if guildwiki is intentionally remaining at by-nc-sa license v2.0, or if it merely failed to update the link to the current v2.5.
 * Comparing the two, the only difference in the license versions is in clause section 4(d).  Here is the clause with the changes (the language removed is struck out, while the new language is in bold italics): (REMOVED - SEE HISTORY FOR DIFFERENCES).
 * Are Gravewit/Nunix the ones to make the call on which license the site utilizes? Or should we be automatically adopting the newer version of the licenses? --Barek 09:51, 23 March 2006 (CST)
 * I realized overnight that we may not be legally able to migrate to v2.5. Fortuneately, the changes are minor enough that I don't believe that they affect the Wiki in any way.
 * We would need to get legal advice on this; but I believe that for the license to be changed to 2.5, one of two things would be needed. Either the written agreement by everyone who contributed under the old license (not practical for any Wiki); or a policy in place when those contributions were originally made saying that the license could be updated without notice.  Because I don't see either, I believe we need to remain with 2.0.  But, I'm not a lawyer, so I could be mistaken on this.
 * In either case, like I mentioned, the differences between the two are so minor that v2.0 is more than satisfactory for the purposes of the Wiki. If anyone wants to see the differences, look at the History for this page, my contribution from Mar 23, 06 shows the details of the change. --Barek 22:13, 23 March 2006 (CST)

179th largest MediaWiki in the world
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_wikis Use your find tool to quickly get to it. My question is: Should this little bit of information be included in this article?