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):


 * 4(d).	If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit provide, reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying : (i) the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied, and/or (ii) if the Original Author and/or Licensor designate another party or parties (e.g. a sponsor institute, publishing entity, journal) for attribution in Licensor's copyright notice, terms of service or by other reasonable means, the name of such party or parties; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work; and in the case of a Derivative Work, a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Derivative Work (e.g., "French translation of the Work by Original Author," or "Screenplay based on original Work by Original Author"). Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided, however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit.


 * 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)