| abstract
| - I know we have a lot of options already to sift through, but I think this one [option 3] is also important to consider. My rationale behind it is that community articles should be separate from game articles. We already have this for Servers and Users, albiet for practical purposes as well, so I think we should complete that with guild articles. Putting guild articles in a guild namespace allows easy expansion in that namespace and doesn't require a {{guild}} banner. It completely removes the chance for a guild article to compete with a game article and reduces the disambiguation nonsense we'd have to go through if twenty "Sons of Lothar" guilds appeared, or something similar. 09:27, 9 March 2007 (EST) I don't know that a guild namespace is the answer. I do think that we should have the server and continent in parentheses, and I'll be adding my vote to option 2 for that. Btw, isn't it kind of silly to have a "No" category for each? :/--Sky (t · c · w) 01:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT) it's that way already, that means option 1 and option 2 are in the scope of the current policy and are only further restricting authors. Having a 'Guild:' namespace removes more than half of the other options' rules and makes all this much easier. Also it will be easy creating a bot that executes this policy -watchout 13:51, 18 March 2007 (EDT) Except, it isn't that way already. Only guilds that span multiple servers have the paranthases... and then they have a disambig.Sky (t · c · w) 14:01, 18 March 2007 (EDT) The Guild namespace addresses a different problem. It keeps volatile articles out of the global namespace in the same way we keep characters in user subpages, and it reduces irrelevant links to disambigs on pages with related content (i.e., the many Sons of Lothar guilds don't need to have a link to a guild disambig article at the top of Sons of Lothar). Guilds spanning multiple servers is less a problem because these guilds have central websites to connect the articles. The articles themselves will still contain information specific to that server's officers and progression. The situaton will persist no matter which naming system we adopt. 15:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT) Someone did make a good case when comparing it to the server namespace, however, I feel that what you said doesn't require a {{guild}} banner. is wrong. Every server page currently has a {{server}} tag on it (some of which I have added), and if it doesn't, than that's because it has yet to be developed. Which does make me wonder... Hmm... This actually brings up a point that I was going to point out on your Master plan page for categories. I'll get around to adding that tomorrow, I think. Anyway, I'm not completely sold against the idea of a Guild namespace... we'll see what happens after you've finished stirring the pot. :)Sky (t · c · w) 16:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT) I've copied and edited the current policy to show what the proposed policy for Option 3 will look like. It can be found at User:Montag/Guild pages. 16:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT) Let me just say:THANK YOU FOR ENDING THIS VOTE. Someone please tag a resolution banner on it, and let's get to business. rawr.--Sky (t · c · w) 04:41, 8 April 2007 (EDT) How do you know when it's over? The normal voting booth with appropriate rules isn't on this page... --Bobson 05:30, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)