Talk:Clan (computer gaming)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:

I was going to add more to this article today, but for now I'll just note the areas I think can be expanded upon:

  • leagues, competition
  • size of clans, including in different types of games
  • clans that span multiple games
  • controversial topics:
    • how uberguilds affect games
    • real-world competition among clans (including violence)
  • differences between competitive and social clans
  • requirements in joining elite clans: skill, location, internet connection, level
  • clans in other genres (mostly on FPS and MMORPG at the moment)

--Mrwojo 18:16, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] To Much FPS Focus

This article is a good start but I think it has to much of a first person shooter focus. Some MMORPG players need to incorporate more RPG elements since clans are just as influential if not more so in MMOs than in First Person shooters. Neovita (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I linked this to a stub on Online Gaming Organizations, though I am uncertain which would better suit the task. The OGO article is intended to discuss multi-game units. The Phase discussion is good information, but seems intended as a guide to running a guild rather than an encyclopedic description of the typical phases of guilds. --Habap 16:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I say merge the articles and throw out the detailed descritions of each phase. - The Merciful 10:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree, they are the same thing and should be merged. OGO seems a good title too since it is not loaded with the associations to different types of groups that the other terms are. Also the phase section although probably typical of many groups is more opinion than fact, it certainly doesn't seem to fit the encyclopedic style of wikipedia.--FlooK 20:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand OGO seems a term with no background, it shows up in google more in reference to poker. On the other hand clan has been used extensively for years and If any other term is significantly different enough not to be included under it then it would probably deserve it's own article anyway. I've removed the phase discussion now, it read too much like a community site article based on someone's experience and a very narrow definition of a clan or guild. --FlooK 06:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I concur. In writing OGO, I was trying to discover a term that would be non-loaded and apply to guilds, clans, syndicates, teams and anything else. I think we should merge the stuff that has appeared over on OGO into this and ensure proper redirects exist. (OGO may not need a redirect since the term is not in common usage). --Habap 15:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the term "clan"

I see the historical origin of the term, much more encyclopdic information than the phases of a typical clan, isn't mentioned. I'm 99.9% sure the origin is in NetMech, the on-line version of Mechwarrior 2 which was popular in its time, but I can't find any references. This article is the closest I found. - The Merciful 10:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll contribute some apocryphal information, that could be of some use for tracking down references. The online Quake forum AfterShock, maintained by Joost Schuur of later GameSpy fame, had one of the earliest discussions of online competition structure (June-July 1996) and that's one of the places where the MechWarrior 2 notion of a "clan" was explicitly adapted for Quake. Clan Red Dragon, one of the earliest Quake clans extant, was in some sense formed out of those discussions. User:Axon 23 April 2006
Clan Red Dragon (which still exists, it appears) has a history section on their game that gives a good account of origin of the Quake Clans movement, and also includes a copy of an older article on the history of ClanRing (the premiere Quake Clans DM 'league'). Having been very active in the Quake community of the time and member of one of the older prominent clans, I can vouch that is it accurate. Pimlottc 22:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
For what its worth, I can also vouch for the above (what was stated by Pimlottc), as I am in Clan Knightmare™ - a Quake clan formed during that time (June 23, 1996). IIRC, in order to be a part of the "official" clan list, you had to have 5 active clan members before being considered "a clan". It seems as if the site initially started as a list (after QTest was released) mantained by a guy from Clan 311, but eventually ended up being hosted by iD Software themselves. I am not sure if the site you refer to is the 'History of ClanRing' but if it is not, the Muppet Clan has a nice write up concerning some of the first Quake clans. -kmwatcha 19:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If what I've been told is true (read: needs further research to finally confirm), the earliest clan, known as such, in gaming history should be "The Clan"(!), which was centered around Descent.

[edit] Article name

How about if we move the article from Clan (computer gaming) to Gaming clan. It would look better that way imho. bbx 19:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because most people would search for "clan", not "gaming clan", so it is more likely to be found this way. --Habap 13:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Why is it easier to find Clan (computer gaming) than Gaming clan? If you type "Clan" in the search window and press Go you'll end up on Clan which has a link to Clan (disambiguation) on top of the article. bbx 13:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
True, I'm not really convinced that the article really needs moved, both titles are completely accurate. I can see one possible advantage being that "gaming clan" as a phrase is going to be used more in internal links than "clan (computer gaming)" which always ends up as [[clan (computer gaming|clan]] in anything I write. — FlooK 16:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I think a move would be a good idea. There are clans for console games. BioTube 04:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a rename to Clan (video gaming) would suffice? Or perhaps Clan (Gaming community) as several clans exist outside the world of video games, in sports such as airsoft. --Acra 17:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


Should the word "universities" really be linked in the intro? It doesn't seem related, Wikipedia has a search field for a reason. ;) --Ecnassianer 01:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guild hall

In MMORPG games, guilds sometimes can have guild halls.

  • So? In some other MMORPGs any player can have a house or other building. It does not define a clan.

[edit] Shadowclan as example of Organization

The Shadowclan guild which began in the MMO game Ultima Online has expanded and is now a parent organization to Shadowclan "branches" in other games (most notably World of Warcraft). At its peak it had leadership groups in several games simultaneously and thus would be a good example in the Organization heading. --Guest user Anthony Davis, 22:47 GMT 10 September, 2006.

I don't think it would be useful, mnostly because it would prompt everyone who belongs to a similar group to add their guild name. We don't need that kind of vandalism. Does it add any value to this article to talk about any specific clan or guild? I think not. --Habap 14:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Especially since Shadowclan certainly did not "invent" the concept of branches. All this is is an advertisement/ego boost attempt. Drouillm 04:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paranoia

"High-end EverQuest guilds invariably censor the in-game chat display when posting screenshots to avoid revealing their strategies", as a member of a guild that was briefly top guild on an EverQuest server I don't think keeping strategies secret was ever a factor in obscuring screenshots. In most cases only thing that was obscured was chat portion of screenshot and that was done, because it was either irellevant to what screenshot was supposed to show or because it might have revealed messages that were sent in confidence.

Changed to "to avoid revealing sensitive information" --Habap 13:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why give reference to specific clans??

Why does the Syndicate get a reference? What happened here? Do we really need 10 billion people posting guild spam on here? This article is awesome and I am amazed that it was able to go through the entire article without needing to give an example of a real guild... until the end. It should be removed.

Thanks. I have removed it. Editors should keep in mind that we don't want to create hundreds of links on this page to every clan out there. If a clan finds a way to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, then it might deserve a mention. Using a clan-created webpage as a reliable source stretches both the understanding for the guideline and of referencing. --Habap 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Habap. Now that was resolved should this discussion comment be removed? Referring to any one guild, regardless of its in the discussion or not, shouldn't happen in my opinion.

They put it back in again. I have some problems with it:
  1. The page is self-published
  2. The page doesn't support the contention that they are trade-marked
  3. By naming a specific clan that is not considered notable enough to have a wiki-page, we encourage every clan kiddie to add a link to their own clan
  4. The book isn't out yet
  5. Avari Press has only published one other book, which makes me wonder if this is self-publishing or not (no offense intended to either the author or the publisher)
So, while my initial thought is to yank the link again, I expect it to get re-reverted. Thus, I think we need to engage in a discussion with Tarinth to resolve this. Now, if The Syndicate does end up getting a page, that would resolve any issue I'd have with including them. --Habap 16:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does this link keep getting reposted? Do users such as Tarinth and Xezbeth simply haphazardly replace links which shouldn't be there for the simple sake of doing so or are they a member of said guild? I would love to advertise my guild... but I won't. Let's be mature about this and move forward without the need to link a guild. Thank you.

The reference now points to the US PTO and also identifies another clan with a registered service mark (Sturmgrenadier). I found an article that talked about it that was not by someone from The Syndicate (r), so linked there instead of to their self-published source or their own web page that elaborates on what their service mark is. I imagine that having your own trademark will be considered a "status symbol" amongst clans at some and that everyone will have one. Here come the lawyers! --Habap 21:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference to specific guild is not required for this action. We are really straying from the point here on this one. Let's stop the cheap attempts to link guilds here. I believe I made an edit to this that can make everyone, save individuals who wish to advertise their clans, happy. Lets be amiable about this one, thanks. Glam guy 23:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of clans?

i belive that there should be a page that lists gameing clans and their pages. I would do this myself but i am inexperienced.

No. There are probably a few hundred thousand clans, some of which exist for only a few days or weeks and most of which only have a handful of members. Should we also have a list of every neighborhood association or high school drama club? Check out WP:NOT to see what Wikipedia is not. --Habap 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Clans

Should we add a Notable clan section?Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 19:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope. While it would be nice to be able to point out some examples, there are two main reasons not to:
  1. Every kid in a clan will feel compelled to add his clan to the page
  2. Lack of verifiability of information on all but a few clans. It's very difficult to find reliable sources for any information on clans.
So, I think a "notable clans" section invites disaster. --Habap 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree on this issue - anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.62.180 (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merged Article

I merged Gaming community with this article, as all its content contained the same info, but less of it, and a bunch of clan-specific links. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)