Talk:Clan (video games)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Section header

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)

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)

MMO clans are more like a group of people who play together than the definitive clan's in say FPS's. Clan's mainly concern FPS's - it's not that the article focuses on FPS's its that Clan's focus in FPS's. Clan's offer more of a benefit to FPS player's than MMO's that don't already have a built in community system(ie. EVE with it's corporations, alliances). I would say a good example for clans focus in FPS's would be Competition in ladders, leagues as well as Server Ownership/private servers, etc. MMO's simply don't offer anything other than a group of friends.--Papajohnin (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

This is a good article, but doesn't take into account enough simulation based clans, which are some of the oldest gaming organizations on the internet. The ImagiNation Network was the first online multiplayer gaming system (circa 1991). And through it, Red Baron Online spawned the first online clans (know as "squadrons"). Specifically, the oldest (to the best of my knowledge) are the Arabian Knights (formed in January of 1992), the Wing Walkers (formed in February of 1992) and Jadgeschwader 1 "Richthofen" (formed in March of 1992). The WingWalkers and Jagdgeschwader 1 are still active, btw. Jagdgeschwader 1's history section can be found here and here. Hope this is helpful! -User:klaiber 3:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

A rename to Clan (Gaming Community) is definately needed. There are plenty of console clans out now, some of them have professional teams that compete in the Major League Gaming arena. This article needs updated badly and several clans need to be linked to it. -Xaelra (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

The term Clan or Guild is appropriate to Online Games that have that theme, there are many online games that the term Family or Families is used instead. Most of these games are Mafia or Mob specific. So should a similar article be developed for these structures. Or should the title of the article be Online Gaming Group Organizations, which should cover all the variations of gaming organization structures. Individual sections would lack the term Clan and be more generic to cover all org types like Crews, Families, Clans, Guilds, and Teams. I am certain there are others for other genres of games. Plundrigan (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2011 (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)

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)

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)

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)

If people want a clan directory; Wikipedia isn't the place they'd go. There are probably hundreds, of Clan Dirs out there, XFire, Central Outpost, etc. ZellDenver (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Unsourced

Please stop adding uncited content to the article. This is against the rules here. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dont delete this. it is verifiable. --Highstakes00 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not actually deleted, look in the edit history of the article. Read WP:RS then just restore a bit at a time as you source it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion: it takes two to make an edit war. One way to go would be to allow the extra content to stay here for some time, with the article tagged as needing more citations. Since it already bears an Original Research tag, that's not so terrible. Allow it to remain for, say, two weeks, and then agree that if it's still uncited, it should be removed. Another way would be for you, Highstakes00, to develop the extra content in a sub-page of your own page, and copy it here when it's ready, with citations and all. That's just a couple of ideas, but what would be a pity is if you guys were to let this disrupt the efforts of other editors as well. That would most likely end up with a situation in which neither of you had any options any more. (N.B. That's only my opinion, not a threat -- I am not an admin). --Stfg (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

He deletes things from here and adds things without sources where he likes. How do we complain bigots to administrators? --Highstakes00 (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)