Disbanded, inactive, whatever. :P --arklansman
With so many disbanded/inactive/whatever clans should we separate the list into an active list and an inactive list? --Evan 13:38, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
I think alphabetical is more valuable, but maybe the less notable disbanded ones could be purged every now and then? Broccoli 14:27, 5 July 2007 (EDT)
Alphabetical makes it look empty and fail. There should be an active, inactive section, both organized alphabetically, but simply like this
because they suck
can't stick together
don't know what they're doing
Without all those big letters and empty spaces --Knighttemplar 10:54, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree there is a bunch of empty space this way... it would make sense if we had 893843 clans, but we don't at the moment. Can we just make an alphabetized list and move the current template to this talk page to store until it is needed in the distant future? --Evan 18:49, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
- I tend to agree. We don't have as many clans (active or not) to warrant the current page layout. Divide into several sections (Active, Inactive, Disbanded) and alphabetize within each. --Chahk 10:25, 10 December 2007 (PST)
We should make it a requirement for clans to have a valid web page to have an entry on this list. For example, currently at least one newly added clan ("Xcelletic .xC") points to a bogus page. A week to update the link is sufficient imho, after which I'll remove it from the listing. --Chahk 10:25, 10 December 2007 (PST)
Thanks for fixing the Z4G listing Evan, my mind blanked on how to use wiki formatting --Knighttemplar 07:13, 4 March 2008 (PST)
Um why was bco clan removed from the wiki? we had everything needed on it. --Theowningone 13:33, 7 March 2008 (PST)
Fixed. Sorry. We both updated the site at the same time. --Evan 17:16, 7 March 2008 (PST)
Can we get clarification on the @ clan being the oldest clan?
Removed "@" tags in names, don't need those here.