GuildWiki talk:Builds wipe

Consensus
I think it's absolutely hilarious that so many common sense proposals for minor changes elsewhere get stomped on as the community has not reached a "consensus", yet all it takes is for one wiki grandee to say "It is clear to me -- and judging from the poll I posted above, most of the older community members -- that the builds section is simply not worth keeping in its current form" and the whole lot gets done away with. I've not got a problem with a site being run by administrators and older community members - they know what they're doing and have the sites best wishes at heart. What I hate is the pretence of "community decisions" and "consensus" when it's clearly nothing of the sort. Say it how it is guys, you're not making any friends by dangling toys down to the proles only to take them away when they start getting played with. It's all well and good saying you welcome the development of new ideas post-wipe, but considering the way the wipe has been imposed by these "older community members" in the first place I see no reason to believe that any policy - no matter how good - will be accepted by them if it conflicts with their world view. --NieA7 06:42, 20 March 2007 (CDT) I don't like how this build wipe has been proposed and actioned, as the reason given of "It is clear to me -- and judging from the poll I posted above, most of the older community members -- that the builds section is simply not worth keeping in its current form" seems to imply that older members have an intrinsically more important voice when matters such as this are discussed. That flies in the face of general consensus, which seems to be what is continually preached as the golden rule. With that comment from the admin who is taking charge of this situation in mind, I see no reason to think that any future policy will be accepted if it conflicts with the world view of these "older members", regardless of how many newer members support it. --NieA7 07:30, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Look at Template:Tested-build. "This build has been successfully vetted by the GuildWiki community." The community being 3 people in most cases. If you're going to argue about consensus in one place, prepare to do it in all. I don't remember you complaining about that template saying "community" when it referred to 3 people. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 06:46, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Then you didn't look hard enough, I've never been fond of the vetting system or the approved template and I agree that they need to be altered. Besides, altering the wording on a template is rather less of a change than the deletion of an entire section. --NieA7 06:48, 20 March 2007 (CDT)


 * We are not pretending consensus and user base acceptance here, atleast I'm not. If this article gives that impression, I'll need to rewirte it a bit.
 * I suggest everyone to take a look at GuildWiki talk:No Original Builds and continue the discussion there to get to a consensus on the new policy proposal. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It's not here I'm talking about so much as the entire wiki, where everything is supposed to be done by consensus. In practice this seems to boil down to very small groups, the argument being won by the person who can type the longest. What irritates me most is the poll - opinion is clearly hugely divided, yet the fact that "older members" voted to axe it swung the decision. Somehow that really rankles. --NieA7 06:57, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The sweep is not based on consensus or the poll. It is based on 2 admins using the GW:ADMIN to do what they want, trying to benefit the wiki with their actions. Ofcourse we do not want to act against the opinnions of most of the users, that would be a political suicide. However, the build policy discussion has waded back and forth for months now so some action needs to be taken. After the sweep and temporary post no builds rule people are more likely to agree on a working policy, especially as we give a month time to discuss before the sweep. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Fair enough, but then why have a poll in the first place - why not just use GW:ADMIN straight away (poll and decision are only a few days apart - the builds mess has been going on for months but this has happened relatively quickly)? If we want the views of most of the users (as opposed to editors) wouldn't it be better to have a template warning of potential deletion pending discussion/binding vote/convincing of the admins (etc etc) that most users want to keep the builds? Not that I imagine most of them would comment of course, but if there's any concern about going against the wishes of most users then those users should be given a chance to say so (I bet most casual browsers of the site never look at any of the policy or talk pages, leaving them oblivious to all this discussion). --NieA7 07:24, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The poll was probably made by Tanaric to get the views of those who are actively interested in the build section and follow the dicussions. The poll wasn't needed, but it was a nice gesture and showed that people don't oppose changes and partially support what we are doing. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * That's my problem though - I don't want nice gestures if they're ultimately meaningless, personally I'd prefer radical action to just be taken if it's already been decided on (the poll was pretty much split down the middle, with a small majority in favour of keeping the build name space, but the following action went to the extreme of deleting the name space. To my mind that implies the decision was already made). --NieA7 07:36, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It wasn't made yet, and i was against the deletion before Tanaric brought his idea to the public. If the vote would ave been almost 100% against this, I would not be rushing this, but with so much support we are on safe ground trying to do something for the best of the wiki. no one has pointed major problems with our actions yet. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Unless I've missed something there seems to be as much opposition to this specific course of action as there is support. --NieA7 07:43, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ouch. This is going to be a painful time for the wiki in the interim until a new policy is put in place, one of the wiki's greatest strengths was in the development nd sharing of builds in a convenient environment. No other site offers such freedom, ease of searching, or flexibility. In fact, most players I know use wiki as their only source of third-party builds or indeed purely as such a source. It is one of the things which has always made Guildwiki one of the most reliable and useful GW sites there is, if not THE most. I sincerely hope that whatever new build policy is implemented it won't stifle what sets Guildwiki head and shoulders above all the other GW sites out there. - Sunyavadin 12:03, 20 March 2007 (GMT)
 * NieA7: Not all of the voters were against a temporary swipe. The poll seemed to ask about a perma sweep and the useres answered accordingly. Sunyavadin: I hope that No Original Builds is going to get accepted before the sweep so we can immediately start again with the builds section. Btw, the wiki is not well known for it's build section but of the other documentation factors. Other fansites are far better for builds atm. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The poll was split, with pretty much as many against as in favour. I know many editors favour this idea, but I don't think there is so much support when compared with the dissent. --NieA7 08:19, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The poll did not ask the right question at all. It asked if the build section is good or bad. The wipe is not deleting the section, just making a fresh start for it, so we are not acting against the ideals of those who voted for the build section. The poll question should have been a lot different to be of any use. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * (reset indent) We can only answer the question that's there. Besides, it's not creating a level playing field - No Original Builds is being pushed very heavily, seems like a foregone conclusion. --NieA7 08:31, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * NOB is being pushed right now because it's the only replacement policy that's been proposed and has generated even mild consensus. Why is it so surprising? If you're not happy with NOB, then for God's sake feel free to come up with another solution, make a draft policy, and present it to the community for discussion. What's holding you back?
 * It's this exact kind of vague hand-waving "well, I don't like THAT, but I don't have any better ideas either" that landed us in this situation, where there's no consensus on anything related to Builds. And then you're all surprised that an admin decides to actually do something instead of waiting about till the community makes up their mind on just what the heck they actually want. --Dirigible 08:54, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Been there and done that - I suggested and pushed Build Split because I think that PvP and PvE builds are fundamentally different. Once the split had been done policies most appropriate to both (NoB for PvP builds, most likely) could be worked out. Considering the discussions that have played out up to now I don't think it's possible to satisfy PvP and PvE requirements with one unified Builds policy (and as a PvE player I am not satisfied with NoB). However, the reaction to that suggestion broke down into agreement, "all builds should be deleted", and "doesn't fix everything all on its own". After that it got bogged down and left behind because I didn't have enough time to keep it in everybody's vision. I wasn't surprised by the admin decision at all, read what I've been saying before you make blanket statements - all I have said is that I do not like the way it's been handled and is being handled. --NieA7 09:32, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Once again, the problem isn't that there has been no discussion, but that there has been a year of fruitless discussion. That all discussions (like Build Split) keep getting bogged down and never going anywhere.
 * As for Build Split, the reason it never really took off (at least from the way I remember it) is that it didn't really accomplish anything in itself. Build Split simply says, "Ok, we'll separate the apples from the potatos in these two bins, and then we'll come up with a tool to distinguish which apples are good and which apples are rotten, and another tool to distinguish which potatos are good and which potatos are rotten". Well, that's sort of missing the point. Why have them in two separate bins when you can just look at them once to figure out whether its a potato or an apple (categories and templates making what build it is painfully obvious are in place now). Build Split kept insisting on having those two bins (a.k.a. namespaces), when the problem has always been and still is simply defining what makes "something" rotten (whether that something is a fruit or a vegetable, it doesn't matter). Sure, you can split them in those two bins, but it doesn't really accomplish anything, it doesn't lead to any sort of progress in the quest to find a few good potatos for dinner and a nice apple for dessert. Yes, of course there's different nuances to take into account when you try to pinpoint what makes a PvP build and a PvE one good, but then there's also differences between GvG and RA builds, there's also differences between farming and general PvE builds. For GvG and general PvE builds, characters can be more focused on their goals, as they have teammates to aid them, while for RA and solo farming builds you need to be able to both survive and kill by yourself at the same time. Should we have another namespace to separate RA builds from GvG ones? Yeah, we could, but would it help at all? These kind of differences should be covered by the policy itself. All difficulty was in pinpointing what makes each build good or bad and clearly defining it, and Build Split didn't offer anything in that regard.
 * Now, NOB presents an actual alternative to how the Builds section currently works, as it completely bypasses the need to distinguish between whether a build is good or not, turning it into simply a question of whether a build is popular or not, which is far easier to tell. NOB is starting to at least show signs (even though faint) of agreement, and there's no other proposal floating around that attempts to address the problems with the current system. That is why NOB seems as if it's being pushed heavily. I won't touch the topic of NOB and PvE here, as there's already a very vivid discussion happening on the NOB talk page on the matter. Either NOB will be modified to deal with PvE builds, or a new policy will end up being created for them, we'll see how that one turns out. --Dirigible 11:35, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm working ona proposal right now. Let me know what you guys think of it.  I'm not submitting it yet as I've never done something like this but I'm interested to hear some input. User:Vallen Frostweaver/Project Archive/Profession Roles --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  12:21, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm not going to rake over the ashes, but the whole point of split was that it wasn't the end. All other policies try to do too much and get stuck because of it. Baby steps are much easier to agree on and put into practice. Once split is done we look at policies for both. Once policies are done we look at execution. Lot easier than trying it all in one fell swoop, which, like NOB, is bound to leave things behind and people unsatisfied. --NieA7 12:29, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

The Article Itself
Ok, no problems for the article.. but don't list gwshack as a better source. It a) Has NO standards, and more importantly uses so many frames that it takes like 5 minutes to load a page. --Dazra 09:19, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Heh, good that that's the biggest problem with the article. ;D --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

"On April 21, 2007, all articles in the GuildWiki build namespace will be deleted." "...which, simply stated, is 'don't post any.'" -- Peej 09:46, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Including ones linked to by articles (like Touch ranger)? You should specify.
 * Sounds a little dramatic, considering you immediately follow up stating that a new build policy is likely.
 * I'll put the first one in. The second one was caused when I edited Tanarics version. It was originally even more dramatic and didn't give hope for better which I tried to modify. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Is this serious? If it is it would be nice, altough a shame for my vetted builds.. --Sig mA   12:32, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It's serious. It's a bureaucrat/admin action, a plan not a policy, based on the feeling that the builds section (including all vetted builds) is irredeemably bad. See the discussion for Post No Builds for the genesis of this. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 18:15, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Idea
I'd like some input for an idea I'm working on to replace the builds section. Check it here and please donate to the talk page your comments or questions. I'd like to refine it to a real proposal and submit it once it's complete but require the opinions of others. Thanks. --  Vallen Frostweaver  13:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * As said on the ideas talk page, I'll be merging some of the stuff with NOB. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Builds linked/redirected to from Mainspace Articles
As Peej asked above, and I tried to discuss at PNB, there's a big issue about builds linked to or redirected to from mainspace articles. My three examples were B/P (link), SS/SV (redirect), and Touch ranger (redirect). There are more, I'm certain, but I don't have a complete list. Here's what needs to happen in advance of the wipe: Obviously, with the wipe, retaining the build pages in the builds namespace is out. So what happens? Do the main articles get edited to copy over info from the builds? Does someone write a bunch of new guides to touchers, ss/sv duoteams, etc? Do the links that are just examples simply get removed? This wipe needs to be done without losing important game information. I know the admins and bureaucrats will want that, too, because they want the wipe as a way to improve the wiki, not harm it. — HarshLanguage 18:26, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Generate a list of all links and redirects from the main article namespace to the builds namespace. I assume there's a way to create this automatically somehow (built-in wiki function? bot?). We need to see what would be broken when the wipe occurs.
 * 2) A plan to replace, move, or otherwise preserve the information represented by that generated list. The build information that's useful and important from those builds needs to be incorporated into those main articles, somehow.
 * As popular builds are put back after the wipe, this shouldn't be a problem. If you read the article carefully, we are not removing links to the build name space, only redirect pages. Therefor we don't need to add links back later on and we don't need to put the information anywhere else. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * OK, I see you have radically altered PNB. The old version of PNB explicitly disallowed all build links. I see the mention of redirects in Wipe. That's good. But I'm afraid I might be misunderstanding you: wouldn't build links be broken until a new policy was in place, and then until the builds are re-created? That could be a long time, and the build names might be different too. In some cases linked builds might not be coming back (PVE/AB/CM builds). And stuff like Touch ranger would need work because there is good info in the redirected-to build that's not in the old versions of the main article. Anyway, with a list of links and redirects at least we can 1) know what links will be broken, and 2) take care to preserve the info that was in redirected-to builds, regardless of what happens with the build policy. Do you disagree about that? Is it impossible to create such a list? I'd do it myself if I knew how. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 19:29, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It's probably possible somehow. If you fear that it might take a long time to forge a policy, I suggest taking part in the NOB discussion either by suggesting enhancements to it or by making a new suggestion. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I've asked Fyren for advice on generating the list. I do fear a gap of a few weeks between wipe and new policy, which some folks (like Auron) want anyway. I really don't like the idea of broken links during that time. It's just due diligence to identify the links/redirects ahead of time and do whatever we can to smooth the transition. It wouldn't affect or delay the implementation of any policy. It has to be done for redirects, at least, right? (Maybe there's a special page for those. Gotta look.) I've been participating on NOB some (and previously PNB), but it seems dissent against the idea of NOB isn't really up for discussion anymore. And including PVE builds really isn't either. The pro-NOB, pro-PNB folks have very loud voices. It'd be worse without your stewardship, though. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 20:35, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Fyren has graciously created a list of build links and redirects for us to use. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 21:37, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Firstly, I'm going to contradict Gem and say that I'm not sure how links to the build namespace in mainspace should be handled during the build wipe. I can see pros and cons for either side. I'm leaning toward removal, as having links to old builds forces us to reimplement a build policy that keeps builds in somewhat the same form -- this is one of the main reasons I want to wipe builds to begin with. Feel free to start a subheading and attempt to sway me one way or the other.

Additionally, I'm going to note that I didn't reference Post No Builds in this article, and there's a reason for that. I don't intend to use post no builds. I will write a build policy from scratch for the interim after this takes effect. I will have drafts ready by mid-April.

&mdash;Tanaric 22:23, 21 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Ah, I jsut took the time to quickly scroll through my watchlist after answering to Tanaric on my talk page and founf this. It's good that you are making a policy article for the policy that will be used for this wipe process, but you should probably have signaled us earlier that you are making one. We would have avoided some of the fuzz. :) And I just wanted to say that I see your point with the links. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Plugging the build links and redirects list again. I could use some help! =) Easiest way to get started is to go through the build redirects section and mark for deletion any that 1) have no main article links to them and 2) are to unfavored, stub, or abandoned builds. Then update the list with your action and sig. If you're not sure what to do, discuss on the talk page first! So far I'm mostly talking to myself over there. — HarshLanguage 04:16, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

A Future without Bias and all that jazz?
I doubt that. I don't think anyone would be able to design a vetting system that eliminates bias, poor procedure, and ambiguity. Good and bad builds are like the good and evil in the real world. It's all relative and a matter of perspective. What determines a good build? How can you measure efficiency? Reliablity? The list goes on and so does the arguments to solve those issues. IMO, the build section has some good (good being my perspective of good/bad/etc), but the rest is bad. But is wiping everything and trying to start a new vetting procedure going to solve this issue? Even if you burn down all the weeds in your backyard, they'll grow back eventually. --8765 22:08, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Not if you do the burning right, of course with a total scorched earth type deal, nothing at all will grow there. --Rainith 22:27, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think most of us would agree that another vetting system is the opposite of what we want. I think many people here will stop reading any proposal immediately upon seeing the words "voting" or "vetting." A good system is one that either 1) provides measurable, quantifiable, objective requirements for entry or 2) doesn't require any requirements at all to be useful. &mdash;Tanaric 22:44, 21 March 2007 (CDT)