GuildWiki talk:Builds wipe

Links
Just to make sure everyone knows what/where everything currently is: More info: -- Peej 20:29, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Builds wipe (this page) - policy describing deleting all builds so that a better replacement build system can be started
 * Post No Builds - aka PNB - policy which only serves to protect the Build namespace in the interim between the build wipe and the replacement system being put into place
 * For clarity, I've included what will be the new policy into the builds wipe article. PNB is no longer referenced in any form. &mdash;Tanaric 19:48, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * No Original Builds - aka NOB - policy describing a solution to the PvP build section which involves only posting popular and successful builds found by watching observer mode
 * Profession archetype guides - recently written policy describing a solution to the PvE build section which involves documenting the basic uses of each profession in a guide format, with links to true PvE builds in user space
 * Builds wipe does NOT mean that all build posting will be permanently removed from the wiki, just that the current system of build posting will be removed in order to put something better in its place
 * Post No Builds doesn't mean you can't post builds on the wiki, just that you can't post them in the Build namespace
 * Both NOB and Profession Guides suggest original builds and build variants can be placed in user space, where they will be categorized and (hopefully) easy to find using template tags, so creation of personal builds will still be allowed

Opinion Poll
The question is: "Are you in favor of Guild Wars:Builds Wipe?"

Voting "Yes" means you are in favor of GW:Builds wipe. Please vote only if you have an opinion, do not add a "Neutral" section. Please also add a comment if you have something constructive to say.

Note: This poll is about the wipe itself, not about the policies that might or might not be implemented after the wipe. Please bear that in mind when voting.

Favor:
 * 1) - Echo ftw 17:12, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Thought about it a lot and I vote for reorganizing with interest in getting the section BACK anew. I support the Build Split policy.(Edit: I don't care about namespaces, I care about having a section) I am also of the opinion that user comments are very valuable to any build discussion pages be it negative or positive. Voting for builds is not important but the amount of discussion and comments a build arises is. --BooBoo 17:32, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) -Jinkas 17:41, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) As might be easy to notice, I favor the build wipe as it will give us a fresh start to implement a new policy. All builds will be backed up, so we wont be losing anything in the process. If the community so decides, it would even be possible to revert the builds section to it's original state, although I hope that wont happen. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 19:02, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) Gonna lose some LOLs, but I think I can live with that. --Thom Bangalter 19:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) Like Thom said, going to lose some massive LOLs, but I think I can live with that as well. Although the builds section in gwwiki is useful, it doesn't cause anyone to actually learn about the skills in the game and about skill synergy. Any person can come on, unlock the elite, buy the skills, then use the build without even knowing what they're doing. Although I love the builds section, deleting it will probably cause people to actually think about what they're doing in their own builds, and possibly *gasp* make their own damn builds.--LolEtc 19:23, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) I think Thom put it the best. --Theonemephisto 19:38, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]]  19:39, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 9) Anyone who wants to save builds can save them. The builds section is not permanently gone, and even though there is strong critism (even by me) it is still the best way to go; nothing is perfect, and of course any build can be retrieved by admins if necessary. Those who think that losing the builds section will reduce the amount of visitors is correct, however, people who are GWiki "Read Only" users do not know well enough to search Unfavored builds as well when looking for ideas, etc, and usually stick to the favoured section. Our vetting process is flawed enough that many good builds are unfavoured and many bad builds are being favoured.-- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 19:45, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 10) --Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 20:33, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 11) Completely necessary. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 21:58, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 12) &mdash; [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  22:22, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 13) Thelord23 00:34, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 14) Though it makes me sad, I relize that it is necessary. Readem  (talk *contribs ) 00:59, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 15) --Vazze 01:26, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 16) With so many poorly vetted builds, and so many near-duplicates, it is almost impossible to find anything unless you already know what you're looking for. The current system is flawed and needs to be redone from scratch. -Ellisthion 08:05, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 17) Yes. --Buzzer 08:33, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 18) As much as it saddens me to say so yes I am :o(. --JP 08:52, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 19) While I haven't been around and never paid much attention to the builds sections, I trust the ppl making the decision when they say things aren't working. -PanSola 11:12, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 20) I have used the build section myself in the past, but it's turning into quite a mess. edit : forgot to log in. Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 14:18, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 21) &mdash; Hyperion` // talk 15:26, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 22) Im in favor of a build section policy renewal.--[[Image:vik.PNG]] ( √ iktor ) 18:51, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 23) The build section needs a wipe - there are too many useless / broken / duplicate builds, and the current system doesn't let us weed out the ones that are poor, they just sort of... accumulate. I personally favor No Original Builds, but this has to come first :P --Phydeaux 19:03, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 24) Normally, I'd unfavor it. But I've had SO many noobish votes on my builds(although more then 75% are favored in favored:unfavored ratio) I want the wipe to start NOW.&mdash;[[Image:Cheese.jpg|50x19px]]  Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 21:23, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 25) I certainly am in favour, I don't feel that the wiki should be a build repository for every build that 5 random people feel is ok, it should more highlight notable build that are quite well known. Although, I guess that is a talk for later? As for now, I feel the wipe is a good idea and will give the wiki a fresh start in the build section, and give it the oppportunity to build it up better. El Cerouni 23:31, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 26) I favor too and the good chance to this might by that, that there is limit to add builds and no more can be added until those have been tested Jope16 04:16, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 27) Duh &mdash; Skuld 09:42, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 28) I'm reluctant to vote, since that seems to be one of the primary reasons the Builds section is being trashed in the first place. But what the heck, if my presidential vote is not going to get someone good into the White House, maybe my vote here can at least make a difference. Here's to hoping. Blazeroth 10:07, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 29) Support. Although I didn't give a million arguments, nor do I intend to, the main reason I support is here. --theSpectator talk 19:14, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 30) I'm sure we'll have a better Build vetting system in the future, similar to the offsite testing site, with vetting requirments and such. -- Llednar [[Image:Assassin-icon-small.png]] 13:23, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 31) I agree, the build section has become basically trash. Ive seen lots of really imaginative builds get put down simply because it seems the entire wiki feels the only good build is wammo. Lots of the builds that do make the cut are utter trash. Healing Hands wammo?  Please... --Ryudo 22:01, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 32) Foo.
 * 33) The entire build section here is rather messy and can be done a lot better. I feel that having builds on the wiki is a good thing but it is in the best interest of the wiki to wipe them all and re-do the entire build section. MonsterAar 19:53, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 34) I suppose a fresh start would be nice. With all the changes to the skills i bet some of the builds no longer work anyways.--Aqiunas [[Image:Aquinas_sig.jpg|15px]] 20:47, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 35) I believe that a lot of good can be done with the builds wipe. like it's been said before, most of the "classic/original" builds will survive in some user's archive, and i figure it's also an extremely effective wakeup call to the builds posse (the bunch that i like to nicely call : The hyena pack). These guys need to get the message that just because they can bitch loud doesn't mean they are always right.  And people dissing builds without having ACTUALLY TRIED THEM OUT piss me off. The builds posse need to learn to be civil again, they need to stop being a fucking clique of self pretentious bastards, and frankly having them sit down with the rest of us to rebuild the section on sound policy appeals to me.--Lullysing 21:00, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Calm down. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 04:41, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Quite frankly, I'm tired of people who seemingly abuse the current vetting system without testing the build or giving constructive criticism as well as some rather bad builds getting favored or good builds getting unfavored because of this. --NYC Elite 15:34, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) I still think Voting in a more controlled form can work.  May I suggest that you all look at http://www.anycraze.com/deck_start.asp  This is a website for voting on Magic the Gathering decks.  This concept is not that different than voting on GW builds. ImperialMike 15:55, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Unfavor: Maybe you could make your own RA build instead of copying everyone else's? *shock* --Ryudo 09:40, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No, there should be a NOB Build section and an OB (Original Builds) section so people can have their cake and eat it too. A consensus will not be reached any other way, as both view points cannot have themselves established without violating the other. Therefore, two build sections should exist, and a build wipe should not take place. Isis In De Nile 17:47, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) - Wyvern 18:16, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) I'm against a total build wipe as it removes an essential and generally relied upon source of information to the general users. Despite the complaints and "problems" with this area according to some users, a total wipe is unnecessary and counterproductive since the proper builds/guides will have to be made all over again. Furthermore, you miss out on the history of the discussion pages if any and the variants (and the discussion of those variants) which may prove helpful. This isn't a vote on future policy so I'll leave it at this. PlacidBlueAlien 18:46, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Just a quick note: moving an article preserves it history, so we are able to back up everything without losing information. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 19:04, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Retort: Simply moving an article isn't the issue. Backing it up somewhere on someone's user space is also does not solve the underlying problem. It's still won't be widely available as it is now since this is a wipe which means to imply starting over again. If this policy was called "Transformation" instead of "Wipe" and reflected as such, I'd support it in the interim till a total new policy is hammered and agreed to. Not to mention, it kills off the section for awhile. PlacidBlueAlien 19:37, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) The section might not be perfect, but it give ideas to players who already understand the basics. Only having "popular builds" and basic guides will not give any benefit but to a small few players. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 19:21, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Complete and total waste of time IMO. If you're going to get rid of it and make it impossible to post builds, my make a new policy? Just scrap anything related to it. Adzma 20:28, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) --Grievous jedihunter 20:38, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Build Wipe=Goodbye to guildwiki and welcome arenanet wiki, atleast for me, if they don't have the same ideology that is. At least don't wipe and ruin this before a future can be shaped out to apease the build comunity. Saving builds into user archives only causes a mess and wont solve a single problem, will ruin the current community and activeness in and out of builds. The current system is better then pissing off almost everyone in the build section. --Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 21:30, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) The system is flawed, true, but that's not a reason to destroy the entire thing. The current system of US democracy isn't perfect either...should we eradicate it too? DKS01 22:22, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) Completely idiotic. Unfortunately, most of the people who oppose (and some who support) this aren't going to post -- they're anonymous, and have a lack of faith that their opinion matters. The petition has far more signatures than this. Darkahn 00:16, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) Oppose. Alternate suggestion: full-protect all of the existing build pages and allow no new builds.  Nobody edits or submits builds until a policy is decided on.  Mass deletion is not going to make anyone happy; it's going to drive the people who have submitted builds away from the site.  ... Or ... is that your goal?  Hmm ... --Delia Rashesh (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) I am against it at this time. Although I see and recognize the need that it MUST eventually take place, I feel that performing a wipe before a new policy has been decided upon, and ready to be implemented, is short-sighted, counterproductive, and possibly harmful to guildwiki overall. The reasoning behind this is simple: From my experience and discussion with MANY other GW players, the Builds section is in fact one of the most popular, and useful, stops on the GW-Wiki train. This is despite the Admin's claim to the contrary. My suggestion (if it even matters) is to simply LOCK the section and not allow further updates until the new policies are decided and in place. THEN commence your wipe and rebuild from scratch as you see fit. Talia 01:27, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 9) Oppose w/ caveat. i realize u guys have major problems maintaining. but wiping w/o a plan already in place to replace what was wiped is completely wrong. do not wipe if u don't know exactly what u're gonna replace it with. if u're gonna replace it w/ NOB, then mess around w/ that on the side until u're happy w/ it and then wipe the current version. also, do u realize how crazy it is to have a poll on an issue where one major issue is voting itself? if u care about ppls votes, then why is there a problem w/ the voting system? if u think idiots vote on the builds, then why concern urself w/ this poll? it makes zero sense.Wongba 01:35, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The poll was started by User:Nova, it's nothing official. Like everywhere else on this wiki (minus the Builds section), the final decision depends on the sanity of the arguments and not numbers of each side. *not even bothering to vote on this one, since it's irrelevant*. --Dirigible 01:40, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * This poll propably has no effect because a date has already been set and the decision is already made but it's important to hear the citizens. --BooBoo 03:07, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, this is purely for opinions of the general public. The results of this poll will not affect the final decision, it is just to see what the majority of the users think. -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 15:39, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Move the GuildWiki:Builds namespace to GuildWiki:BuildsArchive disallow edits, and new posts. This allows for the new policy to be implemented for GuildWiki:Builds yet still allows users to view the current builds. --Emo 07:35, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Reasons stated throughout this discussion. -- BrianG 11:33, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Consider creating a legacy builds section, so the helpful build contributions are not lost.  I agree with previous comments that even locking the section and creating a new one with new rules might also be a good option. --  10:43, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) While the builds section does need a massive overhaul - there's too much junk like smiting monks and people favoring their own builds - this is not a good idea. It makes the wiki far less useful to me until new builds are up. When I need a build, I alt-tab out of GW, open up all builds for a primary profession in tabs, and browse through them, filtering manually until I get down to a small group, then choosing one for the task. This is completely impossible on the GWGuru forums; forums are totally unsuitable for reference purposes. As for what should replace the current system, perhaps only experts accredited by the Wiki 'staff' should be able to do any favoring/unfavoring, because at the moment the build maker and a couple of people who can't tell their henches are doing all the work can favor a lousy build. That, plus frequent wipes of abandoned unfavored builds, should be able to keep the build section useful. Failing that, a comprehensive GW:NOB is the second best choice. Issa Dabir 14:34, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) While I do agree the builds section needs work, I don't think taking it down completely is a good option. It's a bit like throwing out all your dishes and buying new ones after dinner instead of cleaning the old ones.  Sadly though, I don't think any amount of effort on the part of those who want save the builds section is going to work. Those in charge have already decided what they are going to do and everything else is just window dressing. And, going with my analogy, I suspect the new dishes will be PVP only. Anyone have a link for arenanet wiki?  Area 54 09:37, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) I have relied on the builds in GuildWiki for a long time and am very disappointed that the builds will be wiped. There is no need for a wipe, only an overhaul on the format to add some features if that is desired. I enjoy the builds here, rather than the other resources, like GuildGuru, which is horribly undermaintained and outdated. Dracon 09:51, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) Before the GWWiki, I would have gone with this instantly, but now... why the hell bother? Tired of the Build section? Go somewhere else. There's no point pissing half the GWiki viewers off to accomplish very little. &mdash;  Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:49, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Crossed out my vote: something came to me. Oh yeah. I didn't really care in the first place. >.> &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 16:17, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) There are a lot of builds in the build section that aren't mainstream, but are creative and effective nonetheless; having them relegated to user space would mean they would be lost to the general public. --Ctran 01:00, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) The build section is an invaluable source to new players, even if it needs to be trimmed or revamped it should definitely not be totally erased.--Melonhead901 03:36, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) No. --Ressmonkey 19:31, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) So let me get this straight, we are voting on a policy that is against voting? We are arguing about a policy designed to prevent arguments. Does anybody else think that's silly? If the "authorities" have ruled that they don't want to be bothered with discussions, then this entire page is absolutely pointless. The very fact that people are heatedly debating it makes it "valid" under the point of view that Guild Wiki is for documentation and not debate. THAT is the only thing worth arguing about. The rest is frivolities. NightAngel 20:36, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No, this really shouldn't happen. For starters, this website has a better feedback (discusion) than all the other builds sites. I would say, most people use this site mainly for the builds and therefore wiki would loose some viewers. Furthermore I wopuld visit wiki much less aswell, leading to alot of abandoned user accounts. Torment 04:04, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) If all of the builds in the current builds sections were archived somewhere in an accessible and usable form while some better policy is formulated, then I'd be fine with a builds wipe.  Something obviously needs to change.  But throwing away (or making much less accessible by tucking away on scattered user pages)a bunch of useful information is not the answer, imo.  So for now I oppose.  I'd prefer that the info in the current build space just be locked and/or moved to an archive area while this is hashed out. -- Aubee91 11:54, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) I'm disappointed that the Builds will be wiped. I have found the discussions on Build/Talk pages about how skills interrelate very informative and often more important than the recommended build itself.  I mostly play a PvE Ranger - I personally would never have thought of the Feverish Archer or Solo Totem Axe Farmer builds.  I've read that the wipe is a temporary step until new policy is formulated and I can see the problems with voting and with the posting of inferior or duplicate builds.  However, after the months of discussion that have taken place, I can't forsee the development of policy that will satisfactorily resolve these problems.  Finally, the NOB policy supports the PvP player, but does not help the PvE player.  While acknowledging the wipe as an inevitability, my preference is to keep the Builds.  &mdash;  Ali ( talk )  15:53, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) To me, the idea of saying "Other sites do builds better, so just go there" is just horseshit.  Can you imagine Yahoo saying "Google is better at searching, so just go there"?  GuildWiki is pissing away a big opportunity here.  Caspian 20:10, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Noooooo!!!! This is the only part of GuildWiki that I even use... I agree with Caspian though ^^ Go4the1 03:08, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) Wiping it out is a bad idea.  It should at least be archived until we have a proven new policy with many builds created under that policy.  Having users archiving random builds makes in impossible to search (multiple copies of builds all over the place).  Also I think this site is by far the best for finding builds.
 * 6) I love using the build section as it is.  I'm not a PvE player I only play the PvP game.  Without the Build Section where am I going to get my RA builds =[.  I noticed that the new policies will not have RA builds and this disappoints me greatly.--Magus 00:35, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Why Builds wipe needs to happen
Splitting this in two parts, because it's sort of long. Read either...or both... or neither and and just keep going with the stupid nonsense so many are posting around here. Your call.

Part 1: On wikis and laziness
I myself have tried to get more people aware of this by posting about Post No Builds in the Community Portal page. Barek has done the same, by posting a link to the poll by Tanaric which marked the beginning of Builds wipe. These policies has been brought up time after time in both build and user talk pages. The constant personal attacks from all directions going on in the builds section has been so intense as to be impossible to miss. The discussion on those policy pages has been going for months and months. Honestly, the only way to NOT see where this was going to end up is by simply not caring enough to even put 1 and 1 together. And that's what this is all about.

In the end it wasn't the Builds Wipe discussion that was "on display on the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard”. It was the community which was hiding in that lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the lack of interest in any kind of policy-making".

Mostly everyone seems to fail to understand that this is a wiki. If there's one place where you need to express your opinions and communicate with the rest of the users to try and make this place the best it can be, this is it. Unless in extreme cases (like this deletion), everything on the wiki is done by us editors; it's us that come up with policies, discuss them, adapt them, then reach a consensus on them and apply them. There is no "decision-making" board which does the decisions, it's us. You can choose to not take part in this, but only if, a) you don't care what will happen with the site at all, or b) there's someone you can trust to defend your interests as well. If neither a nor b applies to you, I don't think you have any place at all to complain.

Don't get all huffed up, take a deep breath, and try to wrap your head around this. The difference between us and Guru isn't simply that the wiki allows you to edit any page. The difference is in the fact that on Guru you simply have nothing to do with the rules and ideology behind that place. You are there just a visitor, period.

On a wiki you can be just a visitor, but only if you choose to be so. For those that are interested to shape how the entire wiki runs, they can do so. And many do. If you choose to not be one of these people, then what gives you the moral right to complain that this site isn't going where you'd want it to go? None of us is getting a dime out of this, none of us is getting any kind of gain of any kind out of this. So explain to me again, why would I feel morally obligated to look after the interests of Joe Whammo, when Mr.Joe himself couldn't care less about policy until that policy comes to take his favourite toy away? "Rabble rabble rabble!" is just noise without a meaning.

I do understand that this is a difficult concept for many to grasp, because it's frankly one that is unique in its kind, I can't think of anywhere else in our everyday lives where things work like this, so parallels are hard to draw. Most of us are used to hide behind that "The customer is always right!", but here on a wiki that doesn't quite work, because here we're all customers and we're all staff at the same time.


 * My guess (hope) is that if you give these people time to read and understand the build wipe, they may come to like it. I opposed this at first, but once I realized what was truly happening to the wiki, I came to like the idea. Now, it would seem that there are quite a few that won't do this due to their unrelenting love of the builds section, but again, I hope people will come around.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 22:20, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Part 2: On common sense and lack of it
I have no doubt in my mind that the vast majority, if not all, the people that are so vocally opposing now are going to keep using GuildWiki even after this wipe has occurred, and use it even more than ever before. Here's why:


 * The people so strongly opposed to this are focusing only on the title, "Builds wipe", failing to notice the part that describes that:
 * The builds can be very easily undeleted if the new policy decides it to be so. Nothing is going to be lost forever. Even if the undeletion were not available, there already exist multiple copies of the entire builds archive not only in userspace, but even offsite entirely.
 * There are new build policies being worked on. There are new build policies being worked on. There are new build policies being worked on. (Everybody got that?) This thing is the first step, not the last! Successful GvG and HA builds, they're all going to return in one form or another. Your 55hp and DoA and Drok's runners builds are all going to return in one form or another. Discussion and efforts on how to save as much as possible are happening NOW. Go to the top of the page, where Peej has posted those links, and click on them!
 * In the end, this is being done with the best of intentions, and is being pushed by people who have a far more clear view of the overall picture than the complainers.
 * Quick reality check: the people that are now unfairly taking away your toy are also the very same people that came up with that whole section in the first place. The vast majority of editors here are just using this section, these admins and veteran editors fucking built the thing. If they're willing to take down something they built, there must be some very good reason, correct?
 * Most complainers have never stepped out of the builds section, ever. They've never engaged themselves in activities in any other parts of the wiki, they have a very distorted view of what a healthy and productive wiki environment really is. If you really think that the petty quarrels and bitching in the W/Mo Zealous Benedictor talk page is "good discussion", boy are you in for a surprise if you come and check how the rest of the wiki works, how real arguments work, how consensus is really reached.
 * For better or for worse, even though the majority of you are just freeloaders who take it for granted that someone will do their dirty work for them, well, there's actually nice people out there that care enough about this place to get that dirty work done. These same people that came up with Builds 1.0 and are taking down Builds 1.0, they are also working hard on the new build policies, filling page after page with discussion on how to make the next version better. Show a little faith, ye heathens?

I personally feel disappointed by the response of most of you towards this, was really expecting some more common sense and maturity to be shown. But apparently it was an assumption I shouldn't have made. --Dirigible 22:12, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * (I'm disentangling your comments from my post, DKS01, please don't mix them together like that again, as it makes it impossible for a third reader to figure out just what's going on. --Dirigible 02:41, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I have no doubt in my mind that the vast majority, if not all, the people that are so vocally opposing now are going to keep using GuildWiki even after this wipe has occurred, and use it even more than ever before. Here's why: 


 * I will continue to use it for some purposes(finding where to cap a specific skill, or whatnot), but I'll be using it much less, as I spend a lot of my GWiki time reading, discussing, and coming up with builds, something that will be taken away for who knows how long. DKS01 02:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * The people so strongly opposed to this are focusing only on the title, "Builds wipe", failing to notice the part that describes that:
 * The builds can be very easily undeleted if the new policy decides it to be so. Nothing is going to be lost forever. Even if the undeletion were not available, there already exist multiple copies of the entire builds archive not only in userspace, but even offsite entirely.


 * Which is fine...when(or if) they're brought back. The problem is, it's absolutely USELESS until that happens. It's nice they can be easily undeleted, but until they ARE undeleted they do the users no good and doesn't benefit the GW community, which, I believe, is a key part of the wiki. DKS01 02:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * There are new build policies being worked on. There are new build policies being worked on. There are new build policies being worked on. (Everybody got that?) This thing is the first step, not the last! Successful GvG and HA builds, they're all going to return in one form or another. Your 55hp and DoA and Drok's runners builds are all going to return in one form or another. Discussion and efforts on how to save as much as possible are happening NOW. Go to the top of the page, where Peej has posted those links, and click on them!


 * This is good. And once you get the new policy worked out, feel free to delete the old builds. But why delete them before anything has even been decided? If nothing has been worked out yet, why should we assume it will anytime soon, either? And if it doesn't, that means a long period of time with no build section at all. DKS01 02:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * In the end, this is being done with the best of intentions, and is being pushed by people who have a far more clear view of the overall picture than the complainers.


 * How's that old saying go, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions? As for that second part of the statement, it doesn't ring in the least of clarity, it simply rings of elitism. "We're better than you so STFU". And sorry, but feelings of superiority are not a valid support of your point, and certainly contradict the desire for "maturity" that you express down below. DKS01 02:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Quick reality check: the people that are now unfairly taking away your toy are also the very same people that came up with that whole section in the first place. The vast majority of editors here are just using this section, these admins and veteran editors fucking built the thing. If they're willing to take down something they built, there must be some very good reason, correct?


 * Nice condesencing opening remark there, is that more of the sort of "maturity" you desire from Wiki users? They started the section, that is good, I don't argue that. But hundreds of other people have added and contributed to it, why should THEIR contributions be flushed away? If the CO of Ford Motors decides to shut down his company and get rid of his car because he doesn't like the way they drive, should everyone who owns a Ford have their car taken away too? Afterall, he built it, now he's taking it down, and he has a good reason, no? DKS01 02:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Most complainers have never stepped out of the builds section, ever.


 * Some have, some haven't. Before I ever looked at the builds section at all I was uploading item pages, item images, fixing typos and errors I find on pages, discussing quests, and more. Only recently did I really get involved in the build section. DKS01 02:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * They've never engaged themselves in activities in any other parts of the wiki, they have a very distorted view of what a healthy and productive wiki environment really is. If you really think that the petty quarrels and bitching in the W/Mo Zealous Benedictor talk page is "good discussion", boy are you in for a surprise if you come and check how the rest of the wiki works, how real arguments work, how consensus is really reached.


 * Yes, you can find build talk pages with lousy discussion, you can find build pages with good discussion. You can probably find similar discussions, both good and bad, on a wide variety of topics, not just builds. Shall I go through and find any article that has bickering and bitching then delete them all? DKS01 02:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * For better or for worse, even though the majority of you are just freeloaders


 * More condescending elitism and an insult to boot. That maturity you spoke of is shining through once again. May I remind you of this? DKS01 02:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * who take it for granted that someone will do their dirty work for them, well, there's actually nice people out there that care enough about this place to get that dirty work done. These same people that came up with Builds 1.0 and are taking down Builds 1.0, they are also working hard on the new build policies, filling page after page with discussion on how to make the next version better. Show a little faith, ye heathens?


 * Fine, why not come up with a new policy, THEN delete the builds? DKS01 02:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I personally feel disappointed by the response of most of you towards this, was really expecting some more common sense and maturity to be shown. But apparently it was an assumption I shouldn't have made. --Dirigible 22:12, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * You're talking about deleting one of the most useful parts of the site, a resource used by a HUGE number of people. You can talk about coming up with something better, but the fact of the matter is, you HAVEN'T. When you do, carry on, but until then you are jumping the gun. DKS01 02:29, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * About deleted builds being useless while unavailable: not true. Through their inavailability they allow the new build policies and formatting guides to grow.
 * You accused me of immaturity a few times there, in a roundabout way. Maturity isn't about being polite, nor is it about being careful to not offend anyone's fragile ego. Maturity is about thinking before speaking. It's about understanding before reacting. It's about using the gray matter to try to make sense of things before calling foul and demanding for your icecream now or otherwise you refuse to eat your dinner.
 * You mentioned the word elitism there. That's exactly right. A meritocracy. That word has been mentioned a few times around here recently, and it correctly describes how this wiki and most wikis work. Look it up.
 * Your analogy doesn't stand. If the CEO of Ford decides to shut down Ford Co, true, car owners don't have to get rid of their cars. But they can't demand that he keep his factory open, and that's what's happening here. Why should that CEO keep the company open if it's giving him a hell of a hard time, and the cars are coming out with three wheels and no seats?
 * The Builds section was (and is) the hub of ugly behaviour on this wiki, and if you disagree with that then my only answer is "get a clue". (And no, even though this talk page has gotten heated up, it's nowhere close to being as bad as the builds section can get).
 * What about GW:YOU? Have you even read You Are Valuable, or are you going just by the title? It's about new users being given a fair chance to speak their minds, to say how they feel about something. And, hey, look, this entire page is filled with posts from people speaking their minds, many of whom never having posted before. Where did I tell anyone"you, stop talking! you're worthless"?
 * Definition of freeloader: To take advantage of the charity, generosity, or hospitality of others. Now go back and reread it in the sentence I used above. (Quoting:)
 * For better or for worse, even though the majority of you are just freeloaders who take it for granted that someone will do their dirty work for them, well, there's actually nice people out there that care enough about this place to get that dirty work done. These same people that came up with Builds 1.0 and are taking down Builds 1.0, they are also working hard on the new build policies, filling page after page with discussion on how to make the next version better. Show a little faith, ye heathens?
 * Makes sense? People expecting others to find the solutions, people expecting others to come up with the brilliant ideas, people who don't care about HOW it's done, but only that IT IS DONE. And that's what the whole post was about, about not expecting others to do things for you, about not expecting others to look after your interests as if it were a god-given right. Not on a wiki it isn't.
 * Nonetheless, the majority of editors are freeloaders (and you need to realise that I consider myself a freeloader as well on this wiki; something that I'm trying hard to change on the official one). They expect the others to come up with the solutions. Fine. Let it be so. Let those that are kind enough to come up with solutions do so, especially after they've proven a stable track record, coming up with BuildWiki 1.0. Allow them to work freely. And Builds wipe does exactly that. Gives them carte blanche. --Dirigible 03:36, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * About deleted builds being useless while unavailable: not true. Through their inavailability they allow the new build policies and formatting guides to grow.


 * I could be mistaken, but unless the presence of the current build section is throwing up some sort of mind block, there is nothing stopping a new policy and formatting guide from being created even WITH their availability. There unavailability simply renders them unavailable, it does not affect the ability of a new build policy or formatting guide to be created. DKS01 06:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * You accused me of immaturity a few times there, in a roundabout way. Maturity isn't about being polite, nor is it about being careful to not offend anyone's fragile ego. Maturity is about thinking before speaking. It's about understanding before reacting. It's about using the gray matter to try to make sense of things before calling foul and demanding for your icecream now or otherwise you refuse to eat your dinner.


 * A roundabout way? I said it straight up. You took a condescending and elitist attitude, refused to address the points people made, and refused to give a reason why beyond "we are smarter than you" and the assertion that the existence of the current build system somehow prevents you from coming up with a new one, all the while insulting and attacking the people who disagree with you. If that is your idea of "maturity", you are no better than those build discussions you were criticising. DKS01 06:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * You mentioned the word elitism there. That's exactly right. A meritocracy. That word has been mentioned a few times around here recently, and it correctly describes how this wiki and most wikis work. Look it up.


 * Except that is NOT how the wiki works, as I already pointed out in the YOU policy. According to that, all users have an equal say, not "I do more so I get more say" or "I've been here longer than you noobs so I'm more valuable", which is the exact attitude you have been conveying.


 * Your analogy doesn't stand. If the CEO of Ford decides to shut down Ford Co, true, car owners don't have to get rid of their cars. But they can't demand that he keep his factory open, and that's what's happening here. Why should that CEO keep the company open if it's giving him a hell of a hard time, and the cars are coming out with three wheels and no seats?


 * Lock the builds section, how will that be giving you a hard time? And the build section may be the factory, but the builds themselves are the cars. By removing the section, you're also destroying(or at least confiscating) all the cars that factory ever turned out. DKS01 06:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * The Builds section was (and is) the hub of ugly behaviour on this wiki, and if you disagree with that then my only answer is "get a clue". (And no, even though this talk page has gotten heated up, it's nowhere close to being as bad as the builds section can get).


 * Irrelevant. There's more of it there simple because there's more there to discuss. People don't argue on the talk page for Katana for example simply because there is nothing there to argue about. It shows a picture, tells some places it may drop, notes collectors give them, and nothing else, there's nothing TO debate there. But in any section where something IS debatable, discussions can and will get heated sometimes. The builds section is a BIG section filled with debatable points, so yes, there's more likely to be debate there. And if the new build policy allows discussion of builds at ALL the exact same thing is going to happen. DKS01 06:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * What about GW:YOU? Have you even read You Are Valuable, or are you going just by the title? It's about new users being given a fair chance to speak their minds, to say how they feel about something. And, hey, look, this entire page is filled with posts from people speaking their minds, many of whom never having posted before. Where did I tell anyone"you, stop talking! you're worthless"?


 * It also states that someone's opinion is not worth less because they are new, or because they haven't posted much, or because they are not admins. All three of which totally contradicts your "meritocracy" point you mentioned previously. You plainly stated your opinions were worth more than ours. DKS01 06:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Definition of freeloader: To take advantage of the charity, generosity, or hospitality of others. Now go back and reread it in the sentence I used above. (Quoting:)
 * For better or for worse, even though the majority of you are just freeloaders who take it for granted that someone will do their dirty work for them, well, there's actually nice people out there that care enough about this place to get that dirty work done. These same people that came up with Builds 1.0 and are taking down Builds 1.0, they are also working hard on the new build policies, filling page after page with discussion on how to make the next version better. Show a little faith, ye heathens?
 * Makes sense? People expecting others to find the solutions, people expecting others to come up with the brilliant ideas, people who don't care about HOW it's done, but only that IT IS DONE. And that's what the whole post was about, about not expecting others to do things for you, about not expecting others to look after your interests as if it were a god-given right. Not on a wiki it isn't.
 * Freeloading is taking advantage of others without giving anything in return. I've posted builds, items, item images, fixed pages, fixed links, and done other stuff here. If I notice a problem, I try and fix it. As have many other people here whose opinions you dismiss. Furthermore, a wiki is about people sharing ideas and information, and giving their own input, which includes a large number of people telling you that a wipe is NOT the solution. DKS01 06:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Nonetheless, the majority of editors are freeloaders (and you need to realise that I consider myself a freeloader as well on this wiki; something that I'm trying hard to change on the official one). They expect the others to come up with the solutions. Fine. Let it be so. Let those that are kind enough to come up with solutions do so, especially after they've proven a stable track record, coming up with BuildWiki 1.0. Allow them to work freely. And Builds wipe does exactly that. Gives them carte blanche. --Dirigible 03:36, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * And I state again, unless the current builds section is throwing up some kind of thought disruption, there's nothing stopping them from working just as freely without a wipe. Not one person voting against the wipe has said they oppose a new policy, we simply want the section to remain UNTIL a new policy is created. Why kill the section before we have a new policy? If I plan on buying a new house, I'm not going to continue living in my current one, true. But I'm not also not gonna load all my belongings into the moving van before I've even picked the new house I'm going to move into, either. That is what those of us who oppose the wipe are asking, why pack up and move out before we've even picked which house we're going to move into? DKS01 06:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * If you don't understand something I say, that's fine. But please don't reinterpret and misquote me. 1. I never said "We are smarter than you". I said this wiki is a meritocracy. For issues that matter, the opinions of those that have more experience and expertise on the issue in question have (logically) more worth than those that don't have such expertise and experience. Scroll down to my answer to PlacidBlueAlien for how this applies to this issue, I'm not going to repeat the same thing here again. Bottom line is, GuildWiki is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy. The Builds section attempted to be a democracy, and it fell on its face and failed. Not everyone is equal in what they can bring to the table, and claiming otherwise is just silly.
 * 2. No one is confiscating your cars, take them, do whatever you do with them, start a new wiki/factory with them, burn them, drive them, whatever you want to do. Your analogy still doesn't work. :)
 * 3. The wipe is definitely A solution, whether you like it or not. It was discussed elsewhere by others who feel more strongly and more clearly about this than I do, that the builds wipe allows the policy and formatting to be created properly. Instead of those policies and formatting guides being created so that they can co-exist with these builds, it's healthier to get rid of the builds, and then import the ones that would survive under the new policies and formatting. It's not quite a mental block, it's more about these builds limiting your possible options. "Why not wait some longer"? I think this has been repeated about a million times over the past few days, so it's a bit strange that you've missed it. Basically, how much longer? It's been a year, and nothing. Only now that this wipe has been announced has discussion finally starting to take shape, so it's evidently working, isn't it! Why stop now, why risk everything going back into limbo again? :)

--Dirigible 07:36, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * 1) Technically, no, you didn't. Your words were "In the end, this is being done with the best of intentions, and is being pushed by people who have a far more clear view of the overall picture than the complainers". Different wording, same message. You're telling us our opinion is wrong, yours is right, and we're just not smart enough to see it.
 * 2) You're telling me if I want to keep my "car", I have to open a new factory. Seems a bit over the top. I've kept a few builds on my user page as is, but when we already have a place for them it seems silly to remove it.
 * 3)Sure, it's A solution, it's just not a good one. I mean, a solution to stopping discrimination against some group would be to wipe out that group then nobody would discriminate against them, but I'd hardly call that a good solution. There is absolutely NO ADVANTAGE GAINED by wiping then coming up with a new policy than there is by leaving it as it, and coming up with a new policy. And hey, it's been a year and basically nothing? Then why do you keep telling us to have faith, and keep pointing out that the builds can be restored when the new policy is picked? If you haven't figured anything out in that much time, why should we assume you will now? The presence of the builds section as is has NO EFFECT on being able to come up with a new policy, and if it's stumped you this long, wiping the builds isn't going to suddenly pop an idea into your head is it? I repeat, nobody said make the policies and formatting guides to coexist with those builds, we ALL say leave those alone UNTIL you actually HAVE a new policy and guide, THEN do the wipe. Those builds have NO BEARING on the new policy. The problem is, you don't HAVE a new policy. Make one, THEN wipe. As it is, you're wiping the existing info, without having a new plan to replace it. Formulate the new plan, then once you've come up with one, do the wipe. And of COURSE discussion is just now starting to take place, cause many people JUST NOW SAW IT cause it's in a huge announcement on the main page. If you had posted an equally large announcement on the main page a year ago discussing the possibilty of wiping the builds this same discussion would have happened THEN. The fact of the matter is, there is thousands of articles on the wiki(which is what makes it THE best source of GW info on the net), and if a person is not looking for a specific article, there's a good chance they will never see it unless it's posted prominently on the main page. And until now, there was no such posting. You say the wipe generated this discussion...the thing is, it's not the wipe, it's the IDEA of the wipe, so even if the wipe was NOT happening these discussions would still be going on if it was still stated that a wipe was still being considered. People just didn't know about it until now.
 * DKS01 08:23, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Thank you for saying this, because it's oh so true. Stop complaining about something that's going to happen, and start trying to come up with a system that works already. --Theonemephisto 10:59, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I think that DKS01 makes some good points here. I also see Theonemephisto point of we all need to stop complaining and come up with a solution.  However with a set date of the builds wipe looming I don't see this happening.  Too many people are worried about the loss of information.  Putting the notice on the main page did succeed in getting more people involved with the discussion.  I think we need to put the build wipe on hold.  Put up a new notice saying help us decide on new policy or something like that so that these discussions can happen with the larger community.  Until the build wipe is put on hold both sides are going to be defensive and not much is going to be accomplished with coming up with a new system for the build pages.  As we can see not much constructive conversation is happening on how to replace the build pages.

Please tell me this is a late April Fools' joke
Please tell me, that whoever linked to the other build resources as "much better sites", simply overlooked the lack of updates on them. The unfounded elitism. The fact that Guild Wikis, is presently, the best resource for PvE builds. Period. All I've found from this ridiculous garbage is that a few people "don't like" certain builds that have been tested, and because they're too moronic to get them to work, they're convinced the system is a "failure", so they'd rather each and every build wiped. Idiots.

By removing the builds section, you are removing the reason 3/4 of people use this website. The entire idea that this is ample warning is absolute BS. It's like having a trial for someone, sentencing them to death, without ever telling them they were being investigated and having the trial completely seperate from them, and then giving them a one-month warning that they're going to be shot in the head.

Comedy. Gold.

At the very least, the builds could be archived ON HERE, not on OBSCURE USER PAGES. The very least. So now that builds are going to be removed, what makes this site any different from the official wiki? Hell, you know what, I can't understand any of the mission articles. WIPE THEM OUT. ALL OF THEM. Or wait! Because ArenaNet sometimes changes item stats, it's too hard to maintain -- prevent any item articles and wipe out all the current ones. Ugh. Darkahn 00:10, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Please read . -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 00:11, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

...It's called sarcasm. Darkahn 00:12, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Rants do not help stop this, User:Sefre/Build Wipe Petition, I have tried to organize a support and resource page for those who oppose the build wipe, mainly due to lack of discussion by whole community and damage done to site once it goes in effect.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 00:20, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I would suggest the original poster read the post by Dirigible above. It is probably the best thought out post on this whole, long page.  --Rainith 00:21, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

On another note, the same idiots who don't like spellcasting warriors or sword-wielding ritualists are probably the same ingrates who probably said "LOL 55 HP U NOOB" to the solo-monk concept. Alternate playing styles. Exploiting what is there. Like a game of chess, that is what a build is. I've seen spell-casting warriors annihilate 1v4 an entire group in RA, and I've seen that exact same warrior die at Shing Jea. This is not World of Warcraft. Darkahn 00:23, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Watch violations of GW:NPA, admins seem to notice more often if you go against the grove.
 * As to dirigibles summary, he outlined just about every supporting fact, obviously biased on the situation, as can be expected....--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 00:26, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeh, because making sense is definitely full of bias. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 00:27, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Where the hell have you been? Life is perception, what makes sense to you can look like fevered rambling to me. Of coursed its biased, your comments on this page are biased, I'm sure mine are too. Its guild wiki politics, don't pull the making sense crap on me--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 00:33, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Rainith: All I saw in that post was the prepubescent insulting of intelligence and maturity based on differing opinions, and the same tired nonsense that was used against the entire concept of having build-sites in the first place, not to mention the typical PvP unearned elitism. Freeloading? SO WHAT? Imagine if ArenaNet said "we're shutting Guild Wars down. None of you helped build it, so gtfo. We might/might not bring it back. LOL GGKTHXBAI". Same principle -- I contributed to a few builds, so that slaps down that nonsense. It's hardly "thought out", although it's atleast better than all the other garbage reasons for doing this.

Also, Sef, while I appreciate the tip, I'm not too concerned over losing my access to this site if my one reason for using it is going to disappear over the qualms of a few. Want a new policy? Fine! Want to stop new builds from being put in? That's fine too. Deleting all this work is pointless and counter-productive. Letting only morons put in traditional-play style builds is not fine. Letting those who've won the wiki-popularity contest determine the course is also not fine. I very muchly doubt every single editor, to every single build, somehow supports the notion of removing it. The naysayers and doompreachers, who were pissed because builds THEY didn't like were FAVORED, are the majority of the ones supporting the wipe.Darkahn 00:30, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * If you disagree with the post I pointed you towards, respond to it, rebut it, tear it to shreds using logic if you think you can.
 * I do believe that if you read the fine print, ANet/NCsoft may shut down the service at any time, for any reason. You bought the product and they are now providing the service free of charge, they may stop providing that service at any time.  This website may shutdown at anytime too, Gravewit pays the bills, but if he stops, there isn't much we can do about it.
 * If you cannot stand the thought of GuildWiki without builds for one nanosecond, well, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. --Rainith 00:39, 5 April 2007 (CDT
 * Wow, I never thought I'd see a admin say that to a user who is just speaking his mind....--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 00:45, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * What? That the builds section will be wiped on May 1st?  That if you believe that that will make life not worth living and that GuildWiki will not be worth visiting at that point that you should leave?
 * Guess what, it is a wiki, no more, no less. If you aren't having fun (which apparently Darkahn believes he will never be able to have fun again if the builds go bye-bye), then take a step back and examine what is really important to you.  Christ, if people got half as worked up about real life politics as they do about wiki politics, real change might be possible in government.  --Rainith 00:51, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

The primary differences between ArenaNet shutting down the servers and GuildWiki removing everything are the following:

1. There are already private servers just incase of GW1's shut-down. They're just not well known. 2. Gravewit stopping the payments is hardly the equivalent of a few tough-talking cunts having every build wiped because of their own insecurities. 3. ArenaNet has given ample warning for such a removal; their edittors were paid. Wiki edittors work pretty much goes out the window, pointlessly, outside of obscure archives with how this will work. 4. ArenaNet would shut down their services either for financial or business reasons -- not because a few over-blown elitists decided the game had passed its expiration date. Darkahn 00:46, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * --edit conflict, posting anyway--
 * I for one don't plan on banning you just because you disagree. For the record, I've also never played PvP and, in fact, don't even play Guild Wars anymore. My account /age is something under 300 hours, and those were accrued in the first three weeks of the game's launch. I did, however, quite enjoy the beta weekend events.


 * Secondly, this is an all-volunteer website. We rely on the fact that Users Like You will chip in and help out. This model has worked quite well for most of the wiki. Unfortunately, because of the general immaturity of gamers as a whole, a disproportionately small number of editors wrote the majority of our content, but we still managed, and we did it happily. However, there is one place where our beautiful, utopian vision has never really clicked, and that's the builds section. Blame it on what you will: maybe PvPers are all retarded, or maybe PvEers will accept anything that includes a full skill bar, or maybe everyone who cares enough about a game to calculate damage-per-second is bound to be an asshole. Since those sorts of reasons are the ones people tend to throw out, they simply must be correct.


 * I have a crazy notion that, perhaps, a system based on competition is simply bound to fail on a technological tool based on cooperation. I have another crazy notion that democracy sucks. Wiki is not about democracy. It's about meritocracy. The sysop team here has consistently proven to have what's best for the wiki in mind. I'd like to think that, since I'm the nominal head of the sysops, the same can be said about me. My job is not to implement what the community thinks is best. The community, in general, can implement what the community thinks is best. My job is to step in when the community decides something is great, and they're dead wrong.


 * I certainly don't claim to be infallible. Were that the case, I'd protect this discussion page right now and tell you all to quit bitching. As it is, I'm very interested in views that are different from my own. That's one of the reasons I penned GW:YOU -- because I actually believe that even first-time editors should have a voice. There's a huge difference between "the admins don't listen" and "the admins listened and decided I was wrong." Everything so far has been the second case.


 * Now, if you'd like to come back and make a rebuttal to my stated reasons for this builds wipe, please do so. I look forward to reading it. If you're going to come back and bitch more, well, you're welcome to do that too. I suppose it's your right. However, the rest of the community is rapidly moving past that point, and they're working to make this place the best it can be inclusive of the builds wipe, and I hope you reach that stage soon too.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 00:46, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Wiping every build, is not the same as a policy change to how new builds are to be added. If there was simply a mass change, and only proven edittors allowed to create/design/alter builds, well, fine. There'd still be dissent, but it wouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Archiving the tested builds (ON WIKI, NOT ON USERPAGES OR FORUMS), wiping the untested, and then making it less of a wiki, even if those so-called proven authors are idiots, is fair. I disagree with it, but it's atleast fair. This, however, is by all means overkill to the fullest extent. Darkahn 00:52, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Um, yeah, Userpages are on the wiki... --Rainith 00:54, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * If we were willing to allow such an "editor-elite" system, your solution is quite elegant. As it is, we're entirely unwilling to allow such a system to develop. I agree we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. However, the baby we're tossing has fetal alcohol syndrome. Next time we give birth, we'll have been dry throughout the pregnancy. &mdash;Tanaric 00:55, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Holy crap I tpye slow, edit conflict but in responce to tanarics first comemnt in section:
 * Irrelevant, but I just noticed everyones using bold to emphasize stuff in this section.
 * Tanaric, I am not saying you are wrong but how can you be sure that the community is really dead wrong? If there are two conflicting sides then there will likely never be a stop until the page dies form inactivity. Or if a admin steps in and just decides which is kinda against the point of wikiism. The next best think I can see is democracy and voting to get at least a technical solution. Its either some miracle happens that all agree, admin steps in, or a vote goes on and conflict stops officially but not totally. This is part of the problem with the wiki ideology, when major conflict occurs there can never be a true wiki like solution albeit a miracle occurring.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 01:00, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * And that would be one of the reasons that We are not Wikipedia. We give admins and bureaucrats the power to step in in situations like this (see GW:ADMIN first sentance above the TOC and 3rd sentance of the first section).  --Rainith 01:05, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Exactly what Rainith said. &mdash;Tanaric 01:06, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Alright, I never caught that. This situation is to controversial, and I feel that most admins are supporting the wipe, how is this fair to the rest of the community? I will leave and boycot the wiki if that happens. I honestly can not believe that the admins have the power to enforce there opinions that contradict with many other's.
 * Honestly I think we should just split the build names space and give a section to each side, to run it there own way and what not. That would take up a lot of space I suppose and be confusing tho.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 01:17, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Personally I think it would be great if someone forked the builds off onto their own wiki (I've said this before). Set up interwiki links to GuildWiki and simply upload the FSK icons for skills.  Then you just have to go   to link to GuildWiki's article on Mending (for all the Wammos that would get put there :P ).  As long as it used the same license and gave attribution to the build's authors it could work.  --Rainith 01:23, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Rainith: I meant as in simply in the archived builds section; on an accessible part of the Wiki. Tanaric: Yes, the thing is, this baby with fetal alcohol syndrome can be fixed. An article can be editted like (as an atheist, I hate to use this metaphor) God crafting an already made body. Maybe I just don't get it, but I really don't see a point to this wipe if there isn't going to be a system that would only allow those who know their things -- whether traditional or alternative -- to edit. To be perfectly honest, I'm fine with whatever editting policy is put in place. But there is good work on a majority of build articles, and throwing them out just seems counter-productive. Darkahn 01:09, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

If anyone wishes to fork our current builds section, per Rainith's suggestion, I'll donate server space. See my user page for details. &mdash;Tanaric 14:10, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

No offense, but get over it guys
To anyone who thinks that the wiki regulars are at fault for the build wipe, get over it. There is absolutely no point. Insulting them, makes you personally sound immature, and doesn't make your case any stronger. Here are the basic underlying reasons that the build section is being deleted: Readem (talk *contribs ) 00:58, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Too much of a hassle to upkeep
 * Too many repeating builds that people must vote on and administrators must delete
 * Build discussions often end up arguments.
 * Rarely if ever, do outsiders vote on the builds (Wiki regulars and usually the author are the only ones who vote.)
 * Very few "Favored votes" for builds, are even tested or supported by evidence
 * Takes up a lot of time and space
 * It shouldn't be the wiki's problem (It is meant for info, not opinion)
 * The wiki is giving opportunities that no one is taking (There is until May 1st to get Builds on a user page. It takes less then 5 minutes to create an account. So if you would be so kind as to stop posting insults, I and many others I am sure, would greatly appreciate it. This simple request is all I ask, Thanks!)

Gee. That sounds like the problem with everything, about every Wiki article, including on Wikipedia. Guess they need to wipe every article and start over, too. Darkahn 01:01, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Actually, the rest of our articles fairly rock. The ones that don't are at least fixable. &mdash;Tanaric 01:04, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Build articles are as to GuildWiki as religion articles are to Wikipedia. They're more controversial, opinionated, and complex, than a simple holiday article or even item article. However, they're still fixable. Darkahn 01:11, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Reamem: --Sefre  01:07, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) You aren't forced to maintain it.
 * 2) Thats a problem of people being to stupid to look it up, one of humanity's flaws, no a wikis.
 * 3) Even so the wiki has a build community that blossomed and is currently arguably the best
 * 4) If by outsiders do you mean anons? Cause thats not true, I see new accounts(or not very active accounts) voting on builds along with anons.
 * 5) Thats a voting flaw, easily remedied if it got the proper attention
 * 6) Time is up to the person how to use it, space is guild wikis owners concern and he.she can do what they want on that issue.
 * 7) Thats not different from number 3
 * 8) And I have done something to take advantage of it, in case you haven;t noticed I got flamed left and right about it for a while...


 * Sefre, in response to a few of your numbers:
 * 1. Right, but someone will need to, which requires additional effort and time, especially with ANet's constant tweaking of skills. There are 230 "tested" PvE builds and 131 "tested" PvP builds. When ANet releases more skills (e.g. in the Eye of the North expansion), or ANet makes skill changes, builds will need to be checked again, or people will add variant after variant for builds.
 * 2. True, if that's humanity's flaws, then it won't ever get fixed here in the wiki and will remain a problem forever.
 * 5. Notice the if it got proper attention. So many builds don't get the proper attention for whatever reason (probably just due to the immense quantity of them).
 * And (Darkahn's comment) comparing build articles to GW with religion articles to Wikipedia isn't a good comparison. At least the religion articles in Wikipedia have plenty of historical and written support from which to draw upon (whether you believe or agree with them is up to you), while the builds section is much weaker in testing/support for each new build someone puts out, as well as changing direction according to ANet's skill-adding/tweaking tides.
 * Not trying to attack anyone; just pointing out certain comments. --theSpectator talk 01:55, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * You bring up a very good point regarding the comparison to religion articles. It would make more sense if Wikipedia had articles about religions that people made up "because they thought it looked like it might work" and then asked people to test the theories and vote on if it worked or not.  I mean no offense to any religion or anyone of faith, but that strikes me as rather funny the longer I think about it.  --Rainith 02:14, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

"Even so the wiki has a build community that blossomed and is currently arguably the best" I don't know about the PvE section, but the PvP "build community" is composed of a couple of people who put up with making dozens of unfavored votes a week and then 51,453,132 PvE scrubs who don't know what they're doing. --Theonemephisto 11:08, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * We are not on this Wiki to tolerate other users, Theon. If somebody's build is ineffective, then say so. But many people including admins forget that it is not open season on the author just because they're inexperienced. I personally feel that this tendency for rudeness is the cause of the problem and will not necessarily be resolved by a wipe. It is very easy to make constructive comments out of destructive ones, but it takes more work - something us humans, who look for the easiest way out, don't like to do.
 * But if we all want a less hostile environment, we have to work together. GrammarNazi 11:47, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Alternative proposal
While I do agree with the spirit of this proposal, I very much disagree with its implementation. Several complaints:


 * 1) This is being done by the administrative team, basically saying "we are going to do this irrespective of the community."  The poll seems an afterthought.  I'm sorry, but even Jimbo doesn't get away with this kind of thing on Wikipedia.  He's been called on it by the community the few times he's tried.  (Yes, this isn't Wikipedia, but as it's the most successful wiki to date, we could stand to learn a few things from it.)
 * 2) Deleting builds is entirely unnecessary and foolish.  Many people use this site as a resource for builds.  The argument that "they can be undeleted later" is bullshit.  Yes they can, but why delete them in the first place?  Is their undeletion supposed to be some sort of incentive for build editors to come up with a policy quickly?  (Moving them to userspace solves nothing either, it's simply misdirection from the real issue here.)

Everything about this proposal smells of manipulation and poor planning. Your current plan is going to piss people off, not fix anything. You are going to drive build editors away from the site. Unless that's your goal, then, well I guess you're on the right track.

You may call this post incivil. Well, I think it's pretty damn incivil for the administration to impose a new policy -- however temporary -- on the community, with no clear consensus. Wikis work because people work together, not because a team of elites decides what's best for the rest of us.

It would have been a lot different if the community had drafted the proposal and come to a consensus on its own, with some guidance given by the administration. But looking at the archives and history of this page, there is hardly a consensus.

So here is my alternate proposal. Full-protect all of the build articles until this is over and don't allow new submissions of build articles until a new policy is implemented. We get to keep the existing builds and use them as references while a new policy is drafted, and you get your new policy. And nobody feels stepped on because their build is deleted. At best this is a minor inconvenience for build editors. --Delia Rashesh (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Just to point out to you, copy and paste from an edit of mine above: And that would be one of the reasons that We are not Wikipedia. We give admins and bureaucrats the power to step in in situations like this (see GW:ADMIN first sentance above the TOC and 3rd sentance of the first section). Plus I believe that your idea to lock the builds section was brought up before and rejected (but I'm honestly not sure which talk archive it is in, or if my memory is faulty).  --Rainith 01:49, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * My original point stands. I'm not saying the administration can't do this -- they bloody well can.  But just because we have a policy that states that admins can do whatever the hell they want doesn't mean the community isn't going to lash out when they feel they've been stepped on.  What the administration does at that point is largely a function of whether they want to slap a large portion of their userbase in the face and then expect that same portion to help them draft a policy that will keep them from getting slapped in the face again.  There is something really backwards about that logic.  If you can call it logic.  --Delia Rashesh (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Tanaric has allready stated that if a few hundred people would have whined or sent him email, we wouldn't be doing the wipe. However, in a wiki of a few hundred thousand users a sozen or two complaining isn't much. There are the same number of people defending the wipe and then ofcourse there are those who don't say anyything because they are ok with it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 06:57, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * If there are the "same number of people defending the wipe" that's hardly consensus, is it? --Delia Rashesh (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Beyond that, silence does not necessarily equal support. Some people may not feel welcome to post dissenting opinions, perhaps because of potentially insulting statements like some of those made by Dirgible below. Even if they were not meant as such, several of his comments struck me as insulting and elitist, and some people do not wish to get involved in those sort of discussions. I'll note that his comments do not bother ME, I do not consider them out of line or anything, and I have no issue with him personally, but others may not feel like that is the sort of discussion they wish to become involved in. Perhaps some people simply don't wish to go against admins, or may feel that with the admins already deciding to wipe, their voice is meaningless because the decision has already been made and decided up on. Others simply may choose not to get involved because they just don't wish(or don't have the time) to follow and get into the pages long debate(or arguements) this is already headed towards. DKS01 09:53, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I understand everything you say. However, in a wiki of a few hundred thousand editors a dozen or two opposers is a lot less than there would be if people would generally be against this. Also, as it seems to be almost 50-50 for the vocal supporters, the sysops need to make the choice, which in this case is executing the wipe as planned. There is still plenty of time for a hundred or so users to oppose. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 10:01, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I can't speak for anyone else's reason for not commenting on the prospective wipe, but as for myself today was the first I've heard of it. And I hit the wiki frequently.  Quite often to look at builds.  Sure a lot of the tested builds suck.  And there are lots of arguments and problems.  But I get good ideas for builds I'd like to try even from the bad ones and it's nice to be able to look at groups of builds by class or category.  Warts and all I find the build section very useful.  So do most of my friends (who I suspect also don't know about this impending wipe but will soon now. )  Archiving the current group of builds to user pages just makes them harder to find, access, or use.  Seems to me like just locking the builds section completely until a new policy is formulated would be sufficient.  That way the maintenance of the section would drop to zero, the arguments would cease, and no repeat builds would be posted.  But the current builds would still be available in a usable form for those who want to use them.  Scattered out on user pages they may as well be deleted completely, imo.  Aubee91 18:10, 5 April 2007 (CDT) -


 * Someone is always going to get offended about something, no matter what. You never heard those "ANet is racist, why are male warriors so fat?!" guys? If I listened to crybabies like that instead of my common sense about making the difference between what's offensive because it's the harsh truth, and what's offensive because it simply aims to insult, well... I'm glad I don't listen to them, I'd never get to say anything. :) --Dirigible 15:50, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Could you possible do away with the inappropriate metaphors? Just because I have a dissenting opinion does not make me a crybaby.  We should be working towards a compromise here, not trying to patronize people who don't agree with the administration.  --Delia Rashesh (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Erm, I wasn't replying to you... It was a reply to DKS01 saying that there MIGHT be someone who gets offended by overly-direct statements, and that they MIGHT be hesitant to enter the discussion for that reason. It had nothing to do with you or your proposal. You're more than welcome to disagree on anything, I'd be the crybaby myself if I felt otherwise about that. A world where everyone agrees is a world in trouble. :) --Dirigible 07:32, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I said nothing about "overly-direct statements", I was referring to blatant insults. Saying "this build is useless" is a direct statement. Saying "only a total moron would use a build like this" is an insult. I only take issue with the latter sort. And of course, calling people crybabies who don't wanna get involved because they don't want some clown insulting them doesn't exactly help discussion either, I wouldn't think. DKS01 07:37, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Besides the fact that I've never called anyone a moron? I don't think I've ever actually used that word online at all, not even in a joke context, so not quite sure where you're trying to go with that. I asked you this earlier as well, be careful to not put words in my mouth, as many people will just take it for granted that I really said something like that without bothering to check. Every single comment I've left on this talk page and others I've always been careful to make sure that if there's anything blatantly offensive about it, that something is only blatant truth. And keep that "clown" comment to yourself, was uncalled for and is out of line, it only makes you look like those you're trying to defend. --Dirigible 07:52, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Didn't say you called anyone a moron, just showing an example of the difference. I've pointed out MULTIPLE times where you posted insultingly, and you claimed you were stating facts(which you were not) and no insult was there at all(or just ignored it on later occasions). And since you have repeatedly shown you have no qualms about posting your superiority over people who have differing opinions(they're "crybabies", or just can't "see as clearly" as you, etc) I see no reason to treat you any different than you are treating them. If you can't take it, don't dish it out, and if you quit insulting others, I will in turn keep anything insulting *I* might say to myself. DKS01 08:01, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I give up. This is going nowhere and is only exasperating me. Even if I were to point out how and why you're misrepresenting and/or taking out of context each of those quotes, it wouldn't go anywhere worthwhile. Cheers mate. --Dirigible 08:09, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * So be it, it ends here. DKS01 08:12, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Why Builds wipe doesn't need to happen
I think the fact that everything was archived might be a bit detrimental unless counterpoints are offered. Since dirigible and perhaps others seems to taking this close to heart and want those that oppose this policy to die a rather horrible death in the street, I thought it might be good if someone offered something even if it is a bit sarcastic and what not. However, good fun is what is necessary after all!

Part 1: On Complaints about Complaints
Here we go. The majority of the users are concerned about the wiki but they don't have time to take a look at every facet and link that is available because there are simply too many. Not caring? Get off your high horse. If we didn't care, we wouldn't be posting and trying to come up with another solution that allows for what everyone can agree upon. There is a big sign now on the main page and people have come in by force to say something that differs from your opinion or maybe my opinion. How can you say that it was the users that were hiding? Now that the policy and the build wipe is completely in plain view, I think "your" opinion is totally off the wall.

What are complaints? Complaints are actual grievances that are expressed by people who are limited in their power to deal with a certain circumstance and situation. This is not the same as whining where people are not trying to offer alternatives but the people who are trying only happen to run into this, "Where were you 5 years ago on July 2nd at 2:30 pm when we were discussing this in a policy section that has way less traffic than the build section?" attitude.

On Wiki, we are visitors and we are contributers. Everyone who stopped to "complain/whine/whatever" here in these archives and in this discssion about the wipe stopped becoming just visitors. They became part of the Wiki community because they let their opinion be known. That's all it takes and that's all it should take. You and the rest of the admins (or other people with spiffy names and pictures and profiles) may not like what I say or what they say, may not agree with it but that's the case. If you still want to go with this build wipe, we can't stop you. But we can complain because this is a space to let our thoughts be known. We can say, "This is a bad idea" because we truly believe it is a bad idea in the long run. What gives you the moral right to declare us merely as "visitors" when we have put our two cents in? Since when did -your- opinion matter more than ours? You can still go ahead with the wipe. You can proceed despite our best efforts to convince you otherwise. But if you want our opinions and discussion, then here you have it. We drew the line. You say we don't understand the community? We -are- the community. You and me both. Those that complain, those that watch over the complainers, those that just come now and then when they need to look up a skill to cap in Guild Wars.

I do understand that this is a difficult concept for some of the older members and some admins (are they even that vocal here?) to grasp but don't get all worked up about it. Take a deep breath and relax. It helps by thinking this through and walking in another person's shoes. If you accept us as part of the community, then you should stop trying to exclude us now. If you wish to reject us, then say so and save everyone the trouble of this drama. If your wiki is only to be used and shaped by the admins and those that support this policy, then why even bother having these discussions in the first place? Why invite it if you aren't going to go that extra mile with us? We are trying. We've shot out several ideas in the archive pages and are trying to form a policy. Another user has kindly created a library policy that needs some further working and ideas that might work out. You are saying that you have tried and aren't willing to try anymore. So where are we now?

===Part 2: A proclamation of an indication for a declaration delayed by procrastination and obstination against the realization for intensification of relations between organizations and the juxtaposition of suggestions for solutions with and without the addition of perceptions and assumptions===

I could have made the title longer but it would made less sense as I continued on and I was slowly running out tion words that I could place strategically. Without further introduction (uh oh), you declare you have a clearer vision for what is to be than people who use the resource - so what are they? Scrapping the build section so no one can use it till a policy is hammered out? In internet terms, I'd like to say, "I CAN SEE FOREVER." It would be far better to put a temporary freeze instead of pointing people to user pages to get to proper builds while something is being made and done. That way, no one can add builds and when and if the admins decide once and for all to scrap the build pages, then do so. A freeze doesn't solve any problems but it still allows the resource to be used without this back and forth "oh the archives can be restored but if you want to use them while you are down, you better start saving." How about thinking about it from our side (or at least my side)? If the decided policy decided upon declares it so, the builds in their current form can be deleted and/or replaced instead of nuking first and reaching a consensus later. You asked about common sense? I'd be the first to point out I have none but this just seems silly regardless. If this wiki wishes to provide this resource in any form in the future, it's best to leave things frozen because it's unclear when a consensus will be agreed upon judging by some of the hard lined opinions.

In the end, those that complain do so with the best intentions. They use the resource and rely on it. They admit that there are problems and also acknowledge that they need to be fixed. There is a solution in where both sides can have what they want - a shifting period to where the admins and those that support the wipe and NOB and whatever can meet with those that support having an original builds/library and those that don't support the wipe and everyone in between. Yes, there aren't enough consistent PvP build reviewers for all the sections and I know it's a lot of stress trying to do these things. Plenty of us have been in admin type positions. Perhaps we may not have encountered similar problems but we can empathize.

Quick reality check: You don't own the content on the wiki even if you slowly built it up in the first place. You contributed. We acknowledge your contributions and profusely thank you. I'd give you a medal if I thought that was what you were looking for. If the people using the section rely on it and like it, they must be willing to fight for it to continue for a reason right? I'd thought you'd be flattered by all the people trying to keep the builds section in some fashion but it seems I was flat out wrong.

Most people have already stepped out the build section. They spoke out here as evidenced in the archives. Many people may or may not agree with your viewpoint or with mine. But they have stepped out and said something even if it was just a few words. Freeloading? I don't know about you but I've tried to vote and discuss builds. I contribute in the only way I have available. I'm sure others feel the same way. Others that don't contribute still use the resource. Are you saying that you are better than them? If a wiki is supposed to be shaped by the people using it, then that's not the case. This may not be a democracy but we can do without the holier than thou attitude. You wanted discussion. Did you think everyone would just proclaim how great a build wipe would be especially since people have gone through long discussions back and forth. They may not have all been productive or good in any sense of the word but there was effort there to convey whatever thoughts through to the other party. Internet arguments are full of lolz, I know but an effort was made in the end. If you even considered anything people wrote, you should know that even those freeloaders are willing to agree with a compromise even if it is silently. I have faith in the community to speak it's mind and let it's voice be heard whether it's for or against whatever and what ideas should be considered for everyone.

If you want disappointment, I'm rather disappointed in the attitude that some of the older users/admins/whomever as I'm not keeping a list of names have taken against the community. I was really expecting more maturity to be shown than outright lambasting them as outsiders and making them (or at least, me) feel unwanted. (Give me hugz, k???) Does this sound a bit condescending? I'm sorry if it does since it's supposed to reflect the essay in it's entirety in response. I am (a not so) PlacidBlueAlien, proudly and loudly trying to work to some general middle of the road policy that will work in the long run as long as I can I am banned or generally regarded as nonsensical and whose ideas shouldn't be considered in the slightest. Fairly sure the second one will happen before the first though as I don't think I've done much to get myself banned. In any case, unfair would be the treatment offered to those who tried to let their opinions be known even if they are opposing. Not everyone will see things my way. I could be standing on a rock by myself out here but someone had to stand up and a response along with the multitude of other voices and opinions. This one happens to be mine. PlacidBlueAlien 02:59, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't know who you are and don't want to know who you are, bud. Arguments (even more so those on the Internet) are like roleplaying; just like you need to make a distinction between the puppeteer and the puppet, you also need to make a distinction between the person and the argument. "Want those that oppose this policy to die a rather horrible death on the street"? You're giving yourself too much credit there, I think. :)


 * Now, first of all, I never said you didn't care if the builds section exists or not. All I said is that you didn't care about how the builds section happens to work. It was a response to the self-righteous cries of indignation "why weren't we notified of this! we don't want this to happen, who gave you a right to decide on this without asking us?"
 * It's like children when they live with their parents, they don't really care who pays the bills or how they find the money to keep food on the table and socks on the feet. They just want those things. "Mommy, I want my teddy bear!" "Daddy, where's my lunch!" That entire first section of my post was about policy-making, and about everyone on a wiki potentially being a Mommy and Daddy, about being one of those who get to decide where the family is going to go for vacations, or about whether we'll buy that new TV or not. Most choose to remain children though; and maybe you can't blame them for choosing to do so, being a grownup is too many complications and headaches. (Needless to say, thankfully there's some that feel otherwise).


 * "Where were you 5 years ago on July 2nd at 2:30 pm when we were discussing this in a policy section that has way less traffic than the build section?" What if this sentence were, "Where have you been for the past 5 years, since July 2nd at 2:30 pm; we've been discussing this since then". Would it make a difference? I think so.


 * "What gives you the moral right to declare us merely as "visitors" when we have put our two cents in?" Opinions are like a-holes, everyone's got one. I can stop by the local hospital's neurosurgery clinic and give my 2 cents about how the surgery should go, but that doesn't really mean I'm suddenly a brain surgeon or that my suggestion to use a spoon instead of a scalpel should be listened to.


 * "If your wiki is only to be used and shaped by the admins and those that support this policy, then why even bother having these discussions in the first place?" <--- that's the whole bloody point. Taking part in a discussion. Growing up. An adolescent discussing with his parents how he can help the family through a crisis, instead of just repeatedly asking for an icecream like his younger siblings. That's where you become a contributor to the wiki, when you start taking part in the collaboration, when you start bouncing around ideas together.


 * You missed the point of me saying that the people who built it are also taking it down. It isn't about thank-yous. It isn't about pride or about getting credit. The point is that these people know how this section works, they see the big picture. Most of us are just users of the Builds section, while those people are something more. I may not feel ill, but if a doctor tells me I have an alien being from Mars growing inside my lungs... well, I'm going to listen to the doc and not go with how I feel. (Unless of course I'm a doctor myself/a.k.a. taken part in or at least followed policy discussion and so on, which is simply not the case here, by your own admission). It goes back to the concepts of expertise and experience, something which wikis need in order to function.


 * And here you have the people who have built it, who are maintaining it and who are coming up with a second and hopefully better version, saying : "This needs to go. It's pretty damn bad. This needs to go, it's already been allowed to exist for too long". The opinion of those people on that matter is worth to me a thousand more times than yours, simply said. You visit five builds discussion, they visit all of them. You see one argument, they see that argument spread over half a dozen user and build talk pages, till it grows to the point where they need to temporarily block someone. You see a bunch of negative votes on a build, these people see comments left on their talk pages by authors repulsed by these people who haven't even read the builds they're voting on. You just see an itch, they see the symptoms of some disease hidden under the skin. Makes sense?


 * By the way, you mentioned this a few times there, and I feel I should point it out. I don't have a fancy sig nor a fancy name nor a fancy userpage. I'm neither a bureaucrat nor a sysop. I'm not one of those vets that came up with Builds 1.0, nor am I one of those that are struggling to get the new policies working. By my own definition, I'm a freeloader of the builds section. (With the only caveat being that I don't use the Builds section, because I'm fundamentally opposed to the idea of one existing at all).


 * "I could be standing on a rock by myself out here but someone had to stand up and a response along with the multitude of other voices and opinions. This one happens to be mine." I shed a tear. --Dirigible 04:48, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * "We -are- the community. You and me both" Exactly. Still you refer to the ones opposing the wipe as 'we' and to the ones supporting the wipe as 'you'. I know, it's natural for us humans, but still. There seems to be about as much vocal supporters as there are vocal opposers. And then there are the ones who don't say anything, either because they don't care or becaues they are okay with what the current course of action seems to be, ie the wipe. I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more people who accept the wipe than there are those who oppose it, though I can't be sure.
 * I would like to present you something which might or might not put you to think this from another perspective: If people in a country could decide, they would remove taxing completely. In the short (very short) run that would benefit the people, but soon things would start to stop working. Health care, road system, police, etc would stop working. If a small minority, the government, is in lead, they will hold to taxes as they realise the resons and risks. I'm not saying that the situation in a wiki is completely similiar to a country and a government, but I think that the sysops and those active in the build secion do have some more insight than a random visitor. I'm not saying that they can't be mistaken, but you shouldn't accuse them of trying to do harmfull things. The people think they are doing the right thing, as do those people who oppose. It might be a bit unfair that in an almost 50-50 situation the sysops can decide, but they were made sysops so that they can do decisions when needed. (Ihope you got something usefull from that) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 09:32, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * We may be both part of the community but the english language still requires a distinction between people's ideas. That's why there is a you and we and I and everyone etc. I made it a point to stress both sides were part of the community. To be honest, that whole post and essay was supposed to be tongue in cheek. I honestly don't believe a wipe shouldn't take place ever. The reference to my name is laden with irony as well since placid means to be calm and tranquil and alien means to be foreign or in this case, not part of this community. I'm surprised no one picked up on these things. As for saying those who are active in the build section have far more insight into the problems, that could be the case if at least a few that were/are opposed to the blanket wipe weren't also active in the builds section. If the admins have already decided yet want feedback on a decision already made, what did you expect? Only complaints -can- come from that. Sure, some people have offered some other alternatives such as freezes till a policy is implemented (even if it is a no builds whatsoever policy) but I'm not sure most people expect it to be taken under real consideration.
 * @dirigble: The comment about nicknames etc. was supposed to be tongue in cheek and sarcastic but laced with a few points but I think you may have understood that. The whole format was supposed to be a sort of parody. Thus the disclaimer at the beginning lest someone take that -too- seriously. There are a few points I need to clear up for you. Mainly, the whole idea of "Where were you.." attitude is simply silly. I think it's fairly obvious that (some) people were caught unaware (or simply wasn't visiting the site etc.) when so many ideas of what could replace the builds section are being tossed out there by relatively unseen faces in a short amount of time (it's been merely a few days since the April 2nd announcement.) We are having a discussion and a discussion in this case requires an opinion and point of view. You can't have one without the other so quit trying to separate the two. About your comment on expertise and what not, I think I've already covered that in the post in it's entirety. Your opinion differs and that's ok - that's no excuse to go off on those listing their opinion. I mean, if you also want them to discuss as well, don't you think it is kind of detrimental if you exclude them from the discussion? PlacidBlueAlien 13:26, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Jesus, I got a History Essay due soon, since you like typing.... Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 06:58, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Solus is only posting off-topic &mdash;[[User:Sigm@|<font color=#2a7510>Sig <font color=#d8be01>mA

]] 07:00, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * This sounds like a conspiracy theory. Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 07:11, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Some like to waste their time playing GuildWars, others, like me, enjoy having useless multi-page discussion on some silly topic related to GuildWars. It's all the same, in the end. :) --Dirigible 07:39, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

To start, I am really just a casual player. I am not a regular contributor here, but I do use wiki a lot and would hate to see what I consider a vital part of it taken away. I do enjoy having the builds section here and IMO this is far and away the best builds section available, even with its current problems. And I would like to see it remain here, if possible. After reading through some of the discussions I do have some suggestions for a new builds testing and review policy. If I have missed similar suggestions elsewhere please let me know.

1. Anyone wishing to post a new build will submit it to the Admins and/or a group of designated testers with a detailed explanation of how and where it works, along with a video of it being used. The Admins and/or a group of designated testers will review and test the build for a period of time (1 week?) and work with the author to "tweak" the build. (Possibly some sort of live testing where the build is run while being observed.) If the build does not pass this part of the testing procedure the person who submitted the build may rework and resubmit the build at a later time. This section can be kept separate from the tested builds section.

2. If the build passes the initial testing, it is put into an "in process" section for a period of time (1 week?). Any user may test the build and provide feedback on it during this time. Anyone offering feedback must provide to the Admins and/or author a video of them actually using the build, a detailed explanation of what they feel is good/bad with the build and any suggestions for improvement. Any further "tweaking" of the build can be done at this time.This section can also be kept separate from the tested builds directory.

3. If the build passes the first two steps it will be put into the tested builds section. If changes in the game mechanics, or the addition of new skills to the game, would warrant a review of the build then it would need to go back to the beginning of the process. The build under review would be subject to the same rules as a newly submitted build. An "under review" tag can be added to the build at this time. In addition, all currently tested builds can be moved to this section and subject to the same review process as needed.

4. Any player who has issues with the build may submit, in private, to the Admins and/or the author a detailed explanation of of the problem, along with a video of them actually using the build. If the Admins and/or the originator of the build feel the complaints are suffcient then the build would again be re-tested. The build under review would be subject to the same rules as a newly submitted build. An "under review" tag can be added to the build at this time as well.

5. Some sort of numbered rating system, using set criteria such as DPS, Energy Manaagement, Better or Worse than Similar Builds, etc.These scores would be used in addition to written reviews to give an overview of the builds performance. IE:Works as Intended 1-5 (1 not at all to 5 extremely well).This would give a (hopefully) much more accurate assessment of the build than the current "I loved it", "It sucks" system.

6. Any build which becomes "unfavored" for whatever reason, can be archived for review by users. If anyone feels a build can be salvaged, for whatever reason, they may submit the reworked build for review. Subject to the same rules as a newly submitted build.

These ideas are not perfect, but are intended to provide a famework for discussion and formation of a new policy which will keep the builds on wiki. While similar to the current process, I feel this may provide a streamlined, more efficient and more accurate way of testing/retesting, and approving builds. Area 54 09:20, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * So you're saying that each build should take about a month to be ratified? Considering how many new builds are posted a day, you'd probably need a staff of about 50ish simply to keep up the one month ratification time.  And also, in PvP, one month is easily enough for a build to be pushed out of the metagame.
 * And I'm assuming that you don't PvP very much. All of the suggestions about "taking videos" are absolutely useless in PvP unless you can guarantee the quality of your opponents, which you usually can't. --Theonemephisto 11:18, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Well I did say my ideas were not perfect. Just something to start with, since I don't see a lot of ideas here for alternatives to the exisisting system. Feel free to offer other alternatives. I'd be happy to see more ideas on how to revamp the current system and make it better. Area 54 11:48, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * The ideas have some merit, but appointing a group for a task doesn't work really well in a wiki. This is the problem in creating a good working policy. To see other possible suggestions for a builds policy, see the link under the first heading on this talk page. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 11:53, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I will. Thx. Area 54 12:32, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Looked at the links, as I have before, and see little or nothing that IMO would be a viable alternative for a revamped system. If the ideas I and others have suggested "have merit" why aren't they being given as much attention as those proposed by the people in favor of the wipe. See my remarks in the poll for my opinion on that. Area 54 10:01, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Anyone is allowed to start their own policy suggestion article. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:05, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

To all the build-wipe haters out there, it's time to face the solemn truth: the end is nigh! The sysops have seen fit to place the asteroid in its trajectory and in less than a month the builds (like the dinosaurs) will be no more. In their place, crawling up from the ashes of destruction, will be a new species of builds, more fit for the new environment--less clumsy and far smarter. These new builds could not have risen to dominance before the eradication of their enormous reptilian predecessors, but in time all will come to see the benefit that this change bestowed on the world (wiki) that we know. Let us give up fighting over the existence of the end, but come to terms with what must be done for life (builds) to persist. For those of you who don't believe in the theory of evolution, replace sysops with God, dinosaurs with evil men, asteroid with Moses, and new species with virtuous men. --Blazeroth 18:08, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Shame on GuildWiki
As if GuildWiki wasn't bad enough already.--83.197.156.66 09:01, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I oppose the wipe too, but a little more constructivity perhaps? What else do you have issue with? I don't like the wipe, but this site is bar none the best when it comes to GW information. If I need to know something about anything in game, what a skill does, where to get it, where a boss is located, best way to finish a mission, what a weapon looks like, where I can find certian drops, whatever, this is the site I check first. I don't generally have to check another one afterwards. DKS01

Why you posting here then? Solus  09:03, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * If you're not happy, tell us why. Reading the archives will also clear up the situation a lot. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 09:08, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I tought a wiki weren't only builds? --&mdash;<font color=#2a7510>Sig <font color=#d8be01>mA   06:02, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Guildwiki is dead
Congratulations to those who imposed this policy on the rest of us. You have just removed the only thing that kept people using Guildwiki instead of the new official Guild Wars Wiki. Without the significant builds section, Guildwiki will simply die. Well done. Cynical 09:46, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I come here to flirt with Solus, speak for yourself &mdash; Skuld 09:49, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * You just didn't care to read anything else but the title? We are working on a new build policy and the build section will probably working again soon after the wipe. (And how can you use the official wiki for reference instead of this? Personally I have to say it's missing a lot of important stuff that I need when playing.) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 09:50, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * The build section will probably be working again soon after the wipe? Hasn't it been pointed out (repeatedly) to those who oppose the wipe that new policy ideas have been under discussion for a YEAR and nothing has come of it? Why will it suddenly come now, is deleting a bunch of pages going to give everybody flashes of inspiration or something? That said, I agree, as a GW reference source this wiki still has the official one beat.


 * The NOB and similiar policy discussions are actually doing much better now after the wipe was planned. I think we will have a working policy pretty soon. (atleast if people stop complaining and start helping out) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 10:08, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I suspect the same thing would have happened had the POSSIBILITY of a wipe been announced on the main page though, rather than just a statement that shows up one say saying "Hey, this section all you guys use routinely is being trashed, have fun". DKS01 10:13, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Dead? The suggestion of a build wipe must have generated more activity than any other event in its history. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:40, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Good to know I have a purpose here, to be flirted with. Although the builds section will be wiped, this Wiki is well established along with open-minded users who discussion and debate over anything, one of the key aspects of this Wiki. This wiki is a great place to understand, contribute and ofcourse a great source of information regarding the game. The builds section was a big part of GuildWiki, but that doesn't mean it's dead. Hopefully with the deletion people will start to contribute postively and hopefully work on a effective policy if a builds section was to return. Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 10:09, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Umm... congratulations on not caring enough about the wiki to have tried to make a new policy long before this became necessary? I don't see how people keep arguing that this was done in the depths of hell, as from just browsing the PvP builds section, I've seen enough hints about problems to know this was coming. --Theonemephisto 11:21, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * You know very well that most of these users are casual and don't like to delve into big discussions, but when a big change comes to change everything they worked for they have a right to speak up, intimidation by lengthy discussions and big users is no excuse for this....--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 14:41, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Then tell them to copy their own little builds to their own little templates and be happy? Is it really that important that the world know about your uber-leet HH wammo?  I don't really get the point.  "everything they worked for"?  You mean 8 skills put together in very bad ways most of the time? --Theonemephisto 15:10, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Well its obvious you don't give a shit about GW:YOU--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 15:30, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't in the context of PvP builds, because PvP takes a long time to get to the point where you know what you're talking about. I will help anyone who asks nicely and is willing to learn, but I'm not going to take advice from them until they get to the point where they understand mechanics, metagame, what is good and what is bad, and how things work. --Theonemephisto 11:35, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I have to admit, taking a look at new builds (And getting my own ideas from them) has been most of the reason I used the wiki. It made for a handy index. --Sair [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png]] 01:44, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

The Builds Wipe isn't removing the Build section permanently, it's revising the content provided.
I wanted to clarify that for people who misinterpreted the wipe. It is a content revision, not a permanent removal of a section. GrammarNazi 11:35, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * It is a revision but that revision includes removing all previous information and rebuilding from scratch. I understand that there are problems with the current way that it is done and that the people who have decided that it needs to be redone are doing it for the best intentions.  I have faith that version 2.0 will be even better than version 1.0.  I do think that they have put a lot of time into deciding that this is the right way to go.  I also understand how other people are feeling that a large amount of information will be lost.  (I know admins can get it back, but making it inaccessible to the community means information will be lost as long as everything is not brought back)  Also while version 2.0 is new it is going to have much less info than what is currently in the builds section.  I do not think the people who are against the wipe can be convinced that the wipe is a good idea, just like I don't think the people who have decided on the wipe can be convinced that it doesn't need to be done.  However I think both sides can come together if we just archive the old build section.  Once version 2.0 gets large enough then we can remove the old builds section permenantly, people who want builds from it can then copy them into their user space.  The new version will not need to adhere to any of the conventions of the old builds.  It will not be limited in any way by the old build pages.  The old build pages will just be around until the new build pages are comprehensive enough that the old pages have outlived their usefulness.  I think this is the only way to move forward with this issue and not sharply devide the GuildWiki community.


 * If you would care to read the whole page, you would notice that builds will be backed up so we don't need to start from scratch. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 13:56, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Ok, but after the wipe the new builds section is still going to be lacking in information for awhile. I am just suggesting having an interim solution where we archive the old build section until there is enough information in the new builds section.  The majority of the GuildWiki communtiy will not have access to the backed up information.  Yes they can ask admins for a specific page, but do we really want everyone harassing admins for random builds?  Also until the new builds section has proved its usefulness do we really want to take away all of the information that many people still feel is valuable in the existing builds section?  I'm not trying to stop the builds wipe I am just trying to save the information so that it is still all accessible by the community until we have a working replacement.  When there is a working replacement I'm sure that most of the people against the wipe will no longer care if the old build pages are taken away because the newer/better pages are avaiable.

Observation from Mostly Uninvolved, Extremely Casual User
After having had some experience on Wikipedia and looking at the primary motivator for the elimination of the Builds section (bad vetting procedure and NPA violations), I don't think we're addressing the right problem here. None of this would matter if builds were verifiable, a la WP:V. Wouldn't this entire issue be solved by adding some requirements to posted builds to meet a verifiability standard? Like, for instance, video of the build working at what it's claimed to work at? That barrier by itself would probably cut down on posted builds (I reckon that at least a significant minority of people flooding builds would find the inconvenience of capturing video of the build in question and uploading it to YouTube either too much of a technical obstacle or too much of an inconvenience), and it would eliminate the need for voting as a vetting procedure because the "This is good/bad" decision would be rendered objective. All you have to do is watch the movie to see that it does what it's supposed to do. This is just one casual observer's opinion, but it seems to me like you might prevent a whole lot of disappointment going in that direction, rather than a straight wipe and much more savage policy replacement.Themagicmoedee 12:00, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * That's a good suggesstion for PvE / farming builds, but it's very hard to do for PvP builds, since things change so often there. --Phydeaux 12:11, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Aye, so then you keep the Tried 'n True PvE builds that will work forever as long as there aren't any skill changes, and if there are, you can delete them. I can see how the PvP section has become a mess with people who don't hardly PvP at all voting or people voting without actually trying out the build can be a major problem, especially with having to keep up with the FotM but that doesn't mean you have to delete all the PvE builds. PvE builds, unlike PvP builds, either work or don't work. It's not like there's any middle ground. Caramel Ni 13:03, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Very useless thing
This is a very stupid thing to do. As above users said, GuildWiki will die without the build section; the most people that visit GuildWiki are newbies seeking a build for getting through PvE, or people seeking a build for farming greens; there's no need to sending  this users away from GuildWiki or their comments on other pages for so stupid reasons. The most useful thing you could do is keeping the Favored builds and allowing only edits from admins. --Glenn 13:30, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm pretty sure that most of the readers of the wiki aren't here for builds, but for missions, quests, bosses, elite lists, etc. I admit that most of the contributions to the wiki atm are to the builds section. (Btw, I'm pretty tired to say this, but please read the page. We are not permanently removing the section) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 13:55, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Gem, quit using that, some builds are being archived yes, and now theres a mass of stuff in the user name space and build name space. But theres no point of wiping them just to reinstall them later. For whatever stupid reason people want to wipe it the site will not be helped any by having to spend a shit load of time later to put them back.... And the effects of just removing the sites most popular feature even temporally will remove a lot of users and the build section woudl never recover to its popularity. And the official wiki is turning out to be a better resource for other parts of game, don't make another one just like it, builds are this wiki's shine now that arenanet wiki is out. --<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 14:30, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Ok, I'll stop it. Infact, I'll stop taking part in the whole discussion for now. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 14:33, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * You don't pay enough attention if you think people come to GuildWiki to play with builds. Good move Gem, some people just don't want to read.. &mdash; Skuld 09:54, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Commments posted on this page show that people obviously DO come here to play with builds. That may not be all they do, but if nobody did, this wouldn't even be up for discussion now, would it? Me, I come here for all sorts of things. I come here when I want to know where I can buy or cap a skill. I come here to read skills lists to brainstorm when I tire of my current build and want to put together something different. I come here when a quest or something is giving me problems. I come here when I want to know where a specific animal can be charmed. I come here when I want to know what green a boss drops. AND I come here to play with builds. DKS01 23:32, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Keep Syntax?
May we just ask that you keep the syntax, or have the template in an easily accesisble place so we can get the template or something when we want to save builds to our User pages. Caramel Ni 13:56, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Build Templates
are we preserving build specific templates, such as Template:Attributes and Template:Skill bar? these are much harder to recreate then build articles, and should be preserved in case users wish to post builds in user space, or the build section is restarted. --Honorable Sarah 21:09, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * They should still be in use after the wipe (all those backed up builds), so there should be no reason to delete them. --Rainith 21:22, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I support this, but one problem
A lot of people are using the wipe as a chance to get their long-unfavored nooby builds favored. I won't use any names, though I have a lot in mind, but how do we deal with this?&mdash; Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 21:26, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * If you're not going to name names, DON'T name them. Listing the names then hiding them by putting them in <! -- -- > just makes you look like a spineless bitch. Either have the balls to name them outright, or don't do it at all, cut the cutesy "I'm not naming names but really I am" crap please. DKS01 21:39, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * @Cheese...who cares? When the policy is finished, we'll look at those builds and say "lol... just another reason we did the builds wipe" as we toss them out the window. The policy won't say "every build by every author is favored," so I don't see the cause for concern. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 22:03, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Cheese, if you don't like my builds, don't use them and don't menetion my name. I don't care if my builds are unfavored by the site, I'll still use them. Just because the site doesn't favor it doesn't mean something doesn't work. Solus  22:42, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The thing now is simply... why bother? If some people are just bothered so much by the builds section, simply go to the GWWiki. It makes it easier for both Build section supporters as well as people who don't want it. Let the people who want to keep the builds section here. Hate it? Contribute to the GuildWarsWiki. Win-win. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:01, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The build section has always been optional to visit. I've never understood why people who don't like the section just don't go there.  True, there is still occasional troublemakers that require an admin's attention, but we just recently passed NPA and have barely had a chance to see its impact on user behaviour. Not to mention the categorization of the builds did seem to ease a lot of the "not judging a build by its intended arena" disputes that used to occur. -- BrianG 00:44, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * "I've never understood why people who don't like the section just don't go there." Maby people want to use the build section, but can't stand the bitching and can't find good builds in the midst of the favoured crappy ones? I'm a good example for that. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 07:27, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * "I've never understood why people who don't like the section just don't go there." Because we're trying to make it better but it doesn't work? --Theonemephisto 09:15, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Wiping builds doesn't really help. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:50, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * If we say "people who doesn't like the section doesn't go there" about the builds section... can we say the same thing about GuildWiki and don't bother putting in policies, rules, guidelines and good quality articles? -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 18:21, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Honestly though, without a builds section, I don't see the difference between Guildwiki and GuildWarswiki. If anything GWW is a underdeveloped, but sooner or later it will be the same.  Alot of GWiki users are on there, and alot of articles are practically copied and pasted onto it. We all might as well move to GWW.Giangn626 22:59, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


 * It's your choice, you might as well not we. Sure the builds section is going to be wiped, but how bout you give yourself a goal, help create policy so a builds section can exist. Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 23:17, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

This is bullshit - thx guildwiki - i have based many of my builds for my less played characters and my hero's off these and now where do i find the ideas??? I dont play monk so i dont know how to make good builds for my hero monks, i take the inspiration off here. thx for nothing wiki - lazy fuck turds
 * That sums up the viewpoint of the non-regulars here nicely. 64.229.197.205 23:34, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Even though you said you got your builds and inspiration here "thx for nothing wiki - lazy fuck tards". So what it's the users of Wikis fault now? Solus  23:37, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Come now Solus, don't put words in his mouth, he said, "lazy fuck turds" not "lazy fuck tards." It makes all the difference in the world to me to know that I am considered one and not the other.  ;)  --Rainith 23:55, 6 April 2007 (CDT)


 * And this guy is part of the reason my cause is failing. --<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:57, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

How to copy with history?
It says that if one wants to copy a build, one must also copy the history along with it to maintain the license or whatnot. I would like to preserve some builds before they're lost, but how exactly do I do that? I only have a very fuzzy idea of how to copy a build, let alone the history of one. Isn't that some metadata in the background? Yes, I am stupid. -_-; Please enlighten me. Tempest mizer 12:49, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Use the "move" tab at the top of the page.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 15:54, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No, don't do that. If that were the case, only one person could have the article.
 * Just copy/paste the article's content, and in a "Credits" section near the end write the names of the contributors for each build, looking in the History tab of that build. Nothing more than that. --Dirigible 15:57, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks, it worked great! I actually managed to do that. :-D
 * One further question: For some PvE builds, there are an awful lot of people in the history, many of whom only did one minor change, while actual contributions seem to come from only a few people. Do I have to list every single person in the history, or should I only list the original contributor and possibly other people who contributed in a non-trivial way? Tempest mizer 04:16, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Only non-trivial contributors. If in doubt, though, err on the side of caution and add even minor guys, just to be safe. --Dirigible 04:23, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Will do. Thanks for the quick help. Tempest mizer 04:44, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Auron nicely reminded me to remove all category and tested tags after copying the article. Else, all the archived builds will show up in the respective categories as well. (Mine did. >_<) Tempest mizer 05:06, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * There are a million backed up builds which show in the categories atm. Someone should go through them and add nowiki tags to remove them from the categories. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 05:17, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeh, I've been doing what I can. When I see a contributor with a billion all in his namespace, I find it more efficient to enlighten him on the ways of cat removal than removing them all myself. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 05:22, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Removed all of them that I could find. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  14:31, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Suggestion for Post-Wipe
This might have been allready suggested but honestly i dont want to read all that stuff above... my suggestion is to have 2 build sections. Original Builds and FOTM (or Meta) Builds. Both under go the same vetting procedure, however any builds being devopled by users are submited to the Original Builds section. if it gets vetted it will stay there. a vote may occur at a later time to put it into the FOTM Section. This can only happen if the build is in widespread use. If someone put the BoA sin build into orginal and it got vetted it would be moved into FOTM today. the userspace cannot suffice as a Original Build section because it wil never get any attention. pve should really be limited to farming builds, as otherwise almost anything can work in PvE Echo ftw 20:09, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Voting just doesn't work, that's the whole point in the wipe. I don't see what's wrong with GW:NOB if you think like that? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 20:13, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * It's been said before but this is how you get W/E Flare warriors vetted :P
 * Post a build
 * Go to school, have 5 friends go and vote favoured.
 * That is why it doesn't work, I like the build section the only thing I want is to Document the "cookie cutters" (MM,SS, LoD Runner, ZB Monk, Blessed Light Monk, RC, etc) --Dazra 20:56, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


 * There is pretty much no solution other than a wipe. People usually vote against a build because of the a certain skill/Author/because someone esle voted unfavored/or because they do not understand the content. Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 01:05, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I honestly see no other way of doing this than voting. If anything, instead of dividing it into unfavored and favored, we should have a rating system.  "This Build has averaged 5 Stars from X votes."  Alot of maintence, but I see no other way of doing this than voting.  Giangn626 01:50, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Such a system would be great for other fansites, but it's simply not tenable for a wiki. &mdash;Tanaric 03:16, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


 * "I honestly see no other way of doing this than voting." There are allready good suggestions which don't utilise voting. Discussion is a valid way of forming a build article, just like it is a valid way of forming any other article in the wiki. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 04:44, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I Like Giagn626's idea, it would make it a lot harder to get a bad build favored once a lot of people see it because the average would go down and there would never be a req. to where it stays in favored once the guys friends or whatever vote. I don't quite understand why it would not work in a wiki system, its not much different form the current polls and voting section, just make a table with 6(one for a list)(1 column for rating 1-5 or whatever) columns and each one and a new row for each rater. The rater would be responsible for changing the rating once his or rating is added. It would make the build section more organized by having different sections of different popularity's.--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 15:09, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


 * That is still voting. Hence the same limitations to voting still applies to it. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 15:26, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Limitations? How else are you going to get a clear cut line between a build being bad or good? "Discussion" will either go on raging until one side pisses the other off and they leave or people loose interest and the page sinks into oblivion. Discussion seems to be the great answer to the voting problem but it makes no sense because its very hard to come to any compromise on a internet web site, let alone in real life until one side gets tired of yelling at the other.--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 15:31, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Clear guidelines like NOB will make discussion non-hostile. As discussion is based on the arguments themselves instead of the number of people who say yes or no so we avoid the problem of sockpuppets and friend voters. The most hostile discussions have started from a vote where a few anons (probably sockpuppets or school friends) vote for a build and the seasoned users vote against it with good reasons. With no voting those kind of situations wont emerge. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:59, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Also any joe can vote. As such a person who've played GW for 2 weeks can vote as well as a person who's played it 2 years. A rank 15 PvPer can vote as well as someone who has 0 fame points.  Discussion also allows the person's "knowledge" to be more apparent rather than voting.--Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 16:41, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * People who rate the build would have to leave a valid comment. This would stop the madness of people trying to get their build favored.  If after two months or so, the build is found completely useless, the build would be removed. I honestly see no other way of doing this than voting.  It's like choosing a different form of government.  Democracy seems to be working.Giangn626 20:07, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

<ri>Then you would have to define "valid," and you'd have people arguing over whether their comment was "valid" or not. Waste of time, waste of energy. Voting sucks. A year and a bit of this section sucking has told us that much. -Auron  20:27, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * So how will a build be determined to be viable then, gem? Are you just planning to have a bunch of links to builds on user pages with no way of know if they work or not, without reading lengthy discussions on the talk page? Do you want the admins to step in for every build and decide?
 * And FYI, I've never seen a sock puppet or friend attempt succeed. I've seen plenty of tries but they were always outnumbered and outvoted by people who vote unfavored on the build. All a sock puppet build needs is a couple bumps on the recent changes and more people will notice it and stop it. I have no idea where people come form with that issue and why. If you can point me to the history of at least a couple builds where it went un-noticed for awhile then fine, but I'm not buying that excuse for removing the voteing section before.
 * Lania, everything you said is in violation of GW:YOU, sometimes it may be right but like above it's usualy stopped by others before it gets through a day in favored, even if a person disagrees with a build they could always ask on talk pages of other users they know to look at it.
 * What it comes down to is that its all a matter of opinions, and sometimes the only way to solve the problem is to see how many people have one opinions stacked up against another's. And I would bet quite a bit of money that many admin's opinions/views match up with some key people in the build sections and who would stand with those users when it came to lengthy discussions, I am not mentioning any names but voting gives others a equal say. --<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 20:32, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Just in case you didn't notice GW:YOU fails flat in the builds section because not everyone has equal experience in GW. Would an opinion from a rank 15 pvping maniac who've pvp since the beta event matter more than mine?  You bet it will.  In order for GW:YOU to work everyone needs to have similar experiences in PvP or PvE or whatever they are voting for.  Also a wiki is not a place to document "opinion".--Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 20:57, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Having a discussion is practically voting Lania. If you were to have a discussion with someone, you have to pick a side anyways.  It's better to just rate it and get straight to the point than to sit there and get nowhere.  And if voting really does suck Auron, would you rather an admin pick for you which builds work and which builds do not work?  If voting really does suck, then why do we vote on policies and whatnot?  I think everyone should have a say in which builds work or do not work, instead of having the admins pick which ones do work. Giangn626 21:03, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * "If you were to have a discussion with someone, you have to pick a side anyways. It's better to just rate it and get straight to the point than to sit there and get nowhere." When having a discussion, people can explain why they think that a build is good or bad, they can suggest improvements etc. People can also change their minds. Discussion requires a lot better knowledge of the build in question than voting. You can vote randomly but it is impossible to 'discuss randomly'.
 * "If voting really does suck, then why do we vote on policies and whatnot?" We do not vote on policies, we discuss them. Voting and discussion may be pretty much the same thing sometimes, but there is a difference. They are really close to eachother in many ways, but so differnet in some ways. As you might have noticed, policy discussions have worked really well even if they are discussions and not votes. People make compromises and suggestions. That's the point.
 * "I think everyone should have a say in which builds work or do not work, instead of having the admins pick which ones do work." In a discussion everyone can say what they think. No one is suggesting that admins decide. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 21:12, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * So what you're saying Lania is that we should'nt have a builds section? Alot of people wouldn't be too happy with that. Giangn626 21:03, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No I want a build section that works. Hence NOB.  Discussion will be normal but arguing will be minimal because these builds are so obvious to anyone that pvps.  --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 21:18, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Sefre, the problems with voting have been repeated many times. Anyone can vote, even if they know nothing about the stuff, and totally unexperienced players might cause a totally wrong result, just like we have seen in the current build section. What better does voting offer compared to discussion? Discussion requires everyone taking part to have atleast some kind of knowledge and time input. You can't just go to a random build page and vote randomly, you must actully look at the build before you can discuss it. You can think discussion as another kind of vote, where everyone is required to give arguments and people might even change their minds if they notice that they are wrong. Totally crappy builds will still get deleted as quickly as previously, good and popular builds will still remain in the build section as people know them, have tested them and can argue for those builds. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 21:12, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I already see these discussions going on in the builds section Gem. I am fine with these discussions. If anything, people also change their votes here and there too. What I was suggesting is that instead of having two solid voting choices(favored and unfavored), we could rate the builds. The author of the build wouldn't waste time with someone who gave their builds 3 stars. The builds wouldn't be catagorized by favored and unfavored, so there wouldn't be so much fuss. Giangn626 21:23, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, discussion is still happening even with the old system, but there should be a lot more discussion going on. The star system still has the main flaws of the voting system, although it definitely is an improvement, just not good enough. (Bed time 04:34, os I'll continue discussion in the morning) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 21:25, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Everyone keeps saying that voting is bad and discussion only is better. But I still haven't seen anywhere that says how a build will be considered, as working or not working, you can flap your mouths about how voting is flawed but I have not heard of any thing to replace it. What you are saying is that there will be links to every build and for see if it works users would have to go through the talk pages and look through the "discussions", cause that is all I can gather from comments and the NoB page. As for further improvements, what if the policy is altered to saying that each vote or rating must be fully explained, showing the reasoning behind the vote- Serious flaws, strengths over other builds, ect. Any vote favored would have to say why the build works, how it performed, where the person tested it in, ect. same for unfavored(opposites of course). If the vote did not match the build(or build was changed), such as flaws that don't exist, differences between favored reasons and the facts of the build, ect. It would be marked for further discussion if to be striked out for being false. This way there wouldn't be any people that could get away with just saying good build 3 times in a row, likewise saying bad build to unfavor it before it got a chance. I don't see how else a way to determine a builds effectiveness other then the meta builds that(personally suck, I show no respect for anyone that uses but...) everyone uses. Builds that use creativity but are not popular need a system for deciding how effective it is, if the votes are throughly explained and marked for discussion where questionable it would be a improvement.--<font color="Black">Sefre  21:54, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * If you want a place for original builds put it on your user space and have people discuss it or just take it to the guru and discuss it. Currently we have No Original Builds and Profession archetype guides as front liner policy that will replace the vetting procedure. The best system to test is a build is really effective or not is to just use it... and this is how new metas are established as top guilds "test" new builds they've created and and run it and it turns out to be effective and other guilds follow suit.  Metabuilds are the meta not because they suck but because they are supremely effective.  Like the shock axes and Melandru's dervishes in GvG there are nothing that can top the amount of direct pressure and damage they can create.  Also metas change all the time, like touch rangers used to be the meta, but now just about any other character can out damage a touch ranger even though people still use it in AB and RA.  Like I said if you want to discuss creativity in a build, go to the guru and discuss it all you want... and mind you there is a lot of good creativity there.  --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 23:14, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Wow, Just wow. You didn't read a word I said did you?
 * 1)I hate the attitudes at guru, thats why I work in the builds section here
 * 2)Some here are beginning to get that attitude, which is what I want to avoid
 * 3)The user page move is just moronic, what it accomplishes is beyond me but moving a whole section just to make a smaller section for meta builds is worthless.
 * 3)Wtf, you took one line that meant nothing on the rest of my comment to try and attack me.
 * 4)Read my comment and not the line about how I don't like the meta builds, ok?--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:30, 8 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Furthermore, NOB works for PvP builds, it doesn't work for PvE builds. And likewise, the profession outline is fine for finding boring generic builds that everyone and their grandmother has heard of, but how will it help finding fun creative PvE builds? I've been playing the game since around 3 months after the game began, chances are good if it's a common build I already know it and the section is USELESS to me. Hell, most of the time I go to the build section is to find new, creative, fun PvE builds that AREN'T the cookie cutter "a trained monkey could successfully come up with and play this" builds that have been posted dozens of times before. As for going to Guru, WHY? Guru is crap, this site is MUCH more helpful, Guru's good for finding out average trade prices and that's about it. And as for user pages, how exactly is that gonna work? If I wanna find a new ranger/assassin build to fuck around with, am I supposed to go through the hundreds of user pages and just hope I stumble across a userpage that has a r/a build for me to try? And how the hell are we supposed to "have people discuss it" on our user pages anyway? Not like we can just send out a signal to everyone interested in builds announcing "New build posted on Sefre's user page, please stop by and discuss" or something like that now, can we? Sure, if someone wants to scroll though the hundreds of "recently edited/recently created" articles they MIGHT see it, but otherwise? DKS01 02:05, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

lolz
Recently, there's been a sharp increase in nooby builds:D...maybe b/c I'm too lazy to unfavor them... Build: E/Mo Water Spiker and more:)&mdash; Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 14:37, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * ...and how is this relevant or helpful? -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 15:51, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * It simply shows how much worse a section can be, when the people who have any amount of knowledge on good or bad builds, begin to stop contributing. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 16:15, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Also, I would just like to say that, contrary to what this page actually says, many of these newbie posters actually have a point. A wiki is the only resource that displays builds in simply a more plesant manner, rather than a forum where everything is bunched together and messed up. A forum doesn't have point and click navigation that immediately links you to where a skill can be acquired, what that skill does, its stats, etc... as well as having a clearly written usage, description, equipment listing, variants section, etc...
 * Not taking any real position on this issue (just too lazy, don't know why people bother to wipe this out), just trying to give some of the one-side-only-too-arrogant-to-see-the-other-side people an idea of where some of these posters (aka flamers) may be coming from. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 16:15, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * For that reason, I never look up builds on Guru. It's chaotic in there.  One person might submit a build and ten other people submit variants.  It's crazy i'm telling you, crazy! 68.226.178.120 16:39, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * So wait, cheese... you're saying that Rebirth isn't good for GvG? You nub :P -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 16:50, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

GWShack. Pwn.--Nog64Talk 16:40, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Garbage site FTL. DKS01 06:49, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Slow ugly and lack of hot-linking ftl. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 17:00, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No need for hot-linking. And... it uses gwbbcode, which is far from ugly :) It's simply the best way to write up a build and have people play it. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 17:02, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Guys, act more mature. Otherwise I am going to have to pull out my Build:W/E Fiery Shover on you lolz. <font color="Black">Readem  (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">contribs ) 17:10, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Can we play nicely children? &mdash; Skuld 17:38, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

In responde to gwshack - It uses too many frames and therefore fails at life. Maybe if it used something other then frames it might work.. like generating dynamic pages with php..., while gwphpbb code is nice it's nice for FORUMS, hence the root of "phpbb or PhP bulletin Boards' Also, the reasont eh build section looked nice was because of the layout of the page. You had attributes and kills, then equipmetn, usage and variatns. And if oyur lucky a video. Whereas with gwshack it's "heres a build lolz" you don't have to go through any testing and since most people are complaining how they won't be able to find *good* builds, pointing them to gwshack isn't the best thign to do.

THat beeing said I still think the build section needs to be scrapped and a new policy formed. --Dazra 03:16, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Dazra, you are mistaken. GWShack doesn't use frames, it uses CSS to allow divs to have scroll bars. It uses AJAX to dynamically alter the appearance of the page. And it gets the content from a PHP application which produces dynamic content. So on the technical points that you've made you appear to be 100% incorrect :) lol <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:18, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * ...Always have to spoil the fun eh Lord.... Solus [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 07:21, 11 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm sorry going over the source you appear to be right, however the fact remains that it DOES take forever and a day to load a page. --Dazra 22:49, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

This goes against the wishes of the Guild Wars community
1. Currently, players in game frequently direct inexperienced users to GuildWiki to educate themselves on skills and builds.

2. This will no longer be practical if GuildWiki only hosts a limited number of builds, as users can no longer use GuildWiki as their primary Guild Wars resource.

3. It seems better for readers to be able to view a wide variety of builds - including creative but less effective builds - than to only be able to view a select group of standard builds (cookie cutters). - Thanks for caring about GuildWiki, Mont 10:51, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * If I ranted here, I'd probably start breaking GW:NPA, so I'll make it short. Read the history/archives/policy page. This is not permanent. Before even pretending that builds are going away forever... could you try to help out and improve/form policy for the next round, instead of complaining about losing the last? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 10:55, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No, it's not permanent, you're right. Unfortunately, the suggested replacement policies are utter garbage compared to the current one, even with the current one's flaws, so your statement of "it's not permanent" is little consolation. If someone suggests tearing your house down and replacing it with a a neater, cleaner, 1 bedroom shack, would you take "it's not permanent" as a valid reason to not be mad about losing your house, despite it's mess? DKS01 23:46, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Not to mention the opinion poll clearly goes against the claim of your argument.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 11:52, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The opinion poll, as has been clearly stated, will not affect the build wipe and is therefore pointless, since this page is all about the build wipe. Why vote on a pointless poll? Might as well just accept it, the build wipe is happening regardless of what anyone might want. Issa Dabir 12:08, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I can still use it as proof that more people want to have the wipe than not. If the poll becomes like 136-30 in opposition of the wipe, a case to stop it can be made.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 12:12, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I suspect there would have been a lot more votes against if the policy hadn't already been decided. Though some of the against votes would have been fairly useless, like the recent infamous "meowmeowmeowmeowmeow..." vote... Issa Dabir 13:35, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The wipes going to happen cause the admins are buddy buddy with its main promoters. And I could care less if they ban be, the bastards are going against a large portion of the community and I'm leaving the instant the so called moderators wipe it and ignore that fact. As for the "new and improved" crap, its crap, pure and simple, In no way better then current system. This is not a wiki system, its a opinionated control system by any admin who want to help those he or she favors in discussions, this article is proof of that. I hope someone else realizes once the moderators blotch this up...And apologies for the harsh language but it sums the truth up nicely. --<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 23:59, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Nothing really different is happening. You can still post builds on your userspace, and if you want people to look at them, then start soliciting. This works even better for people to get their ego boost because they can choose whomever they want to look at their build and praise them for their godly build.
 * -.- --8765 00:09, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * How, exactly, does one go about that? Go to every user's talk page and leave a note saying "new build posted on my user page"? I LIKE reading and commenting on builds, and I don't want every single person who posts a build on their user page soliciting my opinion on the matter... DKS01 02:21, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

You Suck
Jupsto 12:54, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * And I am sure that comment, will make you popular. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">contribs ) 13:21, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * This section title is pointless, will alter no-one's point of view, and is likely a violation of GW:NPA, unless he's talking to the search engine spiders. Issa Dabir 13:35, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Don't get rid of Random Arena and Competitive Mission Builds
The primary reason I'm concerned with the upcoming wipe is related to the RA and CM builds. I do not see a reason not to include them once the build section is restarted. I personally know many individuals and friends who love these PvP build categories and wouldn't have anywhere to go on the internet for an alternative. The alternatives you gave on the Build's Wipe article are not sufficient. Nothing will compare to the Guildwiki's RA and CM build sections. Please include these sections in any new policy you decide upon as they are as valid as any PvP venue in guildwars.--Magus 01:34, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * i'd argue the RA/CM builds are the majority of the issue. the problem is the over-proliferation of builds (some 1700 unfavored builds, mostly RA/CM), not the play style of builds. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 01:37, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * See my response to your comment on the NOB page. Anything works for RA. ANYTHING. Just use a solid split-capable build from GvG and you'll find it works fine in RA. There aren't any builds that only work in RA; that's why we don't need to document them. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:37, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Now, where is the db dump
Not sure if this has been mentioned before here, but of course, anyone who disagrees with the build wipe would be free to copy the build namespace and put it up somewhere else, maybe attempting to create a separate build-only wiki. Maybe this would be a good time to make a database dump available (as has been discussed before), before everything is gone? DeepSearch 04:56, 12 April 2007 (CDT)