GuildWiki:Community portal

Welcome to GuildWiki
This page is used as a task list to keep our efforts in the wiki coordinated and help new contributors finding issues that need attendence. Additionally, this page's discussion page is used for discussions that affect the wiki in general.

Also check out Category:Research needed for research specific tasks, Category:Helping out for more informations about the wiki, and Category:Votes for issues that are being decided/debated by the community.

If you need to reach the special pages, and the link in the tool box turn up blank, use Specialpages.

Completable Tasks
These tasks have a well defined stopping point. The usual style is to indicate the subtasks with bullets, and strike them out as they are completed. Add new completable taks to the bottom of this section.

Explorable Areas Descriptions

 * Go through the Explorable Areas and finish descriptions. --Tetris L 16:42, 25 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Areas that need descriptions/expansion
 * Diessa Lowlands Also missing map which makes the keyed notes kind of useless. Does anyone know where the map went? I'm assuming there was one considering the amount of work that went into making the article. Removed map stuff for map that was never uploaded.
 * Spearhead Peak Location Box added. ( by --Jermoe 02:18, 22 July 2006 (CDT) )
 * Tangle Root Location box added. ( by Jermoe previously )
 * Please keep in mind in adding these areas I only checked whether they had a description or not (whether they were called description, overview, general, etc), not the quality or quantity of the descriptions. Some are one line entries and some a multi-paragraph entries (Admittly some of the areas can be describled in one line and some require multiple paragraphs).--William Blackstaff 19:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Add Location Boxes, following Template:Location box. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 22:32, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

Collector Reward Tables
I see the collector rewards in general need an update re: formatting/combining, as well as info for the new classes. I'd be glad to help, but one question (please forgive if this is the wrong place to ask): are we grouping items by location or by attribute? There seems to be a mix of both. --Cecily Techuan 26 June 2006
 * Find out unknown bow classes for Ranger collector weapons. --PanSola 20:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perfect ones by attribute. Non-perfect ones by location first, then attribute. - 23:16, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Our Own Clean version of SF map
According to Karlos, Gameamp reject our request to use their SF map. Since no one else seems to have a clean SF map, we'd have to make our own. It is an undertaking that is beyond my attention span/interest, but I really want a clean map so that we can copy it and make various special-purpose SF map (like Sorrow's Furnace Boss Locations). Whoever wants to work on it, sign up here so if more than one person is interested, you can split up the screen-shooting jobs. -PanSola 13:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be totally interested in this, but would like to, I don't know, found a "GuildWiki Cartographer Society". Not a proper guild, just some of us that team up and go around getting maps. How about it? --Nunix 18:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Best way to capture Sorrow's Furnace is with a free program by the name of irfanview.com, it has an automatic image capture feature to take a screenshot every X seconds, and then save and label it in a folder, as for the abillity to explore, the sorrow's furnace taks for galen trask would be the best as there is not much fighting involved, and much exploring. -- Delarosa 17:27, 1 February 2006


 * Nice big PITA to put the shots all together then, though. &mdash; Lunarbunny 03:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about, what's wrong with this?? Kidburla 08:30, 17 February 2006 (CST)


 * We would need GWOnline's permission to edit and use it. Seeing as how they actually BAN people on the forums for just linking to other fansites, I'm not sure how cooperative they would be. -PanSola 08:56, 16 March 2006 (CST)


 * How about contacting the original creator instead? His names are on the map. --Xeeron 22:10, 30 March 2006 (CST)


 * I'll be glad to clear any area for maping's sake. got every character but ele, and can be found IG as Miss Foo or Widow Foo. Foo 04:33, 19 April 2006 (CDT)

Profession Combinations; Take 2
Check the new profession combinations including Assassins and Ritualists in Category:Profession combinations and lift them to wiki levels. --Xeeron 22:10, 30 March 2006 (CST)

I'm finishing up on this task - most of it has been done over the last two months. --Ifer 9:07, 18 July 2006 (GMT)

with nightfall on the horizon, there are no fewer then 90 of these articles, most containing little or no useful information. consider Necromancer_Elementalist. can we start phasing these articles out? --Honorable Sarah 10:12, 25 July 2006 (CDT)


 * most of them I'd say yes. some (W/MO, E/MO, N/MO) are good and can stay, or mabye merged (with N/Mo Minion Master?) [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] (talk) 10:17, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I would support completely removing all combination articles (forward them to the secondary profession article), what they are is basically opinion articles on possible build combinations which are already covered in the builds section of the wiki. Whatever we decide to do with the worst of them needs to be applied to the rest. If we decide to keep them then the bad ones will need updating. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 10:19, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I think we should get rid of them. Just move any useful information to a suitable place before deleting. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * this is one of those annoying "all-or-nothing" situations, i think. we either delete them all, scavanging whatever we can to place on the primary or secondary profession pages, or we bring them all up to code. personally, i'd rather not edit all 90 + Ch4 professions in 6 months. they're not even categorised so we can easily see them all. even deleting them is going to be effort. grr --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:25, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * fine. let's get to work. burn them. burn them all... [evil laugh]MUAHAHA[/evil laugh] [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Personally, I'm not crazy about removing the articles unless there's a substitute found for any relevant useful information. I see two options:
 * re-write the articles, and include within them links to example build articles.
 * delete the articles, migrating any useful information to the core profession articles.
 * I disagree with doing a mass delete campaign until it's worked out all of what's being done. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:41, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Honestly, they all suck, and most everything is in a build article if it's important [[Image:ST47logo.jpg|User:ST47|50px]] (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not opposed to deletion; but a decision by four users in the span of 15 minutes does not constitute a community concensus, and certainly not adequate time for other interrested parties to voice opinions. Deletion may very well be the best choice; but there's no need to rush it, and to allow time for others to look at it too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:46, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed. Most are pretty useless, but some have some good stuff worth considering in them. Just because there's a specific build that covers a few of these general points doesn't mean that it's OK to get rid of the general points - if I want an overview of something I'm not going to be looking at specific builds. --NieA7 10:52, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Yea, I don't like the idea of burying the useful bits in build articles. For the useful bits, we would need to repeat the same info in each build that covers the relevant combination.  Otherwise, a user could easilly miss the info.  Much better to place it either in the core profession article, or in combo articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:59, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * as zealous as 47 is, he's correct. i've not seen one article that offered anything beyond vauge advice about combinations that may or may not work, consider Ranger_Ritualist. all those weapon skills are next attack type, excepting brutal weapon, which is too expensive to maintain, and does not stack with enchantments. suggest we leave the delete tags sit for a few days and see how many other people comment here. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:49, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, I'm also opposed to leaving the delete tags while the conversation takes place. If an admin sees the tag, and sees no conversation in the relevant article, they could easilly delete them while the conversation is still taking place here.
 * Again, I'm not debating the value of the articles, just the process here in making a mass deletion of 90 or so articles on a decision that had little time for input. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:54, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Also, keep in mind that these articles seem geared specifically towards first time players. I remember my first character, and being confused at to what would make a useful combination to start.  While these articles may seem useless to veteran players, some degree of the content in them should be maintained in a useful summary form to help guide first-time players in seeing how profession combinations can interract.  I really wouldn't expect a first time player to read as deeply as the build articles when they're just starting out, and really do not see that as a viable location for the useful bits from these.  If they're deleted, my preference would be that the useful notes be added to the profession articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:15, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i'd think first time player would be reading the Category:Profession guides, since those are geared twords first time player. which reminds me, i need to go guilt teeth into getting his effective mesmer guide out. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:25, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, those guides would also work as a place to move information about useful profession combinations. As yet, they don't contain that info; but if it were added it could work.  Perhaps rather than listing each combo within the guide, just insert a small section on what that profession adds if used as a secondary? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:37, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * After looking closer, the basic profession articles would be more likely to be viewed by first time players. The profession articles are linked via the Getting Started guide.  The Effective xyz Guides are not, and even mention in the very start that they are not for beginning players. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:41, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i think before we divide the spoils of hidden information in these articles, we should find some first. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:49, 25 July 2006 (CDT)
 * They suck because you guys already know whatever's in it and very familiar with how the wiki works and that there are builds pages here. I didn't know about builds pages when I came here. I didn't know how best to take advantage of prof combinations when I started GW and would've much preferred suggestions, tips, and ideas than outright cookie cutter builds for me to just memorize, buy, and drag to my skill bar. The problem was that I didn't even know the existence of the combination pages. And I found those before I even found the guides. I think their visibility just needs to be improved. Or we can simply combine them into one combination article for each profession; I like Barek's idea of merging them into the profession article. The target readers for the profession article would be new players or those new to the profession. The effective guides on the other hand should be geared towards those already familiar with the profession and are just looking for more ways to play better. In any case, delete or not, there has to be a clear page or section that explains how all the profession combinations would or could work. Saying all the info is already in the builds pages is inaccurate. It's not like the builds pages are very friendly to newcomers to the game and the builds pages we have most certainly do not cover all possibilities, especially not untried ideas or concepts. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:23, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Sandbox if it goes.. ;) &mdash; Skuld 11:01, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

I just left on vacation or I would still be working on the N/Rt and Rt/N pages. Personally, I'm sick of those Necros elitists lording their supposedly-superior MM skills over the Rits, and I need those pages as ammo. I want to keep them, for all of the above reasons. Those combination pages are all about possibilities, while the build pages are about certainties. There's need for both in this world. :) --BarGamer 23:16, 25 July 2006 (CDT)

Id say delete them. Detraya fullvear

I'm against deleting them. As someone who is still attempting to learn the vast possibilities of the game, the combinations articles have been very useful for giving me profession and skill combo ideas. They're easily my favorite part of the wiki. The build articles are about specific techniques, and that's fine, but as someone said above, the combinations articles are more about general, easy to understand, "you might like to try this" ideas. Also, I think they are good for encouraging people to try more offbeat combinations and to show that they can be worth playing. My first character was a melee Mo/W, and while that didn't work out as well as I would've liked, I had fun with it. -- Arshay Duskbrow


 * I support completely Barek's view on how this matter should be handled. "Fast deletion so noone can object" is not what the literal wiki stands for, and here it seems like Skuld had his shotgun ready mere 2 hours after the first posting. So please, give some time to discuss. After all, there are alternative to deletion.
 * I also like to support the argumentation of Ab.Er.Rant. I remember being very interested in these articles everytime I started choosing secondary profession. Maybe these articles weren't of high quality, but they gave an nice overview of my options. Build articles are not the same, they are by far more focused on the 	necessities of the build. Further, since Warrior Monk and the like are terms of the game, GuildWiki wouldn't be complete without a lemma of that name, maybe at least as a redirect to a section of the primary profession article, as Barek suggested.
 * There a sure lots of options other than plain deletion, so, please, keep a cool head and discuss first. And hands off from the shotgun, please, at least for a while. Thanks. --MRA 09:48, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

Wouldn't it make more sense to have secondary classes with the main ones? Have it's own section in the man article saying what skills work well together, builds for newbie players and general info about the playing styles it opens up. That way we lose 90 useless articles and instead gain 10+ (with more add ons) useful articles. After all keeping 1 article up to standard is much easier than keeping 10 of them. -- Astray


 * skuld was not involved here, except for his note about having them all queued in case the decision was delete, and the delete tags certainly served to raise the visibility of this discussion, which is their purpose (as opposed to simply deleting articles and leaving people to wonder what happened).
 * the specific issue is not with the articles worth as a concept, but as the articles worth as implementation. consider Ranger Mesmer. there is no information on this page that is not better housed on the Ranger or Mesmer profession pages, and the single line "choose Mesmer secondary for additional interrupt skills" on Ranger could eclipse the whole of the combination article in terms of usefulness to new players.
 * people ask in guild chat "what secondary should i choose for my X". invariably, my response is monk or ritualist. if you don't have a specific need for the skills of a secondary profession (say, you've a build you wish to try) then the only benefit from secondary is repeatable res.
 * at least one person commented on these pages being more useful in understanding professions then "cookie-cutter" builds. we're working on that, consider the profession guides. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:22, 26 July 2006 (CDT)

Chiming in to say that I'm a fan of the combination descriptions. I like reading what kind of combos people come up with. For example, I saw an Elementalist Assassin in TA, a quick read of the wiki later and I knew what I was probably up against, and how to counter it. If some people don't like them, then don't read them, but I think they're a good place to store general (rather than build specific) synergies between the professions. The only sensible suggestion that I've seen so far is integrating these descriptions into the primary profession articles, although I think this will bload them a little. I will be quite sad if they go, especially as it is just the elitist players who tend to take part in these discussions. --Immure 14:42, 26 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Likewise, I feel the same. I think Astray has a good idea. We change it into 10 articles (one for each prof) with 9 subsections rather than 90 articles. It's easier to manage, compare, and especially add to/edit since we'll be expecting another 2 profs each campaign. If we keep it as is, it'll be 132 (12*11) articles by the campaign 4, versus 12 articles. We can keep the main pages on each primary profession as standalone, since they look so nice and just have a "combo" page linked in it. If we have 10 pages to edit, it's much easier to concentrate effort. And don't attack the articles simply because they don't have much in them. Yes they suck but any article would suck if no one worked on it. The state of it now agreeably makes it hard to work on so no wonder there are a bunch that have little information on them.
 * I like these pages, in general, because most people are not going to look for specific builds when comparing secondary profs, but rather tactical stuff and general combos, or just ideas to give some inspiration. I think players will enjoy playing and tweaking a build they make on their own rather than a great build somebody just told them.
 * The profession guides are very nice and well written but they tend to focus on how to play the primary. True, they aren't yet complete and some pages even lack a secondary profession section but it's a work in progress. But it wouldn't hurt to have a "combo" page. The guides are extensive but are beginning to become fairly long. I'm not saying it wouldn't work but basically, we shouldn't throw these pages away without using them in some way. --Vortexsam 02:10, 27 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I am definately against full-out deletion of these articles. Even now, when I'm starting out a new RP character, I browse through the pages looking for interesting possibilities. I would however, be open to merging these articles into the profession pages as a major subsection. I personally much rather getting some general ideas from the wiki as opposed to fully-made builds. - Lord Ehzed 09:15, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I also like Astray's idea of having 1 page per (primary) class that lists all the different secondary combinations. New players that are wondering about the advantages of different secondaries can use it as a quick reference without having to flip between several articles.  --Spot 13:02, 27 July 2006 (CDT)

My apologies if I'm editing this incorrectly, but I've not done terribly many edits (except for Senji, and the Orosen's Staff articles), and I would be inclined to agree with many of the posters here - Perhaps it would be best if the Primary/Secondary articles be merged onto the Primary class pages, perhaps at the bottom of the page? That way, no information need be lost, and we may still reduce the number of pages required. Perhaps have the Primary/Secondary sections on the Primary class page suggest ways to play, and have links to Tested PvE builds? (since PvP players can find their own build easily enough, but trying to find a build that is both Tested and PvE isn't so easy without loading each page...) 124.178.195.199 23:24, 27 July 2006 (CDT)


 * When desiding on what I'm going to do with a new character I look on these and see what apeals to me the most, then I crouse through the skills and create a build. They have affected 3 of my builds in a positive way (none in a negative) and an bad tips can be ironed out. These are the first thing I look at and are much quicker than sifting through redy made builds (which creates a lack of origionality). Please leave them alone or give them there own section (guides prehaps). Sir On The Edge

I've found these articles very useful while trying to decide on a secondary profession for my characters. There just isnt enough builds listed on guildwiki to decide on which profession combination suits a player the best. I would suggest either keeping this section, or doing a major buff up of the builds section, adding at least one build of each combination so visitors can understand what their specialized combinations can achieve. There is a wide range of options while customizing your character, and Guildwiki should reflect that with a description of these options. Not everyone comes here to read up on uber items and quest walkthroughs. New players will visit guildwiki looking for help deciding on their secondary class, and what better way to help them decide than to show them all of their options? --69.231.139.182 23:16, 28 July 2006 (CDT)

Deprecate the ch2 template

 * Remove  from all pages that have them. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * See Template talk:Ch2 for discussion on whether or NOT to do this. -18:59, 18 April 2006 (CDT) Edit: "whether or not to just pull the tempate, vs phasing it out as data is confirmed from post-release." -PanSola 21:36, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Note: unless the plan is to keep these in the wiki forever, we will eventually have to do it. &mdash; Stabber (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2006 (CDT)


 * what about bot-replacing them with and  tags? gets the "prerelease" bit off and still markes them as needing updates. --Honorable Sarah 10:38, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

Syncing Boss Info with Bestiary/RawDump

 * Check individual boss articles with the Rawdump, sync them, add note in boss's talk page, then remove corresponding entry from the Rawdump. Use your own judgement if a boss skill list was confirmed by SoC but differs from the rawdump, as Anet might've adjusted the boss's skills at one point.

Factions Tasks

 * The color of their aura is fixed. Retake pictures of Category:Ritualist Bosses and Category:Assassin Bosses
 * Arius, Dark Apostle
 * Chkkr Brightclaw - done
 * Chkkr Locust Lord - done
 * Cho, Spirit Empath
 * Ssaresh Rattler
 * Ssyn Coiled Grasp
 * The Pain Eater
 * The Skill Eater
 * Tomton Spiriteater
 * Urkal the Ambusher
 * Warden of Saprophytes
 * Whispering Ritual Lord


 * Figure out what to do about the following now-obsolete articles.
 * Kurzick Settlement
 * Luxon Settlement
 * Book trick - unlinked
 * Gear Tank - unlinked
 * Bundle tank


 * Well, I say first we check all the "what links here" for each of them, and remove things that clearly no longer applies. -PanSola 00:33, 8 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I say we should keep them as reference with a note that states they are obsolete. I believe in displaying game history too, not only current information. &mdash; Galil  05:46, 13 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Builds and guides that require serious reworking in light of the skill changes
 * General minion mastery guide, N/Mo Minion Meister, N/R Minion Master and most other traditional MM builds are now pointless, excepting posibly Death Bomber and N/E Renewal Minion Master.
 * Team - Minion Factory
 * R/Me Weariness Ranger
 * Me/Mo Surge Mesmer


 * Articles waiting for some kind soul to write them:
 * Instructor Ng mine! --Honorable Sarah 10:07, 28 April 2006 (CDT)
 * The list of Tyrian and Canthan skill trainers and the skills they teach. This still hasn't been added.

Reformat Armor articles
Reformat and restructure all armor articles so they split into Function vs Art articles. Use Style and formatting/Armor as the guide and Mesmer armors is one fully completed example of the restructuring. -PanSola 22:09, 2 May 2006 (CDT)

Progress:
 * Warrior armor - pages have been split, still need internal cleanup.
 * Ranger armor
 * Monk armor
 * Necromancer armor
 * Mesmer armor - done
 * Elementalist armor
 * Ritualist armor - still need some internal cleanup.
 * Assassin armor - still need some internal cleanup.

Update Green items listings

 * Not all green weapons are listed. (and not all listed green items have pictures)
 * Some tables are split without proper titles, see Elementalist_unique_items_quick_reference
 * In a profession/all campaigns listing, the different campaigns should not be split at all - it is agains the nature of a quick reference. People who do not have all campaigns can look up their greens for their campaign seperately.
 * the beautiful color coding in the mesmer greens lists should be carried over to the other greens lists.
 * Index_of_unique_item_lists still needs an "all campaigns/all professions" listing
 * Disagree. That would be a overly huge unweildy list without direct benefits.
 * Ok, got your point. But then, what is the use of a listing of all greens from any one campaign?

Category:Needs SoC confirmation
Add Bosses that require Signet of Capture confirmation of skills in this category so other people can confirm them. Remember, RawDump is considered a form of SoC confirmation, just need to update the boss page, don't need an additional SoC check.

Skill Icons
More complete information (including what to change and not to change, and where to say what you did) can be found here- a relevant section of the talk page, in particular, is here.

Go through all NPC's and Monsters which use any skills, and use the Skill Icon and Monster skill icon templates in the articles.
 * Monster Skills will be tagged automatically with (Monster Skill) and Elite skills are to be tagged with (Elite), but only on Boss monsters, where it is relevant (SoC confirmation should be done as well, see below).
 * Examples:


 * This is the default
 * (Elite) This is how to mark elite skills for bosses
 * (Elite)
 * This is how to mark monster skills.
 * This is how to mark monster skills.

The exception here is monster skills that are known to have their own unique icons, such as the Glint's Crystal series skills.

Perennial Tasks
These are tasks that have no stop date. Usually, these are administrative tasks, or tasks that require collecting a potentially infinite amount of data. Add new perennial tasks to the bottom of this section.

Builds
--Xeeron 07:10, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Review Untested builds:
 * Try out build in PvP or PvE, vouch for those that are useful
 * Move vouched for builds into the correct category (Tested + PvP, PvE, Farming)
 * Create new articles for builds
 * Use "Team - Buildname" as naming convention for team builds
 * Use, or  to indicate what the build is supposed to be used for
 * Add common builds from the metagame


 * Also, clear out the Build Stubs category, by making sure that all builds are complete with sufficient information. --Rapta 11:32, 1 July 2006 (CDT)

Collect data for Drop Rate research
If you're farming out there and committing all kinds of crimes against computer-controlled monsters, take a moment to open a spread sheet and jot down the drops of the monsters you take down. See, the Drop rate article for what data to collect.

Furnish Missing images

 * See Old image requests for old image requests


 * Armor:
 * Warrior Headgear
 * Category:Armor/Icons needed
 * Weapons:


 * Items:


 * Creatures:
 * Dredge Spirit Caller
 * Scale Fleshrend


 * Icons, in style/size similar to icons for energy, exhaustion, and sacrifice etc, for:
 * Lead attack [[Image:LeadAttack.png]]
 * Offhand attack [[Image:OffHand.png]]
 * Dual attack [[Image:DualAttack.png]]
 * Enchantment (up arrow) [[Image:Enchantment.png]]
 * Hex (down arrow) [[Image:Hex.png]]
 * Poison (poison-green left arrow) [[Image:Poison.png]]
 * Bleeding (pale-pink left arrow) [[Image:Bleeding.png]]
 * Hex-degen (pink left arrow) [[Image:Hex-degen.png]]
 * Attack (arg doesnt' seem to exist an ingame one)
 * Melee Attack (shown on upper left of skill icon when weapon not equipped)
 * Hammer Attack [[Image:Hammer_Attack.png]]
 * Axe Attack [[Image:Axe_Attack.png]]
 * Sword Attack [[Image:Sword_Attack.png]]
 * Dagger Attack [[Image:Dagger_Attack.png]]
 * Bow Attack [[Image:Bow_Attack.png]]
 * Pet Attack (No in game image. They should add this in the game too.)
 * Scythe Attack [[Image:Scythe_Attack.png]]
 * Spear Attack

Collect Boss/Mob Data

 * 1) For each offensive skill the monster use, record its damage on the talk page.  If the damage does not ignore armor, record the armor the victim is wearing.  Also note any enchantments or hexes that might have been in place.
 * 2) Wait for a damage-guru to back-solve the monster's rank in the relevant attribute.

Collect Data On The After Cast Of Skills

 * Skills like Aftershock have a time after the cast where you can not move nor cast. This is referred to as aftercast.


 * Misc:

Improve the quality of spelling

 * Help build Misspellings and fix up all the pages linked to on there.

Historical Notes
''See Old Tasks for... Umm... Old Tasks.''

Suggestion: linking elite skills to builds
moved to GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills

A new Builds article
Since I have been unhappy with the inconsistent and complicated way we are currently displaying build articles for a while, I decided to come up with a suggestion (User:Bishop/Builds) of what I think the main Builds article should look like. The obvious assumptions are that the current article is moved to Builds (Definitions) and that that article is expanded to include further information on how we vet and sort builds; information that is currently only available on talk pages in various places. The astute reader will also observe that I have included my suggestion for a new group of deprecated and/or weak builds, the Category:Unfavored builds, which I believe is a far better solution than to throw away builds that people have put time and effort into. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:33, 12 May 2006 (CDT) Oh, as an aside, we really need to decide if we want the categories to use capitalized Builds or not, as the current state is horribly inconsistent. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:37, 12 May 2006 (CDT)