GuildWiki talk:Post no builds

Poll: Does the build namespace cause more harm than good?
Don't clutter up my poll with too much reasoning -- you can use the rest of the discussion page for that. I just want a quick, easy-to-count poll of what people think. &mdash;Tanaric 00:15, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * Hi Tanaric! *waves*  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:17, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Yes
]] 13:08, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 1) As the author of this article...  --Rainith 00:55, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Yes. --Dirigible 00:59, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) --Fyren 01:31, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 4) So long as the system remains what it is drop it but to me it needs major changes. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.150.49 (contribs).
 * 5) Yes.. &mdash; Skuld 02:28, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 6) Undoubtedly.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:16, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 7) In it's current form, most definitely. --84-175  (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 8) Yes. Foo 06:01, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 9) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 06:13, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 10) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:56, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 11) Even though I contribute to it, IMO it does cause more problems than its worth --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 23:20, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 12) The way it works now does NOT work. -  B e X or  [[Image:Bexor.png]]  01:03, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 13) yep. --FireFox  [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 08:54, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 14) Builds are the main reason for NPA. The builds could be transerref to another site where ppl can happily make their builds. --[[User:Sigm@|Σιγ μα
 * 1) Builds already had non-colliading namespaces with the "Me/N" syntax. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 19:45, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Oops, forgot. --Silk Weaker 01:24, 11 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Well, yes. --Babbo Elvis 09:10, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Simply put..Yeah. - -S ora267 [[Image:Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|19px]] 21:03, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) ...&mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 16:47, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) I love the builds section, but it dosnt belong here.--Coloneh RIP[[Image:Coloneh.png]] 01:53, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) To bluntly answer the question, yes. I am a fan of the Builds section - "Build Magic" happens on collaborative sites like GWiki like nowhere else. But in the overall scheme of things, the amount of broken policy, GW:NPA violations, sockpuppetry, and...nastier things...do nothing to help the Wiki. In fact I believe the Builds section is probably something like a breeding ground for vandals and others who mean the Wiki ill. Therefore as much good and potential good that it has - Yes. Axe it. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:10, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

No

 * 1) It's a good thing. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Keep the builds but change the vetting system so you need to give a reason.--Eloc jcg 00:48, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, change the vetting system, don't get rid of the builds. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * 1) Let me have my sarcasm. Its the only reason I live. --SBR 01:40, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) I think it has slowly gone downhill, but still represents a valuable resource.--JP 02:01, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) --NieA7 07:12, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 4) See below --Xasxas256 08:47, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 5) --Misfate 9:00, 9 March 2007 (PST)
 * 6) This site would crash and burn without it. I agree it sucks, but is nesesary. [[image:jups.jpg|16px]] 18:48, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 7) I like the builds section is good and will get better if a good policy is agreed on. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt
 * 1) It helps me ignoring this whole builds knick-knack. --MRA 21:15, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) It's a good resource, it just needs better rules. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 23:50, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Useful resource. So what if its not perfect, thats no reason to get rid of it imo. Banito 08:53, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 4) From what I could tell, a good deal of site traffic is directed at builds. If that's not a reason, I don't know what is. Not to mention it's a valuable resource and all that.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Word_of_Healing.jpg|19px]] 13:12, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 5) Remove builds and you will remove a good part of the sites population.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|18px|]] 23:51, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 6) Don't hate the builds, hate the game. Solus  [[image:Shield_of_Judgment.jpg|19px]] 00:10, 11 March 2007 (CST)
 * 7) Builds are what a lot of people come to GuildWiki for. Remove it and a lot of them (myself included) will go over to the Anet Wiki for good. Cynical 08:34, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) I love the Builds section of Guild Wiki, whether it's well done or not. I believe that, if nothing else, we should have a section where any build can be posted without a voting process.  I'd hate to see so much hard work go to waste, as it it is so useful to me and many other members of the Guild Wars community. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    16:50, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 9) Dstroyer 666 17:11, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 10) It can be improved, but I think there's a good number of solid builds... revision is a good idea, trashing it is not. :( Dark Helmet 13:24, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 11) Needs better rules, but outright deleting? - [[Image:Smoke_Trap.jpg|19px]] Entice789  (Talk | Contributions) 15:54, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 12) --Warwulf 01:17, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 13) Bickering sucks. But it is the only way to learn (for some people), and the builds section evolves and ultimately becomes better in the long run. Also, I know I made a lot of mistakes and caused some stress in the process of making my first build, but that is because the rules are not very well advertised and the process of the disussion and voting and all that is pretty complex to a first timer.  I would just like to see people have more patience with each other.  At least in my opinion there have not been any major problems caused by it.  The builds section of guildwiki.org is the greatest thing that the site has to offer to the world. - Jagre 04:50, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 14) How else will we find out builds for GuildWars? &mdash;[[Image:Alert.PNG]] Ebany Salmonderiel (Talk) [ Leave a note] 06:49, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 15) Needs rules, not deletion. Lord of all tyria 12:47, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Xas gives some reasoning, a proposal and starts talking in the third person
I don't talk much about my in game exploits but I'm a PvPer and to remove the builds would be to the detriment of the GWiki. I don't know why anybody could argue against the PvE builds, there's so many good builds there in particular the better farming ones. They're well written, incredibly useful and by and large create few user disputes. Do we really want to get rid of this great resource?

As for the PvP side it's crap, it's just a source of headaches. Above Silk has quite rightly argued that trying to document the PvP meta is extraordinarily difficult, it keeps changing and there's so many variants. Submitting builds under various vetting guises has been unsuccessful for reasons that have been said numerous times already. But why try to keep up with the meta or invent some glorious new build nobody has thought of before? I'd like to see us get back to our documentation roots and away from the bickering.

I'd propose to get rid of the vetting system for PvP builds, instead only document builds that have been seen on observer mode. So only builds that have either won in a GvG match with a top 100 guild or builds that have won in the Hall of Heroes. Have a look at User:Xasxas256/GW:Xas for an example, it could look a bit nicer I suppose but it gives the general idea. There's no vetting required, it just documents what happened so there shouldn't be any arguments. That said it might encourage the PvP community to discuss some current team builds (as opposed to individual skills or player builds).

The PvPer isn't really that well catered for, I mean until I edited it just then, Celestial Tournament didn't even have links to the results or pairings for the first five rounds. The other ones probably only have content because of MRA's diligence. If this proposal was accepted, I'd hope it would fulfil our role as documenters, stop the fighting on the build pages, vastly improve the quality of the builds, encourage more PvP discussion (as opposed to build proposal discussion!), increase readership and usefulness (unlike the PvE section, I almost never see links to GWiki PvP builds on forums or in in game chat) and perhaps as a final bonus even encourage some of the people running these builds to discuss them. --Xasxas256 08:47, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * I see no problem keeping builds that are in common usage, that are observed as winning builds in observer mode, or that are frequently requested by name. My vote above is solely on build development and vetting within the wiki.  My position is that all "common usage" builds or any published by ArenaNet as reference builds could stay, as we're documenting factual information.  All development builds can be moved to the user namespace if a user wants them - and vetting can be scrapped entirely. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:00, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Haven't we been over this? We'd come to the conclusion that the best way to do it is document easily verifiable builds; i.e., FotM and pre-mades (which don't exist anymore, those are all archived). When we tried to make the cut-off for FotM top-100 matches, people screamed elitist. Short of telling them off (because they did, honestly, miss the entire point of using obs mode for verifiability), we've done this before. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 12:10, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * I don't think it's only PvP builds that are the problem here, Xas. PvE builds on GuildWiki can be divided in two groups: Farming builds and non-farming. The former are usually easy to test, because it either works or doesn't. The latter are tricky, because while they are less controversial than pvp builds, their vetting process is characterised by a definite "laxer standards" symptom, (a.k.a. "it's PvE, everything works there"), which shouldn't happen. Lack of controversy doesn't mean there's higher quality either; take a look at Build:Team - Shadow Flame, favoured DoA team which even the author himself reveals that he's only tested it only on the FIRST mobs of DoA. Yet the build is favoured, even though it's pretty much as terrible as it could possibly get for DoA, as those who have actually any experience with the place will know.
 * The problem isn't local to either PvE builds or PvP builds (even though, granted, it's more obvious in the latter). It's the entire system that is flawed. As Barek said above, development and vetting of builds on the wiki simply doesn't work, and our entire builds section has been built on top of exactly those two pillars. --Dirigible 17:45, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * For months now there's jokingly been talk of either Tanaric or Fyren nuking the builds section which would solve all of the wikis problems. I've never paid the idea much attention but I get the vibe that this is the clostest we've come to it actually happening.
 * Heh, I view all PvE as farming to some extent, come on it is! But yes you're right, running and solo farm builds are easier to test than team builds. But that said the SB/55 FoW and the B/P Tombs pages used to be great (although I don't honestly know if they're still good articles). PvE is far predictable though, you pretty much know where the AI will spawn, what skills they will use, how they will react etc. The only variation is the group's skill, aside from some minor spawn variation different groups should be able to run the same build with fairly similar experiences as long as the build's tactics are detailed enough. But if we're going to change the PvP builds section that there's no reason not to change the PvE side at the same time however in the case of this DoA build I'd say it's the tester's fault that it was vetted.


 * A solution might be to remove the voting clause that you don't have to test the build, I believe it was originally there because of the influx of obviously bad PvP builds. But PvE builds are easier to test I think.


 * Back to PvP builds, my belief is that the "elitist" concept stems from the way people vote and comment on a build somebody has submitted. Not vetting process removes the main source of elitism, people saying things along the lines of, "I have heaps of experience, you don't seem to, this build is rubbish." This is just pure documentation, if you're referring to the problem that only builds run by top 100 guilds will be submitted then you have a point. But I wouldn't mind seeing any observed winning build, irrespective of whether it's the top 100 guild or a non top 100 guild, as long as the build wins. And with HA builds, we wouldn't only document builds by people with r9+ or HA guilds, it's enough that they win. --Xasxas256 22:12, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * I agree with the concept of only posting common builds. As I've said a million times before, the wiki should be a place for documentation, not innovation. I don't care whether some people would be upset that they can't post their new build.


 * I'm actually rather surprised at the results of the vote above. Although I must say that I think people have interpreted the question differently. I presumed that it meant "the contents of the build namespace at present"; of course I have no problem with the build namespace as a namespace, the problem is that it's filled with crap.


 * I would love to see a policy where the only builds recorded were ones with merit, i.e. popular/common/important, and where users were not allowed to post builds that they had just conjured out of the ether. But as Auron said above, we've been here before. I'm not particularly optimistic, and I'm not willing to take administrative action on it myself.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:05, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * So far, the only argument I'm seeing against this is that someone remembers that it was misunderstood and shot down last time it came up. That's not a reason against, so I still feel strongly that this is the direction in which we should go.  Scrap vetting entirely - that is the root of all build problems.  Only allow builds in the user namespace - only the user should edit the build itself - comments can be made on the talk page - BUT NO VETTING!  In the main namespace, only document popular/common/important builds.  Scrap the build namespace entirely as a failed experiment.
 * As to claims that the wiki can not survive without builds - those making such claims either are new or forget that tracking of web site traffic (Alexa ranking) had GuildWiki listed as one of the most popular (if not the most popular) fansite for Guild Wars even before builds were added.
 * As for the above poll - reading the comments, it appears clear to me that people have several different opinions as to what is really being asked here - as a result, I'm not 100% sure that I know - many make statements that seem to imply that I misunderstood the question.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:21, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * Nah, I'm not arguing against it (in fact, I said that same thing right below this section). So... naturally... I believe it to be the best course of action. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:49, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * Even if this proposal isn't accepted I think we really do need to get rid of the voting, particularly for PvP builds. It causes so many problems and I don't even think it is very successful at vetting good builds and unfavouring bad builds. As Auron said we can keep user submitted builds as long as they're in the user's namespace and we can even categorise them, they're just not "official" and there's no voting/editing them either by other users. Basically documenting builds = good, arguing over builds = bad. --Xasxas256 23:20, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * "As Auron said we can keep user submitted builds as long as they're in the user's namespace and we can even categorise them, they're just not "official" and there's no voting/editing them either by other users. Basically documenting builds = good, arguing over builds = bad." So in other words, you agree with this policy as it is proposed.  --Rainith 23:43, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * I don't, yet. It mentions nothing about documentation of popular/useful builds. If this became policy as-is, we'd have *no builds*; including FotM and successful farming builds. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 23:47, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * What? No, that's not what I said at all. I'd like to see us use observer mode for PvP builds, not no builds whatsoever. If people want to submit their own personal, builds that haven't been seen on observer mode they should be in the user namespace. I want to get rid of voting/vetting no builds altogether. --Xasxas256 04:59, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

The answer number 2!
scap the disfavoured/favoured vetting system. Now everyones happy. Instead catergorise them as number of views by... anyone. Over time more views = more popular. If all builds where divided into say 3 or 4 catergories of how much they are viewed, the least popular would be viewed less, and most popular viewed more. This is a sort of Capalistic system, but gives the opertunity for a build not view much (say has started being used in top guilds) to get veiwed alot more and rise back up. People can nominate featured builds on each section, which they feel deserve to raise up a "level" of popularity. I'll leave the complications up to you if you like the idea. but hows about Very Popular>Popular>Used>Unpopular, the question is wether to divide all builds into 4 groups (so each has same amount. Or do each group needs a certain amount of views or views over time. Opinions? 19:02, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * The page view counts were disabled on GuildWiki. If I recall correctly, it may have been a performance issue, although it may also have been disabled due to erroneous counts related to how pages are cached/rendered - Fyren would likely recall the specifics.  Even if functional, rating based on page views would be easy to code a bot to inflate a build's count - and no automatic categorization by page view counts exist in MediaWiki software, it would require someone to write an add-on extension.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:04, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * To be honest I believe it would be very difficult to record. Because we are so popular, we use a caching proxy called squid which sits between the webserver and the outside world. When a page is in the cache, squid hands it to the user without contacting the webserver at all, so MediaWiki has no knowledge of how many times a page has actually been viewed. I'm not 100% sure of how intelligent the caching process is, but I think that MediaWiki might actually be under the impression that the more popular pages are viewed less often, since these pages are cached and less popular pages are not. Anyway, my point is that it would be difficult.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:57, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * Oh well just an idea, i still think the vetting system should be deleted, but there would be so many builds that the build sections would be use-able. Well its not life threating stuff[[image:jups.jpg|16px]] 09:19, 10 March 2007 (CST)

How about this?
We change that vetting system so that it goes like this:
 * Put a build in stubs. Anything going straight to tested would go to stubs instead.
 * Make a "Rate-a-build" for this build. Here people can say what's wrong with the skill bar, little things like that, before testing it. Users would just say what is wrong with the build. It would never go to unfavored, just stay in stubs. Make it so that the build is presentable to tested.
 * Once it gets three votes to go to untested, put it there. By then, I would think any major oversights of the build will have been corrected. Here, people would have to test it or at least give a very good reason why the build should be unfavored. The vetting system would then the same, once it has an excess of three votes on one side, it gets favored or unfavored.

That should help a lot of inherent problems with the vetting system.--Nog64Talk 13:19, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * It has voting. It fails. Just stick all builds in userspace and remove voting entirely. If a user wants to have other people try out his build, we can devise a template for it that people put on their userspace builds (like "try this one please"). The absence of voting/vetting and friendly nature of that system would solve much of the NPA. Beginning build makers and experienced ones alike can discuss/talk/edit the build for the better, and because it doesn't have to be "vetted" to be on userspace, overly defensive build authors will only drive people away from testing their builds.
 * I have no problem with making the Builds section documentation only. That's what people will see, that will represent the Wiki. Everyone else's test builds and neat ideas can still be here, yet they won't give a poor impression based on a flawed vetting system. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 15:23, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * In either case, I'm going to use BlastedT's Build:P/W Cruel Flail as an example/experiment for how this will work.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Word_of_Healing.jpg|19px]] 15:52, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, I agree, we need the builds, just make it documentation only and remove the vetting system. I like the idea of a two step process to try to eliminate some of the issues we have, but even so, it would require a lot of change on GW:VETTING in terms of what constitutes a valid vote for it to work.  It may very well work if the correct changes are made, but as long as people can vote for no reason, without reading the build, without testing, etc, any attempt such as yours is likely to fall flat.  Good luck though.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)

I think that's a good idea. Mine was not ready to be in untested or to be vetted on. And I didn't know what i was doing. This would reduce the bickering by like, 75%. - Jagre 05:08, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

The vote question could be better
The question of the vote doesn't really ask what it should ask. Instead of "Does the build namespace cause more harm than good?" it should be "Do you want to keep the build section or not?". There IS a difference. I would have possibly answered 'more harm' currently, but I still want to keep the section and make clear rules for it. -- (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I wouldn't presume to know what Tanaric meant to ask. The question he intended to ask might be different to what you think he should have asked. Indeed he might have intended the question to be as ambiguous as it is, although I can't think why. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:13, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * That's true. I would like to know what he meant. Looking at the votes, it seems that different users interpreted it differently. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * A good example being Honorable Sarah who had a third interpretation of the question: "Builds already had non-colliading namespaces with the "Me/N" syntax." Talking about the namespace versus no namespace, but not about builds versus no builds. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * As always, Biro, I appreciate your support and your insight into my character. I did intend for the question to be ambiguous. I wanted to see how people would justify their responses. This poll is not the basis of any action, but I think it summarized community opinion for me quite well. &mdash;Tanaric 21:41, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

I propose we continue to allow build posting and keep all the "crap" builds
Sorting builds into two favored/unfavored categories is a waste of time and not really productive in my opinion. What we need is a better way of finding and organizing builds. Example: "List users who have this build tagged 'favorite'", and "List users who have this build tagged 'funny'". That way someone who has the same taste in builds as Skuld is more likely to find builds they like. If people like crappy/joke/funny builds made by some user let them find what they want. The admins decide on the tags e.g. 'favorite', 'good', 'soso', 'bad', 'wontwork', 'funny'.

In my opinion the only reason a build should be deleted is if there is an identical build with identical usage.

In order to reduce duplication of builds one should also make it easier to search for builds given a set of skills. Sure Anet has made things harder with duplicate skills, but it'll still be better than nothing.

Lastly, it's fine with me if people don't favor this proposal either ;). 218.208.192.175 14:41, 12 March 2007 (CDT) (targetdrone)


 * "Taste", ugh. People have a "taste" for mending wammos. For the zillionth time: let us document the damn game and stop passing off shit as usable. &mdash; Skuld 15:48, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * As soon as [EW] starts running Mending Whammo gankers, we'll start saying those are feasable; till then, they suck, and every build with that concept will suck, regardless of "taste." Get rid of the crap, or *at least* move it to userspace; leave the Build: namespace for documentation. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 15:59, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If EW run mending wammos, they'll still suck :| &mdash; Skuld 16:10, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Nobody brings Shatter Enchantment on gank defense :P -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 16:16, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Back to NOB, eh?
No Original Builds <-- (read it again, it's been updated)

The general discussion and agreements has led back to that mentality. LordBiro, Xasxas, Barek, and Skuld (and me!) support the Documentation factor of GWiki in accordance to builds. We should only be putting excellent builds in the Build: namespace; builds that are (somewhat) easily verifiable on obs mode or by quick testing (for farming/running builds). This does not mean, however, that all personal builds need to be scrapped; this means that they need to be moved to userspace. We'll also have a template tag for userspace builds requesting input/testers, but still no voting. That way, everybody wins; the build tinkerers still get to host their builds, still get people to try 'em out, and they don't get unfriendly users shooting it down with little purpose, while the Build namespace will document what works. -Auron  16:30, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd rather have no original builds at all anywhere, but that idea works too. It would be nice to give commentry on stuff that works instead of tearing hair out against idiots ;p &mdash; Skuld 17:18, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

An interim solution
It is clear to me -- and judging from the poll I posted above, most of the older community members -- that the builds section is simply not worth keeping in its current form. I don't think they're fixable, because if they were, the wealth of talented editors we have here would have figured out a solution in the year we've been arguing about this. I don't think they're salvagable in any form.

I support the post no builds policy. I support removing all builds from an administrative level.

However, I further support continued discussion on this matter. I would like a collection (or many collections) of users dedicated to builds to work on their own policies in userspace, complete with many sample builds following this policy and -- more importantly -- appropriate talk page discussion pursuant to this policy. Basically, I'd like to see proposed policies roleplayed out in such a manner. I'd like to see some people take on the role of determined whammo newb, so that we can see how the proposed policy holds up. I think that, if we start over, we can find a good solution for builds on the GuildWiki... eventually. In the meantime, the current incarnation simply doesn't belong.

&mdash;Tanaric 16:34, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I thought that No Original Builds was almost accepted and now you are saying that it is clear that builds should be removed totally for the time being? I wouldn't say a 50/50 vote really can cause any actions to be taken for or against, and nothing in the vote stated what it was meant for, so no action can be taken based on it. Besides, see GuildWiki talk:Post No Builds for some problems in the vote. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * And I'm opposed to making a playfield in the user name space to test out various build section ideas. It just doesn't work that way. :) We would hav eto test them for real with the real contributors, which is a bad idea if we want to avoid any larger problems. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Tanaric's question wasn't a vote, it was a poll. Furthermore, NOB proposes to use user name space as a testing ground by moving *all* original builds to them... this is no different. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 17:08, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The NOB change is not making a testing ground. What Tanaric meant with a testing ground was a way to test the policy proposals. Something which comes to effect due to a policy proposal is not testing a policy. I don't oppose moving some of the build stuff to user name space, but I do oppose testing policy ideas in the user name space. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * "The author can put a tag on their build to attract people to test it and give feedback," taken from the NOB page. We currently have no such tag, and as we have never tried a system like this (no vetting, stressing constructive responses for builds)... I, at least, consider it testing. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]]  17:22, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It's a lot different than testing multiple policy suggestions with no policy about the testing. The user name space is free to be used in what ever manner people want, but I wouldn't like what Tanaric suggested. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Tanaric's decision and the plan of action for NOB have one difference; the FotM and farming/running builds are moved to userspace, *in addition to* original builds. A template for or  etc can separate those builds from  . The only possible snag here is users defiantly putting the fotm tag on their W/Mo Life Sheathers... but the policy can be updated to include a course of action for that (removal of the tag, basically; no rv wars under threat of administrative action).
 * This plan would require one or more users to "host" the FotM builds and keep updating them as time goes on, including possible archive (due to nerf, more popular builds coming out, etc). I, for one, would have no problem doing so; I'm sure other users wouldn't mind "hosting" some FotM builds. I have no personal care for running/farming builds; a caring contributor that does can host those on his/her userspace and keep them updated. All the build needs is a proper template tag, and no matter whose userspace it's on, people will find it. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 17:50, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't even understand why we are comparing testing to a policy in action. :) But one more thing about the testing thing: To test multiple policy suggestion we would have to have multiple copies of EACH build. Seems like creating more trouble than solving anything. (I would like some input from others too) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The policy in action fails. That's why we are comparing it to never-tried-before policies. I'll write up the newest "policy" proposal (which factors in the removal of the Build: namespace, whether it be temporary or permanent) after dinner, but for now, gather input from people :) And also try to think of a more catchy name than "user name space builds policy." -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 19:18, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Auron's right -- it wasn't a vote. Either way, though, you're wrong with "nothing in the vote stated what it was meant for, so no action can be taken based on it," since I could pretty feasibly nuke builds right now, and you'd have no recourse whatsoever. That's the nature of the administrative privilege on the GuildWiki. Indeed, some editors (and some sysops!) have contacted me privately asking me to do exactly this.


 * Unless somebody can provide a good reason why post no builds should not become an interim builds policy on the GuildWiki, I'm going to force it into effect.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 21:39, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * If this is going to happen (Christmas coming early IMO if it happens), I hope it will be following the time limit I set out in the proposal. i.e. give people a month (30 days, whatever) to move/copy any builds they'd like to hold on to into their userspace.  It should be noted in many places (Main Page, Community Portal, Build:Main Page, etc...) when this time starts and finishes too.  --Rainith 21:45, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeh... Agreed on all counts. 30 days is reasonable. It'll let users that want to preserve builds copy them to userspace, and coordinate with others who is copying what. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:52, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, wouldn't / couldn't one person just simply copy every favored build on over to their own user page? Even unfavored ones while they're at it.  Essentially, it would make the builds section exactly like it is now, but without the appearence of GWiki support.  And due to people also wanting their own copies, it would take up more space. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    21:55, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Space is not a concern. This argument doesn't really bother me. If 10000 users end up with parallel complete copies of the build namespace, then we can address this. &mdash;Tanaric 23:20, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

The community is clearly divided on this policy. Any unilateral action whatsoever should not be taken. Many editors oppose deletion of the Build space, and many would of those who want it "nuked" would simply be satisfied with the way it is administrated. No Original Builds could be fine-tuned to cater to the needs of both camps in the debate. It is a valuable resource, and deleting it means we are losing documentation of the game. Period. You cannot argue that deleting our Build portal would improve the wiki as a documentary resource. The only real advantage to this policy is that it would help end some of the disputes on the wiki. NOB also takes steps to achieve the same effect. ON such a divisive issue, any unilateral action (on a wiki nonetheless!) would be inexcusable. - Krowman (talk • contribs)  22:24, 15 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I agree that something like no original builds could be beneficial. However, such a policy would essentially require nuking the existing builds section, as the amount of builds there that aren't original (read: cruft) is almost negligible. Because our signal-to-noise ratio is so abysmal, a nuke is necessarily the first step of any modified build policy. I'm simply suggesting that we carry out said nuke now, and when an acceptable policy is eventually enacted, the builds that are allowed can be recreated or undeleted then. &mdash;Tanaric 23:20, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, wouldn't this need a real big two weeks notice? I'm pretty sure we get a lot of anonymous site traffic over on Build:, and I don't think we should just suprise them one day by "nuking" the builds section. Big banners, everywhere. No to mention I thought NOB would keep the buildspace. Better 20 builds than none at all.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.JPG]] 23:27, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Reading is Fundamental. --Rainith 23:30, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * We should have our plan for the new Build section before we nuke the existing one. That just makes so much more sense. Maybe the destruction of the Builds section in its current incarnation is inevitable, but there is no reason for us not to have a plan for the new one before we delete it. Heck, the NOB policy as it is is nearly good-to-go, imho. The only thing that needs to be done before we run with that policy would be to buff up our "Effective (profession) guides" beforehand. By doing this, we can get rid of the RA/CM/PvE categories (since anything can work there), and still provide a useful and comprehensive guide to those players/users who need one. If we can implement that policy, we can give the users the "real big two weeks notice" they want (i.e. 30 days or so), and begin work on what wil be the new Builds section while having the current one to refer to. It will be easier to almost copy-paste the good builds than having to re-create them all from scratch further down the road. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs)  23:45, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * No matter what course of action we take, original builds will stay in userspace. The failure of our last policy shows us that much. And read what Tanaric posted, at the beginning of this section; the section has failed, and *cannot be repaired*. We can only completely rebuild the section in order for it to work... and if we're basing the new policy on the last (failed) policy, then what is the point of rebuilding it? Save the builds; nuke the namespace. Once the namespace has been nuked, and all failed policy abolished, we can start from scratch. This will be no easy piece of work, but it must be done (that is, if we want a Build: namespace back again). If you're willing to put work into it, the section will be better next time (Heh... and if it isn't, the section won't exist). -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 01:25, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * In my post, I stated that we should be salvaging the builds from the current Build namespace, not at all the process. Say what you may about it, the Builds section does have a number of good builds in it. We should retain those builds while removing the bad ones. I am not saying we should repeat past mistakes. I am sorry if that is how it came across; it is not what I meant. We should retain these builds so that we do not have to start from scratch, and can establish them under the new policy. Do note that I don't mean all builds in the Tested section are good ones, but a significant number of them need to be saved, as well as many in the Archived section (for historical reference). - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Then archive them in your userspace :) You have a month. I'm grabbing a great number of tried-and-true builds (PvP mostly, but if it's obviously PvE-able, I'm grabbing those as well).
 * The Wiki is a community; I have faith in the community as a whole to save all the builds they want saved. When we decide on the next step (possibly template tags for user space builds), people will pull the good builds out again, and make them known. That's just the first step. If we finish policy for a Build section (and it has little to no flaw), we will then start discussing re-making the Build: namespace. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 02:09, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, you'll be stock-piling them, I'll be stock-piling them, and between ourselves and a number of another notable contributors, we will probably manage to hoard all the good stuff we've got here. This nuking of ther Builds section definitely should not happen without more community approval, however. User:Tanaric should take this discussion to the other main site of debate about the Builds section, No Original Builds. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:19, 16 March 2007 (CDT)


 * <ri> I don't oppose a complete nuke of all content in the build name space, but there needs to be a notice that anyone interested will spot and a 30 day period for people to move stuff to their user name space. After the time period everything in the Build section should be nuked and the new policy comes into effect. Some users interested in different build types should make sure that anything usefull is saved. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ah, forgot to ask if everyone agrees that No Original Builds is what we would like to have in effect after the nuking. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Bearing in mind that Taneric's vote above is split almost exactly 50/50 I assume there's no danger of this "nuke" actually occurring? Because if it does that's a real slap in the face for half the editors here, or so it would seem. --NieA7 05:20, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The problem is that this wasn't a vote, it was a poll, and there's a great difference between the two. This is something that was semi-recently discussed at great lengths here on the wiki, on how this place is not a democracy, and how the bureaucrats can at the end of the day do whatever they find appropriate. While I'm not necessarily ecstatic about this, there's not much that can be done about it; this wiki was never a democratic place by design. It has always worked with the assumption that those at the driving wheel are working for the best of the Wiki. As the votes sprawling all over the articles in the Builds section and thousands of years of human civilisation have proved, the majority is not always able to make the right decision, and the reasons why that is so are many and sound. But that's a topic that belongs elsewhere. :)
 * Anyways, agree with Gem and Auron regarding a reasonable timeframe needed to move builds of importance out of harm's way. Nothing else to add on the matter. --Dirigible 06:17, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, good point, votes are not meant to be binding in a place where things are decided by "consensus". However, if nothing else that poll should show that consensus is very unlikely to be reached, and there's no majority either way amongst editors. It's very difficult to do anything meaningful to the builds section when there's a constant Greek chorus in the background calling for its removal entirely. I'm still convinced that the "problem" with the builds section is confined to a very select minority of high-end PvP players, which is why I proposed build split all those months ago. Let PvP and PvE have different criteria, I bet that'd make most people happy. Many of the people saying that loads of our builds are crap are exactly the same people who say that builds for PvE is an oxymoron because anything will work. --NieA7 06:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * "Anything will work for PvE" because PvE has no requirements for your build. It's not an insult to PvE; it's merely the truth. The sections of PvE that require solid, good builds and thought-out team coordination (elite missions, DoA, FoW, UW) can be documented. But a build for "general PvE?"
 * Guild Wars is rated T for teen, which means it should be beatable by your average 13-year-old; that is part of the game, it's in the design. 13-year-olds cannot be expected to make incredible builds (not saying they can't, but it's unreasonable to expect them *all* to do so)... so making PvE require specific builds would be stupid on ANet's part.
 * Now, this leaves PvE open to an infinite (almost literally) number of builds and skill combinations; good ones like FGJ and Dragon Slash, and bad ones like W/Me's using Energy Surge. But *they will all work*. This is why they must be considered original builds; there is no feasible cut-off for general PvE, and therefore no way to tell if it excels at its job. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 17:19, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Then why not just nuke the general PvE section (and maybe RA / TA), while leaving the rest alone? --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   17:24, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Because the problems the builds section is generating aren't generally found in the PvE section. People aren't violating GW:NPA in the talk pages of farming builds.  --Rainith 17:32, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The reason for the nuke is to start the whole thing 'from the beginning' with the new policy, which has it's basis on discussion intead of voting and is not allowing 'original' builds. PvE builds are not the only 'original' builds in the wiki. Remember that everything usefull will be safe as contributors will move the succesfull builds to their user name space. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, as long as you promise me that the build section will be rebuilt, I guess I'll stand behind it. I would like you to create the new section before deleting the old, though. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    17:42, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Can't really do that as the name space is the same in the old and new versions. I'll personally back up a lot of builds that I personally like and others will probably do the same, so there shouldn't be worries for getting the section rebuilt. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Very well. Better the Aatxe you don't know then the Aatxe you do. Also, Archive anyone? --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   17:50, 16 March 2007 (CDT)

A codified timeline

 * March 17 - March 31: We continue this discussion, in case somebody wiser than I am makes a point I (and most of the admin team) have missed.
 * April 1: Banners are placed on all Build: pages, announcing that:
 * No new builds can be posted under any circumstances.
 * All existing builds will be removed on May 1, 2007.
 * Note: if I get a ridiculous negative response from anon/non-policy users, beyond the usual moaning about change (I'm thinking a good 500 people or so), I can play this off as an April Fools' prank and move on.
 * May 1: Post no builds goes fully into effect, all builds are removed from the GuildWiki.
 * Sometime after May 1, hopefully soon: A less restrictive builds policy is created by the community and implemented.
 * Sysops volunteer (or I appoint some new ones) to watch over the new builds section. This will allow community members to easily undelete builds if they meet the new build criteria.

&mdash;Tanaric 03:21, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

I like it. The April Fools idea is brilliant, but be aware: this may make people pay less attention to it, thinking it an April Fools joke all along, so it's a trade off. --   12:12, 17 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, that was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. I don't particularly like doing this around April 1, but I don't want to put it off any longer. &mdash;Tanaric 15:49, 17 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I would suggest:
 * March 17 - March 23: Open for discussion.
 * March 24: Banner placed on the main page, site notice(?), build portal, and the build template which is on all builds. Announcing:
 * No new builds may be posted before April 21 (in 4 weeks). All builds will be deleted then. Suggestion to back up anything important. A 'backed up' template to prevent multiple duplicates.
 * April 22: The new policy comes into effect. The new policy should be formed before the deletion to prevent a total down time for the builds section.
 * This improves the time line a little imho and makes the move to the new policy smoother. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I like the new one better, IMO the sooner the better --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (CDT)


 * What new policy, Gem? No new policy currently exists. No new policy is necessary to shut down the existing builds section. The reason I wanted to extend the timeline was to give those of you discussing new policy time to figure out what we're going to do. I have doubts that you can pull something together even by May, let alone April 22nd.


 * We've been discussing alternate build policies formally for what, six months? Informally, a year? While your confidence that we'll have one ready in a month is inspiring, I think it might be a little misplaced. Under no circumstances will I continue to allow this build section to languish simply because we don't have a replacement policy.


 * That said, if you guys still want an accelerated timeline for this, I'm game for it. It's better for me anyway, since graduation is in early May and I'll be awfully busy then.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 19:31, 17 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I am really sorry to hear that we're trashing all the good (and bad) builds that currently exist. There's so much info there that isn't available anywhere else in such an easily-accessible form. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I fear such a move will help make GuildWiki irrelevant, especially considering the upcoming (and competing) Anet wiki. Wiki builds may have caused some "pros" to sneer, and caused a lot of personal attacks, but they also helped a lot of less-obsessed folks answer questions about how to build good skillbars and providing starting points for personal variations. That's certainly how I used it, and I suspect I'm in the silent majority. But like most wiki readers and contributors, I haven't had time to participate in the build policy discussions, so I guess that gives me no place to complain about losing such a good resource. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 20:38, 17 March 2007 (CDT)


 * If I understand this correctly, we are not intending to scrap the builds section, merely replace it with a better version. If I'm wrong, do tell. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    20:45, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Perhaps I read Tanaric's timeline wrong, but the process seemed to be 1) Disallow new builds, 2) Delete all existing builds, 3) Create a new builds section at some undefined point in the future. It's step 2 that disheartens me. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 20:50, 17 March 2007 (CDT)


 * You read correctly. However, you (and all others) are free to copy existing builds into your userspace (or save them as files on your desktop, copy them to another CC wiki, etc.). Hopefully the downtime between "post no builds" and a new, better build policy is short so that we can build a useful build resource here on the GuildWiki. &mdash;Tanaric 21:21, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yep. Our task at hand now is to document the builds that work; we'll cross the policy bridge when we get there. I'm also fine with the sped-up timeline... so let's make that the official one? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 21:48, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * So is the backup process supposed to be just catch as catch can, everyone for themselves? That seems awfully messy. Why not move all vetted builds in the build namespace to another namespace, and protect the entire space to prevent any edits? Seems to serve the same purpose without risking the loss of info. And there would be no period where good/oft-referenced builds were just missing. It would also remove the problems inherent in having only a few people deciding what's important to keep. I suppose this would basically make the steps 1) Freeze the build section, remove all stubs and unvetted builds; 2) Rename the namespace to remove confusion; 3) Keep it frozen until a new build policy is worked out and individual builds can be resubmitted and re-vetted according to new rules. (Of course, with my luck, this idea was already discussed and abandoned!) — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 22:06, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Um, no. It is simple, if you think the build has merit and would like to save it, then do so.  If there is a build out there that no one likes/has no merit to it (90%+ of them most likely, maybe only 50% in the tested category), it should be done away with.  --Rainith 22:17, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Problem is, everyone thinks their own build has merit. :P -- Peej 22:34, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * After seeing Build talk:N/W Jaguar Sword, melee-mancer anti, I'm forced to agree. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   22:36, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * That's why I suggested (in the project page) that the build's author back it up, if they don't and no one else does... Well, "too bad, so sad." as my 5 year old niece likes to say. --Rainith 22:42, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I guess I meant the other way around: now instead of one copy of bad build, there will be 10 copies of each bad one (because everyone is saving them to their personal space). ;) -- Peej 23:00, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If 10 people think the build is worth saving then that says to me that either they're all idiots, or the build isn't that bad. ;)  --Rainith 23:07, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * See my original point. ;) -- Peej 23:09, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Guys, see MY timeline suggestion. I also suggested a 'backed up' template to prevent multiple copies from being made. Tanaric: The new policy will probably be ready for April 22nd, but if it isn't we can just keep the section frozen untill that. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

To coordinate...
I've started a list of builds people are archiving. Obviously, I can't keep it up-to-date myself; go ahead and add what builds you're saving, so everyone can see what all we have. The list can be found here. -Auron  01:20, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks for the list. When we announce the time line, could you please tag all of these with a 'backed up' template? I'll create the template for you soon enough. (And I'll back up some nice builds today) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * While I think trying to coordinate an ad-hoc backup of builds that don't actually have to be deleted in the first place just so they can be re-added later is pretty silly, I do have one comment about it. Please ensure that builds that are actually referenced or linked to from mainspace articles are preserved with info and links intact. Touch ranger is a good example. The fact that well-known named builds not linked from the mainspace will be deleted and only maybe replaced is bad enough, please don't put any dents in the wiki's main documentary function at the same time. Sorry, can't help but feel frustrated by this scorched-earth-style plan. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 03:10, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It's necessary. Remember, we aren't trying to copy every single favored build in the namespace, only the ones worth holding on to, the ones worth mentioning in a (possible) future build section. If a (favored) build exists that nobody cares about (including the author), and it is deleted, are we missing it? Was it worth having in the first place? No. If it is "well-known," as you claim, it will be on the list.
 * Furthermore, the mainspace should not link directly to any specific builds. All common build ideas/exploits should have their own articles, and be explained in detail there (i.e., "the touch ranger exploited the primary ranger attribute to spam touch skills to steal life" etc). -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 03:24, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, a toucher is a pretty specific build. And linking to a nicely-done, vetted build page isn't bad in my mind. Obviously some other folks agreed on that in the past, considering the redirect. Anyway, my point still stands - there are at least a few of those floating around, and they need to be corectly handled before the purge because they are more than just random builds. They help document the game. See B/P for another example, or SS/SV.
 * Anyway, it goes back to my point - this nuclear option may undermine the usefulness of the wiki. Also, I haven't seen anything that says this mass-delete plan is "necessary." It's just easy -- and gets rid of many vetted builds some folks apparently don't like (but don't want to bother re-opening vetting on, even under a better system, I guess). It's a fine plan for very experienced players or those who spend a lot of time on the wiki, and admins who want build bickering to go away. But it doesn't serve the interests of the average player or wiki user IMHO. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 03:43, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I kinda doubt that vetted builds will keep their status in any new set up. The vetting process was such a debacle that it is unlikely to survive in any recognizable fashion.  --Rainith 03:46, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * And it can't "undermine the usefulness of the wiki" if the usefulness of the Wiki pre-dates the build section itself. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 03:48, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Unless you consider, as I do, that the builds section is useful, even with all its flaws and the bad behavior of participants. It adds to the usefulness of the wiki. Removing it doesn't make the wiki useless by any measure, but it makes it somewhat less useful. For instance, looking through vetted Dervish builds, for example, to get ideas is often better than looking at every Dervish skill and starting a build from scratch. But does that mean I'm now supposed to go through and back up a bunch of Dervish builds in case I want to do that again? Yuck. And @Rainith, I agree that vetting currently sucks, but I had assumed that with the advent of a better system, old unfavored builds would be deleted, and old favored builds would become untested or whatever the new nomenclature might be. That way, nothing is lost except that which is undefended or explicitly rejected. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 03:57, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

<ri>In the new setup, any build that was not backed up will be deleted. Any build that does not match the new policy (whatever that is) will be dealt with according to the policy. If the policy is No Original Builds then they will be dealt with that way. If the policy is to not put any build in the Build namespace other then farming builds then that is what will be done. If the new policy is Only Mending Wammos!, then we should have plenty of stuff to put there. ;) Until the new policy is in place, there should be no links from the main namespace to any builds (after the builds namespace has been cleared).  --Rainith 04:04, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * With your last sentence, Post No Builds goes beyond being just about builds, and into being about how we document the game. I've already given three quick examples of how some builds are intimately connected with mainspace articles (Touch ranger, SS/SV, B/P). Removing those builds and the links to them removes important and useful information from the wiki -- and two of the builds in my examples are currently considered important enough to take the place of mainspace articles! The third build explains how a very common individual and team build works far better than the main article it was linked from does. Something needs to be done about cases like that. Is PNB also supposed to be a policy describing how skills in common builds are presented in mainspace articles? If not, further work is needed. Or, you know, don't delete all the good builds along with the bad ones. =) — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 04:43, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Or... write it up in an article focused on documenting the idea. My point is that the build isn't *required* for the wiki to keep going. Why would it be worse to have an article based on (and explaining) Touch Rangers than just throwing the build in people's faces? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 04:52, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Harsh, have you read the policy page? You know the one this is a talk page of?  All current builds should be moved to the user namespace of the user(s) who added the build or into anyone's namespace who wishes to keep said build. One month after the acceptance of this policy, all articles in the Build namespace will be deleted, and any links from articles in the main namespace removed.  --Rainith 04:54, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I have. It doesn't say what replaces those links, and doesn't say what happens for builds that have replaced articles, like Touch ranger. It doesn't account for all the circumstances. I should have phrased my point better, sorry. Like I said above, I'm coming into this at the very tail end (after it's been decided on, apparently), so I have probably missed some relevant discussion. The builds debate has been a bit sprawling, you know! @Auron: Yes, that's certainly an option - but I would've preferred to decide that issue before deciding to delete all builds. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 05:01, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't know how much simpler it could be. No links to builds from the main namespace, period.  If there is ever a new policy for builds, it may allow that, or it might not.  But once the builds are gone and until a new policy is in place, the links are gone.  No more links from boss pages to builds used to farm them.  No more links from generic build names (touch ranger, 55 monk, wammo, etc...) to specific build examples.  --Rainith 05:09, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You argue about documentation purposes, and how removing the build will hurt that? Why, the older version of the Touch Ranger article was *much better* documentation than just listing the build. Let that serve as an example; all the links you are concerned about can be replaced with articles truly trying to document the concept, not merely the skillbar. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 05:12, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, I'm not sure we should discuss just one example as if it illustrates everything. But in that example, the build says everything the article used to (as noted in the history by Skuld, who created the redirect) and much more. I have used that build a couple times to help weigh variants I was considering using, and that stuff certainly wasn't in the article. Point being, there was a reason the build was used there. I think there needs to be a good reason to undo that, and I'm not sure "we don't like what the build section has become, so we're deleting it for now" is a good reason. Yes, there are non-build alternatives, but they aren't described in PNB even though PNB necessitates them. That's all I'm saying here, really. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 05:27, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's not a matter of "non-build alternatives;" builds *were* the alternative. Now that they're being removed, it's no problem at all to bring back the original articles and put them to use. PNB doesn't really have to include common sense in order for us to use it, right? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 05:55, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Common sense is what has led folks to point to builds to help document a few parts of the game. As far as I can tell, builds like Touch ranger and SS/SV were used because they were better than the articles they replaced. That seems sensible to me. Why go back to what was previously deemed worse, and then do work to make those old versions better, which would probably involve copy-and-pasting from the builds...? I think I see your point though: if the decision to purge all builds is a done deal, then redoing those old articles is necessary. But nothing on this page says that it is a done deal, and Tanaric's interim nuking proposal is less than 3 days old. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 06:19, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It's not really a proposal, per se. He's going to do it, unless someone has a damned good reason not to. It's a done deal as far as I'm concerned. Now, if you were merely arguing for paragraph after paragraph about PNB not mentioning what we'd do after removing redirects, why don't you propose a re-wording instead of talking in loops? It's a lot of wasted time/effort, and you don't seem to be making a point. If you're arguing against build removal, do it succinctly; if you're arguing against PNB's wording, propose a change. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 06:28, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I did propose a change to PNB, though I think it's a bad policy, and I put forth good reasons not to nuke all builds. You and Rainith didn't like what I had to say, I tried to respond, and here you are smearing my participation. No wonder only a few people are participating beyond the poll. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 06:55, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Your change to NOB is what now? I seem to have missed it entirely. I also have yet to see a good reason (let alone several good reasons) not to nuke it, but I'll re-read the entire thread to make sure I didn't miss anything. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 07:12, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Post No Builds will hurt more than it helps
This proposed policy, and the subsequent proposal by Tanaric to delete the entire build section before a replacement vetting system is in place, is a bad idea in my opinion. It essentially makes the argument that many builds are bad, and the build section doesn't run well, so therefore all builds need to be deleted. It's nice that it will get rid of bad unfavored builds and relieve us of personal attacks by build section participants who can't act maturely. But the policy ignores all the good aspects of the build section. As the saying goes, it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Its downsides are too severe; here are a few:
 * 1) It removes useful and important information from the wiki that is contained in builds. It undermines the wiki's ability to provide information about a central facet of Guild Wars. Many users learn from the good builds in the builds section (and even sometimes from bad builds).
 * 2) It does not help create a new build section; it just erases the one we have now. A build section "freeze" or selective deletion, for example, would be as effective in setting the stage for a new policy, but not as detrimental. In addition, by deleting everything, the policy could make it less likely that builds will return to the wiki.
 * 3) It removes all the good vetted builds that readers may want to use for their characters, including ones that are well-known and often-used in-game. This wiki provides the best and easiest-to-use repository of builds, but this policy destroys that.
 * 4) The ad-hoc, user-organized "backup" of selected builds that has been proposed will be messy, confusing to casual users, very difficult to refer to while the build section is gone, and offers no way to ensure a complete or accurate backup of good builds.
 * 5) It does not provide a good solution for replacing build links or redirects to builds in main namespace articles, even if they provide useful information that is central to the article. The information could be recreated, but that's extra work to duplicate what already exists. The Glossary entries mentioned in the proposal would inherently provide less information than articles with links to relevant builds.

Those are my top five. I'm sure others can add more. I don't think it's possible to change the proposed PNB policy to address these concerns; it is expressly designed to remove all builds no matter what, and that's what's wrong with it. Changes along the lines of "freeze builds instead", "don't delete vetted or linked builds", etc, would be fundamentally different policies (and they would set the stage for a new build vetting system just as well). I wish there was a good and simple solution to the problems with the builds section... this policy's solution is simple, but not good. (@Auron: You asked.) — HarshLanguage 08:07, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Here's the part that you're missing: The builds section as it is right now will need to be removed at one point or another, there's zero doubt about it. Above you say "I had assumed that with the advent of a better system, old unfavored builds would be deleted, and old favored builds would become untested or whatever the new nomenclature might be" ... there won't be any "Untested", that's the thing. "Original" builds will remain in userspace, because the past has already proven that the wiki is not suitable as a research laboratory for new builds. When and if the section will be recreated, it will be done with a very clear cut documentation only form. 99% of the articles in Builds right now are original, and as such there will be no place on the main namespace for them from now on. Those who are interested in them have over a month to copy the builds to their personal userspace. Those builds that aren't even interesting enough to be copied by someone, well, hasta la vista, amigo. Taking your points one by one:
 * 1) The builds section signal to noise ratio right now is abyssmal, to put it mildly. How can you say that there is useful information in that section right now, when it's painfully obvious that the vetting system is not working properly and has never worked properly? Yes, there are good builds in there, but they covered by a)countless piles of terrible builds, b) random half-assed modifications done SOLELY with the purpose of pleasing the voters, to get a positive vote out of them, and c) created in a climate characterized by tons and tons of personal attacks, raging, and complete lack of common sense and sensibility from everyone, authors and voters included. If there is useful information in there, feel free to fish it out, and put it somewhere for future reference, like the rest of us are doing.
 * 2) Ok, I'll write this in all caps not because I'm yelling or angry or trying to be rude or anything, but just because I need to make sure that the following is very visible and doesn't get lost in the sea of words: THE PURGE OF THE BUILDS SECTION ISN'T SUPPOSED TO OFFER A WAY TO ALLOW BUILDS TO REMAIN ON THE WIKI; ITS PURPOSE IS TO PUT AN END TO THE VERY DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE. Cool? The two of them are completely different issues. On one hand we have the problem of fixing the mess that's already happened, and on the other hand we have the problem of coming up with a way to avoid those problems happening again. This purge aims to solve the former, not the latter. Please take a moment to understand that.
 * The builds section problem hasn't appeared this week, or even this month. This has been going on for too long. It's been obvious that this place wasn't working right for ages, many have pointed out these exact flaws from the beginning of this namespace. And yet here we still are, filling pages and pages of discussion without nothing happening. It's enough. Something must be done, and purging all the nonsense in Builds is the best and most efficient way to do it. Enough with taking the Builds section for granted. The message here is clear: If you want Builds to remain, start coming up with concrete ideas, solutions and proposals. Start presenting ways in how you think the section will be able to get rid of all the problems it has now, instead of waving your hands about "but but but don't delete it, lets talk about it some more first". Keywords: concrete ideas, solutions and proposals.
 * 3) "It removes all the good vetted builds that readers may want to use for their characters" <--- I challenge you to separate unequivocally "good builds" from bad ones, and I also challenge you to explain me how and why "vetted builds" are worth a damn, being that they're all results of a terribly flawed vetting system. Also see 1) above, as this point is just rehash of that.
 * 4) Feel free to come up with a better system to organize the backup. Gem has already proposed a template idea. Who's stopping you from doing so? Don't forget that this is a wiki: no one here is a spectator.
 * 5) Don't try to complicate things needlessly. Links from the main namespace to the builds namespace will be removed. Period. Why is that so hard to understand? Stuff like Touch ranger will become a glossary entry, and if it's expanded enough, it may even turn into a guide (guide, not build) such as Invincimonk. What's so confusing about that?
 * You obviously care about the Builds section a lot, so do the other 19 who voted "No" in the poll above, and probably even some of those who voted "Yes". As such, the challenge presented to you is clear: Feel free to discuss different alternative policies for a builds section, presenting concrete ideas and solutions on how a builds section can exist on this wiki while avoiding the issues that have become painfully obvious during the existence of this last one. While you do that, the PNB purge policy will clean up the hodge-podge that the current builds policy has made, giving you guys a clean space where you can rebuild the foundations of the Builds section. Have no doubts about it, no one is putting an end to Builds forever, you have carte blanche to convincingly come up with ways on how to have such a section on the wiki. But don't expect the current ugly mess to continue existing while you figure out how to fit the elephant through the keyhole. --Dirigible 09:38, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Dirigible, NOB is not wiki policy. PNB is not wiki policy. There doesn't even appear to be consensus on these proposals. Plus, Tanaric's poll asked the wrong question, as has been pointed out already. Yet you and others are acting as if NOB and PNB are set in stone already, saying they MUST happen! You repeat it again and again, but that doesn't generate consensus, and it's not a discussion. You say there are lots of bad vetted builds. I say I've gone through a few professions' worth of vetted builds and saw some I could use, others I couldn't, all of which told me more about the professions. It seems more like there are lots of vetted builds you don't like, or feel you can't trust because the vetting system doesn't yield the right result all the time. I'm saying, let's not throw everything away just because it isn't perfect.Let's raise the bar instead: throw out the unfavored and stubs, and re-vet old favored builds under a more rigorous system that doesn't let jerks cause trouble. Let's tell submitters up front to expect their builds to be rejected most of the time.
 * And just because I haven't proposed such a system myself shouldn't mean I have no right to an opinion on other proposals. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 10:12, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Voting sucks. Get over it. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 10:21, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Exactly, that is the whole point! NOB is not policy! PNB is not policy! There is NO policy! How awesome is that? The only policy is the same old messed up dysfunctional one. See where the problem is? It's been a year, and there's still no policy, because it always ends up stagnating as people try to come up with ways to make the section suck less.
 * You suggest to "raise the bar, re-vet old builds under a system that doesn't let jerks cause trouble". To me that sounds "lets stop all wars in the world, and come up with a way to keep everyone rich and happy". Yeah, it'd be cool and all, but it's sorta ...out there... in the likelihood of it happening. I'm not blaming you for not coming up with a solution, but I also have to point out that no one else is coming up with a solution either... maybe there's a reason for that? Maybe there's really no way to have such a system that allows vetting and keeping the jerks from causing trouble that's suitable for a wiki? It's been over a year, and the best solution we've had so far is No Original Builds (by "the best" meaning the one which has the most consensus and seems to offer solutions to most problems), and NOB will inevitably require PNB to precede it. You say there must be some other solution out there... where is it? How much longer does the wiki need to wait in this state for it to appear? It's been a year, and we're still waiting for someone to come up with the brilliant idea. Don't you see the problem with that? --Dirigible 10:31, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I do see what you're saying. I don't know why no "Vetting 3.0" proposal has been put forward or successful. But I don't see why that means some vetting (didn't say voting) process won't work ever. Wikipedia has methods for determining whether an article should exist; perhaps some riff off that might work. But regardless, I am concerned that NOB might empower a small group to decide what builds to display by setting the definitions of what a documented/observed/popular build is, leading to under-inclusion and bias. I also dislike NOB's near-total disdain for PVE. But mostly I'm concerned that we'll nuke useful stuff via PNB without setting up some replacement system first (even if it's NOB). I should mention I have much less of a problem with NOB in general than with PNB; I think PNB is the wrong way to set up for NOB. I'll try to explain that later, time for some real life now. =) — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 11:44, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Every time someone tried to fix the build section, people threw a tantrum and whined. No policy was ever implemented and no policy will ever be implemented as long as the build section is allowed to continue existing as it is.  The best alternative to a complete purge was extremely heavy moderation forcibly removing bad builds.  The build section threw a tantrum when people attempted that.  They are unwilling to delete the most obvious of crap and refuse to fix themselves.  This is what you get.  If you don't want the build section deleted, I suggest you fast track a policy that will fix it and get it approved before the purge. -Warskull 13:00, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

My return to the discussion
Sorry, was afw the whole day and this has been a large discussion. I'll just post some random stuff that I think will address some of the problems people are having above.
 * 1) Links to the build section don't need to be removed in the build section sweep process, as the builds section should be operational again immediately after the sweep with the new policy. (which we need to decide on before the sweep)
 * 2) As has been said earlier on this page, the wiki admins are some sort of dictators, able to do what they want. The wiki policies have been formed according to how the admins have acted, the admins haven't acted on how the policies have been formed. Basically this means that me and Tanaric could do the whole thing without any support from anyone else, but it wouldn't bee too wise. (This doesn't mean I would be doing such a thing, just that it is technically possible)
 * 3) People seem to have ignored my proposal of the timeline and actions and only reply to what Tanaric suggested. My proposal isn't as harsh as Tanarics. Builds will be sweeped, but PNB will not come into effect at all, instead we immediately move to use a new policy which should be decided on during the 4 week warning period. I would like people to actually read my suggestion and comment on it. If you read my suggestion and this post carefully, you'll probably notice that most of the problems presented above aren't going to happen with this suggestion. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * We don't have a policy to replace our current one with. People (harsh) disagree with NOB, and as NOB is the closest thing we have to an accepted policy, I highly doubt we'll have the section back up immediately. In fact, I think it best that the section be offline for a period of time, to allow people's heads to clear, and to show just how well the Wiki can get along without builds. It'll be a period of peace (a calm before the storm, perhaps) before heated discussion of policy resumes. Even if we had a policy to implement, it would be most wise to keep the section down for awhile, just to let people chill out. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 16:51, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If one user disagrees with a policy suggestion, that's not going to stop it from being implemented. There's always someone who isn't happy, but it's the majority which decides. (or the admins if they really want to pis people off) I'm pretty sure that NOB is going to get accepted in it's current form or with tweaking before the sweep. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm under no illusions that the wiki bureaucrats can't ultimately do whatever they want whenever they want. Tanaric and Biro are eminently reasonable folks, though. I'm speaking up now because I don't want to lose the valuable good stuff (insert your own definition of "good") in builds just because the section is a mess. I agree that NOB is the closest thing to a reasonable vetting process (and it is a "vetting" process) that's been proposed, though I think it's flawed in some big ways. PNB and the mass purge, as I've laid out, is unnecessarily and harmfully severe, even if we go with NOB. Maybe I'm the only person who thinks that... but I highly doubt it; I think most casual folks just aren't paying attention. (I wasn't until recently.) I'm certainly seeing some chasms between the opinions of major contributors here, too. Anyway, I've been kicking around some vetting ideas, and will certainly try to catch up on NOB's discussion. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 21:34, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

For those who would like to discuss which policy to use after the sweep, please discuss at GuildWiki talk:No Original Builds. -- (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2007 (CDT)

Documenting versus creating...
I'm somewhat of a new user, but I was thinking quite a bit about this... apologies if this could've gone somewhere in the discussion, but I couldn't think of a place my ramblings would fit in. Anyway, after reading the various points of view, here is my opinion. In terms of PvP, we should be documenting, not creating. For example, if someone posted a 417 page story on the Prince Rurik page about his lusty affair with Devona, it would be axed... not because it didn't represent Rurik in the game or something, but because it's not really relevant/useful. To compare: we should document builds, not attempt to create/improve. To avoid elitism, I think we should get a new catch phrase for common builds, and base it on how common they are, not how effective. Personal builds that are not common can be linked to in a seperate area on the builds page, and the PvP section can be entirely observed builds that are quite common. On his talk page, Mr. Auron links to the Savannah Heat build that has been disfavoured. This is a failure, because it IS common, and whether or not it is "original" or "just aoe" doesn't matter. Voting is a mistake because credibility/experiance doesn't matter. An objective way of approval can remove the whole problem of possibly non-expert players versus PvPers, while keeping valuable information. I've seen people use Wiki terms (oddly enough) in game, like "Blessed Escaper", so I think it's a great resource for starting PvPers. We just need to streamline it and dump all the unorthodox stuff. We aren't a forum; we need to document the meta, essentially, not try to improve/change it. I know some people have said some of the things I did, but I just wanted to get it all out... sorry for being a bit wordy. Dark Helmet 22:05, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * This is exactly what the No Original Builds policy suggestion is about. I would recommend viewing it and commenting on the talk page. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh... I must've missed that. Oops. :( Well thank you, Mr/Mrs Gem, much appreciated. ^_^ Dark Helmet 04:30, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm male, just see my user page. :D And no problem at all. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

I Really Liked The Builds Section...That Is...Until I Posted One
Think of all the people who just visit the site, who have no idea that the builds section may or may not be nerfed. This site was made for the people who read it, not for those writing it. Yeah, it's hard, it's stressful at times. There are threats of bans! But as the newest build-writer of the site, I think I am probably the one who remembers best what is was like playing in HA, seeing a group advertise for some build that I don't really know, checkin wiki real fast, coming back and playing wonderfully in the group. Things like that...

Yeah, it's pretty hard. But the product of the bickering and arguing is something that far exceeds any other site in terms of a Builds Section (and I believe it is because of arguing - peacefully or even otherwise. But it would be nice if everyone could learn to argue peacefully... damn.).

-Jagre 05:06, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * So what are you trying to say? We are going to wipe the build section and implement a new better policy to get it working again better than ever. What do you want to change? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * -I think that the system is fine how it is. I think that most people who play guild wars are fairly immature and that some of the people are in the wiki community and that does unfortunately include me.  I think I realized that most people who read my build were actually right and that I was wrong to have acted how I did.  I still think that two of the people acted without proper regard, but that there is no way to resolve that short of acting rashly oneself.
 * -I think that the "older members" of the community just don't like the, how should I say it? work? or should i use a word like arguing?  that they don't like arguing.
 * but that is understandable, but they are free to refrain from joining the discussions, and it is as important for them to see that as it is for the younger members like me to try hard to be tolerant. They should leave the builds section alone, no doubt, because it really is outstanding and from what I understand of what they want to do, it will severely hurt the usefulness of the builds section. --Jagre 05:20, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * We are not trying to harm the section but help it. Currently the system does not work. There are multiple good examples of builds vetted favoured or unfavoured with false arguments. The new policy is aimed at making the wiki a better place to find and learn to use builds and to make the discussion more civil so that everyone can work in the builds section without getting frustrated. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Taking Some Initiative
Alright, well, in my attempt to thwart GW:PNB, I am in the process of creating a true BuildWiki on my user page. I currently have every vetted PvP build and will have all the Vetted PvE builds by tonight or tommorow. BuildWiki Lives! Mwahahahaha! <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)
 * I was thinking of actually taking some wiki spftware out and doing this, but that works too.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.JPG]] 19:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I hope you're gonna get rid of em when the new policy comes into effect and the builds are safely in the build section? (not all favoured builds will be accepted if GW:NOB will be the policy) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * (Gah, edit conflict) Well, until such time as there is a new policy which doesn't allow builds in the user space, I will do my best to thwart GW:PNB. Maybe I can even get my own in house (or in user-page) vetting system.  Perhaps a panel of judges chosen by me (it is my user-space after all) and a section for untested builds.  I can even reimplement a template system for categories, favored, etc.  Essentially, my goal is to have a fully autonomous build wiki operating in my user space just in case we can't restart the build namespace.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * Well Defiant, you could always contact the MediaWiki people and set up a new BuildWiki site. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:10, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * That's what I said >.>--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.JPG]] 20:11, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Lol. Do you seriously believe that the sweep and a new policy wont happen and work? I'm pretty confident. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Wait, what? If we make a new wiki, then gwiki really can't do anything about it.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.JPG]] 20:37, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ummmm, what's the point? Are you seriously making a BuildWiki? I thought that we'll just make a new policy and start over in this wiki. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think it's really a terrible idea as the section that caused so much problems will be gone from the main guildwiki, and some resemblance of a build-wiki system will be just in a user namespace. Also because it is in a namespace rather than the main wiki, it's no-longer GW's build once the policy comes into effect, so people wanting their build vetted won't feel so compelled to do so as it won't be some "prestige" status for having a vetted build in GWiki for new players and new Guildwiki users.--Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 20:53, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Not to mention that new users won't find it as easily.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.JPG]] 21:05, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Which is always a plus. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 21:12, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * And you can't link to skills and other articles as easily, which is a big minus. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Besides, if you want to get rid of new users and players, then why do you want to document builds at all? The veterans don't need the builds seciton, the new players do. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * And yet, we see the new build policies being shaped heavily by and for veteran PVPers... (mostly, I know there are exceptions). Seems like the build section is getting less friendly to newbs in terms of participation (ie, there will be no participation) and at least somewhat less friendly in terms of reference (only builds that have passed the metric of popularity and success, and almost all in PVP only). To see Lania's comment above is extremely disheartening to me, as I know she's not alone in that sentiment. But, still, I agree with Gem that a separate BuildWiki would be reinventing the wheel needlessly, even if it preserves builds I think are useful (ones that most build-section guardians don't). I am just going to site-rip all the current tested builds and store offline for my own reference. =) — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 03:43, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, just to point out, I sincerely hope that there will be an attempt at a new build section. So, my little build wiki also serves the purpose of documentation so we don't need to start from scratch, much like Auron's effort to document existing builds.  I told you in my little speech on GW:RFA that I wanted someone to be there to help the transition after the build section nuke.  Whether or not I am an Admin, I would still like to be involved, and this is my way of doing that.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)

Suggestion
It is my opinion that the majority of Wiki users (remember that Majority doesn't mean "the active ones" or "the voting ones") are totally unaware of the impending axe at the Builds section. I think it would be prudent, to avoid some of the mass public outcry, if some sort of notice could be added to either (A) the main page or (B) the Style and Formatting build template/page. Granted, that is still in a month or two, but I don't see why it would be a bad thing to attract more discussion of the issue. I myself wasn't even aware things had gotten to this state until I saw it on Recent Changes. Imagine what the casual user will feel like - the rug will be pulled out from under their feet. I think that's just a little bit mean. (T/C) 21:40, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * The timeline from above:
 * March 17 - March 23: Open for discussion.
 * March 24: Banner placed on the main page, site notice(?), build portal, and the build template which is on all builds. Announcing:
 * No new builds may be posted before April 21 (in 4 weeks). All builds will be deleted then. Back ups exist, so no need to do it again.
 * April 22: The new policy comes into effect. The new policy should be formed before the deletion to prevent a total down time for the builds section. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2007 (CDT)


 * A new policy will only come into effect if one can be agreed on. You are far more confident of that then most of the rest of us.  --Rainith 21:56, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah, that's what I mean...Timeline is all well and good but I think it would be best to put up something which draws more attention to this discussion, and the more ASAP the better. Wiki runs on community after all. And even with the timeline...Wouldn't it be quite a shock to log onto GWiki and suddenly see this banner out of the blue, saying that no more builds will be posted in 4 weeks? [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I definitely agree... I didn't know this was even being considered (don't remembered how I found it V_V), and it's a pretty big change. :o Dark Helmet 22:34, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Just one more thing to point out (this is more NOB, but w/e), IF we are nuking the build section, and IF we are going to track the metagame, isn't it wastful and redundant to go ahead and repost the builds after deleting them? Does someone have the code on file? Or am I missing somehting (I think I am).--Nog64Talk 22:53, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I've got most of the good ones and the archived builds. I can more or less copy-paste them into the new policy Build template. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

I just want to point out that even if an axe of the builds section goes forward (which I am strongly against, but see above for that), it shouldn't be done by accepting PNB as policy. Instead, it should be done as an addition to the new builds policy. PNB doesn't allow for a replacement policy, remember that! — HarshLanguage 03:46, 20 March 2007 (CDT)