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)

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)

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)

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)