GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Builds

Older Stuff

 * /archive 1
 * /archive 2

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

optional

 * i want it to scream "LOOK AT ME!!!". in fact, i want it to screem "LOOK AT ME!!! I'M WRONG! PUT A SKILL HERE! THE HOLLOW IS PAIN!" maybe if we put an eyejaring florescent icon the center of the white it would get people to stop using it. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:43, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I was so moved by this plea that I came up with this as a possible alternative.
 * [[image:optional-1.jpg]]
 * "Optional" Makes CoP-Baby Cry. --Black Ark 18:40, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i was hoping for something like this
 * [[image:new-optional.gif]]
 * --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:58, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 2 words: Ohh my... That's simply horrible! I'm all for transparency, except that jpegs doesn't support transparency, and if we switch file type on optional, it's just too much work to go through everything and edit.


 * And if I saw the CoP-baby in a skillbar, I'd assume that CoP was optional. o.o So.. What's wrong with blank? :p &mdash; Galil  12:15, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * optional is the guildwiki equivilent of "I don't care". it would be much better if every build had a full bar, then said "Replace X with Y if you need YAdvantages." is that really hard? i'd really vote to break optional in every skill bar if i could. or at least move it to "Blank" to signify that no skill should go there, or the author doesn't know what to put. we could upload a "skill-bar grey" icon to match an empty slot on the ingame skill bar. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:52, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, I did make it whitish so as to divorce it from CoP in that respect. And also because that icon just freaks me out, looking all blue like that. Compare [[image:optional-1.jpg]] and [[image:Contemplation_of_Purity.jpg]]. Frankly, I think my version is not only distinctly different, it's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. And not to rag on Sarah's design, but that would sooner drive me insane than urge me to add a skill or two. Would it be an option to just abolish "optional" altogether in the skillbar, and prompt the user to actually add in skills if and when they submit their build, on pain of not being able to submit at all? I don't know my wiki that well, so you tell me. And for what it's worth, I agree that a build should use at least seven slots, with a res-signet as the "filler". God, just add a res-signet to your build, it'll make everyone happy. --Black Ark 17:19, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * As .jpg does not support transparent background, and .png doesn't scale appropriately in the wiki, how about just modifying the current image to use an off-white color? A very pale yellow, brown, blue, or gray?  Might take the edge off, while still allowing it to clearly show that there's an open skill slot. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:46, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * A little bit off topic; if Gravewit approves to my changes, soon enough the wiki will resize png images decently. :) &mdash; Galil  13:13, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I can see an advantage in using resizable .png icons. I just hope users don't start uploading large .png images once they can re-size cleanly into thumbs on the articles.  My understanding is that part of the recent purge of old images was to free up disk space.  For larger images where image quality can stand compression and still be usable, I feel we should still enforce the .jpg preference from GW:IMAGE (note: I suppose we should move any discussion on this, if needed, to that policy's talk page if/when the changes go into effect). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * a sample skillbar

how many people would let that sit? someone would change it. that's the point, convince people that "optional" is to be avoided as much as possible. --Honorable Sarah 17:30, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * If you're trying to have a discussion about build style and formatting, move it to a better place. --68.142.14.106 17:47, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Difference of opinion on basic assumptions. I do not believe that "optional" should be avoided.  If a particular skill trully is optional, then let it show that fact - not try to insert an arbitrary skill that may work well with the build but isn't required for the core design purpose.  But as 68.142 mentions, this should probably be discussed in the style & formatting page for builds or skills.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

I'm serious, this works. You wouldn't leave this as is. No person is that heartless. Best of all, this solution won't make the build-article look like "My First GeoCities". --Black Ark 19:51, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Why not something like this?
 * {| style="border:0; text-align: center; border-collapse:collapse;"

Illusionary Weaponry Flurry Shield Bash Optional Optional Optional Optional Resurrection Signet
 * style=" vertical-align:top; width:68px; border:1px dotted #444;"|
 * style=" vertical-align:top; width:68px; border:1px dotted #444;"|
 * style=" vertical-align:top; width:68px; border:1px dotted #444;"|
 * style=" vertical-align:top; width:68px; border:1px dotted #444;"|
 * style=" vertical-align:top; width:68px; border:1px dotted #444;"|
 * style=" vertical-align:top; width:68px; border:1px dotted #444;"|
 * style=" vertical-align:top; width:68px; border:1px dotted #444;"|
 * style=" vertical-align:top; width:68px; border:1px dotted #444;"|
 * }
 * &mdash; Galil  20:02, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * For one thing, it doesn't change the current solution - don't get me wrong, it looks good and sensible, but it won't prompt people to actually finish their build, nor will it urge other people to add skills in lieu of the original poster. Emotional blackmail is the key. --Black Ark 20:04, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Who says builds with optional slots are unfinished? I agree with Barek here, what if a skill slot truly is optional, as in any skill will work? I've had builds where I've had absolutely no skill to fill up my bar with so I have actually played with half a skill bar (today at the latest). So why shouldn't I be able to create an article reflecting that? &mdash; Galil  20:08, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Just to add, I'd rather have B&W SoC-icons, but I am too lazy to edit it. :p &mdash; Galil  20:09, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Many builds need to be variable depending on where you use them. Now it surely is a matter of taste whether you'd rather add multiple complete skill bars to the build article, to reflect all possible mutations, or one skill bar with one or more "optional" slots. I would go with the optional slots. :) --84-175 (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm with Barek (and two edit conflicts later, also Galil and 84-175), optional is fine. Take this example, if you have some interrupting Ranger build which works in a variety of situations. In PvE your optional skill might normally be Favorable Winds to add damage, in RAs because Touch Rangers are so prevelent your optional skill might be Throw Dirt, in HA you might normally swap in Frozen Soil to combat IWAY and in ABs, because you often need to quickly travel from point to point, you then choose Storm Chaser. Same build, does the same interrupting role in each, but is tailored to the situation. Don't confuse having some flexibility in a build with an unfinished build. --Xasxas256 20:24, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

==Variations==
 * Favorable Winds is preferred for PvE, but less useful in PvP. make the following subsitutions:
 * for Heroes Ascent, use Frozen Soil to prevent resurection.
 * for Alliance battles, use Storm Chaser for extra speed and energy.
 * for Random Arenas, use Throw Dirt to combat rangers and warriors.
 * }
 * easy, plus the first timer doesn't look at that bar and wonder what is supposed to go there. don't confuse indifference for flexability. ;) --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 20:45, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * So how about this one then. I was gonna bomb some Charr today and found the build on a user-page. The user-page suggested a R/A with Dash and Death's Charge, but I couldn't be bothered getting them for my ranger and changing secondary just to bomb some Charr (needed Fur Squares). So, I modified it slightly and the skills I took were:
 * No 7th and 8th skills needed as I wouldn't have used either even if I did take them. What should I put there? Just some random skills to "fill up" the skill bar? Since no more skills are needed, and it wouldn't change anything if I did take any. &mdash; Galil  21:11, 1 August 2006 (CDT)
 * No 7th and 8th skills needed as I wouldn't have used either even if I did take them. What should I put there? Just some random skills to "fill up" the skill bar? Since no more skills are needed, and it wouldn't change anything if I did take any. &mdash; Galil  21:11, 1 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think we're seeing eye to eye here. Gali is arguing for optional because sometimes you need less than 8 skills. Sarah is arguing against optional because you should just put the most common skill and list variations below. Black Ark (edit: and Sarah, apologies) is arguing against optional because it encourages people to submit unfinished builds. Barek, 84-175 and myself are arguing for optional because sometimes you'll have a skill that changes due to circumstanes. I don't think I forgotten anybody or put words in someones mouth (although I know I've simplified the arguemts)? But the variations/unfull skill bars is a seperate argument and usage for this skill bar, as is the unfinished builds/list variations arguments.
 * ...So I guess it might be better to rename this, optional sounds like Gali's purpose, it's used when you don't have a full skillbar. However this is normally used for variations, perhaps variable would be a better name? We very very rarely have builds without full skill bars, so I'd suggest renaming it to variable and keep the current white picture. What you guys think? I'll get ready to cast Mantra of Flame!! --Xasxas256 00:33, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i also think it encourages people to submit half done builds.
 * the argument that putting a blank spot there instead of a skill with variations is founded on the premise that the blank spot improves the ability to vary a bar, which it doesn't since you have to write a variants section anyways.
 * char bombing is a corner case build, since it's a level 20 ranger with access to elites going against level 7 or 8 AI foes with maybe two skills, neither of them elite. however, for the bar above, not being an expert on charr bombing, i'd say troll and antidote signet.
 * i still think we should break it and have a red link. no one would leave a outpost with a blank spot if they have skills to fill it, why would anyone leave a blank on a bar on a build page? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 00:56, 2 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I guess that makes me no one, as I have left with blank slots, especially when going out to farm. Never saw the point in cluttering things up with skills that just take up space and would never be used.
 * As for looks; I view the flashing monstrosity as such a severe eye sore, I would view replacing the white box with it as borderline vandalism. Forcing an obnoxious block into the wiki is not a good design solution.  Develop/enforce policy rather than crippling the templates.
 * If a build is unfinished, it will remain in test status and eventually get deleted if no work is done on it. We already have a process for that, and last I looked, it seemed to be working.  If another level of tags is needed, then maybe adding 'build-wip' for a build that's a work in progress and not ready for testing yet.  Those can then be reviewed periodically, and any with a month or more of no development can be purged. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:32, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * With no points in Wilderness Survival I can't see how Troll Unguent would help, seeing as you don't have any time to cast it, and when you do, you're spamming Barrage instead since they die faster than it would normally take to use Troll Unguent. Antidote signet would be even more of a waste seeing as they don't give you any conditions. Charr bombing might be a "corner base build", but it's still a build.


 * As Barek stated though, I too have left outposts more than once without a full bar, simply cause if I put something there, I wouldn't use it anyway. So why try to figure out a skill to put there, that you're not going to use anyway? I'm all for the Variants-box though, since it is indeed a good idea to place it where it would make sense, but I am against removal of Optional simply cause sometimes you don't need a full bar and it wouldn't help if you did fill it. &mdash; Galil  10:19, 2 August 2006 (CDT)

I don't think "optional" slots should be eliminated or even discouraged. My argument is about the same as Barek's. Look at Me/E Migraine Mesmer and Me/N Migraine Mesmer. Neither consume corpse nor windborne is a part of the build's primary purpose. In HA, people stuff CC or windborne there because they help they can help the team a lot but the core build doesn't improve much with any other particular choice. This should definitely be Me/any Migraine Mesmer with an optional slot. The same could be said for a lot of mesmer builds, where gale, windborne, draw conditions, a repeatable resurrect (for GvG), CC (for HA), or something else is often a viable choice all in the same build. The actual choice comes down to the team build and not just the mesmer. Look at W/E_Shock_Axe. It's tagged as RA/TA/HA/GvG. You'll often see healing signet in GvG (and I presume the same in RA). You won't often see it in HA (and I presume the same in TA). I'd swap healing signet out for optional (or split it into two articles, I guess). I'd swap out bull's for optional even though I'd personally take it most of the time. Healing signet isn't part of the "warrior with shock" build, it's part of the "warriors in GvG need self-healing to aid the ability to overextend or split without a monk" metagame (or the "RA is random and the other team will all attack you for no reason sometimes" metagame). Bull's strike is a good skill, but I wouldn't say it's clearly superior to the other choices. --68.142.14.106 11:27, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * obviously the flashing monstrosity was half joking (ok, maybe less then half, but not less then 25% joking). as i said, char bombing is a corner case. i think i left a town once without a full set of skills, but that town was presearing ascalon. i still think we should change it to "Blank" and the text to "no skill". unrelated note: i'm merging the migraine twins now. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:27, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm going to have to agree with (damn, I'll just call you "the need to make an account person") here. Optional slots are slots that are completely situational, but are still required as they serve a purpose, such as skills that are of equal value to the main build. For example, one would argue that a good Energy-Recovery skill would be Drain Enchantment, while another would argue for Inspired Hex. The fact is, both are situational, and each have their place in specific areas, one being suitable in Enchantment-Heavy areas, one being suitable in Hex-heavy areas. Optionals (like mentioned above), are also useful in builds where skills are not completely necessary, and can do without. But a support skill can be used, not needing to specify which one as it is not completely necessary, being what the main build skillset suggests. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 18:53, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I know this can be solved by selecting one and putting the other as a variant, but Optional skills are used in cases where there are multiple skills that are of equal value. Since we want to have a NPOV here, sometimes it is better to have an Optional Slot to avoid bias. I'd suggest, of course, that optionals are reviewed, and that they are only in builds where they are necessary. However, I completely disagree with your statement about "Optional skills = I don't care". &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 18:56, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

My opinnion: I want to see quickly what the point of a build is. I just need to know the core, the changeable skills can be read from below if I get interested. Therefor the optional slot serves a purpose. -- (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

This is what I have done with it:

Optional Slot (<this normally would have =X2 at ether end :D)
 * Put in one of the following:


 * &mdash; [[Image:Reap_Impurities.jpg]] Reap Impurities &mdash;&mdash; [[Image:Shadow_Refuge.jpg]] Shadow Refuge &mdash;&mdash; [[Image:Siphon_Speed.jpg]] Siphon Speed &mdash;
 * Reap Impurities will allow you deal more damadge while healing yourself.
 * Shadow Refuge will give you a stronger and cheeper self-heal than Reap Impurities.
 * Siphon Speed will allow you to catch up with people who run away so you can criple them.

I personally think this is what should have to follow every optional slot but prehaps a nicer table could be made? Sir On The Edge

category:PvP builds and category:PvP team builds
since the PvP cats have superior orginization, these two categories are only used to collect other categories. we should stop recomending people put new builds in them. --Honorable Sarah 15:01, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
 * For months it's said to pick the narrowest categories that apply. --68.142.14.65 15:21, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Fixed the Category list, as well as updating the Syntax. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 18:47, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry, you broke what was originally there. Read 68.142's comment closely again. 70.20.114.124 19:20, 9 August 2006 (CDT)
 * My mistake. It seemed contrary to the use of . &mdash;  Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 19:57, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Unfavored-build template
this strikes me as wholly unnessisary. we remove unfavored builds from every category except unfavored, so anyone looking at an unfavored build will be looking through unfavored builds. why would anyone need this warning? --Honorable Sarah 10:23, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Perhaps if following a link from another article. I certainly don't look at the category-list every time I follow a link just to see what categories the article is in. &mdash; Galil  10:25, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I think it makes sense. If someone were to link directly to this article from another website, for example, it might not be clear that we think this build is pants :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:29, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * ok, point. could we include some useful information in the template then?

this build is unfavored. this build was voted unfavored for the following reasons: * *
 * etc? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:32, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Feel free to update the template. I just created it since it was referred to at Style and formatting/Builds, but didn't exist. Didn't give too much consideration into how it should look. Figured someone else more engaged in the build pages would edit it as they see fit. &mdash; Galil  11:40, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i suppose i have to learn template syntax eventually. ok, looking into it. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:42, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Template is a good start. :) Wish interwiki-links would be enabled... &mdash; Galil  11:48, 10 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Just to state my position on this issue, in no way do I think we need an Unfavored template, like Sarah said, all of the categories are removed, and the Unfavored builds category is added. There's really no need for explanation when a build goes unfavored; we don't like it, it's not effective, and we still don't like it. Besides, why would you go through garbage, anyways? :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 12:01, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I halfly agree, though we should still let people know that we think the build in question is junk. As I've already said, not all visitors reach pages from within the categories, or even from the wiki. These users shouldn't have to scroll all the way to the bottom just to check if a build is unfavored or not. If you've ever studied media communications (not sure of the name in english), the first thing you learn is to put the information where users expect to find it. Most visitors read from top left, to bottom right. As such, they won't start looking for unfavored builds at the bottom of the page. Also, not all visitors have visited the wiki before. These most likely don't know we tag favored builds if they visit an unfavored build directly. &mdash; Galil  12:11, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Interwiki links do work, I just think Gravewit didn't throw the default interwiki data into the database. They're nearly all just for the different language Wikimedia projects.  --68.142.14.65 15:36, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * template optionally accepts unfavor reasons. people who look at the page might not be able to see why it went unfavored. if a build went unfavored because "not a good PvP build" i might be able to make a good PvE build out of it, but if it went unfavored because "core of build based around flawed usage of "Move Zig!". it doesn't work this way" i know to go look somewhere else for inspiration. i've had to ask why myself sometimes. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:18, 10 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think this template should only be used for those builds that have a fundamental flaw or would be useless in any circumstance. I don't think this should be used for builds if they've been posted as PvE builds and failed but are still useful in PvP.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:27, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, with the manual "Category:Unfavored builds" box at the bottom. Besides, the only way most people reach the Unfavored builds section, is through the Builds portal. Therefore, they already know they're in the Unfavored section when they see those builds. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:31, 11 August 2006 (CDT)
 * hopefully the voting process would catch any that were just miscategorized, but there are several builds submitted as pure PvP builds that might be useful in PvE with a little work. obviously if a build is submitted as both PvE and PvP, and it's worthless in a PvP situation but works fine in PvE, it should be removed the from PvP cats and tested as any other PvE build. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:46, 10 August 2006 (CDT)
 * well i'm appling it to everything unfavored. consistency is a yellow bannana shoe... i think my brain just stopped. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:36, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Oh dear, not again... don't worry, I'll fetch the vinegar!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:15, 11 August 2006 (CDT)

theoretical builds
Whats the deal with "candidate for deletion" on Nightfall based builds. Theres no warranting a delete, once the game comes out those builds simply need to be updated with the current content. This would be a totally backwards way to approach thinking ahead of the curve. I'd rather see build ideas that were explored already during the FPE event listed, and then simple updated, rather then deleting all the research the community already put into the product. --Amokk 15:44, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * as i explained on Talk:D/N Dwayna's Curse, these builds will be useful for four days over four months, and will undoubtedly require updates at every juction. they should not have been created, but i ignored it. when skuld started placing tags on them i realized that they should have had tags on day one, durring the weekend. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:50, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I think your missing something in your reasoning. Techniqually you should go and delete every Nightfall skill from guild wiki from my understanding of your statement.  If Guild Wiki is ever to properly become oriented with the community, much less the PvP community, it has to keep up with what is happening in said community and the builds that community is designing.  If anything Nightfall based builds should be labeled a "Work In Progress" and allowed to stand until final release of the game unless completely vetted out by the community veterans as rubbish before hand.--Amokk 16:09, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i didn't say anything was rubbish, just that it was not useful. those builds might be the best in the universe, but they cannot be used, tested, or improved until release. as you point out, the skills are certainly going to change, and while skill pages can be updated by simply coping the text out of the game, builds have subtle interactions that will, most likely, need extensive evaluation in the very likely event that the skills are changed. evaluation that could be better used on existing untested builds. "the community" has no way of testing these builds either, unless you are refering to anet's beta community, who assuredly has offical information that is far superior to ours. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:20, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes! THANK YOU, Sarah! I've been meaning to throw the delete tag on those ages ago, for the exact same reasons. The point is, those builds are not able to be tested, and cannot stay in the category they are in now. Perhaps they could be moved to Category:Archived builds? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 23:32, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Maybe we should have a different category? Something like "Preview event builds" or "Unreleased expansion builds"?  (I don't really like either name that much, but you get the idea.)  I agree that having them clutter up the other Untested and PvE, HA, AB, RA, etc. builds is undesirable. --Spot 16:30, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * you mean something Akin to the unfavored category, where the builds exist only in that category and not in any functional or skill categories? --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:33, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Pretty much, yes. But not Unfavored though, preferrably a separate category. --Spot 16:48, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i'm not totally opposed to that. i still think the solution is to simply remove the pages and create new builds when nightfall is released, but at least they would be out of the main builds areas. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:50, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Something along these lines is exceptable. Out of the way, but still excessable to those working on them or willing to give input...Sounds like a good deal.--Amokk 16:54, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I find it silly that people are posting Nightfall builds now, but for different reasons. Any posted outside the weekend are guaranteed to be untested. I like to create builds and create pages for them only after I've ran considerable testing of my own to deem it viable as a build. I wouldn't mind a separate categorty, but it still doesn't touch the issue that builds posted now are untested, untestable, and very likely to use skills that change upon release. --Thervold 19:11, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * True, but it doesn't hurt to leave ideas on the table. A great idea thats posted is availible to test and wok with. If its deleted though that leaves room for completely forgetting the concept that made it work in the first place. The wiki buildspace is a place to post builds for the community. I feel that having valad idea for the community to work with is just as viable. Hell, i Will PERSONALLY test every Dervish build when Nightfall is released to test for inneffectiveness due to changes. (because i unlocked all the availible dervish skills during the event) that way we could keep the concepts and remove them when they are no longer valad at all. Isnt teh unfavored section there for exactly the same reason? To allow room for inspiration? --Midnight08 19:34, 22 August 2006 (CDT)


 * GuildWiki shouldn't be a dumping ground for untested theoretical builds, many of which will be forgotten by the time Nightfall is actually released, and will never be updated. If you have theoretical builds that you want to try out once you can try them, track the build in your user space for now.  I see no justification to as actual build articles at this stage. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:49, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Some of these were tested pretty extensively, and until we see changes come through the builds are still valad. No reason to nuke em until we see changes that make them no longer valad builds. Just create a place for them, even if its an archive of sorts. When Nightfall comes i want a few established build ideas to look at. And so far its only the good ol boys who have any problem with this. --Midnight08 23:14, 22 August 2006 (CDT)
 * barek put it as concisely as it can be put. these will surely be forgotten when nightfall comes around. category:untested builds shouldn't be a dump space. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 00:09, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I am in favor of keeping them (in a separate category without being linked). They might be good builds, so why waste them by deleting. However, once Nightfall arrives, we should be quick to delete them, unless they are proven to still work (preferably by the original submitter). --Xeeron 00:18, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * So have the authors keep them in their user space for now. Gets them out of the main article space.  If after factions is released they prove to still be viable, then build articles can be built for them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:38, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I disagree with keeping them in userspace. The reason i want them there is soo that i can see them and use them as an inspiration for ideas. If they were in userspace then i wouldnt be able to find them and neither would the rest of the community. Just give them their own area, its that really so difficult? (Remember we'll be having this debate every 6 months, might as well make a long term solution. If you choose the userspace route now in 6 monhs when a group of new people come through and C4 is released they'll have no clue that the builds will be rejected by the old school leaders here... The'll make a build to help the community and then they'll have to deal with possible deletion of their work. If you create an area for Theoretical or Pre Release builds and open the link to the area when the 1st preview events are announced, and then close the link and wipe the area a month after the games release (make it a tag and it the authors responsibility to re link it to the testing forums). this would stop this issue from ever coming up again and would be a simpler process than arguing over it. Deletion of a persons efforts for really no reason is a fast way to alienate the newcomers... If you want the contributors to keep coming you guys need ta learn that new ideas arent really a bad thing. --Midnight08 06:35, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * /2nd; seriously --Amokk 08:41, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think there was some talk about deleting untested builds that have become abandoned unfinished by thier authors. If that's so, why not just apply the same to this? If 1 or 2 months after Nightfall is released no changes or comments have been added on those page, they would be deleted. For now, a note about it being a theoretical build might be enough, though I suppose it would waste space a bit. I'm with the delete-one-month-after-nightfall idea though. Silk Weaker 06:24, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * While personally I dont care whether the articles are in Userspace or not, putting the builds in Category:Nightfall preview builds would keep them linked, even if in userspace. --Xeeron 06:43, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Now that idea i like... so could we set some sort of a deadline then and then if a build is not transferred by that deadline I will add it to my userspace for testing on release. i will also keep them all linked through the category above. (wouldnt mind a link to the category listing on the builds page) --Midnight08 08:31, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

In Response to Barek and his whole "these are all speculation builds" Text that he removed:
 * note: I had removed this less that 5 minutes after posting as I wanted to wait until I had more time to think on it - but as it was replied to, here is the removed post --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:20, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * We regularly delete anything that is mere gossip/speculation and not provable as part of the game - untestable builds should fall under that same umbrella. Some of these were developped and tested during the preview event, while others have merely been thought of afterwards as "I wonder how this mix would do" type things.
 * The argument asking if we really want to go through the deletions every six months is irrellevant. We already go through a similar process in the Nightfall campaign article where we delete anything that is unproven speculation - only factual content is kept - a process repeated every six months, it's not a hassle.
 * New ideas are not bad things. Unprovable speculation and theory in the main namespace of a site that prides itself on supplying only factual provable content is the problem. Once nightfall is released, new builds will be getting added very quickly. If these builds had been appropriately tagged for deletion sooner, we wouldn't even be having this debate, the only reason it occurred is because of the volume of build dumping by the time someone noticed. Stand alone databases exist for tracking personal/concept builds - GuildWiki's main space should not be used for that purpose. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:03, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Most of these build WERE tested during the event. I'm sure they will be retested during the next event. They arent speculation. they worked. I will be testing EACH dervish build here during the events... Where is the speculation. The only Speculation here is the assumption that the skills will be changed. Yes, i realize its likely that some will, but they might not be and the last official notice we recieved was the currently used skills which were tested for the builds. --Midnight08 09:11, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The event was July 28 – 30, many of these builds were created in GuildWiki within the last week. At least if a build were added at the time of the event or immediately after, it could be arguable that it was tested during the event.  Anything added after that cannot be proven to have been tested - they are theoretical at best. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:30, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed, i am merely stating that any created DURING the event should not be considered for deletion. The ones that are created w/o any testing should be the only ones targeted with this deletion movement. I know i EXTENSIVELY tested my Dwaynas Curse build. I still agree with moving to userspace as long as there is category set and a moderately easy way for users to find the category--Midnight08 09:38, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I have no problem with removing the delete tag and inserting a category tag to any of these builds that were created in GuildWiki during the event or within roughly a week after the event (Aug 6th seems a reasonable cutoff). My primary complaint here has been with the several that have delete tags that were created more recently and that cannot be proven.  Those are, due to their late creation date, questionable on if they were even tested during the event. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:45, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Note: A build posted within one week after is the longest that I would support considering a build to have been actually tried during the event. If the community wants to tighten it to be within a day or two, or even only builds posted during the event itself, I have no objection to those closer cutoffs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:09, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * no matter how well tested, the skills will change, meaning they'll need to be re-evaluated and re-tested. if people are going to protest deletion, then let's get these out of main namespace and into an isolated category in user space. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:51, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * For builds that were tried and posted during the event, I have no problem keeping them in the main namespace - although with their own category and a disclaimer tag (maybe the standard C3 and/or another disclaimer) - it's really no difference to me than a skill having the c3 tag. My primary objection on theoretical builds has been specific to those created after the fact (one was even created yesterday) that may or may not have even been tried during the event.  Because their posting date draws into question if they were actually tried (regardless of claims), those should be deleted or required to remain in the user space for now.  If in the user space, I have no opinion if the theoretical ones should be linked to the same or maybe a sub-category of those that are in the main space. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:00, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Sarah, you are promoting deletion based on the speculation that the skills will change. Many skills may not change. Even after a change the build may be viable. Should we delete any build who's skills MIGHT change? For that matter if you know for sure a skill is going to change should you just delete it? We knew EoE was going to change, and even after the change i have seen several requests for deletion on EoE builds that still work, Maybe even work Better after the change. We need to stop being so close minded about things around here. I have read several pressing arguments about why the builds should stay. But so far the only argument for deletion is based on the assumption (speculation) that there are upcoming changes to the skills. While that is a possible and likely outcome, it is in no way the ONLY outcome to the situation. --Midnight08 12:29, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * arguing BETA skills are not going to be refined between now and release is a hard sell, and it's just as difficult an arguement that builds based on those beta skills are similar to builds based on EoE, which is both stable and testable. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:53, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm arguing that we have no official word yet so assuming they are goes against the purpose of the wiki to begin with. up to this point the skills listed in such builds are current and the latest information we have recieved. I dont assume anything in my statement, i state that there is speculation stating an issue will exist later. That is truth, no room for argument in truth. I agree that the skills will likely be changed i just dont think that it makes any sense to delete until after the speculated changes take place. The changes are speculation, the skills in place now are currently fact, until changes are made and shown to the community. --Midnight08 12:58, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * the skills are not current, that was the point of my last argument. they were current as of the event, nearly two months go, but they are not testable, and we have no idea how much they are going to change. mapping uncertain ground by documenting the skills is one thing, constructing a town with these builds, quite another. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:18, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Personally I believe that builds for Nightfall should not be published until Nightfall is released, regardless of any preview events.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:29, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Forget it, im not bothering to contribute to this place anymore and i hope others follow... actually i dont have to hope that the community who runs this place will ensure that over time... Do you all not realize that a vote in an area like this is biased by nature? The regulars are the ones opposed to nightfall builds. They know they have more support because they have been acquaintances for a while here already. On the other hand those of us who are just here to give a little with the free time they have are ignored. Yes theer are less of us, we would not win a vote. I asked for comprimises, instead of a comprimise the elitist community behind this looks for the easiest way to get their way... I'm done, you all are not worth my time... I'll let gw.gamependium.com store my ideas, at least they dont let their ego's get ahead there. Adios, i loggin out and wont be loggin back in. I think GWO Wiki will have any further suppot i may want to give. Sux too as i was also contributing to Neverwiki. --Midnight08 15:19, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Sadly I've reflected the same sentiments as you, Midnight, as a “new contributor”, but if you leave, you'll most assuredly be damning the ‘elitist community’ that exists here to continue to degrade. I’ve used Guildwiki since Guild Wars was released and know first hand that most of the Guild Wars community I interact with daily, absolutely refuses to use Guildwiki for anything more then facts about the game.  If you want to know what a spell does or where monsters are or about a mission, that’s about all they rely on Guildwiki for.  If the Community wishes to add content, let it be added.  The fact this is even up for debate is rediculous and doesn't bode well for disproving the infamous reputation this site has among the real Guild War's Community.--Amokk 15:53, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * elitist is an interesting word. my first contrib was 01:43 CDT, 15 March 2006, far from an old hand. no one ever told me i was not welcome, no one ever acted like they were better then i was. some five months later, i have 2500+ edits and, judging by midnights comments, i'm considered a force in the community. not really elitist beheviour.
 * on the other hand, i have never flamed out over a vote or resorted to personal attacks, and i don't feel my contributions should be afforded special protection. i've submitted builds that are deleted or unfavored, articles that were gutted and rewritten, and i have not fought those changes.
 * on the subject of usefulness, you sugguest that your community only checks guildwiki when the need information on a skill, mission or monster, and they don't use it for anything else. i'd consider that a success, considering that once you exclude skills, missions and monsters, there isn't much left of Guild Wars. i'd ask what you think we're missing? build advice? strategic information? a language reference? a Wiki is not a forum, and structured content can only be structured with the exclusion on unstructured content. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 16:15, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Deleting the C3 build pages while keeping the C3 skills is, IMO, hypocrisy. The reasons cited above against any Dervish build are equally applicable against all Dervish skills, so should those be deleted as well? Plus, even though they will likely change in the final game release, editing an existing article to reflect said changes would be much easier than creating one from scratch again. Why are people so afraid of these builds anyway, they don't take much storage space, they don't use bandwidth unless someone actually want to read them, and it's not as if people will make chars according to the builds and then find out they don't work--so what's the problem of stashing them somewhere until they can be properly tested? - 72.195.132.41 16:37, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Still cant see what the problem with leaving builds that were tested is? Because it cant be tested at the moment? When the next event comes wouldnt it be nice for people to have some ideas to work with... not everyoe has teh patiance to sit and construct a build over a period of 6 hours like i do. I love making builds and even if you delete them i will be fine. But damnit the community (not the Elites, im talking about the noobs) could use a place to get ideas. Elitest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitist think about it some. The Mod and high end user here seems to band together on issues here. At the least they will draw people who see eye to eye into a discussion. I cannot say the same for a low end user who rarely contributes. They u0sually dont who who to contact or how to fight for an issue they believe in. All they can hope to do is explain their side and hope others see the same. Personally i will never agree with people who look at something that might be useful and say i cant guarantee its userful get rid of it. The more that is availible that is of good quality for the community the better. I have seen alot of people her look at a good build and say... hmm it doesnt have xyz i dont like it. then they vote unfavored often after explaining they never tested the build. The worst part is watching the same people follow this and do the same. They often dont offer criticism, they just shoot down the idea. Peopl need to learn to treat a community as a whole with respect, and to work together more. I'm the gass is 1/2 full type, i like content, i like all the info i can get. I so far have not had any issue with the way devs run any game ive played with the exception of the extensive CoH nerfs... The high end user here seems (with some exception) to lean towards th glass is 1/2 empty pov. They want perfection. The Optional Slot discussion is one example of this. It makes no sense. Optional is a real word, its there for a reason. The same goes for alot of things here. The Extreme perfectionists here help build the wiki to the high standars it has, yes. But at the same time perfection can be suffocating. I have been scolded for missing a signature on 1 of my comments.... out of the maybe 30 i had done that day. I have watched people flame a build because of 1 optional slot. And now i am watching sadly as the work of about a dozen people is being trashed because a few of the high end users are saying "whats the point". The point i Inspiration for the next event, the point is to have things to mull over so we can brainstorm the next gamebreaking build. The point, is to have a place thats not a generic forum, where people can go to get all of the info they need without having to randomly dig. The Documentation for MMo's is horrid and the strat guides are pathetic. The wiki's are the best source of info for a community, ad you perfectionists are doing a great job of making it difficult for us newer users to provide that information to the community. -- Midnight [/rant]


 * I think the biggest problem here is that we're dealing with subjective pages on a wiki that tries to remain objective. The idea of being an online encyclopedia for all that is Guild Wars comes into direct conflict with almost the entire Builds category. However, the builds include great references for popular builds and terms seen in game. When I started seeing calls for "BP Rangers" and didn't know what that was, I could search here for that and find examples. However, the subjectivity increases as people post builds that have never been tested. While this isn't always a bad thing, it generates a lot of work for others to sift through to actually test to post their experiences with the build. For me, I like to play at least two or three hours with a build before making a decision, and I appreciate when the poster has taken some time to verify if the ideas the build is based off really work. It is quite possible that a particular build that was never play tested has some good ideas, and as a result, I've shifted my opinion to at least keep the builds. But it would be helpful to remind those looking at them that the ideas are theoretical, marking them as very subjective ideas in an predominatly objective wiki. Thinking about it, I don't mind keeping them where they are with the ch3 tag as that reminder, but moving them to another category would work too. I would appreciate authors who never tested the build ideas (ch3 or otherwise) to say so in the build's talk pages, but that's probably asking too much and unenforcable. --Thervold 17:53, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

The Vote
Democracy ftw! &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 14:32, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Vote to End 11:59 PM August 26th 2006 PST (01:59 AM 27th CDT) . --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:06, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Ok the votes was quite short and it was a narrow result, but now several days passed without anything happening here. --Xeeron 10:05, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

Delete all Nightfall builds:
 * 1) &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 14:32, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:35, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) --Theeth (talk)   16:38, 23 August 2006 (CDT) or move to user pages. Builds that can't be tested are pure fabrications. At least wait until the next public beta, when the dervish will be nerfed skills will be more balanced.
 * 4) --Azroth 20:23, 23 August 2006 (CDT)--they just cant be tested and will probably end up needing serious tweaking after Anet mods the skills.
 * 5) --Karlos 23:08, 23 August 2006 (CDT): The axe. Should never have been allowed to begin with. One day I will assassinate Xeeron and then rewrite the builds policies so that they only contain skills from my user page! >:)
 * 6) --Xasxas256 05:24, 24 August 2006 (CDT) I pity the people that look after the build articles, what a horrible thankless job they have. We don't need speculative builds IMO and this should mean a bit less work for our build patrollers.
 * 7) I started adding delete tags because the current notice was impossible: "this build is currently being tested" &mdash; Skuld 06:06, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 8) Changed my mind after reading the response of Xasxas256 on his talk page. No one is going to read through the build anyway. Keep the wiki clean. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 9) --Midnight08 15:21, 23 August 2006 (CDT) lol my edits keep getting messed up. see below, Xasxas's arguments hold more water than any ive seen so far and have swayed my vote for the good of the wiki.
 * 10) --Amokk 11:34, 24 August 2006 (CDT)we should have a vote to delete every build on Guildwiki but the Premades...

Move to Category:Archived builds:
 * 1) (your vote)

Move to their own category:
 * 1) Ditto. Also, best compromise. --Spot 15:41, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) I don't see the point of keeping them, but several people seem to want to - best compromise is to move them out of the way. --NieA7 15:32, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) This seems like a good compromise. Builds shouldn't be moved out until retested on release. --Thervold 16:45, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 4) What they said - completely deleting all of them is overreacting, but they don't belong in any of the existing categories. &mdash;Dr Ishmael [[Image:Diablo_the_chicken.gif]] (talk|contribs) 23:04, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 5) No harm done in keeping the builds in a separate category. dodges Karlos --Xeeron 02:26, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 6) Retest them when Nightfall is released --[[Image:Kitty1.jpg|24px|]] (Talk) (Cont) (Cool) [[Image:Soft2.jpg|24px|]] 05:33, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 7) Peoples creative work will be lost otherwise.  Sir On The Edge
 * 8) We're not wasting anything. If we're having builds at all, having these seems fine.  I'd argue that we should get rid of all unofficial builds or keep them all (or come up with a much more formal process for each build).  --JoDiamonds 08:40, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Leave as is:
 * 1) (Your Vote)

Issues with Vote
I have three issues with the vote --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:56, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * My stance on this isn't reflected as a vote option.
 * No close date for the vote is listed.
 * As stated on Category:Votes, "Please note that votes are non-binding, and the existence of votes is being contested at Category talk:Votes."
 * erm... add a new heading, this whole discussion sprung up in 24 hours so 3 days seems good and round, it's a summary of opinion not a legal process. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:05, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, but everyone's opinions are already seen above in the discussions. As votes are non-binding, the outcome shouldn't be a basis for any determination, and is not a means of reaching or determining a concensus.  I really don't see the point in having the vote. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:46, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * in response to the vote by Sir On The Edge
 * We don't keep stuff just because it is "creative" or "they have put a lot of work into it" &mdash; Skuld 09:21, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * If you didn't notice, he is one to waste a lot of work. ;) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * cmon now, you knoe better than to call what skuld does work--Midnight08 14:33, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Yay! Another vote that I was not aware of until it ended? There's a great deal of speculation by everyone here.  One seems to be that skills will all change when this is definately not the case.  While some - maybe even a lot - of skills might be changed, how drastic of a change will it be?  Will the recharge on one skill being upped by a couple seconds break an entire build?  Will an energy reduction hurt a build?  Honorable Sarah, especially, assumes that changes to every skill will happen not that it might.


 * Additionally, Karlos makes a rather amusing assumption here, that a build is unusable because not all skills are available. Doing as Karlos does, let's assume waaaaaay back that the only available skills for monks and mesmers were: Reversal of Fortune, Guardian, Signet of Devotion, Divine Boon, Mantra of Recall, Inspired Hex, Distortion, and Protective Spirit.  Could you not make a build out of that?  What if the skills they left out are equivalent to Otyugh's Cry or Lightning Hammer?


 * Further, I will comment on this since I made one of the disputed builds. I initially created it in my userspace the day following the end of the Nightfall Preview Event.  I playtested it most of the last day of the preview event.  However, the reason I had not created it during the event was due to furious efforts to unlock runes, and then update the wiki's skills to 16 (which I didn't entirely succeed with, as I failed getting two superior runes).  I slept after that exhaustive task, and thus is the reason that particular build was not created until the day after the event.  A short time later, I moved it on a recommendation (although, I don't particularly remember who told me this) to the normal Untested Builds category, which was supported by the multiple Dervish builds and sole other Paragon build that existed there already.


 * Lastly, judging from the Factions previews, the next event may likely be in early September (perhaps even this upcomming weekend), so perhaps it's a bit premature for you to be deleting these right now, seeing as it's the end of August. - Greven 13:11, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

Possible resolution
I've posted above as a regular contributor, but admins also have the responsibility to act as an arbitrator in disputes. Unfortuneately, as I've been involved in quite a bit of the discussion, I feel it's a conflict of interrest for me to attempt to arbitrate in this instance. I will, however, provide my recommended solution and suggest that an as-yet uninvolved admin look more closely here and attempt to arbitrate the dispute themselves. The root of the problem appears to be an interpretation of site policies, and of the defacto policies created by past practices within the wiki. As Thervold pointed out, there is a clear conflict between the objective and fact checking nature of GuildWiki vs. the subjective nature of posting theoretical builds under development. Builds that are in use currently, or that can be currently tested are easy to classify as something tested and are as objective as a build can become. Builds that cannot be currently tested are a gray area. My sollution to this is based on the following past practices of Guild Wiki. Based on the above, my interpretation of past practice is that builds that were posted during the event itself should be kept in GuildWiki, flagged with a "C3" tag as well as an "untested build" tag, and grouped into their own category independant of the existing build categories. I believe that per the policy of assuming good faith, we should accept that builds posted during the event were actually tried - it is not the fault of the author that they were not tested prior to the end of the event. The C3 tag will ensure that the build is clearly marked that it needs to be re-evaluated after product launch. However, builds posted after the event are another issue. Because they were posted after the fact, there is no means to demonstrate that they were even tried during the event. Earlier I suggested that builds created up to a week after the event be kept; however, I feel a more appropriate cutoff would be within a day or two at the most following the event. The primary two participants in the discussions on this have been User:Honorable Sarah and User:Midnight08. It's obvious from several of the attempts by Midnight08 that he is open to a compromise position between their two positions, and earlier supported a solution similar to this one. Honorable Sarah was, early in the discussion open to the idea of segregating the Nightfall builds into their own category when she posted "i'm not totally opposed to that. i still think the solution is to simply remove the pages and create new builds when nightfall is released, but at least they would be out of the main builds areas". While this solution is obviously not totally to her liking, it does appear to be within the scope of what she could accept. I urge others to look at what I've posted, and to offer your thoughts. Please keep in mind that any decision here should be kept within the scope of current policy or the established past practices of the site. I will also post and request that other admins take the time to voice their opinions on my interpretation of site policies. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * We have an established past practice of deleting content that cannot be proven or validated in-game or via an official press release from ArenaNet. We have actively purged content related to rumor and speculation.
 * We have an established past practice of keeping articles that are related to special events, this can easilly be seen in the articles related to quests, NPCs, and items related to past PvE oriented events. These articles from past events have routinely been kept in their own grouping categories.
 * We have an established past practice of keeping articles related to future game releases when factual content becomes available, even if that data may change. These types of articles are tagged with disclaimer tags (such as   ).  This gives a clear indication that a skill, weapon, profession, or NPC is related to a some future release and will need to be confirmed when it is actually released.


 * I believe these articles should be deleted until the game comes out. Quite simply there will be many skill balances and modifications and so we have no telling which skills will remain the same and which won't. However, if the preview event proved anything, it proved that the Dervish class was overpowered. Those who are close to GvG circles will tell you that it caused a serious upheaval of the ranking. Simply 7 dervishes and a monk and that was all you needed for a GG. Rank 200 beat rank 50 this way. So, you can bet that these skills will be changed.
 * The other factor is that builds are placed in the "test pending status" until they are vetted. It's impossible for anyone to vet builds which are undoable.
 * So, between a build propsal that is untestable AND that is likely to be no longer correct because the Dervish class WILL be nerfed, there is no point in keeping any builds for Nightfall right now, especially those that are based on the Dervish's uber leetness. --Karlos 22:21, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I would gladly work with the comprimise offered by Barek. Also in response to the earlier response to my statement i'll stay around but my contributions will be more limited here until i see more people willing to comprimise and not so quick to slam new people. Thank you Karlos for once again showing that when aiming for goals we can speculate all we want, but when others state facts about their positions itt is not enough. I really hope Dervishes are only minorly adjustement so all the dervish haters out there will finally see they change will happen... Did they nerf the entire Warrior profession when IWAY was made? --Midnight08 22:31, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * IWAY did not shake the GvG ladder. Thanks for proving your maturity by turning this into a drama instead of a rational debate. I said my piece, I am against these speculative articles, always have, always will. To borrow from EA, if it's in the game, it's in the wiki, and if it's not, it's not. Finally, I have nothing against Dervishes :) I plan on making one. --Karlos 23:02, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * IWAY did shake several aspects of play as did 55's and many other builds. they adjust the builds in question usually IF they believe them to be overpowered. I really feel that alot of people will be surprised at the level of balancing they do. I think that dervishes main strength were their newness and self sufficiency. I saw that later in the weekend less Dervish builds were successful as others found counters. I'm pretty sure they want more for these professions than the assassin got. This has been a drama for a long time already Karlos, mainly because i have argued multiple reasons why the builds that were created during the event shouldnt be removed and all i get in response is "well i think the builds are going to be nerfed so they dont need to be there anymore". What makes it worse if that others have argued for a comprimise but we still get the same people arguing against any compimise and instead looking to stop only when they get their way. My IDEAL would be for them to not be touched at all, but I have been willing to comprimise from the beginning, even accepting having to move the build to my personal area as long as the builds were tagged in a way that i (and the rest of the community) could still referance them for planning. But still you argue to just delete the work. it makes no sense at all to me. Oh and i am very passionate about my builds =) i put alot of thought into them and only release them to the community after extensive testing... (which is why my guild forums have about 20 builds from me and Guildwiki has 2) --Midnight08 00:29, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Midnight, in all fairness, I believe you got slammed not because of your newness. Had the oldest contributors of GuildWiki argued in your shoes, they would most likely be slammed the exact same way. - 23:15, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I dont feel as if i get slammed at all really, that referance was more for the general consensus ive seen on the boards on banning new people who mess up edits or otherwise mess something up once and are thereafter banned for a week, possibly more. I have seen reactions to these in several admin pages, where often people state that the admin in question went too far. My arguments stem more from actuallt taking the time to read everything, and from wanting a bit more for the community but not having the time personally to make my own site. --Midnight08 23:55, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i can empathize with your frustration over those other boards, but GW is not a forum, and bans are pretty rare (excepting vandalism, that's a pretty quick ban) --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 00:00, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Only problem is ive seen talk discussions on several occasions about bans that were too hasty. Possible edit mistakes that look like possible vandalism and result in an insta ban. I know a little about a wiki so i took my time and learned enough to get by w/o destroying anything, but i personally really believe in what i like to call the "stuff happens" (stuff is a substitute for a different word) rule of life. Where mistakes happen and people should all get a second chance. --Midnight08 00:29, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * With my 3 days of horrific build testing and reviewing over, and our steamy pile of Untested builds reduced by 50 or so, I'm dying to do something here. From the looks of it, everything's going in favor of the move, or the delete. Which one is it? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:17, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Heh less than 24 hours into a 3 day vote and Raptas already salivating, lol.... Calm down man, u'll get to delete something soon enough lol=) --Midnight08 00:29, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't know, this delay might be just long enough to provoke me to edit something outside of the Builds category! How crazy would that be!? &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:32, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Left Justify FTW.... HAH for a second there i almost thought youd go cold turkey... Damnit, i spend too much time on this wiki... I'm startin ta joke around. --Midnight08 00:35, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * down, rapta. move appears to be the current direction, but we've several days left, with more then a few regular contributors unvoiced. you could try Category:Cleanup, or work on the Category:Profession guides.--Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 00:37, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm so going to slap a deletion tag on those categories one day... >.> &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:38, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * On a sidenote i'm beginning to really feel that the move to namespace with category link may make the most people happy, allowing the builds to survive but removing them from cluttering the current mass of builds. In such a case i will accept responsibilty for any builds who's owner is MIA. Like i said before i would rebuild them as needed based on nerfs and then resubmit when Nightfall is released for evaluation. I dont mind having to do some work to kep the builds here.--Midnight08 00:45, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * that sounds like an ideal resolution. we should let the votes finish, lest general opinion be drastictly different from our opinion, and baring any new wierdness, we should do that --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 00:48, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Another factor in the "they should have been deleted long ago" opinion is the fact that we do not have all Dervish skills or elites (same for Paragon). So, this is like posting "good" monk builds without knowing all skills available. Just pointless. Now perhaps you can make a good build with only half the skills of a profession, but you would never know that because you don't know what you are leaving out. --Karlos 05:21, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * That still does not mean its not a viable build. By taking that stance i could argue that we shouldnt be making builds for ANY profession til nightfall because new skills are coming and we dont know if those will be better for a build than the ones we have already. --Midnight08 06:29, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * By taking that stance, you would be taking the argument from the realm of logic to the realm of the absurd. We have Warrior Prophecies builds, Factions builds and mixed builds. What do you call a pre-Nightfall Dervish build? A Dervish factions build? I find the lack of elites particularly troubling. --Karlos 07:01, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * What makes your argument any more logical than mine? You call it a Nightfall Prerelease Build. And there are 7 Dervish elites... thats still pretty versatile. --Midnight08 08:41, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think Xasxas' position is very well-put. Incomplete, speculative content that no-one can verify and no one will likely ever use. --Karlos 09:07, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Category:Prophecies builds contains builds that only use prophecies skills, and since we know all the possible prophecies skills and no changes are expected, builds in that category are fairly stable, and will continue to be stable and viable after Ch4. any build that uses nightfall skills cannot be stable, since those skills will change before release. the skill in the nightfall campaign cannot be... trusted, for lack of a better term. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:22, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

And that my Friend, is all I Really needed...
Xas's argument is by far the best argument against the builds. It Makes several great points about the scope. I am offically changing my stance to Delete in the greater interest of the Wiki. I will be copying my Build content to my userspace until such time that it can be tested and will be removing any tags, when Nightfall is released i will retest and re evaluate it. All i really needed was a good reason behind it all, Thank you for taking the time to put things into context. [Xasxas's View]--Midnight08 09:15, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Ah well cheers mate! I've been getting withdrawal symptoms for the GuildWiki, look at this not a single edit yesterday! Plus my comments are actually making sense, what's going on! Oh and it's great to see you around again Karlos, it's been a while and I like seeing you around even more when you're agreeing with something I've said! --Xasxas256 09:19, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Someone has to counter your level-headed style with some powerful skills of their own. :) --Karlos 09:30, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Wow level-headed, that's a new one, no..body..'s....eveee...r...caaaal..ed me thaaat! /sniff /tear :P Also I got a new nickname apparently, "Xasa" (see above). I think I've got one counter for NEA and that's sleep, I feel my work here is done! But tomorrow is Friday and I'll be sleep deprived and bored at work so watch my ability to write a cohesive argument fly out the window! Just so long as Gravewit can help me, save me from Tor! --Xasxas256 09:43, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * lol misspelling FTW, but i like the nic so im keepin it... easier than tryin ta not mess up typin xasxsa, bah xasxaxs bah xasxax bah... xasxas, there we go.... --Midnight08 10:08, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Dang it, there ya' go using level-headedness and logical reasoning to convert someone who was ready to storm off into someone with good potential to be a productive regular contributor here. If you keep that up, we'll wind up being the most popular Guild Wars fansite available to the community.  Oh, wait, we already have that ranking!  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:59, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Why not stick with Xas? That's what I use. On topic: Xas relly seems to have turned the tide. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * That works too=P --Midnight08 11:12, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, I have to agree that Xas' comments seem to be spot on. I don't really agree with the process we currently have of archiving poor builds, and I think this feeling carries over to Nightfall builds.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:08, 24 August 2006 (CDT)
 * And here I thought I was going to get to move some articles. Darn. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:10, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I feel that after reading this article in more detail and seeing that Midnight is upset at the opposition to keeping Nightfall builds that I should go into a bit of detail as to why I feel that they have no place on the wiki.


 * In order for the wiki to stand above the rest I feel it has to follow some principles, one of which is that it should focus on providing information that would be useful to the average player and vital to those players who play often. While it was opening a can of worms I think that providing build articles is useful. This is because some builds are vital to playing GW. If you played PvP and got killed by a touch ranger, and then came to the wiki and couldn't find out what a touch ranger was, we would not be living up to this principle.


 * One of the other principles that I think is important is that we should not weigh the wiki down with an unnecessary articles. If an article is only useful to the author then it shouldn't be in the wiki (or at least it shouldn't be outside of their namespace). It's not fun having to wade through categories trying to find what you're looking for. I absolutely hate the builds categories at the moment because they are bogged down with untested builds that I don't give a crap about.


 * So combining these two principles I feel that it's important that we provide as much information as is useful without providing too much. I think that Nightfall builds fall into the "too much" area. This is because build articles are very practical articles. They tell you how to play the game a certain way and how to achieve a certain goal. It makes sense to me to say that if a build cannot be used by a player then it is not useful. None of the Nightfall builds have any practical use at all at the moment, so I see no reason why they should be kept.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:16, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * What you put here pretty much corrilates(i know i spelled that wrong) to what xasxas said in a posst on his namespace. Reading that caused a 180 in my point of view, and as u can see if you look at my namespace i have now copied my Nightfall build and requested deletion on its page. I have also started inquiry into what it would take for me to make a build only wiki that would be a place for builds and hopefully would work alongside guildwiki so that we could possibly move some of the clutter over time from here to there and only have the well tested builds taking up space on the main wiki, while general build testing and other build ideas would have their own areas on BuildWiki (making this because of my love of builds and the upcoming release of Nightfall and NWN2 will cause me to become a 1 man build factory... So i'll want a place for them all=P). Not every1 will agree with that idea either but a seperate location for builds would allow the inconsistancy and speculation inherrant in builds to be kept away from the wiki proper. --Midnight08  14:33, 24 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Responding to one point you brought up: "I absolutely hate the builds categories at the moment because they are bogged down with untested builds that I don't give a crap about". That is right and due to the fact that the way builds are put into categories is messed up atm. Only tested builds should be in those categories. That will empty a good bit of the categories, but it does not sense to have untested, potentially very bad builds in the categories for farming builds, GvG builds, etc. I'll change the example syntax so that new builds will have commented out categories, which can then be commented in if voted on positively. Btw, unfavored builds should never be in any other category apart from unfavored. --Xeeron 04:57, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * that's a good idea, i've done that with stubs, but i'd not considered it with untested. sounds like a good bored at work project. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:05, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * actually, most people find builds via the PvE or PvP categories, taking untested out of there would make those categories easier to follow, but it would also mean those builds in untested would  less  likely to ever get proper testing. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:16, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Also, removing the categories means that untested builds need to explicitely specify whether they are for PvE/PvP(HA/RA/TA/...) instead of relying on the categories. --Theeth (talk)   09:57, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * So, if removing categories would cause issues, the next idea would be to Add Categories. IE PvP - Tested, PvP - Untested - more work, but keeps the info needed and allows for a seperation. Oh and just so you know, im trying to convince the rest of my guild to put some effort into helping test untested builds... I think i might start holding guild contests for constructive submissions... The more people he have that are focused on testing the untested builds, the faster we can get through them. --Midnight08 10:34, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * the possiblities for error in that scenario are immense --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:54, 25 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Personally I think it's important we only show those builds that are useful. I would rather remove untested builds from the build categories and increase the chance of an untested build not receiving exposure than having loads of untested builds filling up the build categories and making it difficult to find builds that actually work.


 * If an untested build becomes suddenly very popular (i.e. if Touch Ranger had never been heard of, but then suddenly everyone was using it) then the bbuild would be tested more quickly and moved to the proper category, so I don't think we run the risk of being out of date if we take untested builds out of the "live" categories.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:59, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

my objection is threefold: --Honorable Sarah 14:43, 25 August 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) it puts a wall between untested and general usage that people will attempt to bypass (by improperly marking tested, etc).
 * 2) it adds a catch 22 to the testing process; to be tested, it needs exposure, and to be exposed, it needs to be positivly tested.
 * 3) the only people who would see it are the people who are already patroling recent changes or are already doing sweeps through the untested category, and we already know that's not enough people to counteract the influx of new builds.


 * Why not add a link in Builds and on the Main page? That way people would find them easily and probably test them. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I can see your viewpoint Sarah, but I don't think it's right to list builds when those builds are untested. We would not publish game behaviour or skill information or anything else on the wiki if we had not tested it, so why should we behave differently for builds?


 * I realise that builds are different to other articles but I still think that they are based on facts and not just opinion. You can 'measure' how succesful a build is based on how well you can achieve a given task using 8 skills.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:54, 25 August 2006 (CDT)


 * LordBiro, I disagree with your example, an untested build is like an article stub, not an untested peice of information. When it is tested and complete, it is like an article with stub removed. So, untested is like the stub tag. What I would like to see is that the unfavored category not be linked to anywhere and kept only for archival uses only. i.e. to point a creator of a similar build that such a build was rejected before. --Karlos 05:15, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I didn't mean to suggest that untested articles should be deleted, but I do still think that "untested" is different from "stub". I know that builds are different to articles, but I think that we have a situation at the moment where the build categories are filled with untested builds, and I don't approve of this situation. Let's say I am playing AB and I want to find builds that I know have already been vetted. It's not easy to find those builds at all. I would say that, without opening every article in Category:AB builds I can't see whether they've been tested or not. I personally think that only those builds that have been tested should be put into these categories. I feel pretty stubborn about this one :P  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:32, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Same thing. Untested builds should be in their own category/categories and not in the same categories as the tested ones. It's hard to find the good builds at the moment. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Builds not getting exposure: They are linked from the builds portal, plus those actually testing more or less are those that know how the category thing works.
 * Losing the info: I commented out the categories, not delete them. Click edit build and you will see them. If anyone thinks that is to much work, replace  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:47, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * karlos, the unfavored categories should already be isolated, nothing should link to unfavored builds, but i'll start again and make sure of that. if we are going to remove categories from untested builds (which i disagree with, but i've covered those reasons) then commenting is the only way to preserve that information without making the page look ugly. fortunatly wiki supports html comments when everyone understands. finally, several PvP players have already stated their unhappiness with our builds process (something about not moving fast enough for the metagame, i don't really understand it, i don't PvP enough), and i think isolating untested is just going to make things worse. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:24, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The problem with these people complaining is that they demand us to have perfect builds (and right after they are introduced into the metagame!) but almost none of those complaining are actually submitting builds. IF a really good build ever arrives here, it usually is out of untested in less than 3 days. But builds that noone writes will never become tested. --Xeeron 17:34, 26 August 2006 (CDT)
 * ok, i've run into a real practical problem. i can't test PvP builds, because i'm a horrid PvP player, so i usually go into PvE builds and look for untested builds. since xeeron jumped the gun, i'm having a hard time finding which builds i actually can test. first i have to start in the massive untested category, then i have to go edit the page every time to see what categories it's in and then decide if i'm qualified to test it. not very practical --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 18:39, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * lol :) I'm going to bed now, but I felt I had to share that. See you guys in the morning :D  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:44, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I usually use the recent changes. All old builds are on my watch list, so I scan recent changes for new builds and quickly decide whether I'll test it or not. --Xeeron 16:51, 27 August 2006 (CDT)

New subheading
I'm starting to wonder if, despite the mess it would cause, having Category:Untested PvE Builds and Category:Untested PvP Builds would be the best option.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:34, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Agree. To see further detail (RA, TA, HoH) you should open the articles thou, but this would be the ideal solution imho. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

OK, it has been a bit since the last entry here, but we still need to do something. Currently half the untested builds have commented out categories, while the other half has normal categories. I really dislike having special "untested PvE" categories, but whether we do that, comment out all categories, leave the builds in the normal categories, we should decide on one, because currently it is very inconsistent. --Xeeron 10:00, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

Vetting categories are badly named
Tested by whom? Unfavored by whom? One man's unfavored build is another's tested build. As a wiki with a large and diverse population, GuildWiki should not deem to speak its unimind with a univoice. This goes double for builds, which are highly subject to the whims and preferences of individual players. Please rename these categories to be descriptive rather than nominative. For example: 149.9.0.27 08:44, 28 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Valid (and viable) (instead of tested)
 * Obsolete (instead of unfavored)


 * Tested builds - the best builds on GuildWiki, tested and proven workable by the community.


 * Untested builds - new builds that have not yet received sufficient testing to warrant upgrading to tested status.


 * Unfavored builds - builds that have fallen out of grace, either through inefficiency or that have fallen into disuse because of nerfs. Maybe you can still find inspiration among the debris.


 * I think the descriptions make it sorta self explanitory. --Midnight08 09:15, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Agreed with Midnight. Obsolete seems to be a missleading name compared to unfavored. --Xeeron 11:34, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * In agreement with Midnight. The answer to the question of "Tested by whom" can be found in each discussion page of each build. Also, using viable and obsolete does not make it much different from tested and untested... I don't understand what you mean by nominative. Isn't claiming a build to be obsolete or tagging it as viable also nominative? --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 11:40, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree that "unfavored" is a better fit for that category; but I can see an argument to rename the "tested" category; afterall, even the unfavored builds have been tested. I don't think that "Valid" is a good name either.  Maybe something like "recommended", "favored", or "viable" would be a better category name for that group of builds. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:46, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * 'Approved'?


 * In many ways, while I didn't initially agree with anon, I do have to say that I think it makes sense. There's something wrong with determining whether or not a build is good or not based on the opinions of 3 or 4 people. Certainly those people can say whether or not the build is fundamentally flawed, but is it fair that, if the first 3 people who review a build dislike it, that build should be moved to "unfavored"?


 * I think, while it would make our jobs far less easy, it would make more sense to split the builds into groups based around things that we do have the right to say about them, even if only 3 or 4 people have reviewed them. We can determind quite easily which builds are:


 * Useable, valid, viable - those builds that work.
 * Flawed, invalid, unviable - those builds that have some fundamental or intrinsic flaw in them that mean they cannot be used.
 * Obsolete - those builds made obsolete by a change in the way the game works.
 * Popular, succesful - those builds used very often, like touch ranger or 55 monk (although I dunno how popular that is).


 * Of course, I'm not sure if we should split up builds into these groups, and if we did I'm not sure categories would make a lot of sense, but either way, I do think that anon has a point. It's not right to say whether a build is tested/unfavored based on 3 people's opinions.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:56, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Usable, valid, viable: The current tested
 * Flawed, invalid, unviable: unfavored
 * Obsolete: archived
 * Popular: Featured (past featured) builds


 * It is all there. --Xeeron 12:34, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * And about "if the first 3 people who review a build dislike it": Most builds spent days, weeks or even months in untested before they are finally moved into unfavored. If those people that like the build are out there, they definitly have had time to step forward and vote. --Xeeron 12:45, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't doubt that the current categories map well to the groups I've listed, but it's more about what we call those groups and how we populate them. "Tested" could mean anything. Even referring to tested as "good" is very ambiguous.


 * The current terms "favored" and "unfavored" imply a personal preference to the build, and I don't think that this is what we should be testing a build for. I prefer terms such as "valid" and "flawed". We should be asking "does this build work or not?" not "do I like this build or not?". For many of us on the wiki I think we already do that, but we should say it because those coming to the wiki might not understand that.


 * I propose something like:


 * Successful (currently not a category, but similar to Past_featured_builds)
 * Valid (currently tested)
 * Untested (the same as untested, could possibly do with a better name)
 * Obsolete (once succesful but now unworkable builds)
 * Flawed (builds which don't work and never have. Builds here probably shouldn't be archived but deleted after a certain period of time)


 * That's what I think at present anyway ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:07, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * They may indeed spend many days or months untested. They may still even be untested even when people vote on them, because I've noticed many instances of this.  For example, an Assassin build gets a comment like "No opener" when it uses a skill-based opener like Iron Palm.  This happens incredibly frequently.  People vote without testing and it simply angers me.  The whole voting process should require in-depth comments by the voters as to why it will or will not work.  - Greven 13:31, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The voting puts the builds in 'tested' tatus, so the people really shoud test them. It is not too much asked if we ask them to really test OR have in depth comments explaining why it can't work etc. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2006 (CDT)

meta:Voting is evil. I have stated my general disdain for the vetting practice and the results it produces on gwguru before. I would earnestly advocate a repeal of this procedure and an implementation of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for categorizing builds, and editing on wikis in general. gr3g 14:04, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Yup. I think that utter bullshit should be just deleted on sight, while good builds should be improved as much as possible with discussion. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think that there seems to be at least some agreement that the way in which we deal with builds is not ideal. While I think it's possible for a vote to establish whether or not the build is workable I think we can agree that this is not how the vote is currently used and I don't think that changing the semantics of the categories would solve this (but I do think we should change the names of the categories anyway).


 * Instead of having a vote would it make sense to say that a build must meet some pre-requisites in order for it to be "promoted" from untested to valid?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:50, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm maybe I am just too much an defender of established practise, but ...
 * Doing away with votes would do away with some of the problems of votes. However, what would you get in return? BOLD, revert, discuss for builds? OMG, revert wars go! That would increase the amount of trouble with builds tenfold. Builds would just from unfavored to favored on a daily basis. I can imagine the talk pages after "utter bullshit" gets deleted on sight, when not everyone agrees it was utter bullshit in the first place.
 * The vote process might not be perfect, but it prevents all that.
 * Similarly, what would any "pre-requisites" be? Sure, we can make some rules about following the format and using proper grammer, but layout and proper grammar is the last problem of bad builds. There is no objective way to tell a good build from a bad, only subjective ones. That is why we gather more than one opinion. If 3 people say that it is bad, than it is much more likely to be bad than if one person thinks that the build is bad and starts editing it right away, or worse, deleting it. Until you present me the never-wrong-god-of-guildwars-build-making, any process that lets single persons substancially change builds (e.g. delete them/put them into unfavored), will in my mind always lead to big trouble. --Xeeron 16:53, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok, maybe tested can be renamed to viable if it needs to, although we can always make the definitions of our terms more visible. If we're worried about problems of opinion, where the testers just don't like a build personally, then we keep our unfavored builds visible as well, and not just delete them. We archive obsolete builds, but we keep unfavored builds, in a sort of like use-at-own-risk or feel-free-to-test-them-and-prove-us-wrong kind of thing. If we get rid of the voting and vetting, how would we even be able to categorise the builds? Having prerequisites is the same thing, people will just argue that some of the prerequisites are unfair. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 20:11, 28 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Xeeron, I agree that "There is no objective way to tell a good build from a bad", therefore we should not say whether a build is good or bad. There are objective ways to say whether a build is flawed or valid, and so I think we should use these terms. I would imagine that many of the builds in "unfavored" are not flawed, and so it could well be that the flawed category is smaller than the unfavored category, but this isn't a problem because there would also be another group containing those builds that are popular. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 02:51, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * If you can come up with objective ways to tell a flawed build apart from a valid one, I would be most happy. However I dont believe it is possible (feel free to prove me wrong).
 * "There is no objective way to tell a good build from a bad", therefore we should not say whether a build is good or bad: That reasoning is flawed. Just because there is no perfect (i.e. objective) way to tell a good build from a bad does not mean there is no way. Look at how this is resolved all around the world: How are films rated? By people voting for oscars. You might not totally agree with them, but the probability that you like this years oscar winner more than the not-even-nominated B-movie are quite high. If you cant have objective criteria, you need to use subjective ones. And to make subjective criteria less arbitrary, you need some way to aggrigate many subjective opinions. The vote is a tool to do exactly that. --Xeeron 07:56, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think it's very easy to tell a flawed build from a valid one. Most of the builds submitted so far, even the ones in unfavored, are valid builds, because they do what they say. "Flawed" is a very different label from "bad". Flawed implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with the build. This could be that the build is broken or that the author of the build has not understood how the game works. This would not include opinion calls such as "I think this build isn't that good because I played it in tombs and got killed".
 * You might be able to conclude that the authors understanding of the game mechanics are flawed, but as long as he puts 8 real skills from no more than 2 professions into the skill bar and distributes 200 attribute points, you can never say his build is flawed. It is allowed by the game mechanic and thus works. However what we are interested in are not builds working as in "being possible" but working as in "an effective solution to the problem". You wont be able to get objectivity into that. --Xeeron 04:25, 30 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah Xeeron, I do see your point there. I do think there is need for reform when it comes to classifying builds, and I don't think that the names we have for the categories is correct, but I do see your point that that the vote will probably have to remain. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:58, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * What are people's opinions towards We_are_not_The_Oscars? :P <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:08, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * BRD is the only way out of indefinite editorial deadlock, which is the situation for a large number of currently untested builds. If someone boldly makes one of them favored, and someone else objects with a revert, then that will refuel the discussion of that build. Consensus can then be renegotiated between the two involved parties in the revert. I think you have misinterpreted what BRD means. It is not a license for open revert wars as 3RR (or 1RR) still applies. It is merely the most effective editorial tool there in open-content wikis.


 * This is, by the way, orthogonal to the naming issue raised by the thread starter and LordBiro (with which I somewhat agree, but not strongly). I should probably refactor this discussion elsewhere. I think, by the way, that the vetting process is too quick to promote articles to "tested" status. There should be some minimal grammatical, stylistic and editorial polish to these build articles. (Yes, I know, .) gr3g 07:18, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Agreed on splitting this thread, there are really 2 discussions going on.
 * I dont see your indefinite editorial deadlock. Unless you are refering to the total lack of people testing builds compared to people submitting builds. --Xeeron 07:56, 29 August 2006 (CDT)


 * While the argument for renaming the categories is seperate to the argument to change the processes we use to put builds into categories I would not say that they are entirely independent. The terminology we use undoubtedly influences the way in which people respond. I do think that you are right though, it doesn't make sense to be discussing these under the same thread. If we are in agreement we can move the discussion regarding the abolition of the voting process for builds to another heading. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:27, 29 August 2006 (CDT)

Generic resurrection skill?
A lot of builds suggest bringing a resurrection skill as the eighth slot, but many times the specific skill is not important. Should we have a generic skill that we can insert that implies "the best resurrection skill available to you, according to the situation"? --Spot 10:41, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * It isnt top of my priority list, but if someone were to make a nice picture, together with a short, descriptive name, I would not disagree. --Xeeron 11:58, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Good idea. Now you just need to get LordBiro to summon us a nice little icon. Or did you have somehting else in mind? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually, why not just say that under the skill bar? :P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 11:58, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * But then you had to place a 'Optional' slot or choose between the res skills to put one in the bar. Unlike Honorable Sarah, I do think that optional and such changeable slots are good. I'd relly like to see this one as I would have a lot of uses for this one. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't have anything in mind artwise, and I totally lack artistic ability. :) --Spot 12:59, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Don't like the idea of introducing a new icon that is not really a skill into a skill bar consisting only of either blanks or actual skills. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 19:53, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I was thinking of something really simple and clear. The 'Optional' icon with a really small image in the middle is what I was thinking of. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2006 (CDT)
 * For what it's worth I think having a generic res icon, probably pointing to Resurrect (action), is an excellent idea. --NieA7 06:22, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Lively warriors, joy &mdash; Skuld 06:24, 30 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd go with a simple black ankh on a white background, or a black version of the phoenix guild emblem on a white background. -- Gordon Ecker 04:38, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Here is my suggestion [[Image:Generic Resurrect.jpg]]. I opted for a very light colour and only an outline to imply that it isn't a particular skill. The ankh implies monks and healing, which I think is good enough... but I do think that without text underneath it saying "Resurrect" or something then it wouldn't be easy to understand. Someone could think it meant generic self-heal, you know? <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:59, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * That's a great one, but I think it should have the same black border as the optional slot and the other skills. (Desides, there aren't any elite res skills yet :D ) The text underneath should be something like 'Any resurrection'. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Unyielding Aura --[[Image:Kitty1.jpg|24px|]] (Talk) (Cont) (Cool) [[Image:Soft2.jpg|24px|]] 05:11, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree with Gem - change it to a black border so it fits in better and I reckon we've got a winner. It should probably say "Resurrection Skill" or something similar underneath, to avoid confusion with Resurrect. --NieA7 05:07, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I avoided using a black border because I don't think it should fit. It isn't a skill, and therefore I don't think it should have a black border. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:16, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Optional isn't a skill either but that has a black border - we should be consistent, and of the two I think black looks much better than grey. --NieA7 05:20, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think optional should have a black border either, but that has the advantage of already being there :P The style I was going for was one of transluceny. Having a black border would kind of ruin that, but if there is consensus to change it to black then I'll gladly do it :) <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:24, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah consensus, always desired yet ever out of reach. Well, for what it's worth I think that optional and res should definitely have the same colour border. Black would be more consistent with other skills but grey would make them stand out as different fields, so I can see the argument for either. I guess on sober reflection I think optional should be changed too, just to really emphasise that it's not a single skill from the game. --NieA7 05:49, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Seems like optional needs a change to grey. And we need to come up with a name for the new res icon. Needs to be both short and clear, so that it will not be confused with any actual skill. "Any resurrection skill"? --Xeeron 06:25, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * "Rez". gr3g 06:27, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * "Resurrection Skill" --NieA7 06:32, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I really like "Rez", lol... <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:47, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Both icons with gray is fine with me. 'Any res' if you want it short, 'Any resurrection skil' if long is ok. I prefer a short one as some skill bars only have skills with short names anyway. The page linked to should explain that any skill causing resurrection is ok. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:17, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't mind but please make it lower case: if we're using generic resurrection skill, I would like "Generic resurrect", not "Generic Resurrect", thanks (GW:ULC and reduce confusion that it is an actual skill) &mdash; Skuld 07:20, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Good point Skuld! <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:59, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * In opposition to Skuld, i suggest it be named GENERIC RESSURECT SKILL!!!!!...
 * (This is a joke of the emergency Midnight system, Had this been a serious comment it would have been followed with the regular Midnight rant... I repeat, this was only a joke). In all seriousness though yes,GW:ULC. --Midnight08  09:22, 31 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Great icon! I like "Any resurrection skill" if long is okay, and "Any rez" or "Any res" if short.  Even "Rez" is fine, if the user is confused, they'll click the image.  Originally, I was thinking that it should redirect to the Resurrect (action) page, but now, I think it should go to a short page that explains what this is for (which references that page, of course). --Spot 09:57, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The icon looks pretty good actually and grey is better than black for me too. How about putting a question mark inside optional so it wouldn't look so empty next to this any res icon? As for the text, "Any resurrect", "Any resurrection", or "Optional resurrection" would be fine. Drop the "skill" part, since optional doesn't have "Optional skill" either. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 19:56, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

Unprotect this page please
The protection reason is highly bogus. There is no reason to protect a S&F page when reversion is a matter of between two and three mouse clicks. Please use your admin tools lightly, people. gr3g 21:21, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * It's fine, just for a couple of days so the insisted build posting on this page slows down. Nothing to create a big fuss over. =P &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 21:36, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * What that indicates is a deficiency in this page in pointing out where to post new builds. The users can be educated. Protection is too heavy handed. gr3g 21:42, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
 * What's the problem with protecting anyway? We don't need to act like Wikipedia in every single thing. We can have our own way to do things if it suits us. Protecting pages like this serves as a great tool to prevent the need of reverting and article over and over again. (I responded at the community portal too) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree that pages sometimes need to be clear what their about. However, if the page starts with "This article contains the necessary information on starting, expanding, and completing articles about builds." and has a name that says "Style and formatting/Builds", and the user still fails to get educated (as you put it), protecting a page is a simpler resolution than having to go to each user's talk page and pointedly add an explanation; which won't even work if the user doesn't bother reading it. Heavy-handed? It's not like this is a fact page or something. It's a page on guidelines and policies for this wiki, which logically, imho, should have restricted edits in the first place. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 00:49, 1 September 2006 (CDT)