GuildWiki talk:Policy Before Wipe

Don't destroy the sites popularity before a new build section plan can be installed. Flame Away--Sefre  23:18, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Not particularly necessary, I guess. A mission statement from the admins explaining what the build section will be is all I need. If they don't deliever this statement, however, I don't think Gwiki is ready for a wipe.--Nog64Talk 23:22, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * "but I feel it would be far more efficient to just go ahead and implement a lasting policy in the builds section. We have almost a month, so I suggest we use it.--Nog64Talk 22:37, 3 April 2007 (CDT)"
 * Did you change your mind? I don't think it is very wiki like to just have admins say what will be.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:24, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * As I said before: Talk of other ways have been in discussion for months. Every single attempt has fizzled out.  Even the currently discussed alternate build section methodologies (GW:NOB and GW:PNB) were first proposed back in December, and those languished with no progress until the build wipe was announced.   While a build wipe can be considered rather draconian, it seems to have been the only thing that has managed to result in progress on any changes to the hopelessly flawed system in place now.  Actions such as this page do more to delay progress on those alternatives and preserve the status quo rather than actually fixing anything.  Ideally, I would like to see some method in place before the wipe - but the fact is that with the current method in place, none of the proposed fixes have made any progress.  The threat of removal has finally accomplished what has been otherwise impossible to achieve; namely: progress on defining a new builds documentation process. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:26, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Barek, the point of this is to not wipe the section before policies have been discussed, how in gods name would a wipe of all current builds help speed up debate on future builds? it would do nothing but make the minority who don't like the build section happy.
 * With this the current build section and sites popularity would remain WHILE New policies are worked out. It would at least stop the bickering about losing the current build section....--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:30, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Simple, if there is no builds section at all, people will be much more likely to come to an agreement on a new builds section. If the builds section stays, many people will have no real incentive to change it.  --Rainith 23:33, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * And you are willing to destroy the sites popularity just so maybe people would become more clear minded and agree with it? I'm pretty sure that if the section is wiped there will be less people on the site to care about future builds.......... It makes no sense, don't hurt the sites rep. until you are absolutely sure it can be rebuilt without a lot of delay.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:37, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * As I just stated; new policies have been proposed - and invariably fizzled out with no progress. The ONLY reason they have made progress now is because of the threat of the wipe.  Remove that threat, and discussions on replacements likewise vanish.  As for the comment "minority who don't like the builds section" - I say it's the minority that actually likes the current abysmal cesspool of build muck.  Afterall, those who don't like the build section can already ignore it - the "Build" namespace was created originally for two primary reasons:  1) so that those who don't like it can ignore the namespace ... and 2) so that it could be easilly deleted if the experiment continued to spiral downward with no agreements for fixing it.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:39, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Things evolve. I am warning you what will happen once the section is wiped. Just because it was originally designed to be wiped doesn't mean it wont hurt anything, of course the reason its getting attention is because its being wiped, and once it is wiped there will be attention by maybe only the original supporters of the wipe as they try to carve out a build section with a drastically decreased user population..... I can't believe you don't realize the effect loseing this section(even temporally) will have on the population and reputation. Cause I'm fairly certain that a bunch of people are going to leave, I probably will. And I wouldn't be surprised at a increase of blanking and vandalism by P.O.ed people who liked the build section. Edit conflicts FTL--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:46, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Which just shows the immature attitude of those would-be contributors. You vastly over-estimate the number of users that would leave; and honestly, the Wiki wouldn't miss them if all they ever did was builds. The Wiki was not *ever* popular because of the builds section; it became popular before the section existed, and will remain popular after its removal. That's just how things works. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 23:51, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Builds will return in some form - if you don't like one of the current proposals, then suggest a better one and get people to rally behind it (and no, keeping the current failed system in place is not a better one). Eliminating the threat of the wipe will just perpetuate the current failed system, and progress on alternatives will go bust.
 * As to the FUD about the wipe: Even before the build section was added, GuildWiki had higher Alexa rankings than any other Guild Wars fansite. Granted, the new official site makes it likely that this will decrease in the future; but it's questionable if this site will even create a wiki for GW2 anyways - so not a long term concern really.  The build section's reputation is questionable at best anyways - I see just as much mocking of it as support in-game.  And vandalism always comes and goes - then the vandals move on - not an issue when it can be reverted with a single mouse click. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:56, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Absolutely terrible idea. It misses the entire point of the build wipe. The reason no one ever improves the Build Section is because too many people have vested interests and oppose any attempts to change it. This would essentially doom the build section to remain as it currently is forever. If you want a policy before the build section gets wiped go make one or support one. People have had a year to fix the build section at least, now a deadline is being given. -Warskull 23:43, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Agreed. It hurts more than it helps. It's like a lazy half-proposal, so nobody has to do any real work. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 23:45, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Sure it hurts more then it helps, I'll laugh my ass off itf it happens and you are left with a skeleton crew or people to rebuild the sites repuatiotn that you are stomping over. May I redirect you to User:Sefre/Build_Wipe_Petition,GuildWiki_talk:Builds_wipe and many other examples I don't have time to dig up. I;m off to bed, hopefully some others can talk some sense here--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:50, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * You mean the same skeleton crew of 10,000+ editors that were here before the builds section existed? Yeah, we'll definitely be without help then. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 00:09, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Lemme make this clear: I DO heavily support a clear cut policy before we wipe the builds, I would only favor postponing the builds wipe if we don't have a poilicy April 30th, and even then, wipe the section the next day. What it seems you're trying to do, in a very sneaky way albeit, is get rid of the wipe as a whole, which is why I don't support this. If we stop the wipe, then go and test/poll a bunch of policies, guess what, we won't have a clear cut direction for a year or more! This policy you're trying to make would bog down the system tremendously, give very uninformed people an overwhelming amount of power, and generally just make a bigger mess of things.--Nog64Talk 17:40, 4 April 2007 (CDT)