Category talk:Build stubs

How do I add new builds? --Melly 09:00, 23 October 2005 (EST)
 * Easiest way is to go to New Contributions and put the build name in there, save, then click on the build name. --Rainith 09:14, 23 October 2005 (EST)

Should there be a category like "build" (and even "team builds")
I think there should be builds and even 4v4, tombs and gvg builds, but they must be up to date, im pretty sure there r several builds that are not anymore of any use. --HJT 00:49, 27 October 2005 (EST)


 * The problem with a growing list will be the fast determination from names. Even now without any category, i can't spot the builds sense in a second. Lets say i enter the builds section and look for a special kind of build. What is Cupido, ODIN or Hidden Monk? I have to click them and search a while till i might find what i need. E/Mo smiter is a good example for a name, straight to the point.
 * Next thing, what prevents people from posting all kind of builds? There are always basic builds with 3-5 essential skills. The others are situational. With the vast amount of skill combinations, the build section will swell without any limit. -- Nemren


 * Hmmm a very simple solution: Append the professions. E.g. "Cupido (Mo/R)" instead of simply "Cupido" --Xeeron 14:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Xeeron, we should rename all the entries to the formato "Mo/R - Cupido", so we see all the builds ordered by Main Proffession. I can do this work if you agree. --Nektar 13:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Would be nice =) --Xeeron 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been working on this and we are almost there now. Do we want to make it "Pri/Sec - Name" or just "Pri/Sec Name"? I've been doing the latter and will continue to until I hear otherwise. It's not hard to change in any event. --GraceAlone 03:32, 16 February 2006 (CST)

To edit or to vote down?
The way I see it, many people are submitting "their" build right now, which is all fine and good. But we should agree on a way to deal with builds that are percieved as sub-standart (other then letting them rot in the stubs category). We could either vote down builds, or edit them. Editing may change the very intention of the creator of the build, but I still think it is superior to voting some builds down. Opinions? --Xeeron 14:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think we need some way of judging the builds so that we know when to move them to their respective categories. Right now things are just sitting in the stubs section and not much is being done about it. I guess I'm a little "gung ho" at the moment and want to see the section cleaned up but it would be nice to move some things to the builds directory where they should be. --GraceAlone 18:56, 16 February 2006 (CST)
 * A few of the builds are obviously bad. We should have a system akin to the one for promoting to unstubbed status for deleting builds. However, if a build looks semi-plausible, you should try it out and give it the benefit of the doubt. Shandy 19:00, 16 February 2006 (CST)
 * At what point are we deeming a build worthy of being "unstubbed?" At the moment it just looks like they sit there in limbo; I don't mind testing the builds that I have the skills for, but I assume we don't just want the opinion of one person. I'm just not sure at what point we're moving a build to the category instead of a stub. It would be nice to get some things moved over as that cat is looking a little "thin" at the moment (IMO). --GraceAlone 20:22, 16 February 2006 (CST)
 * Well, in the past we had the problem of too many people entering builds and not enough testing them. Basically a build sits in stubs till either: Someone comes along, calls the build crap and sets it up for deletion (and noone disagrees) or till more than one person positively comments on the build on the talk page. So whenever you see a build that you know will work drop a line on its talk page. =) --Xeeron 21:58, 16 February 2006 (CST)
 * Sounds good. I'll start testing these when I get the chance so that we can clean this up and hopefully get them moved or marked for deletion. --GraceAlone 23:33, 16 February 2006 (CST)

Capitalization
Some of these are in title case, some of these are not. Why? Pick one (preferably lower case)! &mdash;Tanaric 20:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Standardized Format?
Should we be looking at Moving all of the builds to a standardized format to create a more uniform look. I agree with arranging them by the Primary Class. I think we should look at seting up a format to be used on all of these builds. Comments Xneff 01-06-05 3:54pm EST


 * Well there is currently a vote on my usertalk page (maybe I should move that here), so please wait with rearranging till that is over. However I fully agree that both ordering by primary class and a standardized format are desirable. --Xeeron 12:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with standardized format and arranging by primary class, but for the builds that have also a specific secondary the article could have the class combination (like "E/Mo") in its title, for example in parenthesis after the build name. That way people looking for builds for specific characters could find those builds more easily. Just my $0.02. --Sorya 04:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I've finished "standardizing" the titles for the builds. All the builds now show "Pri/Sec Title" and I've put the team builds under the heading "Team - Title" Now to just get things moved out of the stubs! --GraceAlone 21:19, 16 February 2006 (CST)

Split category
I suggest this is split into Category:PvE build stubs and Category:PvP build stubs, and any others that are needed 22:59, 21 March 2006 (CST)
 * Disagree. Easier to have all stubs in one place. It should be clear from the article whether the build is intended for PvE or PvP (or else the article should stay in stubs). No need for burocratic categories as long as all builds fit nicely on one page. --Xeeron 01:27, 22 March 2006 (CST)
 * Does it have to be one or the other? I have seen a few builds that are good in both types of play. --Lonely Monk 05:12, 22 March 2006 (CST)
 * Maybe we can have the split but keep a master list of all the submitted builds. So you can click on a catagory link to 'filter out' builds that do not fit what you are looking for. Perhaps PvP should have additional sub catagories including Random Arena/Team Arena, Heroes Ascent, and Guild vs Guild builds. --Draygo Korvan 17:40, 19 April 2006 (CST)

Clean up of build stubs
Vouching for builds does take to long at the moment, relative to new build creation. This category is getting bigger and bigger, while the "real build" categories are still quite empty. And we need new space for the factions builds. So here is the clean up drive:

If you are interested in builds here on the wiki, please go through the builds and put a short note on the talk page saying either


 * unstub if you feel the build is ready to be unstubbed
 * keep if you feel the build is not ready yet, but should be ready with some changes
 * delete if neither of the above

In 10 days from now (the 12th of may!), I will mark for deletion all builds that: --Xeeron 17:26, 2 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Do not have at least 3 keep or unstub notes (old "unstub this" comments will count as well) or
 * Do have more delete than keep and unstub notes

Just a note: It would be great if people could keep an eye open for possible improvements by using faction skills or stuff that doesnt work anymore due to changed skills while voting. --Xeeron 07:16, 4 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm opposed to the call for keeping an eye out for Factions-only skills in builds that were originally designed for Prophecies only. There are many people who will not buy Factions. If you want to use Factions skills also, make a separate variant build article. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 07:27, 4 May 2006 (CDT)


 * If it is only a small change, it could go under ==variants== with no need for a new article. --Xeeron 08:11, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * From what I have seen a requirement of 5 unstub requests is a bit high, especially if there is no 'keep' or 'delete' requests. --Draygo Korvan 10:34, 4 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I wont argue with 4, or maybe even 3 if everyone wants it, but if not more people think the build is worth spending 20 seconds on to vote keep ... then maybe the build is not worth keeping. --Xeeron 17:02, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * What do yo think about just deleting stubs, which get an explicit delete marker.--betaman 05:06, 5 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I disagree. It should be a simple majority case.  How many people that visit this wiki are going to even notice that this process is going on?  The majority of the users do not contribute, will not know how to contribute, and won't want to go through the hassle of signing up.  And then we will lose some valuable information that was deleted to "make room" for other builds.  Seriously, space isn't that limited, is it?  --Delia Rashesh (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I disagree as well (unless I misunderstand what you mean with deletion marker). Builds are always about opinions, which is why they should not be deleted without some form of community involvement. And I think that at least everyone having a look at recent changes in the last days will notice that something is happening. And since this is linked from every build stub talk page, it should not be to difficult to find out what. --Xeeron 13:23, 5 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the Droknar's running builds should be archived somewhere. Who is going to pay for a run to Droks now, when you can get equivlent armor by making it to Kryta? LordKestrel 13:06, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
 * People who don't own Factions? &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 13:12, 5 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Good point :) I forget that not everyone went out and purchased Factions. LordKestrel 17:07, 5 May 2006 (CDT)


 * A now for something completely different: I know I'm outnumbered here, but I will speak my peace anyway. I disagree with this strategy for discarding builds. I feel that most, if not all, of the builds under consideration constitute thoughts and effort, and I think discarding them is wanton and unnessecary. What should be done, in my opinion, is a restructuring of the Builds-related pages to make it much easier to find the various builds that have been vetted and approved, and as an additional resource, for those who wish it, the remaining non-optimal builds should be available in a Dungeon of Discarded Disasters or somesuch.
 * The point is that even though these builds may not be ultra optimal uberleet of doom, some of them contain thoughts, ideas, combinations and inspiration for buildmaking in the future. Throwing it away is a waste and keeping them costs nothing. --Bishop (rap|con) 00:39, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmm, fine with me, expect for one thought: Wont many people feel that we are making fun of contributers and embarrasing if we put stuff into a category Dungeon of Discarded Disasters. --Xeeron 04:34, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Perhaps so. The name could easily be somthing else, I just thought the above was amusing. On the flip side, don't you think a lot of contributors will be miffed if/when we start deleting for good the articles they put effort into? --Bishop (rap|con) 10:00, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm, other opinions on this? --Xeeron 12:39, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * For some reason, people have been extremely quiet on this. On a related note, I feel I should also point out my other suggestion for improving how we handle builds, in case you missed it. --Bishop (rap|con) 12:56, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Sounds good to me. Who knows what bit of information can be an inspiration to a user in creating a build? The Category name would have to be tactful, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any name that could be at the moment. --Gares Redstorm 12:59, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Didcha look at my suggestion for a new builds page? If not, it has my suggestion for a name (Category:Unfavored builds) that's less funny but more tactful than the dungeon. :) --Bishop (rap|con) 16:32, 12 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm seems like we 2 are the only ones reading this page. Some of the discarded builds are deleted already. --Xeeron 05:49, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I added the delete tags, but also a note on the delete page asking admins not to delete them earlier than the 15th. If anyone if in favor of Bishops idea, speak up fast please. --Xeeron 06:01, 13 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Well I like the idea of have a graveyard category that builds can go into instead of being deleted. Sorry I'm joining this discussion so late in the piece and more importantly after Xeeron has gone to a lot of effort to add delete tags. I just think that some builds may take a long time before they're vouched for by the GuildWiki community (they're very specialised, boring to use, whatever) and it's a shame to delete our builds. People often to go a lot of trouble to put up a build although it may have a few problems at first. Before Xeeron got stuck into our builds section it was embarassingly bad so I have nothing but praise for his (her?) efforts there but I do like Bishops idea here. --Xasxas256 07:46, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Perhaps I am not quite as outnumbered in my opinion as I first assumed. In fact, maybe most editors just don't care, one way or the other (which is cool, then those of us who do care can make a decision in peace). Anyway, let me make it perfectly clear that I totally agree with the need for a cleanup of the build stubs. And I think the voting/vetting program is swell. But what makes it so good, in my opinion, is that it makes it possible to do a more clean presentation of our builds. This is what I have tried to do in my suggestion for a new Builds article, including a new category for discarded builds -- which noone, not even you, Xeeron, has commented on yet. Much to my surprise. Anyway; admins, please don't delete any builds untill we have a consensus on this. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:16, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I like having an untested builds category and a discaded builds (aka graveyeard) category. I've also done an Archive here of the builds in Category:Candidates for deletion. --Xasxas256 11:48, 13 May 2006 (CDT)

I am against a discarded builds category because it sends a message that the GuildWiki will keep around any build, even obviously idiotic ones. I would much rather have them simply deleted. It is better to have a small collection of great builds than a large number of builds of varying questionability. Standards are a good thing. 70.20.116.223 23:31, 14 May 2006 (CDT)


 * It won't send that message if we say "we won't keep around the completely idiotic ones". Which I think we can all agree is a good idea. --Bishop (rap|con) 23:35, 14 May 2006 (CDT)


 * But who determines that standard? Take W/N Lone Ganksman for one. Is it idiotic? I say yes. Yet someone obviously put some effort into that article, which might fool the unwary reader into taking it seriously. 70.20.116.223 23:43, 14 May 2006 (CDT)

Deletion
Please wait with those till the above action is over, I just put in the notice so this will not be forgotten. --Xeeron 12:34, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm not going to delete this until the category is empty. --Rainith 17:45, 6 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Delia Rashesh is correct about removing the delete tag, this is now a proper "Stub" category, distinct from the vetting part. --Xeeron 03:52, 7 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Even better. Stub away (or whatever).  :)  --Rainith 03:54, 7 May 2006 (CDT)