GuildWiki talk:Build split

Getting this Implemented, Or Not
There's been a lot of discussion about this up to date, but it seems to be losing some of its direction now. This was never meant to be a panacea for PvP and PvE builds, just a first step in redefining how we deal with them. With that in mind I have rewritten the proposal and slimmed it down to its barest bones, which is to say creating new name space for PvP and PvE builds to allow independent policies to be developed for each.

PvP and PvE play is very different - the game itself separates them almost completely, and it's becoming clear to me that we would do well to do them same. So, the question is this: do we split PvP and PvE builds at this point? We can worry about policies for each later (existing stuff can carry on while something better - if needed - is drawn up), but if we get the split done now I think we'll be laying a good foundation to work from.

I won't call for a vote as I'd rather reach a consensus by discussion. As I don't see how this proposal hurts in any way, but helps in several, I'm hoping that there will be no objections. Please take the time to read the changed proposal before replying here - thanks! --NieA7 05:33, 21 December 2006 (CST)
 * It looks good. It is pretty bare like you said.  I have a concern.  What about all those builds that are for both PvE and PvP - or even better, what about those that don't specify ANY area they are for?  For examples, look at my talk page and you'll see some ranger builds that I marked as "PVP/E?" that are _un_clearly either for both or don't specify at all.
 * Other than that, what about the whole thing that Anet has been trying to say GW is one game with lots of aspects? I'm not one that beleives PvP and PvE are the same mind you but it does seem to be something that Anet tries to convince us of in their statements from time to time is all.  If no one is bothered by it then it's of no concern.  I know I'm not.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:36, 21 December 2006 (CST)
 * This is just designed to create two separate build sections within the wiki - there's nothing here about categorising or deleting. If a build is for both, or its ultimate purpose is unclear, I think it would be best if it were duplicated and placed in both sections. Once the split is complete a purge can be carried out (if necessary) using different sets of criteria for PvP and PvE - that way unclear builds effectively get two shots at success, which is better than most others will get. As for Anet, their intentions are good and they're created great PvP and PvE environments, but just with the way people play the game it's rare that the two collide. For that reason I'm unconcerned about going against what Anet say, as far as this is concerned. --NieA7 09:09, 21 December 2006 (CST)


 * Would you have to duplicate the build, or would appearance in either or both categories be handled by flags, as it is done now? We are just talking about a user interface change at this point, right? -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2006 (CST)


 * Duplicate the build. Categories are useful within the name space, but after all this I think it'd be best for the split between the sections to be complete rather than surface deep. What we're talking about is creating new sections for PvP and PvE builds, so that later on policies, style guides and so on can be developed for each either in conjunction or isolation, depending on how appropriate they are for each other. --NieA7 04:21, 22 December 2006 (CST)
 * I'm 100% for this now. I've realized it'll solve a lot more problems than I first antic...ipated.  Sure it'll need a little baby-sitting when it's first implemented until things are sorted out but it'll help a lot in the long run IMO.  For example, Build:R/W Choking Gas Ranger and Build:R/any General Interrupter cover the same thing but the first is very common in PvP matches exactly as is while the second covers a lot of interrupting builds and strategies most commonly used in PvE.  This would then allow PvP'ers to find the FotM Choking Gas build and PvE'ers to look over the general interrupting strategies.  I realize this is only one example but I can't think of a better one as they both need to exist even though they overlap.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:32, 22 December 2006 (CST)
 * Woot! 1 user down, 6,821 to go! :D --NieA7 13:09, 22 December 2006 (CST)


 * I am afraid I have two issues here:
 * Why is a namespace split even necessary? The author just places a or  in their build and that should be enough to decide how to look at it. If they don't then we have some admin decide which way it goes or simply delete it.
 * If this is in preparation to allow a PvP elitist voting system, then I would be against it. It think the problems of voting on builds arise from the small number of voters who can easily be spoofed. If you go on IMDB and find a movie has a 9.0 rating but just 2 votes, you'll be less likely to think it's great that if you see it has 8.5 but with 6,000 votes. Right? So, voting as a tool for rating only works when there is a large enough volume of voters. In the absence of that, it becomes very easy for Tommy to get his highschool buddies to all vote for his build (without even trying it) and hijack the process. This inherent flaw in voting cannot be fixed by us. As such I don't think voting will EVER be a reliable way for vetting builds here.
 * --Karlos 14:38, 22 December 2006 (CST)
 * 1. I agree that this could also be accomplished by categories, and it would be up to the admins to decide the best way to do this from a technical standpoint, but this doesn't change the intent of the policy.
 * 2. This policy is not intended to pave the way for elitist PvP voting. The PvP elitists have proposed a policy that no original builds should be submitted, only documentation of existing builds played by top guilds (which would possibly work better for professional level builds).  This policy is a response to that, because under that plan, PvE builds would be eliminated, and there are many casual PvE players who would be unhappy with that outcome.  Splitting the sections would allow the PvP players to implement their plan, while maintaining the active PvE builds community which has developed here and can't be found anywhere else.  Furthermore, it would allow the PvE build vetting policy to be revised more easily, and would create a less hostile vetting environment, because the PvP elites will no longer be expecting PvE builds to meet professional standards.  Some of us casual players enjoy build creation and testing as well, and don't mind sorting through a ton of different builds for ideas.  But the PvP players are right that it doesn't make sense to have these builds cluttering up their attempt to document the professional metagame.  -- BrianG 15:10, 22 December 2006 (CST)


 * Hmm, in your response to 2, you said that it does not, then proceeded to prove that it does. I do not think that by separating PvP builds from PvE builds that allows the PvP people to install elitism into the build section. So, yeah, that's irrelevant pretty much. --Karlos 17:37, 22 December 2006 (CST)
 * Karlos, not sure if I follow you. I said it would not pave the way for elitist voting.  The PvP players don't want a voting system, they want to change things to "document" current builds played by top guilds, which, due to the fact that it is verifiable through observer mode, does not need a voting system.  If anything, this will eliminate the elitist pvp votes that are placed against pve builds.  This proposal is simply suggesting to split off the pve builds, so they can make this change, rather than eliminating all original builds from the wiki (which would effectively kill the pve build community here), and then both groups can have their area and run it the way that makes the most sense (to be determined).  Hope this clarifies what I meant. -- BrianG 19:14, 22 December 2006 (CST)


 * 1. Because I think the split should be as obvious and unambiguous as possible without creating an extra, ongoing burden on the admins (we've got "Don't put builds here" plastered all over the place, yet people still put builds on the instructions page. Chances of a catagory being used correctly are zero). It'd take a bit of effort to achieve, but once it was done it'd be self sustaining.
 * 2. It's not a preparation for anything at this point, it's a simple split. Once the split has been done different policies can be put in place for PvE and PvP if it is felt that they are required, but only if they're discussed and agreed as normal. In and of itself this proposal has no impact on policy, in the long run I hope it'll help us in developing better (not elitist) voting criteria that matches more closely the requirements of PvE and PvP. --NieA7 17:45, 22 December 2006 (CST)
 * Eh... I like this policy better now. It doesn't solve anything directly, but it opens a few doors, and takes us a step closer to any future plans we may choose. I'd be happy for a few reasons...
 * 1. Splitting the sections keeps the tinkerers and the "elitists" (thanks for the cheery title) separate, and therefore happy.
 * 2. Both sections are free to do as they please; i.e., implement policy that works for their section. The PvE enthusiasts would focus on getting a better voting system (at least, I'd hope), while the PvPers would be happy with a well-documented build section.
 * 3. This (almost) saves the rep of the Wiki. The majority of people who belittle it are, after all, PvPers - what goes on in the PvE section wouldn't phase them at all. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 01:54, 23 December 2006 (CST)
 * That's exactly what I'm hoping. People are too keen to rush into quick-fixes, it'd be much better to lay out some ground work first. I can't really think of any reason not to do this - criteria in the future depend on discussions in the future, better to let the PvP players talk with the PvP players, and the PvE players to talk with the PvE players. Happiness will then abound, and consensus reached with nary a dissenting voice. Maybe. --NieA7 07:37, 23 December 2006 (CST)


 * I haven't had a chance to catch up with the entire discussion, but I think that this is a bad idea.


 * I will admit I am a little cautious with the proposal that we remove experimental builds from the wiki, but I can understand the justification behind it.


 * I really fail to see the reasoning behind this policy.


 * If this is a proposal that aims to remedy confusion between PvE and PvP builds (I don't know if such confusion exists) then I think that this is overkill.
 * If this is a first step in the reorganisation of the builds section then I think it's a poor first step.


 * Perhaps I am missing some of the details, but even if that is the case I find it hard to beleive that another namespace is necessary.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:52, 23 December 2006 (CST)


 * It is intended to be a first step - why do you believe it to be a poor one? --NieA7 16:34, 23 December 2006 (CST)


 * LordBiro, the purpose is not just to remedy confusion between PvE and PvP. It is because the builds require different methods of submission and vetting.  PvP players do not like the voting process that allows inferior builds to be recommended, and would prefer only to document builds played by top guilds.  This makes sense for PvP but doesn't for PvE, as PvE builds cannot be evaluated this way.  Instead of removing PvE builds to allow such an evaluation process to be implemented, like some people have suggested (GuildWiki_talk:No_Original_Builds), this proposal suggests to split the sections so that PvP players can consider that type of improvement to their section, while PvE players can better consider how to improve the voting process.  It would allow the sections to be run better, and would reduce the hostility in the voting process caused by PvP and PvE players' different skill levels and expectations. Because Guildwiki contains so much PvE information and attracts a lot of PvE players, it should continue to be a home to some form of PvE builds section. -- BrianG 23:43, 23 December 2006 (CST)


 * My opinion, very briefly: PvE and PvP builds aren't fundamentally different. Clearly not different enough to justify separate namespaces. There are some major issues about the build namespace that need to be addressed asap, but splitting the namespace doesn't help with these issues at all. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 09:37, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * I've been catching up on these discussions, and as I posted at User_talk:Fyren, I am not convinced that a policy split is even needed, and a namespace split should only be done if there's a policy split. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:45, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * I think a name space split could be followed by a policy split, the problem is that as of now it appears to be impossible for a overarching policy to be determined. Again, as I've said there User_talk:Fyren the problems seem to be spreading into stuff like Build talk:W/E Starburst Warrior, involving admins, high profile users and many others. My concern is that the build debate will get so vitriolic, so personalised and so unpleasant that other, more objective users will step in and simply call the whole thing off - cull the builds section entirely. I believe that would be a great mistake. I also believe that the way to go forward is in small steps, not in giant leaps. As of now, I can't think of a better way of doing that than simply breaking the polarisation between the two main camps by forcibly separating them. --NieA7 10:50, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * The incident in that build was very poor judgement by multiple parties. Policy fixes could reduce that.  If those policy fixes involve a split in policies, then a namespace split would be warranted.  A namespace split is a giant leap - as you say, take small steps.  By your own words, a namespace split is a forceable separation, effectively forcing down the path of splitting the groups and thus, by your own words, push both to set their own policies.  That is, by any deffinition, a giant leap. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:05, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * I disagree with that line of reasoning, as you might imagine. A big, huge, vast change is changing the policies in the builds section (as can be seen by the volume of debate any proposal rapidly produces). This seems to be the desire of many people. A small change is splitting the builds into PvP and PvE while maintaining the same policies in both sections. That allows for policies to be developed for one or both at any time - effectively giving people a choice, rather than forcing them to come up with a panacea for all our ills in one fell swoop. Small policies get nowhere as people voice their disapproval of something that doesn't fix every problem we have. Big policies get nowhere as they're too contentious to be agreed on. Can't win like that - nothing's going to change. --NieA7 11:12, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Right idea, wrong direction?
I think we definitely should split builds into two types. Not the way it's suggested at the moment, though. The fundamental problem isn't PvP vs. PvE. It's original content vs. documented content. Specifically, having original content makes it harder to sift through documented content. I think this is a problem for both PvP and PvE, actually -- there are just fewer truly canonical PvE builds (but the canonical ones are really canonical). Why not make that the basis for the split?

See my post here. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * Agreed, this seems like the way to do it. Observed/recorded/documented PVP builds, with a high bar for verifying those, and original PVE and PVP builds, functioning the way they do now or with more rigorous vetting. It keeps folks coming here to participate, doesn't defer to self-appointed PVP experts elsewhere, and keeps the wiki-ness of the wiki alive. And it would stop all this silliness with contributors and admins here running roughshod based on little more than their opinion. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.jpg|HarshLanguage]] 01:51, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * Strong disagree. The Wiki has no means to support a PvP build section, and with the overly large numbers of "tinkerers" that think they are PvPers, the PvP build section would sink just like it already has. I'm still opposed to having original builds at all (unneeded for PvE; sucks for PvP), but because everyone wants to keep submitting their mostly ho-hum builds to the PvE section, that's not going to change. But I think we're missing the real question, one I just asked over here...
 * Do we stick to the Wiki policy, and by doing so, have a shitty build section? or
 * Do we throw the Wiki policy out the window in hopes of implementing policy that will make a Build section work?
 * Once we answer the question, we will know how much we are willing to sacrifice to make the builds section work. If we are not willing to sacrifice much (or anything), the builds section will fail... again and again. If people are willing to deviate from strict Wiki policy, the build section might have a chance. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 04:03, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * There are plenty of ridiculously crappy builds on forums, too. At least it's easier for us to mark them as such. The main thing for me is to make the builds that are really important stand out. If we can accomplish that, why the hell are we so dead set on slashing and burning a large and popular part of the wiki? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * P.S. Harshlanguage, I'd really like you to read up on who the people on GWGuru are; the top PvPers in the world. The vast majority of english-speaking PvPers are members of both GWGuru and team-iq.net, and so when you say "defer to self-appointed PVP experts elsewhere," you aren't recognizing the fact that there's nothing self-appointed about their expertise; they truly are the best, and ignoring that would be stupid. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 04:06, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * (to 130.58) Partly because it causes so much heartburn. Part of people being noobs is them not understanding that their builds suck, so when someone like Skuld just throws out "Sucks" as the reason for deletion, they get bent out of shape (even if it's something like a life siphon/transfer W/N, which is a stupid combo for a N/* to begin with). I don't care what happens to the PvE section of the builds; they can suck all they want, and I don't really mind. If they excel, good on them. But "a large and popular part of the wiki" does not describe the PvP section, unless by "popular" you mean "popular joke." -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 04:44, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * People are adding builds to the wiki in rather large numbers. And not just the same few people. That's "popular". And, like I said, lots of the stuff that gets posted to forums sucks ass, too, so what's your point? While we're at it, imagine posting a build on Guru or wherever and the very first post being a mod commenting "Sucks." and closing your thread. That's hardly fun or constructive now, is it? You're complaining that people who you or Skuld don't think deserve even token respect feel disrespected? I don't think that's surprising. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2006 (CST)

But, like many have said before, there are no real documented builds in PvE. Furthermroe, many of the player-created builds in PvE work as PvE is a totally diffrent environment then PvP. Many more builds work in PvE then they do in PvP.--TheDrifter 09:24, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * Which is why I'm in favor of a split. I don't really care about PvE builds, and wouldn't feel left out if I didn't ever see another one... but for the small amount of PvP builds that are effective, they need to be documented and labeled as such (and because running a PvP build that isn't effective is a waste of time, we just wouldn't have those in the section). -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 09:37, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * We do need PvE builds &mdash; Skuld 11:25, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * @Auron, I'm a member of guru and team-iq, does that mean I'm also the best or the 2500+ registered on team-iq that are more than likely registered on gurus as well? It would seem to me that knowledgable PvPers who would like to make the build section better wouldn't act like children or asses when commenting on builds. If a user is a respected PvPer, why tarnish your rep by being tactless at every oppurtunity? All that conveys is that the user is domineering and most likely can not be a team player or likes to have complete control in any battle, ignoring any party suggestions in the process.
 * As to the question of ignoring wiki policy and implementing a new policy. It seems to me as a bystander, that the builds policy is just as much in peril as the builds section. On the occasions I have paid attention to build activities or things that have popped up on my backdoor step, it seems to me that there is no reason for the wiki policy to even be in place, as it is rarely followed. Even longstanding wiki policies such as the deletion policies (GW:DID and GW:DEL) have seemingly been abolished when it comes to the builds section. Policies are/were created to have some order and control throughout the wiki, including the builds section. If wiki policies cannot be followed in the builds namespace, it might just be better for the builds to branch off even further from wiki and have their own domain. Perhaps then the builds section will have more success without being confined to the policies put in place on guildwiki. &mdash; Gares 12:57, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * It seems like the specific thing you mention is an admin problem, Gares (since they are ultimately in charge of all deletions). I do think there are other issues, though. Like the issue of build "ownership". Also, it is fair to say that builds generate more vitriol and resentment than any other thing on Guildwiki (but they're also generating a lot of the edits on the wiki, so, enh, maybe that would always be the case). &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * Actually, my point was that in the builds section, policy takes a backseat to anything else, so to create a new policy or follow old policy as that is the question Auron asked, really isn't a factor. Since the builds section isn't really enforced, creating new or keeping the old policies will have no bearing. &mdash; Gares 16:42, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * There are actually critical documented builds in PvE. B/P. SS (with several noteworthy variants). Renewal nuker. Echo nuker. Ritual Lord prot-y builds. All of these are major templates that the wiki is documenting rather than inventing. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * So I take it this means nobody can use the excuse "this isn't very wiki-like" to shoot down any build section suggestions then? Bout time. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 22:56, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * Oh, and to Gares... yes, that does mean you are among the best. The people on those forums, while they are simply the best at PvP, also excel at builds in general - this spills over to PvE. Being a great PvPer requires one to be able to form and use builds for different situations; and especially, to know the differences between roles/jobs (i.e., you wouldn't use the same E/Mo build for GvG and HA - it'd be pointless). This also means that they can use this versatility and general knowledge of builds on PvE, as well - after all, PvE is just another scenario (in the top five PvE areas, anyway... DoA, FoW, UW etc) in which to think of builds to do specific roles. (This is a big reason I laugh when people tell me to stick to PvP - not only because I've most likely PvE'd longer than they have, but I also understand that the vast majority of PvPers have done PvE, and are better at builds) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 23:14, 24 December 2006 (CST)
 * I agree with you on that. Not that I'm among the best :P, but in all scenarios, be it HA, GvG, DoA, etc, you have your role to play and for each scenario you have to adapt or basically lose. My way of thinking might differ than most. No matter how good a player is, 75% of the time they can't just look at a set and know if it's good or bad. If they try to do that, then they are fooling themselves. You have to know why those skills are in that set. Have to know how each skill compliments the others, what's their combined purpose, and take time to understand how they are used, be it timing and/or target. That's one of my irks with the voting process. Voters don't have to play a build or even comment on what makes a build good or bad, and if they do it's usually tactless. I imagine inexperienced builders posting a build on this site only to see it get ripped apart, i.e. This build sucks - /signed or Delete this as soon as possible - /signed, with no positive comments on how to make it better or to actually why the build doesn't work with that voter. Unfortunately, the wiki is such a busy place, it would be near impossible to be a build teaching school. But it is also not a place for users who vote to inflate their egos by making others feel inferior, yet some see it as such. It says at the bottom when editing, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it, not if you sumbit something, you sign a release stating you can be flamed mercilessly for your ideas. That's one of my reasons for not wanting builds on wiki. It's not just some of the builds that is hurting the wiki, but those that continually feel they need to work with the builds section.
 * But, I have completely strayed from Shade's original post. I will add that if the builds section is to be successful, and I think this kind of thinking is going on in another thread, the section will bascially have to be gutted (taking the time to go through builds and decide if they should be deleted or not), creating an all new way to categorize and keep up with that categorization, and *suprise* stricter rules set in place regarding the submission and community acceptance of builds. And not to hurt anyone's ego, some self-proclaimed build experts on wiki need to take a vacation, because as I said above, it's not just some of the builds that is hurting the wiki, but those involved. I do, however, believe Shade is on the right track with the separation and also by starting small. &mdash; Gares 01:17, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Thanks for your support. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2006 (CST)


 * Auron, put your ego away. So you're saying that guildwiki doesnt have any good pvpers or people that are good at builds? And how would you know this? You are starting to have a elitist attitude towards this issue. I highly doubt that the people on other sites have more knowledge then the members of this site, and you thinking that is based off pure oppinion. Just because you dont think builds on this site arn't good it doesn't make them bad, you seem to think that the normal contributers on the wiki are worthless as far as builds go. Someone tell me that this is not a elitist attitude and a elitist solution?
 * And what is with the "people tell me to stick to PvP"? No one has said that as far as I know, and bragging about your PVE experiance makes you sound more like a elitist, and FYI my original character has more experiance points then half of yours combined(according to your userpage) so please do not brag about stupid stuff like that. The guild wiki comunity has just as much experiance as you and the members of other sites, and just because you think some builds are bad doesn't make them, a build can be pure genious but there will always be critics who dont like it, consider that before you make your highly oppionated asumptions.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 00:07, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Hmm, not putting my word on this issue here, but I'm pretty sure Auron didn't mean there aren't any good players, but rather not enough good players on the Wiki to properly evaluate the builds. The newbies outnumber the vets, which means that every so often, there will be a completely absurd build popping into Tested. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 00:10, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Im sure its happened, but that can be fixed by being voted down, once the unfovured votes outnumber the favoured, if I understand the policy corectly. And bad builds(even some ok builds) get bashed down daily so I doubt theres a big chance for that.
 * A good number of unexperianced people probaly visit the other sites to. But they wont be allowed a say there due to severe flaming by people that are elitist. And they are allowed a say here due to the GW:You policy. perhaps a way to prevent voteing by thoose who are relitivly new to the game or ghame mechanics, but that is unwiki like itself. Realy the only solution would be to set higher standards for builds so that they can not reach the untested section until they are perfected in the view of the author, this would cut down the number of builds needing to be tested and would help prevent bad builds from getting favoured due to increased amount a users able to review. That or removeing the builds section which would hurt the wiki.-- Sefre [[image:Prepared_Shot.jpg|24px|]] 00:18, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * I received an edit conflict, but see my above "short story" for how I feel regarding the builds section and some advice using a brief generalization to turn the section around should that be the case.
 * However, I do not believe Auron was being egotisical in what he has noticed and it is silly to use XP as a basis to judge one's skill. GuildWiki is more open to users, causual or experienced, than any other site. Its a fact. Rate team-iq's site of around 2500+ registered to wiki's 22,000+ users. It's not a question of which site has the better builders, it's a question of how many people can post ideas(builds) on either site. With 19,500+ more users, wiki is naturally going to have more builds that are not quite as thoughtout as others. &mdash; Gares 01:17, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Don't want to say much but I want to agree to this: "original content vs. documented content." --Silk Weaker 01:20, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Who is Shade, Gares? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 04:45, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Me. This me, specifically (god, that's an old picture). Gares is quite used to my IGN. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Yeah, it seems weird using his 130.58 name and I don't believe in using someone's real name on a public forum. &mdash; Gares 20:20, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Bah, you should call him Amelyssan :p -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 20:48, 30 December 2006 (CST)

The reason I proposed the split in the first place was because most of the friction behind the builds section seems to be between people who mostly concentrate on PvP and those who mostly concentrate on PvE. The same builds were being looked at in entirely different ways by different people, leading to all sorts of confusion in talk pages and so on. I thought the split would be a good idea as it'd create two clearly delimited playpens for them all to work in. While having "documented content" and "original content" would be fine, I don't really think it'd be solving all that much in and of itself - the friction would still be there. I forget who suggested it (Karlos, I think) but I prefer the idea of a "Seal of Approval" for builds which are essentially documented. They can sit in their own category within the PvP/PvE split, rather than have the split carried out around them. --NieA7 05:36, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * So how do we go about getting this implemented then? The untested builds section is at a great point where there is very little left in there and I think it best to strike while the iron is hot.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:11, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * I agree, now is the time. At least give us a chance to see if we can run a PvE builds section well, and if it is still a mess, THEN switch to "No Original Builds".  If there is too much resistance to creating a second namespace, I think we should try to duplicate the idea using categories for now as a trial run. -- BrianG 14:27, 29 December 2006 (CST)
 * If we want to go ahead as a name space change I'm fairly sure that only people who can tinker with the server (Fyren is the only one I can remember off hand) can do it... Once it's set up it's a case of manually moving/copying all the relevant pages into the different spaces. --NieA7 18:37, 30 December 2006 (CST)


 * A namespace split should only happen if a policy split takes place, which I am not yet convinced is the right direction to pursue at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:49, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Ok I've spent the last half hour going over this stuff here's a few points of mine: I don't see how the Build Split or the No Original Builds proposals help us. As I see it the main problem is that people don't always extend enough courtesy towards each other when commenting on builds. Behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated in other sections of the wiki isn't punished. Don't view the builds as a race where you have to get the good builds in as soon as possible and the bad builds out as quick as you can.
 * There's crap build/players in all forms of PvP, including GvG. I've seen mending Wammos in GvG as well as Frenzy Heal Sigging. Stop staying "anything works in PvE." Which is harder to write a new team build for? Clearing the UW or beating a rank 5000 guild in GvG? PvPers are not superiour.
 * All this talk about only having top 100 guild's builds is not workable. What if the Ranger Spike guild falls out of the top 100? Is the build no longer viable? Look at some builds that were run very effectively by top 100 guilds like Ranger Spike and Blood Spike, it's totally out of date. FoC spike and Eurospike never got written up, nobody seems interested in submitting these builds anyway. Look top 100 guilds often don't run particularly exciting/amazing/unique builds compared to everyone else, it's just that their skill, coordination and understanding is that much greater.
 * After reading all of the Build Split comments I still don't see the advantage. People can test PvP or PvE or PvP and PvE builds, they don't need to be split up.

Look people are more likely to get annoyed in the builds namespace because you're commenting on someones build. In the other namespaces you're only changing someones edit. People feel a greater sense of ownership of their build. I think that us admins need to crack down more on the personal attacks, put downs, mockery the seems to be occuring too frequently on the talk pages of builds. Don't think of commenting on a build you're commenting on somebodies build. Somebody who's taken some time and effor to write it up, you don't need to put them down even if you're voting against the build. Also be aware of the fact the the submitter may not be as familiar with the wiki as you are. --Xasxas256 11:22, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * I see your points and agree with most of them but I still see the benefits of at the very least just the split of PVP and PVE builds. For example, there is the Build:R/W Choking Gas Ranger build and the Build:R/any General Interrupter build which cover the same thing.  As the CG build can be used the same in PVE as in PVP it could be that the CG build doesn't need to exist as it's covered in the General Interrupter build.  BUT, the General Interrupter build is mostly for PVE and any PVP person might not give a rats patoot about looking at all that stuff in there just to gleen the relevant PVP info.  If the builds were split as is being discussed then the existance of similar builds but for different uses would be justified (as opposed to duplication at the moment), as in this case where the CG ranger build would be for PVP and the Genereal Interrupter can be classified as PVE even though their information overlaps.  IMO this should then allow the PVP'ers and the PVE'ers to look for their own type of gameplay build rather than looking through PVP/PVE combined builds that offer more information than is needed.  I also believe that this will help voters better identify if it's a PVP or PVE build as they will have to be submitted first as such and not decided later or voted on as a PVP when it was intended (but not marked) as a PVE (or vice-versa).  Too often these days a build is marked as PVP and PVE when it clearly functions better in one and not the other.  I think in this case different builds should be made for each - one for PVE with PVE counters, variants, tactics, etc. and one for PVP with the same but for PVP.  I know I'm tired of looking on a build (playing a lot of PVE like I do) only to find that it's really a PVP focused one and doesn't function as well as it should.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  12:59, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Those two build could just as easilly be merged in a single namespace with templates to title/flag PvE vs PvP content within builds. The use of better constructed templates and refining the existing vetting procedure would accomplish all you describe without the need of different namespaces.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:09, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * But as I haven't seen any title/flag templates or a refined vetting process (or a proposal for them) I am agreeing with this proposal to split the namespaces as it should accomplish the same thing - or at least I'm assuming it would, not having seen either of what you mention (if I missed something please point it out). Nie generally continues with my feelings below.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:23, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence :p --NieA7 13:40, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Last time I looked at least one admin was joining in the personal attacks, not cracking down on them. The advantage of split is that it gives flexibility to the policy discussions that it currently doesn't possess. As of now virtually every policy discussion comes down to a fight between mostly PvP players and mostly PvE players, and as such will never be agreed on. Worse, categories don't show up on untested builds so voters don't necessarily know the specific environment they're designed for. A name space split would allow the policy discussions to actually be discussions and would greatly clarify the voting process. --NieA7 13:16, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Personal attack issues should be handled at a site-wide level - a build split should have zero impact to how that's handled. Attaching categories and templates can work quite well if better structured; that does not take a split, nor even a massive overhaul of the current procedures and policies.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:28, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * What I mean is that if this split goes ahead I believe it will reduce the frequency of these personal attacks, rather than lead to them being dealt with differently. Most of them come about due to friction and possessiveness, while splitting does nothing about the possessiveness it should do something about the friction. Categories and templates work in the builds section, but only to a very limited extent. Saying that "if everybody used them properly" is ignoring the problem, the problem being that not everybody does. The "How to write a build" page gets overwritten by a misplaced build nearly every day, yet that page is literally covered in warnings against that. Builds are frequently miscategorised, leading to misdirected "debate" on the talk page as well as others having to regularly go through and check that everything is categorised properly. If all our contributors had your level of knowledge as to how this all works then yes, a name space split would be overkill. Unfortunately, they don't, nor will they ever - saying it can be done with better use of categories is ignoring what happens in the build section every day. --NieA7 13:40, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * But everything you described would continue regardless of multiple namespaces. Builds will still be created in the wrong places, mis-categorized, etc.  A namespace split will not solve that.  New users will still be lost, and experienced users can begin using improved templates/category definitions just as easilly as a new namespace.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:50, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * The examples I gave were to show that pushing categories harder - which you seemed to suggest with "Attaching categories and templates can work quite well if better structured" - will not work. We have them now. They're not working. Increasing the complexity of their structure will not improve things. A build split will make it easier to understand - specific examples can be created for PvP and PvE builds, and it'll be unequivocally obvious what environment a build is designed for. Things will still be created in the wrong place, this will not make that situation better or worse. How it will help is in allowing users to see instantly what area a build is designed for, and in allowing editors to to instantly see what criteria they're voting against. It's so simple. It's so easy. Once the split is done anybody can move a build into a new name space, so it's not like we're asking for an overwhelming effort from one person. It's an elegant solution to lots of niggles we have now, as well as being a really solid foundation on top of which new policies can be discussed and decided. To be brutally honest I can't really think of a reason not to do it - it's not a cure all by any means, but I can't think of a negative side to it. It's true it won't fix all our ills, but then again nothing will - why don't we move towards achieving something, rather than just discussing it and getting nowhere? --NieA7 14:02, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * The current ones do not work because they're poorly designed. Improved category/template design can resolve that without the need of a namespace split.  For example, no user should need to tack on a category tag.  It should all be handled by a single template.  Add the categorisations within the untested template (and the tested and unfavored templates for that matter).  The modified templates, much like the skill bar template, can easilly flag within the "untested", "tested", and "unfavored" messages at the top exactly where it's intended to be used.  Then, only the "tested" tag would actually auto-assign the build to the relevant categories.  This also eliminates the problem that, currently, the category tags must have the build name attached to them - a cumbersome process that if left off or if not changed with a build name change results in mis-sorting - a problem that can be avoided by doing it all within the template at the top.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:30, 5 January 2007 (CST)

As much as a better build creation template might help things out sooo much it still doesn't exist and I don't see anyone stepping up to make one. I mean, forcing a category (like RA, AB, PVE, etc.) or even other info when creating a build would be excellent but I don't know that's even possible. I mean, It'd be like picking your options from a drop down menu for the basics of the build and then filling in the "body" of it as you desire. This would automatically require the build type (RA,GvG, etc.) plus profession(s) involved, skills, etc. and would plug that into a build template for you. Sounds great but I don't know the wiki can achieve such a thing for a general user who doesn't even know about any of the template options already existing (besides the one they all know skillbar). What you speak of sounds perfect to me if I interpretted it (though very loosely - sorry about that) correctly but also impossible. The limited abilities the templates have to offer here on the wikki won't be able to achive the same results in my opinion so why not split the builds up in 2 (or even smaller categories for RA and GvG, etc too) just to stop the cross arguements and bad voting?--  Vallen Frostweaver  15:52, 5 January 2007 (CST)


 * No, not a massive build master template with dropdowns which would be impossible. I'm only talking about an update to the existing "untested", "Tested,", and "Unfavored" templates.  This is quite doable, and not terribly complex, at least not compared to many of our existing templates.  As you said before, little steps.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:04, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Care to elaborate on the ideas you may have (as to their function or change rather than the actual code)?--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  16:20, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Barek, please see my comment at the bottom of the page. Can my suggestions be implemented in a simple way by changing these templates? -- BrianG 16:25, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Brian - I agree that regardless of if a split eventually occurs - a better category/template structure is needed just from an ease of use perspective. I think that this cleanup could accomplish a great deal towards the same goals as a namspace split proposal.
 * Vallen - I'm still fleshing the idea out in my mind - and some of the mechanics of the code/template would need to be resolved yet. I'll post a bit more later today. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:49, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Thanks Barek. When you think of something feel free to post it here.  I'm out for now.  Too stressfull.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  16:57, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Barek, I'm glad you agree, maybe something useful can result from all this endless text. :) If I have time this weekend, I'm thinking of making a mock-up of what the Builds page could look like with a different category implementation.  If I make any progress I'll let you know and maybe it will line up with your ideas for how to do things on the code side. It also might be easier to gain support if people can see exactly what it will look like. -- BrianG 17:44, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Final Decision
I still believe that splitting the name space is the right way to go. Over the last couple of months most users associated with the build section have shown absolutely no signs whatsoever of being capable of agreeing to any policy, in place or proposed, and further are spending a large amount of their time being professionally unpleasant (Build talk:W/E Starburst Warrior, to name but one example). Against that background it seems that the only possible outcome is the removal of all builds (save for maybe a token few famous PvP and PvE builds), which would unquestionably be a mistake in my eyes - it was with that in mind that split was proposed. Better to act now and save what we have than continue to be paralysed by bickering only to sink into the abyss.

However, it appears that this view is in a minority, and rather than keeping on and on about an idea that has no support from the people whose cooperation and effort would be required were this to be implemented, I would rather have the cat fight debate continue into fresh territory.

Would anyone object if this policy were moved from proposed to recently failed? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by NieA7 (talk &bull; contribs) 11:02, January 5, 2007 (CST).
 * Provided that the PVE/PVP split is then freshly discussed on a new policy page, I don't mind. There's too much irrelevant info, and pages and pages of discussion on and off the topic to discern anything anymore.  Discussion is nice but I still like to place a vote as to what I am for or against.  I just want a split of PVE/PVP and nothing more for now.  Not all this other stuff that clouds around changing the builds section comletely.--[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:03, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Well that's what I want too, but it's clearly not going to fly with the people that matters. I don't see much point in just saying the same thing again in a different way, it's just going to result in the same outcome. I can't see another viable way forward, but I guess all the people saying we don't need this can - we'll just have to wait and see what they come up with and whether it's something we can get behind. --NieA7 13:11, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Ya, I'm pretty much in the same camp. Categories, Namespaces - doesn't matter, but we need better delineation between PvE and PvP builds and that delineation must run through the entire process, the sub-games are just too different to the people who play them. But if a small split like this isn't possible, I don't see what is. Vallen's cripshot example was perfect. That Cripshot ranger is a good PvP build, but I would prefer a different interrupter in PvE. Merging the articles just makes things unclear (those articles already both have a lot of good information pertaining specificly to each build). I guess you can use their example of coexistance as an argument that "the system works", but that ignores all the arguing that goes on in the discussion pages about people taking the builds out of context. -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * I'll agree that splitting PvE/PvP builds is sensible - as for the PvP builds some arrangement will be needed; although there is a bias in the high-level PvP community against RA (and some derision) many people do enjoy RA and AB play, and having a place for builds for these venues is needed - even though they are generally nothing that would be run in a GvG or HA setting. Separating PvP further by type of play will hopefully stop people from shooting down a good GvG build because they would see it fail in RA, and vice versa. --Epinephrine 14:30, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Well, it seems that the admins feel that a namespace split is going too far, but based on Barek's comments it seems like there may be support for attempting a category based split. I suggest that this proposal be revamped to instead call for a split of the untested, favored, etc categories based on PvE vs PvP, or based on even more specific play arenas.  I am really not experienced enough to understand the exact best way to do that, but perhaps once we have decided on that direction people can collaborate to pull it together.  Frankly, even if the friction between different types of players didn't exist, a category split would still be beneficial from an ease of use perspective.  If I am a PvP only player, and I want to help out by testing builds, why do I need to look through a list of all untested builds to find the PvP ones?  If I am a PvE player and want a build that is guaranteed to work, why do I have to look through all favored builds to find the PvE ones?  What good are categories if we can't easily pull up a list of all untested PvP builds, or a list of all favored PvE builds, etc.  Perhaps if this change is proposed from an ease of use perspective, rather than a "solution to friction", it may have a better chance of finding aproval.  If it happens to smooth out some friction as well, all the better. -- BrianG 15:08, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Just to have this answered, what does this accomplish, anyways? We already have PvP and PvE in different categories. This just looks like they will be in the different categories, but instead they'll be with some fancy box at the top of the page. &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 16:53, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yep, that's exactly what it's about. I want a fancy box. :p --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  17:01, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Seconded. Fancy boxes for the win. --NieA7 17:25, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Rapta, we currently have PvE and PvP categories, but they include both favored and unfavored builds, and are commented out of the untested builds. That means I can't see a list of all favored PvP builds, or all untested PvE builds, etc.  Which means frankly that I hardly ever use those categories, as its easier to sift through untested or favored.  Better categories would allow people to focus on testing the type of untested builds they specialize in, and allow people to find the type of favored build they need. -- BrianG 17:40, 5 January 2007 (CST)

OK, I'm about to move house so this'll be the last I'll say about it over the weekend. To sum up, I think that the current category system does not work. There is not reason to assume a new system of categories would work any better - it is largely wishful thinking on experienced contributors part to believe that the categories would work if they were only reorganised. They won't work, ever, because they are not easy for people new to the wiki to understand as a principle. On top of that, it's pretty clear that no policy put forward at the moment is going to get approved - no policy can be a panacea for PvP and PvE players as they have very different desires/requirements. In an effort to simplify the process of submitting builds, as well as laying the foundation for separate PvP and PvE build policies to be created (should the community as a whole feel they are required) I believe the build space should be split into "PvP Build" and "PvE Build". This split is an elegant, simple solution to many outstanding issues, as well as being an excellent first step towards the solution of more complex matters. The amount of effort required to get from here to there is not great, and would pay off in spades in both the medium and long term. There is no downside I can see to this idea, and as of now none has actually been presented that I can recall - objections all run along the lines of "it's not necessary at this point", rather than there being a fundamental flaw. I believe that it is necessary at this point, and any attempt to use categories instead will result in more confusion, more inconclusive debates and no concrete improvement in the builds section.

Build split for the win guys, talk to you again in a couple of days. --NieA7 21:20, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * Rather than going in circles, I'll only state that a simple review of the above discussions make it clear that a build split is not nearly as elegant of a solution as you portray it, and that many appear to question its value at this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:26, 5 January 2007 (CST)
 * This isn't even a policy. It's a proposal to put such "boxes" atop a build page. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 19:52, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Okay to close?
The proposal is still listed as an open proposal at GW:POLICY. Do those originally involved on this still want to propose this namespace split, or have the modified untested/tested templates adequately addressed the concerns that spawned this proposal? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * They have from my perspective (that is, the perspective that didn't care for the way "no original builds" would hamper PvE build sections), though I don't know if the PVP'ers concerns regarding build quality have been adaquately addressed. Still, I'll let those people fight their own battles. -- [[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png|25px]]Oblio (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2007 (CST)