GuildWiki talk:Builds wipe

Links
Just to make sure everyone knows what/where everything currently is: More info: -- Peej 20:29, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Builds wipe (this page) - policy describing deleting all builds so that a better replacement build system can be started
 * Post No Builds - aka PNB - policy which only serves to protect the Build namespace in the interim between the build wipe and the replacement system being put into place
 * For clarity, I've included what will be the new policy into the builds wipe article. PNB is no longer referenced in any form. &mdash;Tanaric 19:48, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * No Original Builds - aka NOB - policy describing a solution to the PvP build section which involves only posting popular and successful builds found by watching observer mode
 * Profession archetype guides - recently written policy describing a solution to the PvE build section which involves documenting the basic uses of each profession in a guide format, with links to true PvE builds in user space
 * Builds wipe does NOT mean that all build posting will be permanently removed from the wiki, just that the current system of build posting will be removed in order to put something better in its place
 * Post No Builds doesn't mean you can't post builds on the wiki, just that you can't post them in the Build namespace
 * Both NOB and Profession Guides suggest original builds and build variants can be placed in user space, where they will be categorized and (hopefully) easy to find using template tags, so creation of personal builds will still be allowed

Opinion Poll
The question is: "Are you in favor of Guild Wars:Builds Wipe?"

Voting "Yes" means you are in favor of GW:Builds wipe. Please vote only if you have an opinion, do not add a "Neutral" section. Please also add a comment if you have something constructive to say.

Note: This poll is about the wipe itself, not about the policies that might or might not be implemented after the wipe. Please bear that in mind when voting.

Favor:
 * 1) I'm in great favor of removing the build section.  Though I have many reasons for agreeing with this choice, the most important reason is acuracy.  With as often as Anet is altering, nerfing, and boosting skills, 90% of builds that go up have allready been rendered useless.  If we're to keep up with the build section the people who keep guildwiki running will need to go through every single build and be sure the skills are still acurate on a nearly monthly basis.  The only way I can see the build section becoming feasable -and- reliable, is if some timer was added to each post, that auto-erased them after a month or so.  Otherwise the section will always remain choked full of builds that no longer work due to nerfing.  Also, the build section is only encouraging every to play an assassin and use the lame BOA build.  Ugh, for the love of people with a brain and their own amount of creativity, please do away with the build section. -Avatar of Eris
 * 2) - Echo ftw 17:12, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Thought about it a lot and I vote for reorganizing with interest in getting the section BACK anew. I support the Build Split policy.(Edit: I don't care about namespaces, I care about having a section) I am also of the opinion that user comments are very valuable to any build discussion pages be it negative or positive. Voting for builds is not important but the amount of discussion and comments a build arises is. --BooBoo 17:32, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) -Jinkas 17:41, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) As might be easy to notice, I favor the build wipe as it will give us a fresh start to implement a new policy. All builds will be backed up, so we wont be losing anything in the process. If the community so decides, it would even be possible to revert the builds section to it's original state, although I hope that wont happen. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 19:02, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) Gonna lose some LOLs, but I think I can live with that. --Thom Bangalter 19:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) Like Thom said, going to lose some massive LOLs, but I think I can live with that as well. Although the builds section in gwwiki is useful, it doesn't cause anyone to actually learn about the skills in the game and about skill synergy. Any person can come on, unlock the elite, buy the skills, then use the build without even knowing what they're doing. Although I love the builds section, deleting it will probably cause people to actually think about what they're doing in their own builds, and possibly *gasp* make their own damn builds.--LolEtc 19:23, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) I think Thom put it the best. --Theonemephisto 19:38, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 9) Anyone who wants to save builds can save them. The builds section is not permanently gone, and even though there is strong critism (even by me) it is still the best way to go; nothing is perfect, and of course any build can be retrieved by admins if necessary. Those who think that losing the builds section will reduce the amount of visitors is correct, however, people who are GWiki "Read Only" users do not know well enough to search Unfavored builds as well when looking for ideas, etc, and usually stick to the favoured section. Our vetting process is flawed enough that many good builds are unfavoured and many bad builds are being favoured.-- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 19:45, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 10) --Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 20:33, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 11) Completely necessary. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 21:58, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 12) &mdash; [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  22:22, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 13) Thelord23 00:34, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 14) Though it makes me sad, I relize that it is necessary. Readem  (talk *contribs ) 00:59, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 15) --Vazze 01:26, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 16) With so many poorly vetted builds, and so many near-duplicates, it is almost impossible to find anything unless you already know what you're looking for. The current system is flawed and needs to be redone from scratch. -Ellisthion 08:05, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 17) Yes. --Buzzer 08:33, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 18) As much as it saddens me to say so yes I am :o(. --JP 08:52, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 19) While I haven't been around and never paid much attention to the builds sections, I trust the ppl making the decision when they say things aren't working. -PanSola 11:12, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 20) I have used the build section myself in the past, but it's turning into quite a mess. edit : forgot to log in. Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 14:18, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 21) &mdash; Hyperion` // talk 15:26, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 22) Im in favor of a build section policy renewal.--[[Image:vik.PNG]] ( √ iktor ) 18:51, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 23) The build section needs a wipe - there are too many useless / broken / duplicate builds, and the current system doesn't let us weed out the ones that are poor, they just sort of... accumulate. I personally favor No Original Builds, but this has to come first :P --Phydeaux 19:03, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 24) Normally, I'd unfavor it. But I've had SO many noobish votes on my builds(although more then 75% are favored in favored:unfavored ratio) I want the wipe to start NOW.&mdash;[[Image:Cheese.jpg|50x19px]]  Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 21:23, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 25) I certainly am in favour, I don't feel that the wiki should be a build repository for every build that 5 random people feel is ok, it should more highlight notable build that are quite well known. Although, I guess that is a talk for later? As for now, I feel the wipe is a good idea and will give the wiki a fresh start in the build section, and give it the oppportunity to build it up better. El Cerouni 23:31, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 26) I favor too and the good chance to this might by that, that there is limit to add builds and no more can be added until those have been tested Jope16 04:16, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 27) Duh &mdash; Skuld 09:42, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 28) I'm reluctant to vote, since that seems to be one of the primary reasons the Builds section is being trashed in the first place. But what the heck, if my presidential vote is not going to get someone good into the White House, maybe my vote here can at least make a difference. Here's to hoping. Blazeroth 10:07, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 29) Support. Although I didn't give a million arguments, nor do I intend to, the main reason I support is here. --theSpectator talk 19:14, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 30) I'm sure we'll have a better Build vetting system in the future, similar to the offsite testing site, with vetting requirments and such. -- Llednar [[Image:Assassin-icon-small.png]] 13:23, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 31) I agree, the build section has become basically trash. Ive seen lots of really imaginative builds get put down simply because it seems the entire wiki feels the only good build is wammo. Lots of the builds that do make the cut are utter trash. Healing Hands wammo?  Please... --Ryudo 22:01, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 32) Foo.
 * 33) The entire build section here is rather messy and can be done a lot better. I feel that having builds on the wiki is a good thing but it is in the best interest of the wiki to wipe them all and re-do the entire build section. MonsterAar 19:53, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * This sort of arguement makes no sense to me. I mean, my bedroom is messy and could be done a lot better too. Doesn't mean I should DEMOLISH THE ROOM and rebuild from the ground up now, does it? My cat is old, extremely picky with his diet, and requires daily medication, should I just kick him to the curb and get me a new cat? I can think of tons of things that aren't perfect, that doesn't mean the best way to improve them is destroy them completely and then make a new replacement one, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean destroy it before a replacement has even been FOUND. DKS01 03:56, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) I suppose a fresh start would be nice. With all the changes to the skills i bet some of the builds no longer work anyways.--Aqiunas [[Image:Aquinas_sig.jpg|15px]] 20:47, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) I believe that a lot of good can be done with the builds wipe. like it's been said before, most of the "classic/original" builds will survive in some user's archive, and i figure it's also an extremely effective wakeup call to the builds posse (the bunch that i like to nicely call : The hyena pack). These guys need to get the message that just because they can bitch loud doesn't mean they are always right.  And people dissing builds without having ACTUALLY TRIED THEM OUT piss me off. The builds posse need to learn to be civil again, they need to stop being a fucking clique of self pretentious bastards, and frankly having them sit down with the rest of us to rebuild the section on sound policy appeals to me.--Lullysing 21:00, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Calm down. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 04:41, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Quite frankly, I'm tired of people who seemingly abuse the current vetting system without testing the build or giving constructive criticism as well as some rather bad builds getting favored or good builds getting unfavored because of this. --NYC Elite 15:34, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) I still think Voting in a more controlled form can work.  May I suggest that you all look at http://www.anycraze.com/deck_start.asp  This is a website for voting on Magic the Gathering decks.  This concept is not that different than voting on GW builds. ImperialMike 15:55, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) One more from me. -- Ab.Er.Rant  (msg Aberrant80) 09:45, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Although this site has a very nicely organized build section, the vetting process has just gotten to be absurd. The group that seems to decide which builds stay or go is too small and there is too little as far as any kind of rating system besides approve/ disapprove. The point is that though I feel that there is a place for builds on this site, the current system is completely out of control and if wiping it is what it takes to make this better then by all means, please do it. --Stone
 * 5) I think this is healthy for the game.  No more OMG that build is not from wiki!!  God forbid people have to learn what their own skills do and how they synergize to come up with a build.  --Rururrur 03:48, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Your gaming experience must be MUCH different than mine, cause I have NEVER seen anyone complaining about someone NOT using a Wiki build. OTOH, I have seen DOZENS of comments along the lines of "LOL noob using wikibuild" or "LOL noob wiki build user LMAO" DKS01 06:58, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

Unfavor:
 * 1) Are you EVEN kidding me?! There shouldnt be a wipe, this is where me and alot of my freinds use actual research that we rely on to find the new builds before ANET nerfs them!!!! :(
 * No, there should be a NOB Build section and an OB (Original Builds) section so people can have their cake and eat it too. A consensus will not be reached any other way, as both view points cannot have themselves established without violating the other. Therefore, two build sections should exist, and a build wipe should not take place. Isis In De Nile 17:47, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) - Wyvern 18:16, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) I'm against a total build wipe as it removes an essential and generally relied upon source of information to the general users. Despite the complaints and "problems" with this area according to some users, a total wipe is unnecessary and counterproductive since the proper builds/guides will have to be made all over again. Furthermore, you miss out on the history of the discussion pages if any and the variants (and the discussion of those variants) which may prove helpful. This isn't a vote on future policy so I'll leave it at this. PlacidBlueAlien 18:46, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Just a quick note: moving an article preserves it history, so we are able to back up everything without losing information. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 19:04, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Retort: Simply moving an article isn't the issue. Backing it up somewhere on someone's user space is also does not solve the underlying problem. It's still won't be widely available as it is now since this is a wipe which means to imply starting over again. If this policy was called "Transformation" instead of "Wipe" and reflected as such, I'd support it in the interim till a total new policy is hammered and agreed to. Not to mention, it kills off the section for awhile. PlacidBlueAlien 19:37, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) The section might not be perfect, but it give ideas to players who already understand the basics. Only having "popular builds" and basic guides will not give any benefit but to a small few players. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 19:21, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Complete and total waste of time IMO. If you're going to get rid of it and make it impossible to post builds, my make a new policy? Just scrap anything related to it. Adzma 20:28, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) --Grievous jedihunter 20:38, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Build Wipe=Goodbye to guildwiki and welcome arenanet wiki, atleast for me, if they don't have the same ideology that is. At least don't wipe and ruin this before a future can be shaped out to apease the build comunity. Saving builds into user archives only causes a mess and wont solve a single problem, will ruin the current community and activeness in and out of builds. The current system is better then pissing off almost everyone in the build section. --Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 21:30, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) The system is flawed, true, but that's not a reason to destroy the entire thing. The current system of US democracy isn't perfect either...should we eradicate it too? (yes, we should-AoE) DKS01 22:22, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) Completely idiotic. Unfortunately, most of the people who oppose (and some who support) this aren't going to post -- they're anonymous, and have a lack of faith that their opinion matters. The petition has far more signatures than this. Darkahn 00:16, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) Oppose. Alternate suggestion: full-protect all of the existing build pages and allow no new builds.  Nobody edits or submits builds until a policy is decided on.  Mass deletion is not going to make anyone happy; it's going to drive the people who have submitted builds away from the site.  ... Or ... is that your goal?  Hmm ... --Delia Rashesh (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) I am against it at this time. Although I see and recognize the need that it MUST eventually take place, I feel that performing a wipe before a new policy has been decided upon, and ready to be implemented, is short-sighted, counterproductive, and possibly harmful to guildwiki overall. The reasoning behind this is simple: From my experience and discussion with MANY other GW players, the Builds section is in fact one of the most popular, and useful, stops on the GW-Wiki train. This is despite the Admin's claim to the contrary. My suggestion (if it even matters) is to simply LOCK the section and not allow further updates until the new policies are decided and in place. THEN commence your wipe and rebuild from scratch as you see fit. Talia 01:27, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 9) Oppose w/ caveat. i realize u guys have major problems maintaining. but wiping w/o a plan already in place to replace what was wiped is completely wrong. do not wipe if u don't know exactly what u're gonna replace it with. if u're gonna replace it w/ NOB, then mess around w/ that on the side until u're happy w/ it and then wipe the current version. also, do u realize how crazy it is to have a poll on an issue where one major issue is voting itself? if u care about ppls votes, then why is there a problem w/ the voting system? if u think idiots vote on the builds, then why concern urself w/ this poll? it makes zero sense.Wongba 01:35, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The poll was started by User:Nova, it's nothing official. Like everywhere else on this wiki (minus the Builds section), the final decision depends on the sanity of the arguments and not numbers of each side. *not even bothering to vote on this one, since it's irrelevant*. --Dirigible 01:40, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * This poll propably has no effect because a date has already been set and the decision is already made but it's important to hear the citizens. --BooBoo 03:07, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, this is purely for opinions of the general public. The results of this poll will not affect the final decision, it is just to see what the majority of the users think. -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 15:39, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Move the GuildWiki:Builds namespace to GuildWiki:BuildsArchive disallow edits, and new posts. This allows for the new policy to be implemented for GuildWiki:Builds yet still allows users to view the current builds. --Emo 07:35, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Reasons stated throughout this discussion. -- BrianG 11:33, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Consider creating a legacy builds section, so the helpful build contributions are not lost.  I agree with previous comments that even locking the section and creating a new one with new rules might also be a good option. --  10:43, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) While the builds section does need a massive overhaul - there's too much junk like smiting monks and people favoring their own builds - this is not a good idea. It makes the wiki far less useful to me until new builds are up. When I need a build, I alt-tab out of GW, open up all builds for a primary profession in tabs, and browse through them, filtering manually until I get down to a small group, then choosing one for the task. This is completely impossible on the GWGuru forums; forums are totally unsuitable for reference purposes. As for what should replace the current system, perhaps only experts accredited by the Wiki 'staff' should be able to do any favoring/unfavoring, because at the moment the build maker and a couple of people who can't tell their henches are doing all the work can favor a lousy build. That, plus frequent wipes of abandoned unfavored builds, should be able to keep the build section useful. Failing that, a comprehensive GW:NOB is the second best choice. Issa Dabir 14:34, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) While I do agree the builds section needs work, I don't think taking it down completely is a good option. It's a bit like throwing out all your dishes and buying new ones after dinner instead of cleaning the old ones.  Sadly though, I don't think any amount of effort on the part of those who want save the builds section is going to work. Those in charge have already decided what they are going to do and everything else is just window dressing. And, going with my analogy, I suspect the new dishes will be PVP only. Anyone have a link for arenanet wiki?  Area 54 09:37, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) I have relied on the builds in GuildWiki for a long time and am very disappointed that the builds will be wiped. There is no need for a wipe, only an overhaul on the format to add some features if that is desired. I enjoy the builds here, rather than the other resources, like GuildGuru, which is horribly undermaintained and outdated. Dracon 09:51, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) Before the GWWiki, I would have gone with this instantly, but now... why the hell bother? Tired of the Build section? Go somewhere else. There's no point pissing half the GWiki viewers off to accomplish very little. &mdash;  Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 13:49, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Crossed out my vote: something came to me. Oh yeah. I didn't really care in the first place. >.> &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 16:17, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) There are a lot of builds in the build section that aren't mainstream, but are creative and effective nonetheless; having them relegated to user space would mean they would be lost to the general public. --Ctran 01:00, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) The build section is an invaluable source to new players, even if it needs to be trimmed or revamped it should definitely not be totally erased.--Melonhead901 03:36, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) No. --Ressmonkey 19:31, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) So let me get this straight, we are voting on a policy that is against voting? We are arguing about a policy designed to prevent arguments. Does anybody else think that's silly? If the "authorities" have ruled that they don't want to be bothered with discussions, then this entire page is absolutely pointless. The very fact that people are heatedly debating it makes it "valid" under the point of view that Guild Wiki is for documentation and not debate. THAT is the only thing worth arguing about. The rest is frivolities. NightAngel 20:36, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No, this really shouldn't happen. For starters, this website has a better feedback (discusion) than all the other builds sites. I would say, most people use this site mainly for the builds and therefore wiki would loose some viewers. Furthermore I wopuld visit wiki much less aswell, leading to alot of abandoned user accounts. Torment 04:04, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) If all of the builds in the current builds sections were archived somewhere in an accessible and usable form while some better policy is formulated, then I'd be fine with a builds wipe.  Something obviously needs to change.  But throwing away (or making much less accessible by tucking away on scattered user pages)a bunch of useful information is not the answer, imo.  So for now I oppose.  I'd prefer that the info in the current build space just be locked and/or moved to an archive area while this is hashed out. -- Aubee91 11:54, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) I'm disappointed that the Builds will be wiped. I have found the discussions on Build/Talk pages about how skills interrelate very informative and often more important than the recommended build itself.  I mostly play a PvE Ranger - I personally would never have thought of the Feverish Archer or Solo Totem Axe Farmer builds.  I've read that the wipe is a temporary step until new policy is formulated and I can see the problems with voting and with the posting of inferior or duplicate builds.  However, after the months of discussion that have taken place, I can't forsee the development of policy that will satisfactorily resolve these problems.  Finally, the NOB policy supports the PvP player, but does not help the PvE player.  While acknowledging the wipe as an inevitability, my preference is to keep the Builds.  &mdash;  Ali ( talk )  15:53, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) To me, the idea of saying "Other sites do builds better, so just go there" is just horseshit.  Can you imagine Yahoo saying "Google is better at searching, so just go there"?  GuildWiki is pissing away a big opportunity here.  Caspian 20:10, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Noooooo!!!! This is the only part of GuildWiki that I even use... I agree with Caspian though ^^ Go4the1 03:08, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) Wiping it out is a bad idea.  It should at least be archived until we have a proven new policy with many builds created under that policy.  Having users archiving random builds makes in impossible to search (multiple copies of builds all over the place).  Also I think this site is by far the best for finding builds.
 * 6) I love using the build section as it is.  I'm not a PvE player I only play the PvP game.  Without the Build Section where am I going to get my RA builds =[.  I noticed that the new policies will not have RA builds and this disappoints me greatly.--Magus 00:35, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe you could make your own RA build instead of copying everyone else's? *shock* --Ryudo 09:40, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Why do you assume I don't? I never said I didn't make my own builds you're just jumping to conclusions.  The RA section is great for ideas.  Furthermore by your statement you could say that you're against having a build section entirely due to people not making their own builds.  Now if you could, please post constructively or not at all.--Magus 20:03, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Build section is an amazing thing. It helps newbies as well good players. Anyway the site will lose many accesses after erasion. Mine first. Sjeps
 * 2) Right now I don't see GuildWiki agreeing on a format for the builds section, so I think we should keep the builds section on till then. All the good ideas are chopped down and strangely half of the people think voting is a bad way of doing things.  If GuildWiki does decide on the Profession guides, the builds section would be no more.  The number of Unfavored votes seem to be rising, so i'm going to add mine. Giangn626 19:21, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) No Builds, no difference from the offical wiki. I'm now tired of the "it's neccasary" crap, why is it neccasary? Many of the favour poll users are abusing this and archiving there builds, so I have no idea why they would want to archive them and delete the builds when the builds could have been kept there but the policies worked on. I know what the U.S constitution has many flaws, that means they get rid of the whole thing? Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 11:10, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) omg--who gave you guys the right to delete what MANY of us use on nearly a daily basis? It's a community resource, and considerably easier to use and reference than ANY b.s. site mentioned as already existing as being better than GWiki for builds. Of course it isn't perfect. But if you want to change it, keep what you ALREADY HAVE until you decide wtf u wanna do to replace it, then parallel the two versions, then if agreeable to the community--and only if--THEN delete the old. --Queen of Spades 22:21, 12 April 2007 (CDT) additional edit, re: one of the early FAVOR voters (Lol ETC): "Although the builds section in gwwiki is useful, it doesn't cause anyone to actually learn about the skills in the game and about skill synergy." Your Mama tried to teach you to think, but she could not think for you. Does that make you the FAILURE you appear to be? Maybe, but ANY resource can be used in multiple ways, and who the HELL are you to say people shouldn't just read builds and use them mindlessly? The other sites referenced had even LESS discussion of guiding how the skills work, and what variations were possible. and who give a rat's rear what 'everyone' does? if some people learn a tremendous amount about builds here, as I do, and how skill synergies work, is that because the people put forth effort? what are you going to come up with that make people LEARN when they don't want to? NOTHING, else your Mama would have been able to teach you to think. IMHO. --Queen of Spades 22:27, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Hey, don't you be talking smack about my Mama! --Dirigible 22:54, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) reguardless of the extent of the damage, it is always easier to repair then rebuild. no one would consider smelting new metal for a busted bumper, and wiping the build section is akin to tossing all the aluminum in north america in favor of new aluminum from a trendy-er country. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 22:57, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Sarah has a way with words that I lack. I shall borrow hers instead. --Armond Warblade (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No doubt Ms. Sarah has a way with words, but alas I must point out that her metaphor (or allegory, though I'm always reluctant to apply that label) is less relevant than it might seem at first glance. Perhaps repairing is less time-consuming and more economical in certain cases, such as Ms. Sarah's wonderful example using aluminum. But the build wipe is not aimed at trying to restore a broken builds section. Instead, think of the builds section as a run-down, graffiti-covered, termite-ridden burnt out shell of an abandoned abode stuck in the roughest hellhole of Detroit (and yes, I know what that looks like, I've lived in Detroit). You could go ahead and try to restore that (the foundations are still sound) but there's really not a point. Might as well take a wrecking ball to it and start over (perhaps making it bigger and better than it could ever have been before). Now, some might see my example as taking the metaphor to an extreme; but if mine is sitting on one end of the metaphorical scale, then Sarah's is on the other. In the end, both are exaggerations (and if Aristotle is to be trusted, then virtue might be found in the mean), and both are simply used to illustrate a point of view. You are free to believe either case, but allow me to conclude by noting that it's easier to hold on to what you have rather than let go and make a grab for something better, but if the former was the attitude people had taken at various points in history then we might all be riding horses instead of cars, America might still be in the British Empire, and we might not be playing Guild Wars on this wonderful thing we call the Internet. -- Blazeroth 19:43, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Same as sarah.
 * 2) A LOT of people come to GuildWiki mostly for the builds, and while they look at other stuff too, the builds section is really a popular place. Deleting it will likely cause a heck of a lot of annoyance with all the members of GuildWiki. I know it's only for a short period, but as I said before many people come here for the builds, and going through loads of user spaces to find the right builds isn't gonna make people happy. I just want to add, if the Builds section is deleted, it had better be restored quickly or many people are gonna get really really mad, and never come to GuildWiki again. After all, without the builds section, it's good, but not amazing. Not good enough to stay as a Guild Wars speciality fansite in my view.Dervish Mazta 12:41, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) Builds is the reason I use this wiki and not the official one. If builds go away, there's a 99% chance I'll leave GWiki. It'll be worthless when I could use the official. Daltin Wentsworth 15:28, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Yeeeaaaaah, um, see there are idiots, idiots like me who need builds to bounce their originals off of. Like i sadi, i use it, im probably on the builds section more than the others!--Kurzspear '' 15:53, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yep, adding on. Definately using the official Wiki. It may not be as thorough as this one is yet, but hey, it's a wiki. Daltin Wentsworth 14:44, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 1) Builds are why I use this wiki. If 10% of the builds are not top tier it doesn't really matter to readers.  The half of the users here who don't use the builds section and want it to go away should just not use it rather than imposing their policy on the other half.--Mont 16:01, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 2) Surely a build limit per month or something better can be implemented. --DragonWR12LB 21:40, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 3) I live in the build section, thats the number one place i'm at on the wiki followed up by the skill section. Heck, if what I love so much goes away, so will I. My life will be torn apart! I visit the wiki to check up on new builds once a day, I even created 4 tested builds in the farming section! please don't do this foolish thing. Yes, I think that there are some builds that need to be deleted, but not them all. For example, the builds that don't work "great" anymore like the Build:Mo/E Divine Spirit Spammer should be move in the archived section with it... seems that this vite is 50/50 about! :) Trevor3443 18:31, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) of course some of the builds are posted in the wrong manner and some become obsolete after nerfs, however, this remains one of the best build collections around. some builds will work, some will not. leave it up to the users to sort through them. wipe is a very poor answer for a minimal problem.
 * 5) NO! And I'm starting builds only wiki with FULL and COMPLETE copy of Build namespace here. Evryone are welcome to help. Gcardinal 23:58, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) Not that my opinion will be read or even considered, but does it matter whether the build is 'accepted?'  I don't like playing as a touch ranger (which is accepted) or as a vermin farmer While each is suitable for a specific, or arguably limited, purpose--time, place, etc..  The knowledge of what is out there matters and lets others derive enjoyment from the game.  Guildwiki is superior in ease of navigation and user participation (Guildwiki generally is what people answer when a question is raised in the game...).  I have quoted Miyamoto Musashi many times, “By knowing things that exist, you can know that which does not exist” (pardon the bad translation).  Even bad builds let people know what MAY not work and lets them move on with more information.  Fact:  builds, like experiments, that do NOT or MAY NOT work provide valuable data to users/researchers on which (classes/skills/etc.) to use or not use for future builds/experiments.  Therefore, I argue the data, even if not 'liked' by the admins in its current form, is valuable to the community as a whole.  In my opinion, deleting the build space reduces the value of GW--the answer will now be, "See Guildwiki.org AND Buildwiki.org (or whatever alternate domain is selected) because you can't get all the data in one place..."  Build it and they will come.  You have, and they have.  Now please don't go and undo it...  Since it WILL be deleted on May 1, I suppose the best we can get is an official fork?Manos Lijeros 11:04, 16 April 2007 (CDT) 11:00, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) Find a suitable replacement before deleting peoples work? Like many others, the builds pages are one of the main reasons I visit this site --SK [[Image:Assassin-icon-small.png]]  11:14, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) I use the Builds page as a source of inspiration.  While the Build namespace is empty, hunting through User pages for some build I vaguely remember seeing one time is crazy.  I think that the number of people archiving builds, and the number of builds archived by users has to submitted as strong evidence for keeping the Builds section.  As I understand it - and I'm a casual user, so I probably don't - the primary problem with the Builds section was the voting process.  I liked the voting.  Or at least, I liked votes where the voter explains why they voted the way they did.  Otherwise I ignored both positive and negative votes.  I suspect that the only real change that's necessary for the Builds process is to not have votes count toward deletion (but otherwise leave all else the same, including 'Favored' and 'Unfavored' status).  The basic premise of a Builds section where the builds are created with community input seems entirely in keeping with the Wiki spirit. AnticDevices 13:42, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
 * 9) Without a builds section, there really is no compelling reason to continue to visit this site over the now "official" guild wars wiki.  Nuking the Builds section is the beginning of the end for this wiki, and the thought of destroying such a vast wealth of information is reason alone for me to make it a point never to re-visit after May 1.  After the nuke, in place of a "one stop shot" and a great community, your disenchanted users will split themselves between the "official" wiki and the soon-to-be "builds" wiki.  R.I.P. Guildwiki. Jaofos 15:01, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I guess people will never learn to read. It clearly says on the wipe page that a new policy for builds will probably be made by the contributors, so the section will be back soon enough. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:30, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
 * And you have continually failed to read that the new policies under discussion are not what WE consider a build section. NOB and Prof Archetypes is NOT a "build section", and those are the 2 replacement policies that have been pointed out to us repeatedly. DKS01 17:49, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Then propose another, or cry more? :-/
 * 1) An absolute no SilentFry April 16th, 2007 8:47 PM (EST)

Now, where is the db dump
Not sure if this has been mentioned before here, but of course, anyone who disagrees with the build wipe would be free to copy the build namespace and put it up somewhere else, maybe attempting to create a separate build-only wiki. Maybe this would be a good time to make a database dump available (as has been discussed before), before everything is gone? DeepSearch 04:56, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


 * That is a good point. I'll donate space to host such a dump, and I'll talk to Fyren to try to get one on the last day in April. &mdash;Tanaric 18:56, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Just wanted to say that I'm building a build-only wiki now. I have about 30-40% done, and I think I will finish it by the end of the week. Anyone interested in running it together with me are free to contact me. I think you what you guys are about to do are sick and I WILL do something about it. Gcardinal 22:17, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I would be interested in helping with this. DKS01 23:25, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * As long as you don't mean vandalism, you're free to do anything about it :) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 23:27, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I would also be interested in helping. --Armond Warblade (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't have a lot of time to give to a builds page, but I would love a link to the page. Thx Area 54 09:01, 14 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I'd be happy to help with this issue. While I am not a 'build expert,' I am happy to help with html/editing/css/testing of builds, etc.  Information is a terrible thing to waste...Manos Lijeros 10:14, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

Building "Builds" only wiki
More info about making a new builds-only wiki can be found here: Building "builds" only Wiki. Gcardinal 09:19, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm almost finished. I have registered a domain, fixed hosting and wiki startng to look good.
 * I have made complete copy of Build: namespace
 * Complete copy of Template:
 * Copy of all skill Image: + some must-have image's.
 * #1's page will be the same as Build:Main_Page
 * All links will be linked to GuildWiki using interwiki (almost done)
 * If you wish to become admin or want to help, message me. Gcardinal 23:15, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

Why was this page mostly archived?
I may have missed consensus on this, which is why I'm not simply reverting, but traditionally we only archive dead conversations, not ones that are still underway. &mdash;Tanaric 18:58, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I archived all the old discussion that hasn't gone anywhere. Gem pulled the ongoing poll out of archive (good catch btw, I missed it). The rest of the discussion had ended. Revert if you disagree, but the 160kb page was getting too long to navigate. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 19:09, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I hardly consider my RA/CM discussion old. It was started yesterday for crying out loud...--Magus 20:45, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


 * On a page as important as this I would recommend not to archive a section until it has been stale for well over a week, perhaps longer.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:45, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Unfortunately, this page isn't ultimately that important in the long run. The admins don't really care what we think, they made their choice to wipe the builds and that's what's going to happen regardless of anything posted here. DKS01 05:11, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * ...? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 05:11, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I assume the ? means you're wanting clarification on something? If so, you'll have to be a little more...verbose, as I honestly don't know what you're wanting me to clarify, sorry. DKS01 05:29, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Of course it is important! Regardless of whether the build wipe happens this page holds a lot of opinion from various people about what they do and don't like about the builds section.


 * And to say that the admins don't care is extremely offensive. I've been checking this, NOB and PNB regularly since the builds wipe was first suggested, as I'm sure most admins have, so please don't act as though we don't care when in fact we merely disagree.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:45, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * A lot of opinions that support the decision, which are listened to, and a lot of opinions from people who do NOT support the decision, all of which have been completely disregarded. We can't even get a REASON for the wipe beyond "it's not working perfectly as is", which last I checked is not exactly a reason for a complete removal of something. As for you taking offense, I find the decision to wipe the section offensive, and it's obvious they don't care about that, so I guess it evens out, doesn't it? If they TRULY cared they would have asked for community INPUT about the build wipe on the main page, rather than just one day posting a note that essentially says "hey, this section a lot of you guys use is gonna be deleted in a month, there ain't shit you can do about it, have fun". DKS01 05:55, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Why do you keep saying "they"?


 * The idea of a builds wipe was suggested and those that were involved in the build policy's were asked their opinion. Tanaric then proposed a very reasonable time frame, which was altered and condoned by a number of others, that would allow enough time for users to voice their concerns, and also allow enough time to A) see if the rest of the community was entirely opposed to the wipe and B) see if anyone could come up with a strong and persuasive argument against wiping.


 * A has not happened, there appear to be more supporters of the wipe than there are detractors. B has not happened, no one has come up with a good argument to avoid the wipe.


 * As for why the wipe is happening, let me put it this way; if the builds section produced really good results but it caused a lot of NPA violations and aggro then we could say "at least the results are good". If the builds section produced bad results but everyone was really friendly then we could say "well the builds section might be full of rubbish but at least it doesn't cause any harm". As it is the builds section is neither high quality nor a friendly place to contribute.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:31, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * About a timeframe for users to voice their concern, many of us never HEARD OF THIS until it was posted on the main page. Not ONCE was there ANYHING posted on the main page(or even the main BUILDS PAGE) about the possibility of a build wipe until AFTER the decision had already been made, rendering our opinions moot. And I suspect that was deliberate, you admins wanted a wipe, so you kept it under the general wiki-user radar until enough time had past that you could just announce it, then claim "we gave you a chance to object and you didn't, now it's too late". About more supporters than detractors, umm, we have about the same number of votes here, and if you check Sefre's no-wipe petition, there are signees there who have not signed this one, which would cause the number of detractors to equal or surpass the number of supporters. We've given repeated arguements about why NOT to wipe, conversely, you have not given us any to support it. Every reason given so far is "it's not perfect", which has been countered dozens of times already. I'll give you credit for at least trying a new logic, that the section has violations of NPA, although I sorta think that would be the user's fault rather than the section's. As for it's results, doesn't that TOO fall upon the users? I've had great success with both favored and unfavored builds, and I've had poor success also with both favored and unfavored builds. I've also had poor success with unfavored builds, altered the builds a bit, then had success with the offshoot build and conversely tried alternate versions of good favored builds and failed miserably. Again, not the fault of the section, the fault of me and my play style. There IS useful information there for a great many people regardless. Additionally, ANY area where a variable topic is up for discussion there will likely be arguements, so no matter WHAT system replaces the current one, the exact same problem will likely exist there. People don't (usually) argue on the talk pages for Fellblade and Shinobi Blade for example simply because there's nothing really there to debate. The max damage will always be the same, the weapon class will always be the same, the usefulness of each will always be the same, so the only thing people can argue about is if the weapon looks "cool" or not. I mean, there's still people who argue about touch rangers and barrage rangers, and both those are already listed as "acceptable" according to the profession guide... DKS01 08:12, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * The point I was trying to make is that this period now is the timeframe. This period is when you can try to change our minds.


 * I thought my argument against the builds section was pretty sound. Apparently you do not. I don't think there's much I can do about that! :P


 * This is not new logic. Many other users have mentioned it previously (quite regularly IIRC) and if you look through most of my arguments against builds I have had the following problems with the builds section for some time:


 * It's subjective content.
 * A build is "owned" by its author, meaning it's not owned by everyone, like other articles on the wiki.
 * It causes a lot of problems with users arguing because they think their build is great.
 * The quality is low.


 * I agree with you; I've had success (and failure) from both favoured and unfavoured builds, but doesn't that just prove that the criteria that we have for vetting builds is broken?


 * I strongly believe that user builds should not be vetted because it causes a lot of problems. I also believe that we have a duty to provide content of a high standard. If we cannot vet user builds then we should not publish them. I could cope with them existing in the user space, on the provision that it was made clear that the wiki as a whole did not endorse a particular build, i.e. by not linking to user builds from the main namespace.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:39, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * But the decision has already been made. It's essentially been stated this is just to see how people react, and won't change anything, so how is this period now the timeframe? It's already apparently set in stone regardless of how people react, which may very well prevent people from discussing it in the first place. *I* only posted here when I saw the announcement because, frankly, I tend to be arguementative about things that interest me, and the build section interests me greatly. Were I not the naturally arguementative sort, having seen that announcement I would have just sighed and accepted that the admins decided to do it, and there was nothing I could do about it so why waste my time debating something that's already been decided upon.
 * True, it is subjective, but there is still useful info there, and much work by many people has been devoted to it. Despite it's flaws, it can still be extremely useful and helpful, so it should remain. Additionally, I(and apparently many other people opposed to the wipe) would have no problem with protecting or locking the section so people couldn't add more to it. This would also solve the NPA problem.
 * A build becomes public domain when the author publishes it here. If he doesn't want his build possibly changed, disapproved of, or whatever, he should keep it to himself, or share it somewhere with his friends or whatever. This is clearly stated when posting an article, any belief otherwise is a problem with the user, not the section.
 * Anything subjective causes those arguements. The proposed policies for the new builds section will not change that. As I said, people still argue about barragers and touch rangers, and those are considered "proven" builds. I even see people argue about MM's from time to time, one of the most desired parts of many groups. If there's any form of build section at ALL here, you will have people arguing. Even "vetted" builds are still subjective, so if subjectivity is reason to remove builds, there should be no build section here at all, in ANY form. And if that is the route that this wiki is taken in, I would accept that as well, I just would no longer see why I should use this wiki over the official one.
 * Yes, there is low quality stuff there, but there is also high quality stuff there, same as many other sections of the wiki.
 * I agree vetting is broken, but a complete wipe is not the way to fix it. If my comp speakers die, I'm not going to shelve my printer, hard drive, monitor, etc and build a new computer from scratch...and even if I DO eventually decide I wanna get an entirely new computer, I'm not going to get rid of the old one and be completely without a computer until I already have the replacement one ready to go. We do not even have a replacement policy ready to go yet, so until THAT issue is resolved a wipe seems premature. Leave the current section as is(or locked/protected, if you feel it necessary) then when a new replacement IS decided on, wipe away. I may very well not like the replacement either(I know I don't like the proposed ones so far), but I'd at least accept the fact that one had been decided on, and then I could decide whether to continue using this wiki or switch to the Anet one. With the current version, the decision is already being made for me, I've very clearly been told in this discussion that if I don't like the decision I should go somewhere else, and once the wipe is done, I very likely will. This is frustrating, because prior to this announcement I had fully planned on completely ignoring the Anet wiki and sticking with this one, but now I find that this one cares even less about the community than the Anet one does, so I've lost much of my motivation to stay here. DKS01 09:20, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * 1) Protecting such a huge area of the wiki is infeasible and not an option. If you which to make a static copy of the builds section you are entitled to do that now, but this is a wiki, and as such we cannot easily protect an entire section. Additionally I don't think it's possible to prevent new entries in the build section, so admins would have to run around and manually remove new articles.
 * 2) It's not public domain, but you are right, that's how people should behave, but they don't. And it's understandable that they don't. Allowing users to post their own builds means that there is some presumed ownership. No one could claim to own an article in the main namespace, like Word of Healing, or Tyria, but in the build namespace people do act as though the builds are their own, and as long as people can submit their own ideas they will always act that way.
 * 3) I don't agree with you there. I think a system where common builds are the only ones that are vetted would cause less problems than allowing anyone to submit a build. For a start this reduces the level of ownership; no one can claim to own Touch Ranger, but you could make an argument that Stabber is the author of Build:R/N Touch Ranger. I have to say I also agree that if we cannot make something like NOB or the guides policy work then it proves that we can't have subjective content and we shouldn't have any builds.
 * 4) Where is the low quality content on the rest of the wiki?
 * 5) This isn't fair, I only made 4 points :P I'm sorry you feel that we do not care about the community opinion, but again, I find this quite offensive since I've spent a great deal of time today trying to explain the reasons behind the wipe after you claimed that no one had done so, and I've read your arguments thoroughly and tried to respond to them fairly. If you decide to abandon this wiki then I think that would be a shame, but I do not agree that we don't care about the community.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:07, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Other large areas have been protected in the past, why is this one different though? Is there a reason why it would be harder to protect that page than the main page for example?
 * I've seen people get defensive because the image they uploaded for some article or another was replaced by a different image. I've likewise seen build authors have no problems with their builds being altered or changed. Why should the section be removed because some of the users don't understand how the wiki works?
 * Sure, you could make an arguement that Stabber is the author of that page, and you could make an arguement that I am the author of the Sunburst Spear page but neither article belongs to either of us. This is clearly stated when an article is posted, and if the author feels he owns the article, it's a user problem, not a section problem.
 * I've seen item articles with no images(and at least one instance of a green having the incorrect stats listed), I've seen skill pages with incorrect progressions, I've seen mission pages that give awful info, you can find low quality stuff scattered about. I try to fix what I can as do many other people, there's just more of it in the builds section simply because there's MORE of the builds section.
 * You are one person, and you are the ONLY one even trying to give a reason beyond "it's not perfect". And even you haven't given a reason why the section shouldn't at least remain UNTIL a new system is ready to be implemented. And again, I believe if the admins(as a whole, not just you) truly cared about the community they would not be deleting one of THE most useful parts of the wiki(and the only thing that sets this one apart from the official one) and going against the wishes of a large portion of the community simply because it's not a perfect system. DKS01 20:57, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * In response to your number one, I would ask you to give an example of when "Other large areas have been protected in the past..." as I cannot think of any. As for your assertion that the Admins don't care about the community, I for one don't.  (*gasp* Oh no he dinnit.)  I care about the wiki as a whole, the "Guild Wars community", not so much.  --Rainith 21:38, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Do not Remove Random Arena and Competitive Mission Builds Post Wipe!
The primary reason I'm concerned with the upcoming wipe is related to the RA and CM builds. I do not see a reason not to include them once the build section is restarted. I personally know many individuals and friends who love these PvP build categories and wouldn't have anywhere to go on the internet for an alternative. The alternatives you gave on the Build's Wipe article are not sufficient. Nothing will compare to the Guildwiki's RA and CM build sections. Please include these sections in any new policy you decide upon as they are as valid as any PvP venue in guildwars.--Magus 01:34, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * i'd argue the RA/CM builds are the majority of the issue. the problem is the over-proliferation of builds (some 1700 unfavored builds, mostly RA/CM), not the play style of builds. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 01:37, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Honorable Sarah, I do not understand why RA and CM builds should be blamed for that problem. That is a policy problem not a PvP build problem.  Do not get them confused.--Magus 20:22, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * See my response to your comment on the NOB page. Anything works for RA. ANYTHING. Just use a solid split-capable build from GvG and you'll find it works fine in RA. There aren't any builds that only work in RA; that's why we don't need to document them. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:37, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Not everything works in PvP there are builds that do and do not work. There is a myth that everything works.  As you have said before certain builds overlap such as GvG runners.  These builds work well in RA.  You are of course saying that one build would work better than another with contradicts your statements.  I have a hard time understanding the hate with this community against Random Arena and Competitive Arena Builds.  --Magus 20:20, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

I would like the wipe as it would improve upon the quality of builds in this wiki. I however do not like that you're not restarting it with all PvP categories like it is now. Random Arena and Competitive Arena Builds should be documented. I cannot give a favored vote due to the new policies removing viable builds sections. The Wiki is a place of documentation. Lets keep it that way.--Magus 20:42, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No offense, but wtf are you talking about? Runners probably have the least overlap when it comes to RA/GvG builds. Once in a while, you will get one of the two maps that have obelisks in them, and the run from flag spawn to obelisk takes about 10 seconds without a speed boost. Runners are ultra specific, being designed only for flag/relic running . Possibly with a little bit of party support, but the effectiveness of that support diminishes greatly with smaller teams (i.e. HP, LoD, Extinguish, Aegis). I don't see how I'm contradicting myself when I say that one build is more effective than another, especially when I really exaggerated the example of a bad build to make my point. In short, people hate RA/CM because they are so random. You might roll against a team of 4 or 8 of the worst players out there. When that happens, you can probably beat them with a build that requires no skill, thought or synergy whatsoever to play. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]]

Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:30, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry I ment "GvG split-capable build" as you said before, not runners. You're right SOME people do hate RA.  But you also must realize that SOME people love RA.  You know, you don't have to visit the RA/CM section if one is remade.  You don't have to hate it just ignore it like it is not even there.  You sound as if you're going to go to ArenaNet HQ and strangle the person who designed RA and CM PvP.
 * The Wiki is a place to document everything about guildwars. No part of the game should be excluded as every part is equally important. The developers wanted Random Arenas and Competitive Arenas to be a part of their game design.  It should be our duty as a wiki community to complement their great game with non biased documentation and resources.--Magus 04:29, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, if you want RA builds, provide them. Give us some examples of popular, unoriginal RA or CM builds that we would be missing out on documenting with this policy. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Will it take a year for the Build Section to Mature Post Wipe?
I'm curious of how long it will be before the build section becomes useful again after the wipe. How long will it take for each PvP section to be populated with new builds equivalent to the amount we have now in the build section? What I'm afraid of is waiting a year for the build section to mature. If this takes forever to happen most people will just go to other sites and I'm afraid that Guildwiki may lose quite a big chunk of their audience.--Magus 20:56, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Based on how much people have backed up, if we get a system up, I bet we could get most important builds up in full within a week. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]   22:34, 12 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No one has to back up anything, I thought Admins could retrieve deleted data -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Just to get a few things understood.
Basically from what I have read is that the builds will not be deleted, just the whole process how they will be added and setup will be deleted? Is there some possible way I could keep links to the builds for later research? B.N 03:37, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * No, they'll be deleted, the admins will just have backups in case they decide to bring them back, though the 2 shitty policies that have already been thrown out there as replacements(NOB and Profession Archetypes) insures that only the most mindless, play by numbers cookie cutter builds will actually get reposted. The only way to keep links to the builds you like is to post them on your userpage, or find someone else who has the build you want posted on their userpage. DKS01 03:42, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Actually, a lot of users are archiving builds on their userpages so they will not be deleted. When a new, more effective policy is in place, those builds will be readily accessible should they be allowed to be moved. It seems that a lot of those opposed are blaming this action on the admins, and that is fine. Users have to blame someone, so why not the admins of GuildWiki. For those that say they plan to basically boycott GuildWiki, remember, while this seems bad right now and some of the proposed policies are not what most of you like, they are not final and just because they are proposed does not mean any of them will be the new builds policy. Patience, understanding, and a level head is what is needed from everyone right now and I hope that in time people will see that this will allow for a better builds section for users to look to for the best possible information to help them to play the game more effectively and for a more positive builds community. &mdash; Gares 11:32, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Us users aren't blaiming all the admins Gare, we are blaiming YOU. It's ALL your fault, jk :) I don't see why so many users support the build wipe, yet archive a ton of builds regardless. Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 11:38, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * They're saving them for a better policy, or personal use &mdash; Skuld 11:54, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I've been quiet about all this and watching it unfold, but it seems you have found me out. I am the mastermind behind the decision. Bwah, ha, ha, ha! :P


 * To expand on what Skuld said, I am positive this is for the best, regardless of the drama it has caused. I think others do too, which is why they are archiving most of the builds. I don't think the section will be gone for long. Just until a new policy is in effect and with the number of people voicing their opinions now, I will hope they will also voice their opinions and ideas to help come up with a new policy. My view is that most of the builds are being archived for standby for when the new policy is in effect so they can be easily moved should that be apart of the new builds policy. &mdash; Gares 11:56, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Ok, that seems to be an easyer read than most of the articles(alot shorter too :P). I guess all I want to know now is why delete Everything and not just all pages linking them together and keep an archive that is accessable to people that know how to "dig" for them? Like if the Build:Main Page was deletded, wouldnt that break any link to them? Or possibly transform this entire section of wiki into a "builds n' skills only" place, and have the [] as the info on everything else? B.N 12:57, 13 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Sounds interesting, since we are going to face a lot of competition very shortly from the "official wiki" (thanks for stealing our idea and leeching off our users, ANet) but we're going to lose in the end. No point having two wikis with near-exact data, why not make this the "inofficial" part with builds and stuff? :P -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 19:39, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Sure guys that is all great. But there is many many people who are really happy with the things as they are today. I posted a2 builds here on wiki and it was big debate around the renaming and removing my original build name, and how I could keep my credits and so on. And yeah it hurts my back when my cool name becomes something boring and some noob makes lame video and gives him self credit for My build. But after seeing how my Mo/E Solo G goes into Mo/E_SoA_Sliver, stupid name, yeah, great build? No sh%% :) Many people edit it, add new stuff, build is not dead, it is Alive. And if not everyone can see gcardinal all over it, I know I made it. It is my build, people are using it and it help them. So now I don't really care all about credits and stuff. Thats why I'm going to creat a build only wiki, for people who just want to shere they builds and improve them for the sake of the game, not credits. Gcardinal 07:54, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

Seems like moving all of this to personal space on GW somewhere eats up a lot of space for multiple copies. Couldn't this be prevented? As a worse-case option, keep a static April 30 snapshot of the builds page as a pdf or non-editable page? Perhaps I'll just copy all of them over... As for 'official' vs 'non-official' wiki, just remember that official wikis generally are not wikis...offical sites generally control content much more than a wiki. Oh, wait... :)Manos Lijeros 13:08, 16 April 2007 (CDT) 13:07, 16 April 2007 (CDT)