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

Discussion
guildwiki just came off my bookmarks list *insert crying picture here*--Grievous jedihunter 23:06, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

I have no reason to visit this site anymore. Thanks for the links to the other build sites. *insert same picture here* ShiftTab

Great idea...

Maybe I'm out of place here... But I'm frankly infuriated at this idea. So there's a big problem with the builds; I'll grant you ("you" being defined as supporters of this policy) that for the sake of argument. (I actually don't agree with that.) So the solution is to get everyone running around saving copies of all the builds they like while we delete an entire namespace of the wiki? A namespace that was specifically created because there were so many builds that so many people liked? I mean, come on! --Armond Warblade (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Builds wipe = policy eh? When did that happen? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 21:14, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I do believe I've seen it referred around the wiki as a policy. If not, put it down to me being PO'd. (Good thing I stopped myself from typing more, then, if I'll be jumped on for calling this a policy.) --Armond Warblade (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * This is a plan of action. It has no Proposed policy or accepted policy tag, so referring to it as policy would be technically incorrect; however, that matters little. I was just being nit picky. I'm just wondering what your point is. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 21:52, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Plain and simple: If the builds section is indeed a problem, the solution is not to tear it down, make everyone run around trying to save the "good" builds that they like (as defined in different ways by different people), and then (likely) in a few months come up with a "better" builds section that will likely include nearly all the builds that were torn down. It just seems like too much effort for too little result. --Armond Warblade (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Suggest you read the archives here and at GuildWiki talk:Post No Builds. All builds will not necessarily be coming back, none of the ones saved might come back.  It all depends on what people decide on for the new policy.  --Rainith 22:00, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Also... "the solution is not to tear it down." What is, pray tell, the solution? Tanaric and others have waited almost a year for the solution to appear... it hasn't, so now he's taking the course of action he sees most fit. It's easy to stand around and say how this *isn't* the solution... but it's hard to say something substantial. I'd love to hear the solution, though, if you have it. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 22:16, 25 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The build section had major issues that people tried to fix and everyone fought (no matter how fixes were proposed.) The current build section was certainly not good enough so it is being purged and if people want a build section they have to develop a new policy.  You are the first of many that are going to whine about this and quite a few are going to throw tantrums.  However the current build section is pretty pathetic and needs reworked.  This gets the ball rolling and forces people to do something.  It was needed for quite some time really.  -Warskull 00:03, 26 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Basically the change is to a no voting system. Simply put voting does not work in any form or manner even in RL with governments and the judicial system.  The reason it doesn't work is because the people who vote aren't exactly all that into politics or current affairs.  Most voters have a vested interest in a certain political party for no good reason.  Looking back at the 2004 election, it was quite obvious that a lot of the American public has no idea what is going on in the world, especially in places like Africa and the middle east.  Most people were voting on the personal flaws and qualities of the presidential candidates instead of the ability and the flaws of the administration and what it can do for the country... because we all know that the president has little power, and it is the administrative staff that is running the government.  But then again corporate lobbying etc and money is always involved so who's to say who's running the show?
 * So lets move away from that and talk about the judicial system. Although unanimous concencus must be met for a jury to decide guilty or not guilty... but the system is "jury of your peers".  More like people who couldn't get away from jury duty.  Most current day jurors are not molecular biologists that can interpret DNA evidence, or engineers that can tell the difference between a CCD and a CMOS chip.  Taxi drivers have no clue what patent law is and they are supposed to decide if a company infringed on a patent or not?? Construction workers aren't going to know how DNA is sampled and tested, and how it can be flawed depending on how it was collected.  They aren't going to know what the difference between RFLP and PCR is and the advantages and the restrictions of each type of test. Computer programmers aren't going to know what psychology is and what is considered to be an criteria for declaring insanity...
 * The point is that the current system allows "anyone" to vote. PvEers voting for GvG flag running builds, RA fanatics voting for HA builds, GvG only people voting for DoA builds etc...  And like someone said before, you wouldn't ask a janitor for a surgical consult would you? --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 00:53, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 01:04, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Ramble ramble rant rant --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 01:30, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Gasp, communists! :O Seriously tho, if democracy can't work on a Wiki - founded on the principles of community - then it can't work in real life either, true? Wiki-ism is really closer to Communism or Socialism than Democracy. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 01:32, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Or anarchy, depending on your point of view.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:59, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * so basically lania, u're saying the elites should decide everything important. that violates the bedrock principle of a wiki. wikis, in case u haven't heard, are about collaboration. it's specifically about the masses knowing more than even smart individuals. what u're saying is that the entire concept of a wiki is wrong and u know better so who the hell cares what the idiot masses cares about? really, what are u doing contributing to a wiki? u should go off and create ur own gw page where u control everything. u name drop all these things to make it seem u're so knowledgeable in all these different areas and imply that no one who's a non-specialist could ever understand. yet u don't seem to understand how normal ppl could possibly be upset upon learning about a policy that could drastically affect how they use this resource. u don't understand that one reason they might be upset is that this wasn't done w/ open discussion. the real open "discussion" is now. it's only occurring now b/c the powers that be deigned to let ppl know what was going on on the main page. an issue as big as a section wipe should have been advertised on the main page from the very beginning. so tell me, who's really the person that has no clue about what's going on? --Wongba 20:17, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I think you've misunderstood how a wiki does and should work.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:41, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Ok so you are saying that people like you and the average joe should be editing specialized articles like for Interleukin-6 in wikipedia instead of people like me who are biologists and study that? It is just like I shouldn't be editing an article about German culture because I never studied it. Like Lordbiro said, you are misunderstanding how a wiki really works... The experts of the subject matter should be running the show, not the masses. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 13:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

"A namespace that was specifically created because there were so many builds that so many people liked?" - no, the namespace was created so that builds would be kept separate from all other content for a number of reasons, one of which was the ability to more easily purge the build section should it prove to be too much trouble.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:49, 26 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I don't want Biro's comment to be looked over, so I'll reiterate in bold. There were two primary reasons the Build: namespace was created. The first was to make builds easy to ignore in recent changes for those who had no interest. The second was to make them easy to delete if the section continued its downward spiral. &mdash;Tanaric 14:56, 26 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I can tell I'm outvoted, or at least outvoiced. I guess all I can do is watch over the builds I can save. --Armond Warblade (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

About damn time! I fully support this but I will make sure I save some of the builds I use/am likely to use. Clean Slate FTW. That's why I'm glad characters won't be able to transfer from GW1 to GW2. You know that the second time you do it it will be better because you've learnt from any mistakes you've made and have an improved knowledge of what you're doing. &mdash;  Hyperion`  (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2007 (CDT)


 * ...Up until the point where people buy GW2 without getting GW1? Or is there something against that I haven't heard of? --Armond Warblade (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2007 (CDT)




 * huh? there was a GW 1? or is GW 2 comming out? anyways...
 * I am not a member of any of those other, "better" build sites, and have used GuildWiki as a place to post my build ideas. And there is 3 listed sites... I would rather visit GuildWiki build section for a combination of all 3 than having to register to all 3 sites!
 * I know there have been numerous suggestions to solve the problem of this, but I think I have one of my own (note:I have not read all the suggested solutions). Every build should have a video (hosted on Google Video/You Tube) of the build working. Videos should contain the following: in PvE Farming the boss/mob, in PvE General the build in action with a team, and in PvP a video of the build performing and doing a good job where it was meant to be used. This way, people can see how it works even without testing it them selfs. Also, this could enable people who are PvPers to vote on PvE builds and vise versa. Videos with builds will also help with there usage, thats mainly why I put them on all of my builds that I post.
 * thats a bit of what I have to say, sorry if this has already been covered... I just found out about this today!! :) Trevor3443 15:34, 27 March 2007 (CDT)


 * Interesting idea at the very least, not sure if it has been suggested before. On the other hand, it still has issues.  First, I can make just about any build work.  I can go out with a group of Guildies using Echo and Mending and do just fine in a mission.  It is hard to gauge how much an individual is contributing from a video.  Furthermore, if I go out with an excellent monk, and I never die, and then someone accuses my Assassin build of not having enough defense, I shouldn't be able to say, "Well, look at the video, I never died!"  A video also doesn't give a sense of how hard it is to play or how much effort is required.  It gives a sense of the use in a single instance, but doesn't have the same effect as testing which shows the effectiveness in multiple settings.  I can win once in GvG or HA with any build if I try enough, so documentation doesn't necessarily work for PvP.  It's a new idea, but I don't think it would work.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 15:41, 27 March 2007 (CDT)


 * That's a good suggestion. How about for PvE builds, a balanced team with henchies only? Noone's going to say your build doesn't have enough defense if Alesia's your only healer. And that way you can't give heroes kickass builds to make up for not having a good one yourself. Balanced = two monks, one-two warriors, one-two eles (three max), and fillers for the rest (assuming there's teams of 8). Although if the scorecards ideas come out, that would be an even easier way to prove it...


 * PvP... Is there any way we can really vet those builds, short of throwing it on guru and watching the response? Sorry, I'm really starting to not like guru now... --Armond Warblade (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Vetting would never occur for PvP builds. Avid PvPers would post builds made/run by/on verifiable sources (obs mode, namely), and the only discussion would be on variants. If it was merely a guild testing something out, the build would be deleted. Vetting is pointless; either the build works, or it doesn't. PvPers can tell if a build works for PvP or not. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 17:10, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * As I've stated before, if you want to have a way to vet builds, you're going to have to get a community of avid PvPers that know what they're doing and are willing to discuss builds. If you had the right community (and if only PvPers voted on the PVP BUILDS), then the current vetting process would be fine (though I would advocate a change from the requires 3 over or under to do a recount to a if it within 2 then it goes back to untested). However, you don't have the right community, and people who don't really know what they're doing in PvP like to vote on PvP builds, therefore, you have to find a foolproof way of doing things that requires documentation rather than opinion (like watching observer mode). --Theonemephisto 18:34, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It would have been nice to have a community of hardcore PvPers at the wiki but we only have a handful of great pvpers... which does not include me. The alternative was to just have only that handful like auron, theonemephisto, warskull and skuld etc to vote on PvP builds but noooooo that's too elitist and excludes the noobs to ever say anything.  Also IMO observer mode is kinda of a double edge sword because a lot of people watch matches, and the majority doesn't know what the heck is going on or why they are using a certain skill.  I think it takes an avid pvper to really know what's going on and how they are using the build, and if you are an avid pvper then you probally won't need to use observer mode to have seen a new build being run by someone.  Also other times, guilds sometimes test builds, especially when the ladder is locked. And just because a team wins HoH once doesn't mean they had a good build, it just means they were lucky.  --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 20:22, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * A vetting system could be one that ranks the registered people in the wiki following their in-game ranks. If i have Glad(1) my vote counts as 1 point in RA and TA, Glad(2) two points and so on. Do i have ally of the luxons? My vote would count 2 points regarding the AB builds. that's the most 'elitist', yet fair (you talk about what you know) way i could think of. Of course we should then consider Fame farming or glad farming... Gwain 12:24, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * oh, just to point it out, someone that got no in-game rank in a specific category couldn't vote on a specific build (for example, i couldn't vote on pretty anything ;) ) Gwain 12:33, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * if farming builds are the only builds that can be 100% proven to work through videos, why not just have those builds here on the wiki? I would not mind that :) Trevor3443 18:32, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Because, you can't prove 100% that a farming build works with a video. You could wait for one perfect run with a perfect spawn and whatever and just get a video of that.  A video doesn't get a sense of how often a build works which is one of the key elements of farming.  It also can't prove that a build is easy to use.  Anyways, if we were gonna document one thing, it would be PvP builds from verifiable sources.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 18:58, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

If need, I'm willing to make farming videos of 2 runs in a row for all of my builds, zoning in a portal and coming back in the same video to re-farm the same area again... but then I suppose someone could edit the video.

Here is another idea I have for the farming build section, those who vote must supply a picture of the mob / boss killed after the farm. This ensures that they have tested it with success. Not sure if that would work so swell either, but it shows that it was possible by others ...if a build is not easy to use (55 monks, most UW builds) it should be stated in the build itself that it may take some practice to master. Is there not verifiable sources for farming builds? Trevor3443 19:43, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * The only real verification you could have are builds that are obviously tried and true. Like a 55 or Mist Form Farmers or trappers or something.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 19:51, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * You voted on 2 of my builds, Build:E/D Sandstorm Vermin Farmer and Build:E/R EoE Bomb so I guess those are ok then? don't all the builds work in the tested section of farming? or is it that it is the amount of builds that is overwhelming? Trevor3443 20:31, 27 March 2007 (CDT)


 * The wording where I read this is to complicated for a small brain like mine. So the Build Page is coming down? Nothing else, like say, the section on skills? So I can still look up when Barrage does, but not find builds that use it correct? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.209.19 (contribs).
 * Exactly so. --Dirigible 17:41, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Only builds. And if a new build policy is decided on, the builds section will be back later. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:43, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

ts healer::: wtf man! come on guys!! i think that if u really think its bad then wipe all the....pvp build or something. i dont get why the pve builds will be wiped out to. you see... the whole idea of the site is to help players in guild wars.it doesnt matter if everybody uses the same farming (and) pve builds! and i agree thats its boring when everyone uses the same builds on pvp. its boring...

This is simply outrageous in my opinion. Just because the policy makers whom can't figure out a "solution" to some problem that may or may not exist depending on who you ask doesn't mean you should kill off the resource indefinitely. Technically, it's not supposed to be indefinite but rather until a new agreed policy can be made. Yet, obviously a policy can't be made because if it could be, we wouldn't be having a wipe now would we? Wow, a full circle. If it's just to start over fresh, that I can understand and accept that but all I hear is that a new policy couldn't be reached and thus, the section is about to be killed off. What makes you think that wiping everything will suddenly make everyone reach a consensus? It's a rather sad day when the nuclear option is chosen as the correct course of action. In any case, if it's just because of what I think is a core number of rather vocal users that complain about the process, you are about to entirely destroy a resource used by a majority of people who -never- post on guildwiki and the discussion pages. Honestly, a section describing commonly used archetypes with some skills variants listed is a good idea and great start at reducing the redundancy but there are at least several builds that aren't archetypes or commonly used but was properly vetted because they work. What about team builds? There are so many variations etc. Will the Wiki just have a rather broad archetype page there too that will either struggle to explain everything or be so lengthy that no one will bother reading it? Just having users stick their builds on their user space is quite frankly, useless since it's quite hard to get opinions from people of outside sources who may be able to point out issues that a group of particular like minded people will overlook. If the real intent is to make people use -other- sites instead of guildwiki for looking up builds since they are "better" (as advertised by the project page - heck, I'm not a build maker and only really contribute by discussion but I'd imagine a few of them have to be insulted by those general reasons), then I suppose I should shut up. PlacidBlueAlien 18:43, 2 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Right. This is something I've wanted to say for a long time, but I've held my tongue.  Anyone is welcome to start a new wiki, a BuildWiki if you will, use the same licensing terms as GuildWiki, and copy the builds over there.  Then they would be your problem, not ours.  Honestly, I would love to see this done.  But all anyone seems to want to do is whine about what is happening here, without participating in any discussions about how to fix it.  --Rainith 18:51, 2 April 2007 (CDT)


 * "What makes you think that wiping everything will suddenly make everyone reach a consensus?" If a consensus can't be reached on a sensible implementation of the Builds section, there won't be a Builds section anymore, simple as that. You want them here, you find a way to keep them here. The ball is in your court (and everyone else's who wants builds to remain a part of this wiki). --Dirigible 18:58, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I hate to point out the obvious but if people using the builds section don't see a huge issue outside of content protecting archetype builds to reduce redundancy and for documentation reasons, then what consensus can there be outside of just letting the people with a negative image of the build section have their way? Which is basically what is happening now - the build section getting removed and a great resource that is available easily to people who use it destroyed. @Rainith: If your idea of a community wiki is "my way or the highway (or in this case, another website)", then there isn't anything to discuss in the first place since you are advertising to those builders to get out of the wikiplace entirely as they have no place here. PlacidBlueAlien 19:45, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Instead of whining you could take part in the multiple policy discussions going on atm. GW:NOB is the strognest candidate atm. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 19:53, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Man, I am against deleting the entire build section but at the same time, I relatively have no interest outside of WHICH particular policy is implemented as long as it does what I feel is the correct course which is in short, to preserve the material -already- available. However, since I'm not a builder and do not make builds outside of testing and using the ideas from the builds section and adopting it to my own use, I don't feel like it's my right to vote on a policy that should be determined by the builders themselves. It simply doesn't apply to me. However, deleting the resource does apply to me. Is this such a hard thing to understand? Isn't this one of the so called problems in the first place? PvE people voting on PvP builds? I'd liken the same comparison in my case. Since this seems to be considered whining around here, so be it. I'll whine loudly and proudly until I'm banned or whatever. But since you did go out of your way to invite me to the discussion, perhaps I will go discuss the policy even if I feel I have no place in discussing it. PlacidBlueAlien 20:04, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

I have to say, i looked at the other sites, and they were in no way near to as useful and thorough as this Wiki.

Maybe we could keep the old build section for a while, after the new one is started, forbid the editing of it, but leave it usable while the new build database is populated? Think about it, oh holy mods. Moochy 06:43, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Problems with your proposal:
 * There is no new policy yet, so we wont be buiding a new builds section immediately.
 * The new build section can't be built if we have the old one left as there will probably be articles and templates with same names. Users have allready backed up everything usefull. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 11:50, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

I have to say, some sort of archive might be nice. That's a lot of information to just flush away. --Sair 21:17, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Redirects/lost builds
For the ones that aren't in the categories/redirects. Good job we used slashes that conflicted with the software, haha.

&mdash; Skuld 13:02, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Worrisome Effects
I understand the many benefits of the build wipe, and am not arguing against it. However, while I agree that this would theoretically reduce policy violations and alleviate tension, has anyone else noticed the rapidly growing schism between supporters of this and those who oppose it? I am seeing members of this community quite literally crash and burn in too many instances. Good users who have contributed for as long as I have been here are leaving the Wiki and ceasing to care. They are crashing and burning, and it is at least partially a result of the Build Wipe. I understand the necessity of the build wipe, but I cannot imagine that Tanaric and the other supporters of the wipe intended this animosity to result. In fact, at least in the short term, I can see much greater friction and tension between users. Except, rather than the policy violations of Anon users, what we have is worse. It is one thing to have tension created by fringe elements (i.e. Anons and new contributers), it is quite another to have members of the core community quite literally giving up on GuildWiki. I don't know what to say actually. I don't know if there is any "good" course of action we can be taking at this point, but, at the very least, I find the effect this is having on the Wiki community perturbing. Thoughts? Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 13:52, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * "I am seeing this community quite literally crash and burn in too many instances."
 * I'm pretty sure I've read all the talk on BW, PNB, NOB, and PG, but I haven't seen evidence of this. Yes, I do see that not everyone agrees with the wipe, but I don't think a 100% majority was ever expected. -- Peej 13:59, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Not what I meant. I never thought everyone should agree, I mean people are taking this as a reason to just stop caring about GuildWiki anymore.  And I am not talking about new users, I mean some of the experienced ones as well.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 14:03, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It's not like builds on wiki are doomed forever, ::you can still post them on your user page. Although I have to admit I used the builds section on Wiki quite a lot, because (the good builds) were always up to date and were fully explained. It's a shame that the builds section became too big to manage, I guess this is one of the reasons for the PNB. The users who are leaving because of this wipe, should just post their builds on their user page. If the community know that that user posts good builds, I for one would check out his/her user page. Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 14:09, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't see why [people would leave just because of build wipe]. The only thing I can conclude we might lose is the vetting process, and if you're leaving the entire wiki over that, you're probably one in that "only posting builds to attempt to get a build vetted" category anyway.  If even half as much effort goes into a user-space build section as it did for backing up the build section, all the most important information will be back in about 24 hours. -- Peej 14:11, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I happen to agree. I was just as involved as anyone else in the build section, I created 14+ favored builds.  And, I am still contributing despite a nearly crippling blow to my favorite part of the wiki.  I am not saying there is anything rational about quitting, but that it is happening.  I think perhaps that it is more an objection to the spirit of PNB and NOB than the actual effects of those policies.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 14:13, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I hate to use an actual editor as an example, and if this qualifies as a violation of GW:NPA I am terribly sorry, but take a look at NightAngel's recent contributions as well as his talk page... that kind of change in behavior is the quintessence of what is worrying me. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 14:15, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * "I think perhaps that it is more an objection to the spirit of..." You could use the same argument for "why can't I make a page for my guild?" though. Openness is nice, but limits are necessary.  As all builds are opinion based and this wiki tries to document facts, I'd say it's lucky builds were ever allowed in the first place. -- Peej 14:18, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, considering I personally agree with the build wipe, you are preaching to the choir. I am just worried.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 14:20, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * "I think perhaps that it is more an objection to the spirit of..." You could use the same argument for "why can't I make a page for my guild?" though. Openness is nice, but limits are necessary.  As all builds are opinion based and this wiki tries to document facts, I'd say it's lucky builds were ever allowed in the first place. -- Peej 14:18, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If you aren't a native English speaker, you have to read some of these posts twice to understand lol. There's just one thing I'm wondering though... How will we know which users will be posting builds on their user page? Will there be any way for them to communicate it with us? And I also agree that Wiki is for facts, I guess that's why they are adding the popular builds only from now on, but who will be the judge of which builds are "flavour of the month" etc Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 14:22, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Perhaps we can make templates for user builds and then have a category for them? Another solution would be the one I put in the policy I wrote: Profession Guides which would be that we create guides for each profession role and then let users link original builds from the userspace to those pages via templates.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 14:24, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Thank you (Silver Sunlight), you just confirmed the point I was about to make. ;) I read the most recent section on NightAngel's talk page, and I'd say most of the debate stems from not having all the relevant information.  NightAngel seemed to miss the entire fact that builds will still be allowed if not encouraged in user-space.  And for Silver Sunlight, no one will "judge" them: they will be documented when they show up  regularly in observer mode (see No Original Builds policy).  PvE original builds will be categorically linked from user-space to profession role guides (if that stuff gets to be official, see Profession Roles "policy"). -- Peej 14:27, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Perhaps the fact that some users don't know enough about these policies is worrisome enough in itself. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 14:29, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

(reset indent) Yes, someone needs to just make a BWPNBNOBPG policy page that explains everything. ;) -- Peej 14:31, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Edit conflicts galore lol... I think the templates are a good idea, but just like the normal builds section, the number of pages containing the template will become huge. There has to be a way to limit the people who can add this template to their pages, so that we know that there will be good builds listed there. Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 14:32, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * True, but if all the builds are in the userspace, it won't matter how many there are since they are in the domain of the user and don't have to be policed by anyone. <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 14:37, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm sure some bored people will make their way through the build categories every once in awhile and make notes about anyone tagging builds incorrectly. True, the distinction between good ("vetted") and bad builds will be gone, but with some good profession guides, you'll learn to be able to better evaluate a build on your own.  There's no harm in trying a bad build anyways: if you only die with it, stop using it. :P -- Peej 14:37, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I see a great rise in my /deaths command's number hehe... It's just going to be so much harder to find good builds from now on, ill just start with Defiant Elements' page :P Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 14:41, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well... I do have the majority of vetted builds on a virutal drive on my computer. I think I still have most of those links left on wiki.  Try typing "Defiant Elements" into the search engine with the "user" search category box checked.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 14:42, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * &mdash; Skuld 14:43, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think it'll be that much harder. Anything "popular" (for PvE), like touch ranger, necro battery, etc should have a profession role guide associated with it, and the linked category should give you all the variants and similar builds in the user-space.  Whether or not those are good might be questionable, but at least they should be relevant. -- Peej 14:46, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe this won't be all bad, we might see more original builds in Guild Wars from now on, since no one will copy wiki's :P Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 14:51, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, I think that is another benefit of the Profession Guide policy. We document enough to aid in the build creation process, enough that newer users won't start off by making completely horrendous choices, but, we don't give enough that they can simply copy the build.  They still have to think for themselves, we can just help guide their decisions.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 15:53, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I guess we'll just have to wait and see how everyone handles this after the build wipe... Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 05:27, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Today?
Supposely this starts going into effect today, and the template doesn't even exist yet. :O -- Peej 14:59, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeh, I noticed that... -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 15:07, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Bump! -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 16:19, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Lazy people!


 * I thought about making it red and shiny like Template:Warning, but was worried that it would look too obtrusive to be on the Main Page. Anyways,  . --Dirigible 16:56, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Is this ever happening?--Nog64Talk 16:59, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Just posted (by Rainith and Gem). -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 17:08, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Happy now? --Rainith 17:08, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * What the? I posted this on the Community portal page at the same time as Rainith and didn't get an edit conflict. Wtf? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:09, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I blame Jesus.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 17:12, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I've finally received 'immunity against edit conflicts'? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:17, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * User:Gem/"Coming Through!". :D --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:33, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

I am happy now. ;) -- Peej 17:13, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

The rational given for the wipe is that the section is monstrous and elephantine, but there's not really any quick summary supporting this fact for the uninitiated and casual readers. As someone who's seeing the message because it's staring at me from the front page, is there any chance I could ask for a bit more of a summary of complaints to be given? Not that I disagree. 65.95.232.243 17:26, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The builds section was causing a lot of trouble and a new policy has been under discussion, but none of the suggested policies have gotten community consensus. Thus it was decided to delete everything and start from scratch. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:33, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

April Fools Joke?
Is this an April Fools Joke or has this been going on for a while?--Aeris TC 17:28, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No. The build section may return in the future if a new policy is decided on. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:29, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Silly, just silly
I can almost admit every build section is probably a mess, BUT, the GvG Build section is absolutely top notch. Deleting that specific one would be a loss for the community. As for the others, who cares, people have a skewed perspective on what works in PvE/RA, because anything works. --70.54.9.42 18:22, 2 April 2007 (CDT) Whoops, might help if i logged in. --Narcism 18:23, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Well... NOB (GW:NOB) is probably the policy you would support then. It focuses on retaining non-original builds (i.e. proven) builds based on whether they are commonly run and have name recognition.  The Builds Wipe doesn't mean that we won't have a new build section in the future, just that we want to start with a clean slate.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 18:35, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Uh...I really don't like this.
I don't have nightfall yet and I want to have some good builds for dervishes and paragons. I also want nice builds for boss farming in the future. So basically, this policy is generally "a permnament deletion of all builds." But why delete all builds here, all of the builds i tried in the past are good, can we just only deleted unfavored builds? --Dark Paladin X 19:53, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * If you would have read the Build wipe article you would have noticed that we delete all build to get a clean board on which to start discussing new policies for builds and mke us a better builds section. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 19:55, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, read up,like say....the whole discussion page. I don't run the wiki (obviously), but a lot of the builds submitted were thrown together in a matter of minutes. I don't mean for people to take that badly, and I know many other people have spent hours on end creating, testing, editing, and improving builds. This is to help clean up the wiki, because saying the builds section is huge is an understatement. And, like people have said, if you like a build and use it/may use it, save it or make a template of it on your account. The wiki will likely also run much faster because of deleting around a third (possibly more, possibly less, but that's by my estimation) of the data on the wiki. Also, the builds section isn't being thrown out the window and becoming a memory. It may be back, except in a reverted, improved, and VERY limited form. Nhnowell 20:04, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Very Limited = cookie-cutter builds only. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 20:12, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Please tell me that this isn't because of the damn official wiki not allowing builds? Force people over to the new site by taking the unique remaining aspect from here?  The whole argument I was given for not having one on the official wiki was that I "could always just look at them on the old wiki" ... duurrr.  I still fail to see that whole problem with builds, even if many are shitty.  They are still reference material for others to look at and get concepts and ideas from.  There are a lot of them?  Big deal.  There are many that don't do well?  So what, let the visitors look at them, try them out to find for themselves.  If they continue to use a crappy build then it is basically their fault.  Removing the entire reference material so we can replace it with the "popular cookie-cutter" builds is ridiculous. So what if a build isn't used by everyone in PvP, variety is a good thing.  I find it amazing that most of those who complain about listing builds because it makes everyone have the same popular build... are the same who say erase them all and put only the "accepted builds".  Ugg.  I am just frustrated because I do find the builds useful as a source to at least get ideas and make my own builds.  And also because it was made so clear on the official wiki that it was ok to not have builds because the old wiki will have them.  Guys, just enforce it on one wiki... not both. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 20:11, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * This has NOTHING to do with the official wiki. Besides, the official wiki might also allow builds later on. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 20:13, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Lemme repeat that for emphasis. This has NOTHING to do with the official wiki. I'm pushing for high quality content on both wikis. I hope that GuildWiki's builds stance is significantly more permissive than the official wiki, since we have the advantage of shoot-from-the-hip sysops here to take care of obvious crud. &mdash;Tanaric 20:15, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

replacement suggestion
Would it be possible replace the current builds section with more extensive use of general guide type articles like the general minion mastery guide? wouldn't have to be too complicated, just a few basic articles that point out important points of specific tasks as well as common pitfalls. i'm thinking, just of the top of my head, a general tanking guide with special emphasis on positioning, a general healing guide with special emphasis on energy management and how to deal with mass hexes and conditions, and a general farming guide with focus on enchantment based defenses, stance based defenses, and perhaps a list of skills that deal effective damage in a farming situations (assuming a comprehensive list was fairly short). with general articles you get away from arguing over the merits of individual skills and you actually share useful information that readers can use to understand and create their own builds. total disclosure: i only play pve so that's all i am commenting on here. i have no idea if it is possible to use general articles to provide pvp information. tetracycloide 20:09, 2 April 2007 (CDT)


 * You might want to see GW:NOB and Profession guides. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 20:16, 2 April 2007 (CDT)\
 * i think profession guides are very much the wrong approach. the game does not, in any way, require specific professions to complete any one task, what it does require is some essential roles be filled, like damage, healing, and tanking.  the profession guides point out some things you can do with a specific profession but provide very few details on how to do a specific job well.  tetracycloide [[Image:slick.gif|15px]] 20:28, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The general minion mastery guide is often used as an example and you hsould note that ritualist MMs are very popular too. The name 'profession guide' is pretty misleading imho, it should be 'task guides'. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 20:40, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * that's what i'm saying, pretty much every profession can do more than one job and it doesn't make sense to put the same, or very similar, information on jobs on multiple profession pages. the necromancer profession guide, for example, doesn't have an extensive section on minion mastery it just links to the general guide for it.  the ritualist guide, on the other hand, does have a rather long section on minion boming which would be much more useful if the profession specific language was removed and the information was moved to the general guide.  tetracycloide [[Image:slick.gif|15px]] 20:48, 2 April 2007 (CDT)


 * So edit the guide in that manner to make it better. &mdash;Tanaric 20:50, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * and.... done. guides changed, check them out if you want, i think they're much better this way.  tetracycloide [[Image:slick.gif|15px]] 20:48, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Gah... people are being misled by the title... the entire point is to create ARCHETYPE GUIDES. Third time I have said that.  PLEASE read the policy before commenting on it.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 21:57, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * sounds good then, bout time too. tetracycloide [[Image:slick.gif|15px]] 23:57, 2 April 2007 (CDT)


 * The problem I have with this is the same as how the new official wiki works. Sure it is good to have some general explanation of the game and how things work, but the problem is it doesn't go into specific ideas.  For an example, take elite skills.  I and most others know what they are, we don't need an explanation.  Yes, have an explanation in the "starter" section, but when I click on Elite Skills on the homepage I want to see the skills themselves.  On the new wiki I have to go through like 3 extra steps to get to the lists by profession.  By trying to make the wiki so much of a general reference and by only showing the popular aspects, it makes it less usable to the public.  Most players know what an MM is, and even the basic skills.  An article would be nice for the new players, but becomes worthless to anyone who knows the information already.  Build ideas on the other hand can prove useful to anyone who can learn from them. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 20:17, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * a wiki is always useless when someone already knows the information written within it so i'm not sure what your point is there. you could just as easily argue, for example, that the build section is a waste of space because some of us, like myself for example, don't need it to make an effective build for any situation.  the problem with using actual builds to teach people how to play is that it doesn't teach people how to play, it teaches them how to read a build guide.  an article on how to do a job that leaves specific skill selection up to the reader would be far more useful as a learning tool then simply encouraging people to copy builds and equipment.  tetracycloide [[Image:slick.gif|15px]] 20:28, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The point isn't that the information shouldn't be there, just that more specific information and ideas should be available for those who already know the general information. No I don't need to look at the general guide anymore, but I do need to look up specifics for the hundreds of skills, armor types, etc in the game.  Specifics is what keeps people coming back, not the general information.
 * The way you answered your second part about the guide being more useful is a bit confusing to me. You are saying that builds force people into one skillset while the guide promotes diversity.  This couldn't be farther from the truth in my opinion.  The guide will describe the use, and give the common skills, beyond that it basically will be saying "go look at the skills yourself".  Sure they can come up with some ideas, but they could have done that on their own.  On the other hand, I am not so full of myself that I am going to believe that I am going to come up with every possible creative combination out there.  I usually custom make my own builds, but browsing the builds from time to time can give me some combinations I never thought about.  This is basically why I think you have it backwards.  Having basic guides of the popular builds giving some common skills does much less for helping players create new builds than having tons of builds with some unique concepts listed. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 21:09, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Both will exist, see the links at the top of this talk page. -- Peej 21:13, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Then the template needs to be updated because "On May 1, 2007, all articles in the GuildWiki build namespace will be deleted" seems a lot like everything will be deleted and starting from scratch with the new policy. If you mean we can redo the build again with the new policy, you are still talking about hundreds of builds and I am sure thousands of hours put into them. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 21:16, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * They are both true. Yes all the builds will be deleted, but quite a bit has already been backed up (and there is still a month to go) and will be restored to userspace after we get the new policies in place. -- Peej 21:32, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Are you insane? Yes, let's have builds still but limit them to userspace so no one can find them. What is the freaking point?  You say it isn't organized enough so you put them in user pages that no visitor will ever find and even if they did, they wouldn't be organized enough to be useful.  Yes, that is the perfect solution to having a disorganized build section. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 01:35, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Policy?
It seems like all anyone here is concerned about is policy, not the user base. I think there are quite a few users, myself included, who use the build pages, and enjoy creating/modifying builds based on other people's ideas. Erasing all that has been contributed sets a TERRIBLE precedent, and will not cure any 'policy' problems. Rather than confining the issues to a category, now you'll be left with user pages full of builds, and having to decide whether to regulate what a user puts in his/her user space. Had there been adequate communication with the user base concerning this issue, I think a much less draconian solution could have been reached, and we would not be losing the valuable input of many of our contributors. That's my two cents. Telling users to go to gwshack or guru for builds is outrageous - I, like many others, come here because of the professionalism and courtesy (generally) shown to the contributors. To reiterate, in my opinion, this is too extreme, and incredibly foolish. --Zorbonkingofpants 22:35, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The proposed Post No Builds and No Original Builds policies date back as far as mid-December. -- Peej 22:37, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * If you look at any of the talk pages you can easily see that all discussion was dominated by those supporting this tragedy. Was it ever advertised? No. Except for those who saw the pages in recent changes most people had no idea what was going on in those times. You can't claim there was ever a fair discussion on the subject. Now that its announced theres many objections, but of course it's to late as its already has a date set and a bunch of (insert non NPA violating term here) are going to go forward no matter what.....
 * Was there any intention of actually setting up a final deciding poll for these changes, cause Im pretty sure there would of been a hell of a lot more opposing votes if it were properly advertised. --<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 22:45, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * From the front page of GuildWiki:
 * Policy – Please go over our site policy before you start making contributions.
 * Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. ;) -- Peej 22:47, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I wasn't directed to it, yet I knew about this since I started contributing. And yes ignorance isn't an valid excuse for almost anything. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 22:50, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * However, obfuscating a drastic policy change such as this, is a questionable practice at best, and at worst, downright deceptive. --Zorbonkingofpants 01:02, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I do agree that people should be motivated to review policies but I don't think its expected that all users have the time to spend to keep up with these debates. And you do have to admit that most of the policy debate or controversy has been initiated by the people who want to remove builds from the wiki. I also agree with the original poster that it is foolish to compare guildwiki to other build sites as listed in the policy. None of them have the build quality, completeness, professional formatting, level of discussion, specific information, equipment, and other educationally valuable material that is found here. I did make an honest attempt to use these other sites and was not impressed. Because some people can't control their emotions (on both sides), most of the people who use the build section are being penalized. -- BrianG 22:56, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Bullshit, If you want to get technical it clearly states "before you start making contributions.", many users who I'm sure would be opposed to this were already actively involved in the build section when those policies were created. And that is no law....
 * You people make me sick, you are justifying passing this crap because it was never properly advertised and the discussion was mostly one sided, because a couple people never saw the small(and not to easy to find link) on policy page and were not on to see it in recent changes?
 * Lania, ignorance isn't a excuse but taking advantage of peoples ignorance is just plain wrong. I can't believe this is happening on a wiki, of all freaking places.--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 22:57, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Going to have to agree, coming from a pretty large guild, and the first I heard of this was someone annoucing it on our boards, then a couple others backing up the old builds. But the consensus has been this is a bad idea. And those that had seen or contributed felt the same, that a real idea of those that use the wiki and enjoy the builds section haven't been heard.  And it seems pretty clear here, the only opinions that are going to be considered here are regular contributors, not those that are using it but not contributing which are far more numerous.  So I guess do what you will, you are going to anyway.65.161.102.250 19:21, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Keep the Vetted PvE, toss all PvP imo. Caramel Ni 22:55, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * RA is really the only bad part, I think. HA/GvG have people who watch the metagame and make builds based on that.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 19:30, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Absolute Absurdity
This is rediculous. I can't believe that you people, the people who I trust to keep this wiki running, would completely tear out a section of the wiki. People have spent hours developing and testing these builds and to take them away is pointless. I am very upset about this (as you can tell), and if you admins decide to take away the builds section, I will stop using this wiki forever. I strongly urge anyone to help fight this deletion. I don't care what the problem is, but there is always a solution. It's not like the unorganizedness of the section is killing anyone, so live with it until a solution arises. If this continues, then on May 1st, you will lose my help, cooperation, and allegiance to this wiki. --Fiz 23:04, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No offense meant to you, but most of the supporters would be more then glad to see someone opposing this leave the wiki--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:06, 2 April 2007 (CDT)


 * As a creator of builds, it has come to my attention that infact the problem is not the builds, it's the users. Whenever a build hits the stubs or untested, if one user dislikes it ; without testing it or even knowing what it's ever about, starts the unfavored chain. Many users wouldn't have the slighest clue what a good build is about, yet vote unfavored because a build has a flaw. Honestly, the builds section is a complete mess, and the build wipe is needed. The policies seriously need to be re-visted and voting procheures needs to be enforced. Many MANY good builds have been unfavored as a result of clueless users who point out a flaw, then decide the build simply sucks. Althought the build section the main reason most users visit GuildWiki, the wipe is needed. That's just my two cents. Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 23:07, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Builds aren't leaving, just the build section (for now). Anything good is already backed up in userspace, and can continue to be there. -- Peej 23:09, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Please, by moving everything to the user space all you create is a disorganized mess of userpages, the build section was organized. The voting policy is flawed but not the section. Of course it cant be accepted because the mentality of many here seem to be if its (even slightly)flawed destroy it..... See almost every unfavored vote on a build if you want proof, not to mention this page and related policies.--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:12, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Stop
This is a long overdue attempt to get more users other then the same faces involved in the discussion.  I am starting a petition to show how many users are opposing the implementing of this so soon. This is not for disagreeing with it but for supporting a pause to slow it down and allow more discussion with more users(on all sides of argument) involved User:Sefre/Build Wipe Petition --<font color="Black">Sefre  23:22, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Pardon me for asking what nmay be a stupid and/or irrelevant question, but... Isn't "slowing things down" how we got in this mess?  Nobody wanted to do anything for a year, so nothing got done? --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    23:34, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The mess was created when this was proposed, refined, and (soon to be) implemented without the proper user base having a fair say. --<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:37, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Other problems with the petition: people will sign without reading all of the proposed policy changes and people will sign without any better idea on build cleanup, which really proves nothing. If you want to start a "come-up-with-better-policy-in-30-days" challenge, I'm cool with that. ;) -- Peej 23:38, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * You want what I think is a good idea? Stop this wipe, clean up the new mess in user pages. And get attention to the real problem here.--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:40, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * How many more chances does the "proper user base" want? This discussion has been going on for (what?) a year now. What more does this user base you've been in contact with want to say? - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * CHANCES? How dare you? This is OUR website, without the users, you would have nothing, you would have no policies to argue about, no wikistress, nothing.  Why don't you try including the people who make the wiki the best guild wars reference on the internet a little bit of a say in how it progresses.  --Zorbonkingofpants 01:05, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Look at the people who want to rebuild the section. All the active admins are on board, and all the most active non-admins are as well. Try to tell us that this isn't our website too, that we aren't the "people who make the wiki the best guild wars reference on the internet." Everyone, from all sides of the debate, has been given many, many oppurtunities to voice their opinions and steer the wiki in the direction they think is best for it. Everyone had a chance, and a choice; to be included in the debate or not. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm sorry, but that's just not correct. The voting procedure on this change was as flawed as the vetting procedure for the builds. Saying that "everyone had a chance to be included int he debate" is inaccurate - if everyone had been given the chance, you would have seen my comments there.  Hiding a policy change, then allowing the people who support it to vote on it, is hardly a fair procedure to follow for the rest of us.  This is an enormous change, and more than just a "hey, we decided to do this" note should have been provided.  Once the note was posted, I finally found the discussion in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard' (thank you Mr. Adams).  Because of this, I was afforded no chance prior to the "decision" to voice my opninion, and I'm left making comments on a talk page that will more than likely be ignored.
 * I have absolutely no problem with REBUILDING the section, but I must reiterate that deleting all of this information sets a terrible precedent, and will do the wiki more harm than good. --Zorbonkingofpants 18:10, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeh. Ignorance is not an excuse. You had a little less than a year to have your fair say, Sefre; that's how far back this discussion dates. The people most concerned monitored discussion on the matter, and kept with the times. Tanaric and others have waited months on end. If you had started your petition, say, in December, it'd have more effect; but this is it. Tanaric gave us the chance to fix our build section, and we failed. So, he's using the rights entrusted to him to demolish the build section. The time has come for change, and since we failed to enact change ourselves, change is coming whether we like it or not. It's too late to bitch. It's time to accept change and try to make the best of what we left for ourselves. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 23:48, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I have to agree with Auron and Krowman. While no one can question my dedication to the build section, we tried, we failed.  It's done.  Attacking the Build Wipe should no longer be our focus, rather, we should be focusing on making the new section work.  <font color="DodgerBlue">Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs) 23:50, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Peej, I have already drafted a "come-up-with-better-policy-in-30-days" proposal, and it can be found here: User talk:Defiant Elements. It was just an exercise I did to show an example policy that would be better than the current one, but I'd gladly submit it to such a contest. Everyone keeps saying the builds are just going away temporarily, but trust me, they would not go to the trouble of copying all builds to userspace and risk having to copy them back again if they didn't expected the policy was going to be a lot more like NOB. -- BrianG 23:52, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Krowman, you know very well that all these discussions have been dominated by certain users all with a very similar intent. It has been dominated by those who don't spend their time making the very builds this wants to uproot. If this were to be properly advertised to the rest of the wiki then I can assure that there would of been many objections in the year before. But no, it was all in one line(occasionally) in recent changes and in one link in the policy page(that isn't the best resource itself). If all the build authors had been aware of these changes then there would be more opposition. I am trying to represent the wiki's build authors which were left out and were rarely even aware of the conflict. And people here seem to denounce any that speak up, see the above 2 sections.--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 23:53, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Do your homework m8. Many build authors are on board. DE must make more builds than anybody else, and he's all in favor of rebuilding the system. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 23:57, 2 April 2007 (CDT)


 * That means what, he can't have any opinion because DE makes builds? I make builds, So Auron don't talk. Understand my point? Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 00:01, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * By now, you've earned a reputation for misinterpreting and falsely presenting the arguments of others, and this is a prime example of how that came to be. To clarify, what I said doesn't not mean his opinion is worthless, it means that many build authors do support restructuring the Buildspace, which contradicts the point he raised earlier. What I said was what I meant; you are reading into it too much. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Petitions are like voting. To hell with that. Just like voting, it's completely backwards and completely against the idea of a wiki. You want someone else to do things for you while you can just sit back and demand? Go to Guru/Gwshack/etc etc. This is a wiki, if you want something, you do it yourself. If you want a Builds section, you find a way to have it here. After a year, you're being given one more month to get something done. GO! Work on it! Don't waste time with ridiculous petitions which amount to practically nothing. Don't threaten with "oooh, the wiki is going to crash and burn" (if I only had an ecto for every time that's been said on this wiki since it was first started by people not getting what they wanted). Kudos to Defiant and Vallen and everyone else who are actually working for it, who are bouncing around ideas and trying to come up with solutions, instead of just bitching about it without even making the slightest attempt to understand what brought this mess on. Your "ooh, the Man is keeping us down, we're being treated unfairly, poor little us" impresses no one. Crying is nothing. Whines are nothing. Threats are nothing. Effort is everything. You and everyone else that want a builds section, prove that such a section can be viable on a wiki, prove that there is a way to overcome all the deficiencies of this version, present to the community a sensible way to implement builds. Or alternatively keep whining, watch it all burn in flames. Your call. --Dirigible 00:04, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm glad someone remarked on the irony in all of this even if that wasn't the point of the post. In order for a build section to exist - everyone must have reached a consensus that is reached by properly "vetting" the policy. Divide by zero. PlacidBlueAlien 10:41, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I'll give a summary of that.


 * You want a build section, stop making petetions and find a way in which a build section in exist. Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 00:08, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Dirigible, I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm doing both. Voicing my opinion in opposition (nothing wrong with that), but also helping bounce ideas around with the people you mentioned.  Just because some people like me realize it is inevitable and are working on alternatives, doesn't neccessarily mean we agree with what is happening. -- BrianG 00:23, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The theoretically reformed build section will only be a reflection of the people contributing to it. If all we get is whining and moaning, that's going to be reflected in a poorly-thought-out build policy; one highly unlikely getting approved. If we all pool together in making the best policy next time (even if we don't agree with the inevitable wipe now), it'll turn out better than if we are pulled into this kicking and screaming. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 00:33, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Disagreement is fine, BrianG, there is no such thing as a solution that makes everyone happy. In all honesty, if it were up to me, builds would never return here on this wiki, I sincerely think that the only way to learn the game is by playing it, instead of being armchair theorycrafters. That said, I do understand that meeting halfway with "the other side" is necessary. There will need to be at the very least some form of guide or builds. I disagree with builds being on this wiki, but I'm not posting in the NOB or Profession Guides policy proposals crying about it. I've reached the conclusion that the guys who are working on them are sensible people, dedicated, and who actually want to do something worthwhile. Simply said, I trust them. I trust that it will be for the best of the wiki, even if I personally disagree with such guides existing. I trust that these guys have actually understood what was worst about this incarnation of the builds section, and are doing their best to avoid those pitfalls.
 * I am however posting in this policy page, and that's not only because I feel that I need to support this builds wipe for my own interest, but also because this deletion supports the interests of those who are currently working on the Builds 2.0 policies. That petition of yours, dear Sefre, isn't against only Builds Wipe, but even Profession Guides and No Original Builds. Builds Wipe is the bitter medicine, and PG+NOB/whatever gets decided on are the healthy wiki. --Dirigible 00:48, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Honestly most of this pisses me off because sure, the discussion has been going on.. but unless you are in the know, you would never see it. I watch the wiki and my watchlist, but had no idea this talk was going on. You can't assume that all your visitors just happen to know of everything going on in the discussions or even to find it if they did guess it was happening. I have a feeling that most of the talk has been done by the wiki "elite" who think they know everything. Of course they don't need builds, they are gods among men. But guess what, this site is for the visitors and regular users too, who also might appreciate having a builds section that is more organized than the typical forum based builds section. Taking the builds out of a namespace and putting them in userspace only means that they are unorganized and can't be searched by regular visitors. Such a wonderful solution to having them "unorganized". The sarcasm is intended because I find the solutions to our problems much worse than the problems themselves. The builds aren't organized... let's make them less organized by making them unsearchable and outside of a category. The builds section promotes cookie-cutter builds... let's take out all the random builds and make a general category for only the "popular" builds. The builds section takes too much admin work... let's put in a whole bunch of admin work to remove everything along with further work to make sure we confine to a very narrow policy. Doesn't make any sense at all. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 01:42, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * It doesn't matter how much you don't want buildwipe to happen. Like other people said, it's going to happen no matter what on May 1st.... and if Tanaric, the bureaucrat of Guildwiki, our mighty king in power along with Lordbiro says it will happen then I will guarantee you that it WILL happen and no amount of whining will stop it. So instead of bickering and whining about how awful buildwipe is, go look at the new build policy that will take place of the builds section after the wipe and contribute to that instead! Profession archetype guides for PvE and No Original Builds.
 * Also, any of you people tried to go to guildwarsguru for pvp, and pve builds? IMO the quality is much better, especially for PvP than the GW builds section. So stop acting like it is the end of the world that the build section is getting wiped... it is also just a game and it is just a wiki for a game as well. Life goes on.   --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 01:50, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Lania, I did try to look through guildwarsguru for PVE builds but I found a forum layout was not an ideal way to organize builds. There is no easy way to quickly look through all the build ideas without wading through forum postings.  PVP builds there may be better but for ease of use and organization of builds it doesn't compare.
 * Secondly, I just want to point out that I think the main reason for all the complaints is that the removal of the builds displays a bias among the admin team and wiki elite towards a NOB style policy. As I said above, they wouldn't go to the trouble of removing all builds if they expected the builds were just going to be put right back.  The problem with NOB is that I doubt it is really what the majority of users want, but because they are not as involved as some of us in how policy discussions work, are they really going to be able to organize some kind of opposition to NOB?  If a majority of users voted that they wanted original builds to stay on the wiki along with an improved vetting policy, would that actually happen?  For some reason I doubt it but feel free to convince me otherwise. -- BrianG 10:30, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

To all who are saying this is a desperate attempt to stop the wipe: This is a attempt to advertise the drastic changes to the build section before it is to late for many who would have a say to do so. This is long overdue and should of been done long ago. This is of course assuming our "moderators of a wiki" will stop this plan thought up of by the minority of user base. --<font color="Black">Sefre  22:35, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Forming a new policy
Stop complaining about the build wipe and start taking part in the policy discussions. These were listed on the policy page: As you can see, there has been a lot of ideas and discussion going on, but consensus is pretty far away. If none of the above suggestions pleases you, feel free to form your own policy suggestion and ask people to discuss it. -- (gem / talk) 02:29, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No Original Builds This is my personal favourite as the new policy combined with the role guides. It has also garnered support.
 * Profession archetype guides This is not meant as a policy itself, but as a part of the NOB.
 * Build Split A proposal to split the builds section to PvE and PvP. Might work with NOB, but many builds are both PvP and PvE, which makes things complicated.
 * Explain Yourself This was a suggestion to change the old system, which no longer exists.
 * Post No Builds This is basically the same as the wipe, so if you are complaining about the wipe, no need to read further. :) but permanent
 * A couple notes on what Gem said. First, constructive discussion on the builds wipe shouldn't be suppressed; keep in mind that most folks are just now hearing about the wipe, so their reactions are valid. HOWEVER, everyone should be trying to move the discussion forward, so simply complaining isn't very helpful. Second note, PNB is NOT the same as the wipe! PNB is a proposal to permanently remove the builds section, whereas the wipe is designed to be temporary and allows for a replacement builds policy. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 07:03, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, constructive discussion is allowed, but the stuff above is mainly just complaining back and forth. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 09:25, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Actually, complaints are legitimate since they acknowledge the limited recourse that is available at the moment because the nuclear option has been chosen. Apparently, from what some of the people with all the nice nicknames and little pictures that lead to great profiles beside them are saying is that the wipe will happen no matter what and maybe, something is going to come after. Plain whining would be a problem, I agree. However, I think most of us can support an idea of build archetypes and separating that from other builds such as original ones. However, the original ones should not be simply stuck on user pages where they will be scattered and unorganized and should probably still be linked to from the build namespace. It's fairly easy and common sense to create an original build section since builders are contributers to this site too even if every build isn't over 9000 and l33t (insert other internet terms here.) You can even add a proper disclaimer. The vetting process was to weed and shift out the problems and get feedback but since that seems to be the issue, then I suppose that system couldn't be considered. I would remark that a further variant of the "Explain yourself" policy (or whatever policy that comes out from discussion) might work out for a section dedicated to OBs. And sure, I fully understand you can't make everyone happy but you can, at the very least, make sure no one is excluded which is what NOB (from my limited understanding) and some of the other policies seem hellbent on accomplishing.


 * I would take this to the NOB discussion page but this discussion page seems like a discussion on the policies as a whole and the future of GuildWiki. A consensus on a new policy would have to include give and take - I'm not seeing a whole lot of that so it's very little wonder that a consensus has NOT taken place. I'm not sure there would be nearly as much opposition to this idea if you weren't destroying a subcommunity of the wiki in effort to fix a problem. I only happen to be on the user side as opposed to the creation part of it however so take whatever I say with a grain of salt. According to the NOB talk page, "most" of the creators are on board with NOB. As I tried to point out earlier, if the Wiki gods determine that some particular original content such as builds has no place on Guildwiki, then there isn't a consensus to be reached in the first place and the policy is out of the hands of those who are complaining which I suppose is why they are complaining in the first place. Or should I say we? I hate to use "we" when I don't speak for everyone else though so I'll limit it to I. It's why -I- am whining/complaining/being generally useless/whatever loudly and proudly ever since April 2nd, 2007. Honestly though, if there just isn't any room on wiki for it, then just say it as such without giving reasons such as "lolz build section = sux." I think that would be much easier to take than trying to wade through the drama that is happening now and save me a lot of effort. It benefits you as well since you don't have to hear me whining. :) PlacidBlueAlien 11:40, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Now this is constructive discussion, I like it. :)
 * I don't have time to comment every single point in the above text, but I think the important idea that you gave to me was that we could still keep original builds in the build name space, but those builds should be tagged differently and categorised separately from the non-original builds. Ofcourse the rules for the original builds should be rethought as the current vetting system doesn't work and causes GW:NPA violations. I'll start discussion on this on the NOB page.
 * <Off topic and non-constructive>. You said: "if the Wiki gods determine that some particular original content such as builds has no place on Guildwiki, then there isn't a consensus to be reached in the first place". Wiki gods? Excuse me? What wiki gods, where? :DDD No offense, but that's ridicilous. (yeah, I know what you mean, but still) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 12:02, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I have a suggestion along these lines and might even be exactly what is suggested above. The whole issue we are faced with is two groups.  One which wants to keep the builds we have because it in the least gives ideas for skill combinations to visitors.  The second group wants to start from scratch with a new builds policy and keep things more organized and neater.  Seemingly this would also limit the builds to NOB and guides which give the basics.  A compromise would be the best solution to satisfy both parties.  Why not create a new namespace that one of the two options can occupy?  Be it either CommonBuilds: or UnapprovedBuilds: ... it at least would let both options exist together.  I say a new namespace because that gives the most separation.  Otherwise it could be done using categories but would be a bit harder to moderate.  I and others think that a full wipe of the progress made would be a waste. In the least perhaps a "full move" would be a better solution. Is there any possibility of this and prevent the scheduled wipe? — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 14:05, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Having a new namespace or reusing the Build namespace sounds okay to me; profession guides and NOB (and my userbuild template) should still work with that. But if it were up to me, I'd choose renaming (or creating new) to Userbuild or something, just so people don't get the idea that builds would be treated the same way as before.  Voting is never a good idea on the wiki. :P -- Peej 14:17, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, since this seems to be one of the more constructive sections of this discussion, I think I'll write here instead of seeming to contribute to the endless slander and insults that are being thrown around like fecal matter flung by rabid monkeys in the other sections. First, I want to point out that I support the NOB policy. As to confirming the viability of builds, perhaps the voting system might be replaced simply by a ratification process, which counts only on the number of positive votes (and maybe the blessing of a Wiki-god). Does, the builds section need to be wiped? It's probably the easiest way. If there are enough people with enough interest in a builds section, something new will appear rather soon (provided some new policy is agreed on). And obviously vetted builds that are still highly favored will be archived everywhere (don't forget that brains were used to store information back in the day). Wiping the section might also motivate people to finally get something useful done instead of participating in this endless fecal trench war. -- Blazeroth 12:14, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

On a related tangent, since the April 2nd announcement, only an additional handful of people have cared enough to bitch about it. If I had suddenly gotten 500 emails or something, I'd be reconsidering my stance about the builds wipe. As it is, there are really only a very few vocal naysayers to the builds wipe, which makes me all the more certain that it's the correct course of action. &mdash;Tanaric 13:21, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Or perhaps, since so much of the build discussion that's supposedly been going on since the dawn of time has in fact been going on on pages the vast majority of users never see, most users assume their input isn't wanted on this decision, either - if the Wiki God has spoken, most people will assume their vote and voice doesn't count anyway, so why bother. Honestly, if you wanted feedback from the General Populace, you'd have asked for it in big bold letters on the front page of the wiki long before now, not for the chosen hardcores who lurk around and edit everything in sight. Blaming this, as so many have done, on the 'users not coming to a consensus' is absurd and insulting. You didn't ask, not in any accessible or obvious way. Nynn 13:21, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I just spent a good three hours reading as much as I could about this wipe, and trying to find the best spot for my response. GW:YOU made me realize I really should speak up, because hey, you need newbie PvE (wannabe PvP someday) opinions here too.  I've only looked at builds briefly in my time here, mostly trying to decide on professions.  From my experience, I would have to agree with Tanaric that this wipe does seem like the correct course of action.  I am very much looking forward to watching the evolution of the proposed Profession archetype guides, which seem to me, by far, to be the better way to learn what I wanted to learn!


 * I think this drastic revamp will encourage some good discussion on the basic ideas that make up builds, without getting so specific that anyone would need to veto anything. This would be the Wiki way to handle this situation!  The roles would provide a framework, with categories and subcategories and subsubcategories etc., within which Builds can eventually find a logical and well-organized home -- but only after the framework is well-established!  In fact, if the framework is good enough, perhaps the number of "bad" builds would be reduced, because there would be a place within the framework to describe why certain combinations have limited success.


 * I hope everyone who would normally be working on Builds can find the time to help make some sure these guides include all the important aspects that need to be considered! -- Qrystal 15:01, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

What?
My English isn't 100% but can someone please give me a simple answer for this? Why are the builds being wiped and is there an easy to way save all of them for later use? - Pickletron
 * They are been wiped so that we get a fresh start for a new policy for builds.
 * There are multiple projects allready to save te builds, so no important information will be lost. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 06:22, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

"You must copy the article history into your userspace as well to meet the license requirements!"
What does that mean? And how do we do it? --Macros 08:02, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd also like to know how to do this. Emo 10:42, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Use the "history" tab on the build article in question, note the contributors to the build, and give 'em credit on your copied version. We're trying to a find a better solution, but right now this is necessary to stay legal. &mdash;Tanaric 13:18, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Must? I thought ALL content was licensed. Wouldn't a build without history in the namespace be about as illegal about everything else in this wiki? -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 16:02, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * That's it? I thought you might have to 'move' the article history into your namespace too. :P --Macros 16:43, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * That's all? Is there no simpler way to?  I jsut realised i copied builds over without giving credit, and I want to fix that before I get in trouble for it.  Would a link to the old build's history suffice?  That's what I've done for now. Corrosion20 14:35, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Unfortunately, probably not, as the history will soon be deleted as well. -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 15:50, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Perhaps the simplest way would be to Ctrl+C the entire history page, and make a page in your userpage, and hyperlink there from the user's builds page. -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 15:51, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

That hurts.
Alright, so I don't necessarily oppose the Builds wipe, only because I don't know nearly enough about the problems that the build policy has to make an informed decision. HOWEVER, I am quite sad because I have only recently gotten a build vetted, and it is going to have a shelf life of 2 months before being taken down. I agree that the voting process is a little messed up because people who may or may not test vote based on their possibly flawed opinions. But for those of us who actually got their builds vetted, at least for me, it was a long and difficult process, and I have a little trouble accepting that it was all for naught. I personally dont want to go through a whole new vetting process on a different site, or even on this site if builds are accepted in the future. Anyways, in conclusion: Builds wipe is happening, and I'm sad.--Boottspurr 01:26, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * "But for those of us who actually got their builds vetted" The vetting process was not a competition of any sort against other build authors or the wiki system, it was a flawed system trying to manage the builds section. The system failed so we reset the situation. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 10:29, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Who said it was a competition? Your statement seems a little confrontational. All I said was that the vetting process was long and arduous, and that I was very happy that my build was vetted, and that I'm not happy that its all for nothing.  Don't take a single phrase of mine, misconstrue it, and use it as a reason to dismiss my sentiment.   Hah, I now recognize that I'm being confrontational and may be misconstruing your message. But, MEH!--Boottspurr 01:26, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Okay, you confused me so I just stroke out some of my message so that it still includes the main point. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 04:01, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Getting a build vetted isn't that special. Also, getting a build vetted in a place that is known for horrible builds isn't that special, not to be a killjoy or anything. --Theonemephisto 14:50, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm
I dont know the first thing about running the wiki but I can say this is a bit of a shock when I look at the literal picture. I dont have any strong feelings either way as I am sure eventually there will be good builds again. My only comment is that the builds database (the CONTENT) here on wiki is 1000x better than the ones you stated in your explanation that are better. At best all they have on GuildWiki is a better search feature, but that is an issue of a wiki designed to handle a massive amount of data vs a database query program whose only purpose is to drill into build results. If you are focusing on how builds are found and want the builds to be housed here, I dont think you are going to come to any agreement that will challenge the search power of some of the linked examples, thats not an insult, that is just an observation from a database programmer (aka me).

I may be missing something but the actual builds in the system are an extremely useful resource. Some are trash but many are good and almost all can be used for at least some theory or insight. It sounds like you are burning down a city to pave new sidewalks.

As I said I may be missing the point completely but after reading this stuff it honestly seems like there is a dislike for the way builds are found and organized, which does not make sence to purge a database when you just need a better front-end and perhaps a delete button for some of the rubbish builds.

My 2 cents.--Tom128 13:41, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Um, there are tens of thousands of users, each with their own opinion. We won't do something like this unless it was necessary, but it is. And plus, anyone can archive any build they feel is good, and the build system isn't permanantly gone, admins can retrieve the deleted builds after a new policy has made (if the new policy requires it.) -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 16:10, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Im not arguing that there are multiple opinions, I am aware. I am more arguing with the notion of "necessary". I guess I truly am missing the problem as a purge of the database really seems out of scope with the problem from my view thats all. Either way I will watch to see what happens, I believe further comments against the decision are both irrelevant and unwanted at this point. I just like the section currently is all, and am a bit confused by the scale of the solution.--75.117.254.67 16:34, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I wouldn't say that comments are unwanted or irrelevant, though they will most likely not stop this from happening. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:06, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Goodbye
I joined this website a while ago simply because I like the builds section. In my short time here I can say that I find the vetting procedure to be an ongoing source of problems. I personally like the builds section. There is nothing better than strolling through the unfavored section and taking a look at very odd ideas. They may not work, but then again, they may just need a change in style of play. This site is far superior to others for builds simply because you can find odd ideas and potentially turn them into something new and useful. Guru has real problems with the admins abusing their privaleges and locking down threads, as well as a large population of spammers, and the general swearing and cussing eachother out on threads which really just shows how uncontrolled it is. This site at least has rules against such abusive garbage and ideas are given a chance. Sometimes not enough of one, but in general things are more evenly treated here. Once again, I feel that there are problems with the build section, but I do not think it is anything nearly as bad as the complete pile of trash talk and mod abuse that is apparent on other sites. I do not expect to be missed, since I have not been a major contributor or a contributor for long, but I will for the most part be taking my leave of any work on this site.

I would like to point out that it is only in the last week that I have actually really heard anything about the build wipe. I know there has been talk about it for a long time, but I have not heard anything serious until a week, or week and a half ago. By the time I was able to get enough free time to hunt down the source of this the policy was already set in motion. I feel that this work was done mostly behind many users backs and that frustrates me. There should have been a warning, or a link to the poll on the main page, or somewheres. Any user who has spent more than a month even casually looking over the builds section knows that there has been talk about deleting them, but as I said, the first that I have heard about this was around a week ago, and even then I was not able to find any information about it.

Goodbye everyone. When the builds come back, so will I. Kelvin Greyheart 15:51, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * "done mostly behind many users back" -> done behind he scenes on pages the average user will never be linked to, most likely by long time wiki enthusaists which use big psychologically straining words and logic, and mostly all think alike and have same frame of mind. --Narcism 16:04, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * That's nice. It's not just disappearing like you think and it's the admins choice to do this wipe.  It will basically be handled differently.  I suggest that after about a month after the build wipe has happened that you check back and you may be surprised.  I think there will be a build network that should work much better actually.  Never give up, never surrender. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  16:17, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * We're giving all users a month warning before actually wiping. That's a huge warning. I really don't understand your complaint. &mdash;Tanaric 16:19, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The complaint is very simple, and I agree 100% with it. You hid this from us, and now you're forcing it on us, and expecting that we'll embrace it. You gave us a warning that the policy was in effect and that things would be deleted, never a warning that 'admins want to delete the builds.'--Zorbonkingofpants 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

I was a bit surprised that a nuke was coming, but I was even more surprised about the reasons. I mean "there are many other better build resources on the Internet", true, you are right, but: Buildwiki was better organized than (guru), had less trash than (gamependium, gwshack), was more complete than (guru, gamependium) other build resources. I am saying this because a lot of work was put into this section with good intention and I do not think this is recognized. As of now, GuildWiki is no question the best resource describing the (PvE) environment and the game mechanics, but it has no chance (never had) to be the "best" build resource (for PvP or high lvl PvE). Builds are intellectual products, and whatever library a "wiki" might have, will be as good as the average player (which is not much). If a build library wants to be "the best" it must have hierarchy, where better than average players are submitting builds and experienced players are judging them. This is obviously not very wiki-ish, so if the admins had a problem going away from the traditional (lol traditional, wiki rules are what 6 years old?) values, they should not have started the section on the first place. The way I see it (NOB, guides instead of builds), the admins want only to "document" in the new build section. In order to avoid further nukes, the admins (or whoever is nuking) should first give us some general directions. I believe the current criticism (the section is a monstrosity, builds sux) is not exactly guiding the community. --Vazze 16:42, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * "In order to avoid further nukes, the admins (or whoever is nuking) should first give us some general directions." No one can or will give any directions. Take part in the policy discussions to decide what the future of the builds section will be. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 17:09, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * I'm in full agreement. Like I said before, if the builds go, so do I.  I'm sorry Gem but I just don't see how this is necessary.  I had not heard anything about this idea until yesterday, and in a months time, the builds will be gone.  It is a fair warning, but I just think that (judging by the amount of opposition this idea has gotten), more time should be allotted to discuss and figure this out.  Also, I agree that most of the pages discussing this are just back and forth arguments, and they aren't helping us reach our ultimate goal of an orderly builds section, so we need to devise some way of a live conversation in which people who wish to discuss this can do so in an orderly and effective fasion.  While I do agree the constant bickering is childish, us members really have no way of voicing our opinions in any other way. --Fiz[[image:Fiz.jpg]] 18:12, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Anyone see a pattern here? People who don't want the build wipe to happen in general look like people who don't really contribute to the builds section that much.  So, would it be a big deal if those people quit contributing? I think not.  If they aren't willing to add to the current discussions going on with the new builds policy then no big loss eh?  I mean who really cares if people quit in a huffy pouty fit.... really.  --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 18:23, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * No, I don't see a pattern. I just see a lot of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Isis In De Nile 19:44, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * So Lania, the only people that count now are contributors? What about readers? I think the amount of people who use and benefit from the build section has been underestimated. Some readers don't read the wiki every day, and just come here when they are working on a new character to look at equipment and builds. Tanaric seems confident based on the response so far that he has made the right decision, but it has been only one day, it seems premature. I think the number of people posting here expressing frustration is going to continue. And because the wipe has already been decided without their input, its not surprising that they are giving up and walking away. -- BrianG 19:47, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

There should have been a warning, or a link to the poll on the main page, or somewheres 'THEN WHAT DO YOU CALL:

Honestly, it isn't that bad, people. Just go NOB and it'll be alright. Not only do I see a pattern of less contributing members, but I also am seeing a wide gammut of rather dumb methods implemented to feebly attempt to stop this. Discussion is good, but people need to think before they act. EDIT CONFLICT: Brian has a point, however :P. --Nog64Talk 19:51, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I just think it is childish to get in a huffy pouty fit and leave the wiki just because the builds section is getting a major overhaul. And then on top of that people complain about it like it is a huge injustice.  It is just a game, the world is not going to end! --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 19:56, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * While I understand the reasoning for the Builds Wipe (and I was somehow notified of it in early March) I can completely understand why people are upset. I'm not saying no one knew about the builds wipe, but the amount of people who knew were pretty much around the people who made the decisions around the builds, and not the majority of the contributors or readers. Many people use this wiki as a resource and do not have a user or know Wiki formatting. Is it fair to them, this Builds wipe?
 * I also think that if the GuildWiki Administrators had enough "dictatorship power" to put a builds wipe in place, then shouldn't they have enough power to put in GW:NOB without having to go through voting? Was GW:BW voted on, or at least heard of, by the majority of the users?
 * In a nutshell, I think that it is sort of odd that GuildWiki has the power to delete the entire builds section at will, and forcing the users to adapt to it, while it has debates and votes about policies and even inferior things. -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 20:10, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Just in case anyone hasn't noticed by now, the wiki isn't run on a democracy... ie. it is more akin to a dictatorship/monarchy... whatever you want to call it. Then again in many cases it is also anarchy.  --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 21:08, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Although admins would have the authority to force a policy, we are not going to do that. After the wipe there will be a new policy if the majority of users taking part in the discussion can agree on a new policy.
 * Fiz: You ask for more time to discuss, but I don't see you discussing at all on the suggested policy pages and I haven't seen you make a proposal yourself. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 04:06, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The average guildwikipedian must be thinking that you are abusing your power. What I meant is that you are making executive decisions on huge matters and voting on itsy bitsy matters. I mean, people must be thinking if you had the power to wipe builds, couldn't you simply put in your favoured policy, regardless of whether it was vetted or not? It said on the main page, something along the lines of "However, no policy suggestion has been made that garners even majority support, let alone anything approaching consensus." Has this policy gotten majority support? I actually think, if we took a poll, the majority of people on this wiki would oppose builds wipe. But you wouldn't care, because admins control the wiki, and yet you put the above quotation on the project page.
 * Again, to sum it up... I think it's unfair that since no policy got vetted, admins can just make one up that nearly no one agrees with and put it in power. But it's just my opinion. -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 15:31, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Gem is an admin and is not doing the builds wipe, User:Tanaric is a bureaucrat and can intervene if required (or whatever, I don't have the words) &mdash; Skuld 15:44, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Just Making Sure...
Ok, so since the builds page is going to be deleted, does this mean builds that people have made (such as my own) that are NOT currently on the builds page, but are saved to our persona page (or w/e) are getting deleted too? Or are those types of builds going to stay?

In short, if an article is titled like Abs_of_Glue/Tranquil_Trapper or w/e, will this get deleted, or only the Build: ones? Abs of Glue 18:16, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Everything on user namespaces aren't touched. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 18:17, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Alright, just making sure. My uber-leet Super Rez Monk build is too good to loose. Abs of Glue 18:20, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Alot of people have joke or humor builds like that on their user space. People are allowed to put whatever they want in their userspace as long as it is not illegal, ie. not violating GW policy, DMCA, other internet laws etc etc. --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 18:26, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Some more ideas
Well I just heard about this all for the first time today, and I have been around for about a year now... Kind of odd how something this big jumped up on me unexpectedly when I have been basically browsing the build sections and testing builds to get my own ideas of how to make my own... I wish there was the warning we have at the top of the wiki a year ago as opposed to now... since I personally think this was more hidden then not. I understand there is a problem here with the build section... I have posted many a build just to have them shot to hell or not given a chance, and I have seen many just like that. I have also seen horible builds writen in one word sentences and builds wonderfully crafted that go through quikly. However, in my opinion it is simply the way people vote. They generally don't even look into a build... A great example was the Solo Sin build which used 10 points in domination for just one hex (Empathy) which there were multiple unfavored votes just because of that skill itself. No one actually tested it (aside from the people who did like myself) and it almost went unfavored just because it had one skill... Now I have not read nearly enough to decide anything here but one thing I can say is that this is the BEST resource for builds I have come across. The system at GWShack is annoying the only part of it that I do like is that it is where the newest HA builds and things go. However it is almost impossible to find a good build that is NOT a team based build. I looked a little bit at the first reference there and it seems okay... but still nothing compared to the wiki (which is organized, easy to look through, and above all there are more single character builds for anyone interested in forming a build on their character or working toward the build. Finally GW Guru... well I have yet to find more then 4 builds on it. Honestly this site has the best setup and I only wish more builds were favored, or at least more builds were posted (weather they are from somewhere else or not I wouldn't care). I also will agree that there are many builds that are just written poorly and without any true thoughts at all, however those builds do not go any further then untested before they are made any better...

My point is I think we need to make a solid vetting system not a solid namespace system... From what I have read the best action (in my oppinion) is to mix "Explain Yourself" and "Build split". The builds that are currently in the namespace should basically be put through the vetting system again from untested to tested and viola! All the bad builds unfavored, all the good ones are favored, and all the ones to come are given a chance. The split also makes sure that even builds that have both PvP and PvE uses are made better for each. I have builds that work in both but I also have builds that I edit slightly when I go into PvP or PvE. As for a vetting system I really think that all votes should require a reason as for the vote as well as the build should be required to be tested... Some builds look better on paper then they work and some look bad on paper but work wonderfully. There should be no excuse for voting without testing and there also should be no excuse for not giving your reasoning. If you are going to vote do it right is what I say. With this nothing is lost, only set up for a better future. Yeah at first it will be troublesome... but it is better to refavor the builds that are solid and good and to unfavor the favored ones that are not good anymore (because of changes made to the skills or whatever). From there on out things should go better... and if not we can come back to where we are now. --Saji-Kun 21:36, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe I missed it, but what exactly makes you sure that this re-voting won't end up with the same screwed up results as the first voting? You want a reason for me to unfavor that sin build? "It has 10 points in Domi for a single skill". There's my reason. It may be completely stupid, but it's a reason, and as such it'd be perfectly valid according to your system (and according to the current system).
 * Voting doesn't work, as voting requires people to actually have a clue about what they're voting on, and very often that doesn't happen. Making the assumption that people will only vote if they have a clue without some way to make sure that it will be so is kinda pointless. --Dirigible 21:45, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yeah you are right... but sadly without a voting setup we have a slur of bad builds, some good builds, some old unworkable builds... and no way to sort through what is truly good and what is just a blob of one word statements... Either that or they all go away and we have to look through a bunch of user profiles to see a build... or with NOB you don't have anything but the builds that EVERYONE uses and nothing new comes in really... honestly we will have to keep the voting... least thats what I would say... And no matter what happens I just hope I don't loose this as a build resource... --Saji-Kun 21:56, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * That is why you have to shift systems. You use either a system that makes it near impossible to post terrible builds (akin to no original builds) or you give a group of people who know what they are talking about the ability to over ride the clueless. -Warskull 23:49, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Are We Ready?
Judging by I what I heard from NOB, there isn't a large consensus on what we should do AFTER the wipe. We should work very, and I mean VERY hard to make sure that as soon as the builds section is wiped, we can come outta the gate with a clear plan in our heads. I suggest admins clearly pick NOB or PNB. I understand an interim solution exists, but I feel it would be far more efficient to just go ahead and implement a lasting policy in the builds section. We have almost a month, so I suggest we use it.--Nog64Talk 22:37, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, it is an interesting paradox. On the one hand, we want to establish a new policy before the build wipe.  Makes sense.  However, it is also true that (in all likelihood), such a decision will only be spurred by the necessity caused by the wipe itself.  The problem is that the discussion on new policies will likely reach its peak immediately before and after the wipe.  You're right, we don't want to wipe the builds prematurely.  But, it's also possible that any decision occurring now in terms of policy would be premature unless we wait for the wipe.  [[Image:DE-S3.jpg]] *Defiant Elements*   +talk  22:42, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No, you aren't, and that is one of the reasons there shouldn't be a build wipe, at least create a test section with test policies, I doubt if anyones actually considered that before pushing build wipe.--<font color="Black">Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] 22:59, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Creating a test section would be bogged down with endless debate and be the very quagmire I'm trying to avoid. I want this transition of the build section to be as quick and clean as possible.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 23:06, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * As quick and clean? do you honestly think that it will be quick and clean when you have a bunch of people flaming all the people involved in this once the build section is gone and nothing is in its place? It's a quagmire already, dont make it worse by doing this

Policy Before Wipe--<font color="Black">Sefre  23:22, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Is a waste of time and will hurt more than it will help. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 23:53, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Agreed, waste of time. Nog is in favor of the Wipe, he just wants to make sure the transition is quick and painless so we know where we stand.  [[Image:DE-S3.jpg]] *Defiant Elements*   +talk  23:58, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The discussion will most likely reach it's end sometime near the wipe. It's irrelevant if the wipe is next week, in 4 weeks or next year. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 04:14, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Frankly
This won't work. The fact it took so long to reach the wiping decision yields grim omens for the new policy being made. A wipe of the untested builds section would be suitable, but otherwise, is it not this wikis purpose to have all the info to make GW easier? We making a mountain out of a molehill calling that section massive ungainly and ballooning. But we will open a can of worms the second it is deleted. I'm willing to bet the number of anons(and users) spamming "Where da builds?" will sully more talk pages than there are build pages right now. Thats just my opinion.Dark0805 23:42, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * You simple replace the current Main Page for builds with a message that says "Due to numerous issues the current build section has been deemed a failure. All builds have been removed and the build section will remain gone until a new policy can be developed."  Plus the build section doesn't make Guild Wars easier, more than half the stuff is bad advice. -Warskull 23:47, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * At a time when a wiki made by Arenanet just came out, having everyone seeking a build on this site seeing the word failure hardly seems wise. Wipe the untested.Dark0805 [[Image:Kinetic_Armor.jpg|19px]] 23:50, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Failure is a great word to use. When W/Mo Life Sheathers are vetted and people honestly defend them, something is wrong. When people submit builds just to get them favored, something is wrong. When the same few dedicated contributors get flamed incessantly by build authors defending sword-wielding rits and spellcasting warriors, something is wrong. So... the builds wipe. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 00:08, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The thing that undermines you thoughts Auron is Build:Rt/W Spirit Warrior, a very effective Sword-wielding Rit. Just because you say something is wrong with them, doesn't mean it is. Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 00:13, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Aside from that, the build wipe is neccasary, it's just a mess. The voting policies are ruined, users constantly abuse there rights to vote. Solus  [[Image:SOJsig.jpg|19px]] 00:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd like to pretend that you make sense, but I just can't. Look at my argument; look at the talk page on that build. Is there any of what I'm talking about there? And with that lack of what I'm talking about (authors flaming people in defense of the build), what gives you the idea that I was talking about that in the first place? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 00:19, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The whole point of having secondary professions Auron is to be able to have sword wielding ritualist and spell casting warriors. The whole point of Guild Wars is being able to find an effective way to have a spell casting warrior and a sword wielding ritualist.  This is one of the problems with the vetting procedure.  Many people don't see the potential in those builds and shut them down before testing it.  If I had to say there was one flaw in the vetting procedure, it would be the votes made by those who do not take into consideration the effectiveness of these builds. Giangn626 01:02, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The "whole point" of having a secondary profession really depends on who you are. I, mostly focused on PvP, see secondary professions as a tool to complement the primary (W/Mo for Mending Touch, not for Mending or Healing Hands). Monks healing a warrior are, without a doubt, more effective than a warrior wasting points trying to do the same. Warriors wielding swords are, without a doubt, better than rits (with said sword).
 * The "whole point" of Guild Wars also depends on who you are. IMO, trying to make an effective spellcasting warrior is a waste of time, because spellcasting primaries will *always* do a better job, regardless. I'm more interested in the best spellcaster build period, because that knowledge will give me an edge in PvP. Some people try to make good sword-wielding rits (most fail, but some succeed. In all fairness, that rit isn't dealing damage worth mentioning with a sword, he's dealing damage via his primary attribute). To sum up my response, "it works" is by no means a measure of effectiveness in PvE. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 01:57, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The fact we have this kind of debate shows that the build page DOES work! If we are so happy to philosophically debate the nuances of an imaginary idea then we must have done something right! Yes, everyone on this site, for the most part, is close minded, but how the hell will wiping the builds make them see better? The problem is that there are too many people just constantly making builds. But thats something we should DEAL with, not complain about! If it takes 600 people creating the same Restful breeze warrior to get the next IWAY, we should sit down shut up and deal with it, instead of having a temper tantrum and smashing what we have built.Dark0805 [[Image:Kinetic_Armor.jpg|19px]] 11:13, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Have you even tried to take part in the suggested policy discussions? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 11:43, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The only people that seem to be having temper tantrums are the people who are against the wipe... As Gem says, if you don't want to see them go away, participate in constructive discussions about what the new policy will be.  Otherwise, QQ.  --Rainith 11:56, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Your'e both missing my point! Our system works! There's nothing wrong with the builds system, theres something wrong with the people posting them. Just do a wipe of the untested every set amount of weeks or months, and have frequent archiving of builds that have fallen. Thats the only changes we need.Dark0805 [[Image:Kinetic_Armor.jpg|19px]] 14:30, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I've done that already, twice. Look where we are today. &mdash; Skuld 14:34, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Are you shitting me? They've been deleted twice??? Jesus. Ok, something is wrong.Dark0805 [[Image:Kinetic_Armor.jpg|19px]] 14:49, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Damn straight ;p &mdash; Skuld 15:05, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Youve made a mistake - Chrisworld 00:24, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * O rly? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 00:25, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Though I sincerely love the builds section, I relize that its deletion is necessary. Far too much effort is required in order for it to be up-keeped. However, with its deletion, I EXPECT that there will be many changes in policy as well... <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Black">talk *<font color="Black">contribs ) 01:31, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Ofcourse. Who would be so stupid to implement the same failing system again. ;) See GW:NOB for an example of a new proposal. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 04:20, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Huge string of opinions on what should be done, maybe should be split into multiple posts..
First, I will state that I know fully well that my word on this topic is of little value to some users because I have not made enough meaningful edits to alledgedly "justify my wiki-existence." Also, Auron, for one I should mention that considering you were one of the ones who largely pushed through this wipe in the first place, which could be referred to semi-correctly (not quite) as nearly cloak-and-dagger in fashion, I would say that you're a very, very biased source for opinion on this. I will not deny that the Builds section was flooded with literal junk. What I will deny, is that there was nothing of merit to be kept. Also Auron, I hope you do not take portions of this post as attacks on you, as they are not meant to be. I simply have so much to say, and not enough time to think of how to say it all effectively. I understand fully well that we seem to be intent on keeping the most common cookie-cutter builds, but I have no idea why. In 4 months, the meta may have completely shifted, those builds could be worthless. Oh and in response to Primary/Secondaries and "real" PvP, Auron, you're mostly right, but I have a counterpoint. Thumpers. Also, I think since I bothered to save this from the past, when it was mentioned, here's the quote I'm talking about with you helping push it through. Shockingly, you said "No one" wants to use the Wiki for builds. You speak for a very small and vocal group, I believe. In this post, you were outright rude to many of the people who contributed decent builds to the Wiki (yes, there is such a thing,) albeit slightly indirectly (You do not fail to get a build off of the wiki and hope it works perfectly any more than you fail to get one off of Guru and assume the same...) Anyways:

____(quoting, sorry, I'm a wikinoob and want to make it clear)____

Builds on a Wiki? No Thanks

This'll get hit with lots of flak, but I can manage. My suggestion to improve this Wiki and its reputation; Remove the build section entirely. It's foolish to have a build section period. Take a quick glance at GWGuru or team-iq.net; does *anyone* think the Wiki build section is worth using? No. So why are we wasting time working on a build section that nobody cares about or respects? Basically, if you get a PvP build off Wiki, you fail at PvP. Start a thread over at GWGuru if you disagree, see how many supporters you get. PvE is too easy to have a compendium of specific builds for it. As I'll talk about later, we should have only guides for each profession, telling them how not to be a retard (i.e. don't tank as a caster, don't attack through Empathy, etc.) Most importantly, a build section does not fit on this wiki period. Fact: GuildWiki is a guide with elements of an encyclopedia. Don't believe me? Check out this page. Encyclopedias are a compendium of fact (for the most part), so the only builds justified by Encyclopedia would be ones pre-made by ArenaNet; seeing as those have been discontinued, no builds should be included in encyclopedic nature. That leaves the Guide part of the wiki. I looked up "guide" at Dictionary.com and got about fifteen results. #4 is:

* a book, pamphlet, etc., giving information, instructions, or advice; handbook.

Simple as that. We already have guides to each profession (something to the effect of Effective Warrior Guide), and guides to profession combinations (Warrior Monk, Warrior Elementalist, etc), so our work is done. Keep the Wiki what it is meant to be; a comprehensive and easy-to-navigate Encyclopedia/guide. Remove the build section.

-Auron My Talk 19:03, 5 December 2006 (CST)

____(End quoting of past post)_____

Now, continuing on this point. I think the first step to be made WOULD in fact be to set up a temporary No new builds policy, and focus on guides. Because I would agree that a lot of users honestly get on sites, try to find a build that they think "looks cool," and copy it skill-for-skill, and use it until the meta kills it, then rinse and repeat. What I think would be the best solution, is to promote the players to understand the basics of build-making itself.

In this respect, I think that the "By related Subject" articles linking from the Skills Namespace should be much more fleshed-out and carefully monitored, with reasoning explained near the end of this post. Players should learn self-reliance and the ability to adapt to the Meta without being babied and shown a new build, but it doesn't get done by complaining about it. They need to know what their job is in the first place, and how flexible they are to branch to others. State of the Game has tried to be nice about it, but as mentioned, leave the healing to the monks, and the fire magic to the fire elementalists (Unless there's a very, very compelling and drastic reason to do otherwise, which is rare at best). This is where guides come in. It might be worthy to have two guide-branches, one for PvP and one for PvE (the PvE one would be simpler in most regards due to the fact that it's near-undeniable that PvE is much more forgiving, simple and far easier in general). It would be best to make the articles for guides CLEARLY delineated into PvE and PvP roles, whether by separate articles or by splitting the page into two "mini-articles". Because a warrior/monk stance-tanking in PvE is doing his job quite well in many cases, but in PvP he's a miserable failure who will get shot down quicker than a W/N trying to be an MM at HA (sadly, seen that happen in HA before, was sad but I won't comment more on it).

Guides should all clearly explain the tactics that each profession is usually assigned to (Example: Split-prone professions should have this clarified, with linkage to documentation on split-builds) and not just that, I think they should list the most useful "By related Subject" categories for their profession. A necromancer guide would greatly benefit from having the "Skills related to hexes" page listed even in its current state (more on how this could be improved later), regardless of whether all of them are necromancer only. Players are not effectively taught to take advantage of synergy between certain skills and certain profession combinations in most cases, so they become reliant on the few who bother, and imitate.

The "Related Subject" pages for skills are, in my opinion, the single most powerful tool for discovering skill synergy in PvP available to players right now. No other site has anything close, but it could be far better. It's very frustrating, because in the case of hexes listed above, the Quick Reference pages are in the right direction, but not powerful enough. To start a hypothetical, imagine you want to make a hex-overloading necro or mesmer in PvP. I wish instead of broad topics like "Hex spell skills quick reference" these articles were (within the same article in all likelihood) narrowed into synergy-aiding subsections such as "Area of Effect hexes," "Melee Impairing Hexes" "Caster/Energy impairing hexes," "Condition Reliant hexes," etc. Obviously, this would lead to plenty of skills being placed in multiple categories within the same page. While it may at first seem redundant, from the standpoint of someone coming to the site while build-making simply to get understand skill synergy and use it to their advantage, this is a huge boon. (I regularly browse through the By Related Subject pages in windowed mode while making test builds in-game) If players were promoted to follow tactics like this instead of "Click the build, copy template, open in game," it would be very nice for all players.

I will conclude for now, saying that I do not ENTIRELY think that this build wipe is a bad idea, but I fear that in the state it is now, it really will make a large dent in the Wiki. I could be drastically wrong, and would be glad to be proven drastically wrong (I'm hopeful for it,) but time, and the actions occuring over it, will tell. Also, to give an analogy of how people feel about being left out of the decision, if anyone honestly claims that before this tag was placed everyone had a fair chance to object, please watch the beginning of the movie adaptation of A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I very strongly agree that for many players, both the new and the veterans, the main focus shouldn't be directly on builds, but on guides, and skill-synergy pages (which I find to be oddly very under-appreciated, since they aren't really meant expressly for skill synergy/interaction right now, though with work they could do well at it and show some signs of the desire for it to work that way.) I was tired when I wrote this, so I'm sure I probably have put several redundant portions, and made large typos. I might fix that later. As nearly always, there are valid points on both sides. I will end my rant here, though I believe that most people will not have read it word-for-word and skipped most of it, I believe those who did read it word for word, might find it quite valuable. Shas&#39;o Kauyon 11:49, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * "First, I will state that I know fully well that my word on this topic is of little value to some users because I have not made enough meaningful edits to alledgedly "justify my wiki-existence."" Not true, in theory atleast. In a wiki everyone should be equal, although not everyone remembers it all the time.
 * "Also, Auron, for one I should mention that considering you were one of the ones who largely pushed through this wipe in the first place" Not true. It was Tanarics idea, who I then began to support. Others have joined the support team after the decision was made.
 * "I think the first step to be made WOULD in fact be to set up a temporary No new builds policy, and focus on guides." The no-builds is exactly what is coming into effect after the wipe. Guides aren't diallowed nor removed. If you look at the various proposals for a new build policy, you'll notice that many users seem to support a guide based solution instead of the build based solution.
 * All in all that was a good post. I would suggest to look at Profession archetype guides and GW:NOB. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 12:00, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

:(
The build section was one of the main reasons for me to visit guildwiki, i could always find a good build and i never experienced any problems...
 * No offense, but if you could always find a good build you either have the best luck in the world or you don't know what a good build is. --Theonemephisto 09:12, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Yah there were some really good builds, but even when I started looking at Wiki's builds, I was just like WTF at some of the builds... and many of the PvP builds.--Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 10:05, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Not sure where to post this so I'll put it here and let you do what you will with it. To start, I am really just a casual player. I am not a regular contributor here, nor am I taking sides at all. I do enjoy having the builds section here and IMO this is far and away the best builds section available, even with its current problems. And I would like to see it remain here, if possible. After reading through some of the discussions I do have some suggestions for a new builds testing and review policy. If I have missed similar suggestions elsewhere please let me know. If this is total crap feel free to delete it.

1. Anyone wishing to post a new build will submit it to the Admins with a detailed explanation of how and where it works, along with a video of it being used. The Admins and/or a group of designated testers will review and test the build for a period of time (1 week?) and work with the author to "tweak" the build. (Possibly some sort of live testing where the build is run while being observed.) If the build does not pass this part of the testing procedure the person who submitted the build may rework and resubmit the build at a later time. This section can be kept separate from the tested builds section.

2. If the build passes the initial testing, it is put into an "in process" section for a period of time (1 week?). Any user may test the build and provide feedback on it during this time. Anyone offering feedback must provide to the Admins and/or author a video of them actually using the build, a detailed explanation of what they feel is good/bad with the build and any suggestions for improvement. Any further "tweaking" of the build can be done at this time.This section can also be kept separate from the tested builds directory.

3. If the build passes the first two steps it will be put into the tested builds section. If changes in the game mechanics, or the addition of new skills to the game, would warrant a review of the build then it would need to go back to the beginning of the process. The build under review would be subject to the same rules as a newly submitted build. An "under review" tag can be added to the build at this time. In addition, all currently tested builds can be moved to this section and subject to the same review process as needed.

4. Any player who has issues with the build may submit, in private, to the Admins and/or the author a detailed explanation of of the problem, along with a video of them actually using the build. If the Admins and/or the originator of the build feel the complaints are suffcient then the build would again be re-tested. The build under review would be subject to the same rules as a newly submitted build. An "under review" tag can be added to the build at this time as well.

5. Some sort of numbered rating system, using set criteria such as DPS, Energy Manaagement, Better or Worse than Similar Builds, etc. These scores would be used in addition to written reviews to give an overview of the builds performance. IE: Works as Intended 1-5 (1 not at all to 5 extremely well) This would give a (hopefully) much more accurate assessment of the build than the current "I loved it", "It sucks" system.

6. Any build which becomes "unfavored" for whatever reason, can be archived for review by users. If anyone feels a build can be salvaged, for whatever reason, they may submit the reworked build for review. Subject to the same rules as a newly submitted build.

These ideas are not perfect, but are intended tp provide a famework for discussion and formation of a new policy which will keep the builds on wiki. While similar to the current process, I feel this may provide a streamlined, more efficient and more accurate way of testing/retesting, and approving builds. I know that parts of this (Step 1 specifically) may be viewed as "elitist", and I certainly understand that fear. But I feel that those who are willing to put in the time and effort (unlike myself) needed to thoroughly test and review the builds are those that are most likely to offer the best opinion on whether or not a build is valid. I also see what seems a problem in the current process, which is the "buddy system" - getting others to vote for the build out of friendship for the author rather than the merits of the build itself. Hopefully, a framework similar to my suggestions will help minimize both the "eletist" and "buddy system" aspects of the current process. Area 54 14:52, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Offsite Attribution
I have a site at and have been "borrowing" builds and placing this at the bottom of them.


 * Searing Flames Elementalist
 * Taken from Guild Wiki under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license

Where the name would be a link to the GuildWiki page and the "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license" would be a link to the license. Like here. How should I go about it now to keep within the license?


 * -You can adapt the information contained therein to your own liking, but (or because, rather) like it has been pointed out, there is no build on this site that isn't public domain. -Igot8001 10:52, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Igot - No, nothing here is public domain unless the author specifically states he releases it to the public domain. All contributions to GuildWiki are released under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license - see the site's copyright policy.
 * Anon - from the history tab of the build articles, you can view the contributors to the build. Technically, I believe it's required to list all significant contributors to the build (I don't believe it's needed to list those who just fixed typos and/or added/removed templates - someone else may be able to clarify). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:57, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * You don't even need to attribute that I think, you don't have any text and just the stats and skills, I don't think that can be covered by the licence &mdash; Skuld 10:58, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * I think you're right - combinations of stats and skills are taken from the game - the main points requiring attribution are text descriptions on usage, weaknesses, strategies, counters, and formatting of the articles. I hadn't followed the link, so didn't look at how the site presents the info. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:04, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Support
After reading some long discussions and hearing many people's opinions (mostly that they oppose the wipe), I support the wipe. (This is not meant to be a vote, by the way; just my opinion on the subject after most people's oppositions). Granted I am no builds junkie, nor have I contributed much to them other than minor corrections, but I have been around long enough to see how the Builds section is turning out. I find that the section is too unwieldly, and some of the vetted builds I couldn't get to work. What also makes maintaining a builds section difficult is that ArenaNet often tweaks skills, and will soon be adding many more with the Eye of the North expansion, which would make some builds broken and obsolete. ArenaNet's continuous adjusting of skills would require continuous monitoring of builds, which would require continuous tweaking of builds, which would require testing of builds over and over again (you get what I mean).

I don't have an opinion on what to do after the wipe, though GW:NOB sounds like a reasonable idea, as does Profession archetype guides (though I think this needs to be explained more). I understand that the Builds section is some users' lives, but I think GuildWiki is going in the right direction by removing the long list of builds. Supporting and giving my two cents, --<font color="#00008b">theSpectator talk 14:37, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Despite the Internal Conerns Over the Current State of the Build Section, This is Not the Way to Treat Your Users.
There is a post in guru from skuld stating this decision is "... the result of like, a years worth of discussion and a lack of anything improving. Feel free to propose new policies or give your thoughts on currently proposed ones (see the link on the notice box)".

What do you mean lack of anything improving? I didn't realize there was a need to improve anything, and have been referencing the builds section for the past year (regularly). I would argue that most users of the wiki aren't interested in your policies - they are interested in the content they access on a regular basis. You are telling me that in order to settle a conflict between a limited number of users/moderators/contributers of the site, a conflict that most of us didn't know about because it really made no impact to the users of the site, that you are going to penalize ALL of the users? That makes absolutely no sense.

If you want suggestions - how about this: You want to start with a new strategy - a clean slate - fine - go for it. DO NOT take away what is there while you figure exactly how you are going to make the new system work. DO NOT refer users to sites that in no way IMHO provide as much useful/detailed/consistent information on builds. (not a slam on guru builds etc, but nobody's build section is as easy to browse through and as consistently descriptive of each build as yours). DO NOT refer users to copies of builds on personal sections of the wiki - how is anyone supposed to even know those sections exist, after all? DO start posting new contect in the manner agreed upon as soon as the agreement is made. DO convert the old content that is deemed worthy of coversion to the new format. DO hold on to the remainder of the existing content and allow less than popular builds to continue to have their place (even if it is separte/archived/whatever. You actually already have this - its called "Untested").

Guildwiki provides a service. Service providers should not yank 1/3 of their content/service (an estimate taken directly from the discussion on this topic) from their customers. If ANET pulled 1/3 of the content of the game bc they had internal disagreements about how valuable it was (let's say, removed 1/3 of the skills they found of questionable value), how do you think the majority of the players would feel? How do you think that move would affect ANETS reputation and trustworthiness? I think the answers to these questions are obvious, but unfortunately I am forced to post them here in the hope that some sense of reason will suddenly strike those who are driving this decision. I am doing this because I care about wiki and the service it has provided to the community (and myself over the last year or so). &mdash; Whisper.Evenstar 14:45; 4 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Ugh, keep me out of it. &mdash; Skuld 14:47, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Lol at many things said there. I'm a bit too tired on this so I wont comment on everything. The build wipe is not meant to solve a problem of a few users (lol, what an idea...) but to solve a problem that touches all of the GWiki users who have anything to do with the builds section. The section is currently crap compared to what it could be with a good policy. A clean start, although it causes a small downtime, will improve the quality of the section. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:02, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Hey, I totally agree with you Evenstar, and I disagree that this is a problem for all users. I could care less how policy driven and aesthetically pleasing the build section is to the admins. What is important to me is the content that the build section offers.  Even the builds that the community decides is unfavored might contains crumbs of good ideas.  I find it fun & valuable to browse through builds, especially those that haven't gained popularity.  E.g., I would never have learned about E/A Promise Nuker, which I find more effective than Echo Nuker and Renewal Nuker, even though the latter two are better known in the community. --Ctran 15:11, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * The suggested new policy, GW:NOB tries to handle the situation in the following way: Popular and definitely working builds are in the build name space. This makes those happy who don't want to form their own builds and find ideas for their own builds. 'Original', tha means builds created by users etc, builds are allowed in the user name space with a simple categorisation system just like the buils section has currently. This allows those wo want to create builds and who want new build ideas to continue like previously, but keeps the stuff out of those peoples eyes who don't like it. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 16:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * If you paid for using Guildwiki, I might say that you could say that Guildwiki is a service that is provided and that they have no right to remove parts of it. However, guildwiki is free, and if you never tried to discuss the policy while those mods/contributers were trying to work things out, well, that sucks for you. --Theonemephisto 15:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Very Disappointed
I am not sure there is anything I can say about this that can not already be said.

I am just curious that with this gone (and this was a HUGE draw to the site for me and many I know) what will happen here.

I know Anet has launched their official Wiki, so I wonder if it will really pick up steam come May 1st (something I would have said would not happen if the very popular builds section were to remain intact). &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cceller (contribs).


 * The builds section is not going away permanetly. Please people, learn to read! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:04, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Gem, I think the main point you are missing is that for the average user who enjoys the PVE builds posted here, there is not much difference between the build wipe and NOB. As I've said before, the build wipe obviously displays a bias towards an NOB-like policy, because it would be pointless to wipe all the builds and then bring them right back.  Please keep this in mind when people are expressing their frustration at the builds section being gone.  Even with NOB implemented, most of these users are not going to have the PVE builds resource they used to have.  Even if a majority of these users all threw their support behind a policy in opposition of NOB, suggesting an improvement to the vetting system, it would be a waste of time.  The same people who want to get rid of the section and have frustrated past attempts to improve the vetting system would never let this happen. -- BrianG 15:17, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No, if a majority of users would support an improved version of the vetting system instead of something like NOB, we would implement that, just like would happen with any other policy. However, there has been no policy suggestions formed for a system like that, although I've seen one or two users suggesting something like that, but none stood up to protect their idea when someone pointed out the problems.
 * Btw, I'm sorry for the outburst, I'll take a break and submit my modified NOB when I'm in control again. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:33, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No problem Gem, we are all getting a bit stressed lately. To be honest at this point the build section is not all that important to me as I have builds I'm happy with and the skills to create more for myself, but I still disagree with the wipe and am trying to help people understand the other perspective on why users are frustrated by this change.  I'd try to rally them together behind a new policy, but to be honest my suggestions and other people's suggestions have been shot down so many times before, by people who just don't believe the section can ever work, and I can't justify the amount of time it would take to try again.  People keep saying that its our own fault because we could never come to a consensus on an improved policy, but the key issue there is that many of the people who prevented consensus before are people who don't like the section or don't think it should exist.  Its very difficult to reach consensus on a policy improvement when you have people who will never agree to any policy involving PVE builds. -- BrianG 15:43, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Please don't tell me you think "People, learn to read!" is an outburst! Half of us would be ashamed of our words now ^.^ -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 15:45, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, and may I host a poll of opinion here? I believe it may be beneficial to find out the actual and entire opinions of the people who care about the Builds section. -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 15:47, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * User:Sefre has a petition against it &mdash; Skuld 15:50, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * No, I mean an opinion poll. Like who is in favor and who isn't. Not a petition. And plus, those who care about Builds would more likely visit this page than Sefre's. -- Nova  [[Image:Neo-NovaSmall.jpg]] --  (contribs) 15:54, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The poll should be carefully formed. "Do you want to prevent the build wipe?" and "Do you like the build section?" are whole different questions for example. Be sure that the questions make clear what you are asking, not like the last poll by Tanaric which definitely didn't. ;) I for example support the wipe, which some people think that means that I hate the builds section, while I totally love the builds section. And I like original builds too, but I still support GW:NOB. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 15:57, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Sorry, Gem, where's Tanaric's poll again? I didn't see it :( And, I was simply thinking the question could be "Are you in support of Guild Wars: Builds Wipe?" (I hope that's simple enough :D) Oops, I didn't read carefully ^.^


 * GuildWiki_talk:Post_No_Builds/Archive_2 &mdash; Skuld 16:03, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Note: That's an archived poll, please don't vote anymore. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 16:17, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Archive the old builds section?
I'm not an active writer here, I'm just your average anonymous lurker. I am not against the wipe but something here still bothers me. Everytime something is 'wiped' there will always be something that accidentally gets forgotten or left unnoticed. In this particular case it might mean a perfectly viable and working build that simply gets forgotten and lost in the limbo forever. Is it not possible to archive the old builds section until a real policy decission has been made and put into action. The old build archive would serve as a great resource for the new builds section. What if the policy has not yet been decided on when the section gets wiped? How long will the section be offline then? How long will it take for a new one to be created from scratch? Days of hellish editing? Maybe months? As an adept everyday GuildWiki user seeing my favourite section gone offline and byebye for an unknown period of time or even a day saddens me much. I realize that the builds section is not exactly a small part of the site but simply wiping something for good before a replacement has been made just sounds very intimidating and honestly not very professional.

I'm not sure many of the active writers and users here realize just how well the section actually was made. I love the builds section of this site. It's one of the most resourceful and easiest to understand build compilations available and most things are required to be presented in a certain format making it even more easier and faster to use unlike any other build resource site out there. Most build resource sites are just confusing and do not require enough formatting or actual explanation of the builds nor even user evaluation. You just have to guess if they are good or not. In GuildWiki the bickering in the voting of the builds was actually of great value. With just a little common sense you could see if the build was worth trying out simply based on peoples little argumentations.

I hope you all realize this. The builds section wasn't so bad, confusing or messed up compared to many others unlike many of you here seem to think. The vetting system might have stresed some people out but it was still very valuable even with misplaced or stupid votes. It's not as if readers couldn't just check the discussion page and see for themselves, the actual votes there meant absolutelly nothing but the important comments by the people certainly did. ---BooBoo 16:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * "Is it not possible to archive the old builds section until a real policy decission has been made and put into action." As far as I know, everything has been backed up. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 16:19, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Favored or Unfavored? Vote.
For people to actually notice this, originally posted by Skuld.


 * GuildWiki_talk:Post_No_Builds/Archive_2#Poll:_Does_the_build_namespace_cause_more_harm_than_good.3F ---BooBoo 16:15, 4 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Sorry, I removed the link. That is an old and archived poll. Please do not touch the archive! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 16:16, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

How about a new poll on the main page for users of the site to have a voice? ---Whisper.Evenstar 16:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


 * If no one beats me to it, I'll post a poll later on. not on the main page, but on this discussion page. This is easily findable atm. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 16:22, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Sorry about that then. There definatelly needs to be a poll somewhere visible so that ordinary visitors be able to see it and speak up if they want to. --BooBoo 16:28, 4 April 2007 (CDT)