GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Builds

Do we really need a standard style/format for these? I'm not sure we even have links to any (I know a couple were written, I think I just forgot the link off the main page when re-organising it). If there should be a standard.. it'd probably be pretty dang loose. "Skillbar" and "Play style" and "tips and tricks" and "other notes"? Not much in the way of images needed, nor taxy boxes.. Nunix 06:48, 22 Jun 2005 (EST) Okay, time to start this, I will answer my own question as "yes" =p And we can get into discussion if you disagree. --Nunix 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

skill bar
I think this is a good start for build formatting; a simple single-column dealie as in the game. What I want is for each image to be a link to the actual skill, but I spent half an hour digging in MediaWiki helpfiles today and came up with nothing. Can this even be done? Do I need to harass Gravewit to start some source hacking? --Nunix 18:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

should we add builds to the wiki?
(moved from build, didnt know this discussion existed.)

We basically need a template for each skill, named after the skill, to use that as a tumbnail for the build, the template can include a Category uses "skillname" to categorize all builds that use a certain skill.

Each tumbnail-template has a small icon, the skill name, cost, cast, recharge numbers and a short effect description in it.

Same with professions, we need one template for each of the 36 combinations and categorize that, too. So you easily find builds for your professions(s) in that category.

We could even make a tumbnail out of "Air magic 12", including the "12" to make "Air magic 12" a category (runes are not really that much part of a build, its more a free choice what rune to use).

If the build does not have a comon name its a good idea to include the elite skill ... to the name.

If you want to add a build you should check if a simular build already exists, seach for the used elite skill first.

Build Example (the templates would make it look like a clean table with icons AND add it to some categories to sort builds by skills, classes and attribute skill):

Paladin:

"description" "..."


 * No. This is too template-happy (and category-happy).  Having builds might not be bad, but organizing them would probably be an issue since people would disagree on each build's composition, goal, and merit.  There would be nothing wrong with just putting the skills and attributes each into a list and linking them.  --Fyren 07:40, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * No. Builds that exist merely to support an elite skill should be discussed in that skill's article, not in a seperate build page.  There probably is a legitimate use for a build index on GuildWiki, but I cannot think of it off the top of my head. &mdash;Tanaric 15:30, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)

looks like this:


 * }

...actually, that syntax (for the skills themselves) might be useful, as they could be used to create skill lists like Monk Skills Quick Reference. Each skill could have this short version (located at, say, Mending/Short), and skill lists and builds could reference them. That lowers redundancy down to just two locations, one of which is a subpage to the other. It'd also make it convenient to create pages on the official PvP builds, as well as others commonly used. I'm not convinced it's a good idea, but I'm also not sure it's necessarily a bad one. I'll pull a Biro in this case. :) &mdash;Tanaric 20:48, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I don't like having hundreds of templates for it. --Fyren 05:15, 17 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Aye, but they wouldn't be in the template namespace, so they wouldn't clutter anything up. They'd just be subpages to skills.  Think of the possibilities with this.  A userpage could use these to show off their characters.  Guild pages could use these to mandate a build for a GvG battle.  We could use them to make skill reference lists per profession, per attribute, however we wanted to eventually add.  I think, in this case, they might be useful, especially if we ever shift and allow more community interaction here (I think it'd be grand to allow guilds to make guild pages).  However, I noticed Ollj's suggestion of a category for each skill: that's a bad idea, and that would cause clutter. &mdash;Tanaric 16:00, 17 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * how you search for a ceartain kind of build? how do you make sure there are barely 2 exact same builds that should be merged? "what links here" doesnt really do it :). and whats a template namespace; "Template:mending" or "Template:has mending", its that it? If people make unoriginal build names like "domination mesmer" would there be disambig problems?
 * at first builds are sorted by professions, we could just revive Warrior Monk and see it being linked by all Wa/Mo builds.


 * Note that I never said we should host a build guide. I still don't see the use for one, as it would eventually list every single combination of skills and attributes and become useless&mdash;furthermore, the majority of builds are based around an elite skill, so merely putting builds or suggestions for builds on elite skills pages should be sufficient.  I'm arguing for the creation of these templates (under certain conditions), not for any build guide. :) &mdash;Tanaric 18:22, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I like the idea of hundreds of whatever/Short pages just as little as if they were in the template namespace. (They could be in Template:Skills/whatever anyway.)  The build 'features' being described already exist in GWFreaks' character builder, but that does more than we can possibly do on the wiki besides making it easy to describe builds ON the wiki (well, I guess you could have it output HTML for you).  For the purpose of the reference pages, I don't see it helping anything.  If someone modifies the skill, they still have to modify a second page.  I don't think the fact that one could be a subpage of the other makes it more than marginally easier (you'd be able to edit a very short page rather than a page with, say, 15-20 skills on it, if we make one page for each attribute and include those into one larger page for the profession).  --Fyren 19:08, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * I agree with you mostly; it adds extra maintenence responsibility and clutter. If they were only going to be used on a single page, I wouldn't argue for them.  If, and only if, we allow guilds to make their own pages here, would I argue for these templates.  I didn't really make my conditions clear above, and I apologize for that.  I do *not* think we should go out and make these now.  &mdash;Tanaric 22:07, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Tanaric wants to continue the discussion at the wrong place, so be it. doesnt really make a difference--Ollj 22:45, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Up to you if you want to move it, but move the whole thing; don't butcher my writing and take it out of context. If you were really concerned, you wouldn't have started the discussion in the wrong place. &mdash;Tanaric 22:47, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)

And so I move the discussion... BTW I found a Suicide Monk Build in orphaned articles :) --Ollj 23:15, 18 Aug 2005 (EST)

Origin crud
This is nunix's attempt to move some pretty snarky bickering to somewhere relevant, and simultaneously end this nonsense. =p On the one hand, I really don't want build pages cluttered up with individuals/guilds/divine powers that maybe probably were the first; it's nigh-impossible to be 100% sure, and I would want quite a lot of proof to go along with it to include it in the actual build article. ON THE OTHER HAND.. sometimes we do know (or are damned sure), or we at least know who made it popular. And, quite frankly, I'm sorta curious as to who to bla-- er, congratulate, when some new cookie-cutter thing dominates the PVP grounds, cos, you know, I didn't get enough of that crap when I was playing MTG. ;p

So let's add a single article: Build Credits or something similarly titled. Each build gets a header, and requires at least a couple of external links as some kind of justification for the credit. Call it a test-run. This fine with the people who care about this? =p --Nunix 17:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)