GuildWiki talk:Advertise your build

This will make a huge mess rather quickly. -Auron  06:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I also oppose this policy extra hugely strongly humongously. &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 06:36, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think I could disagree with this policy any more fervently. --[[image:Hrothgarsig.jpg]] (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I do not want to see the same Mending Wammo build advertised on every explorable article because "it really does work for me." --Rainith 11:59, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * This is: The. Worst. Suggestion. Ever.  It would spread the build problems to all other articles which is definitely not what we want! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 12:11, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

I will personally club 3 extra truckfulls of baby seals if this comes into practise. And I will name them and make a website detailing the process from start to finish. And sell merchandise. &mdash; Skuld 12:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Bad--72.68.105.226 19:01, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Zomg, I don't think the creator of this proposed policy understood the problems with Builds section at all. Even if this was implemented I would be proud to break it! Builds and actual mainspace articles should almost never be mixed together, except in very rare cases such as linking Protective Spirit or Spirit Bond to a 55 monk guide. But still, that is not linking to a build, but rather a historical reference! This policy would create soo many problems and confrontations :( (T/C) 19:10, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I *am* the author of the proposal and I *do* understand the problem. I posted it to illustrate a point.  There is no room in the currently proposed build policies for any system whereby PvE-primary players can search intelligently for interesting PvE builds.  Do I think this is the only possible answer?  No, I don't.  But since no one has offered anything ELSE, much less anything BETTER ... Auntmousie 03:49, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Detailed explanation of why this policy is a piece of crap
Besides, the abbreviation would be AYB, which isn't serious enough for a policy. &mdash;Blastedt 15:09, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I concur with all of that. Lord of all tyria 15:12, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Why is this really needed, ive never seen a build get a lack of attetnion--Blade [[Image:smallscout.png]] (talk|contribs) 15:15, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * You've never seen how build publishing will work. None of us have, to be fair.  But supposing I come up with a build idea tomorrow, and publish it on my namespace as directed ... how is anyone ever going to find it? Auntmousie 03:49, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Have you seen GW:PYB? It is a method of advertising your builds without the need to make a mess in the main name space articles. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (gem / talk) 03:52, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm hearing this too much... "YOUR" build... &mdash; Skuld 06:31, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Well I can understand the "your" build thinking a bit, considering I make jewelery, and hypothetically, if I made a design myself and sold it to a big corporation that mass-produced it (Or if I wrote a build and saw everyone else use it..) then it would feel like an accomplishment. I think it's pretty normal to feel ownership over something you author, some people just tend to get rather (to put it nicely) over-defensive about it if it DOESN'T get favored. Continuing the analogy, if I made a piece of jewelery that I thought looked absolutely awesome, but everyone else said it's awful, then I would say it's awful, but it would still be hurtful. It's just some people seem to go into denial mode...Shas&#39;o Kauyon 20:02, 3 May 2007 (CDT)