GuildWiki talk:Post No Builds/Archive 2

Poll: Does the build namespace cause more harm than good?
Don't clutter up my poll with too much reasoning -- you can use the rest of the discussion page for that. I just want a quick, easy-to-count poll of what people think. &mdash;Tanaric 00:15, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * Hi Tanaric! *waves*  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:17, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Yes
]] 13:08, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 1) As the author of this article...  --Rainith 00:55, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Yes. --Dirigible 00:59, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) --Fyren 01:31, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 4) So long as the system remains what it is drop it but to me it needs major changes. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.163.150.49 (contribs).
 * 5) Yes.. &mdash; Skuld 02:28, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 6) Undoubtedly.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:16, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 7) In it's current form, most definitely. --84-175  (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 8) Yes. Foo 06:01, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 9) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 06:13, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 10) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:56, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 11) Even though I contribute to it, IMO it does cause more problems than its worth --Lania Elderfire[[Image:Pinkribbonsig.gif|My Talk]] 23:20, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 12) The way it works now does NOT work. -  B e X or  [[Image:Bexor.png]]  01:03, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 13) yep. --FireFox  [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 08:54, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 14) Builds are the main reason for NPA. The builds could be transerref to another site where ppl can happily make their builds. --[[User:Sigm@|Σιγ μα
 * 1) Builds already had non-colliading namespaces with the "Me/N" syntax. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 19:45, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Oops, forgot. --Silk Weaker 01:24, 11 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Well, yes. --Babbo Elvis 09:10, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 4) Simply put..Yeah. - -S ora267 [[Image:Spiteful_Spirit.jpg|19px]] 21:03, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 5) ...&mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt 16:47, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 6) I love the builds section, but it dosnt belong here.--Coloneh RIP[[Image:Coloneh.png]] 01:53, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 7) To bluntly answer the question, yes. I am a fan of the Builds section - "Build Magic" happens on collaborative sites like GWiki like nowhere else. But in the overall scheme of things, the amount of broken policy, GW:NPA violations, sockpuppetry, and...nastier things...do nothing to help the Wiki. In fact I believe the Builds section is probably something like a breeding ground for vandals and others who mean the Wiki ill. Therefore as much good and potential good that it has - Yes. Axe it. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 20:10, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) More harm than good, best way to decribe it's situation.--Rafe Alexander 06:32, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 9) It's stagnant. Nothing has changed and nothing will change until we start over. --Macros 15:45, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

No

 * 1) It's a good thing. - [[Image:Candle.jpg|12px]] Krowman (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) Keep the builds but change the vetting system so you need to give a reason.--Eloc jcg 00:48, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, change the vetting system, don't get rid of the builds. Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)
 * 1) Let me have my sarcasm. Its the only reason I live. --SBR 01:40, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) I think it has slowly gone downhill, but still represents a valuable resource.--JP 02:01, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) --NieA7 07:12, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 4) See below --Xasxas256 08:47, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 5) --Misfate 9:00, 9 March 2007 (PST)
 * 6) This site would crash and burn without it. I agree it sucks, but is nesesary. [[image:jups.jpg|16px]] 18:48, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 7) I like the builds section is good and will get better if a good policy is agreed on. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * &mdash;[[Image:BlastThatT.jpg]]Blastedt
 * 1) It helps me ignoring this whole builds knick-knack. --MRA 21:15, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 2) It's a good resource, it just needs better rules. — HarshLanguage [[Image:qswearing_small.png|HarshLanguage]] 23:50, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * 3) Useful resource. So what if its not perfect, thats no reason to get rid of it imo. Banito 08:53, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 4) From what I could tell, a good deal of site traffic is directed at builds. If that's not a reason, I don't know what is. Not to mention it's a valuable resource and all that.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Word_of_Healing.jpg|19px]] 13:12, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 5) Remove builds and you will remove a good part of the sites population.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|18px|]] 23:51, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * 6) Don't hate the builds, hate the game. Solus  [[image:Shield_of_Judgment.jpg|19px]] 00:10, 11 March 2007 (CST)
 * 7) Builds are what a lot of people come to GuildWiki for. Remove it and a lot of them (myself included) will go over to the Anet Wiki for good. Cynical 08:34, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 8) I love the Builds section of Guild Wiki, whether it's well done or not. I believe that, if nothing else, we should have a section where any build can be posted without a voting process.  I'd hate to see so much hard work go to waste, as it it is so useful to me and many other members of the Guild Wars community. --[[image:rollerzerris.jpg|50x19px]]    16:50, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 9) Dstroyer 666 17:11, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 10) It can be improved, but I think there's a good number of solid builds... revision is a good idea, trashing it is not. :( Dark Helmet 13:24, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 11) Needs better rules, but outright deleting? - [[Image:Smoke_Trap.jpg|19px]] Entice789  (Talk | Contributions) 15:54, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 12) --Warwulf 01:17, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 13) Bickering sucks. But it is the only way to learn (for some people), and the builds section evolves and ultimately becomes better in the long run. Also, I know I made a lot of mistakes and caused some stress in the process of making my first build, but that is because the rules are not very well advertised and the process of the disussion and voting and all that is pretty complex to a first timer.  I would just like to see people have more patience with each other.  At least in my opinion there have not been any major problems caused by it.  The builds section of guildwiki.org is the greatest thing that the site has to offer to the world. - Jagre 04:50, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 14) How else will we find out builds for GuildWars? &mdash;[[Image:Alert.PNG]] Ebany Salmonderiel (Talk) [ Leave a note] 06:49, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 15) Needs rules, not deletion. Lord of all tyria 12:47, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 16) Deletion is an impractical solution. Settling on a new policy and vetting the existing favoured builds to pick out examples of what a good build should include to use as the core of a new builds section is far more reasonable. - Sunyavadin 12:07, 20 March 2007 (GMT)
 * 17) Since when has voting been deemed coming to a concensus through discussion on this wiki? I've tried that before and had my voting section removed.  Anyway, this needs more than a few notes about a popular build and a move to a userspace to replace all that's in here.  This needs more care as well since the builds section is so dear to so many even if it is a headache.  I've worked in the PvE builds section for rangers for a long time now and it's been fairly clean and organized for some time.  Personally, I feel betrayed as I've been trying to work through the build-or-guide issue for some time and thought I met a happy medium with many people (see 1 and 2).  This just says that the effort I put into that has all been for naught.  As much as I agree with Entropy's comments above under the "Yes" area I think there are better solutions than deletion. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:15, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 18) --Jasminethetender 13:26, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
 * 19) Don't delete the builds please... I like them all... And where to go if they are all gonna deleted in the end? -- Austy 15:10, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Xas gives some reasoning, a proposal and starts talking in the third person
I don't talk much about my in game exploits but I'm a PvPer and to remove the builds would be to the detriment of the GWiki. I don't know why anybody could argue against the PvE builds, there's so many good builds there in particular the better farming ones. They're well written, incredibly useful and by and large create few user disputes. Do we really want to get rid of this great resource?

As for the PvP side it's crap, it's just a source of headaches. Above Silk has quite rightly argued that trying to document the PvP meta is extraordinarily difficult, it keeps changing and there's so many variants. Submitting builds under various vetting guises has been unsuccessful for reasons that have been said numerous times already. But why try to keep up with the meta or invent some glorious new build nobody has thought of before? I'd like to see us get back to our documentation roots and away from the bickering.

I'd propose to get rid of the vetting system for PvP builds, instead only document builds that have been seen on observer mode. So only builds that have either won in a GvG match with a top 100 guild or builds that have won in the Hall of Heroes. Have a look at User:Xasxas256/GW:Xas for an example, it could look a bit nicer I suppose but it gives the general idea. There's no vetting required, it just documents what happened so there shouldn't be any arguments. That said it might encourage the PvP community to discuss some current team builds (as opposed to individual skills or player builds).

The PvPer isn't really that well catered for, I mean until I edited it just then, Celestial Tournament didn't even have links to the results or pairings for the first five rounds. The other ones probably only have content because of MRA's diligence. If this proposal was accepted, I'd hope it would fulfil our role as documenters, stop the fighting on the build pages, vastly improve the quality of the builds, encourage more PvP discussion (as opposed to build proposal discussion!), increase readership and usefulness (unlike the PvE section, I almost never see links to GWiki PvP builds on forums or in in game chat) and perhaps as a final bonus even encourage some of the people running these builds to discuss them. --Xasxas256 08:47, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * I see no problem keeping builds that are in common usage, that are observed as winning builds in observer mode, or that are frequently requested by name. My vote above is solely on build development and vetting within the wiki.  My position is that all "common usage" builds or any published by ArenaNet as reference builds could stay, as we're documenting factual information.  All development builds can be moved to the user namespace if a user wants them - and vetting can be scrapped entirely. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:00, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * Haven't we been over this? We'd come to the conclusion that the best way to do it is document easily verifiable builds; i.e., FotM and pre-mades (which don't exist anymore, those are all archived). When we tried to make the cut-off for FotM top-100 matches, people screamed elitist. Short of telling them off (because they did, honestly, miss the entire point of using obs mode for verifiability), we've done this before. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 12:10, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * I don't think it's only PvP builds that are the problem here, Xas. PvE builds on GuildWiki can be divided in two groups: Farming builds and non-farming. The former are usually easy to test, because it either works or doesn't. The latter are tricky, because while they are less controversial than pvp builds, their vetting process is characterised by a definite "laxer standards" symptom, (a.k.a. "it's PvE, everything works there"), which shouldn't happen. Lack of controversy doesn't mean there's higher quality either; take a look at Build:Team - Shadow Flame, favoured DoA team which even the author himself reveals that he's only tested it only on the FIRST mobs of DoA. Yet the build is favoured, even though it's pretty much as terrible as it could possibly get for DoA, as those who have actually any experience with the place will know.
 * The problem isn't local to either PvE builds or PvP builds (even though, granted, it's more obvious in the latter). It's the entire system that is flawed. As Barek said above, development and vetting of builds on the wiki simply doesn't work, and our entire builds section has been built on top of exactly those two pillars. --Dirigible 17:45, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * For months now there's jokingly been talk of either Tanaric or Fyren nuking the builds section which would solve all of the wikis problems. I've never paid the idea much attention but I get the vibe that this is the clostest we've come to it actually happening.
 * Heh, I view all PvE as farming to some extent, come on it is! But yes you're right, running and solo farm builds are easier to test than team builds. But that said the SB/55 FoW and the B/P Tombs pages used to be great (although I don't honestly know if they're still good articles). PvE is far predictable though, you pretty much know where the AI will spawn, what skills they will use, how they will react etc. The only variation is the group's skill, aside from some minor spawn variation different groups should be able to run the same build with fairly similar experiences as long as the build's tactics are detailed enough. But if we're going to change the PvP builds section that there's no reason not to change the PvE side at the same time however in the case of this DoA build I'd say it's the tester's fault that it was vetted.


 * A solution might be to remove the voting clause that you don't have to test the build, I believe it was originally there because of the influx of obviously bad PvP builds. But PvE builds are easier to test I think.


 * Back to PvP builds, my belief is that the "elitist" concept stems from the way people vote and comment on a build somebody has submitted. Not vetting process removes the main source of elitism, people saying things along the lines of, "I have heaps of experience, you don't seem to, this build is rubbish." This is just pure documentation, if you're referring to the problem that only builds run by top 100 guilds will be submitted then you have a point. But I wouldn't mind seeing any observed winning build, irrespective of whether it's the top 100 guild or a non top 100 guild, as long as the build wins. And with HA builds, we wouldn't only document builds by people with r9+ or HA guilds, it's enough that they win. --Xasxas256 22:12, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * I agree with the concept of only posting common builds. As I've said a million times before, the wiki should be a place for documentation, not innovation. I don't care whether some people would be upset that they can't post their new build.


 * I'm actually rather surprised at the results of the vote above. Although I must say that I think people have interpreted the question differently. I presumed that it meant "the contents of the build namespace at present"; of course I have no problem with the build namespace as a namespace, the problem is that it's filled with crap.


 * I would love to see a policy where the only builds recorded were ones with merit, i.e. popular/common/important, and where users were not allowed to post builds that they had just conjured out of the ether. But as Auron said above, we've been here before. I'm not particularly optimistic, and I'm not willing to take administrative action on it myself.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:05, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * So far, the only argument I'm seeing against this is that someone remembers that it was misunderstood and shot down last time it came up. That's not a reason against, so I still feel strongly that this is the direction in which we should go.  Scrap vetting entirely - that is the root of all build problems.  Only allow builds in the user namespace - only the user should edit the build itself - comments can be made on the talk page - BUT NO VETTING!  In the main namespace, only document popular/common/important builds.  Scrap the build namespace entirely as a failed experiment.
 * As to claims that the wiki can not survive without builds - those making such claims either are new or forget that tracking of web site traffic (Alexa ranking) had GuildWiki listed as one of the most popular (if not the most popular) fansite for Guild Wars even before builds were added.
 * As for the above poll - reading the comments, it appears clear to me that people have several different opinions as to what is really being asked here - as a result, I'm not 100% sure that I know - many make statements that seem to imply that I misunderstood the question.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:21, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * Nah, I'm not arguing against it (in fact, I said that same thing right below this section). So... naturally... I believe it to be the best course of action. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 21:49, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * Even if this proposal isn't accepted I think we really do need to get rid of the voting, particularly for PvP builds. It causes so many problems and I don't even think it is very successful at vetting good builds and unfavouring bad builds. As Auron said we can keep user submitted builds as long as they're in the user's namespace and we can even categorise them, they're just not "official" and there's no voting/editing them either by other users. Basically documenting builds = good, arguing over builds = bad. --Xasxas256 23:20, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * "As Auron said we can keep user submitted builds as long as they're in the user's namespace and we can even categorise them, they're just not "official" and there's no voting/editing them either by other users. Basically documenting builds = good, arguing over builds = bad." So in other words, you agree with this policy as it is proposed.  --Rainith 23:43, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * I don't, yet. It mentions nothing about documentation of popular/useful builds. If this became policy as-is, we'd have *no builds*; including FotM and successful farming builds. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 23:47, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * What? No, that's not what I said at all. I'd like to see us use observer mode for PvP builds, not no builds whatsoever. If people want to submit their own personal, builds that haven't been seen on observer mode they should be in the user namespace. I want to get rid of voting/vetting no builds altogether. --Xasxas256 04:59, 11 March 2007 (CDT)

The answer number 2!
scap the disfavoured/favoured vetting system. Now everyones happy. Instead catergorise them as number of views by... anyone. Over time more views = more popular. If all builds where divided into say 3 or 4 catergories of how much they are viewed, the least popular would be viewed less, and most popular viewed more. This is a sort of Capalistic system, but gives the opertunity for a build not view much (say has started being used in top guilds) to get veiwed alot more and rise back up. People can nominate featured builds on each section, which they feel deserve to raise up a "level" of popularity. I'll leave the complications up to you if you like the idea. but hows about Very Popular>Popular>Used>Unpopular, the question is wether to divide all builds into 4 groups (so each has same amount. Or do each group needs a certain amount of views or views over time. Opinions? 19:02, 9 March 2007 (CST)
 * The page view counts were disabled on GuildWiki. If I recall correctly, it may have been a performance issue, although it may also have been disabled due to erroneous counts related to how pages are cached/rendered - Fyren would likely recall the specifics.  Even if functional, rating based on page views would be easy to code a bot to inflate a build's count - and no automatic categorization by page view counts exist in MediaWiki software, it would require someone to write an add-on extension.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:04, 9 March 2007 (CST)


 * To be honest I believe it would be very difficult to record. Because we are so popular, we use a caching proxy called squid which sits between the webserver and the outside world. When a page is in the cache, squid hands it to the user without contacting the webserver at all, so MediaWiki has no knowledge of how many times a page has actually been viewed. I'm not 100% sure of how intelligent the caching process is, but I think that MediaWiki might actually be under the impression that the more popular pages are viewed less often, since these pages are cached and less popular pages are not. Anyway, my point is that it would be difficult.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:57, 10 March 2007 (CST)


 * Oh well just an idea, i still think the vetting system should be deleted, but there would be so many builds that the build sections would be use-able. Well its not life threating stuff[[image:jups.jpg|16px]] 09:19, 10 March 2007 (CST)

How about this?
We change that vetting system so that it goes like this:
 * Put a build in stubs. Anything going straight to tested would go to stubs instead.
 * Make a "Rate-a-build" for this build. Here people can say what's wrong with the skill bar, little things like that, before testing it. Users would just say what is wrong with the build. It would never go to unfavored, just stay in stubs. Make it so that the build is presentable to tested.
 * Once it gets three votes to go to untested, put it there. By then, I would think any major oversights of the build will have been corrected. Here, people would have to test it or at least give a very good reason why the build should be unfavored. The vetting system would then the same, once it has an excess of three votes on one side, it gets favored or unfavored.

That should help a lot of inherent problems with the vetting system.--Nog64Talk 13:19, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * It has voting. It fails. Just stick all builds in userspace and remove voting entirely. If a user wants to have other people try out his build, we can devise a template for it that people put on their userspace builds (like "try this one please"). The absence of voting/vetting and friendly nature of that system would solve much of the NPA. Beginning build makers and experienced ones alike can discuss/talk/edit the build for the better, and because it doesn't have to be "vetted" to be on userspace, overly defensive build authors will only drive people away from testing their builds.
 * I have no problem with making the Builds section documentation only. That's what people will see, that will represent the Wiki. Everyone else's test builds and neat ideas can still be here, yet they won't give a poor impression based on a flawed vetting system. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 15:23, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * In either case, I'm going to use BlastedT's Build:P/W Cruel Flail as an example/experiment for how this will work.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Word_of_Healing.jpg|19px]] 15:52, 10 March 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, I agree, we need the builds, just make it documentation only and remove the vetting system. I like the idea of a two step process to try to eliminate some of the issues we have, but even so, it would require a lot of change on GW:VETTING in terms of what constitutes a valid vote for it to work.  It may very well work if the correct changes are made, but as long as people can vote for no reason, without reading the build, without testing, etc, any attempt such as yours is likely to fall flat.  Good luck though.  Defiant Elements  (talk ~ contribs)

I think that's a good idea. Mine was not ready to be in untested or to be vetted on. And I didn't know what i was doing. This would reduce the bickering by like, 75%. - Jagre 05:08, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

The vote question could be better
The question of the vote doesn't really ask what it should ask. Instead of "Does the build namespace cause more harm than good?" it should be "Do you want to keep the build section or not?". There IS a difference. I would have possibly answered 'more harm' currently, but I still want to keep the section and make clear rules for it. -- (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * I wouldn't presume to know what Tanaric meant to ask. The question he intended to ask might be different to what you think he should have asked. Indeed he might have intended the question to be as ambiguous as it is, although I can't think why. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:13, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * That's true. I would like to know what he meant. Looking at the votes, it seems that different users interpreted it differently. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * A good example being Honorable Sarah who had a third interpretation of the question: "Builds already had non-colliading namespaces with the "Me/N" syntax." Talking about the namespace versus no namespace, but not about builds versus no builds. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2007 (CDT)


 * As always, Biro, I appreciate your support and your insight into my character. I did intend for the question to be ambiguous. I wanted to see how people would justify their responses. This poll is not the basis of any action, but I think it summarized community opinion for me quite well. &mdash;Tanaric 21:41, 15 March 2007 (CDT)

I propose we continue to allow build posting and keep all the "crap" builds
Sorting builds into two favored/unfavored categories is a waste of time and not really productive in my opinion. What we need is a better way of finding and organizing builds. Example: "List users who have this build tagged 'favorite'", and "List users who have this build tagged 'funny'". That way someone who has the same taste in builds as Skuld is more likely to find builds they like. If people like crappy/joke/funny builds made by some user let them find what they want. The admins decide on the tags e.g. 'favorite', 'good', 'soso', 'bad', 'wontwork', 'funny'.

In my opinion the only reason a build should be deleted is if there is an identical build with identical usage.

In order to reduce duplication of builds one should also make it easier to search for builds given a set of skills. Sure Anet has made things harder with duplicate skills, but it'll still be better than nothing.

Lastly, it's fine with me if people don't favor this proposal either ;). 218.208.192.175 14:41, 12 March 2007 (CDT) (targetdrone)


 * "Taste", ugh. People have a "taste" for mending wammos. For the zillionth time: let us document the damn game and stop passing off shit as usable. &mdash; Skuld 15:48, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * As soon as [EW] starts running Mending Whammo gankers, we'll start saying those are feasable; till then, they suck, and every build with that concept will suck, regardless of "taste." Get rid of the crap, or *at least* move it to userspace; leave the Build: namespace for documentation. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 15:59, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * If EW run mending wammos, they'll still suck :| &mdash; Skuld 16:10, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Nobody brings Shatter Enchantment on gank defense :P -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 16:16, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

Back to NOB, eh?
No Original Builds <-- (read it again, it's been updated)

The general discussion and agreements has led back to that mentality. LordBiro, Xasxas, Barek, and Skuld (and me!) support the Documentation factor of GWiki in accordance to builds. We should only be putting excellent builds in the Build: namespace; builds that are (somewhat) easily verifiable on obs mode or by quick testing (for farming/running builds). This does not mean, however, that all personal builds need to be scrapped; this means that they need to be moved to userspace. We'll also have a template tag for userspace builds requesting input/testers, but still no voting. That way, everybody wins; the build tinkerers still get to host their builds, still get people to try 'em out, and they don't get unfriendly users shooting it down with little purpose, while the Build namespace will document what works. -Auron  16:30, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
 * I'd rather have no original builds at all anywhere, but that idea works too. It would be nice to give commentry on stuff that works instead of tearing hair out against idiots ;p &mdash; Skuld 17:18, 12 March 2007 (CDT)