User talk:Tharna15124

Abandoned builds
Hey there. I appreciate the work you are doing flagging all the builds, put please take care to look at both the article and talk page history when flagging. W/Mo Icy Dragon Sword Farmer has had meaningful edits in the last week on the talk page (additionally, it should be favored, since enough people votes that way). Would be a shame if such builds got deleted accidentally. --Xeeron 04:31, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Hullo! I apreciate you looking at the untested builds section. However I fear you me be being a little overzelous. IMHO only builds that are lacking in some way should be flaged as abandoned. We run the risk of losing valuable material deleting builds that are complete but unrated just because they have not needed editing in the last 2 weeks.


 * Let us take, for example, "my" E/Me Degen Nuker. There has been little negative feedback on it so it is now awaiting testing. I would like to think of it as "independant", the build has been developed as far as the feedback allows. If people start rating it as "unfavored" and the reasons can be remidied I will do so. Even better would be if people test it and find a shortfall in it's abilities they will change the build themselves. --JP 05:24, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * What he said - after a certain point there aren't many more "meaningful" changes that can be made as the build is complete, but that doesn't mean it's abandoned or useless. --NieA7 05:30, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Well atm the untested category is totally flooded with builds some of which haven't been touched or voted on for over a months, if you see a build that shouldn't be deleted and had no changes you can remove the abandoned tag, but in that case please go ahead and test the build or improve it Tharna 05:40, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Sure, NP. Like I said I appreciate you doing it as there is some duff half finished builds there ;o). As for testing, I started just over a week ago :o). Problem I've got is skill unlocks, still I'm getting there. --JP 05:44, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * yeah I admit I was a bit overzealous with adding the tags but 370 builds untested is overkill, we don't have enough regular testers to do even half of those, I will go through them again and see if there is anything that can be merged or something, and thanks to everyone for telling me that I overdid it ;) Tharna 05:50, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Sticking the abandoned tag on so many builds was scary and unnecessary, but it's good you've highlighted the problem. --Ufelder 08:50, 4 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I think it was fine. After all, authors are allowed to remove the tags if they continue to make changes. Only those which no one cares about would be lost, and the chances of those being valueble are negligible. In fact, that there is a chance it is ignored is probably because there are too many untested builds to start with. Once the number of untested builds have gone down, these unfound jewels if you will, would be noticed. --Silk Weaker 03:28, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Doesn't follow - a couple of the builds I submitted got this slapped on them. They're complete as far as I'm concerned so I won't be making any major changes, however I do not consider them abandoned in any way - I'm just waiting for enough votes either way. The amount of time a build is available to test shouldn't depend on the author staying at GuildWiki in order to check for inappropriate tags. --NieA7 03:42, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm but maybe you can consider builds that no one wants to test abandoned too, either way we lack people to test almost 400 builds with like 4 or 5 new builds popping up every day. And I disagree with you NieA7, if the author of an untested build doesn't stay with the wiki to check and evolve his build until the community decided wether it is a viable build or not he has abandoned it. You don't have to check like every day but if you are around like once a month to answer peoples questions on it then it won't be considered abandoned. As soon as Nightfalls comes out we will probably have a flood of new builds popping up here. Lets at least clean the untested category up before that happens. Tharna 03:58, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I look at it like this - the wiki is meant to be an information resource rather than a forum, thus the person who edits/creates pages is irrelevant as compared to the information those pages contain. On those terms it wouldn't matter if the build author made his build and then left never to return, the information is there should therefore be treated exactly the same as any other information. I agree that there are currently too many builds in untested but simply deleting them all is not the answer, as it'll just clag up again soon enough. This requires a procedural change - if that change is to delete things after x weeks then so be it, but to date that has not been agreed by "the community" so I don't think it should be introduced by the back door. --NieA7 04:05, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm ok maybe you are right and we don't need the author to stay with the build. But someone has to care for the build and anyone can remove the abandoned notice and continue working on a build or test it and maintain it. But if no one cares for a build I don't really see any point why it should be kept. And yes procedural changes are needed but I don't see what could be changed atm, maybe introducing a restriction that you have to test and review like 5 builds before you can submit your own or something. Tharna 04:13, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Maybe this discussion should be moved to the builds talk page as it is a symptom of the current crisis in the untested builds area. --JP 04:17, 5 October 2006 (CDT)

Just a note to everyone concerned that "their" build got an abandoned notice:

The abandoned notice is to filter out builds that noone cares about anymore the fact that you came here and noticed the tag shows that the build is clearly NOT abandoned. So feel free to go ahead and remove the tag if you still plan to do something with the build. As another option, you can always move the build to your userspace, where it will not be deleted. --Xeeron 07:15, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Well my point was that by the terms of the current Abandoned template those builds are abandoned as they've not had "meaningful" changes for the last couple of weeks, despite the fact that concerned parents are still watching over them. That's why I don't like this whole abandoned thing, it's not the right kind of nomenclature to be using on a site where we're supposed to be about info rather than authors. --NieA7 10:11, 5 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, I made the template so I've been working on fixing things. I wasn't the first to use the template, though... it was an idea to go along with a reform of testing builds, but it doesn't work as well alone as it would with the rest of the proposal.  Meaningful edits, by the way, are pretty simple to determine... if it changes the content in some way, it's a meaningful edit.


 * Spelling/grammar/punctuation changes are NOT a meaningful edit.
 * Vandalism and vandalism reverts are NOT a meaningful edit.
 * Rewording a sentance/paragraph while not changing the actual content is NOT a meaningful edit.
 * Wiki-specific things, such as adding the brackets to make a link or removing an improper category is NOT a meaningful edit.
 * Everything else IS a meaningful edit.
 * - Greven 15:57, 8 October 2006 (CDT)

W/Mo Holy Hammer
Hi, it was ok to move the Holy Hammer build back to tested since it's contended a lot. Just note that a lot of builds (like our boonprot for example) were published before the voting procedure. You might encounter more builds that have no vote template on them. In that case, please check the discussion archive and the history of the article to find out why it got moved to tested. If the discussion is majorly positive, the article can stay tested without any problems. The vote template is a help to decide things, it's not the end of all means. ~ Nilles (chat) 07:24, 14 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Aaah ok I am sorry I didn't know it was introduced later on, I just see a lot of newer builds not using the template either which makes it really hard to find out whether people like it or not. I will be more careful about moving stuff back to untested from now on.Tharna 07:29, 14 October 2006 (CDT)

Abandoned Builds part 2
Tharna, the reason I removed the tags from some of them was because they improperly never had a vote added to their talk page. Giving those exceptions for another two weeks is really not an issue, in my eyes. For example, the R/Mo Pongmei Valley Farmer MK2. - Greven 15:20, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * You consider the adding of the rate-a-build template a meaningful edit? And you been removing abandoned tags that were added one day early on builds that are doomed anyway. Tharna 15:25, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, I do consider it a meaningful edit. It never even had the option of a vote, so adding the option to do so grants it a little life.  Some people won't ever bother to add the section to vote, but might vote on it.  It's just the way people are.  As to removing tags added a day early.. yes, I have, because it's improper.  And frankly, you created hours of work for me in removing a huge number of tags that were wrongfully slapped on, in your personal war against Untested builds. - Greven 15:36, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Uhm personal war? I am just trying to make the wiki a usuable place to find and submit builds. If you think you got a better way or don't want it to be manageable just say so and I will stop helping. Tharna 15:44, 15 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Before we pull a stabber here, let's be reasonable. I, personally, am against the entire concept of "abandoned" tags (and several wiki-using members in my guild are, as well... that's who I heard it from first). But that's beside the point. If you slap a tag on every build you think is doomed, how does that improve a damn thing? How does that make the wiki more of "a usuable place to find and submit builds?" Very few people look through Untested Builds to find a great build to use for HA/GvG; removing clutter from that section doesn't help finding anything. And submitting a build can be done without once looking at the list of untested builds... so I'm failing to see the good it's doing. Feel free to enlighten me, though, I'm listening. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 04:22, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Uhm I think you want to be in Template_talk:Abandoned as that is the official place to talk about it. Aside from that the abandoned tag is there to mark builds that no one, I mean no one at all cares about, therefore those builds are useless as no one wants to play, improve or test them. The point of the build wiki is to test and store useful builds. If no one cares about a build we don't need it here. That's what the abandoned tag is for. "Very few people look through Untested Builds to find a great build to use for HA/GvG; removing clutter from that section doesn't help finding anything." erm that makes no sense at all. People don't look through that section because it's full of clutter so removing crappy/outdated/abandoned builds as fast as possible would of course improve the situation. "And submitting a build can be done without once looking at the list of untested builds... so I'm failing to see the good it's doing." Yes submitting a build can be done without looking at the untested builds, but most people don't look through untested first because it has such a massive amount of builds in it and people are lazy. so again if you remove the clutter and have less builds in there people will be more willing to look through them before submitting and it makes it easier for everyone to see if a submitted build is similar to one that has already been submitted. So removing as much of the clutter as possible as fast as possible is in fact making the untested section more usuable and the abandoned tag is just one tool to remove builds that are abandoned by everyone. Tharna 04:40, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I debated before I worded it as "very few," because I actually meant "none." Only idiots would take a random-ass somebody-else's build that hasn't been thoroughly tested to HA or GvG if they wanted to win. If they wanted to test it, that's why the category exists... but *nobody* looks through it to find a tried-and-true winning build. I stand by my statement: people don't use Untested builds for that reason... they're untested. Not because they're hard to find. Thanks for the link, btw, I'll be headin' over there to read what's been said :) -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 04:55, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * If no one would play untested builds in HA/GvG why do we have favored HA/GvG builds? O-o Or for that matter why does everyone play builds different from the Anet templates when no one ever tested new builds? Tharna 04:58, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * You're missing my point here: "If they wanted to test it, that's why the category exists... but *nobody* looks through it to find a tried-and-true winning build." If someone is testing it, go ahead. But if you're testing for the sake of testing, be prepared to dig through a pile of crap anyway. I didn't say nobody played them... I said nobody would look in the Untested Category for a "tried-and-true winning build." I've also proposed some changes on that talk page (not specifically to the tag; more general changes to reduce the amount of crap builds we have to weed out). Tell me what you think, if you have the time. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 05:29, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I find the use of "pulling a stabber" rather.. hmm... unrefined? Pedestrian? Oh right, obnoxious.
 * Anyway, Auron does make a good point in that people who check untested builds for inspiration or to cleanup. Apparantly, there aren't enough peopld doing that, because if there were, there wouldn't be so much junk. I am for the extension of abandoned builds, or rather an Abandoned Builds section where the builds who stay there will be deleted after half a year or 3 months. That way, people who are concerned with precious material lost can check there, while ideas that are stupid, useless, and, most of all, redundant, will go unnoticed. Those who want to check builds people care about, builds that they can get response out of if they ask question.. they can check untested. I'll move part of this too the talk on abandoned builds.--Silk Weaker 05:36, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * I think the category with half a year deletion should be the unfavored category, lets say untested after 2 weeks of no activity to abandoned and after 4 weeks from abandoned to either unfavored or deletion? and delete the unfavored category like twice a year for the sake of server space. Tharna 05:39, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
 * That sounds pretty solid. Those unfavored builds need to disappear. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 19:35, 25 October 2006 (CDT)

Please please please actually investigate the builds that you're tagging before throwing them into the abandoned category. There were meaningful edits made to the Me/any Blinding Frustration build within the past month, specifically in energy management conception. The only thing that hasn't seen very much action is the rate-a-builds page and you can't throw a build into the abandoned category simply because hardly anyone has voted on it yet. Try a more progressive approach such as bumping the build so it shows up in Recent Changes and adding a note that states "please test and vote." Going around tagging "abandoned" on every build that hasn't had a "meaningful" edit to it in 15 days just because it isn't vetted seems like a very deconstructive approach, and from a personal point of view, comes across quite rude. I'm not trying to disdain you from doing your work contributing to the wiki; you seem to have a very strong interest in it when I see you online, but please show a little bit of discretion. I'm sure that the Me/any Blinding Frustration build isn't the only one that has been wrongly tagged. Thank you. — Jyro X 11:59, 9 November 2006 (CST)
 * Secondly, I don't think a build should even be a candidate for this tagging unless it has been inactive for 2 weeks after being voted UNFAVORED. A lack of interest from testers/voters does not make a build candidate for deletion. Look at all the glossary articles that haven't had any meaningful edits for 2 weeks or more. You don't see abandoned tags on them, do you? — Jyro X [[Image:Darkgrin.jpg|25px]] 12:09, 9 November 2006 (CST)
 * And the Abandoned tag is specifically for builds, not glossary pages. Besides it says no meaningful edits for 2 weeks, not one month, and it only becomes a candidate for deletion one month after the tag is applied. Tharna 12:31, 9 November 2006 (CST)

Voting
Do not ever turn someone's text into a vote or remove it from the votes if it seems odd. If you want, ask them if they want to place a vote/clarify their vote/if they made a mistake, but do not interpret their text for them no matter how clearcut it may seem. --Fyren 02:37, 20 November 2006 (CST)
 * I'm sorry I just thought I would move it over since some people vote before the template gets added and don't know how to add the template themselves, will contact the user instead the next time. Tharna 02:39, 20 November 2006 (CST)
 * Eh, I have some hangups in general about the builds process and voting. In this case, this guy added a comment in discussion when the voting template was already there, even though he said "I vote unfavored."  In the past, someone was moving comments around into votes, but it was arbitrary at best (and seemed to me to actually be more like "finding" the votes he wanted).  I don't want to start down a slope which may end up being slippery.  --Fyren 02:52, 20 November 2006 (CST)