GuildWiki talk:Builds wipe

Consensus

I think it's absolutely hilarious that so many common sense proposals for minor changes elsewhere get stomped on as the community has not reached a "consensus", yet all it takes is for one wiki grandee to say "It is clear to me -- and judging from the poll I posted above, most of the older community members -- that the builds section is simply not worth keeping in its current form" and the whole lot gets done away with. I've not got a problem with a site being run by administrators and older community members - they know what they're doing and have the sites best wishes at heart. What I hate is the pretence of "community decisions" and "consensus" when it's clearly nothing of the sort. Say it how it is guys, you're not making any friends by dangling toys down to the proles only to take them away when they start getting played with. It's all well and good saying you welcome the development of new ideas post-wipe, but considering the way the wipe has been imposed by these "older community members" in the first place I see no reason to believe that any policy - no matter how good - will be accepted by them if it conflicts with their world view. --NieA7 06:42, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
I don't like how this build wipe has been proposed and actioned, as the reason given of "It is clear to me -- and judging from the poll I posted above, most of the older community members -- that the builds section is simply not worth keeping in its current form" seems to imply that older members have an intrinsically more important voice when matters such as this are discussed. That flies in the face of general consensus, which seems to be what is continually preached as the golden rule. With that comment from the admin who is taking charge of this situation in mind, I see no reason to think that any future policy will be accepted if it conflicts with the world view of these "older members", regardless of how many newer members support it. --NieA7 07:30, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Look at Template:Tested-build. "This build has been successfully vetted by the GuildWiki community." The community being 3 people in most cases. If you're going to argue about consensus in one place, prepare to do it in all. I don't remember you complaining about that template saying "community" when it referred to 3 people. -Auron 06:46, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Then you didn't look hard enough, I've never been fond of the vetting system or the approved template and I agree that they need to be altered. Besides, altering the wording on a template is rather less of a change than the deletion of an entire section. --NieA7 06:48, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

We are not pretending consensus and user base acceptance here, atleast I'm not. If this article gives that impression, I'll need to rewirte it a bit.

I suggest everyone to take a look at GuildWiki talk:No Original Builds and continue the discussion there to get to a consensus on the new policy proposal. -- (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

It's not here I'm talking about so much as the entire wiki, where everything is supposed to be done by consensus. In practice this seems to boil down to very small groups, the argument being won by the person who can type the longest. What irritates me most is the poll - opinion is clearly hugely divided, yet the fact that "older members" voted to axe it swung the decision. Somehow that really rankles. --NieA7 06:57, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

The sweep is not based on consensus or the poll. It is based on 2 admins using the GW:ADMIN to do what they want (Once promoted, an administrator is fully autonomous: he may do as his powers allow, as he sees fit.), trying to benefit the wiki with their actions. Ofcourse we do not want to act against the opinnions of most of the users, that would be a political suicide. However, the build policy discussion has waded back and forth for months now so some action needs to be taken. After the sweep and temporary post no builds rule people are more likely to agree on a working policy, especially as we give a month time to discuss before the sweep. -- (talk) 07:15, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Fair enough, but then why have a poll in the first place - why not just use GW:ADMIN straight away (poll and decision are only a few days apart - the builds mess has been going on for months but this has happened relatively quickly)? If we want the views of most of the users (as opposed to editors) wouldn't it be better to have a template warning of potential deletion pending discussion/binding vote/convincing of the admins (etc etc) that most users want to keep the builds? Not that I imagine most of them would comment of course, but if there's any concern about going against the wishes of most users then those users should be given a chance to say so (I bet most casual browsers of the site never look at any of the policy or talk pages, leaving them oblivious to all this discussion). --NieA7 07:24, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

The poll was probably made by Tanaric to get the views of those who are actively interested in the build section and follow the dicussions. The poll wasn't needed, but it was a nice gesture and showed that people don't oppose changes and partially support what we are doing. -- (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

That's my problem though - I don't want nice gestures if they're ultimately meaningless, personally I'd prefer radical action to just be taken if it's already been decided on (the poll was pretty much split down the middle, with a small majority in favour of keeping the build name space, but the following action went to the extreme of deleting the name space. To my mind that implies the decision was already made). --NieA7 07:36, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

It wasn't made yet, and i was against the deletion before Tanaric brought his idea to the public. If the vote would ave been almost 100% against this, I would not be rushing this, but with so much support we are on safe ground trying to do something for the best of the wiki. no one has pointed major problems with our actions yet. -- (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Unless I've missed something there seems to be as much opposition to this specific course of action as there is support. --NieA7 07:43, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Ouch. This is going to be a painful time for the wiki in the interim until a new policy is put in place, one of the wiki's greatest strengths was in the development nd sharing of builds in a convenient environment. No other site offers such freedom, ease of searching, or flexibility. In fact, most players I know use wiki as their only source of third-party builds or indeed purely as such a source. It is one of the things which has always made Guildwiki one of the most reliable and useful GW sites there is, if not THE most. I sincerely hope that whatever new build policy is implemented it won't stifle what sets Guildwiki head and shoulders above all the other GW sites out there. - Sunyavadin 12:03, 20 March 2007 (GMT)

NieA7: Not all of the voters were against a temporary swipe. The poll seemed to ask about a perma sweep and the useres answered accordingly. Sunyavadin: I hope that GuildWiki:No Original Builds is going to get accepted before the sweep so we can immediately start again with the builds section. Btw, the wiki is not well known for it's build section but of the other documentation factors. Other fansites are far better for builds atm. -- (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

The poll was split, with pretty much as many against as in favour. I know many editors favour this idea, but I don't think there is so much support when compared with the dissent. --NieA7 08:19, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

The poll did not ask the right question at all. It asked if the build section is good or bad. The wipe is not deleting the section, just making a fresh start for it, so we are not acting against the ideals of those who voted for the build section. The poll question should have been a lot different to be of any use. -- (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

(reset indent) We can only answer the question that's there. Besides, it's not creating a level playing field - No Original Builds is being pushed very heavily, seems like a foregone conclusion. --NieA7 08:31, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

NOB is being pushed right now because it's the only replacement policy that's been proposed and has generated even mild consensus. Why is it so surprising? If you're not happy with NOB, then for God's sake feel free to come up with another solution, make a draft policy, and present it to the community for discussion. What's holding you back?

It's this exact kind of vague hand-waving "well, I don't like THAT, but I don't have any better ideas either" that landed us in this situation, where there's no consensus on anything related to Builds. And then you're all surprised that an admin decides to actually do something instead of waiting about till the community makes up their mind on just what the heck they actually want. --Dirigible 08:54, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Been there and done that - I suggested and pushed Build Split because I think that PvP and PvE builds are fundamentally different. Once the split had been done policies most appropriate to both (NoB for PvP builds, most likely) could be worked out. Considering the discussions that have played out up to now I don't think it's possible to satisfy PvP and PvE requirements with one unified Builds policy (and as a PvE player I am not satisfied with NoB). However, the reaction to that suggestion broke down into agreement, "all builds should be deleted", and "doesn't fix everything all on its own". After that it got bogged down and left behind because I didn't have enough time to keep it in everybody's vision. I wasn't surprised by the admin decision at all, read what I've been saying before you make blanket statements - all I have said is that I do not like the way it's been handled and is being handled. --NieA7 09:32, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Once again, the problem isn't that there has been no discussion, but that there has been a year of fruitless discussion. That all discussions (like Build Split) keep getting bogged down and never going anywhere.

As for Build Split, the reason it never really took off (at least from the way I remember it) is that it didn't really accomplish anything in itself. Build Split simply says, "Ok, we'll separate the apples from the potatos in these two bins, and then we'll come up with a tool to distinguish which apples are good and which apples are rotten, and another tool to distinguish which potatos are good and which potatos are rotten". Well, that's sort of missing the point. Why have them in two separate bins when you can just look at them once to figure out whether its a potato or an apple (categories and templates making what build it is painfully obvious are in place now). Build Split kept insisting on having those two bins (a.k.a. namespaces), when the problem has always been and still is simply defining what makes "something" rotten (whether that something is a fruit or a vegetable, it doesn't matter). Sure, you can split them in those two bins, but it doesn't really accomplish anything, it doesn't lead to any sort of progress in the quest to find a few good potatos for dinner and a nice apple for dessert. Yes, of course there's different nuances to take into account when you try to pinpoint what makes a PvP build and a PvE one good, but then there's also differences between GvG and RA builds, there's also differences between farming and general PvE builds. For GvG and general PvE builds, characters can be more focused on their goals, as they have teammates to aid them, while for RA and solo farming builds you need to be able to both survive and kill by yourself at the same time. Should we have another namespace to separate RA builds from GvG ones? Yeah, we could, but would it help at all? These kind of differences should be covered by the policy itself. All difficulty was in pinpointing what makes each build good or bad and clearly defining it, and Build Split didn't offer anything in that regard.

Now, NOB presents an actual alternative to how the Builds section currently works, as it completely bypasses the need to distinguish between whether a build is good or not, turning it into simply a question of whether a build is popular or not, which is far easier to tell. NOB is starting to at least show signs (even though faint) of agreement, and there's no other proposal floating around that attempts to address the problems with the current system. That is why NOB seems as if it's being pushed heavily. I won't touch the topic of NOB and PvE here, as there's already a very vivid discussion happening on the NOB talk page on the matter. Either NOB will be modified to deal with PvE builds, or a new policy will end up being created for them, we'll see how that one turns out. --Dirigible 11:35, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm working ona proposal right now. Let me know what you guys think of it. I'm not submitting it yet as I've never done something like this but I'm interested to hear some input. User:Vallen Frostweaver/Project Archive/Profession Roles -- Vallen Frostweaver 12:21, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm not going to rake over the ashes, but the whole point of split was that it wasn't the end. All other policies try to do too much and get stuck because of it. Baby steps are much easier to agree on and put into practice. Once split is done we look at policies for both. Once policies are done we look at execution. Lot easier than trying it all in one fell swoop, which, like NOB, is bound to leave things behind and people unsatisfied. --NieA7 12:29, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

The Article Itself

Ok, no problems for the article.. but don't list gwshack as a better source. It a) Has NO standards, and more importantly uses so many frames that it takes like 5 minutes to load a page. --Dazra 09:19, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Heh, good that that's the biggest problem with the article. ;D -- (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

"On April 21, 2007, all articles in the GuildWiki build namespace will be deleted."

• Including ones linked to by articles (like Touch ranger)? You should specify.

"...which, simply stated, is 'don't post any.'"

• Sounds a little dramatic, considering you immediately follow up stating that a new build policy is likely.

-- Peej 09:46, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

I'll put the first one in. The second one was caused when I edited Tanarics version. It was originally even more dramatic and didn't give hope for better which I tried to modify. -- (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Is this serious? If it is it would be nice, altough a shame for my vetted builds.. --SigmA 12:32, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

It's serious. It's a bureaucrat/admin action, a plan not a policy, based on the feeling that the builds section (including all vetted builds) is irredeemably bad. See the discussion for Post No Builds for the genesis of this. — HarshLanguage 18:15, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Idea

I'd like some input for an idea I'm working on to replace the builds section. Check it here and please donate to the talk page your comments or questions. I'd like to refine it to a real proposal and submit it once it's complete but require the opinions of others. Thanks. -- Vallen Frostweaver 13:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

As said on the ideas talk page, I'll be merging some of the stuff with NOB. -- (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Builds linked/redirected to from Mainspace Articles

As Peej asked above, and I tried to discuss at PNB, there's a big issue about builds linked to or redirected to from mainspace articles. My three examples were B/P (link), SS/SV (redirect), and Touch ranger (redirect). There are more, I'm certain, but I don't have a complete list. Here's what needs to happen in advance of the wipe:

1. Generate a list of all links and redirects from the main article namespace to the builds namespace. I assume there's a way to create this automatically somehow (built-in wiki function? bot?). We need to see what would be broken when the wipe occurs.
2. A plan to replace, move, or otherwise preserve the information represented by that generated list. The build information that's useful and important from those builds needs to be incorporated into those main articles, somehow.

Obviously, with the wipe, retaining the build pages in the builds namespace is out. So what happens? Do the main articles get edited to copy over info from the builds? Does someone write a bunch of new guides to touchers, ss/sv duoteams, etc? Do the links that are just examples simply get removed? This wipe needs to be done without losing important game information. I know the admins and bureaucrats will want that, too, because they want the wipe as a way to improve the wiki, not harm it. — HarshLanguage 18:26, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

As popular builds are put back after the wipe, this shouldn't be a problem. If you read the article carefully, we are not removing links to the build name space, only redirect pages. Therefor we don't need to add links back later on and we don't need to put the information anywhere else. -- (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

OK, I see you have radically altered PNB. The old version of PNB explicitly disallowed all build links. I see the mention of redirects in Wipe. That's good. But I'm afraid I might be misunderstanding you: wouldn't build links be broken until a new policy was in place, and then until the builds are re-created? That could be a long time, and the build names might be different too. In some cases linked builds might not be coming back (PVE/AB/CM builds). And stuff like Touch ranger would need work because there is good info in the redirected-to build that's not in the old versions of the main article. Anyway, with a list of links and redirects at least we can 1) know what links will be broken, and 2) take care to preserve the info that was in redirected-to builds, regardless of what happens with the build policy. Do you disagree about that? Is it impossible to create such a list? I'd do it myself if I knew how. — HarshLanguage 19:29, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

It's probably possible somehow. If you fear that it might take a long time to forge a policy, I suggest taking part in the NOB discussion either by suggesting enhancements to it or by making a new suggestion. -- (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

I've asked Fyren for advice on generating the list. I do fear a gap of a few weeks between wipe and new policy, which some folks (like Auron) want anyway. I really don't like the idea of broken links during that time. It's just due diligence to identify the links/redirects ahead of time and do whatever we can to smooth the transition. It wouldn't affect or delay the implementation of any policy. It has to be done for redirects, at least, right? (Maybe there's a special page for those. Gotta look.) I've been participating on NOB some (and previously PNB), but it seems dissent against the idea of NOB isn't really up for discussion anymore. And including PVE builds really isn't either. The pro-NOB, pro-PNB folks have very loud voices. It'd be worse without your stewardship, though. — HarshLanguage 20:35, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Fyren has graciously created a list of build links and redirects for us to use. — HarshLanguage 21:37, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Firstly, I'm going to contradict Gem and say that I'm not sure how links to the build namespace in mainspace should be handled during the build wipe. I can see pros and cons for either side. I'm leaning toward removal, as having links to old builds forces us to reimplement a build policy that keeps builds in somewhat the same form -- this is one of the main reasons I want to wipe builds to begin with. Feel free to start a subheading and attempt to sway me one way or the other.

Additionally, I'm going to note that I didn't reference GuildWiki:Post No Builds in this article, and there's a reason for that. I don't intend to use post no builds. I will write a build policy from scratch for the interim after this takes effect. I will have drafts ready by mid-April.

—Tanaric 22:23, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Ah, I jsut took the time to quickly scroll through my watchlist after answering to Tanaric on my talk page and founf this. It's good that you are making a policy article for the policy that will be used for this wipe process, but you should probably have signaled us earlier that you are making one. We would have avoided some of the fuzz. :) And I just wanted to say that I see your point with the links. -- (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Plugging the build links and redirects list again. I could use some help! =) Easiest way to get started is to go through the build redirects section and mark for deletion any that 1) have no main article links to them and 2) are to unfavored, stub, or abandoned builds. Then update the list with your action and sig. If you're not sure what to do, discuss on the talk page first! So far I'm mostly talking to myself over there. — HarshLanguage 04:16, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

A Future without Bias and all that jazz?

I doubt that. I don't think anyone would be able to design a vetting system that eliminates bias, poor procedure, and ambiguity. Good and bad builds are like the good and evil in the real world. It's all relative and a matter of perspective. What determines a good build? How can you measure efficiency? Reliablity? The list goes on and so does the arguments to solve those issues. IMO, the build section has some good (good being my perspective of good/bad/etc), but the rest is bad. But is wiping everything and trying to start a new vetting procedure going to solve this issue? Even if you burn down all the weeds in your backyard, they'll grow back eventually. --8765 22:08, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Not if you do the burning right, of course with a total scorched earth type deal, nothing at all will grow there. --Rainith 22:27, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

I think most of us would agree that another vetting system is the opposite of what we want. I think many people here will stop reading any proposal immediately upon seeing the words "voting" or "vetting." A good system is one that either 1) provides measurable, quantifiable, objective requirements for entry or 2) doesn't require any requirements at all to be useful. —Tanaric 22:44, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

YOUR ALL IDIOTS

Sorry, but your all absolute idiots if you think those sites are better for builds. Guildwiki's best feature is builds and its the best build site for the game. Yes the section anoys the fuck out of people, but thats just because its so successful. Get over it. Many people use this site for builds, now it will be a ghost town with people ocassionally checking what to do on quests. Check out those other build pages, they just have a few unorganised, badly displayed generic builds like wammos. You suck, foolish fools. Jupsto 12:19, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Maybe if you were open to all playstyles, and actually listened to the arguments instead of basically telling everyone to fuck off, things would be better , generally speaking, in the long run. One of the main reasons they are doing the wipe is to save the build section from itself. While i must say that i generally make my own simple builds ( and usually don't go for ultra-specialised, over the top bullshit) i've been reading and i find that a fresh start could actually be a good idea. Be open to all ideas.--Lullysing 12:37, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Again, it is not a plan to ge trid of the build section, it is a plan to save the section. Also, please hold your tongue. -- (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

It's "you're", not "your". <LordBiro>/<Talk> 15:47, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Dagnabit ... I wanted to say that Biro! Although, I also wanted to remind Jupsto that GW:NPA still exists as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:57, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

I agree that GW:NPA exists, but I can't find a plain old GW:NA. This rant doesn't seem directed at anybody in particular. -- <!--Zerris--> 16:01, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

From the policy "Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in comments to other contributors." Users have been banned for it before; although the last time I recall was prior to NPA when someone was using it excessively, it was simply tagged as "vulgar language" or "disruption of the wiki talk pages" if I recall correctly. His use here was isolated and minor ... just mentioning it, hoping it doesn't escallate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Heh. 90% of HA groups I join link me to gwshack, the other 10% are either skuld's builds or on a forum. Most of the GvG builds are on forums as well (forums with gwbbcode make gwshack less useful, but not everyone has that option). GWGuru is probably the best place for build-building on the Net, so saying it sucks for builds is... rather funny. I'd never been to Gamependium, but just listing it as a third option doesn't hurt. -Auron 18:35, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

I agree that GWguru forums is the best when it comes to builds, especially PvP builds. But I think in terms of popularity for PvP based builds GWguru>gwshack>Gwiki>Gamependium is the order. GWguru is just so great because very experienced PvPers frequently post there and give their 2 cents on builds and I bet at least some of the FoTM's come from the discussion in GWguru. --Lania Elderfire 19:35, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

No any site listed there is better than Guildwiki for builds. Guildwiki is probably the worst site for builds at the moment. GWGuru used to be terrible for builds until they appointed someone with balls to moderate the PvP section and kick people like you out of it. Guildwiki's admins are finally growing a pair and trying to do something about how pathetic their build section has become. -Warskull 21:25, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

i find it hard to believe people like that will be deturred by a single grand gesture. hit cold iron as hard as you can and it will shatter, but hammer hot iron over many months and you might make something worth having. --Honorable Sarah 21:27, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Little thing @ Warskull: THat gamependium site is MUCH worse than this (that's omething I DO agree on Jups). I saw a GODDAMN STARBURST WARRIOR get "great build" as community feedback. I've never used GWG, but I <3 GShack.--Nog64Talk 21:33, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Good point. That's why we're rebuilding the section. It does kinda suck right now, for precisely the opposite reason why GWG is good: we lack knowledgeable PvP players running the buildspace. When we wipe it out, we can simply bring back our good PvE builds ( like the farming ones), and reshape our PvP section. I can't wait; personally, getting rid of all these builds that 'only work in RA' will be like Easter come early. ;-) - Krowman (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

That's why I've been reluctnatly supporting NOB now. A moment indeed.--Nog64Talk 21:38, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

If you want to get any number of serious PvPers to try and create a decent PvP section, you're going to have to take drastic steps. Basically, you're going to have to pull a Guru, and get a couple of hard-ass moderators who know what they're doing and won't stand for crap. You're going to have to give them the right and free-reign to delete or otherwise shut-down crap builds quickly until you can actually get a decent amount of knowledgeable PvPers visiting the site to be able to conduct discussion. PvPers won't come to places like GuildWiki until there's a reason for them to, and trying to argue with not-so-good PvPers about issues that have been established (like frenzy being good) just isn't a good reason. I seriously doubt that GuildWiki has the "balls," as Warskull puts it, to be able to give someone that kind of authority, but feel free to prove me wrong. Just keep in mind that PvPers desire actual discussion with people that are around their skill level, they'll help newbies when they come in willing to listen, but they really desire a community of people who know what they're talking about, and GuildWiki isn't close to that.--Theonemephisto 21:44, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

oddly enough, i completely agree with theonemephisto. we need 'faster deletes and a higher entry barrier to keep the W/Mo Urbr l33t frenzy mending warrior builds away. for the sake of all the builds --Honorable Sarah 21:47, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

In short, we need Skuld again. If he's willing. (T/C) 21:51, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Hey, Frenzy can be good if used properly. Anywho, I have suggested, as has Auron, to have a small commitee of people to review new builds and run the section. That way we can eliminate the voting process and replace everyone's with those of more knowledgable people, while still retaining that "discussion and collaboration" ideal at the heart of all wikis. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

That's the point. Frenzy is one of the best warrior skills in the game with a cancel, yet people still argue against it all the time due to RA experience. --Theonemephisto 22:01, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

And that is a wiki system how exactly...? Thats a elitist system, don't try to call it anything else. Collaborating among a elite of the system is not open Collaborating of all users like a wiki is designed to be--Sefre 21:54, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

i'm not sugguesting we eliminate the wiki system, i'm just sugguesting we make it harder to make and keep a build on this site. that will natuarlly filter the ineffective or fire-and-forget builds --Honorable Sarah 21:56, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Keep the system, change the participants. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

BTW, this is a very eye-catching section header. :-) - Krowman (talk • contribs) 21:59, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

If you aren't going to do that then you aren't going to have a decent PvP section, period. There are very few PvPers that are going to put up with trying to argue with PvEers that have the same say. The simply fact is that getting decent at PvP in guild wars requires a huge learning curve, and it take a lot of time to get any good. Most of the people that post here haven't taken that time, and therefore post things that are flat-out wrong in PvP. I'm not even suggesting making concessions to the wiki style, I'm simply saying that if you want a good PvP section, you're going to have to put your foot down.--Theonemephisto 21:59, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

possible barriers that can be erected to keep builds down

• speedy delete for build that are out of spec (bye bye category:build_stubs)
• more votes to pass. it's not uncommon to have 11 or 12 votes on a single build now.
• mandatory time in untested. no less then 30 days between submit and promote.

--Honorable Sarah 22:00, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

I'd say simply get someone like JR-, Warskull, or a team of good, respected, experienced PvPers and give them total authority to delete bad builds. Eventually, that would fix the system, though I don't know how the community would like it. EDIT: Well, there really isn't something similar, but basically you need a system like a forum moderating system where these mods are allowed to freely mod discussions and builds (akin to threads) whenever they deem it necessary.--Theonemephisto 22:02, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Many ppl ost thier builds directly into Untested; that first point wouldn't help much. More votes won't work, because there are far more inexperienced voters than experienced ones. Mandatory time in Untested wouldn't really help us cut the crap from the build space in any way; people can still favor crappy builds, it will just take longer. Besides, that will clog up the wiki, and most of us don't want to give 1001 Mending Wammos a try just to say they're bad. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 22:04, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

sorry i should clarify, the mandatory time was only for promotion into the tested category, deletes could happen today if 10 people said it bit. you're not going to get an elitest policy on a wiki, it's simply contradictory --Honorable Sarah 22:07, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

To Gem:But making it harder by putting certain people in control, one or more of whom may have prejudice against certain types of builds, is worse idea then the vetting system before all this talk....

TO Others:What are you people doing on a wiki if you want this kind of system? Go to the guru if this is how you think a build section should be ran, or go create a new site for builds with this system, but don't use the wiki. You are stomping all over the basic principles of a wiki.....

Even if this shows that a build section doesn't work the best on a wiki, its still not right to screw over the wiki ideology

Maybe I'm beginning to agree with the creator of this section....

finally:Edit conflicts are annoying--Sefre 22:06, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

If you go to guildwarsguru, the mods there are all pretty good, and aren't prejudiced. They don't exercise control much, but they have strict quality control, and there are enough PvPers there that bad builds get shot down fast either way. The problem is that a community like that is hard to establish, and you have to take big steps to establish it. And yes, getting 3-4 edit conflicts for each post is annoying. --Theonemephisto 22:10, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

And I'd like to point out that bringing PvPers over would have no downside, as they would stay to their own section. They wouldn't, for example, vote on a DoA build if they'd never done DoA; our current contributors can't say that much. -Auron 22:31, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Lol, a lot of PvPers do a suprising amount of PvE. For instance, Rep Protein A, a member of one of the best American guilds, QQ, is an avid PvEer and I seem to remember something about him being one of the first to complete DoA? Maybe? And many PvPers I know have some pretty insane and expensive PvE equipment (tommy's req 7 tactics max shield comes to mind). --Theonemephisto 22:34, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

You don't see the complete disregard for Wiki ways as a downside? How were you nominated to be a admin again?--Sefre 22:38, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Well, they are doing what is in the best interests of the wiki's integrity. Our current policy is not working; we need a new one. Sometimes a wiki just isn't the best or most educational form of documentation. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 22:42, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Wiki ways make it physically impossible to make a decent PvP section. It's one or the other, and I would advise making major changes or giving up. However, wiki ways makes giving up impossible, as editors can make a build section and every RA whammo wants his build up. So it's either a cesspool of crap, or it's major changes and maybe some stifling of the wiki spirit.--Theonemephisto 22:42, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

@Sefre: "And I'd like to point out that bringing PvPers over would have no downside" is what I said. Don't ever put words in my mouth. Ever. I say what I mean and I mean what I say; if you want to invent things I've never said as pass them off like I actually said them, don't do it on the Wiki. -Auron 22:45, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Exactly, just like how a wiki canot truly document which sports team or club is the greatest. Partly because the sports "metagame" is always changing, partly because it can be a matter of perosnal opinion. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Auron, you know what I mean, don't be a smart ass. You want to bring in PVPers to controll it, that is disregarding wiki ways. And Hey, maybe you guys should seriously consider going to a different site, cause what you want to do is basically shitting on the wiki. Forgot why I got out of this arguement earlier. Your all a bunch of hypocritical brats when you have to face a problem.

The arguement on the topic was originaly that builds dont belong on a wiki, so whats the solution? Throw out all creativity.

Then the argument goes to moving builds to user name spaces but no the voting system is still failing,

so you want to bring in a council of pvp elitist to run the pvp build section, on a WIKI. When this all started with people saying builds themselves were un-wiki like, so lets have moderators running it! So wiki like.

I am not violating the GW:NPA, I am insulting the several policies that have popped up to "fix" the build section. I am not attacking a single person but the policy, so don't anyone pull out the NPA, k?

I can;t wait to see what the wiki comes to when these ideas are established. Of course it wont be a real wiki I suppose, go ahead, shit all over the wiki way.

/endrant and watch wiki fall to ruins, I give up, you brats can have your way, unless someone else wants to stop this elitist move in the pvp build section.--Sefre 23:38, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Goals for new builds section

OK, I may be an idiot, and I'm definitely a foolish fool, but I think we've had enough of that old heading. =) Here's a fundamental question: What are the wiki community's goals for a replacement builds system? (I see consensus on creating some type of replacement.) Here's a few that come to mind:

1. Document significant builds used in the game. (Used in non-casual forms of PVP certainly, and I think PVE certainly as well.)
2. Set a barrier to entry so that insignificant builds don't overwhelm the section. (See above - what's the measure of significance? Non-original? Popular? Successful? Supported by a set # of wiki contributors?)
3. The rules for builds allowed/disallowed need to be clear and concise.
4. Encourage broad participation, but in a manner that discourages personal attacks or other immature vitriol.
5. Don't require too much admin time/oversight to keep things running smoothly.

Any others? Comments on these goals? — HarshLanguage 22:56, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

NOB (PvP) and Vallen's Profession Roles thing (PvE) cover all of these points, I think. -- Peej 22:57, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

The GWW? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:49, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Back to basics

As it was mentioned before in the proposed No Original Builds article, the wiki should be documenting the popular builds. Sure Guildwiki =/= Wikipedia, but we should be looking at gwiki as if it was an encyclopedia. It seems many people post builds because they want the "vetted status." I would say they're trying to get their ego boost here, since they can't seem to do it in-game; which might suggest other details... Long story short, if you don't see a particular build after 9-10 matches in observer mode, it's probably not popular. --8765 22:59, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Leaves out PvE, but for that, I think we can say, if you've never seen someone LF that build, than it is not popular. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 23:32, 22 March 2007 (CDT)