GuildWiki talk:Builds wipe

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Database dumps[edit source]

I've uploaded database dumps of the builds section, as well as an old dump from February I had lying around. —Tanaric 14:21, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Cool, I downloaded it but i dont know how to use it. Any info? (sorry if i did this talk page wrong, im new at this)
Good to know. I still hope PvXwiki works out in which case I won't need this stuff, but just in case I do decide to create my own build wiki at some point, this is very nice to have downloaded on my computer. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:02, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Over[edit source]

[1], [2]. --Dirigible 16:47, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Goodnight Sweet Prince[edit source]

And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.

Build talk[edit source]

moved from [Build talk:Main Page]

i only go 2 wiki for my builds i would be REALLY upset if it got deleated :(

Yes! It's here! Judgment Day! --Macros 16:28, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

      why did it get deleted??
because some people cant accept critisisim. personally, i think the CfD tag should be added to the main wiki page. with an official wiki now, and nothing to distinguish this wiki frmo the main one, whats the point? Builds was the only point i had for this site. now, there IS no point. bye all, till builds return. -TehBuG-

Oh fine[edit source]

Eh I've been busy with homework now that finals are approaching (heh I should be doing it even now >.>), but I've decided not to give up on the proposal for on off-site forum I created for builds. The link was taken off by an admin from the builds page and the site "died" because we apparently can't make links on an article even if its about gwiki without making a set of rules for what links should be allowed; I disagree, but I'll play game and try and get a set of rules proposed if people are willing to try the forum out.

The forum is simply an active test on a proposal for the builds section. Consensus I'm finding is pretty much impossible to get on the wiki for even a test, so I made the forum off the wiki. Its basically my old proposal of builds screening: All people with very mild experience may post builds, but those without a lot of experience (well kindof, glad 1, rank 4, or champ 1 can't be too hard >.>) must post build suggestions in a screening, where they will be either "signed" or not signed by experienced players without testing required. Basically, its a filter for crappy builds, the requirements to exit screening and enter testing are mild, but I still don't expect 80% to exit screening. Because of this filter allowing more time to be spent on better builds, the actual untested area would be forced testing: you would be required to test and vote with a description of how testing went.

Anyways here's the link [3], if you like the idea, do not post a profile, I am not updating the site until there is support. Instead, discuss here. Not a fifty five 00:05, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Other sources are not as good as the builds section was[edit source]

Title says it all, GWShack is lame, gamependium hasn't got much there, and forum is far too time-consuming to get a build from. Let's just pray the builds space is brought back with a new policy sometime in the near future. Napalm Flame 16:43, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

You could pray I guess, but doing something to help might get you where you want ;) — Skuld 16:45, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
In the meantime, you could always check out PvX Builds, a fork of the GuildWiki with all our old builds. —Tanaric 16:52, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Correction: MOST builds made it. Misfate 23:46, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

few thoughts[edit source]

i haven't seen one good reason for deleting the builds section many pro-delete arguments started i/we believe let me tell you something belief is not reason

i didn't raise my voice before (as many people didn't) becouse i didn't think you would realy do it, especialy with seeing many people protest already and i'm also too old and lazy (as many people are) to get into endless and pointless arguments and well it's not a matter of life and death realy now you did it even though (slight)majority of vocal people was against it even though you have nothing better to replace it with even though it's all based only on your beleif ... and it's so wrong it just made me to write these lines

and no i can't be bothered to send a copy to

Well I support the builds wipe. We didn't lose it, its all here:PvX Builds. I think a link should be provided to this site on the main page, as many are probably thinking the entire builds section was just bulldozed fof the face of the earth Not a fifty five 12:46, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Complaining about the builds wipe after the fact isn't constructive. You can't admittedly bite your tongue and restrain your comments prior to the wipe, and then be vocal about your disagreement afterwards. It's counterproductive and counterintuitive. Instead, we should all be focusing on how to make a better builds section now.--Ninjatek 17:41, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Or rather than help those who wiped the builds in the first place(they caused the problem, let them find a solution), we should just go to PvXWiki for all our build needs. DKS01 17:47, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I disagree. Constructing, categorizing, organizing, editing, and maintaining an enormous, regularly accessed builds section is a huge undertaking. We shouldn't be pissy with people just because it wasn't done right the first time. As build authors, we're all somewhat responsible for the way it turned out. And for those individuals who aren't build authors, they're probably out of place to complain anyway.--Ninjatek 17:54, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
We're not pissy with them because it wasn't perfect the first time. We're pissy with them cause there was NO REASON TO DELETE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. It wasn't perfect, but a)that's no reason to delete the section, and b)it's STILL better than any of the shitty proposed alternatives like NOB and Prof Guides. And anyone who ever USED the fucking section has just as much right to complain as any build author. From here on out, anything build related I'm involved with will be at PvX. They deserve the support, GWiki does not. DKS01 18:17, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
"And anyone who ever USED the fucking section has just as much right to complain as any build author" <-- no-one must forget this — Skuld 18:22, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

I try not to be pulled in to bitchy complaints, because I tend to get just as bitchy in my reply, but DKS01 has sufficiently baited me.

And anyone who ever USED the fucking section has just as much right to complain as any build author.

Completely agreed. I'm hopeless at Guild Wars. I used the build section. I liked some of the content and it made me a better player. I'm sad to see it gone from the GuildWiki -- but then again, I can find it at PvX, so it's not a huge deal there. However, even though I liked some (much?) of the builds content, I still advocated (forced) its wiping. My job here is not to provide you with information. My job is to make sure the community can sustainably continue providing itself information until the Guild Wars servers are shut down. While losing the current builds section caused us to lose a significant amount of utility in the short term, the wipe provides an opportunity to build a section that's maintainable for the next 10-15+ years. The current builds section simply wasn't maintainable, and if you can't see that, well...

Note that even PvX builds feels the same way. They're currently pruning the hell out of their forked copy of our builds section, with a good deal of the builds not making it. It can be said that even the community that sprung up to prevent the builds wipe is carrying out a builds wipe. That's probably the most significant piece of support I have for my decision, and it's one of the reasons we decided to push the button and carry this out instead of aborting.

From here on out, anything build related I'm involved with will be at PvX. They deserve the support, GWiki does not.

Great! Please do! This may surprise you, but I'm not getting paid. User:Fyren, the server admin who busts his ass behind the scenes to make sure you can access this great information, does not get paid. User:Gravewit, a server admin I have no great love for, spends hundreds of dollars every month just keeping this place alive. Honestly, I'd rather see you head over to PvX builds and never visit here again if your attitude is this poor -- you bitching on this server just costs us money and time. The fewer anti-community people here, the happier I am.

Tanaric 08:57, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

The only "anti-community" thing shown here so far was wiping a section a huge part of the community found extremely helpful and useful. It's nice that PvX saved the builds, but that never should have had to have been done in the first place. DKS01 18:59, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
The thing is, the builds section could have been archived and protected from adding new content. Maybe moved to a new namespace to allow the new policy for the Builds namespace. That would have accommodated everyone. I am glad someone saved the builds and is going to work on them at PvX, but the same thing could have easily been done on this wiki. All the pro-wipe guys wanted a clean start, all the people against it wanted to keep what was already started. We could have had it both ways by archiving and starting fresh. I don't quite understand why we had to be so hardline about it, especially after seeing so many complain and even WIN the vote to keep the builds. That is my gripe, that this wasn't a community decision or even a compromise. Yes it was majority amongst the original group, but those were only who knew the discussion even existed. Once it was made public and had so many objections, a compromise (archive) should have been made. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 09:25, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
A compromise was made. We provided the dump to the guys who started PvX builds. —Tanaric 11:15, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
The casual visitor will not find PvX unless you link to if from the homepage or maybe from the build main page. Yes, at least something was done to attempt to compromise. I still don't see why the same concept wasn't done on this wiki. Make it a separate section and archive if needed. Banishing it from the URL only makes it seem like GuildWiki is trying to be better than that clutter. No need for this website to cleanse itself of thousands of user contributions that don't live up to the new build policy. Make them different sections and move on. — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 12:14, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Different sections are contrary to our mission. Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't ship with volumes full of bad articles that "didn't make the cut" for the real version. While we aren't paper, and we aren't an encyclopedia, the same principle holds. By keeping buildcruft here, we'd either have to 1) host two different build sections, which is even more confusing an useless than our single bad builds section, or 2) require all new build policies to have a solution to what to do with the old one. Of course, the only possible solutions are 1) wipe, which is what we did, or 2) integrate, which means that any new policy must be almost exactly the same as the old one.
If you look at every possible combination of solutions, a wipe is the only one that makes sense. I'm quite glad we got the section archived off-site, but I would have wiped even if that were impossible.
Tanaric 12:26, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
That seems like a narrow view of the options and their results. I don't think having the two sections would have been confusing (original builds, NOB both are distinctly different) and I don't think it would have been useless. Remember, just because one of us doesn't find the builds helpful.... doesn't mean there aren't people out there who do find it useful. As to the Britanica thing, another example could be just as easily used. Hell, a library is a source of information just like this wiki. However, they don't throw out old books because different ones are written about the same topic.
I don't think either of us are going to convince the other our point of view though, and that is fine. I am not angry at others having differing opinions, just like to get my point out there. What is done is done and we must move on from this point. I appreciate adding the PvX build link on this article, and hopefully we can put it up on the main page for the new Builds section whenever it gets started. Respectfully — RabiesTurtle (contribs) 14:44, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

A New Build Page[edit source] Copy and paste this link in your URL bar to go to a new build page.Or of course you cna follow it if the link works for you.

My eyes! — Skuld 20:22, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
I have to agree with Skuld. Basic website color design isn't that hard you know. There are lot's of guides out there with nice color combination ideas, and that definitely isn't one. --Gem-icon-sm.png (gem / talk) 20:37, 4 May 2007 (CDT)
Ow my eyes burn... --Lania ElderfireMy Talk 00:15, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Well sry it's nothing special but wiki's cost cash and u no wat i don't have? cash..... so at least its something for now. If i can find a free wiki i'll put a new URL up here.

wikipedia:mediawiki is GPL, actually. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 19:43, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
Or people could just go to which has a dump of the builds that used to be here. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:23, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Build copyvios[edit source]

Auron and I have deleted a few hundred userspace copyvio build articles – that is, people who copied over a build without its contribution history. I can't find anymore, but I'm not particularly good at searching userspace. If you find any more, please report them to me or another admin. —Tanaric 05:24, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Talk:Builds archives[edit source]

Some of the discussion would be relevant to anyone who still cares to try to get a builds policy implemented here. They should not be deleted. --Fyren 23:04, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

Is there anything linking to them so that a person could even find those archives? It was pure chance that I stumbled in there. And something about keeping this sort of thing for posterity seems odd as I occasionally see people removing various notes reminding that GuildWiki keeps only current info. I don't particularly mind either way but it seems like there is almost 2 different things going on here. (Sorry, I cant think of a particular example)— JediRogue JediRogueSig.jpg 23:07, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
Current info on the game, not the wiki. You can link to the archives from somewhere if you want. --Fyren 23:13, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
Ah, thank you. How about at the bottom of the wipe page? Relavent Discussion:"The discussions on builds have been archived here 1,2,3...."?— JediRogue JediRogueSig.jpg 23:26, 3 June 2007 (CDT)

GuildWiki should never have a build section[edit source]

I should be clear to everyone the real reason the build section was whiped was because the administrators did not want to maintain it anymore. Unless they are removed, they can not be trusted to maintain any new build section.

Use it is being actively maintained

Funny thing about that, I thought that PvX and Guildwiki were all friendly but now it seems that links to skills and such on their page go to the official wiki. Bummer, because I like Guildwiki's look and such more, it's easier to read.
The other thing that draws me here over the official wiki is the opinions, tips, and tricks- skills have suggested combos, missions or quests have suggested strategies, etc. The builds section was nice because it was an easy way to coordinate all those- a good MM build to use on a hero if you're having trouble with a mission, etc, good builds for this skill I just capped. It was a handy feature, and it would be nice if guildwiki would link to pvx where it may have in the past linked to the builds section. Maybe the increased traffic from guildwiki would get pvx linking back here again too, who knows.
Well it did redirect to GuildWiki once.. not sure why it is linked to official wiki all of a sudden... ShadyGuy.jpg 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll answer that: because GuildWiki is a fucking sell-out and we hate it. -- 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
'We'? Golem! Golem! ShadyGuy.jpg 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Gravewit did the selling. The rest of us do not benefit except some of us getting refunds on our ancient donations and potentially getting better tech support in the future when things fully integrated. So yeah, go ahead and hate us. ps. I also haven't seen a single gold ad after the Candycane one, which means I haven't seen a new one ever since Wikia officially took over the advertisements of this site, whereas before new ones pop up once every few weeks. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 20:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hell, I haven't seen a add sine I installed addblock :) (yes I see the date)--AlariSig.jpg 04:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally hate the builds page on the PvX site, particuarly the PVP builds. People, lets be reasonable, why would you post builds to let other people beat you? it doesn't make sense! And now these poor people that rely on you to supply builds for them can't think for themselves when they need to make a build on their own because you don't supply a build they need. Also, the worst part of this: people who use WikiBuilds think that they are the ultimate fighters of Guild Wars, they brag about how "godly" they are and its gotten to a point where honest players can't even PVP because all of you NOOBS keep posting and using builds on PvX. (sidenote: and the worst of them deny ever using a WikiBuild) --Rølin
Translation:"I hate when my poor build get killed by people using builds they learned there." DKS01 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's why it's a wiki - to keep a place where the commonly used builds are stored, the good, the bad, and the ugly. If a certain good build becomes meta it will find its way onto PvX (for example shock axe). Nobody complains. Now if a very ugly build finds its way onto PvX (like, R/D scytherangers, A/Mo signet smiters), it's PvX's fault that YOU get beaten by it? Wrong. A wiki is for storing information and if that information gets abused it's the fault of those who abused it, not of those who put the information there or who keep the information. --Progr.png -- talkpage 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One year anniversary[edit source]

Is coming soon. We need a party. Misfate 04:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In under 1 month. (May 1st, 2007) But the notice of deleting was put up April 2, 2007. Misfate 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Party in 2 days. Misfate 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Celebrate the day guildwiki spawned the anti-christ?--AlariSig.png 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Misfate 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Happy anniversary builds wipe! --Progr.png -- talkpage 10:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
/cheer. Misfate 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
and happy birthday to the meta database of hell!--AlariSig.png 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"u use wiki builds i hope u go die in a fire prz i rly need". Misfate 03:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
No idea what you just said... real English is good.--AlariSig.png 03:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
"Use Wiki builds. They die in fires that I need"? ;) --- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 03:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
u uso wiki se basa la esperanza i u ir mueren en un incendio prz i rly necesidad. Misfate 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ur Wiki base r Spanish. I < U meanie and Incendiary Purse I dont neccesarily (sp?) have. Orite--- Ohaider!-- (s)talkpage 03:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

et l'utilisation wiki s'appuie i espoir et aller mourir dans un incendie prz i rly besoin. Misfate 03:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)