An interim solution[]
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. I don't think they're fixable, because if they were, the wealth of talented editors we have here would have figured out a solution in the year we've been arguing about this. I don't think they're salvagable in any form.
I support the post no builds policy. I support removing all builds from an administrative level.
However, I further support continued discussion on this matter. I would like a collection (or many collections) of users dedicated to builds to work on their own policies in userspace, complete with many sample builds following this policy and -- more importantly -- appropriate talk page discussion pursuant to this policy. Basically, I'd like to see proposed policies roleplayed out in such a manner. I'd like to see some people take on the role of determined whammo newb, so that we can see how the proposed policy holds up. I think that, if we start over, we can find a good solution for builds on the GuildWiki... eventually. In the meantime, the current incarnation simply doesn't belong.
—Tanaric 16:34, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- I thought that GuildWiki:No Original Builds was almost accepted and now you are saying that it is clear that builds should be removed totally for the time being? I wouldn't say a 50/50 vote really can cause any actions to be taken for or against, and nothing in the vote stated what it was meant for, so no action can be taken based on it. Besides, see GuildWiki talk:Post No Builds#The vote question could be better for some problems in the vote. -- (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- And I'm opposed to making a playfield in the user name space to test out various build section ideas. It just doesn't work that way. :) We would hav eto test them for real with the real contributors, which is a bad idea if we want to avoid any larger problems. -- (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Tanaric's question wasn't a vote, it was a poll. Furthermore, NOB proposes to use user name space as a testing ground by moving *all* original builds to them... this is no different. -Auron 17:08, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- The NOB change is not making a testing ground. What Tanaric meant with a testing ground was a way to test the policy proposals. Something which comes to effect due to a policy proposal is not testing a policy. I don't oppose moving some of the build stuff to user name space, but I do oppose testing policy ideas in the user name space. -- (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- "The author can put a {{user build}} tag on their build to attract people to test it and give feedback," taken from the NOB page. We currently have no such tag, and as we have never tried a system like this (no vetting, stressing constructive responses for builds)... I, at least, consider it testing. -Auron 17:22, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- It's a lot different than testing multiple policy suggestions with no policy about the testing. The user name space is free to be used in what ever manner people want, but I wouldn't like what Tanaric suggested. -- (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Tanaric's decision and the plan of action for NOB have one difference; the FotM and farming/running builds are moved to userspace, *in addition to* original builds. A template for {{fotm}} or {{farming}} etc can separate those builds from {{user build}}. The only possible snag here is users defiantly putting the fotm tag on their W/Mo Life Sheathers... but the policy can be updated to include a course of action for that (removal of the tag, basically; no rv wars under threat of administrative action).
- This plan would require one or more users to "host" the FotM builds and keep updating them as time goes on, including possible archive (due to nerf, more popular builds coming out, etc). I, for one, would have no problem doing so; I'm sure other users wouldn't mind "hosting" some FotM builds. I have no personal care for running/farming builds; a caring contributor that does can host those on his/her userspace and keep them updated. All the build needs is a proper template tag, and no matter whose userspace it's on, people will find it. -Auron 17:50, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- I don't even understand why we are comparing testing to a policy in action. :) But one more thing about the testing thing: To test multiple policy suggestion we would have to have multiple copies of EACH build. Seems like creating more trouble than solving anything. (I would like some input from others too) -- (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- The policy in action fails. That's why we are comparing it to never-tried-before policies. I'll write up the newest "policy" proposal (which factors in the removal of the Build: namespace, whether it be temporary or permanent) after dinner, but for now, gather input from people :) And also try to think of a more catchy name than "user name space builds policy." -Auron 19:18, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- I don't even understand why we are comparing testing to a policy in action. :) But one more thing about the testing thing: To test multiple policy suggestion we would have to have multiple copies of EACH build. Seems like creating more trouble than solving anything. (I would like some input from others too) -- (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- It's a lot different than testing multiple policy suggestions with no policy about the testing. The user name space is free to be used in what ever manner people want, but I wouldn't like what Tanaric suggested. -- (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- "The author can put a {{user build}} tag on their build to attract people to test it and give feedback," taken from the NOB page. We currently have no such tag, and as we have never tried a system like this (no vetting, stressing constructive responses for builds)... I, at least, consider it testing. -Auron 17:22, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- The NOB change is not making a testing ground. What Tanaric meant with a testing ground was a way to test the policy proposals. Something which comes to effect due to a policy proposal is not testing a policy. I don't oppose moving some of the build stuff to user name space, but I do oppose testing policy ideas in the user name space. -- (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Tanaric's question wasn't a vote, it was a poll. Furthermore, NOB proposes to use user name space as a testing ground by moving *all* original builds to them... this is no different. -Auron 17:08, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Auron's right -- it wasn't a vote. Either way, though, you're wrong with "nothing in the vote stated what it was meant for, so no action can be taken based on it," since I could pretty feasibly nuke builds right now, and you'd have no recourse whatsoever. That's the nature of the administrative privilege on the GuildWiki. Indeed, some editors (and some sysops!) have contacted me privately asking me to do exactly this.
- Unless somebody can provide a good reason why post no builds should not become an interim builds policy on the GuildWiki, I'm going to force it into effect.
- —Tanaric 21:39, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- If this is going to happen (Christmas coming early IMO if it happens), I hope it will be following the time limit I set out in the proposal. i.e. give people a month (30 days, whatever) to move/copy any builds they'd like to hold on to into their userspace. It should be noted in many places (Main Page, Community Portal, [Build:Main Page], etc...) when this time starts and finishes too. --Rainith 21:45, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeh... Agreed on all counts. 30 days is reasonable. It'll let users that want to preserve builds copy them to userspace, and coordinate with others who is copying what. -Auron 21:52, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- If this is going to happen (Christmas coming early IMO if it happens), I hope it will be following the time limit I set out in the proposal. i.e. give people a month (30 days, whatever) to move/copy any builds they'd like to hold on to into their userspace. It should be noted in many places (Main Page, Community Portal, [Build:Main Page], etc...) when this time starts and finishes too. --Rainith 21:45, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, wouldn't / couldn't one person just simply copy every favored build on over to their own user page? Even unfavored ones while they're at it. Essentially, it would make the builds section exactly like it is now, but without the appearence of GWiki support. And due to people also wanting their own copies, it would take up more space. -- <!--Zerris--> 21:55, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Space is not a concern. This argument doesn't really bother me. If 10000 users end up with parallel complete copies of the build namespace, then we can address this. —Tanaric 23:20, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
The community is clearly divided on this policy. Any unilateral action whatsoever should not be taken. Many editors oppose deletion of the Build space, and many would of those who want it "nuked" would simply be satisfied with the way it is administrated. Guildwiki:No Original Builds could be fine-tuned to cater to the needs of both camps in the debate. It is a valuable resource, and deleting it means we are losing documentation of the game. Period. You cannot argue that deleting our Build portal would improve the wiki as a documentary resource. The only real advantage to this policy is that it would help end some of the disputes on the wiki. NOB also takes steps to achieve the same effect. ON such a divisive issue, any unilateral action (on a wiki nonetheless!) would be inexcusable. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- I agree that something like no original builds could be beneficial. However, such a policy would essentially require nuking the existing builds section, as the amount of builds there that aren't original (read: cruft) is almost negligible. Because our signal-to-noise ratio is so abysmal, a nuke is necessarily the first step of any modified build policy. I'm simply suggesting that we carry out said nuke now, and when an acceptable policy is eventually enacted, the builds that are allowed can be recreated or undeleted then. —Tanaric 23:20, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, wouldn't this need a real big two weeks notice? I'm pretty sure we get a lot of anonymous site traffic over on Build:, and I don't think we should just suprise them one day by "nuking" the builds section. Big banners, everywhere. No to mention I thought NOB would keep the buildspace. Better 20 builds than none at all.--Nog64Talk 23:27, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Reading is Fundamental. --Rainith 23:30, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- We should have our plan for the new Build section before we nuke the existing one. That just makes so much more sense. Maybe the destruction of the Builds section in its current incarnation is inevitable, but there is no reason for us not to have a plan for the new one before we delete it. Heck, the NOB policy as it is is nearly good-to-go, imho. The only thing that needs to be done before we run with that policy would be to buff up our "Effective (profession) guides" beforehand. By doing this, we can get rid of the RA/CM/PvE categories (since anything can work there), and still provide a useful and comprehensive guide to those players/users who need one. If we can implement that policy, we can give the users the "real big two weeks notice" they want (i.e. 30 days or so), and begin work on what wil be the new Builds section while having the current one to refer to. It will be easier to almost copy-paste the good builds than having to re-create them all from scratch further down the road. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- No matter what course of action we take, original builds will stay in userspace. The failure of our last policy shows us that much. And read what Tanaric posted, at the beginning of this section; the section has failed, and *cannot be repaired*. We can only completely rebuild the section in order for it to work... and if we're basing the new policy on the last (failed) policy, then what is the point of rebuilding it? Save the builds; nuke the namespace. Once the namespace has been nuked, and all failed policy abolished, we can start from scratch. This will be no easy piece of work, but it must be done (that is, if we want a Build: namespace back again). If you're willing to put work into it, the section will be better next time (Heh... and if it isn't, the section won't exist). -Auron 01:25, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- In my post, I stated that we should be salvaging the builds from the current Build namespace, not at all the process. Say what you may about it, the Builds section does have a number of good builds in it. We should retain those builds while removing the bad ones. I am not saying we should repeat past mistakes. I am sorry if that is how it came across; it is not what I meant. We should retain these builds so that we do not have to start from scratch, and can establish them under the new policy. Do note that I don't mean all builds in the Tested section are good ones, but a significant number of them need to be saved, as well as many in the Archived section (for historical reference). - Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Then archive them in your userspace :) You have a month. I'm grabbing a great number of tried-and-true builds (PvP mostly, but if it's obviously PvE-able, I'm grabbing those as well).
- The Wiki is a community; I have faith in the community as a whole to save all the builds they want saved. When we decide on the next step (possibly template tags for user space builds), people will pull the good builds out again, and make them known. That's just the first step. If we finish policy for a Build section (and it has little to no flaw), we will then start discussing re-making the Build: namespace. -Auron 02:09, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, you'll be stock-piling them, I'll be stock-piling them, and between ourselves and a number of another notable contributors, we will probably manage to hoard all the good stuff we've got here. This nuking of ther Builds section definitely should not happen without more community approval, however. User:Tanaric should take this discussion to the other main site of debate about the Builds section, Guildwiki:No Original Builds. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:19, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- In my post, I stated that we should be salvaging the builds from the current Build namespace, not at all the process. Say what you may about it, the Builds section does have a number of good builds in it. We should retain those builds while removing the bad ones. I am not saying we should repeat past mistakes. I am sorry if that is how it came across; it is not what I meant. We should retain these builds so that we do not have to start from scratch, and can establish them under the new policy. Do note that I don't mean all builds in the Tested section are good ones, but a significant number of them need to be saved, as well as many in the Archived section (for historical reference). - Krowman (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- No matter what course of action we take, original builds will stay in userspace. The failure of our last policy shows us that much. And read what Tanaric posted, at the beginning of this section; the section has failed, and *cannot be repaired*. We can only completely rebuild the section in order for it to work... and if we're basing the new policy on the last (failed) policy, then what is the point of rebuilding it? Save the builds; nuke the namespace. Once the namespace has been nuked, and all failed policy abolished, we can start from scratch. This will be no easy piece of work, but it must be done (that is, if we want a Build: namespace back again). If you're willing to put work into it, the section will be better next time (Heh... and if it isn't, the section won't exist). -Auron 01:25, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- We should have our plan for the new Build section before we nuke the existing one. That just makes so much more sense. Maybe the destruction of the Builds section in its current incarnation is inevitable, but there is no reason for us not to have a plan for the new one before we delete it. Heck, the NOB policy as it is is nearly good-to-go, imho. The only thing that needs to be done before we run with that policy would be to buff up our "Effective (profession) guides" beforehand. By doing this, we can get rid of the RA/CM/PvE categories (since anything can work there), and still provide a useful and comprehensive guide to those players/users who need one. If we can implement that policy, we can give the users the "real big two weeks notice" they want (i.e. 30 days or so), and begin work on what wil be the new Builds section while having the current one to refer to. It will be easier to almost copy-paste the good builds than having to re-create them all from scratch further down the road. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Reading is Fundamental. --Rainith 23:30, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, wouldn't this need a real big two weeks notice? I'm pretty sure we get a lot of anonymous site traffic over on Build:, and I don't think we should just suprise them one day by "nuking" the builds section. Big banners, everywhere. No to mention I thought NOB would keep the buildspace. Better 20 builds than none at all.--Nog64Talk 23:27, 15 March 2007 (CDT)
- <ri> I don't oppose a complete nuke of all content in the build name space, but there needs to be a notice that anyone interested will spot and a 30 day period for people to move stuff to their user name space. After the time period everything in the Build section should be nuked and the new policy comes into effect. Some users interested in different build types should make sure that anything usefull is saved. -- (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Ah, forgot to ask if everyone agrees that GuildWiki:No Original Builds is what we would like to have in effect after the nuking. -- (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Bearing in mind that Taneric's vote above is split almost exactly 50/50 I assume there's no danger of this "nuke" actually occurring? Because if it does that's a real slap in the face for half the editors here, or so it would seem. --NieA7 05:20, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- The problem is that this wasn't a vote, it was a poll, and there's a great difference between the two. This is something that was semi-recently discussed at great lengths here on the wiki, on how this place is not a democracy, and how the bureaucrats can at the end of the day do whatever they find appropriate. While I'm not necessarily ecstatic about this, there's not much that can be done about it; this wiki was never a democratic place by design. It has always worked with the assumption that those at the driving wheel are working for the best of the Wiki. As the votes sprawling all over the articles in the Builds section and thousands of years of human civilisation have proved, the majority is not always able to make the right decision, and the reasons why that is so are many and sound. But that's a topic that belongs elsewhere. :)
- Anyways, agree with Gem and Auron regarding a reasonable timeframe needed to move builds of importance out of harm's way. Nothing else to add on the matter. --Dirigible 06:17, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, good point, votes are not meant to be binding in a place where things are decided by "consensus". However, if nothing else that poll should show that consensus is very unlikely to be reached, and there's no majority either way amongst editors. It's very difficult to do anything meaningful to the builds section when there's a constant Greek chorus in the background calling for its removal entirely. I'm still convinced that the "problem" with the builds section is confined to a very select minority of high-end PvP players, which is why I proposed build split all those months ago. Let PvP and PvE have different criteria, I bet that'd make most people happy. Many of the people saying that loads of our builds are crap are exactly the same people who say that builds for PvE is an oxymoron because anything will work. --NieA7 06:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- "Anything will work for PvE" because PvE has no requirements for your build. It's not an insult to PvE; it's merely the truth. The sections of PvE that require solid, good builds and thought-out team coordination (elite missions, DoA, FoW, UW) can be documented. But a build for "general PvE?"
- <rant> Guild Wars is rated T for teen, which means it should be beatable by your average 13-year-old; that is part of the game, it's in the design. 13-year-olds cannot be expected to make incredible builds (not saying they can't, but it's unreasonable to expect them *all* to do so)... so making PvE require specific builds would be stupid on ANet's part </rant>.
- Now, this leaves PvE open to an infinite (almost literally) number of builds and skill combinations; good ones like FGJ and Dragon Slash, and bad ones like W/Me's using Energy Surge. But *they will all work*. This is why they must be considered original builds; there is no feasible cut-off for general PvE, and therefore no way to tell if it excels at its job. -Auron 17:19, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Then why not just nuke the general PvE section (and maybe RA / TA), while leaving the rest alone? -- <!--Zerris--> 17:24, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Because the problems the builds section is generating aren't generally found in the PvE section. People aren't violating GW:NPA in the talk pages of farming builds. --Rainith 17:32, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- The reason for the nuke is to start the whole thing 'from the beginning' with the new policy, which has it's basis on discussion intead of voting and is not allowing 'original' builds. PvE builds are not the only 'original' builds in the wiki. Remember that everything usefull will be safe as contributors will move the succesfull builds to their user name space. -- (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, as long as you promise me that the build section will be rebuilt, I guess I'll stand behind it. I would like you to create the new section before deleting the old, though. -- <!--Zerris--> 17:42, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Can't really do that as the name space is the same in the old and new versions. I'll personally back up a lot of builds that I personally like and others will probably do the same, so there shouldn't be worries for getting the section rebuilt. -- (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Very well. Better the Aatxe you don't know then the Aatxe you do. Also, Archive anyone? -- <!--Zerris--> 17:50, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Can't really do that as the name space is the same in the old and new versions. I'll personally back up a lot of builds that I personally like and others will probably do the same, so there shouldn't be worries for getting the section rebuilt. -- (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, as long as you promise me that the build section will be rebuilt, I guess I'll stand behind it. I would like you to create the new section before deleting the old, though. -- <!--Zerris--> 17:42, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- The reason for the nuke is to start the whole thing 'from the beginning' with the new policy, which has it's basis on discussion intead of voting and is not allowing 'original' builds. PvE builds are not the only 'original' builds in the wiki. Remember that everything usefull will be safe as contributors will move the succesfull builds to their user name space. -- (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Because the problems the builds section is generating aren't generally found in the PvE section. People aren't violating GW:NPA in the talk pages of farming builds. --Rainith 17:32, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Then why not just nuke the general PvE section (and maybe RA / TA), while leaving the rest alone? -- <!--Zerris--> 17:24, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, good point, votes are not meant to be binding in a place where things are decided by "consensus". However, if nothing else that poll should show that consensus is very unlikely to be reached, and there's no majority either way amongst editors. It's very difficult to do anything meaningful to the builds section when there's a constant Greek chorus in the background calling for its removal entirely. I'm still convinced that the "problem" with the builds section is confined to a very select minority of high-end PvP players, which is why I proposed build split all those months ago. Let PvP and PvE have different criteria, I bet that'd make most people happy. Many of the people saying that loads of our builds are crap are exactly the same people who say that builds for PvE is an oxymoron because anything will work. --NieA7 06:27, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
- Bearing in mind that Taneric's vote above is split almost exactly 50/50 I assume there's no danger of this "nuke" actually occurring? Because if it does that's a real slap in the face for half the editors here, or so it would seem. --NieA7 05:20, 16 March 2007 (CDT)
A codified timeline[]
- March 17 - March 31: We continue this discussion, in case somebody wiser than I am makes a point I (and most of the admin team) have missed.
- April 1: Banners are placed on all Build: pages, announcing that:
- No new builds can be posted under any circumstances.
- All existing builds will be removed on May 1, 2007.
- Note: if I get a ridiculous negative response from anon/non-policy users, beyond the usual moaning about change (I'm thinking a good 500 people or so), I can play this off as an April Fools' prank and move on.
- May 1: Post no builds goes fully into effect, all builds are removed from the GuildWiki.
- Sometime after May 1, hopefully soon: A less restrictive builds policy is created by the community and implemented.
- Sysops volunteer (or I appoint some new ones) to watch over the new builds section. This will allow community members to easily undelete builds if they meet the new build criteria.
—Tanaric 03:21, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
I like it. The April Fools idea is brilliant, but be aware: this may make people pay less attention to it, thinking it an April Fools joke all along, so it's a trade off. -- <!--Zerris--> 12:12, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, that was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. I don't particularly like doing this around April 1, but I don't want to put it off any longer. —Tanaric 15:49, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- I would suggest:
- March 17 - March 23: Open for discussion.
- March 24: Banner placed on the main page, site notice(?), build portal, and the build template which is on all builds. Announcing:
- No new builds may be posted before April 21 (in 4 weeks). All builds will be deleted then. Suggestion to back up anything important. A 'backed up' template to prevent multiple duplicates.
- April 22: The new policy comes into effect. The new policy should be formed before the deletion to prevent a total down time for the builds section.
- This improves the time line a little imho and makes the move to the new policy smoother. -- (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- I like the new one better, IMO the sooner the better --Lania Elderfire 17:42, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- I would suggest:
- What new policy, Gem? No new policy currently exists. No new policy is necessary to shut down the existing builds section. The reason I wanted to extend the timeline was to give those of you discussing new policy time to figure out what we're going to do. I have doubts that you can pull something together even by May, let alone April 22nd.
- We've been discussing alternate build policies formally for what, six months? Informally, a year? While your confidence that we'll have one ready in a month is inspiring, I think it might be a little misplaced. Under no circumstances will I continue to allow this build section to languish simply because we don't have a replacement policy.
- That said, if you guys still want an accelerated timeline for this, I'm game for it. It's better for me anyway, since graduation is in early May and I'll be awfully busy then.
- —Tanaric 19:31, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- I am really sorry to hear that we're trashing all the good (and bad) builds that currently exist. There's so much info there that isn't available anywhere else in such an easily-accessible form. It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And I fear such a move will help make GuildWiki irrelevant, especially considering the upcoming (and competing) Anet wiki. Wiki builds may have caused some "pros" to sneer, and caused a lot of personal attacks, but they also helped a lot of less-obsessed folks answer questions about how to build good skillbars and providing starting points for personal variations. That's certainly how I used it, and I suspect I'm in the silent majority. But like most wiki readers and contributors, I haven't had time to participate in the build policy discussions, so I guess that gives me no place to complain about losing such a good resource. — HarshLanguage 20:38, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- If I understand this correctly, we are not intending to scrap the builds section, merely replace it with a better version. If I'm wrong, do tell. -- <!--Zerris--> 20:45, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- Perhaps I read Tanaric's timeline wrong, but the process seemed to be 1) Disallow new builds, 2) Delete all existing builds, 3) Create a new builds section at some undefined point in the future. It's step 2 that disheartens me. — HarshLanguage 20:50, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- If I understand this correctly, we are not intending to scrap the builds section, merely replace it with a better version. If I'm wrong, do tell. -- <!--Zerris--> 20:45, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- You read correctly. However, you (and all others) are free to copy existing builds into your userspace (or save them as files on your desktop, copy them to another CC wiki, etc.). Hopefully the downtime between "post no builds" and a new, better build policy is short so that we can build a useful build resource here on the GuildWiki. —Tanaric 21:21, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yep. Our task at hand now is to document the builds that work; we'll cross the policy bridge when we get there. I'm also fine with the sped-up timeline... so let's make that the official one? -Auron 21:48, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- So is the backup process supposed to be just catch as catch can, everyone for themselves? That seems awfully messy. Why not move all vetted builds in the build namespace to another namespace, and protect the entire space to prevent any edits? Seems to serve the same purpose without risking the loss of info. And there would be no period where good/oft-referenced builds were just missing. It would also remove the problems inherent in having only a few people deciding what's important to keep. I suppose this would basically make the steps 1) Freeze the build section, remove all stubs and unvetted builds; 2) Rename the namespace to remove confusion; 3) Keep it frozen until a new build policy is worked out and individual builds can be resubmitted and re-vetted according to new rules. (Of course, with my luck, this idea was already discussed and abandoned!) — HarshLanguage 22:06, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- Um, no. It is simple, if you think the build has merit and would like to save it, then do so. If there is a build out there that no one likes/has no merit to it (90%+ of them most likely, maybe only 50% in the tested category), it should be done away with. --Rainith 22:17, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- Problem is, everyone thinks their own build has merit. :P -- Peej 22:34, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- After seeing [Build talk:N/W Jaguar Sword, melee-mancer anti], I'm forced to agree. -- <!--Zerris--> 22:36, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- That's why I suggested (in the project page) that the build's author back it up, if they don't and no one else does... Well, "too bad, so sad." as my 5 year old niece likes to say. --Rainith 22:42, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- I guess I meant the other way around: now instead of one copy of bad build, there will be 10 copies of each bad one (because everyone is saving them to their personal space). ;) -- Peej 23:00, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- That's why I suggested (in the project page) that the build's author back it up, if they don't and no one else does... Well, "too bad, so sad." as my 5 year old niece likes to say. --Rainith 22:42, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- After seeing [Build talk:N/W Jaguar Sword, melee-mancer anti], I'm forced to agree. -- <!--Zerris--> 22:36, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- Problem is, everyone thinks their own build has merit. :P -- Peej 22:34, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- Um, no. It is simple, if you think the build has merit and would like to save it, then do so. If there is a build out there that no one likes/has no merit to it (90%+ of them most likely, maybe only 50% in the tested category), it should be done away with. --Rainith 22:17, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
- You read correctly. However, you (and all others) are free to copy existing builds into your userspace (or save them as files on your desktop, copy them to another CC wiki, etc.). Hopefully the downtime between "post no builds" and a new, better build policy is short so that we can build a useful build resource here on the GuildWiki. —Tanaric 21:21, 17 March 2007 (CDT)
To me the builds page is very useful and not at all a "monstrosity" even though i consider myself fairly experienced in gw i still refer to the builds page extremely often. Not only for builds but for small skill sets and to help new to game friends. I think that taking out the page would be a very bad idea considering that more and more people are playing gw now. I use wiki for almost exclusively builds. I just dont see the point of going to other websites that are very poorly set up and extremely hard to navigate. ~You Make Me Puke
- Well there's nothing keeping you from archiving those builds on your user page and then referring your friends to that. Eventually I believe the builds section will be divided into 3 areas. One being linking to each others user pages for specific builds and stats. Another being the profession role guides. Last would be the profession guide in general. Just my thoughts. So if you see a build you like on a user page make a link on yours and then all your friends can go to your userpage in the future to see the builds you are talking about. -- Vallen Frostweaver 13:20, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
- Everything you love about the builds section will have an equal, n the end. If you need to know te best builds for PvP, that's what the new GW:NOB policy is for. If you need good running/farming builds, that'll still be here as well. And if you're interested in original builds created by Wiki members, that's what the userspace is for (we'll have tags set up fairly soon for that, most likely, so it won't be hard to find those builds). If feedback on builds is really what's important to you, then I suggest you try out one of those build forums again, as that's what they're best at. But if you just need to access builds, then they'll still be here in one form or another. -- Jioruji Derako.> 13:26, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
To coordinate...[]
I've started a list of builds people are archiving. Obviously, I can't keep it up-to-date myself; go ahead and add what builds you're saving, so everyone can see what all we have. The list can be found here. -Auron 01:20, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Thanks for the list. When we announce the time line, could you please tag all of these with a 'backed up' template? I'll create the template for you soon enough. (And I'll back up some nice builds today) -- (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- While I think trying to coordinate an ad-hoc backup of builds that don't actually have to be deleted in the first place just so they can be re-added later is pretty silly, I do have one comment about it. Please ensure that builds that are actually referenced or linked to from mainspace articles are preserved with info and links intact. Touch ranger is a good example. The fact that well-known named builds not linked from the mainspace will be deleted and only maybe replaced is bad enough, please don't put any dents in the wiki's main documentary function at the same time. Sorry, can't help but feel frustrated by this scorched-earth-style plan. — HarshLanguage 03:10, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- It's necessary. Remember, we aren't trying to copy every single favored build in the namespace, only the ones worth holding on to, the ones worth mentioning in a (possible) future build section. If a (favored) build exists that nobody cares about (including the author), and it is deleted, are we missing it? Was it worth having in the first place? No. If it is "well-known," as you claim, it will be on the list.
- Furthermore, the mainspace should not link directly to any specific builds. All common build ideas/exploits should have their own articles, and be explained in detail there (i.e., "the touch ranger exploited the primary ranger attribute to spam touch skills to steal life" etc). -Auron 03:24, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, a toucher is a pretty specific build. And linking to a nicely-done, vetted build page isn't bad in my mind. Obviously some other folks agreed on that in the past, considering the redirect. Anyway, my point still stands - there are at least a few of those floating around, and they need to be corectly handled before the purge because they are more than just random builds. They help document the game. See B/P for another example, or SS/SV.
- Anyway, it goes back to my point - this nuclear option may undermine the usefulness of the wiki. Also, I haven't seen anything that says this mass-delete plan is "necessary." It's just easy -- and gets rid of many vetted builds some folks apparently don't like (but don't want to bother re-opening vetting on, even under a better system, I guess). It's a fine plan for very experienced players or those who spend a lot of time on the wiki, and admins who want build bickering to go away. But it doesn't serve the interests of the average player or wiki user IMHO. — HarshLanguage 03:43, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I kinda doubt that vetted builds will keep their status in any new set up. The vetting process was such a debacle that it is unlikely to survive in any recognizable fashion. --Rainith 03:46, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- And it can't "undermine the usefulness of the wiki" if the usefulness of the Wiki pre-dates the build section itself. -Auron 03:48, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Unless you consider, as I do, that the builds section is useful, even with all its flaws and the bad behavior of participants. It adds to the usefulness of the wiki. Removing it doesn't make the wiki useless by any measure, but it makes it somewhat less useful. For instance, looking through vetted Dervish builds, for example, to get ideas is often better than looking at every Dervish skill and starting a build from scratch. But does that mean I'm now supposed to go through and back up a bunch of Dervish builds in case I want to do that again? Yuck. And @Rainith, I agree that vetting currently sucks, but I had assumed that with the advent of a better system, old unfavored builds would be deleted, and old favored builds would become untested or whatever the new nomenclature might be. That way, nothing is lost except that which is undefended or explicitly rejected. — HarshLanguage 03:57, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- And it can't "undermine the usefulness of the wiki" if the usefulness of the Wiki pre-dates the build section itself. -Auron 03:48, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I kinda doubt that vetted builds will keep their status in any new set up. The vetting process was such a debacle that it is unlikely to survive in any recognizable fashion. --Rainith 03:46, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
<ri>In the new setup, any build that was not backed up will be deleted. Any build that does not match the new policy (whatever that is) will be dealt with according to the policy. If the policy is No Original Builds then they will be dealt with that way. If the policy is to not put any build in the Build namespace other then farming builds then that is what will be done. If the new policy is Only Mending Wammos!, then we should have plenty of stuff to put there. ;) Until the new policy is in place, there should be no links from the main namespace to any builds (after the builds namespace has been cleared). --Rainith 04:04, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- With your last sentence, Post No Builds goes beyond being just about builds, and into being about how we document the game. I've already given three quick examples of how some builds are intimately connected with mainspace articles (Touch ranger, SS/SV, B/P). Removing those builds and the links to them removes important and useful information from the wiki -- and two of the builds in my examples are currently considered important enough to take the place of mainspace articles! The third build explains how a very common individual and team build works far better than the main article it was linked from does. Something needs to be done about cases like that. Is PNB also supposed to be a policy describing how skills in common builds are presented in mainspace articles? If not, further work is needed. Or, you know, don't delete all the good builds along with the bad ones. =) — HarshLanguage 04:43, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Or... write it up in an article focused on documenting the idea. My point is that the build isn't *required* for the wiki to keep going. Why would it be worse to have an article based on (and explaining) Touch Rangers than just throwing the build in people's faces? -Auron 04:52, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Harsh, have you read the policy page? You know the one this is a talk page of? All current builds should be moved to the user namespace of the user(s) who added the build or into anyone's namespace who wishes to keep said build. One month after the acceptance of this policy, all articles in the Build namespace will be deleted, and any links from articles in the main namespace removed. --Rainith 04:54, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I have. It doesn't say what replaces those links, and doesn't say what happens for builds that have replaced articles, like Touch ranger. It doesn't account for all the circumstances. I should have phrased my point better, sorry. Like I said above, I'm coming into this at the very tail end (after it's been decided on, apparently), so I have probably missed some relevant discussion. The builds debate has been a bit sprawling, you know! @Auron: Yes, that's certainly an option - but I would've preferred to decide that issue before deciding to delete all builds. — HarshLanguage 05:01, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I don't know how much simpler it could be. No links to builds from the main namespace, period. If there is ever a new policy for builds, it may allow that, or it might not. But once the builds are gone and until a new policy is in place, the links are gone. No more links from boss pages to builds used to farm them. No more links from generic build names (touch ranger, 55 monk, wammo, etc...) to specific build examples. --Rainith 05:09, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- You argue about documentation purposes, and how removing the build will hurt that? Why, the older version of the Touch Ranger article was *much better* documentation than just listing the build. Let that serve as an example; all the links you are concerned about can be replaced with articles truly trying to document the concept, not merely the skillbar. -Auron 05:12, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, I'm not sure we should discuss just one example as if it illustrates everything. But in that example, the build says everything the article used to (as noted in the history by Skuld, who created the redirect) and much more. I have used that build a couple times to help weigh variants I was considering using, and that stuff certainly wasn't in the article. Point being, there was a reason the build was used there. I think there needs to be a good reason to undo that, and I'm not sure "we don't like what the build section has become, so we're deleting it for now" is a good reason. Yes, there are non-build alternatives, but they aren't described in PNB even though PNB necessitates them. That's all I'm saying here, really. — HarshLanguage 05:27, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's not a matter of "non-build alternatives;" builds *were* the alternative. Now that they're being removed, it's no problem at all to bring back the original articles and put them to use. PNB doesn't really have to include common sense in order for us to use it, right? -Auron 05:55, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Common sense is what has led folks to point to builds to help document a few parts of the game. As far as I can tell, builds like Touch ranger and SS/SV were used because they were better than the articles they replaced. That seems sensible to me. Why go back to what was previously deemed worse, and then do work to make those old versions better, which would probably involve copy-and-pasting from the builds...? I think I see your point though: if the decision to purge all builds is a done deal, then redoing those old articles is necessary. But nothing on this page says that it is a done deal, and Tanaric's interim nuking proposal is less than 3 days old. — HarshLanguage 06:19, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- It's not really a proposal, per se. He's going to do it, unless someone has a damned good reason not to. It's a done deal as far as I'm concerned. Now, if you were merely arguing for paragraph after paragraph about PNB not mentioning what we'd do after removing redirects, why don't you propose a re-wording instead of talking in loops? It's a lot of wasted time/effort, and you don't seem to be making a point. If you're arguing against build removal, do it succinctly; if you're arguing against PNB's wording, propose a change. -Auron 06:28, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I did propose a change to PNB, though I think it's a bad policy, and I put forth good reasons not to nuke all builds. You and Rainith didn't like what I had to say, I tried to respond, and here you are smearing my participation. No wonder only a few people are participating beyond the poll. — HarshLanguage 06:55, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Your change to NOB is what now? I seem to have missed it entirely. I also have yet to see a good reason (let alone several good reasons) not to nuke it, but I'll re-read the entire thread to make sure I didn't miss anything. -Auron 07:12, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I did propose a change to PNB, though I think it's a bad policy, and I put forth good reasons not to nuke all builds. You and Rainith didn't like what I had to say, I tried to respond, and here you are smearing my participation. No wonder only a few people are participating beyond the poll. — HarshLanguage 06:55, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- It's not really a proposal, per se. He's going to do it, unless someone has a damned good reason not to. It's a done deal as far as I'm concerned. Now, if you were merely arguing for paragraph after paragraph about PNB not mentioning what we'd do after removing redirects, why don't you propose a re-wording instead of talking in loops? It's a lot of wasted time/effort, and you don't seem to be making a point. If you're arguing against build removal, do it succinctly; if you're arguing against PNB's wording, propose a change. -Auron 06:28, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Common sense is what has led folks to point to builds to help document a few parts of the game. As far as I can tell, builds like Touch ranger and SS/SV were used because they were better than the articles they replaced. That seems sensible to me. Why go back to what was previously deemed worse, and then do work to make those old versions better, which would probably involve copy-and-pasting from the builds...? I think I see your point though: if the decision to purge all builds is a done deal, then redoing those old articles is necessary. But nothing on this page says that it is a done deal, and Tanaric's interim nuking proposal is less than 3 days old. — HarshLanguage 06:19, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's not a matter of "non-build alternatives;" builds *were* the alternative. Now that they're being removed, it's no problem at all to bring back the original articles and put them to use. PNB doesn't really have to include common sense in order for us to use it, right? -Auron 05:55, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, I'm not sure we should discuss just one example as if it illustrates everything. But in that example, the build says everything the article used to (as noted in the history by Skuld, who created the redirect) and much more. I have used that build a couple times to help weigh variants I was considering using, and that stuff certainly wasn't in the article. Point being, there was a reason the build was used there. I think there needs to be a good reason to undo that, and I'm not sure "we don't like what the build section has become, so we're deleting it for now" is a good reason. Yes, there are non-build alternatives, but they aren't described in PNB even though PNB necessitates them. That's all I'm saying here, really. — HarshLanguage 05:27, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- You argue about documentation purposes, and how removing the build will hurt that? Why, the older version of the Touch Ranger article was *much better* documentation than just listing the build. Let that serve as an example; all the links you are concerned about can be replaced with articles truly trying to document the concept, not merely the skillbar. -Auron 05:12, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I don't know how much simpler it could be. No links to builds from the main namespace, period. If there is ever a new policy for builds, it may allow that, or it might not. But once the builds are gone and until a new policy is in place, the links are gone. No more links from boss pages to builds used to farm them. No more links from generic build names (touch ranger, 55 monk, wammo, etc...) to specific build examples. --Rainith 05:09, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I have. It doesn't say what replaces those links, and doesn't say what happens for builds that have replaced articles, like Touch ranger. It doesn't account for all the circumstances. I should have phrased my point better, sorry. Like I said above, I'm coming into this at the very tail end (after it's been decided on, apparently), so I have probably missed some relevant discussion. The builds debate has been a bit sprawling, you know! @Auron: Yes, that's certainly an option - but I would've preferred to decide that issue before deciding to delete all builds. — HarshLanguage 05:01, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
Post No Builds will hurt more than it helps[]
This proposed policy, and the subsequent proposal by Tanaric to delete the entire build section before a replacement vetting system is in place, is a bad idea in my opinion. It essentially makes the argument that many builds are bad, and the build section doesn't run well, so therefore all builds need to be deleted. It's nice that it will get rid of bad unfavored builds and relieve us of personal attacks by build section participants who can't act maturely. But the policy ignores all the good aspects of the build section. As the saying goes, it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Its downsides are too severe; here are a few:
- 1) It removes useful and important information from the wiki that is contained in builds. It undermines the wiki's ability to provide information about a central facet of Guild Wars. Many users learn from the good builds in the builds section (and even sometimes from bad builds).
- 2) It does not help create a new build section; it just erases the one we have now. A build section "freeze" or selective deletion, for example, would be as effective in setting the stage for a new policy, but not as detrimental. In addition, by deleting everything, the policy could make it less likely that builds will return to the wiki.
- 3) It removes all the good vetted builds that readers may want to use for their characters, including ones that are well-known and often-used in-game. This wiki provides the best and easiest-to-use repository of builds, but this policy destroys that.
- 4) The ad-hoc, user-organized "backup" of selected builds that has been proposed will be messy, confusing to casual users, very difficult to refer to while the build section is gone, and offers no way to ensure a complete or accurate backup of good builds.
- 5) It does not provide a good solution for replacing build links or redirects to builds in main namespace articles, even if they provide useful information that is central to the article. The information could be recreated, but that's extra work to duplicate what already exists. The Glossary entries mentioned in the proposal would inherently provide less information than articles with links to relevant builds.
Those are my top five. I'm sure others can add more. I don't think it's possible to change the proposed PNB policy to address these concerns; it is expressly designed to remove all builds no matter what, and that's what's wrong with it. Changes along the lines of "freeze builds instead", "don't delete vetted or linked builds", etc, would be fundamentally different policies (and they would set the stage for a new build vetting system just as well). I wish there was a good and simple solution to the problems with the builds section... this policy's solution is simple, but not good. (@Auron: You asked.) — HarshLanguage 08:07, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Here's the part that you're missing: The builds section as it is right now will need to be removed at one point or another, there's zero doubt about it. Above you say "I had assumed that with the advent of a better system, old unfavored builds would be deleted, and old favored builds would become untested or whatever the new nomenclature might be" ... there won't be any "Untested", that's the thing. "Original" builds will remain in userspace, because the past has already proven that the wiki is not suitable as a research laboratory for new builds. When and if the section will be recreated, it will be done with a very clear cut documentation only form. 99% of the articles in Builds right now are original, and as such there will be no place on the main namespace for them from now on. Those who are interested in them have over a month to copy the builds to their personal userspace. Those builds that aren't even interesting enough to be copied by someone, well, hasta la vista, amigo. Taking your points one by one:
- 1) The builds section signal to noise ratio right now is abyssmal, to put it mildly. How can you say that there is useful information in that section right now, when it's painfully obvious that the vetting system is not working properly and has never worked properly? Yes, there are good builds in there, but they covered by a)countless piles of terrible builds, b) random half-assed modifications done SOLELY with the purpose of pleasing the voters, to get a positive vote out of them, and c) created in a climate characterized by tons and tons of personal attacks, raging, and complete lack of common sense and sensibility from everyone, authors and voters included. If there is useful information in there, feel free to fish it out, and put it somewhere for future reference, like the rest of us are doing.
- 2) Ok, I'll write this in all caps not because I'm yelling or angry or trying to be rude or anything, but just because I need to make sure that the following is very visible and doesn't get lost in the sea of words: THE PURGE OF THE BUILDS SECTION ISN'T SUPPOSED TO OFFER A WAY TO ALLOW BUILDS TO REMAIN ON THE WIKI; ITS PURPOSE IS TO PUT AN END TO THE VERY DYSFUNCTIONAL SYSTEM THAT IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE. Cool? The two of them are completely different issues. On one hand we have the problem of fixing the mess that's already happened, and on the other hand we have the problem of coming up with a way to avoid those problems happening again. This purge aims to solve the former, not the latter. Please take a moment to understand that.
- The builds section problem hasn't appeared this week, or even this month. This has been going on for too long. It's been obvious that this place wasn't working right for ages, many have pointed out these exact flaws from the beginning of this namespace. And yet here we still are, filling pages and pages of discussion without nothing happening. It's enough. Something must be done, and purging all the nonsense in Builds is the best and most efficient way to do it. Enough with taking the Builds section for granted. The message here is clear: If you want Builds to remain, start coming up with concrete ideas, solutions and proposals. Start presenting ways in how you think the section will be able to get rid of all the problems it has now, instead of waving your hands about "but but but don't delete it, lets talk about it some more first". Keywords: concrete ideas, solutions and proposals.
- 3) "It removes all the good vetted builds that readers may want to use for their characters" <--- I challenge you to separate unequivocally "good builds" from bad ones, and I also challenge you to explain me how and why "vetted builds" are worth a damn, being that they're all results of a terribly flawed vetting system. Also see 1) above, as this point is just rehash of that.
- 4) Feel free to come up with a better system to organize the backup. Gem has already proposed a template idea. Who's stopping you from doing so? Don't forget that this is a wiki: no one here is a spectator.
- 5) Don't try to complicate things needlessly. Links from the main namespace to the builds namespace will be removed. Period. Why is that so hard to understand? Stuff like Touch ranger will become a glossary entry, and if it's expanded enough, it may even turn into a guide (guide, not build) such as Invincimonk. What's so confusing about that?
- You obviously care about the Builds section a lot, so do the other 19 who voted "No" in the poll above, and probably even some of those who voted "Yes". As such, the challenge presented to you is clear: Feel free to discuss different alternative policies for a builds section, presenting concrete ideas and solutions on how a builds section can exist on this wiki while avoiding the issues that have become painfully obvious during the existence of this last one. While you do that, the PNB purge policy will clean up the hodge-podge that the current builds policy has made, giving you guys a clean space where you can rebuild the foundations of the Builds section. Have no doubts about it, no one is putting an end to Builds forever, you have carte blanche to convincingly come up with ways on how to have such a section on the wiki. But don't expect the current ugly mess to continue existing while you figure out how to fit the elephant through the keyhole. --Dirigible 09:38, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Dirigible, NOB is not wiki policy. PNB is not wiki policy. There doesn't even appear to be consensus on these proposals. Plus, Tanaric's poll asked the wrong question, as has been pointed out already. Yet you and others are acting as if NOB and PNB are set in stone already, saying they MUST happen! You repeat it again and again, but that doesn't generate consensus, and it's not a discussion. You say there are lots of bad vetted builds. I say I've gone through a few professions' worth of vetted builds and saw some I could use, others I couldn't, all of which told me more about the professions. It seems more like there are lots of vetted builds you don't like, or feel you can't trust because the vetting system doesn't yield the right result all the time. I'm saying, let's not throw everything away just because it isn't perfect.Let's raise the bar instead: throw out the unfavored and stubs, and re-vet old favored builds under a more rigorous system that doesn't let jerks cause trouble. Let's tell submitters up front to expect their builds to be rejected most of the time.
- And just because I haven't proposed such a system myself shouldn't mean I have no right to an opinion on other proposals. — HarshLanguage 10:12, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Voting sucks. Get over it. -Auron 10:21, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Exactly, that is the whole point! NOB is not policy! PNB is not policy! There is NO policy! How awesome is that? The only policy is the same old messed up dysfunctional one. See where the problem is? It's been a year, and there's still no policy, because it always ends up stagnating as people try to come up with ways to make the section suck less.
- You suggest to "raise the bar, re-vet old builds under a system that doesn't let jerks cause trouble". To me that sounds "lets stop all wars in the world, and come up with a way to keep everyone rich and happy". Yeah, it'd be cool and all, but it's sorta ...out there... in the likelihood of it happening. I'm not blaming you for not coming up with a solution, but I also have to point out that no one else is coming up with a solution either... maybe there's a reason for that? Maybe there's really no way to have such a system that allows vetting and keeping the jerks from causing trouble that's suitable for a wiki? It's been over a year, and the best solution we've had so far is No Original Builds (by "the best" meaning the one which has the most consensus and seems to offer solutions to most problems), and NOB will inevitably require PNB to precede it. You say there must be some other solution out there... where is it? How much longer does the wiki need to wait in this state for it to appear? It's been a year, and we're still waiting for someone to come up with the brilliant idea. Don't you see the problem with that? --Dirigible 10:31, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I do see what you're saying. I don't know why no "Vetting 3.0" proposal has been put forward or successful. But I don't see why that means some vetting (didn't say voting) process won't work ever. Wikipedia has methods for determining whether an article should exist; perhaps some riff off that might work. But regardless, I am concerned that NOB might empower a small group to decide what builds to display by setting the definitions of what a documented/observed/popular build is, leading to under-inclusion and bias. I also dislike NOB's near-total disdain for PVE. But mostly I'm concerned that we'll nuke useful stuff via PNB without setting up some replacement system first (even if it's NOB). I should mention I have much less of a problem with NOB in general than with PNB; I think PNB is the wrong way to set up for NOB. I'll try to explain that later, time for some real life now. =) — HarshLanguage 11:44, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- Every time someone tried to fix the build section, people threw a tantrum and whined. No policy was ever implemented and no policy will ever be implemented as long as the build section is allowed to continue existing as it is. The best alternative to a complete purge was extremely heavy moderation forcibly removing bad builds. The build section threw a tantrum when people attempted that. They are unwilling to delete the most obvious of crap and refuse to fix themselves. This is what you get. If you don't want the build section deleted, I suggest you fast track a policy that will fix it and get it approved before the purge. -Warskull 13:00, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I do see what you're saying. I don't know why no "Vetting 3.0" proposal has been put forward or successful. But I don't see why that means some vetting (didn't say voting) process won't work ever. Wikipedia has methods for determining whether an article should exist; perhaps some riff off that might work. But regardless, I am concerned that NOB might empower a small group to decide what builds to display by setting the definitions of what a documented/observed/popular build is, leading to under-inclusion and bias. I also dislike NOB's near-total disdain for PVE. But mostly I'm concerned that we'll nuke useful stuff via PNB without setting up some replacement system first (even if it's NOB). I should mention I have much less of a problem with NOB in general than with PNB; I think PNB is the wrong way to set up for NOB. I'll try to explain that later, time for some real life now. =) — HarshLanguage 11:44, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
My return to the discussion[]
Sorry, was afw the whole day and this has been a large discussion. I'll just post some random stuff that I think will address some of the problems people are having above.
- Links to the build section don't need to be removed in the build section sweep process, as the builds section should be operational again immediately after the sweep with the new policy. (which we need to decide on before the sweep)
- As has been said earlier on this page, the wiki admins are some sort of dictators, able to do what they want. The wiki policies have been formed according to how the admins have acted, the admins haven't acted on how the policies have been formed. Basically this means that me and Tanaric could do the whole thing without any support from anyone else, but it wouldn't bee too wise. (This doesn't mean I would be doing such a thing, just that it is technically possible)
- People seem to have ignored my proposal of the timeline and actions and only reply to what Tanaric suggested. My proposal isn't as harsh as Tanarics. Builds will be sweeped, but PNB will not come into effect at all, instead we immediately move to use a new policy which should be decided on during the 4 week warning period. I would like people to actually read my suggestion and comment on it. If you read my suggestion and this post carefully, you'll probably notice that most of the problems presented above aren't going to happen with this suggestion. -- (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- We don't have a policy to replace our current one with. People (harsh) disagree with NOB, and as NOB is the closest thing we have to an accepted policy, I highly doubt we'll have the section back up immediately. In fact, I think it best that the section be offline for a period of time, to allow people's heads to clear, and to show just how well the Wiki can get along without builds. It'll be a period of peace (a calm before the storm, perhaps) before heated discussion of policy resumes. Even if we had a policy to implement, it would be most wise to keep the section down for awhile, just to let people chill out. -Auron 16:51, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- If one user disagrees with a policy suggestion, that's not going to stop it from being implemented. There's always someone who isn't happy, but it's the majority which decides. (or the admins if they really want to pis people off) I'm pretty sure that NOB is going to get accepted in it's current form or with tweaking before the sweep. -- (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- I'm under no illusions that the wiki bureaucrats can't ultimately do whatever they want whenever they want. Tanaric and Biro are eminently reasonable folks, though. I'm speaking up now because I don't want to lose the valuable good stuff (insert your own definition of "good") in builds just because the section is a mess. I agree that NOB is the closest thing to a reasonable vetting process (and it is a "vetting" process) that's been proposed, though I think it's flawed in some big ways. PNB and the mass purge, as I've laid out, is unnecessarily and harmfully severe, even if we go with NOB. Maybe I'm the only person who thinks that... but I highly doubt it; I think most casual folks just aren't paying attention. (I wasn't until recently.) I'm certainly seeing some chasms between the opinions of major contributors here, too. Anyway, I've been kicking around some vetting ideas, and will certainly try to catch up on NOB's discussion. — HarshLanguage 21:34, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- If one user disagrees with a policy suggestion, that's not going to stop it from being implemented. There's always someone who isn't happy, but it's the majority which decides. (or the admins if they really want to pis people off) I'm pretty sure that NOB is going to get accepted in it's current form or with tweaking before the sweep. -- (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
For those who would like to discuss which policy to use after the sweep, please discuss at GuildWiki talk:No Original Builds#Discussion on making this policy. -- (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
Documenting versus creating...[]
I'm somewhat of a new user, but I was thinking quite a bit about this... apologies if this could've gone somewhere in the discussion, but I couldn't think of a place my ramblings would fit in. Anyway, after reading the various points of view, here is my opinion. In terms of PvP, we should be documenting, not creating. For example, if someone posted a 417 page story on the Prince Rurik page about his lusty affair with Devona, it would be axed... not because it didn't represent Rurik in the game or something, but because it's not really relevant/useful. To compare: we should document builds, not attempt to create/improve. To avoid elitism, I think we should get a new catch phrase for common builds, and base it on how common they are, not how effective. Personal builds that are not common can be linked to in a seperate area on the builds page, and the PvP section can be entirely observed builds that are quite common. On his talk page, Mr. Auron links to the Savannah Heat build that has been disfavoured. This is a failure, because it IS common, and whether or not it is "original" or "just aoe" doesn't matter. Voting is a mistake because credibility/experiance doesn't matter. An objective way of approval can remove the whole problem of possibly non-expert players versus PvPers, while keeping valuable information. I've seen people use Wiki terms (oddly enough) in game, like "Blessed Escaper", so I think it's a great resource for starting PvPers. We just need to streamline it and dump all the unorthodox stuff. We aren't a forum; we need to document the meta, essentially, not try to improve/change it. I know some people have said some of the things I did, but I just wanted to get it all out... sorry for being a bit wordy. Dark Helmet 22:05, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
- This is exactly what the GuildWiki:No Original Builds policy suggestion is about. I would recommend viewing it and commenting on the talk page. -- (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- Oh... I must've missed that. Oops. :( Well thank you, Mr/Mrs Gem, much appreciated. ^_^ Dark Helmet 04:30, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
I Really Liked The Builds Section...That Is...Until I Posted One[]
Think of all the people who just visit the site, who have no idea that the builds section may or may not be nerfed. This site was made for the people who read it, not for those writing it. Yeah, it's hard, it's stressful at times. There are threats of bans! But as the newest build-writer of the site, I think I am probably the one who remembers best what is was like playing in HA, seeing a group advertise for some build that I don't really know, checkin wiki real fast, coming back and playing wonderfully in the group. Things like that...
Yeah, it's pretty hard. But the product of the bickering and arguing is something that far exceeds any other site in terms of a Builds Section (and I believe it is because of arguing - peacefully or even otherwise. But it would be nice if everyone could learn to argue peacefully... damn.).
-Jagre 05:06, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- So what are you trying to say? We are going to wipe the build section and implement a new better policy to get it working again better than ever. What do you want to change? -- (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- -I think that the system is fine how it is. I think that most people who play guild wars are fairly immature and that some of the people are in the wiki community and that does unfortunately include me. I think I realized that most people who read my build were actually right and that I was wrong to have acted how I did. I still think that two of the people acted without proper regard, but that there is no way to resolve that short of acting rashly oneself.
- -I think that the "older members" of the community just don't like the, how should I say it? work? or should i use a word like arguing? that they don't like arguing.
- but that is understandable, but they are free to refrain from joining the discussions, and it is as important for them to see that as it is for the younger members like me to try hard to be tolerant. They should leave the builds section alone, no doubt, because it really is outstanding and from what I understand of what they want to do, it will severely hurt the usefulness of the builds section. --Jagre 05:20, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- We are not trying to harm the section but help it. Currently the system does not work. There are multiple good examples of builds vetted favoured or unfavoured with false arguments. The new policy is aimed at making the wiki a better place to find and learn to use builds and to make the discussion more civil so that everyone can work in the builds section without getting frustrated. -- (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
Taking Some Initiative[]
Alright, well, in my attempt to thwart GW:PNB, I am in the process of creating a true BuildWiki on my user page. I currently have every vetted PvP build and will have all the Vetted PvE builds by tonight or tommorow. BuildWiki Lives! Mwahahahaha! Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)
- I was thinking of actually taking some wiki spftware out and doing this, but that works too.--Nog64Talk 19:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- I hope you're gonna get rid of em when the new policy comes into effect and the builds are safely in the build section? (not all favoured builds will be accepted if GW:NOB will be the policy) -- (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- (Gah, edit conflict) Well, until such time as there is a new policy which doesn't allow builds in the user space, I will do my best to thwart GW:PNB. Maybe I can even get my own in house (or in user-page) vetting system. Perhaps a panel of judges chosen by me (it is my user-space after all) and a section for untested builds. I can even reimplement a template system for categories, favored, etc. Essentially, my goal is to have a fully autonomous build wiki operating in my user space just in case we can't restart the build namespace. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)
- Well Defiant, you could always contact the MediaWiki people and set up a new BuildWiki site. (T/C) 20:10, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- Lol. Do you seriously believe that the sweep and a new policy wont happen and work? I'm pretty confident. -- (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- I don't think it's really a terrible idea as the section that caused so much problems will be gone from the main guildwiki, and some resemblance of a build-wiki system will be just in a user namespace. Also because it is in a namespace rather than the main wiki, it's no-longer GW's build once the policy comes into effect, so people wanting their build vetted won't feel so compelled to do so as it won't be some "prestige" status for having a vetted build in GWiki for new players and new Guildwiki users.--Lania Elderfire 20:53, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- Not to mention that new users won't find it as easily.--Nog64Talk 21:05, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- Which is always a plus. --Lania Elderfire 21:12, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- And you can't link to skills and other articles as easily, which is a big minus. -- (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- Besides, if you want to get rid of new users and players, then why do you want to document builds at all? The veterans don't need the builds seciton, the new players do. -- (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- And yet, we see the new build policies being shaped heavily by and for veteran PVPers... (mostly, I know there are exceptions). Seems like the build section is getting less friendly to newbs in terms of participation (ie, there will be no participation) and at least somewhat less friendly in terms of reference (only builds that have passed the metric of popularity and success, and almost all in PVP only). To see Lania's comment above is extremely disheartening to me, as I know she's not alone in that sentiment. But, still, I agree with Gem that a separate BuildWiki would be reinventing the wheel needlessly, even if it preserves builds I think are useful (ones that most build-section guardians don't). I am just going to site-rip all the current tested builds and store offline for my own reference. =) — HarshLanguage 03:43, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- Which is always a plus. --Lania Elderfire 21:12, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- Not to mention that new users won't find it as easily.--Nog64Talk 21:05, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, just to point out, I sincerely hope that there will be an attempt at a new build section. So, my little build wiki also serves the purpose of documentation so we don't need to start from scratch, much like Auron's effort to document existing builds. I told you in my little speech on GW:RFA that I wanted someone to be there to help the transition after the build section nuke. Whether or not I am an Admin, I would still like to be involved, and this is my way of doing that. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)
- There is an attempt. Haven't you seen GuildWiki:No Original Builds. I'm all for that policy suggestion. (Btw, do you allready have an alternate wiki set up or did I understand something incorrectly?) -- (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, just to point out, I sincerely hope that there will be an attempt at a new build section. So, my little build wiki also serves the purpose of documentation so we don't need to start from scratch, much like Auron's effort to document existing builds. I told you in my little speech on GW:RFA that I wanted someone to be there to help the transition after the build section nuke. Whether or not I am an Admin, I would still like to be involved, and this is my way of doing that. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs)
Suggestion[]
It is my opinion that the majority of Wiki users (remember that Majority doesn't mean "the active ones" or "the voting ones") are totally unaware of the impending axe at the Builds section. I think it would be prudent, to avoid some of the mass public outcry, if some sort of notice could be added to either (A) the main page or (B) the Style and Formatting build template/page. Granted, that is still in a month or two, but I don't see why it would be a bad thing to attract more discussion of the issue. I myself wasn't even aware things had gotten to this state until I saw it on Recent Changes. Imagine what the casual user will feel like - the rug will be pulled out from under their feet. I think that's just a little bit mean. (T/C) 21:40, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- The timeline from above:
- March 17 - March 23: Open for discussion.
- March 24: Banner placed on the main page, site notice(?), build portal, and the build template which is on all builds. Announcing:
- No new builds may be posted before April 21 (in 4 weeks). All builds will be deleted then. Back ups exist, so no need to do it again.
- April 22: The new policy comes into effect. The new policy should be formed before the deletion to prevent a total down time for the builds section. added: (If no new policy is yet ready, the builds section is shut donw temporarily) -- (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- A new policy will only come into effect if one can be agreed on. You are far more confident of that then most of the rest of us. --Rainith 21:56, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, that's what I mean...Timeline is all well and good but I think it would be best to put up something which draws more attention to this discussion, and the more ASAP the better. Wiki runs on community after all. And even with the timeline...Wouldn't it be quite a shock to log onto GWiki and suddenly see this banner out of the blue, saying that no more builds will be posted in 4 weeks? (T/C) 21:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- I definitely agree... I didn't know this was even being considered (don't remembered how I found it V_V), and it's a pretty big change. :o Dark Helmet 22:34, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- Uhm, for what it's worth, both Barek and I have each posted on GuildWiki talk:Community Portal to make more people aware of this. If people don't care about policy, or don't care enough to keep an eye out on the community talk sections, well it seems to me that they don't have a right to complain about no one making them aware of this. You have to understand that, frankly, the average wiki user simply isn't interested in policy, let alone policymaking. Efforts have been made to get the entire community aware of the discussion, and in four days (according to Gem's timeline) a banner will go up to make the warning even more in-your-face. Seems more than fair to me. --Dirigible 05:07, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- I definitely agree... I didn't know this was even being considered (don't remembered how I found it V_V), and it's a pretty big change. :o Dark Helmet 22:34, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, that's what I mean...Timeline is all well and good but I think it would be best to put up something which draws more attention to this discussion, and the more ASAP the better. Wiki runs on community after all. And even with the timeline...Wouldn't it be quite a shock to log onto GWiki and suddenly see this banner out of the blue, saying that no more builds will be posted in 4 weeks? (T/C) 21:59, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- A new policy will only come into effect if one can be agreed on. You are far more confident of that then most of the rest of us. --Rainith 21:56, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
Just one more thing to point out (this is more NOB, but w/e), IF we are nuking the build section, and IF we are going to track the metagame, isn't it wastful and redundant to go ahead and repost the builds after deleting them? Does someone have the code on file? Or am I missing somehting (I think I am).--Nog64Talk 22:53, 19 March 2007 (CDT)
- I've got most of the good ones and the archived builds. I can more or less copy-paste them into the new policy Build template. - Krowman (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
I just want to point out that even if an axe of the builds section goes forward (which I am strongly against, but see above for that), it shouldn't be done by accepting PNB as policy. Instead, it should be done as an addition to the new builds policy. PNB doesn't allow for a replacement policy, remember that! — HarshLanguage 03:46, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- The one we have now doesn't either, but it doesn't prevent us from implementing a newer one. However, accepting PNB is not how we're nuking the build section; we're nuking that regardless of policy (even in absence of policy). -Auron 05:00, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, the nuke is an administrative action where we use the administators privilige to do anything without paying attention to policy. This privilige has probably never been used in this scale before which is why we are having such a large discussion. We want the wiki users to know what we are doing and support it atleast partially. I modified the timeline by adding the following: (If no new policy is yet ready, the builds section is shut donw temporarily). That should answer the worries of some of you. -- (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- Ok, I had no idea this entire conversation was happening until Defiant was kind enough to tell me some of the guide/builds that I helped with and others might soon be deleted. You guys (meaning admins/bcrats) need to put up a bigger discussion topic as Gem has admitted this has never been done in this scale before and therefore you should make more people aware of it. Put it on the main builds page at least but I would prefer a link on the main page under builds. Please don't blindside the community with this as I can already tell the GW:PNB is going to happen regardless of discussion (which makes me wonder why have it in the first place...). -- Vallen Frostweaver 07:29, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- Please read GuildWiki:Builds wipe. We are going to post infoboxes on many places about the stuff coming. -- (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, I noticed that and I think you misunderstood. I was meaning to make people notice the diiscussion before you reach a decision. But it seems this discussion area wasn't of any use as this all was going to happen from the beginning anyway. Sorry if I sound bitter but I kind of am to be honest. Not at anyone in particular though, just in general and I won't do anything stupid. I'm just ... not happy ... with how this is being handled. :p -- Vallen Frostweaver 08:33, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- Please read GuildWiki:Builds wipe. We are going to post infoboxes on many places about the stuff coming. -- (talk) 07:34, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- Ok, I had no idea this entire conversation was happening until Defiant was kind enough to tell me some of the guide/builds that I helped with and others might soon be deleted. You guys (meaning admins/bcrats) need to put up a bigger discussion topic as Gem has admitted this has never been done in this scale before and therefore you should make more people aware of it. Put it on the main builds page at least but I would prefer a link on the main page under builds. Please don't blindside the community with this as I can already tell the GW:PNB is going to happen regardless of discussion (which makes me wonder why have it in the first place...). -- Vallen Frostweaver 07:29, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, the nuke is an administrative action where we use the administators privilige to do anything without paying attention to policy. This privilige has probably never been used in this scale before which is why we are having such a large discussion. We want the wiki users to know what we are doing and support it atleast partially. I modified the timeline by adding the following: (If no new policy is yet ready, the builds section is shut donw temporarily). That should answer the worries of some of you. -- (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- I understand why many users are a bit worried and unhappy, but there has been no consensus or actions for months now, so we need to do something. We are trying to solve this for the best of the wiki as soon as possible. Some might think it's not a good idea, but nothing else has worked during the last few moths. -- (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- That's not true. The discussion was most certainly given a fair chance, and you have to keep in mind that a discussion about how to fix the Builds section has been ongoing for a year now. With no results. If after a year of discussion all the progress we've made is NOB and PNB, both of which are still light years away from any concrete consensus, then it seems clear to me that discussion simply isn't working. What's left? Administrative action. --Dirigible 09:01, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- And how is administrative action a concensus? This wiki has been a foundation for discussion and concensus driven results for a long time. Are the administrators then doing this in the best interests of the community or their own? *stirs pot* -- Vallen Frostweaver 09:14, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- It's not a consensus and it's not pretending to be. It's also not in the best interests of me and Tanaric only, but the whole wiki. If you haven't noticed, Tanaric isn't active in the builds section at all and I only contribute to less than 5 builds actively. We are just the ones who are now actively trying to solve the problem after getting tired of this all. -- (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- And how is administrative action a concensus? This wiki has been a foundation for discussion and concensus driven results for a long time. Are the administrators then doing this in the best interests of the community or their own? *stirs pot* -- Vallen Frostweaver 09:14, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- That's not true. The discussion was most certainly given a fair chance, and you have to keep in mind that a discussion about how to fix the Builds section has been ongoing for a year now. With no results. If after a year of discussion all the progress we've made is NOB and PNB, both of which are still light years away from any concrete consensus, then it seems clear to me that discussion simply isn't working. What's left? Administrative action. --Dirigible 09:01, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Reset: So tell me something then. What is the reasoning behind the builds section being removed? Is it the griefers? I just keep hearing about how bad it is and I want to understand the real reasons why this is being done and not have to try and dig through the comments of 10 pages to try and find the real reasons buried within. There is nothing on the project page that explains why it is being done. I would suggest that if you would like more people to support this then perhaps give then a reason to. As it stands now it just looks like it's a way to stop bickering (no one will read this entire page if they come across it now if they didn't before) and I hate it when the whole group gets punished for what one or the few do. -- Vallen Frostweaver 09:31, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- It's not been removed, it's just being wiped temporarily so that we can start from the beginning with a new policy. All good builds have been backed up allready so we still have stuff to start the new build section with. -- (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- GuildWiki:Builds wipe explains it all in more detail. -- (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- I guess I've gone full circle. Sorry for ranting. I think next time I'll wlk away and cool down before I jump in like this. I end up speaking without thought. I'm walking away for the moment and I'll come back when my head is screwed on a little tighter. -- Vallen Frostweaver 09:39, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Official stance[]
I've posted GuildWiki:builds wipe for the official word on what's happening and how. If anyone wants to make the templates that article describes, I'd be grateful. :) —Tanaric 05:44, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- I modified it to use the more popular and faster time line. If no one has done the templates when I get into the mood, I could do them. -- (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
I have now modified this article heavily to reflect the enforcement by the build wipe. -- (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- I have reverted this change, as the builds wipe is not tied to this particular policy implementation. That said, this article likely serves no purpose anymore. Talk about the wipe should occur on its talk page. —Tanaric 00:42, 22 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)
The voters[]
I find many of the votes in the "keep" sections disturbing. most say something about how it needs better management. I have never seen many of these users before and many of them dont contribute to the build section as it is. who is going to administrate it? it is to big a task to keep it clean without help from those people. Saying it needs to be done, but not by yourself isnt very helpful.
PS. Im not directing that at everyone who voted there as I saw vallen and a few other heavy contributors.--Coloneh RIP 17:54, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- I think its showing how many minor contributors feel....that the builds section is the reason many people use this site. Lord of all tyria 17:56, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- I think I'll archive the poll now as the question is bad and doesn't reflect the situation at all. -- (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- 'Yes' votes are from the build section maintainers, 'No' votes are from the build section users. What's so hard to see about that? :P -- Peej 18:04, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- What about those of us who are both? -- <!--Zerris--> 18:08, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- I think what the poll shows is that people who just use the site love the builds section and want to keep it. It's only the cadre of editors who deal with it behind the scenes - a much smaller number than the people who just visit I imagine - who are fussing. --NieA7 05:32, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
- W/O the people that maintain it, there wouldn't have been a build section to begin with. And I can tell you for a fact that the PvP section of the builds is often seen as a joke to high level pvp'ers. Plus the section doesn't do a good job of showing people what a good build is, and what isn't for new players. It's just a mish mash of rather weird builds, where a lot of the vetted ones are bad and some of the unfavored are actually good. Even before I started contributing to the builds section, I saw a lot of bad builds getting vetted, especially into the PvP RA section and PvE sections. This leads to a lot of bad advice for new players who don't know better, thinking that "well it's vetted on guild wiki it must be good" and then finding out later it really wasn't. --Lania Elderfire 11:23, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
- I put some effort into maintaining it a while ago so I know what you mean, but the fact remains that nobody is forced to maintain anything - if they should choose to do so they're doing it for the visitors of the site, not for themselves (hence my disagreement with the whole wipe thing, as I believe this whole drama is entirely confined to editors rather than visitors). As for "elite" PvP players... yeah, really couldn't give a monkey's. Anybody who describes themselves as "elite" over a game is pretty much beyond the pale already. --NieA7 11:38, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah the drama is within just the editors, but it comes from new people who don't know the policy and cause trouble but that's been said tons of times before. Many of them were temp banned, some of them were permanently banned just over arguments over the builds and violating GW:NPA multiple times. --Lania Elderfire 02:01, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- Which makes this kinda like cutting your leg off because wasps keep stinging you there, but it's a done decision by now so I should probably stop complaining about it... --NieA7 07:38, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah the drama is within just the editors, but it comes from new people who don't know the policy and cause trouble but that's been said tons of times before. Many of them were temp banned, some of them were permanently banned just over arguments over the builds and violating GW:NPA multiple times. --Lania Elderfire 02:01, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- I put some effort into maintaining it a while ago so I know what you mean, but the fact remains that nobody is forced to maintain anything - if they should choose to do so they're doing it for the visitors of the site, not for themselves (hence my disagreement with the whole wipe thing, as I believe this whole drama is entirely confined to editors rather than visitors). As for "elite" PvP players... yeah, really couldn't give a monkey's. Anybody who describes themselves as "elite" over a game is pretty much beyond the pale already. --NieA7 11:38, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
- W/O the people that maintain it, there wouldn't have been a build section to begin with. And I can tell you for a fact that the PvP section of the builds is often seen as a joke to high level pvp'ers. Plus the section doesn't do a good job of showing people what a good build is, and what isn't for new players. It's just a mish mash of rather weird builds, where a lot of the vetted ones are bad and some of the unfavored are actually good. Even before I started contributing to the builds section, I saw a lot of bad builds getting vetted, especially into the PvP RA section and PvE sections. This leads to a lot of bad advice for new players who don't know better, thinking that "well it's vetted on guild wiki it must be good" and then finding out later it really wasn't. --Lania Elderfire 11:23, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
- I think what the poll shows is that people who just use the site love the builds section and want to keep it. It's only the cadre of editors who deal with it behind the scenes - a much smaller number than the people who just visit I imagine - who are fussing. --NieA7 05:32, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
- What about those of us who are both? -- <!--Zerris--> 18:08, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- 'Yes' votes are from the build section maintainers, 'No' votes are from the build section users. What's so hard to see about that? :P -- Peej 18:04, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- I think I'll archive the poll now as the question is bad and doesn't reflect the situation at all. -- (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
<ri> The builds wipe is going to happen, that much is a done decision. But what happens after that is still up in the air. I think PNB is pretty clearly dead in the water as a replacement policy now. NOB can still be improved (though its vocal supporters don't want PVE changes), a variation of NOB could be proposed, or someone could have a builds brainstorm and come up with a great idea that everyone loves tomorrow. You never know. As for where the discussion is taking place now, that would be GuildWiki:Builds wipe and GuildWiki:No Original Builds. — HarshLanguage 08:24, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- Make sure you don't skip Vallen's idea as at least the start of a PvE proposal. -- Peej 08:56, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
"Yeah the drama is within just the editors, but it comes from new people who don't know the policy and cause trouble but that's been said tons of times before." I disagree here. While editors certainly cause problems, there are many administrators that simply catalyze the situation with immature or destructive comments rather than remedy the situation. Within days of me first signing up to GuildWiki, I saw more than one administrator treat newer members with no perceivable form of respect. This bothered me so much that instead of making a userpage, I placed a call for respect and politeness in its place. That all being said, in my opinion, the Build section is only a failure to those who brandish their sword at any opportunity to slash a new player's build to pieces, and to me, it is rather sad that the whole section is being scrapped over what amounts to petty ego wars. GrammarNazi
- Other than skuld I have not seen any other admins place inflammatory comments in the builds section, mainly because all the admins now ignore the section as a whole. I have seen some reverts w/o explinations in the other areas but IMO all the reverts are sound. It is true that many of the long time build editors are some what "short" with the new people, but when new people post builds that should be in the joke builds section and when people say that it is not a good build, the new person usually reponds in a very immature manner. This has happened too many times, and the patience on the long-time editors wears thin after a while. Also this is a wiki, which you have to expect your edits to be deleted, modified, or criticized and too many people have too much pride in their contributions. Contributions made by editors aren't your contributions once it hits the wiki namespace but still people defended their edits as if it is their baby. This occurs in the regular wiki namespace, such as the guides, and mission tips/notes etc. But in the builds namespace I have read new people say that their build is really their baby and they act like it is. --Lania Elderfire 16:44, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- Problems with administrators can be brought to me. Unless you give me links and names, nothing can be done. —Tanaric 19:12, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- No worries about the individual situations that arose, Tanaric - but hundreds of articles have been subject to rude and generally unhelpful comments, blind deletions, and aforementioned ego wars. Really, the larger problem is that the disrespect is universal, yet it appears to me to be largely ignored by the community. GrammarNazi 00:54, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- That rudeness and ugly behaviour and constant personal attacks from almost everyone in this section is one of the reasons listed about why this section is harmful to the wiki right now, check the archived talk. It's far from being an ignored problem (even though many of those that spend most of their wiki time in the Builds section are unaware of how unhealthy the situation there is when compared to the rest of the wiki; as you said, that's a general behaviour from most everyone there, it's almost normal). --Dirigible 01:14, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Irrefutably true, Dirigible - it is almost normal. To me, that is the biggest reason why the whole system is laughable, and it wouldn't take a complete hosedown of the builds to solve the problem. GrammarNazi 08:13, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- To add, it is also the reason GW:NPA was put into effect as there was no need for such a policy before the builds section. Also, and this may or may not be true, cracking down on disturbed individuals is why I am the most hated admin here. — Gares 16:44, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Some people are really paranoid and think that everyone is out to get them... but gares, I don't think people hate you. Well not the people that matter anyway. --Lania Elderfire 00:33, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
- To add, it is also the reason GW:NPA was put into effect as there was no need for such a policy before the builds section. Also, and this may or may not be true, cracking down on disturbed individuals is why I am the most hated admin here. — Gares 16:44, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Irrefutably true, Dirigible - it is almost normal. To me, that is the biggest reason why the whole system is laughable, and it wouldn't take a complete hosedown of the builds to solve the problem. GrammarNazi 08:13, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- That rudeness and ugly behaviour and constant personal attacks from almost everyone in this section is one of the reasons listed about why this section is harmful to the wiki right now, check the archived talk. It's far from being an ignored problem (even though many of those that spend most of their wiki time in the Builds section are unaware of how unhealthy the situation there is when compared to the rest of the wiki; as you said, that's a general behaviour from most everyone there, it's almost normal). --Dirigible 01:14, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- No worries about the individual situations that arose, Tanaric - but hundreds of articles have been subject to rude and generally unhelpful comments, blind deletions, and aforementioned ego wars. Really, the larger problem is that the disrespect is universal, yet it appears to me to be largely ignored by the community. GrammarNazi 00:54, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Besides, Gares, everybody hates me more than they hate you. :) —Tanaric 00:42, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
I don't see the point in this[]
Okay, I understand purging the builds, but why allow no mroe builds on the wiki? It's, in my opinion, a very abd idea(reasons posted above), and, 99.99990% of my interest on this wiki literally is the builds. I have all untested PvP builds on my watchlist, and I really won't bother with the wiki anymore if this goes by, (pardon me, this is not to sound as a threat, but the cold hard truth). And I can imagine what must be going through D.E. right now.Cheese Slaya 21:15, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- The fact is, the Builds arn't going to be simply dissappearing off the Wiki entirely... there are plenty of users who still enjoy how the builds section was. I loved being able to check crazy builds and whatnot, and make them. But the point of all this is, if you haven't already seen, the first three votes on an build are rarely from a user with much experience, or the reasoning behind the votes is off, or some other crap little detail. I gave up posting builds because even my working ideas were getting shot down with no reason at all (and a build I didn't have much faith in that I was helping out with was made tested, despite not being all that great in my opinion). The vetting is crap, and there's no easy way to fix that other then a complete wipe and re-start. So far, we've got a large-scale project backing up builds into userspaces, so nothing's gone. The main buildspace will be reserved for popular builds worth documenting (BoA sin, Touch Ranger, SF ele, you know). All the other "original" builds are still on the Wiki as well, just in userspace at the moment. One plan we're working on is a simple template/category idea, so builds on userspace aren't impossible to find. (Maybe an "Original Builds category or something. Still in the works.) For a little bit after the wipe, the builds section is going to be fairly non-existant. But I think you should stick around. As soon as the new policies are figured out, you'll start to see most of the original system returning, only this time, under much more control. Our builds section is a Pheonix. We're killing it, sure. But when a Pheonix dies, it leaves behind an egg, and after a bit, re-hatches from among the ashes of its former self. Expect the builds section to slowly grow in it's new life.
- Damn I love words. -- Jioruji Derako.> 22:24, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- Actually, if you stab a pheonix, it won't have time to lay an egg. That's only if you let it die off on its own. -- <!--Zerris--> 22:35, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- We're giving this Pheonix a 30-day warning, I'm sure he'll find a way to pop one out. -- Jioruji Derako.> 23:41, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- WTB New Analogy... - Krowman (talk • contribs) 23:48, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
- "But the point of all this is, if you haven't already seen, the first three votes on an build are rarely from a user with much experience, or the reasoning behind the votes is off, or some other crap little detail." I stick firmly by the notion that the removal of the voting hierarchy completely circumvents most "problematic" builds. GrammarNazi 00:49, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Exactly. Discussion > Voting. I much rather have a single explaination as to why something is good, rather then five votes in favor of it with no reasoning behind them. It's pretty much impossible to have a vetting system like this without votes, and therin lies the problem. With popular builds, you don't need to discuss how "good" it is. And for original builds, as long as it does it's job, then that should be enough. I really like the idea of keeping all the popular builds documented and easy-to-find, while categorizing the orignal builds, for anyone who wants to sift around in search of build ideas. So long as we're careful with the categorizing, it shouldn't be a big deal. And it's not like it'll be on the main builds page, if we mess it up (we'll link to it on the builds page, but only a little link; "Original Builds section - player-created builds"). A lot of options from there on out, and hopefully simple and easy-to-manage. -- Jioruji Derako.> 01:12, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- As much as I love and have contributed to the build section, it doesn't work as is. To be fair, no system with vetting or voting will work. Discussion is all well and good, and that is what the user space is for. We need to be more "Wikipedian" and be a site for documentation, not voting. That's why we need to be documenting popular builds, and focusing on guides, not individual builds so it is more a compendium of information related to builds rather than a Build Wiki as it were. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 02:17, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Exactly. Discussion > Voting. I much rather have a single explaination as to why something is good, rather then five votes in favor of it with no reasoning behind them. It's pretty much impossible to have a vetting system like this without votes, and therin lies the problem. With popular builds, you don't need to discuss how "good" it is. And for original builds, as long as it does it's job, then that should be enough. I really like the idea of keeping all the popular builds documented and easy-to-find, while categorizing the orignal builds, for anyone who wants to sift around in search of build ideas. So long as we're careful with the categorizing, it shouldn't be a big deal. And it's not like it'll be on the main builds page, if we mess it up (we'll link to it on the builds page, but only a little link; "Original Builds section - player-created builds"). A lot of options from there on out, and hopefully simple and easy-to-manage. -- Jioruji Derako.> 01:12, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- "But the point of all this is, if you haven't already seen, the first three votes on an build are rarely from a user with much experience, or the reasoning behind the votes is off, or some other crap little detail." I stick firmly by the notion that the removal of the voting hierarchy completely circumvents most "problematic" builds. GrammarNazi 00:49, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Actually, if you stab a pheonix, it won't have time to lay an egg. That's only if you let it die off on its own. -- <!--Zerris--> 22:35, 22 March 2007 (CDT)
Not builds, no point using this GuildWiki over the offical one. Solus 02:19, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Wait... not sure I understand, is this a comment about the build section or about just some general statement that we should all stop using this GuildWiki and start using the official one? If it is the latter comment, I don't see how that really contributes to a policy debate for this GuildWiki. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 02:24, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- I agree with the sentiment that the builds section here is one of the features that defines GW as opposed to GWW. Clearly many editors think it defines us in a bad, inferior kind of way, but whether it's better or worse the more the two wikis converge the less reason they'll be for GW to continue. In terms of policy - don't dump the builds section, as of now it's a unique selling point. --NieA7 07:17, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Just to make sure it's clear, we're not "dumping" the builds section, merely resetting it, per say. The complete wipe will happen, and this policy will come into effect. But keep in mind, this policy is just going to be a placeholder at the moment (if I understand correctly). It's by no means going to be a permenant policy change. The builds section will still be here, just hopefully not quite as widespread and messy. -- Jioruji Derako.> 16:31, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- The idea is that the current system works, so it needs to be changed. The first step is too wipe the build section and find an interim policy. The build section will be restarted, I don't think there is much of a question about that, the key is to find a system that works. NOB is a step in the right direction for PvP, and Vallen has a nice little guide plan for PvE. The problem is that voting doesn't work, and with no restrictions on what can be posted (i.e. Original Build), there are just too many problems. The build section is important to ahve, but in its current manifestation, it simply isn't usable. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 17:47, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Correction; current system "doesn't work" I assume you meant to say. -- <!--Zerris--> 00:08, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah, that's what I meant to say, sorry 'bout that. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 01:12, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
- Correction; current system "doesn't work" I assume you meant to say. -- <!--Zerris--> 00:08, 24 March 2007 (CDT)
- The idea is that the current system works, so it needs to be changed. The first step is too wipe the build section and find an interim policy. The build section will be restarted, I don't think there is much of a question about that, the key is to find a system that works. NOB is a step in the right direction for PvP, and Vallen has a nice little guide plan for PvE. The problem is that voting doesn't work, and with no restrictions on what can be posted (i.e. Original Build), there are just too many problems. The build section is important to ahve, but in its current manifestation, it simply isn't usable. Defiant Elements (talk ~ contribs) 17:47, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Just to make sure it's clear, we're not "dumping" the builds section, merely resetting it, per say. The complete wipe will happen, and this policy will come into effect. But keep in mind, this policy is just going to be a placeholder at the moment (if I understand correctly). It's by no means going to be a permenant policy change. The builds section will still be here, just hopefully not quite as widespread and messy. -- Jioruji Derako.> 16:31, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- I agree with the sentiment that the builds section here is one of the features that defines GW as opposed to GWW. Clearly many editors think it defines us in a bad, inferior kind of way, but whether it's better or worse the more the two wikis converge the less reason they'll be for GW to continue. In terms of policy - don't dump the builds section, as of now it's a unique selling point. --NieA7 07:17, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
I find it a bit odd that no more than 5 days after ANet releases their "Official" Wiki site for GW (which contains an as of yet blank builds section BTW) we see this rediculous proposal.--Cpontrelli 17:54, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
- I don't. Discussion on this matter (on this wiki) had been going on long before the release of the "official" wiki... they had absolutely nothing to do with each other. -Auron 17:55, 2 April 2007 (CDT)
- For an approximate time frame, this discussion has been going on before Rainith created this proposal on Dec. 30, 2006. GWW opened it's doors on or a little before Feb. 8, 2007. Neither wiki has any sway over one another. — Gares 07:39, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
- lol that's a good one. Have you looked at some of those pages? Most of the things there are copy-paste from here, including the word-for-word Bug templates in the Tormentor's Armor page --Gimmethegepgun 01:33, 13 April 2007 (CDT)
- For an approximate time frame, this discussion has been going on before Rainith created this proposal on Dec. 30, 2006. GWW opened it's doors on or a little before Feb. 8, 2007. Neither wiki has any sway over one another. — Gares 07:39, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
This is dumb. Grow thicker skin[]
Having no build section, in which coherent synergy builds are a huge part of the game, is frankly dumb. Because it isn't 100% neat in a fashion of exact science, doesn't mean the information shouldn't be presented. Isis In De Nile 13:50, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
Your an idiot,
your all idiots.
stop being an ass, the builds section is great. so what if the vetting process is a mess? just getting rid of it is the stupidest most half arsed decision possible. instead of asking wiki junkies, ask the people in game what they think of the builds wipe. they will tell you its BULLSHIT. i cant wait till someone makes a gwbuilds-wiki that replaces this peice of shit
- [1] may be what you desire — Skuld 18:04, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
- You're, not your. - BeXor 06:40, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Just realized why this is funny[]
I'm sorry to make light of this obviously very serious discussion/argument/flaming, but I woke up yesterday giggling to myself about the words "Post No Builds", realizing it sounds similar to "Post No Bills", though for the life of me I can't seem to Google out a meaning for the term; my guess is just that the words were used to discourage advertising in certain places, and thus it's completely irrelevant. Mildly amusing? Maybe. --Qrystal 08:16, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
- Popular anti-duck propaganda slogan. --Fyren 08:24, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
- "Post no bills" was where I got the title from. Nice to know some folks got it. :) --Rainith 17:01, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
This is obsolete, can I delete it?[]
Since no builds are currently allowed to be posted, this policy proposal provides nothing. —Tanaric 08:50, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
- Archive it for posterity's sake, though it now provides nothing it was an influence on the other, still-relevant build policy discussions (NOB, etc.) (T/C) 08:54, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
- If you want to get rid of this Tanaric, just move it into my namespace. --Rainith 16:54, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
- I've removed it from the policy page, that's enough to me. It doesn't really belong in your userspace anymore either, it had too much impact. It does no harm staying here. —Tanaric 17:11, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
- If you want to get rid of this Tanaric, just move it into my namespace. --Rainith 16:54, 2 May 2007 (CDT)