Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy/PvP

It appears that the clique from Guildwiki has moved over here directly. Is there anything that will prevent you from making this site an exact duplicate of the old one? The old site was useless for PvP purposes, because without Guild and Build listings, new players were unable to gather any useful information whatsoever about PvP.--Trevor Reznik 20:24, 7 February 2007 (PST)
 * I'm not arguing with you, but it did seem that with build articles it was much worse for PvP than it was without. --Rainith 20:26, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * Clique? The gwiki administrators were given administration responsibilities here too. Have you read the FAQ? ANet wants what GWiki has, but under different licences. And what exactly do you need to know to be able to play PVP? Make a new character, pick some skills, off you go. And I don't understand what you mean by "without Build listings". There are builds on gwiki. You don't need to be in a guild to pvp. - BeXoR 20:28, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * Nobody wrote any good general guides for PvP. Instead of writing specific builds for people, write a guide on how to think about constructing builds. That would be helpful for the PvP crowd. &mdash;Tanaric 20:29, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * New players are coddled too much already for my taste. When I was your age, we didn't have no stinking wiki to fall back to. We had to fight to the Hall of Heroes in the snow with nought but Red Iris Flowers to wear for armor. This is a game manual -- nothing will teach you to PvP and network more than actually doing it. Plus, last I checked, TGH and guru are still going strong. S 20:32, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * I'm going to be real honest, I (and I imagine, also Trevor), would love to add our PvP expertise to Wiki. I'm going to take a real educated guess and say we're from different Guild Wars backgrounds then most contributors here. I think it would be key if Guilds were listed, and there was room left to add their most recently run build, or past builds, or add little blurbs about them and their past. I mean, really, what is there to lose? "And what exactly do you need to know to be able to play PVP? Make a new character, pick some skills, off you go." There is alot more then that to PvP friend. :)--Narcism 20:33, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * If people are truly that concerned about PVP content in the wiki, start articles, draft policy. Show everyone what you want documented and give reasons why. Prove that your content is accurate, factual (no biased opinion), and necessary. There isn't anything stopping you, and complaining here isn't going to further your cause. Get working! - BeXoR 20:35, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * There is a lot to lose from adding that information you stated, as explained by the other people here, and if you read that thread. There's nothing to stop me from saying ANYTHING about my guild. No one can fact check it. What's the point of having information if it's untrue and near impossible to verify. And like I've said before, most of that stuff is narcisism and should be confined to a personal guild website or user page. This isn't a free webhost, nor is it here to facilitate community/guild-related exchanges. - BeXoR 20:37, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * BeXoR has a point, though I hate the way he's arguing it. I'm going to be fairly strict about what we retain for this first month or so, just because it's going to be a mess -- we're all feeling out our limits. If you want to change my (and the rest of the admin team's) mind, your best bet is to draft a policy article. We know for a fact that builds, in the way that the GuildWiki used them, failed miserably. We also know that individual guild pages also failed miserably. Think of a solution where we couldn't, and there's a good chance we can meet in the middle. &mdash;Tanaric 20:44, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * I'm not entirely sure what a policy article is. Or how to make one, I recently learned how to create an article. But I will do up a Guild page, and Build page, as I imagined it to be. Factual, and helpful to newer players. A goal, I'm sure, we all want to achieve. --Narcism 21:00, 7 February 2007 (PST)


 * That sounds great. Leave me a note on my talk page when you're, and I'll try to give you my advice on how to improve it and on how well it will work! &mdash;Tanaric 21:08, 7 February 2007 (PST)

Let's talk specifics
I am reading this section and the one above about Guild articles and I am completely baffled. Dirigible says that Trevor and Narcism are typical of the experienced PvP community that apparently (since I am not one of them) only uses the wiki to refresh their memory on progression tables. Trevor and Narcism have th esame tone: For Go'ds sake don't do like the GuildWiki. Can someone (prferably one of the three) list specifically what it is that made GuildWiki so unusable and unwelcoming for players of their expertise?

A few points on the peripheral side:
 * Trevor complained that there were no builds on GuildWiki... That makes me think he's either not used the wiki in over a year or is talking about another wiki.
 * If the complaint is lack of specific GvG builds, what stopped them from adding them?
 * What is the benefit of adding Guild information? Other than bragging rights, can anyone elaborate on that? For example, why is it necessary in the Build:Spiritual Pain Mesmer Spike article (some fake build I just made up) that we list that it was the Guild:Dont Use Mending Without [Echo] that first devised it? What information does that benefit the user?
 * If the hypothesis implicitly drawn from Dirigible's words (but not explicitly stated) is that top PvP players will not contribute their PvP expertise into articles unless there are articles glorifying their guilds in our wiki and they are allowed to break the very system of attribution that a wiki is based upon... Then I have MAJOR issues with the contributions of that community.

However, for the time being... I would like to address whatever problems such users as Trevor and Narcism (and Dirigible if he has any) had with the wiki in terms of allowing and fostering good PvP content. The earlier we weed out such issues, the better. --Karlos 05:37, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * Trevor complained that there were no builds on GuildWiki... That makes me think he's either not used the wiki in over a year or is talking about another wiki.
 * His complaints against the builds section are the same as most everyone else's. It's basically broken. The votting system simply doesn't work, since a huge amount of builds that work get rejected, and proportionally huge amount of builds that don't work get approved. Hence why there's been a dislike in the PvP community for the Builds section on the old wiki "How can they approve that crap?", which ARE in fact very often bad builds, even though voted through democratic means.
 * If the complaint is lack of specific GvG builds, what stopped them from adding them?
 * Oh, they've been added alright. They've just either been lost in the sea of bad builds that also got approved, or they were rejected with people using "Frenzy is bad, use Flurry instead" as their reasoning.
 * What is the benefit of adding Guild information? Other than bragging rights, can anyone elaborate on that? For example, why is it necessary in the Build:Spiritual Pain Mesmer Spike article (some fake build I just made up) that we list that it was the Guild:Dont Use Mending Without [Echo] that first devised it? What information does that benefit the user?
 * I agree that something like that shouldn't be included in the wiki, since that's plain out bragging. What we're proposing here (the actual policy is here) is that these guild pages serve as fact sheets about the guilds, nothing more than that.
 * If the hypothesis implicitly drawn from Dirigible's words (but not explicitly stated) is that top PvP players will not contribute their PvP expertise into articles unless there are articles glorifying their guilds in our wiki and they are allowed to break the very system of attribution that a wiki is based upon... Then I have MAJOR issues with the contributions of that community.
 * No, what I'm saying is that PvP players aren't going to contribute into articles if they feel they are being outright ignored. Up there I specifically stated that nothing gives them any advantage over any other editor on the wiki, but they should have no disadvantage either. What I'm asking for is for people to slow down and allow policies to be reconsidered and revoted on in order to allow all this new influx of members to have their say in them as well (not merely PvPers, since many PvEers are going to find the way to the wiki now as well. My words up there are basically "Slow down, lets not copy/paste every single thing straight from the old Wiki, lets see if we can actually make some things better.
 * And from what I see both Trevor Reznik and Narcism have been willing and eager to open dialogue, and try and support their points instead of flat out asking for changes. So saying that they're childishly insisting for bragging rights is sorta unfair. --Dirigible 06:03, 8 February 2007 (PST)
 * Builds just don't fit in the wiki environment as many have allready noticed. There are too many people editing, everyone has the same democratic right to do what they want and people can't agree on a specific policy to follow which would make things run smoothly. Guildwarsguru is a lot better suited for builds for example. Also, ANet wants the wiki to act as a documentation method for the game to be used for an in game help system. Build articles don't take that cause forward.
 * What comes to guilds, I would accept listing those guilds which are listed on guildwars.com, presenting no more information than that site. However, making individual articles for them isn't necessary nor wise. A single article (or possibly a few articles which divide the guilds alphabetically) would suit this very well. Guilds which aren't mentioned by the guildwars.com website should only be listed in rare special cases when really many people know the guild. This would prevent people advertising all of their self made guilds in the wiki in hopes of new members to their guilds. --Gem (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * For the record, Dirigible, I have identified Voting as the main problem, and asked Xeeron to replace it with modded oversight a bazillion years ago before everyone else finally recognized what was happening. If nothing else, I can assure you that the Builds section as it was and me cannot co-exist in the wiki at the same time. However, is it abundantly clear to the PvP guys that in the end, this IS a wiki? That in the end, User:Joe_Schmoe can edit their build, propose to replace Frenzy with Flurry, make a good case for it on the talk page, and garner the support of others (not necessarily voting, and those others may very well be top PvPers themselves)... Will they accept that? I have moved the rest of the guilds discussion there. I'd still like to see what issues they had with GuildWiki. --Karlos 06:23, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * I'm not quite sure how many colons to put in front of this text. So I guessed. What I envision is a resource displaying factual information about guilds, and builds. History, typical builds, if they want to add recruiting conditions, let them.


 * What I didn't like at Guild Wiki, is even now, I can't unvet this garbage build I keep having to look at in the GvG build section. It also doesn't help, the fact I'm little new to editting, and doing votes.


 * I can't imagine how much my eyes would hurt if I strayed away from the GvG section. I don't like the fact that I can't click The Last Pride (in the gwwc page) and find out what build they ran (or even get a general idea), even in terms of primaries and secondaries. What I envision, is being able to go and edit the Virtual Dragons guild page with what classes they ran today in GvG (seen from observer mode), even a general idea (don't need specific skills). I did like the gvg build section on guildwiki, alot (except for that one build i don't know how to unvet). Even if it gets a little lengthy, it would be a resource for people entering touraments, (for example, they see they've always ran heavy melee, or heavy mesmer). I really don't see a problem with having crazy recruit conditions, or using the disucssion as a forum, because essentially, that's almost what we're doing. I wouldn't mind going to a guild page, and seeing what characters typically played, who they were, etc.


 * In terms of build section, I would love to see builds make a comeback. The vetting process little iffy, I wouldn't mind build administrators or something. --Narcism 08:52, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * I'm not entirely sure, but it's possible that Trevor was referring to the fact you coudlnt' do a research and find.. cows build, or eurospike, or eurobuild, kgyu build, thumpsmite. The thing about these builds, is they're factual, no vetting was needed, because you can say. KGYU RAN THIS BUILD. or.. Wi beat EviL in an upset WITH THIS BUILD --Narcism 08:56, 8 February 2007 (PST)


 * That's the sort of thing I'd have a lot of fun working on, though it'll take getting the skill icons and things up and figuring out how we're going to deal with Guild Pages first. Once we have the framework, though, I'd be more than happy to go reading through old forums/match reports/builds to figure out the historical builds and get them organized into something usable here. --Pepe 20:20, 8 February 2007 (PST)