Guild Wars Wiki talk:Builds

Because discussion isn't happening...
We should just pass the Historical builds content and work on the rest later (or never, from the looks of the discussion). Historical builds fit in the context of a wiki even if the rest of this does not, and not having any mention of builds in the main namespace is a bad idea if we're trying to be a useful wiki. Is there anything we need to change before making the historical part official? - Auron 08:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 08:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally have no issues with the proposal as it stands now, historical section only or in its entirety. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no actual issues with the policy brought up since Aiiane put a call for them almost 3 months ago. Unless someone steps up to put an issue forward, I see no particular reason not to just make it policy. - Tanetris 10:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposal is ok atm. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 10:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the whole of this proposal. But I'd support to just pass the historical part now if there are issues with documenting current builds. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 10:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am ok with this full proposal. --Xeeron 11:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree also with the proposal, I remember back in the day wandering with my PvE Monk into TA and wondering what a "Boon Prot" was. Documenting the concepts of the key and historical builds is an important part of the game. - [[Image:User HeWhoIsPale sig.PNG]] HeWhoIsPale 13:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

/Agree, too.reanor 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also support the policy as it stands, with one caveat: To avoid a proliferation of poitless articles I'd like to add a criteria for complexity. The simplest concept would be 'Use skill X a lot'. But I don't think that warrants an article of it's own. When such articles have been made, they tend to have a lot of the sort of content this policy tries to avoid, since there isn't much to say on the topic. Backsword 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the notability section restricts the proliferation of builds. If it commonly used and people hear about it in game does it really matter that it is easy to run?  I support the policy as it stands.  --Aspectacle 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As the policy currently is, we wouldn't do builds at all, only concepts. Backsword 22:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And your point is? Are you supporting or do you want something changed? -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 22:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think my point has changed whether we discuss specific or concept - unless I misunderstand you? Are you suggesting that if a concept (perhaps a Starburster, for instance) was an example of a more generic type of concept - uh - Touch range AoE spike (get in close and unleash) then it should be rolled into that, then to an extent I agree with you.  I think that notability should be the key method to determine a pages existence, then ideally it could migrate/redirect into a generic concept when it is shown to fit there or the generic concept page has actually been written?  --Aspectacle 22:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How about Flare Spammer? We all know what it is, it's simple but the greater category would be what? Projectile Elementalist? Spamming builds? Let's just keep the notability as the key, if it's well-known, we'll document it.reanor 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, it is hard to apply higher categories when no obvious ones exist. I just wanted to see if I was understanding Backsword properly - I've made a few assumptions. :) --Aspectacle 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is this; such article would have no useful content and tend to be a source of problems. Look at it like this: how would the Flare Spammer article look like? Backsword 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a build around the idea of spamming the spell Flare, taking advantage of the spell's low energy cost, short activation time and lack of recharge. The Flare Spammer is in part a joke build, used as a mean of comparison for direct DPS builds. For example, if your build can't kill faster than an ele just spamming flare, it sucks.reanor 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "As the policy currently is, we wouldn't do builds at all, only concepts." <- I think then it should stay as it is. If i am not wrong, someone stated before that build articles should "give info about the the build, without giving away specific skill bars/stats list". Once (and if) this thing is approved, we may want to do a improve the formatting guideline for build articles, so we can't just start creating articles for every variant of build, but just for the concept they represent.--Fighterdoken 23:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that this wiki shouldn't have builds at all. If you want to post builds, go to PvXWiki. I'd rather not see this policy get passed and then eventually get out of hand then clutter up all of Recent Changes all the time like it did on Guildwiki. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you had read this properly, then you would understand that that situation would never happen because of the limitations set forth. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, but I'm saying that eventually people will want to post more builds and the policy may change. And if that happens, then it will eventually turn out like I just said. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  03:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying no to this, something that is reasonable, helpful and informative, because of something that will probably never happen? - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 03:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think the whole idea of this being a policy is the fact that it will allow its enforcement. Meaning, if that ever happens, it'll be easily and rightfully fixed.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]reanor 03:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Slippery Slope does not apply, Eloc. You are worried policy X will be implemented and that his policy will cause that. But this is not the case. The criteria for policy X to be implemented is that consensus for X exists. And that is true whether this policy is implemented or not. Backsword 21:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * How many skills that are both popular and spamable are there? 150? Do we want a article like that on each of them? Consider that the alternative is to have an article on the skill and a single article on spaming. Backsword 21:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there appears to be general agreement on this policy, I've made some tweaks to the wording to clarify certain things and remove some redundant statements. Do look through again. I've also removed the link to the guideline, since the guideline is not yet ready. I don't think the guideline needs to be ready prior to approving this. Guidelines should be shaped by articles, so we can continually update the guidelines based on the most popular or most effective method of presentation. As for "Flare spammer", we can probably write it in a manner similar to Wammo. -- ab.er. rant  06:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the rewrite. It is much clearer now. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 08:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally better. I did add back a part you removed. It may seem like formating, but I think it important in maintaining quality and avoiding drama. Backsword 21:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bump. Final call for comments. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 11:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I suppose so, as long as it doesn't get out of hand or anything. We also need some sort of way to decide if it's an actual common build when people do come and post them. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll talk it over at the article's discussion.reanor 16:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, 'cause we know our discussions always work great ;) Nah, seriously, I think the policy is good enough to set a ground for discussion and not let it become a huge drama section. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 16:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

We'll be fine as long as no one comes up with something like "Hello, Build:Flare Spammer, and welcome to the Builds section of the Official Guild Wars Wiki..." No, ty.reanor 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So can we approve this policy already? - [[Image:User HeWhoIsPale sig.PNG]] HeWhoIsPale 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's no more huge issues in the next days, I'll move it over to accepted. (If no one does that before I do :P) - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if I posted this a long while ago, but shouldn't something be in place so that revert wars/whining over it doesn't start? It'd end up becoming a bit like GuildWiki, if it gets too far into voting, though.  Still, how are the "know it alls" ("ZOMG, I never heard of that build before, so it must not be popular D:") going to be dealt with?  Also, wouldn't popular build concept pages in general just end up being ripped from PvX or GW forums/sites?  I suppose that it's a bit late to be bringing things up, but it doesn't hurt, heh. ~ [[Image:User PaeSig.gif]] | Pae  - Talk | 00:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think some of these concerns have been addressed in the older discussions. For example, revert wars are prevented just as they are everywhere else (by the GWW:1RR policy). There is no voting at all, so that's not an issue. The definition of "common builds" includes many public sources - the answer to the claim "I have never heard of that build before" would either be "Take a look at in-game outpost X/public user forums Y and Z/observer mode" or, if that's not possible, to reevaluate if the build really belongs here. And lastly, yes, all builds that are going to be displayed will be copied from somewhere else, but that's the idea - a place for those who heard a build name, made popular by a forum/a guild/whatever, and are curious about how it works. Erasculio 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the summary :) ~ [[Image:User PaeSig.gif]] | Pae - Talk | 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad I could be of help : ) Erasculio 01:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll just bulldoze it through :) it's been dragging on long enough. We should at least give it a try before further amendments. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I still consider complexity an issue. Didn't get a clear response on that. If the community actually wants a parallel build article for every skill in th game, I'll still find that foolish, but I'm not going to object to a policy I generall support being accepted over that.


 * But if it is an issue that people just haven't considered, it needs to be addressed first. Backsword 11:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly Backsword, I think it's an issue that needs to be addressed only if and when it comes up. Attempting to address it now would be counterproductive, both in terms of limiting potential creativity as well as creating needless frippery. [[Image:User Aiiane-a.gif|Go to Aiiane's Talk page]] (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought limiting creativity was exactly the point; the wiki should not be a development lab. If creativity is needed to come up with an article topic, then that in itself indicates that an article is not warranted. Backsword 12:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Soo
Build formatting guide?  Calor  &mdash;  talk  03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Be my guest.[[Image:User Ereanor sig.jpg]]reanor 03:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing official yet. Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Builds. We'll work on it as the build articles start showing up, then we can see what sort of convention would be good. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote Shock warrior ages ago, how about something like that. &mdash; Skuld 12:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a list of previously written build related articles. There might be more around, but we should go over these to see whether they are in compliance with the policy and how they relate to the formatting guideline:


 * B/p ranger
 * Beast Master (deleted version should be restored)
 * Shock warrior
 * Starburster
 * Touch ranger
 * Guide to making a build
 * Category:PvP example builds
 * Cripshot Ranger
 * Infuser
 * Lineback/Linebacker
 * Barrage ranger --Xeeron 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Beast master restored. poke | talk 22:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Minion master too. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 600/Smite IMO. Often see "600 lf smiter" or "smiter lf 600" in ToA or Doomlore Shrine. ---  Ressmonkey (talk)  02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 600 <- Click, write, save. It's the way wikis work =) --Xeeron 12:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did it. Only half done though.  Not too familiar with this wiki's formatting guidelines, so it might be messed up that way.  I could use some help if naybody's willing to give it. ---  Ressmonkey (talk)  23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The (proposed) formatting guideline is here: Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Builds --Xeeron 23:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Skill linking
I you have lets say, the FLARE SPAM build. should we put links in the Flare and the [{Flare Spammer}] article?Rhydeble 20:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  00:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)