PvXwiki talk:Editing Builds/Build Name Revision

Reasoning
Due to the lack of balancing updates in the last years we can assume that most build pages we currently have will stay until the end of Guild Wars. Since there isn't a large page fluctuation anymore I propose that we adopt a somewhat stricter naming policy – retroactively. I'd prefer it if build pages followed the same naming scheme more closely to achieve an increased uniformity. Part of it is to get rid of florid names such as Archive:R/W Infuriating Heat and the very common redundancy of adding the primary profession at the end of the page title, such as Build:E/any PvP Invoke Lightning. The concrete naming structure is up to debate, of course. The main issues with a retroactive policy revision would be: (1) Labour. Toraen could provide me with his bot to change page links after a page move, which would largely decrease the required effort. I'm willing to perform all necessary page moves and link fixes. (2) Old links in the web would point to pages which now exist under a new name, just as with any page move. But in this case many pages would be affected instead of just one or two. --Krschkr (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a good idea overall, and we could probably leave redirects on the old names for a time (or possibly permanently at this point) since as you've said we're not likely to get a surge of new builds that require cleaning the namespace. The bot is an option if you don't want to leave them though. -Toraen (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I split the two tables into four. Using the same table for PvE and PvP was messy. To reduce the page bloat it could be considered to make the tables collapsible and collapsed by default.
 * More feedback is welcome, be it about the policy change in general, the specific page title formula suggested or the presentation. A single voice is no community consensus, even in 2019. ;) --Krschkr (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The only nitpick I have is that maybe 4 tables for the naming info is a bit much (not sure how I'd go about improving it though), but I don't see any reason to hold this back on account of that. The test run with the bot and the two AoB Derv pages went well. If you want to use the bot yourself I'd recommend creating a bot account and setting up Bot Passwords since it's designed to use the API. Your twitch/gamepedia credentials probably will not work with it and we may not wish to drown the RC in link fixes (just those two page moves resulted in 58 bot edits). -Toraen (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I found four tables to be less messy than two (see edit history). Do you prefer the old version? Should the tables be collapsed by default so people can expand them and look at what they'd be interested in? Or would you rather return to the old text only solution just with altered content? --Krschkr (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think collapsing them would be fine. Also I just realized that my move of Build:D/any PvE AoB Dervish to Build:D/any PvE Avatar of Balthazar might still be incorrect by these guidelines ("PvE" is apparently unnecessary). -Toraen (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * PvE can generally be omitted, but in some cases the PvP build is much more popular or both PvE and PvP version are popular, in which case it probably adds a bit more clarity at the first glance when the title contains PvE. Healing burst, star burst and aura of faith builds are other candidates which come to mind. However, I think there's currently neither a star burst nor an aura of faith PvP build on PvX – unless we look at the All In flux. --Krschkr (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tables are now collapsed. Do you think that the PvE tag should be mandatory? --Krschkr (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It should only be mandatory if there's a comparable PvP build it could be confused with (as with AoB I suppose), but I think it'd be best to not ever disallow it. -Toraen (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I added back a note which recommends to use it in case of similarly named PvP builds but also to omit it in general, so people are allowed to use it if they like. Or would it perhaps be better to make it actually mandatory for the individual builds, for the sake of uniformity? I don't think there's a point in doing it for team builds. --Krschkr (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed on team builds, but I think we can just leave it optional for individual builds. I seriously doubt we'll be seeing a viable PvP Shadow Form build of any sort, for example. -Toraen (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there is blockway... ;) Is the current note agreeable? --Krschkr (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say the note is good and this proposal is complete. -Toraen (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)