PvXwiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 4

Initial Quality Control Sweep
Did an initial quality controll sweep through testing and trial sectors of the site for both PvE and PVP. I moved builds to stups or up and down on the ladder mainly according to formatting, and not viablility/quality. 1 merge build was deleted during this phase along with like 2 or 3 PvX:Well candidates. No other builds were harmed during this. Now for some reason Warriors and Dervs seem to regularly submit better formatted builds, but they also tend to be the most similar. Assassins an Necro's were the worst. We have a foot hold on quality controll now, lets maintain it guys. Shireen sysop  21:49, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

Rating feature request
If it is not too difficult, can you add wikicode support in the rating comments? I often want to link to other better builds when I give a slam rating, not to mention linking to gw: when mentioning skills, etc. Thanks. (If this is the wrong place to post this, please advise or move as appropriate.) Esan 05:09, 3 July 2007 (CEST)


 * While I am at it, another thing that would rock is if build ratings were roped into Special:Contributions/USERNAME, or if there were a Special:Myatings or Special:Ratings/USERNAME. Esan 05:18, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
 * We'll have a look at it, but I can't promise anything right now. –&thinsp;H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;sysop &rsaquo; 11:26, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Is the source for the Vote extension available publicly? I can take a shot at it myself. Esan 21:13, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Rating comments: You can use html tags, including links. Is that good enough?
 * Votes showing up in User Contributions (and Recent Changes etc.): We plan to upgrade the extension such that it updates the build's category automatically after each rating. I think we can do that such that an entry on all these special pages is triggered. Please be patient...
 * Source available: No, sorry. You would have to ask Gcardinal. –&thinsp;H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;sysop &rsaquo; 21:44, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Update: The comment box now supports wiki markup, but no longer html. Votes in Special:Something is being worked on, but will take a while. –&thinsp;H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;sysop &rsaquo; 00:57, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Templates
I guess the only thing I have against the rate tab, is its inconsistency with the templates. The rate tab shows percentages, while the templates show the scale from 1-5. True, we are voting on the 1-5 scale, but since they are not evenly distributed in the percentages, it may confuse some people. Not me of course, I'm a math major, but some people may not know what template to put on the updated ranking. Just something I thought should be brought up. Bluemilkman 23:12, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Known issue, is fixed now. Have a look again. –&thinsp;H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;sysop &rsaquo; 00:57, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

looks great now. good job, keep it up. Bluemilkman 02:03, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Images on the Front Page
I posted this a few days ago and it's gotten some support; maybe we could use icons on the front page, in place of text, for where the categories are? Graphics can be a bit more descriptive that words at times - IE, it's easier to identify types of builds, visually. It's easier to see the differences between vs  vs  rather than the textual "Great" vs "Good" vs "Other." That, and eliminating the text saves room and makes the front page look a little more clean and understandable. =] --Talonz 20:03, 10 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Supported by me. ‽-(єяøηħ)  no u 17:41, 19 July 2007 (CEST)
 * And me, although get a new untested image first (I'm thinking caution tape). - Auron 17:45, 19 July 2007 (CEST)
 * I like it alot.--Coloneh 21:10, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

Unfavored Builds Wipe
It is now nearly two weeks since Real Vetting was launched, and it's soon time to get rid of the first big bunch of Trash builds. About 1600 builds which were unfavored at Guild Wiki were put into that category and their grace period is running out. The coding team is happy to announce that most of this job will be done by a maintenance script running directly on the database. The script will delete all Trash builds that have not been edited in these two weeks, have not been rated, and have no talk page. This covers >90% of all Trash builds, leaving around 100 builds for manual inspection.

The script will be run on Sunday, 15 July 2007. If you want to keep any of the affected builds, now is the time to move them to your user space. Completion of the wipe will be announced here.

The builds left by the script will have to be inspected manually (this is a job for all admins): –&thinsp;H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;sysop &rsaquo; 11:35, 13 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Check if meaningful edits were made to the build or if a rating >2.5 was submitted. If so, reset the grace period accordingly.
 * Check if a user expressed interest to keep the build. If so, move it to his user space. If several users are interested, priority goes to the author, then to the first claimer.
 * If none of this applies, delete the build and its talk page.


 * As you might have noticed, the "wipe" is done, see here. Please review the remaining Trash builds. –&thinsp;H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;sysop &rsaquo; 00:53, 18 July 2007 (CEST)

Guild
User:Bluemilkman/Pvxguild Something I thought would be cool to do. If you want to, please vote. You don't have to be in it if you vote, but if you would leave some suggestions on it, that would be awesome. Thanks. Bluemilkman 16:18, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

Featured Builds
What are they and how do they get there? Ereanor 21:41, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

my Votes?
Is there away to see the votes you have made? similar to "my contributions"? If not, would it be possible to add it as something that would show up under "my contributions"?--Coloneh 09:26, 19 July 2007 (CEST)
 * They are working on it... Also for it to show on My Watchlist (Any votes) and Recent Changes. [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 15:52, 19 July 2007 (CEST)
 * cool--Coloneh 21:11, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

Votes
Would be possible to make some sort of announcement clarifying a little about rating categories, I feel like im the only one using the categories. Many builds like Archive:W/any Triple Chop PvE Warrior have votes that say things like "cookie cutter" yet they still get a 5 in innovation, or farming builds for a single thing that get a 5 in Universality, these dont make any sense at all.--Coloneh 10:01, 21 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Flaws of voting. Ideally, people should vote according to criteria, but they don't. Just like in RL, when people vote for politicians for all the wrong reasons. These things happen. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] Krowman   07:37, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
 * yes, but there are steps taken in real life so that some people actually vote on what the polotician stands for. there are no steps like this here.--Coloneh 10:26, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
 * What steps might those be? Besides, if I voted a 5-5-5 on one of those ridiculous "Cupido" monks, who's to say that that isn't exactly how I feel about the build? Voting permits users to express their feelings and opinions about a build, no matter how misguided those opinions might be. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   20:00, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Ill use the Triple chop warrior as an example. Do you really think Rapta and Frvwfr2 believe that its an innovative build? I think not. its mostly not even the new users that are the problem, its experienced users who we all know know better.--Coloneh 20:50, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Problem is, until we can read their thoughts, we can't prove that they don't really believe the build deserved a 5 for Innovation. Besides, when it comes to users like that, they are probably giving inflated Innovation scores to improve the build's rating. I often do it myself; I argued strongly against having the Innovation category count for anything, but people were so excited to get Real Vetting up and running that it got lost in the clamor. In your example, you can see by your vote that the Innovation score can make all the difference between a 'Great' build and a 'Good' build. Problem is, most great builds aren't very innovative at all. Some may be "cookie-cutters," while others simply came out months or years before PvXwiki and its vetting system did; by now, they hardly seem innovative. If a user were voting his own build in this way, I would be more concerned. However, if people want to score great but common builds more generously, it is a minor (possible but unprovable) infraction. No one knows who "invented" the Triple Chop Warrior, or the Touch Ranger, or the RC Monk anyways. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   23:02, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Sounds like a change is needed to real vetting then. I suppose i understand not voting right when voting correctly will hurt the build. Ill go post there.--Coloneh 08:21, 23 July 2007 (CEST)
 * What irks me is when people do a 5/5/5 vote (I have done it twice so I am also ragging on my self in a way :P). It makes it really difficult to send a build to the trash area.  Examples of this are R/any Marauding Master and D/any Mystic Strength.  Same reasoning with Great builds going to good due to being "overrated" (R/any General Barrager and R/any Tank Master).  On a personal note, I hate Barrage and yet I still gave it a high rating since I know how effective it is.--Sirron Eblibs 18:22, 25 July 2007 (CEST)

(ri) I think it is important to note that those two 5-5-5 examples were both cast by the respective authors of those builds. As you can see here, that is another thing I would like to see fixed. It's hard to argue that we should allow users to vote their own build like that, in the face of evidence such as that. While some of us more upstanding users may seek to improve the wiki, many users come to the site to throw up their build(s) and get it rated as high as possible. That on top of the fact that it effectively reduces the number of legit votes that are needed to vet a build from 5 to 4 (a 20% difference, pretty significant). - <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    19:23, 25 July 2007 (CEST)

Vote Revival
If a build is deleted, is there a way to revive the votes for that build to see them. If not, I suggest we start pasting the votes in the talk page before deleting, that way we have some way to get back to the votes. (reason I ask is Fusco‎ wants to improve his build which was deleted, but doesn't know whats wrong with it.) ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 23:07, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Do you mean the votes from the PvXwiki Ratings page, or the Rate-a-Build back from GWiki? - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   23:09, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
 * PvX ratings page. ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 23:09, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Hmm, you restored the build to his userspace, correct? I know that only articles in the Buildspace have ratings pages to begin with; that could be your problem right there. Otherwise, possibly it was deleted because it was abandoned or a duplicate without any ratings on it yet? - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   23:17, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Whenever you delete a page, or move it, the ratings are totally wiped. Restoring page doesn't restore the votes that wer with it. I say we start C&P'ing the entire votes page onto the bottom of the talk page just before deletion.  ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 23:20, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Ok, you can do that. :P <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 20:54, 1 August 2007 (CEST)

New project
We do have some great contributors on this wiki and many news builds posted and rated. And this is just a great thing to see!:) However I have this idea of a bit new thing we can do in order to get ready for GW:EN and expand our wiki a bit. Here is what I am thinking. Currently we have a few team builds that are targeting specific areas of the game like missions, quast, farming or specific teams for specific areas like Luxon/Kurz farming, Lightbringer farming +++. We do have builds and we do have some short note on how to use that build. What we dont have is a complete description that goes step by stem and that takes lets say a mission as basic and implements use of build into it.

 Missions  Page could have a name of a mission and will have a build for 1 person + 3 builds for hero's and what hench to bring. Build that will be posted here must think about what kind of skills a player has unlocked so far in game. The idea that any player can go to such a page, take build's, read strategy and go on with finishing a mission. Notes on how to do masters and a 8 team build for those who will do that. This also goes for Challenge missions.
 * Map
 * Strategy (fast, not masters)
 * Builds for people only team
 * Builds for 1 person + 3 hero
 * Strategy on Masters

 Quests  Same as for missions, but for some elite quests like DoA, UW, FoW and so on a more complete description on who goes where, who does what. Where tank stands, what cast first all small details that are vital for completion of a mission. There is also possibility of doing mission with different builds must be posted and explained.

I think that complete step by step guide on each mission and all major quasts will show users how to use specific but adjusted builds in specific areas. Currently GW and GWW have description on all missions. And it tales you to bring a curse necro and a monk. Some people may get it, thats we are talking about SV and HB monk, some not. So I want to link real missions, quests to all the builds we have.

GW:EN As we all know GW:EN will be a set of a huge huge missions where importance of such information will be critical. Most of builds that was possible to make are out there - but not many people uses them right or in the right place.

This is just a an idea, so please dont fight it right away :) Think of GW:EN 3-4 hours mission and 1 guy with a wrong build or as-usual tanking SB monk or something like that. See the big picture :) gcardinal 00:55, 24 July 2007 (CEST)


 * i think good things would be Guide:GvG Explanation and Guide:HA Explanation or things similar, to get players new to them get a good idea of what the basics of it are and what kinda of builds work there. - <font color="#336666">Skakid9090 06:00, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Thats like a general guideline and a complete guideline's using all Rt build in HoH. Who does what, when and if do so, if do so. So new players can get team of some friends and get into action. gcardinal 06:26, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Example - Ruins of Morah. There is a few strategics with a few different builds like SV, 55, Healing monk and so on. My idea is to have all that, but with more complete description of each strategy with builds that each strategy requeres. So you can get to a new mission, go to page Mission Test, read strategy, get all builds and enter mission. Fast, easy without loosing any time on setting up. Specialy on some booring missions like the ones from NF. gcardinal 06:26, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Hmm, if we could make this work, we could try a similar idea in dealing with farming bosses and regions as well. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   23:56, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Exactly there is many builds that is not really builds but are guidelines on farming. gcardinal 13:41, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * We have a policy proposal up now at PvXwiki:Guides that correlates to this project. If we enact that, would we have to create a Guides namespace? - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   19:38, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * So guys lets get this starting. gcardinal 02:21, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Moving lots of builds to untested.
Well, considering the the Good category is littered with builds that have few to no votes, I am moving a lot of them to untested (in the PvE general section) following the precedent set by Armond. However I am doing this on my own and not by anyones direction. If you feel that I am mistaken, feel free to revert. I realize that many builds are from GuildWiki but also note that they deleted their build section due to too many bad builds being favored. Also, only doing PvE general since that is what I primarily look at. If my actions are deemed good, I hope someone else will do the moving in the other sections. It does makes the PvE General section look a bit empty though. --Sirron Eblibs 19:34, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Had to be done sooner or later, you've got my support. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   19:36, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Any movement of more then a 10 pages is a task for admins. Please leave your suggestion and admins will take action if needed. gcardinal 19:47, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Well, like stated, I support this. GWiki really was full of bad favored builds (and a few good unfavored ones). I believe we decided a long time ago that we would eventually do this to all the GWiki builds; putting them into the 'Good' category without any votes on them was supposed to be a temporary measure. Now is as good a time as any to start rating those builds in my opinion. We could do it section by section (i.e. PvE, farming, RA etc) to keep it more organized if that's what the community wants. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   19:52, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Movement of Archive:W/E Obsidian Tank to untested is just an example on why this task should be done by admins. Even build does not have any ratings now its one of the most used ones in game, from DoA to UW. When time is right script will be made to move all builds without votes or attention to untested. gcardinal 19:57, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * I was just going off of the votes. I will refrain from my actions now.  However, I believe that if the voters wanted a build to be vetted, it should default to untested till it reaches the desired number of votes.  I find that the builds that get the most votes are either in the Great or Untested sections.  Builds already residing in the Good category in contrast seem to get very few.  Also does not help that I only vote on builds that I have tried out personally and one vote could send the build to the appropriate section on many that I have moved.  A good example is the Me/D Extended Thorns which was finally put into unfavored today.--Sirron Eblibs 20:01, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Well, if you guys want a compromise, you could post those bad builds as the 'Featured tested builds' on the Main Page. The extra attention would attract users to the build, where they can rate it according to PvX's system, rather than GWiki's. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   20:07, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * In all honesty, it is whatever you guys want to do. I do not pay to maintain this site nor am I an admin (obviously). I just use this site to see what is new and to help me get good ideas.  Any way that encourages putting votes into builds is fine by me, whatever it may be.--Sirron Eblibs 20:14, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Thank you for helping out it just admin has some other tools like bots and script that we can create to move builds based not only on ratings but also on activity in discussion page, how many users visited and so on to find the build that do really need to be moved. There is plenty of stuff users can help, like builds creation, discussion and voting. Or new projects like the one above :) Admins are here to do the dirty job for you:P gcardinal 20:19, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * I hope I did not cause too much trouble. I am truely sorry for wasting your time fixing all of my edits. --Sirron Eblibs 20:24, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * (edit conflict) Well, it's not against the rules, so if you can think of something really tested and terrible, you can put it up here once the current build's 7-day allotment is up. Don't clog up the featured builds with these (as in, don't use both slots for 'bad' builds). Otherwise, I guess wait for the script; the admin team will take care of that for you. (Btw, you've got nothing to apologize for bud. Thanks for contributing!) - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   20:26, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Sirron Eblibs np at all. gcardinal 01:14, 26 July 2007 (CEST)

Ghostly talk pages repair
The coding team just did some database maintenance: all the old Build_talk pages from GuildWiki, which were not properly imported and thus cluttering special pages without being actually accessible, have now been properly deleted. Admins can undelete individual pages if needed, found under Build_talk:NameOfBuild/Old. In general, these pages are considered outdated and thus were not restored to their original location. Some minor inconsistencies in the data base remain, but most special pages can be used for maintenance tasks now. –&thinsp;<font color="darkblue" face="times">H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;<font color="blue" size="-2">sysop &rsaquo; 01:56, 28 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Yay. ‽ -(єяøηħ)  no u 02:31, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

PvE/PvP versions
Many builds have a greatly enhanced version using PvE skills. Why not to use 2 skill bars on builds? One for general/PvP and one for PvE with rank skills?--Ttibot 20:46, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Depends on how large of a change. Some may be better left alone, others may warrant a new page. <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">pvxcontribs ) 20:52, 31 July 2007 (CEST)