PvXwiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 2

Silly question that's likely too late to change anything
If this is basically a build wiki containing mainly builds, and most if not all other content is to be referenced from another site such as GW or GWW, why do we have a build namespace? It looks like almost nothing will be stored in the main namespace at this point. It seems like it would have been less confusing to have skipped the GW use of the build namespace, and instead of having builds named something like "Build:W/Mo Generic Lame Wamo" to instead just name them "W/Mo Generic Lame Wamo" leaving them all in the now mainly empty main namespace.

If the main namespace isn't used for much of anything, should we just protect that entire space so that we aren't constantly moving builds created by people who don't know any better from there into the build namespace?
 * They all have build in front because the files were transfered from guild wiki, and based on the many builds I don't think there will be many people willing to move all of the builds to another namespace.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 00:17, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * They could have had the build namespace stripped off during the transfer itself. It's not hard to modify an import script to strip off a specific namespace reference.  But too late now we're stuck with leaving them or a manual move campaign or a dump and reload.


 * It would help if the "Build" namespace was searched by default. LordBiro 10:57, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Special:Preferences. -- Nova  [[Image:Jirouji-Nova.jpg]] --  (contribs) 22:23, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

New Vetting System
I think a great deal of discussions about pros and cons and details of different vetting systems can be made obsolete by implementing a flexible build search engine: New users who just use the standard settings will get a list of the best builds, with some standard definition of 'best'. Whoever doesn't like this standard can modify it for his own list, without needing to change any policy. For example, you could set your own threshold on the percentage of favoring votes a build needs to be shown, you could decide if you want to use this percentage or one that's weighted according to the voters' ratings, you could make your own voter rating like 'show me all builds that User:XX likes', and so on. The three systems proposed so far could easily coexist within this framework.

Replacing the old good/bad (black/white) system by a continuous scale (or even more than one) might hopefully also cool down one or the other flame war. The goal would not any more be to get a build 'vetted', but rather to get a good description of its usability. The only decision that has to be made by a wiki-wide policy and can't be left to each reader, is under which circumstances a build should be completely deleted. Here I would propose to keep the threshold for deletion quite high. In general, bad builds should be marked as such but left accessible for people who decide they want to see bad builds. Even if all the voters think the build is bad, it might still be possible to learn something from it, it's description or the discussion.

I'm currently working on a search script that runs locally and uses some of GuildWiki's user archives as database. It works quite well so far, but it will need to be included in the wiki to be large-scale usable. Changing the database to be PvX wiki would be trivial, but so far there are no discussion pages, that is no test results with the builds, so not much food for the engine. Is there any plan to put the original discussion pages from GuildWiki up here? --Hhhippo 01:26, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I was sort of thinking a search tool could work in that way, it would definitely solve some of the build vetting issues. We could have voting, as well as statistics of builds like "most page hits", and everyone could choose what to filter by.  Certain people might only want to view the newest builds, some people may only want to view builds rated over 80%, etc.  The question is, how difficult would it be to set something like that up? -- BrianG 03:27, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeah that is also what I was thinking about, it is so vital to split beatwean black/white... It not that hard but will take a lot of time. But it is absolutely needed. GCardinal 06:28, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * That certainly sounds useful. The thing is, though, if we keep unfavored builds for too long, it clutters up our bandwidth and makes searches give huge results. If you want to keep an unfavored build, either make a note in your userspace, jot down its good points on a piece of paper, or just copy and paste the whole thing into your userspace. (That would mean that the searcher function would have to not automatically search userspaces, of course.) 18:36, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Armond, yes I agree, we should decide on a delete threshold. Anything below a certain percent (20? 40?) would be deleted after a certain period of time.  As for whats left, the user will be able to choose the threshold he is interested in, so if he wants a short search result he chooses >80%, if he wants more results he searches >60% or something. -- BrianG 06:06, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

I don't think it would be hard... Make it search for builds that contain Template whatever... not that I know ANY wiki coding, but... Oh, and where should we ask for features? Such as --Frvwfr2 03:46, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * How do you mean, features? 18:36, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

I spelled out the idea a bit more at User:Hhhippo/BuildSearchEngine, taking into account some comments. Maybe we should continue the discussion there. --Hhhippo 21:57, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

Consensus vs majority

 * "One again, people will not agreed, they will VOTE. Each user will have 1 vote to place it on any policy he likes. Policy with most votes will win and we will use it." -- Gcardinal at PvXwiki talk:Percentage Favored Vetting.

Alrighty, since the guy saying this is the same guy that said "And as long as I work 6-12 hours a day and spend alott cash on this site my word will be the last one", the above statement becomes important enough to deserve a discussion on its own. Everyone should be aware of that decision, since it's going to regulate how PvXbuilds will work. Chances are that on the sites where each of you is coming from things used to be run differently (GuildWiki, GuildWarsWiki, Wikipedia, they all do not use majority votes to decide important issues, but use consensus and discussion to do so).

Is everyone comfortable with that way of running the site? --Dirigible 21:33, 2 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I for one am not. If I remember right, the United States government uses a 2/3 majority in the House and the Senate, not just a simple majority (at least for most important things); we also must have a higher standard than simple majority for things like policies. I'm also uncomfortable with his ideas on voting for policies, and we're still waiting for Bureaucrat status. To be frank, it looks like this wiki is starting to lean towards something close to a dictatorship. Recent events on this wiki have raised my eyebrows and made me reconsider some things I thought were facts on this wiki. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 21:54, 2 May 2007 (CEST)


 * A vote winner is probably the only way to establish vetting policies. In fact-based wikis like the others Dirigible mentioned, concensus can usually be reached on the basis of available evidence, although it can take quite some time to discuss to everyones satisfaction.  In a opinion-based wiki such as this one, concensus is several times harder to reach.
 * But i do see some problems. First, when choosing between more than two choices, it's entirely possible for one option to win a vote and still have under 50%, so it's not really a majority winning.  This can lead to the second problem with vote-based communities which is the triggering of re-votes.  If someone doesn't like a result, they do minor tweaks and call for a revote.  A policy is needed to define how often and under what circumstances revotes are permitted.  You don't want to block out the option entirely because if a voted choice proves troublesome then the community may want to revisit the decision, but too frequent of revotes can cause chaos.


 * I agree with Armonds thought, about recent events, and eye raisers... I did join 3 days ago, but still... This one policy causing a standstill.. not good. --[[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png]]frvwfr2 (talk)(contributions) 22:09, 2 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Armond, all wikis are dictatorships, no way to avoid that. GuildWiki had Gravewit at first (and then Tanaric once Gravewit decided to not get involved directly), GuildWarsWiki has ANet, Wikipedia has Jimbo Wales; these are all people whose word is the final one. This isn't about the top-level, this is about what comes below that. This isn't about the safety mechanisms (which is what those "dictators" are), this is about the normal gears, how the wiki works daily. That's what's changing.


 * 161.88.255.140, I think you're missing something. In his quote above Gcardinal isn't talking about whether voting should be used for builds; he's suggesting that voting must be used even for deciding on policies.


 * If you accept voting as your means of decision-making on the wiki, you're giving up consensus.


 * Basically, encouraging voting instead of encouraging consensus turns the process of decision-making on this wiki into a beauty contest. People sitting around the catwalk, watching the ladies strut their stuff, and then they vote on them.
 * Here's how wikis usually work: Someone posts an idea, another guy posts another. Then everyone works on whichever of those ideas seems more popular, merging good stuff from the less-popular policy, while adding even more new ideas, tightening up content, until the final product is good to go. Yes, it takes much longer than a poll, but it also results in a better product.


 * Voting is about 51% of the people forcing the other 49% to put up with something they don't like. Consensus is about everyone working together to make sure that whatever is being decided on becomes the best it can be, taking into account the desires and needs of as many as possible.


 * If you accept voting as your means of decision-making on the wiki, you're giving up meritocracy.


 * Now add to this that the majority may very well have chosen the worst option possible (the ratio of idiots to geniuses is unfortunately not a happy looking one). Scenario: Family of 7: two grandparents, two parents, three kids. "Do we skip the entire meal and go straight to the jelly pudding?" Two possibilities:
 * Voting: grandparents and kids vote yes, parents vote no, a total of 5:2. Everyone skips the meal and eats pudding.
 * Meritocracy: the parents threaten the kids with extra chores, and throw a "shame on you, nice example you're giving the kids" towards the grandparents. Everyone eats their beans and they finish all the meat before getting to eat their pudding.
 * Which of those options is the best one?


 * Not only doesn't the majority always know what's best for them, but I'd dare say that most of the time they make the wrong decision. By giving the majority the power to decide instead of those more capable to take a decision, you're giving up thi place to the (statistically) uninformed/uneducated/unsophisticated.


 * Consensus and meritocracy, that's what is getting lost here. Make sure you're all aware of this. --Dirigible 23:02, 2 May 2007 (CEST)


 * The problem with Builds on a Wiki is that there will almost never be a consensus. Rapta 23:07, 2 May 2007 (CEST)


 * Once again, this isn't about voting on builds; this is about voting on policy. --Dirigible 23:18, 2 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I fully understand that, and my original reply still applies. And as I pointed out, voting has zero to do with who has 51% of the vote, it has to do with which single option has the most votes, which can be LESS than 50% in a 3-way or more option vote as I already pointed out.  Please read my post, as you obviously only skimmed it.


 * From your statement "In a opinion-based wiki such as this one, concensus is several times harder to reach" it sounded as if you were talking about voting on builds and not policy etc; my apologies if I misunderstood. The rest of my post still stands, though, I still see voting as having issues far more serious than having to re-vote every once in a while. --Dirigible 00:44, 3 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I see where you got that now. No worries.  My comment actually can apply to both build and policy, although policy was what I meant to discuss.  As build vetting is based on opinion, any policy that defines the vetting policy would likewise be an opinion of the best way to rank items that cannot be easilly ranked or measured.


 * (edit conflict, written after frvwfr2) I think the problem divides into three parts:
 * 1. How to run in the first days.
 * 2. How to decide on a build policy after the first days.
 * 3. How to decide on policy changes in general.
 * My suggestions:
 * 1. Allow submission and discussion of new builds, but wait with the evaluation (counting votes, put into categories) until 2. happens. This way people can use the time for testing builds.
 * 2. Consensus would of course be nice. But we need a policy, stagnation is not an option. So in this special case during the startup of the wiki voting on a policy could be the second best option, if consensus can't be reached in finite time. (Because of the same special case I would agree to grant GCardinal special powers in the decision on how to proceed. After all, he could have activated an initial policy already before letting anybody else into the wiki.)
 * 3. Difficult question. If you have a brilliant answer, you should write a new charta for the UN or a constitution for the EU instead of wasting your time here ;-) Seriously, I don't know. Should be discussed, at some dedicated place, but that will take some time. So first 1., then 2., then 3. --Hhhippo 23:14, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
 * While a vote can be called to assess community feelings about a proposed policy, no vote can ever be considered binding nor, unless unanimous, indication of consensus. I found this while looking at the proposed policy page. So is this a majority, or a consensus? I hope the former, but if it is the latter, no policy would have ever gotten passed on GuildWiki either. So I'm assuming Majority. --[[Image:Ranger-icon-small.png]]frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 00:33, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * The statement by GCardinal is neither majority nor concensus. What happens in a 3-way vote?  There are at least three competing vetting policy drafts.  The votes vould easilly split Option 1: 40%, option 2: 32%, option 3: 28%.  In this vote, option 1 would win, even though the majority of 60% voted against it, but were split on two other options. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.88.255.140 (contribs).


 * "...if it is [ a consensus], no policy would have ever gotten passed on GuildWiki either..." &larr; believe it or not, almost everything on GuildWiki (with the notable exception of the Builds section) was decided on with exactly that, consensus, not with a majority vote. Same with GuildWarsWiki, same with Wikipedia (see meta:Voting is evil and Wikipedia:Consensus). --Dirigible 01:28, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Judging from admin behavior I witnessed on guild wiki I think about all the policies were enacted by a admin stepping in and enforcing his opinion on it. The build wipe over there proved tha consensus  doesn't work. Many people were against it and it still was enacted because top admins supported it. Now Gcardinal has control of this not only from a admin position but from a funding and ownership stance. While I respect him for that and all he has done I will say that I believe his theory on enacting new policies is seriously flawed.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 01:51, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Main reason why I'm not supporting consensus is quite simple. There are 3 proposals at the moment, one got posted just today I think. However everyone have gone for 1 single policy saying "YEAH this is the one! YEAH!!!". And let's take a look on other candidates?.. not even near that much of a discussion going on there. Same people write policy, Same people vote, Same people discuss that is not even near any kind of consensus or creating 1 policy of 2-3, its not developing process it’s just a simple YES or NO vote! And you can make me look all bad "ohh he thinks he can enforce whatever he wants" and so on. Well if I wanted I would just write policy myself and enforce it? Main reason why I'm so against just going with what we have now is because it’s so again main ideas on witch this site was created. We all have seen what happens when a few, really very few users gets right to decide for everyone else? They wipe out builds. And this is not going to happen here. We WILL ask people, we WILL make it easy to vote, we WILL get as many as we can to vote and we WILL stand behind the winner. However, we will NOT make a revote if someone doesn’t like something, we will NOT make it into never-ending discussion and we will NOT make it into total mess chaos. As a admin and a founder I can’t enforce policy or change site completely without asking people. However I will protect the process and very basics ideas on witch this site was build. Anyone can write new policy and any policy can be winner of the vote, but the way vote is done is not up to people. Specific voting frame will be described and made available and you will have to “play” inside that specific frame. What ever gets decided inside that frame will make a policy. However there will be no discussion on how that frame, I will decide on it. As we don’t have any working policy now let’s say I will use my word as a founder to make sure that the first building block of this site will be created properly, by asking people and without never ending arguments. And ones again it is up to you to create new policy, so I suggest getting into preparing YOUR candidate. Becouse this is your only shot to make a difference :) GCardinal 06:18, 3 May 2007 (CEST)


 * But perhaps people have already looked at the other policies and decided they like the one they voted on? I understand what you're saying, but I think it's an ideal situation - and, of course, ideal situations rarely, if ever, happen in the real world.
 * And, just for the record:
 * Cardinal does not own the site. He is the founder, but all the contributions were made by individual contributors, who own said contributions.
 * A vote does not always end in a 51%/49% result. This is an extreme example. Very few votes actually result like this, as I am sure we will see if Percentage Favored Voting is put in place.
 * I don't see how all wikis are dictatorships. I've never heard of Jimbo Wales, for example, and I've visited wikipedia a fair few times. ANet has barely interfered with GWW (admittedly, they have stepped in to stop random WoW bashing and userpages taking forever to load), and I honestly don't see much non-editoral activity from Tanaric. Perhaps I've been looking in the wrong places, though. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 20:27, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * No one talking about getting 51% to be the winner. If one candidate wins by 1% so be it. It will be the winner and we will implement that policy. GCardinal 20:32, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * *Points to Dirigible's comments at the top* -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 23:07, 3 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Armond, did you completely miss the point of that "51% of the people forcing the other 49% to put up with something they don't like"? Don't get stuck on the numbers, buddy, that whole paragraph was about Side A getting their way, and Side B getting zip in these voting systems, that's where the problem lies. 80% vs 20% is somehow better to you? It'd still mean that one person out of five is getting told "our way or the highway". Binary votes are either or choices, which means that something inevitably gets left out. Contrast that with a consensus procedure where compromises are reached and middle grounds are found, where everyone's thoughts are heard and discussed and attempted to accommodate in the main project. The strength of wikis is in the concept of barnraising; a bunch of people working together on a common goal.
 * And by the way, 51%/49% is not an extreme example at all. Don't forget that in a three(or more)-way-vote it's also likely that the "winner" will have even less than 50% total votes, as 161.88.255.140 also pointed out.
 * Lastly, if you don't know Jimbo Wales then you simply aren't a Wikipedian, I'm sorry. You may look up stuff on Wikipedia, but you've never bothered to look behind the scenes. "It should be noted that while appointments are generally to specified terms, all arbitrators serve at Jimbo's discretion, and are not automatically removed at the expiration of those terms, but only by the appointment of a replacement or otherwise by Jimbo's will". You'll find statements like that all over Wikipedia's policies, there's no attempt to mask it from anyone; Wikipedia is not a democracy, Jimbo is the dictator (a benevolent one, of course); he's stepped all over Wikipedia policies in many many occasions, and has said (in more or less words) "I'm above the rules, your policies simply don't apply to me" to whoever dared mention that to him. Sysops/bureaucrats/arbcomm members, they all need to follow WP policy, but not Jimbo. And even on the GWW, what ANet says, it happens. It may be subtle but it's there, even in issues much more important than those you mentioned, such as the GFDL1.2+ vs GFDL1.2 discussion, for example. And you have doubts whether Tanaric is a dictator or not? Heck, he's even admitted it himself that it's his role (in the absence of Gravewit)! Don't forget who ordered the builds wipe, don't forget who deopped Skuld out of the blue or who dismissed Gem's RFA. If you really think that either of those sites is a democracy, then you're simply mistaken, sir. --Dirigible 00:22, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

(reset indent) Yeah, what worries me is that it is a straight vote, and it is a winner take all system. Furthermore, with only a short window to vote according to Cardinal's page, that leaves us with very little time to improve ideas, especially considering voting will open very shortly. Sigh, this whole thing may leave us with a weaker policy than we would like. My hope is that this system won't have an enormous effect on the actual outcome, and the Percentage Favored Voting Policy will be accepted since I think for the time being, that it is the strongest policy. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  00:32, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I am very glad for posts from Diribible. My bad english skills doesn't let me express myself as good as he does, but he does brings very good points here. And I don't want to be dictator of this wiki. Hell I'm from Russia I know quite well what happens when you have a dictator. I truly belive we can do this using democracy and People. It is always a hard way to go, but we just have to try it. And I am sorry for enforcing this vote, but when we even between admins are so disagreed when it comes to policy that solution by discussion is not even near someone has to do something to resolve the situation. Even if it's me and I will be the dictator here. And when it comes to the time frame we can discuss that. I think it’s too early to vote that fast, but many people said that we absolutely must agree on policy as fast as possible. But if people taking part in this discussion think we have to delay it with a few days we sure can do that. GCardinal 07:45, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

Where did the premade builds go?
Where did all those premade builds go? Misfate 05:52, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Only actual active premade builds are on this site at the moment. After we imported around 3000 builds from GWiki many and many had errors and to limit number of builds and target our effort on working builds they was temporary removed. When new policy are up and running they can be returned on request. Please check out Voting on Vetting Policy. GCardinal 07:33, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

We Need Your Help
We have tons of work to do and I would ask for some help specially with replacing old skills/attrib's template-like things into PvXcode. There is more then a 1000 builds that needs to be changed and I can't do it all by my self while working on other important thing for this site. What needs to be done:
 * Replacing old skills/attrib with new ones
 * Manual on how to use PvXcode
 * Manual on how to post new build, including use of PvXcode with sample template
 * Overall FAQ that will explain very basics of this site. GCardinal 23:04, 5 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Can anyone start on any of the task above ? GCardinal 21:01, 22 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I can work on a manual on how to post a new build easily. I'm assuming you also want stuff like Usage and Variants to be explained in the manual.  I should also probably tell people how to make a link.  ‽  -(єronħ)   no   u  21:29, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * And please add manual on PvXcode to that as well. Its important that all users use it or we will constantly have to convert it. GCardinal 21:48, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Wait a minute, isn't that already being done in: PvXwiki:Style and formatting? I guess it isn't a "manual" per se, but it certainly outlines the process.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  22:34, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I thought I saw one somewhere, but I figured I just remembered the one from GuildWiki and just knew how the new thing worked. Is that linked on the main page?  ‽  -(єronħ)   no   u  22:55, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * It says nothing about PvX Code, PvX Decode, PvX Convert. Nothing about restrictions those extensions come with, what kind of info they provide and how to use them. Manual on both how to use as a reader and as a writer must be provided for users in easy to understand format and that has all futures of the site. GCardinal 22:57, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Sounds kinda like you want that page expanded, because making a new page would be somewhat redundant. ‽  -(єronħ)   no   u  23:01, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Well there is a lot that can be done. The one we have is just a solution for not having a dead link if you ask me. Take a look on what WoWWiki has done: Help, Template , FAQ . There will you find tons of articles related to how to use WoWWiki. I see no reason why we can't have at least 20% of what they have on our site (about our site). There is a lot of stuff that could be done. I hope that everyone wants this site to grow and not only be a backup of builds from GWiki. GCardinal 23:11, 22 May 2007 (CEST)
 * So let me get this strait, you want a manual on how to use the PvX Convert, the Decode, and just how to use PvX code in general? If so, what is classified as PvX code in general?  ‽  -(єronħ)   no   u  00:08, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I want Help:Contents to have information about:
 * * Our site, what we do, why we are here, what we have to offer.
 * * How to use our site to find builds and how to use them
 * * How to add new builds and how to use PvX Code, PvX Decode, PvX Convert.
 * * How to edit build, list of all policy we have here, how to enter discussion and so on.
 * * How users can help in developing of this site, what project we have going at the moment and so on.
 * * Ideas for Help page can be found, ,.
 * * All information that can be help full.
 * Many of those must be written by admin but all users can help. GCardinal 00:22, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Oh, must be written by admin. In that case, could the admin post the link to the pages here so I can try to help out.  ‽  -(єronħ)   no   u  00:31, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * No no, not must be written by admin, all users can help. It just admins have (maybe) greater understanding of all things on this site. however anyone who got some time and want to help are free to write. gcardinal 00:33, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Is it possible to copy GuildWiki's Editing guide over here? Maybe by way of a database dump to avoid copyright issues? --Hhhippo 21:34, 23 May 2007 (CEST)

Urgent~!!!
Hi, we have to fix following those pages as fast as possible:


 * Archive:Team - DoA HM Searing Flames
 * Guide:Underworld Trapping
 * Archive:E/Me Mist Form Farmer
 * Archive:E/Me Sandstorm UW Solo
 * Archive:Mo/Me PvE WoH Monk
 * Archive:N/P Remains of Sahlahja Fun
 * Build:Team_-_%22Steel_Wall%22_Deep_Group
 * Archive:Team - 55/Famine Redux
 * Archive:W/E The Deep Soloer
 * Archive:W/Mo Ghial Farmer
 * Build:Team_-_%22Steel_Wall%22_Deep_Group
 * Archive:Team - 55/Famine Redux
 * Archive:W/E The Deep Soloer
 * Archive:W/Mo Ghial Farmer
 * Archive:W/Mo Ghial Farmer
 * Archive:W/Mo Ghial Farmer

Specially to all ADMINS, there have been a problem for soon 2 weeks with builds that contains errors, we have to fix them as fast as possible. There is many more out there. GCardinal 14:05, 14 May 2007 (CEST)


 * What's wrong with them? --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 14:06, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * It's that they have red links. I will be glad to fix them as I have an hour or so spare, keep me updated on user talk please if you find anything else. Napalm Flame [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] 14:07, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * SO do we need to upload the pictures for PvXwiki? I'll work on it now if that's what I need to do... At school, but so bored... --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 14:09, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * No pictures, but we do need to properly wikify the links back to GuildWiki. I'm in school at the mo too, ditto Frv ^^ But yeah, I'm going over to the computers section now and I'm gonna grind over the keyboard to fix these links for teh wiki Napalm Flame [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] 14:13, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I gotta go now... my class ends at 52 after, which is 10 minutes. Good luck guys, I'll help after school if it's not done. --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 14:44, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Was just gonna unsigned that for ya =P Napalm Flame [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] 14:44, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Well, I knocked out about half of them, all we have left now is the DOA Team for which I uploaded the images, but for which I have not fixed any of the links yet. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  22:18, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Done the DoA one. '~\^/~' Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)(contributions) 11:47, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Current list is finished, if update is needed remove my lines. '~\^/~' Napalm Flame  (talk)(contributions) 21:42, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Flavor of the Month info
I think we should have a page about flavor of the month, coz I'm seeing so many melee players now and so many monks taking frenzied defense it's unreal. It's good coz all I have to do is use backbreaker then holy strike and stonesoul strike for a very nice 360 damage smite, but I think that since this is the best builds source out there (or soon will be once we have our policy) we should have certain sections dedicated to common trends, and common sense stuff like E/Ds in RA often mean a noob ele tank which you want to avoid for the time being. '~\^/~' Napalm Flame  (talk)(contributions) 15:34, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeh, FotM and other stuff are things we can certainly add later... we could do all sorts of cool things in fact, like having lists of most visited builds and stuff like that. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  17:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Wow, I can't wait XD I mean, flavor of the month would really help people who want to get some more faction, like RA and TA players. I mean, the frenzy monks are becoming a real nuisance now in RA, I'm seeing whole teams get owned because of one noobish monk who runs a skill which results in him taking about 200 damage per hit from SF. Yes, that's right, they use it without prot spirit on. Or is it just that I knock them down and they can then only use stances? Hmm... I knock them down, deep wound them, so they turn on stance, then I smite them for 80/80/80/80... Not a very good build, huh? But I think a FOTM style page saying about common trends and previous common trends would be very useful for things like documentation, historical reference etc. '~\^/~' Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)(contributions) 17:35, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Another thing I'm seeing a LOT is the spike sins... You know the ones I'm talking about. --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 20:45, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * If we want flavor of the month we have to make a team that will monitor and write about it. But idea = perfect GCardinal 21:10, 14 May 2007 (CEST)


 * I'm willing to do that... I'll do the AB team if it gets split up like that. --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 21:21, 14 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I'll monitor RA and TA a lot. And yeah, you mean the signet spiker sins? They are starting to crop up too. And as for FotM, we should mention what builds are being commonly run, and their more ideal counters, such as taking a wammo with smite skills to kill frenzied defense on a Mo/W, as they won't expect that from what would appear to be a 'noob'. '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 10:59, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

No, I mean the shadow prison-Tiger's Fury-BLS-TF etc... Look at tested pvp, A/W Shadow Prisoner or sumthing. -- <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 12:03, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Nah, it never was a FotM as such, more a Flavor of the Nightfall Assassin. First BoA, now it's tiger stance or in my case flurry since I gain more energy from that and it recharges faster. Continual 50% IAS? TYVM that's mine. No real need for expose defences, but it helps. As for signet spiker assassins... Seen a fair few of them in RA. I also wanna document some regular combinations used in the arenas. '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 14:17, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Page has been made ready for when we have the people to contribute. It is here. '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 14:25, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Move it under PvXwiki: or something. Rules how to update MUST be made before anything can start there. GCardinal 14:43, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Roger, it's now going under PvXwiki: Flavor of the Month. Correct? '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 14:52, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I just made a massive change to it. Check it out. And check the discussion page too. --[[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk)(contributions) 22:41, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Interested in having a bot?
I've written up what kind of stuff the bot could do on my user page. Like it says there, by no means am I an expert or a brilliant coder, but I have experience running a wiki and running a bot on that wiki. For example, the bot can be used to slap untested on all the builds after we get our new vetting policy, if that's what we want to do. Right now this is just an idea - to implement it, I would have to make a new user (I propose PatBot), admins would give it bot status, and you guys can leave messages for what you want me to make it do on the bot's talk page. Right now I'm thinking of stuff like fixing the interwiki links (Profession to Profession). --MasterPatricko 13:33, 17 May 2007 (CEST)

Deleting templates
Just a quick question: how do I go about getting rid of excess templates copied from GuildWiki? Should I just slap a delete tag (delete template) on them? Is this something I should even be thinking about? Thanks. --MasterPatricko 17:03, 17 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Define excess templates - I thought we got all the ones we don't need (short a couple I re-created for personal use). But yeah, just put a delete tag on them and an admin will look them over. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 20:19, 17 May 2007 (CEST)
 * You did indeed get all of the excess templates that were properly categorized ... but there are a ton more that were apparently never in Category:Templates ... stuff like monster skills (eg. Template:Exploding Spores), formatting stuff that seem unused (eg. Template:BGGreenno), and some old-style skill templates (eg. Template:Frenzy) ... they seem unused, but I'm not entirely sure. I'd like to go on a template fixing crusade ... maybe if I get my bot running I can do that. --81.157.111.86 21:06, 17 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Sorry ... somehow I got logged out, the above was me. --MasterPatricko 21:08, 17 May 2007 (CEST)

Falling Shocker?!
Something I noticed that was missing was the Falling Shocker build. Where did the fallign shocker go?! Misfate 05:29, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
 * nevermind... Misfate 05:30, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
 * It got eaten by the SP... -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 18:18, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Actually, I asked the same question on Ben's page. The Falling Shocker, Shovesin, Blacklight and possibly some others that were Archioved on GWiki are missing here. Btw, the Shocker's not dead, [SB] was running with one the other day. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman  (talk • contribs) 18:41, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I deleted them, but I'll restore them if I can see enough evidence that they're not dead. But one guild using the shocker build isn't really enough (in my mind at least) to warrant its un-dead-ness... A bunch of guilds run various gimmick builds (re:six-sin team we fought a week ago), but we don't post them... -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 19:10, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
 * So, we are not Archiving builds at this wiki? - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman  (talk • contribs) 19:12, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Most of the ones archived at the time had become crapified by Nightfall. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 20:05, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
 * That's exactly why they were Archived though. They aren't promoted as the best builds in the current meta, they are historical reference. If someone wants to know what a Boon Prot or a Falling Shocker is, for example, they wouldn't find it under the Vetted title, they'd see it in the Archives. Some of the Archived builds just suck; they were once in GWiki's vetted cat, Skuld stuck them in Archives to get them out of Tested without raising a huge controversy about unilaterally unfavoring a build. Still made a splash though. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman  (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Meh, I've restored a few that I could think of. If you could leave me a list of others, I'll restore them too. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 22:57, 18 May 2007 (CEST)

Napalm's new innovative idea
I was thinking of something that I saw on GuildWiki, which I think would be a good indicator to use as a template in this wiki. I'm thinking that this template could be added to the top of builds to indicate their current status.

Should work fine, just needs putting into template form and evaluating from you guys.

*note* I can't get the 2 images working for enchantment and it's just a flesh wound, could someone sort that please? '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 23:07, 23 May 2007 (CEST)
 * What are the skill icons for? Why not just an 'X' or Checkmark in the appropriate box? And how do the categories relate to a build's place in the vetting procedure (under any policy)? Builds don't go into 'Denial.' The Criticism/Evaluation phases are pretty redundant. What would 'Inspiration' builds look like? Stubs? This as a template would not be very helpful as it is now, as a user new to PvX would look at the thing and have no clue what those little skill icons stood for. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    02:12, 26 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Okay, I'll explain better. The enchantment upwards gold arrow points towards the state it's in. Inspiration is your stubs, which are not ready to be criticised. Criticism is your stage of initial talks. Denial is the stage which is the equivalent of delete tagging something as of PvX:WELL, or unfavoured which will be deleted. Evaluation is your stage where the vetting begins. Concensus is when the build has been successfully favoured, and recycling is the stage of being archived as of better builds or better skills coming out which trump it. It's quite straightforward really. You just move the arrow to change the build's state. '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 00:19, 27 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Well yeah, it makes sense when you explain it, but Krowman obviously didn't understand, to be honest, I didn't understand, and we are probably not the only one. While it might be useful to some extent, it just seems like another unnecessary thing that people would have to learn about and more likely wouldn't learn about and then get confused when something changed.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:19, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I like the idea, but I would prefer it to be a progress bar or something. and be a extension. gcardinal 05:24, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Make template. People like templates better than HTML and much better than raw code. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 22:51, 29 May 2007 (CEST)
 * Please do so, I like my idea xP '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 03:04, 2 June 2007 (CEST)
 * Should we change the build stub template, untested etc., or make new ones? [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk···contributions) 03:20, 2 June 2007 (CEST)
 * If we get the go-ahead, then yes, make it a new template, maybe it could overwrite stubs etc in the end... If it's made easy to use. I don't know anything about templates yet though so I can't do it yet. '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 03:36, 2 June 2007 (CEST)
 * Well, apparently we did not have an image uploaded for enchantments... I get that fixed... view my userpage for what I've done so far. EDIT: Fixed both! YAY![[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk···contributions) 03:50, 2 June 2007 (CEST)
 * I like the idea but current template is not a way to go. I will come up with a solution that match overall look of the site. Please hold for now. gcardinal 04:55, 2 June 2007 (CEST)
 * Wow, thanks! And I thought my idea wouldn't have been taken seriously and chucked straight in the scrap heap... O_o wow I mean, it is a good idea to make the wiki even more skills based xP '~\^/~' <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 14:00, 2 June 2007 (CEST)