PvXwiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 1

Mod_rewrite

 * You going to create some URL re-write rules so the URL looks all tidy and stuff? :) Jaofos 19:55, 18 April 2007 (CEST)
 * In LocalSettings.php change the $wgArticlePath to "$wgScript/$1" and make sure the host has mod_rewrite turned on in yer apache. Jaofos 19:55, 18 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Not possible on current hosting... it is extremly cheap, I will upgrade in next 50 days. gcardinal 20:25, 18 April 2007 (CEST)

It Does Exist!
BuildWiki lives! Haven't had a lot of time, but at least at a cosmetic level, it looks pretty good. I am going to spread the word among some people I know are sad to see the build section go and see if they won't join. I would also like to discuss the possibility of Adminship when you get a chance. I realize you probably don't know a whole lot about me, but ask around on GuildWiki, builds have always been my main focus, and I know my stuff. I also think we need to start thinking about policy if we have any chance to get this working. Assuming we are only going to focus on builds, which makes sense, if we have any hope of getting this up and running, we need an actual build policy. However, it does make sense to wait until we can make sure everything works properly. Original builds will never be conquered! Defiant Elements 05:16, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Hi nice to see you here :) You are free to contact me on MSN Messenger: admin@gcardinal.com or just by email so we can talk about stuff :) gcardinal 05:19, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

Archiving
Although I support keeping the existing original builds, one thing I would say is that the build wipe got at least one thing right, a fresh start isn't necessarily a bad thing. What we might consider doing is simply archiving the existing builds, creating a policy of our own, and starting fresh. We want this site to function correctly, and, in order to do that, we want to start off on the same foot, by which I mean, keep the old builds, but archive them and wait until a real policy can be established to actually submit builds to this site. Defiant Elements 05:20, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Well sure but actually I like more idea of quality rating. Like if you have a Green Build for a build that are extemly popular, Gold, Purple and White build. So it will tell something about the quality. But there is many ways to do. However I dont want to go way of making archive. Hard policy will be a better solution. Make policy that can be applied to what we have. gcardinal 05:34, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Sounds good. On an unrelated note, I have found that we have some missing images, is there a specific category that we are missing, or just a few random ones.  The ones I found I uploaded images for... [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:35, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * There is around 50 images missing I think. I'm not sure but something went wrong under grabbing of images, so I think images with " ! ' was not copied. But need to check that gcardinal 05:41, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

gwbbcode
ExtensionTest Does work with all kind of gwbbcode input. :D

[Mighty something;OQYQEnTqAAAAAAAAAA]

[build prof=W/E][shock][evis][/build]

[build prof=W/E pickup="some_unique_id"][Shock][Eviscerate][/build]

More work is needed but I think it will be nice for you guys to check it out
 * The idea here is to make extension that will make it possible to post a build by providing a template code from guildwars template.txt gcardinal 05:47, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

Policy
Once we get the site up and running properly, policy is the next step. I think we need to address 3 major polcies in order for this site to have any chance to work.

*Defiant Elements*  +talk  05:55, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * GW:BUILDS -- This is first and foremost, we need a hard and fast build policy.
 * GW:RFA -- If we expect this to work, we need multiple Administrators.
 * GW:NPA -- Builds are the greatest source of NPA, so we need a defined policy to define and deal with violations.
 * I know how to code PHP/Perl, good on HTML/CSS/Ajax and so on, but I know almost nothing about policy writing. I only have some ideas, but nothing hard. So first we need to find some people that will get together and workout new policy's. gcardinal 05:57, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Probably the best option would be having several users meet via MSN (multi-person chat kinda deal) and have live discussions about policy. If we keep it all on the wiki, it could take weeks for even the simplest of policy to be put into use. On MSN, ideas can be fired off rapidly and discussed and improved, and general consent can be detected rather easily. - Auron 06:02, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Or we could all join IRC or Skype or what ever works for people. But things can get slow here on wiki. English are my very very second language, so we have decide on a few people who will actually write them down. gcardinal 06:07, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * (Edit conflict) Well, luckily, we have some of the people who worked on GuildWiki policies. I have written a couple, Auron has been involved in a lot, and most of the others have been involved at least at the discussion level. BrianG who I talked to earlier has been trying to create a working Build Policy for a while. The main thing is getting started, i.e. having someone get the process started. I can start on that tomorrow evening hopefully.  Right now I am concentrating on getting set up.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  06:03, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Sounds really nice. I will help as much as I can but I'm best when it comes to running site and scripts :) so would be really nice if you could get some people and work something out gcardinal 06:07, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeah I'm eager to help out with designing a vetting system. I haven't written any full policies before but I should be able to contribute some good ideas and also help out in writing and polishing text. Let me know the details of any live discussions you guys want to have or whatever else. -- BrianG 06:10, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

MSN
Alright, if we want to use MSN messanger as a medium for discussing builds, everyone has to know everyone's email. For the purpose of MSN, I use BTA258@Hotmail.com. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  06:11, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I use admin@gcardinal.com gcardinal 06:24, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * dwnstream@hotmail.com - let me know when its gonna happen though, I'm never on there unless its for some specific purpose. -- BrianG 08:07, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

First comment!
First off: You've done a lot of work here. Good job - nearly everything we aren't going to cover links to guildwiki. Well done!

Secondly: For legal reasons, I don't think we can call this "guildwiki" without mass approval from guildwiki (including Fyren, Gem, probably Skuld just to make it look good, and Gravewit if we can contact him). It's also very confusing as I try to figure out what page I have open in my tabs. How about Buildwiki, in all seriousness? It's a good description of what the wiki is.

Thirdly: One of the reasons there's a build wipe is because of all the unfavored, crappy builds. See my suggestion for BW:WELL. I personally think they should be deleted altogether (re: . Horrible name, definitely not the best build ever, certainly not needing a page on a wiki as anyone with half the brains god gave an artichoke could figure out that fire attunement + elemental attunement = less energy cost. It says so on guildwiki that it stacks with the other four enchantments, doesn't it?)
 * Keeping the old unfavored crappy builds can be useful. Before submitting a build I always look through the unfavored to see if I see something similar, and so should everybody else.  Maybe include that in the policy?  If someone submits a build that is identical or nearly identical to a previously unfavored build, ban them!  or something similar :P Jaofos 20:20, 18 April 2007 (CEST)
 * There's a difference between useful unfavored crappy builds and just plain crappy unfavored builds. Take a look at the one I linked to - the only thing you can learn from it is that Elemental Attunement stacks with Fire Attunement, and I guess you could learn what each skill does. Armond 22:08, 18 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Personally, I favor merely archiving all of the old build section and trying to start anew with a new, hopefully solid policy. Trying to start with the mess of builds we already have is gonna make it that much harder to create something that works since if we want to improve quality, but we don't  look at the old builds with a new standard, we are going to have a lot of quality issues.  Archiving = Referencing.  Anyone can see them, anyone can use them if they like, but keeping all the old favored builds favored seems like a bad idea.  What I would propose would be this.  We create two new sections, archived - tested and archived - unfavored.  Anything that is currently untested or stubbed can be reviewed once we get the new system, but keeping the old builds or trying to rereview them based on a new policy doesn't seem like a great plan.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  06:25, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I'm with you on most builds. Things that were just made for the hell of it, or submitted just as sort of "spam" (not a great idea that happens to take you through Nahpui's really quickly so you decided to post it, ignoring the fact that your team did 3/4 of the work)? Nuke it. Armond 08:10, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

There's a bunch of work to do, but we can get it done. Looks like it's going to be fun! Armond 19:24, 18 April 2007 (CEST)

Addition: This page needs protection. Without it, we're just asking for vandalism. Also, I think we should have our own skills pages (especially for reverse lookup). Armond 19:40, 18 April 2007 (CEST)

I fixed the skill template to link directly to the skills page on GW, so I don't think our own skills pages is really necessary. Jaofos 20:16, 18 April 2007 (CEST)


 * But reverse lookup of skills would be unimaginably useful. At the very least, I think we should have reverse lookup pages (not whatlinkshere special pages). Armond 22:08, 18 April 2007 (CEST)
 * To be honest, creating those pages wouldn't be terribly hard, and Armond is right that they could be extremely helpful. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  06:25, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * How you exactly want reverse lookup to work?.. gcardinal 06:38, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Make a skill page, give a brief description of the skill (perhaps in-game text, vital stats, and profession only), and then give a list of builds that include that skill. Tag it with (variant) afterwards if the build only uses it as a variant. Armond 07:58, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Oh okey, that is possible to do. But then we will have to dump a whole skill section ... gcardinal 22:56, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

Great start guys
yes this page will be protected but since now only like 10 people knows about this page everething is open for edit. Name will be changed to PvXBuild that is site name. The only reason it says GuildWiki now is for easy bot writing. Processing some 3000 builds and ripping of all info was hard to needed to make it easy.

Im working on getting gwbbcode integrated into our new wiki so it work on existing builds without any changes, will be a channelenge.

As we all know we will not get anywhere with out a new policy on the builds. I want it to be strict, yeat informative. So only builds that works will have "working" label. We must come up with something fast. Please use Community_Portal for all work related talk's.

By the way, if you guys use msn my is : admin at gcardinal.com

so now the anti build wipe people can stop whining

Okay, I'm relaly sorry, but the ONLY thing you shoudl be downloading is teh Gvg builds or other proven good builds. Just making a new site and copying all the builds ownt help.Cheese Slaya 05:39, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Eh... lern2read imo :P We're not voting on builds until we've got a better voting system. Once that's in place, we'll be able to weed out the junk ones. The only thing I'm concerned about... are we going to let the unfavored builds sit and rot in a pile of 1500+ other unfavored builds? - Auron 05:44, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I'd say whipe those tbh >.> –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 05:45, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * /agree Armond 08:08, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeh. I'm thinking 2 weeks since unfavored, then delete; that would give the author long enough to either 1. improve the build enough to warrant another RAB, or 2. store it on his hard drive. - Auron 05:46, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * The problem would be recurring builds. The ones that show up over and over and over and... yes, over. We won't be able to check if something's been done a million times. Although we could still give it as a reason though >.> –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 05:47, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

Protection should occur now. I'm sorry, Defiant, but that was a pretty major leak. The idea was to not let a lot of people know about this to (among other reasons) prevent vandalism, wasn't it? Armond 08:08, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

It occurs to me that when Hard Mode comes out, 99% of these builds are going to fail miserably... Most notably, the AI will be updated to not go for tanks after a certain period of time, I'll bet you. This means that 55/SS/Famine are going to fail, Grasps will run past minions and pets more than ever, etc. etc. etc... Here's hoping we can think up some alternatives, fast, once we get a look at the new AI. (The end of farming builds...?) Armond 23:18, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

Hey Sweet!
Very impressed with how quickly and professionally you've put this together. I'm also glad you kept the layout of the main build page. I put a lot of work into redesigning it and was kinda ticked off that it was getting scrapped so soon after. Let me know if there is anything you need help with. I don't have much code knowledge but can help out with editing, organizing, etc. I also have some policy ideas that might be useful. Check out the suggestions I posted here. I saw you mention on your talk page that you'd like to have some kind of rating system. I think the best way to do it is to calculate the percentage of people that vote positively. Once you had a percentage rating, you could convert that into a 5 level rating based on 0-20, 20-40, etc. -- BrianG 05:58, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Thanks :) Yes I was also thinking about it. But I'm not sure how good it will be since it is always so easy to vote 1 if you just dont like something. I'm not sure how many quality votes we will get that way. And how to separate quality votes from trusted people from noob's. Now we primary need help with the policy, everething will be taken care as we go. But all our small community effort must be put into policy. gcardinal 06:32, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Nah, I didn't mean users would vote a rating. The user would still vote Yes or No, but then you would add up all the votes and get a percentage of people that voted Yes out of the total number of votes.  So for 7 out of 10 votes saying yes, the build would have a 70% rating, and that would translate to a purple for example.  Just an idea though. -- BrianG 07:36, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeah that can work. And we could also have system where all users can favorite 8 build they uses the most, and have most favorited list gcardinal 22:07, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * My statistics lessons warn me against accepting this if there's less than, say, seven votes. Armond 22:30, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeah I agree. When I proposed this on Defiant's talk page (see link above), I suggested setting a minimum number of votes required of around 10, as well as a minimum period that the build would remain in testing, like 2 weeks for example.  This would prevent a build from being voted the wrong way by the first 3 people that pass by, and would reduce the frustration of a build not being given a chance for everyone to see it. -- BrianG 01:24, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Although I am focusing right now on inputting smaller, more obvious policies, if we expect this to work, we need a BUILDS policy and a VETTING policy, and we need them now. Here is what I would propose.  Why don't we create a link where people can post their ideas as to how VETTING/BUILDS should work.  And by ideas, I mean proposals.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  01:53, 20 April 2007 (CEST)

Hey
Uh.. i'm not supposed to be here I think.. don't eat me!

things you should probably do:
 * Change $wgSitename in LocalSettings.php to something other than GuildWiki ;)
 * Set a license and copyrights! Big must, see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:LocalSettings.php#Setting_copyright_for_the_site
 * Get some anti-spam stuff installed, once this gets linked to from anywhere, the spiders will arrive with their viagra links.

&mdash; Skuld 12:36, 19 April 2007 (CEST)

And see di's post a couple of sections up about guildwiki copyrights &mdash; Skuld 12:45, 19 April 2007 (CEST)


 * *ban* :P No, seriously, good to see you (even if it's supposed to be a closed test). Now that I think of it, I'm not sure why you weren't invited, but whatever. I actually had a good name instead of buildwiki this morning... but I forgot XP I think I dropped the "wiki" part off... Maybe PvXBuilds.com? Armond 20:24, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Closed test with the link being spammed all around guildwiki? Not a chance :P - Auron 21:44, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Okey Im not sure guys what the problem with copyright. There is a clear statement on gw.wiki :
 * * Further, since we distribute under this license to anybody who accesses this site, everybody in the world will always have the right to distribute your contribution, and any edits to your contribution, for free, provided they are never used for a commercial purpose.
 * We follow that statement and we have link to Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 what the problem ? There no where in the statement that says that we have to credit each and all builds. We just re-distribute them under same license. There NO copyrights issue here what so ever. gcardinal 21:54, 19 April 2007 (CEST)


 * I remember now! PvXwiki. How's that sound? Armond 22:32, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Great :) PvXwiki it is :P gcardinal 22:56, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I think PvXBuilds would be a better name, mostly because it matches the URL :P Jaofos 00:03, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Buildwiki. You all know you want it. On another note: the vandalism to the main page already started >.> –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 00:33, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Hey look, I am the target of the very first vandalism ever on PvX Builds. Don't I feel special.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:57, 20 April 2007 (CEST)

Build vetting procedure
Currently, since everything was imported from GuildWiki, we have a link to a "build vetting procedure" that is a copy of the wiki procedure. I would say that we should probably remove that since we don't want people to think that that is our actual policy. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  00:57, 20 April 2007 (CEST)

We have to start working as a team
I really like to see people get exited about this site and everyone comes up with some great ideas. What we have to do is make a structure up on what we will work. If I got the right messages people wants to become Admin's so they start serious work. And I do fully understand that. This site needs allot of time and effort. So I want to purpose giving admin status to some people who showed great interest in this project:
 * Armond
 * Auron
 * Defiant Elements
 * BrianG
 * and me, gcardinal

I just choice to trust you guys with this site and I hope we can work together to build a great wiki. Since there will be situations where we can't agreed or something my vote will always count as 2. How ever if there is a thing where 4 admins agrees on making one thing and I disagree I will do as other 4 admins will decide. I spend allot and allot of time on this wiki and for me it is not only the time but an idea and a vision about a great site that I am sure we can create.

My job will be primary coding and implementation of new things. I will have my word when it comes to rating build's and sorting them, otherwise I will more overlook how things. And I will pay all the bill's when it comes to this site, also I am planning on using around 100$ for ad's for this site, primary google adwords but also something else. I will also take care of Site to Site complains if it will come to that.

Other admin's will primary focus on shaping the site's, policy, voting and will also take care of everyday site running. They will be main link/connection to the guildwars fan community. Sometimes I will also create a list of things I want other admin's to take a look on. Since we will not have any ad's on our site there will be zero cash there is not much to offer in terms of cash.

I hope you guy's will accept my offer of admin status. It will be yours as long as you contribute and don't do anything bad for the site.

Admin page that only admin can access where we can organize our work must be made.
 * Mmkay. That sounds pretty solid, I've been talking via MSN to Defiant Elements about policies; what we can put into use now (NPA, 1RV, all the automatic stuff) and what we need to write-up and present to the community for approval. It'll be fun :) - Auron 03:00, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Thank you gcardinal. I'll gladly accept the offer.  I know the admins on guildwiki are very dedicated in the amount of time they spend monitoring the site.  I'm not sure how much time I will be able to devote to site monitoring, since I am not be able to be on the wiki much during my day job, but I'll do my best.  I also want to say that the other editors you've chosen look like great choices and I'm looking forward to working with them. -- BrianG 03:56, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Definitely accept. This is a project I am definitely interested in and one for which I am willing to donate quite a bit of time.  This is something I really want to work and I think if we have some dedicated Admins, making it work will be easier.  Thanks, and looking forward to working with these guys.  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:07, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Really sorry I'm late with this, real life decided to be unhappy with me for a bit. I'll gladly accept this - I look forward to working with you all. Am thinking MSN messenger or some other contact info would be great, too. Armond 06:11, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

License issues
Posting this here so everyone is aware of it. Everything that gets copied from GuildWiki needs to have proper attribution to all authors. That includes builds, templates, images, page layouts, articles, and even the text of Copyright which was lifted directly from GuildWiki. It's the "attribution" part of the CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. You're allowed to copy it freely, but give credit where credit is due. This entire site is full of copyright violations right now. --Dirigible
 * GuildWiki did helped us alot, read they copyright rules where they have important adjusted part that apply on top of the CC license on they site, the statement is "* Further, since we distribute under this license to anybody who accesses this site, everybody in the world will always have the right to distribute your contribution, and any edits to your contribution, for free, provided they are never used for a commercial purpose." gcardinal 21:58, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * The only limit here is that we can't earn money on our site becouse it will be commercial purpose. gcardinal 21:59, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * And sure we can add link to guildwiki in each build we have at the moment. That original it is from GuildWiki. gcardinal 22:05, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Looks like our licensing is complete. I'll go around Special:Allpages adding in credit comments. Armond 23:20, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Actually, would it be enough to leave the note I have added on the main page? Armond 23:26, 19 April 2007 (CEST)
 * WRONG! Here's that paragraph from gw:GuildWiki:Copyrights:


 * "All content is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa license, unless otherwise noted. All other information, art, skill images, are Copyright to their original creators, NCSoft, or ArenaNet.'
 * In English, this means that any original thought you create is yours, but you license it permanently to us. We create derivative works based upon your original content—that's the nature of a wiki. We, in turn, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license, relicense these works under the same license. This means that, while you retain copyright of your content (you could sell your original contributions to whomever you wanted, or you could license them under different terms somewhere else), we will always have the right to distribute it for free. Further, since we distribute under this license to anybody who accesses this site, everybody in the world will always have the right to distribute your contribution, and any edits to your contribution, for free, provided they are never used for a commercial purpose."


 * That entire second paragraph is simply explaining what that first paragraph means in non-legalese terms, it's not adapting it. NOWHERE there is it dismissing the attribution necessity. Notice the sentence "We, in turn, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license, relicense these works under the same license". Every time a user posts something on GuildWiki, they accept to the following line:


 * "All contributions to GuildWiki are considered to be released under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike'".


 * CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0, notice the word ATTRIBUTION. Notice the very first criteria of that license:
 * "Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work)."
 * This site is still full of copyright violations, it's still not giving credit to the thousands of GuildWars players who over the years have decided to contribute to the community by posting and editing on GuildWiki. Grow some nuts and deal properly with this and don't try to sneak your way out of it, it's simply not cool. --Dirigible
 * Yeh. First thing we should do is wipe every build off this space to start over; if it's an awesomesauce build, it'll be re-submitted. However, those are the bulk of our copyvios; we'd do better removing them than copying the history of every build we have. The policies are being accounted for... please review PvXwiki talk:No personal attacks and such pages to see if they meet copyright requirements. Thanks, Dirig. - Auron 04:04, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Hmmm, isn't it possible to write some kind of script to grab the names from the history and add them to the build pages? There is discussion about that on the other wiki.  I just know gcardinal put a lot of work into transferring the builds here, so it seems a waste to delete so much valuable info, thats half the point.  I definitely agree with wiping the unfavored builds at least though, maybe archived and untested as well. -- BrianG 04:21, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
 * If you go to Funky King's page or Irkm Desmet's page on Guildwiki, they created Perl scripts for just that purpose. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:23, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Yeah thats what I mean. I know nothing about scripts though, gcardinal have you checked this out at all?  Is it possible? -- BrianG 04:32, 20 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I would assume that Cardinal can simply use his bot to run the script repeatedly and document history for every page although it would require a bit of work. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  04:33, 20 April 2007 (CEST)

Policy
Anyone interested in discussing site policy, particularly the BUILD policy and the VETTING policy should be on MSN Messenger over the next few days. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  05:21, 20 April 2007 (CEST)

Copyright issues
Thanks to User:Auron and great help from administrators of www.guildwiki.org we was able to restore history of all builds. We hope this will solve the issue and end any further discussions around it. Copyright page was also updated PvXwiki:Copyrights. gcardinal 04:41, 22 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Gcardinal I checked out the history on a few builds and it all looks good, nice work. And thanks to Auron and Fyren for arranging the history dump. -- BrianG 07:23, 22 April 2007 (CEST)
 * And Gcardinal's hours of testing with histories :P - Auron 07:46, 22 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Aww, I was going to be fancy and figure out how the other wiki I know ripped pages and histories at the same time from wikipedia so we could do it here. :P Jk, very glad the problem's solved. Armond 06:07, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

Add an intermediate category?
What about creating an intermediate category. On my though there is too many good build in "unfavored" and somes not so good in "tested". Something as "Best builds", "Usable builds", "Unfavored builds" would be fine. We already are using this system in the french wiki so that if you want to translate and adapt our templates just ask i will give you all the necessary explainations.--Ttibot 19:23, 22 April 2007 (CEST)
 * That is exactly what we have in mind, it will be done. gcardinal 21:20, 22 April 2007 (CEST)


 * Ho, cool ! ^-^  --Ttibot 00:11, 23 April 2007 (CEST)


 * I just have a few questions. Is EVERYONE from gwwiki comin over here? and is the vetting system going to change? Ni 02:07, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 * We sure hope that many people will join our Wiki and we will do our best so they will stay here. Vetting system IS going to change. There will be also advanced but very user friendly and native rating system so it will be easy to separate good from bad. gcardinal 02:19, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

Alright, thanks. Last question. When are we going to be allowed to start posting untested builds? 74.225.230.114 02:22, 23 April 2007 (CEST)


 * Also, an idea for making posting easy is to put a "build template", "mini skill bar" ect. button on the toolbar, so they can press it, and then a syntax will go into the chat box and they can fill in all the required information. Ni 02:26, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Perfect idea! I was sitting here trying to find a solution... you arr the man! Thx :) will get back to coding now and see what I can do gcardinal 14:53, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Ahh no... tested and I think we will have to do it other wise... but great idea gcardinal 14:56, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

Useless templates?
Template:ArmorFunctionNavBox

Template:EliteSkillLocationsNavBox

Template:FactionsHenchmenNavBox

Template:HeroesNavBox

Template:NightfallHenchmenNavBox

Template:PropheciesHenchmenNavBox

Are these going to be used? I thought you were going to link to GuildWiki for non-builds content? There's a bunch more here.
 * Correct. There is tons of templates we dont need. But it was a pain to import them one by one, so I imported all. gcardinal 14:39, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Should the unneeded templates be marked for deletion or left alone?--Sefre 15:11, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 * If they're kept they'll need to be properly attributed to their authors. But if they're useless they might as well be tagged for deletion; easier than hunting down article histories on GuildWiki.
 * I'll go ahead and add delete tags to ones I think we don't need in a build wiki. Make changes if you need to Lania Elderfire 18:48, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Nuked those, will work on others in CfD. Armond 16:06, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Nuked all the Ds in Candidates for Deletion because I was bored. WTB nuke bot/one-click delete/faster school internet connection. 18:06, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
 * See Template talk:Archived-build. 18:17, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

CfD is really hurting. Nuked all the Fs because I was bored again. Schoolwide tests all morning that seniors don't have to do ftl. Shame CfD doesn't have a monk :( 20:05, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Js and Ks were short. Still bored for the record. Qs, Xs, Ys, and Zs were done a bit earlier by yours truly, as well. 20:20, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Finished taking out bits of A-D (including other templates). Finally, lunch. So far, CfD has lost A-D, F, J, K, and Q-Z. 20:49, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I remember starting the delete spree by clearing A-C :P - Auron 21:35, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Knocked out the Os and the Us. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  00:44, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I added a few delete tags to pages in Category:Templates/Notices that wont be needed for builds, some were trashed earlier but a few still remain.--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 00:50, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Speed
Just wanted to ask you guys on how this site feels for you ? Is it faster or slower then other wiki's you visit ? MediaWiki is extremely heavy and hard to run script for any kind of servers so its best to compare wiki to wiki in this kind of tests. We are hosted on a cheap hosting but they have a few things that makes it perfectly for media wiki, specially things like max DB size of 4gb.

Anyway just wanted to know how is the speed and if we need something faster. gcardinal 10:23, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Except for Bresnan(my internet provider) crashing in my local area a few minutes ago I haven't seen any problems. Speed seems like most pages--Sefre  [[Image:Sefresig.jpg|15px|]] Talk*Cont. 10:42, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I did think it was a little slow, but nothing major. 20:15, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Getting the same problems again. They only occur on my school computer, where there's horrible internet access and around 75 people trying to get online at the same time. Don't worry about the speed. 22:10, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

anon postings
when anons post on this site, they are greeted with a request to key in a password. I understand the reason for this, and I don't object to it. But, it's confusing that the word is always shown in uppercase but to key it you must use lowercase. Can something be done to make the case usage consistent? At least state that it must be keyed in lowercase so that noobs have a clue how to proceed.
 * Of course it will be done. Thank you for reporting this bug and it will be fixed very soon! And I tried to make it more fun by using words from gw skills, but it is boring and annoying I know :( gcardinal 20:40, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Builds to check
There is many builds that contains errors like deadlinks (not linked to gw:), links that starts with |Something and so on. I did a small search and from my estimate there is around 800 builds that needs to be checked but those listed here are almost 99,9% certain contains some kind of errors:


 * Build:Me%2FD_Mystic_IW
 * Build:Me%2FE_Stress_Inducer
 * Build:Me%2FN_All_Around_Denial
 * Build:Me%2FRt_Warmonger's_Instability
 * Build:Me%2FR_Illusionary_Beastmaster
 * Build:Mo%2Fany_Zealous_Benediction_Bodyguard
 * Build:Mo%2FW_Solo_Ice_Breaker_Farmer
 * Build:N%2Fany_Tainted_Degen
 * Build:N%2FMe_Jagged_Echo
 * Build:N%2FMo_Boss_Farmer%2FBoss_strategies
 * Build:N%2FMo_Virulent_Support
 * Build:N%2FR_Interrupt_master
 * Build:N%2FR_Interupt_master
 * Build:N%2FR_Pet_Necromancer
 * Build:P%2Fany_Purification_Chanter
 * Build:P%2FMo_Party_Enhancer
 * Past featured builds
 * Build:R%2Fany_Condition_Harass
 * Build:R%2Fany_Queen_Farmer_Made_Easy
 * Build:R%2FD_Thorns_Runner
 * Build:R%2FN_Emo_Trapper
 * Build:R%2FN_Hex_Ranger
 * Build:R%2FN_Suicide_Pet's_Food
 * Build:R%2FRt_B%2FI%2FP_Tombs_Ranger
 * Build:Rt%2Fany_Spirit_Healer
 * Build:Rt%2Fany_Twister_of_Souls
 * Build:Rt%2FN_Explosive_Creation_Jagged
 * Build:Rt%2FR_Nightmare_Marksman
 * Build:Team_-_55%2FHero_-_Famine
 * Build:Team_-_Barrage%2FPet_(Tomb_Ruins)
 * Build:W%2FMe_Enduring_Visage_UW_Solo
 * Build:W%2FMo_Acolyte_of_Dwayna_Killer
 * Build:W%2FMo_Icy_Dragon_Sword_Farmer
 * Build:W%2FMo_Wamo_Hydra_Farmer_DNK
 * Build:W%2FN_Constant_Interrupts
 * Build:W%2FMe_Enduring_Visage_UW_Solo
 * Build:W%2FMo_Acolyte_of_Dwayna_Killer
 * Build:W%2FMo_Icy_Dragon_Sword_Farmer
 * Build:W%2FMo_Wamo_Hydra_Farmer_DNK
 * Build:W%2FN_Constant_Interrupts
 * Build:W%2FMo_Acolyte_of_Dwayna_Killer
 * Build:W%2FMo_Icy_Dragon_Sword_Farmer
 * Build:W%2FMo_Wamo_Hydra_Farmer_DNK
 * Build:W%2FN_Constant_Interrupts


 * Took care of that build page redesign, that was left over from when we redesigned the build page, and I've deleted it. -- BrianG 00:31, 27 April 2007 (CEST)
 * I looked through many of these builds and many of them seem to be premade builds, unfavored builds, or build stubs. Can we not agree to delete all unfavored, premade, and stubs?  This will make cleanup and management of whats left that much easier. -- BrianG 19:15, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
 * As I understand it, the beta testing time is where we don't delete stuff unless it's absolutely not needed. And once again I recommend moving everything into untested once we get up and running. 22:20, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
 * They contains errors after my bot, and those must be fixed. gcardinal 09:22, 29 April 2007 (CEST)

Removed deleted pages. 22:05, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Guys we have to get working on those builds. Nothing happens to builds they are full of errors and not even builds listed here has been fixed... GCardinal 08:06, 3 May 2007 (CEST)

Builds working in hard mode
Just an idea, maybe we need to mark builds that does work in Hard Mode ? gcardinal 12:32, 28 April 2007 (CEST)

Heh, good idea. Maybe a little icon in red saying HM? Ni 15:32, 28 April 2007 (CEST)


 * How cool would it be if we could hax the CSS or whatever to get hard mode builds to have [HM] next to the page name? So, for example, we might have, with a page name at the very top being  Uber Leet Wammo [HM] , and in Category:Hard Mode builds.  19:04, 28 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Okey I will look into it, thx for idea. gcardinal 01:59, 29 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Just make a new template would be easiest. Rapta 21:53, 29 April 2007 (CEST)

Cleanup
How about doing a minor cleanup before 1. may ? There is many categories that holds zero value and have only useless builds: Complete cleanup: Partial cleanup:
 * Builds tagged with "outdated" (see search)
 * Pre-made builds, Category:Discontinued_premade_builds.
 * Category:Abandoned zero value, to old.
 * Category:Cleanup mostly unfinished builds, zero value.
 * Category:Archived_builds old not working.

Just want to know what you guys think about it. I think all builds in list above must be deleted. Just want a confirmation, I will delete them my self when its confirmed. gcardinal

Just to help you gcardinal, and I'm not making fun of you in any way, but to help you tih your english a little bit, when you want to say something is something, but there are more than one somethings, use are instead of is. Just so you know, I'm glad you can speak more than one language. I tried to learn French in school for three years, but it didn't work out. So good job, and good job with the site, I'm going to be on here more than GW now.

and I did it again Bluemilkman 19:07, 29 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Heh thanks Bluemilkman :) Originally I’m from Russia, leaving in Norway studying Swedish and Danish, so English comes in last place. But thanks for your advice I will try to keep it in mind GCardinal 06:58, 1 May 2007 (CEST)
 * I definitely agree with the deletion of the above mentioned builds. -- BrianG 00:32, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

I was just wondering if you could save the foundry team one, unless of course someone knows a better build I can use. Bluemilkman 03:51, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
 * Foundry will be kept. It works well, is not unfavored, and just overall kicks ass. Cardinal, I'm loving the new signature. Going to delete the above mentioned builds (and fixed the links so they link to the category instead of adding this page to the category).  20:07, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

Nuked the first two categories, will do more later. 20:45, 30 April 2007 (CEST)