PvXwiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 3

Skills database
Simple quastion: Do we need a full skill database as on GWiki and on GWWiki ?... I just think there is no point of having it hosted at GWiki when we can host it on our site as well. It wont be done asap, but just to have plans for the feature clear. gcardinal 07:17, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Pro's and Con's:
 * Pro: PvX becomes more self sustaining and independant. Discussions about those skills become more relevant to build aspect.  If something happened to GWiki we arn't affected by it.
 * Cons: Migration and updates. It would be redundant information.  Gwiki takes a lot of time to ensure that the skill info is allready up to date (including where to get them, the maps that they are on, the bosses that hold them).  And those areas are updated by that user on a frequent basis allready.  To move it over here may create a 'skill gap'.
 * I say leave it on Wiki and not to create redundancy that will fork and become innacurate. Shireen  sysop  07:25, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
 * Guildwiki has discussions on skills, a lot of them have useful info in the talk pages about how it can be implemented and used that isn't in the note section. I say leave it, would cause to much work with the upcoming policy implementation anyways. --[[Image:SefreSig.jpg|45px|Sefre]] 07:30, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
 * Agreed, GWiki does this fine, it's too much work on a builds wiki. After all, we are about the collection of skills that you use, not the skills itself. '~\^/~' Napalm Flame  [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)(contributions) 11:01, 3 June 2007 (CEST)
 * Skills database are pretty much static. Discussion on skills goes more into category of builds as one skill is almost nothing by it self. We will also solve problem of dependency on GWiki as we don't need to maintain all inter-wiki in all builds. I dont think it will be much of a work to keep it up to date, 1 person can do it just fine by monitoring GuildWars news and maybe GWWiki. And I am not suggesting to implement it right now, just in the feature. By having full skill database we could also have very advanced build search based on the skills. So you could find all builds using Shadow Refuge or any other elite or non-elite skill. Just try to look out of the box. gcardinal 11:35, 3 June 2007 (CEST)


 * We already get info on a skill from the mouseover. We really don't need discussion, especially after spending all that time linking to GWiki. Leave the links as they are, I say. The most we want is a reverse lookup namespace (or function, if you feel like doing even MORE coding :P) -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 03:32, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
 * To do reverse lookup we need skill database. or I dont see how you will pick skills you want to reverse look up. gcardinal 07:39, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Main Page- WTF?
Dude, wtf is going on with the main page? It's... dead. For the contest winners it just says 'we are happy' and it's just... DEAD. Napalm Flame  ^_^ (talk)(contributions) 17:58, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
 * Hm I am sorry but I cant follow you on this one. What do you mean ? gcardinal 18:09, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
 * I'll SS and host on imageshack. Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)(contributions) 18:21, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

How to find Builds
Perhaps i', just confused or missing something. But ist there a way to find builds that are currently in testing? Is there a categorie for this? Perhaps a link on the main page would make it easier to find these. Irkm Desmet 14:03, 7 June 2007 (CEST)
 * There is a category: Category:Testing builds. On the main page there are links to Untested PvP and Untested PvE, which adds up to the same. Note that you can test and discuss builds, but not rate them until PvXwiki:Real Vetting is implemented. --Hhhippo 14:56, 7 June 2007 (CEST)

Should shortcuts have the "PvX:" or the "PW:" prefix?
Like the title asks, should shortcuts on this site be using the "PvX:" or the "PW:" prefix? Currently, this site appears to be using a mix of both. Is a formatting guideline needed? --161.88.255.140 19:51, 8 June 2007 (CEST)


 * IMO use both for each policy... Some people like one, some people like another. Ideally I could link to both PW:NAME and PvX:NAME, for example. -- Armond Warblade[[Image:Armond sig image.png]] 01:45, 10 June 2007 (CEST)
 * PvX: must be standard as its site name. No need to confuse people. gcardinal 08:52, 11 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Too late, people appear to be confused already. Per http://www.pvxwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=P&namespace=0, there are currently 16 shortcuts that begin with "PW:", and 9 shortcuts that begin with "PvX:". --161.88.255.139 10:04, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
 * PvX:Blah is a bitch to type every time someone wants to see a policy, especially if they've come from GWiki or GWW, where all they have to type is GW:BLAH or GWW:BLAH. I'd say use both; it doesn't hurt anything. - Auron 11:19, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

PvX is more professional towards the site title. Shireen sysop  11:25, 19 June 2007 (EDT)


 * I say PvX is the official one, but for every PvX: title we have a PW: one redirect to PvX:. ‽-(єяøηħ)  no u 13:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Double redirects suck :p Just let both PvX:Blah and PW:Blah point to the same article. - Auron 19:21, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm one of these stickler sort of people. The site is called PvXbuilds in the icon and PvXwiki in the url. Therefore it should be PvX, since it matches everything, and especially since that is-
 * More commonly used
 * The start of the URL is 'pvx'
 * And it is also the main part of the icon

PW IS easier to type, but PvX is more proper. Napalm Flame  ^_^ (talk)·(contributions) 04:37, 20 June 2007 (EDT)


 * I find that all caps is easier than mixed caps, so I lean towards "PW:" as my preference for that single reason. Maybe a medium between the two could be reached by using "PVX:" or "PX:"? --161.88.255.139 06:04, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Right. My question to Napalm is... what drawbacks exist to using both? - Auron 04:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Having more for PW than PvX. Which means MORE confusion. lol Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)·(contributions) 18:37, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
 * Confusion. S Penumbra 06:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Builds with bugs
I just want to make people aware of that there is plenty of work to be done on this wiki :) I have posted several times lists of builds that has bugs after adding interwiki gw: to all links. Anyway the result of it:



to



Notice gw: in front of Image and || after .jpg. This kind of bugs needs to be fixed asap. Specially in PvE builds.

This issue does not effect that much PvP builds. There is plenty of builds with this problem, some examples:
 * Archive:Team - 55/SS FoW
 * and many more..!
 * and many more..!

Please use this day before extension implementation to work on this issue. It is very old and just needs to be fixed. gcardinal 08:51, 11 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Can admins please use they time to fix this bug? gcardinal 05:12, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Alright, the issue was not a bug, but rather that the images had not been uploaded to this site, and, using the "gw:" prefix on images just links to them, it doesn't display them. I checked through every build, uploading as necessary, and hopefully I got them all. If I missed any, please point them out to me. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  08:05, 16 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Yeah but its kind of a bug since it was made by a bot, I named it "bug". Thank you for fixing those, great work. gcardinal 09:12, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Sub-builds
My alliance played dodgeball last night. Both teams have Lightning Orb, Storm Djinn's Haste, and a Rezz sig. Everyone dropped their HP down to 105 by using 5 superior runes, so that L. Orb killed in one hit. Should we have a category for little mini-game type things like this? frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 14:55, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Love it, that's so creative! TBH, that is SO like the event! Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] (talk)(contributions) 00:18, 16 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Technically we have no reason for that, but I like things like that as well. If we do it, we need somthing like Build_Fun: as the namespace.  Then require the builds there to be realistic yet not used for any real gaming experiences.   ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяønħ)  no u 15:21, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, that sounds good. I think the category should just be called Fun:Dodgeball, like that. They would have to include stuff like how you play, builds, rules, other similar variants, etc. [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 16:39, 14 June 2007 (EDT)...
 * What? Why do we need a category like this? It's useless, and ideas like Dodgeball or Tag are better kept in your userspace. Not only would these sorts of builds be ridiculously difficult to 'vet,' but the amount of crap that would be submitted under the pretense of "This build doesn't work well, but it sure is fun!" would be staggering. A category like this would be in stark contradiction of PvX:WELL, which is the keystone of our site, and which maintains a higher standard of quality than GWiki used to have. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   07:37, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Well we should have a 'fun' section IMHO, which includes some guild wars minigame ideas meant to be played with your guild/alliance... Would be good ^^ and fun. It's called 'getting the most out of a game'. XD And it won't need vetting. <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 10:38, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
 * If it's not going to fall under our Build Vetting Procedure, it does not belong in the Build namespace. It would be best to keep builds/minigames like that separate from our Buildspace; one could keep them in the userspace, just like how some other builds are stored in userspace. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   13:54, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Read ~3 responses up... [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 14:34, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Builds:Fun Builds would stil be a part of the Builds namespace. Otherwise, having a separate namespace for 'fun builds' would just be a sorry excuse for many users to publish their builds that would never get vetted in the build space. I'm sure a few people might create minigames with the best of intentions, but many wouldn't; besides, there are already minigames in GW. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   14:40, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Solution being- have a section called minigames completely separate from buildspace. <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)(contributions) 20:59, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
 * "Having a separate namespace for 'fun builds' would just be a sorry excuse for many users to publish their builds that would never get vetted in the build space." A section like that would require even more upkeep than the build space, and would serve little practical purpose to anyone. Thinking of the garbage that would be categorized there makes me shudder. (Minigame - Intercourse: A 1-vs-1 skirmish where the two competitors may only use skills carrying sexual connotation. "I'm Using Brace Yourself on ...!" "I'm using Final Thrust on ...!" Ridiculous.) Can you really imagine someone saying "Hey Bill, let's head over to the wiki and see how other users play dodgeball in Guild Wars?" I really think a section, category, or namespace for user-created minigames would be a waste of time, effort, and bandwidth. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   10:11, 17 June 2007 (EDT)


 * I think its not a waste of time or effort when the people that make that category maintain it on their own. And bandwidth is not an argument since when its not popular it doesnt use bandwidth, and when it is popular its worth the bandwidth.--82.174.109.26 04:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)


 * I think that it is a good idea, but needs worked on. To give something to Krowman, I believe that the space will be flooded with builds that don't work, ruining the minigames that are supposed to be there. Therefor, I recommend that if there is a consensus on making this category, someone, I could do it if you guys want me to, needs to write a minigame vetting procedure. It won't be very in-depth, but I can write it so that the games have to be "vetted" just like a real build, though will be rated on how fun they are. I can write a rough craft within the next week. If people wdon't want to do it, I'll keep it just in case. Bluemilkman 12:01, 17 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Obviously, if the build =/= game (game not challenge), then it belongs not in gamespace. ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 12:08, 17 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Mini-Games Vetting Please help me with your thoughts and ways to make it better. When it is finished, I will submit it to gcardinal. Bluemilkman 16:08, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Speaking as an admin, these kinds of things belong in userspaces. We do not store "joke" builds, which is essentially what these are. If it does not fit into one of the categories we currently have, we don't want it in the main namespace.

As a similar example, does GuildWiki allow you to put skills you want created in the main namespace, or perfect items you've collected and named? -- Armond Warblade 02:30, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

the whole point is that it wouldn't be in the build namespace, which you would've noticed if you would've read the above posts. Bluemilkman 04:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

URGENT HELP NEEDED : TASK
After a lot of testing and mostly failing I found out that making dynamic extension for automatic sorting builds using mediawiki extension will give us more problem then benefits. Mostly problems will be with:
 * Hard to purge, update cache.
 * Uncertainty around when to update the categories.
 * To many "jumps" of builds are rating gets updated with each vote.

So I think the best solution will be to keep rating automatic, with all calculations and statistics. But categorie sorting we need to keep as a human task. Extension will never fully understand when its proper to move a build and it will cause problems that will be really hard to fix.

After a discussion with some admins and suggestions from DE I have come down to final organization structure:
 * Works\Great = Rating 4.5-5.0
 * Works\Good = Rating 3.5-4.4
 * Works\Others = Rating 2.5-3.4


 * Untested\Stubs = (Stage 1) - Incomplete, place to start.
 * Untested\Trial = (Stage 2) - Comments prior to Testing. Test, develop discuss.
 * Untested\Testing = (Stage 3) - Rating Stage.


 * Archive\Tested = Archived tested builds. (same as current "Archive" section.)
 * Archive\Trash = Builds will be stored here for 2-3 weeks before final deletion.

So what basically is needed now are new categories and templates. Based on the ones we have now for Untested builds. New categories and new templates must include full tag in front:
 * Working-Great + PvE/PvP section (AB, Farming, GvG, etc.)
 * Working-Good + PvE/PvP section (AB, Farming, GvG, etc.)
 * Working-Others + PvE/PvP section (AB, Farming, GvG, etc.)


 * Untested-Stubs - one category for all.
 * Untested-Trial - one category for all.
 * Untested-Testing + PvE/PvP section (AB, Farming, GvG, etc.)


 * Archive-Tested - one category for all.
 * Archive-Trash - one category for all.

Both separate Templates, -mssg and all other stuff that is needed for it to work. I think current structure works pretty well and it will be best to adjust it for our needs.

I need some people who can make new templates and make sure they work. As it can cause some mix ups on this wiki as well as damage current structure of this site I have installed separate mediawiki installation that can be used for development and testing of those templates and testing of categories.

This kind of work can easy end up in a big mess so please try to coordinate your team effort.

Test installtion can be found here []. You are free to change categories of builds and play around while you test. If it gets really bad I can restore it from backup.

Big thx for you help!

PS: test site is kind of slow.

Discussion

 * So are we using Templates to change the category, as it is now? As in, should I make a Template:Works/Great? [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 12:02, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Are we creating a template that will make all builds with the template on it categorize themselves onto one page? ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 12:17, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Ok, I read through it again and understand. same Templates and -mssg will be used (as in format). We test these on the installation server. [[Image:User Frvwfr2 signature.jpg|User:Frvwfr2]] <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2 ''' (talk · contributions) 12:19, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes and just try to use Work-Great and not that much of "\". Thx for all the help :) gcardinal 12:21, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
 * K, let's co-ordinate. I see you've already started a template and the cat pages Frvwfr2. I'll start the archive/trash and archive/tested for now. Other contributors, make note of what you're doing to maximize efficiency and minimize overlap. Good luck, have fun. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   12:31, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I must be a technical jargon retard or something... I dont quite understand that. So, all in all, on this site you want us to creat pages such as Template:Works-Great. Then get builds to sort properly into them. Or are we supposed to do this on the test server. Triple edit conflict... Im loading slow today. ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 12:42, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Instead of having the script try to do it dynamically in real time, why not just have it update ratings and sorting once a day? Site goes down for 2 minutes at a specified time each day and a querry re-sorts everything through an update algorithm? <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen sysop  12:37, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Okay, I think I got all the right categories set up... I am not sure how to do the mssg's... I'll go to the templates instead. Here are all the categories I've made so far. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frvwfr2 (contribs).
 * Can we just call them Category:Archived and Category:Trash to avoid confusion and save people the trouble of typing in extra-long templates? >  - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    12:55, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

So.. what's left other than the mssg's? I don't understand them, soo... I think I got most of it done. Maybe? <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk · contributions) 13:35, 18 June 2007 (EDT) Btw, I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow at ~2:00, so if I screwed something up horribly I won't know for 2 weeks. <font color=#6e8b3d>frvwfr2  (talk · contributions)
 * To get this all running nicely, I need to be able to test it with a build under the new Real Vetting system. I'm not sure if you'd call it the script or extension or whatever, but the way things are set up right now, the builds aren't rated numerically, so we can't categorize them by the numbers. The -mssg- part is difficult, because we only have tested and untested -mssg- for the different venues atm. If we could implement the script and begin rating some builds under the RV script, it would be much easier (if this way is even possible) to get everything set up. Stubs and untested could be done (they pretty much are already done), but we can't sort the Tested or Unfavored builds into numerical-based categories because they have not yet been numerically rated.
 * On a side note, could someone please explain the 3 Untested stages to me? Are we not allowed to develop or discuss a build in Stage 3 or 1? What moves a build between these stages? Don't we really only need 2 categories: Stubs (where a build is discussed, developed, not voted upon) and the amalgamated Untested section (where the build is a finished product, ready for evaluation)? - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman    15:36, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
 * It will work pretty simple. You will have extra tab on the top "Rate", when you go there you will see total rating score, score on each rating category and so on. Each use will have right to rate build, edit his/her rating and admins will have right to remove "bad" votes. With other words users them selfs will have to monitor total score and based on that move build around in categories. Later on there will be progress bar that will be included on each build that will indicate progress on the build (like Napalm's new innovative idea) and total score of the build will also be included on the builds page so it will ease the process. gcardinal 19:23, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Please let me know if I can do anything to help you guys- gcardinal 04:55, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Any progess on templates? we really need them. 158.39.35.47 02:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
 * The templates are done I think, but you don't need them yet, you gotta wait for the Rating system to be put in place. ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 02:53, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
 * No, they aren't... Just checked. Sadly I can't help with templates, if someone is willing to teach me I'd be willing to help more in future, and I can't do much at the minute since my computer has started prompting me to activate windows after 15 odd months. Not only that needs fixing, but I'm going away for 10 days. I'd be willing to update the build ratings or help in any way possible with the builds section. Wished I could help right now though, but I don't have much time. Thanks for leaving me a note cardinal, I'm glad you contacted me.


 * And by the way, the ones that are still needed are the archive ones and the untested ones. They mostly need putting under the proper name, cause I looked in the templates section and the only ones related in existence are the old ones. <font color=#ff0000>Napalm Flame  ^_^ [[Image:Napalm_Flame_Sig_Image.JPG‎]] <font color=#0000ff>(talk)·(contributions) 04:32, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
 * That's because we can use the old ones. The archives are still the archives; we just need to change which category it sorts builds into. That'll take 1 edit and 5 seconds. I am very confused about the 3 Untested sections,, and as you can see, I asked someone to help explain them to me. We can reuse the current Untested template as well, and apply to it to one of the Untested cats, though I have no clue which one atm. Once someone explains this Untested thing to me, I can finish both templates easily. - [[Image:Kowal.jpg|15px]] <font face="dauphin" color="maroon">Krowman   04:55, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I see some ppl created templates on this wiki when I asked specific not to do so. I installed temporary wiki for templates and categories to be tested on. Not a single edit on that wiki. We must create new templates there and test them with actual categories. If there is a mistake now, it will be a big big mess if we apply it to 3000+ builds! Please remote templates from this wiki, test them on the test wiki I have created for this specific task. As far as I see templates here are not going to work. They are copy past of the old ones with the new name. Maybe I am wrong but source looks the same to me. gcardinal 09:54, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Maybe it was not clear in my first note, but tempaltes are the final stage of the real vetting implementation. Extension for rating are ready, converting bots that will sort current builds into new categories are ready the only thing I am waiting for a those templates and categories. We have to get it done ASAP! gcardinal 09:59, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
 * And yes I know its not that is needed for templates to get to work. But someone has to do it, test it, make sure it works so I can get into processing builds with the bot. gcardinal 10:14, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Can you teach me what I have to do to make these templates? I can put it together over the weekend single handedly if need be <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen sysop  17:21, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Delete all untested! that'll help you purge the cache. BaineTheBotter 18:06, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Ones again we dont need to delete anything on this wiki!!! All I am asking for is to get new templates working on TEST server, not here. gcardinal 22:41, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Are we supposed to do this? http://pvx.wikia.com/wiki/?title=Category:untested_build_in_testing&from=A Kastore 04:08, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 * No, not that I'm aware of. ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 04:11, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 * So what are we supposed to do? I tried to understand what you guys write up there but it is confusing. what are msgg and templates? Pls dont flame me i just have no clue Kastore talk 04:21, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 * For now, just let your build sit, maybe link it to your userpage. ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 05:06, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Is there a problem? I see no action on templates on test server? gcardinal 06:52, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
 * yeah the problem is i have no idea what to do... Kastore 19:31, 21 June 2007 (EDT) talk
 * I think we have to make all the templates listed above on the test site . We made them all here at first, so I could copy and paste if that's gonna work, other wise I can't do much.  ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 01:24, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Task is fullu desribed in my note above. If there any quastion please let me know. I think it explains what is needed. There is more then just copy-past. Each template and representative mssg templates must be edited to represent categorie they are for. Working-Great, Working-Good etc etc etc. Please take a closer look on the task above. We really need those templates without them we cant implement our vetting policy. This is the time to help as much as you can! 158.39.35.129 04:16, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, but my thing is, can we copy the templates that were so hurridly made here to the test site and have it work the same way? ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 13:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
 * So to sum it all up no one knows how to created templates we need so badly? ... gcardinal 02:08, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I'll join the effort tomorrow. Not sure what exactly to do, but I'll find out. Meanwhile, if the templates are the only thing missing for RealVetting, I think you can still launch the vetting system. It will anyway take a while until we have enough votes coming in to start putting builds into the new tested categories. And for stubs and testing we can use the old templates until we have new ones. --Hhhippo 03:10, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I can not launch real vetting without new categories and templates. Current builds needs to be auto sorted into new categories. I don't think people will do it manual or at least it will take for ever. gcardinal 04:16, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I could help with the template (maybe by early next week), but I don't know what hooks have been programmed to permit the template to pull the appropriate variables from the real vetting extension. In order to auto-categorise, the template will need some means to pull those variables.  If the available hooks can be documented or demonstrated, then it's possible to start.  Forgive me if those were documented already and I missed it (I honestly didn't bother to read this full thread, too long) - if it has, can someone post a link? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:33, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Could someone pls post how to do the template? I think that is the only problem that exists here. Just make a tutorial page. And could someone explane to me what mssg's are? Kastore talk 05:26, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Extension has no hooks. Just plain standart mediawiki templates. There is plenty of documentation on this topic. gcardinal 06:08, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

This might be what he's looking for.... Well, i'm not really all that sure, so I just made that one for now. -- Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 07:06, 23 June 2007 (EDT) Hope I'm doing it right, cuz I made couple more. And I'm sure others can see it as exmples as well. Check recent changes/contribs on the test site to see the stuff I did. -- Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 07:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Copy the ones from this site to the test if that is possible. ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 10:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Test site (if you ever visited it) is a exactly copy of this one. So no need to copy anything, just work on the test site. gcardinal 11:57, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I have noticed that User:Grumpy did made a few templates, but they are not working as requested. Currently if build is a Working-Great and is a RA build it still links to RA_Builds and not to Working-Great-RA_Builds. gcardinal 12:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * So you want there to be categories such as Working-Great-RA_Builds, Working-Great-TA_Builds, ..., Working-Good-RA_Builds, Working-Great-TA_Builds, ... and so on? Doesn't that create way too many categories? 13*4+4 = 56categories. In long version of my math, AB,CM,GvG,PvEGeneral,etc = 13. Working good/great/other/untested-testing = 4. +4 categoriess on it's own. Anyways... I've created the template of Working-Great-RA_Builds right now. I'm guessing this now fits the reqs. --[[Image:Flag of South Korea.png|22x22px]] Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 12:44, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Works great for me just tested. I have explained all categories above. We can't have all builds that represents RA builds into one single category of RA_builds simply becouse there will be no sorting based on rating then. RA_Builds as it is today actualy represent Favored_RA_Builds, but is miss leading by name as opposite version of it is Unfavored_Ra_Builds. As you can see there is a lot work to be done, and I have posted this request like a week ago and first now there is some movement. gcardinal 13:00, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Well, I think lot of people didn't understand what you were looking for. I for one was just being lazy and waiting for it to happen. Would have been a long wait. xD Seems like Frvwfr2 had a clue, but did it on the wrong site. Well, since I broke the ice, I hope others can follow on. It's largely copy/paste work with just individualizing the templates. Actually, I haven't created the structured categories, so no copy/paste work there. lol --[[Image:Flag of South Korea.png|22x22px]] Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 13:10, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * The test site was an exact copy of an  old  version of the site, Compare User:Eronth/Seeping_build to . That alone confused me a little.   ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 14:12, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Ah, I misunderstood what was wanted. I thought GCardinal wanted the template to auto-categorise into "Working-Great", "Working-Good", etc as well as the auto-category of RA, Farming, etc.  The auto-cat for good, great, etc could've only been done with a hook from the extension.  If all that's wanted is just a recreation of the "tested-build" and "untested-build", but modified to have one for each new category of real vetting - then it is just a matter of cut-n-paste with a little code tweaking.  I created the versions that had been used on GuildWiki, and it looks like they were copied to this site manually, so it's just a matter of adjusting each copy to the appropriate vetting level on the test wiki.  The main hassle is the creation of all the little message pages for each use (RA, Farming, GvG, etc). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:31, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * okay that didnt help me... I only see a page we a code on top of it that says "works great". I just have to wait i guess Kastore 20:48, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah it not like I want you guys to a send a rocket to a moon or something :) It is quite easy, but someone has to do it. And has to test it as well. gcardinal 21:44, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Seems I made couple mistkes... :P Created a page Category:Category:Works-Good lol and made template as Works-Great not Working-Great. First one, I guess someone should delete. second one... is it better as "works" or "working" lol --[[Image:Flag of South Korea.png|22x22px]] Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 03:21, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm done with Great PvE, will do the rest of PvE soon. I made the category names a bit more systematic, see here --Hhhippo 03:48, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Update: done with all of PvE. What's left is mainly creating all the -mssg templates for PvP. That can be done by copy & paste from the PvE ones. For example, take Template:Great-running-mssg, copy it to Template:Great-GvG-mssg and replace all occurences of 'running' by 'GvG'. Then try it out by adding to some build. Finally, add a short description to Category:Great_working_GvG_builds. --Hhhippo 05:43, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Update: All done. An overview of the new categories can be found here. The main new templates are, , and . Taken over from the old system were  and  . It seems as everything is working, but it would be nice if some people could do further testing. --Hhhippo 08:17, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Great work, I will look over it as soon as I will get back home from my gf's place! Thx! gcardinal 09:31, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Moar like greatawesome work. ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 09:34, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Wow, 7hrs straight work there. lol Hhhippo created dupes of my ol templates (which gets rid of "works" word issue). So i've labled some of my things delete tag. From some minor testing, seems to be all working fine in sync for now with Hhhippo's system. --[[Image:Flag of South Korea.png|22x22px]] Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 09:44, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Can someone list all the templates for me to copy and try to have memorated. ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 10:19, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

(resetting indent) Here's a list of all required pages, those in (..) were not modified at the test site. --Hhhippo 03:27, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Templates to be put on build pages: Great-Build, Good-Build, Other-Build, Trash-build, (archived-build, build-stub, Untested-build)
 * Internally used templates: xxx-yyy-mssg, where xxx is each of Great, Good, Other, (Untested) and yyy is each of AB, CM, GvG, HA, HB, RA, TA, PvP team, general, farming, running, hero, PvE team. That's in total 39 new internal templates.
 * New categories: xxx_working_yyy_builds, where xxx is the same as above plus 'All' and yyy the same as above plus 'PvP' and 'PvE'. That makes 60 new categories.
 * Untested Categories: There seem to be some minor inconsistencies in the overall Categories. I'll look into that. So far nothing is changed that would need copying.
 * Main page: The overview table at Main_Page/editcopy
 * Update: Seems the inconsistencies I saw were just a temporary lag of the server cache, it's fine now. --Hhhippo 04:50, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Update: Don't copy the templates yet, will have a more elegant solution running soon. --Hhhippo 07:35, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Update: Done. All the little xxx-yyy-mssg templates for tested builds are no longer needed. The only 'internal' templates used are Mssg, PvType and PvStrip. Some testing would be nice, then they can be copied.
 * I'll do the same tricks to get rid of the untested-yyy-mssg templates tomorrow. However, this is just cosmetics behind the scenes. It will not affect the way the Untested-build template is used or any categories, so you don't have to wait for it with launching RealVetting. --Hhhippo 09:24, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * Well done on the generic mssg tag. I was concerned that it would lose doubling as a link to the category, but I see you worked the code in there.  Much cleaner script now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:48, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

<font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen sysop  Starts the I love Hhhippo Fan Club. <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen sysop  09:59, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]] *Defiant Elements*   +talk  Joins the "I Love Hhhippo Fan Club."  [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  14:03, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * yor mom... I might join... ‽<font color=#C60000>-(єяøηħ)  no u 14:15, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * :-) --Hhhippo 02:54, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

A note on guides: Just as a spot throw out there. Since the categories have just been created. Can we create a 'guide' category for vetting sorting as well. Even if we don't use it, it's there just in case as I possibly see that as a site growth issue for the future. As more guides are created, if we decide that they need to be vetted before acceptance (that and the guides would then be rated) it would be a whole lot easir if we hard coded at least the sorting criteria now rather than later. <font face="arial" color="Green">Shireen sysop  14:16, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 * And delay the launch of the new vetting policy, right? Gredinus 12:18, 26 June 2007 (CEST)
 * I don't see any advantage in doing that now. Templates and categories for guides can be made based on the ones for builds, which is the same effort if we do it now or later. I suggest we wait with the guides until Real Vetting is running for a while on builds. If we decide at some point we want to rate guides, we can take the then well-tested and possibly fine-tuned build templates and spin off the guide versions. That might be even less work than forking now and doing the fine-tuning in parallel. --Hhhippo 02:54, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm done extending the new template system to untested builds. If nobody protests, I'll start copying things from the test site over here in a few minutes. This will not affect the current wiki structure, since all the templates have new names and thus are not included in any build pages here yet. Btw: I didn't include the PvE Hard Mode type, which popped up here after the test site was forked off. It can easily be added if we want so.--Hhhippo 06:07, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
 * The new templates are ready and copied now. A list is here. The only things to be done are the header texts for all the new categories: follow the red links here and add the header template like here. I'm going to play some GW now. Ground control to Gcardinal: commencing countdown engines on... --Hhhippo 08:00, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, my lack of coding skills came up again. I did all the normal categories. I didn't know what to do with the "all" categories so I didn't do anything to them. Bluemilkman 08:47, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
 * I updated the template and made two examples. Should be easy now. Thanks for helping! --Hhhippo 09:28, 26 June 2007 (EDT)


 * I finished the rest, the only thing I didn't do was the Trash thing at the bottom. I don't know what you wanted in there, but it's only one, so it shouldn't be a problem. Thanks for making the templates, I'm glad I could help do something. Bluemilkman 12:08, 26 June 2007 (EDT)


 * Great effort guys, I see some really nice results. I will go over the current templates and test them on a few groups and see how the migration goes. As far as I can see we have most of the templates we need for the migration to the new vetting system, so I will most likely execute bot tomorrow and will everething ready today. Thx again! gcardinal 11:16, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Just me or is the archive-tested section missing in the new templates? -- Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 04:59, 1 July 2007 (CEST)
 * As far as I am aware, we're still using the old Archive tag. [[Image:DE Sig Test 2.jpg|50x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  05:16, 1 July 2007 (CEST)
 * I have that on my ToDo list. The archive will be split up into the gameplay types. But yes, for now it's just the old archive. –&thinsp;<font color="darkblue" face="times">H HHIPPO  &lsaquo;<font color="blue" size="-2">sysop &rsaquo; 10:18, 1 July 2007 (CEST)