General Discussion

This is a good start for a policy like this. The problem with the last "build wiki" was that it didn't have a standard for the quality of builds being submitted... which led to builds lacking an elite, or even a good attribute spread getting vetted. The problem with a policy like this is that this is very subjective in some cases where a voter may not understand why a particular build is inferior or better than other builds. IMO clearer guidelines needs to be made as to what is effective or not ie. a profession or even a job specific guideline as to what is effective or not. For example a Job subtype of a damage dealer fits in different categories such as pressure, spike, mixed etc, and a guideline should be setup as to determine if a build's Damage output is clearly inferior to other builds. But this is even subjective because just looking at the pure DPS won't tell the whole story. Is the DPS predictable or unpredictable? Is there a spike potentiol? Can it inflict debilitating conditions? Are the hexes effective for the role? etc etc. There are others for example in PvP, compare specific builds such as Flag runners, split builds, and builds designed only for the flag stand etc etc... Also for team builds something like this gets really complicated because it really depends on the people playing the team build, where a team maybe effective with one set of people, but a different set of people playing the same build may be ineffective or are better at playing a different build. Lania Elderfire 18:33, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

Yeah, there's a lot of things considered in whether a build is effective or not, and having written this around midnight, I didn't think of them all.
I'd love it if this talk page could be used to brainstorm ways to make this important policy clear, effective, and executable. Armond 19:40, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
Let me start by saying that I don't think any policy could ever hope to address all of the possible ways in which a build could possibly be inferior to another. What I think works so well about this policy is that we now have an actual standard (albeit incomplete) that we can cite. Furthermore, I think that this policy, is going to rely on Admins picking apart the merits of individual builds. On the other hand, they would be forced to do that anyway, this just gives us something more concrete. On the one hand, you might say that this is restricting because it doesn't make all of those minutiae things to be considered, but we can easily get around that be merely saying that the list is incomplete. As things come up, we can add new criteria, but I tend to like the intent of the policy. I would even go so far as to say that this alone would be reasonable as policy, just that we would have to be liberal in thinking about the intent of the policy as opposed to the actual wording which as I say, is never going to be all inclusive. At the very least, this adds some structure to an already overwhelmingly subjective process. And, I think we can solve a lot of the problems that Lania mentioned by simply creating a solid vetting system that is able to account for the subjective nature of a build wiki. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:33, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
I agree with defiant that builds are subjective and its hard to define "better", but i thik this puts to much work on admins. I suggest changing "An admin will review the build in question as well as its talk page to see if it does indeed violate this policy. If it does, the build may be deleted immediately and without discussion." to "A vote will take place, or an admin will review the build in question as well as its talk page to see if it does indeed violate this policy. If it does, the build may be deleted immediately and without discussion.", and change "In this case, an admin will decide if the two builds are similar enough to be merged, if one is inferior to the other, or if the two are separate enough to be considered two different builds, and will take action accordingly." in the same way. i know this brings back voting, but it think merge votes always worked pretty well. admins are going to be VARY busy with the way the policy is now.--Coloneh 04:41, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
I would agree. I don't think it is so much that it puts too much of a burden on Admins, merely that Merge Votes and Deletion Votes, when they are decisive, usually point the Admin in the right direction. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:52, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
I'll concur. I have bedstuffs soon, so if someone else has a moment, could they change it? And for the record, people on this wiki agree more often than my english class during a debate, and we get graded on the number of times we agree. Armond 07:12, 24 April 2007 (CEST)
I agree with the comments above. We don't want to put too much responsibility on the admin to determine if the build is inferior to another build, as this contradicts our other policy that states that admins administrate users, not content. I think the proposed changes above would be better, but ultimately Defiant is right that an improved vetting system should make this issue less of a problem than it has in the past. I do think there should be some less subjective situations where an admin does have the authority to delete or merge a build, such as "No elite skill included", or "almost exact skillbar as another build". As far as similarity to other builds, it might be useful to set a hard threshold for when a build is considered too similar to another build, for example 6 skills the same or greater. What do you guys think of something like that? Bottom line is, I don't mind admins making this decision in some cases, and the power to do so will be useful to keep the site clean. For example, we should have some power to do some of the things that Skuld did in the past, but with much more specific guidelines to prevent arguments or flame wars over subjective decisions. -- BrianG 01:13, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
I think even 5 similar skills excluding an elite is pushing it. A lot of times the change of the elite alone changes the whole build so it's hard to determine if something really is too similar or not. Ditto on the admins too. I trust the admins :-)Lania Elderfire 04:30, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
At a certain point, any policy like this will still rely on an Admin's good judgment. In my opinion, a debate over whether it should be 5 or 6 or whatever isn't really important to the policy itself. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:33, 25 April 2007 (CEST)
Well, I'm just suggesting that it would make things easier for the admins if there were some more specific criteria to determine a build's similarity. Obviously if the elite is different it wouldn't count. Beyond that, I don't think it much matters whether its 5 or 6 similar skills, as long as we pick a number and use it as a guideline. Part of the problem with using votes to determine mergers, is that you end up with different standards applied to different builds, based on the opinion of the voters at the time. So you may have builds with 7 matching skills but the voters decide not to merge, and ones with only 4 matching skills and they vote to merge. Having some specific guidelines would help us have some consistency in how we deal with similar builds. -- BrianG 07:54, 25 April 2007 (CEST)


What's the view on having a few templates rather than just the delete one with a reason, those templates could add it to the delete or review categories, and allow people to mark this up as a possible dupe/to discuss on talk page, and provide a little more information about what's gonig on? --Nela 13:09, 3 June 2007 (CEST)


Cleaned up some stuff, took out example, mentioned that we're not going to spend a whole page trying to define what makes a build superior or similar to another. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 19:16, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Wait, if this is a proposed policy, how come it's being enforced? Rapta 21:20, 30 April 2007 (CEST)
...Mostly because I need coffee. Partially because I saw stuff on Talk:Main Page telling us to nuke such things. Though to be honest it has near-enough support to leave proposal stage. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 21:46, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

Non-admin enforcement?

Is it okay for anyone to start enforcing this yet? if so, could a non-admin help enforce it? ZamaneeJinn 02:22, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

Once it is an official policy, feel free to chuck delete tags all over the place on builds that violate this. Unfortunately, there aren't any votes either way on this yet. Will place a voting section below. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 03:30, 4 May 2007 (CEST)


I support this policy and think it should be implemented. Please include at least one thing you like about it.

  1. It's great that we'll be getting rid of horrible builds without having to vote on them first. There's no point to a wammo build that was submitted just to be horrible, and then having to go through the whole unfavoring thing and waiting for it to be unfavored for two weeks. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 03:30, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
  2. Definitely. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:55, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
  3. Misfate 03:57, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
  4. YES!!ZamaneeJinn 04:02, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
  5. 04:18, 4 May 2007 (CEST)This is an awesome idea, one help would be that similar builds(proffestion variations)should be allowed, i have a Me/N Spitefull spirt, its used to pump out the good anti melee hexs in 8 seconds(after cast included) its a spike. just drop a talk on this ip
    Yes, variations would of course be allowed. The thing is, we don't want bad variations sitting around all over the place, and we don't want the 1,001 variations of 55/105 monks sitting around. They could all be merged into one article to save space on categories and such. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 20:04, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
  6. --Thelordofblah 02:19, 6 May 2007 (CEST)
  7. No favored/unfavored voting and just deleting the build would be great. --Mgrinshpon 14:46, 11 May 2007 (CEST)
  8. This rules. And plus the fact that I patrol places constantly and slap these up left right and center. I get nothing but satisfaction when the admins do my bidding... I'm teh EMPARAR! ;) '~\^/~' Napalm Flame Napalm Flame Sig Image.JPG (talk)(contributions) 18:20, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

I do not support this policy and do not think it should be implemented. Please include a suggestion for improvement.

  1. Opinionated. This is why we vote for builds. What if I disagree with the WELL tag and someone else doesn't? - Skakid9090 23:43, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Minor Clarification as to Skakid9090's Comment

Sure, it's opinionated, but so is the vote. Besides, a WELL tag isn't a license to delete a build out of hand. If you disagree with the tag, you say so on the Talk Page so that when the build gets reviewed and the Admin sees that comment, it will give them pause. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:52, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

So I vote on whether the build should be voted on or not? lawl. - Skakid9090 01:41, 4 June 2007 (CEST)


Nobody has dissented, and it's a needed policy to weed out the crap. It's official now. -Auron 03:52, 6 May 2007 (CEST)

I didn't notice the vote here but I'm in favor as well. I'll try to watch what gets flagged for deletion and review them. -- BrianG 06:26, 6 May 2007 (CEST)
Peace and Harmony builds ftw. Rapta 06:42, 6 May 2007 (CEST)
If I see a single PaH(thetic) build on this site I'm assuming it's one of your sockpuppets and banning you. :P -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 08:20, 6 May 2007 (CEST)
Now now, I vaguley remember Ttgr used to play with a PnH runner. - Kowal.jpg Krowman (talkcontribs) 08:23, 6 May 2007 (CEST)
Did it work well? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 00:59, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
Yep. It was quite a piece of work, actually :) - 01:03, 7 May 2007 (CEST)
But I do not see fire nor brimstone. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 07:07, 7 May 2007 (CEST)

Kind of off-topic, but...

Do we use PW:... or PvX:... as our abbreviation here (re: PW:WELL, PvX:WELL)? - Kowal.jpg Krowman (talkcontribs) 03:21, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

I am not sure that there has actually been an "official" decision... we use PvXwiki at the front of articles, so if you are redirecting, you might want to make both, but just PW should be fine. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:10, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

A hold on the deleting.

Since we don't have a vetting policy working, I propose we not delete any but the worst builds until further notice. This is to prevent any builds that might make the cut as "good" from being deleted prematurely. Delete tags can still be placed, and discussion can still be held, but I don't want to see builds deleted that shouldn't be deleted. -Auron 04:16, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Rodger, note taken Shireensysop 04:31, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
Same here. (i noticed armond and shireen have sysop in their sig, am i supposed to?) ‽-(єronħ) no u 04:33, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
Look what I started ^_^ - Skakid9090 04:40, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
I second this proposal. Eronth, you can if you want to, it's just admin visibility. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 05:00, 4 June 2007 (CEST)
Yeah, for the time being, I am fine with this. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:37, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

Immediate Deletion

"if a build is shown to be inferior to another build, it may be tagged for immediate deletion due
to violation of this policy."

I'm not sure if this was brought up in another section or in one of the archives but I couldn't find it. This states that when a build considered inferior to another then its up to any admin to choose if to delete. This admin may use opinionated reasons to delete the build which may not be the right reasons or incorrect ones. There fore I propose a new template should be put on suspected inferior builds. This template would act much like the abandoned tag on guildwiki where it would give a short time period to give any users a chance to defend it. If viable support is made then it would be kept and vetted on after the time period, this would have to be decided by a uninvolved third party admin of course. I have seen a couple cases before the stop on deletions and still a few after, where a tag is added to a build and a admin later deletes immediately. This is not fair because it doesn't give the author(s) the chance to defend there build and say why it should not be deleted before it is deleted right away by admins patrolling the candidates for deletion section. If a separate tag were made it would be able to put them in there own category and therefore get the attention needed to.--Aliri 18:34, 7 June 2007 (CEST)

Well, speaking for myself (and I know others do this as well), only in the most extreme cases do builds actually get deleted. Some builds are simply bad, those can be deleted quickly. However, I know that what a lot of Admins will do is wait for some comment by the author, or, at least wait to see if there is some reaction from the community. Furthermore, regardless of the tag, the decision still comes to the Admin. Honestly though, I doubt a new tag would make a difference since Admins would patrol that section the exact same way as they do Candidates For Deletion. Besides, if an Author feels that a build has been deleted prematurely, he/she can always ask that the article be restored. Just my two cents though, but still, I don't see the point. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:00, 7 June 2007 (CEST)
There at least needs to be guidelines that the admin follows when he decides to delete or not, such as reading main discussion on talk pages, and hopefully use only that info to decide whether to delete or not.--Aliri 22:51, 7 June 2007 (CEST)
We are careful. If we aren't, we can always restore. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:16, 7 June 2007 (CEST)
And we're not going to implement a guideline that must be followed. Sysops aren't going to have strict policies that must be followed, we're going on the whole "the sysops do what is in the best interest of the wiki" idea, which has worked very well in the past. -Auron 05:42, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
Well are we going to at least get a RFA so that the people with all the power are at least voted into that position by the rest of us....?--Aliri 06:24, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
You're asking in the wrong place, but here's a link: PvXwiki talk:Administrators#Requests for Adminship Page. That was the site of a very recent, heated discussion, and atm, we are putting it on hold to allow the participants a chance to calm down, and return to it with a more calm, constructive spirit. - Kowal.jpg Krowman {{sysop}} 06:50, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
In short; No. We will never have a "vote" for admins. Votes suck. -Auron 08:49, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
I was under the impression that dictatorships suck too. I guess if the apparently all powerful, non-elected, and un-changing leaders say so, I was wrong then.--Aliri 19:49, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
In a wiki-system, Dictatorship pwns face. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 20:22, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
First of all, speaking literally, this is an Oligarchy, not a true Dictatorship. Second of all, votes elect popular candidates, the elect candidates "perceived" as being good. However, they are not necessarily the indicator of a good candidate. Both Democracies and Dictatorships have inherent flaws. Now that that's cleared up, let me point out some other things. First of all, the current Admins represent a relatively broad spectrum of thought. For example, Auron and I have very different management styles. The hope is that the elite users will act in the best interest of the community. And, I know that all of our decisions so far in terms of Sysoptions have been carefully thought out and discussed. It's not something we are giving away. Besides, do you think the GuildWiki elections were any better. Those elections came down to two B-Crats deciding. The vote was "taken into account" but it clearly did not determine the "election." Even in the U.S., we don't have true democracy, the electoral college makes the decision, and the electoral college is made up of political elites, not every member of the at large community (i.e. citizens). On Wikis, the truth is that an aristocratic oligarchy does work. DE Sig Test 2.jpg *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:38, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
The US is a republic not a democracy. But even a republic has votes so that they may at least influence many elections.
I still think that a chance to vote for admins would be better then having current admins pick the new ones. Who is to say that the current sysop pool is a good one? How do you know there aren't better people to put in those posiitons, if there are current admins may very well be running this wiki into the ground.--Aliri 21:11, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
A comparison to an electoral college is actually pretty accurate for both this site and GuildWiki. Wikipedia's article on Electoral College illustrates the similarity:
"Many times, though, the electors are simply important persons whose wisdom, it is hoped, would provide a better choice than a larger body. The system can ignore the wishes of a general membership whose thinking may not be considered."
An RfA can be taken into consideration - but those in the electoral college are under no obligation to follow it. This is true in the wiki just as much as it's true in the US government; no federal law mandates that electors in the electoral college follow the popular vote for the area they represent.
I actually agree with this form of governance for determining sysops. But, I would like to see a few changes:
  • I suggest more control over buerocrats who have more power on wikis - those should be further limited, and I feel elected from the sysop pool for specific terms of service (only open to the sysops to vote - and for non-consecutive terms in that position).
  • I would certainly like to see an arbitration means documented for this site,
  • I would like a means by which general users can submit a "no confidence" vote in order to show the buerocrats in control at the time that a particular sysop should be seriously evaluated for de-sysoptation due to widespread public displeasure with that sysops perceived abuse of power (should such a thing ever happen - rare, but possible).
Those are my main concerns on the current site governance.-- 21:14, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
Note: as referenced above, I also support having an RfA to provide recommended condidates to assist the Buerocrats in choosing future sysops. But I do not feel that it should be made mandatory that promotions to sysop must originate from the pool of candidates who have RfA support. -- 21:22, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
You see, we hold a system very similar to that of Guild Wiki. GW RFA's allow Users to vote on the current canidate for Admin. But in all reality, only the Bcrats votes count. We simply take this a step further, and ignore Rfa's altogether. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 22:02, 8 June 2007 (CEST)
[1] etc -Auron 10:34, 10 June 2007 (CEST)

A bit old topic, but: timestamp has been added to the {{Well}} template. Since we have Special:GraceExpired we could set the Well tag to three (or less / more) days. Within that three days, the author of the build or anyone else could protest against the tag if it's inappropriate and will have time to copy the build to his / user userspace. After three days, the build shows up in GraceExpired and the build can be deleted if there is no ongoing discussion about its viability. ~ ĐONT*TALK 17:28, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

Design Flaw

Ok, so only admins can delete builds via PW:WELL. Accoring to PvXwiki talk:Requests for adminship/Hhhippo, in game experience is NOT required to be an admin. So that means inexperienced players can decide what and what not violates PW:WELL? - Skakid9090 15:27, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

There is a safeguard in place. PvX well has to be nominated by one person, and deleted by another. The exception to this is VERY obvious deletion candidates, or ones that have been abandoned by 1 or 2 weeks. As an admin, if we are in doubt, we do not delete it. That is why admins who do not have the coveted 'Build Guru' status (see Defiant Elements) are carefully picked for maturity and responsibility. So they don't go on a deletion rampage. Shireensysop 15:47, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

loophole'd. Misfate Rune Elementalist Sup.png 15:47, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

How So? Shireensysop 15:51, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

My comment was supposed to go below skakid's. Misfate Rune Elementalist Sup.png 15:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

A month late, but part of being an admin is knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. Hhhippo, for example, knowing that he does not know as much about how the builds work in game, would use his wisdom to not go around deleting things and pointing to this policy. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 22:54, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

Add part that says builds with less than 5 skills?

Please? ~~ User:Frvwfr2 frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 22:41, 4 November 2007 (CET)

Wouldn't that fall under dupes of previously deleted builds? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 19:18, 6 November 2007 (CET)


Can someone vlarify how this is to interact with PvE builds and professions. For example, should a PvE Rit healer be subject to deletion because it is weaker then a monk. The purpose of both builds is to heal, so they certainly seem comparable. Bob fregman 15:20, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Eh, it's kinda complicated in your proposed scenario. WELL is mainly for dupe builds and builds that inferior to others. For example, if one WoH Monk has bad heals, then it should be inferior to the other WoH buil(s). I think that Rt builds should be compared to similar Rt builds. But if it has no advantages whatsoever over another build, then there's little point to have it. Yes, /confused. --GoD Holiday Sig 2.jpgGuildofMoses 15:23, 22 December 2007 (EST)
I've actually brought this up before. It was never really resolved. Here's my take on it: I have a lvl 20 Rt, and a level 7 monk. I'm sure it's not just me out there in this predicament, am I going to look for Rt healing builds or monk healing builds? The counterpoint, was that the Rt healing builds wouldn't be deleted, just voted into other or good. I don't think that Well should apply to this scenario now that I think about it. Just let the voters decide its fate. That way, it'll still be on the wiki, just in the good or other category. Bluemilkman/Talk To Me 16:01, 22 December 2007 (EST)
See below. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 23:37, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Poll: PvE builds

Add a section that says, basically, "PvE builds are expected to be of the same quality of PvP builds. Because of this, if a PvE build cannot perform in high-end PvE, it should not be submitted." Basically, if it can kill Mallyx HM, good; if it can't, it's not good enough.

This would be added because, in short, PvE is easy enough that you can get through the majority of it with a single skill on your bar throughout all 58 missions. And you don't even have to use it to beat them.

Vote yes

  1. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 23:37, 23 December 2007 (EST)
  2. I realize the intentions of this and agree. Bob fregman 19:28, 31 December 2007 (EST)
  3. Absolutely. A lot of teams work in PvE, because it's PvE, only the highest criteria of builds should be vetted in PvXwiki, because we want users to use builds that work the best, obviously. To document any and every build that works in PvE won't be helpful. As much as the only PvE team needed to win involves a couple monks with Healer's Boon and 5 other dudes with Ursan Blessing. Rusty--RfBM 03:55, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Vote no

  1. Image-Dark Morphon's Siggie.jpgDark Morphon(contribs) 11:27, 29 December 2007 (EST)
  2. Not worth the 10000000000000000000000000000 people yelling because of this. — Rapta Rapta Icon1.gif (talk|contribs) 00:03, 1 January 2008 (EST)
    Because they don't already when we try to get rid of horrible builds, and people don't avoid the site because of them? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 00:08, 1 January 2008 (EST)


You're exaggerating, and you know it. Only specialized builds can kill Mallyx in hard mode (NO enchs, NO conditions, NO hexes, ect.) so that point is moot. If you took 8 people with siggy of capture and tried to beat even prophecies you'd fail. — Skakid HoHoHo 23:40, 23 December 2007 (EST)

Agree w/ ska. --User:Frvwfr2 frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 23:42, 23 December 2007 (EST)

That would be why I presented an outline instead of a set-in-stone "this is what we're going to put in, or nothing". Besides... Mallyx is easily beaten by not sucking, tbh. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 23:47, 23 December 2007 (EST)
Eh? I can beat prophecies with cap sig on my bar... -Auron 23:49, 23 December 2007 (EST)
If only I could do missions. We should totally do proph with capsigway. 8 warriors, 16 axe, 13 strength, sentinel's armor. Explode stuff with autoattack spikes. =] Probably wouldn't work for some of the missions, unfortunately. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 00:00, 24 December 2007 (EST)
The best thing about PvE is that you can pugway with cap sig, and half the time the team won't notice. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 00:02, 24 December 2007 (EST)

You can beat pve with 7/8 people yeh.. but not 8/8 w/ cap sigs. — Skakid HoHoHo

While i agree that we should perhaps rise the standards of PvE, i think that's a bit much, you can't expect Mallyx or Slaver to be the Bar of good builds here, if you said perhaps one of the hard mission (e.g. Gate of madness) it might make more sense.PheNaxKian Phenaxkian christmas sig.gif 19:06, 31 December 2007 (EST)

Hmm... perhaps I should have been more general. You're right, and thanks for pointing it out.
Let me re-propose, then: I propose we modify the policy to raise the standards of PvE bars. I'll take suggestions for how we should write the standard. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 23:58, 31 December 2007 (EST)
Simple, a build should be able to perform in all "general" situations. I literally used the same hero/hench configuration for all of Nightfall and EoTN as well as most of eotn's dungeons. There will obviously be some places where specialization is needed, so there will be builds like that. In addition, it should work in both normal and hard mode.Bob fregman 01:07, 1 January 2008 (EST)
I like that last point specificly, i think it would be very good if it works in NM and HM, that would deffinatly increase standards, as for using it through out...not so much-you ahve to think that you will be changing your bar depending what your up against-your not going to take a bonder (not that you do anyway) where there's a lot of enchantment removal for instance.PheNaxKian Phenaxkian christmas sig.gif 06:32, 1 January 2008 (EST)

WELL tag

I just want this clarifying as it has come up quite a lot recently, if a build has the WELL tag of doom placed on it, is the author allowed to remove the tag themselves (with reasoning placed on the talk page)-the answer should also be palced into the policy somewhere as well to avoid later confusions....(sorry if it is already but i couldn't see anything about it anywhere...) PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix.jpg 09:55, 6 January 2008 (EST)

Theoretically, an author should always be biased in favor of the build and therefore will always argue against the well tag. I'm tempted to say that if those who know what they're doing think the well tag should stay, it should stay, and if not, it shouldn't; but the reality is an admin will probably look it over and figure it out for sure. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 15:46, 6 January 2008 (EST)
hmm ok thanks for clearing it up =)PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix.jpg 16:34, 6 January 2008 (EST)

A short header

Note: Header used to be "Are they still alive but just in a coma, but can like be taken out to look at from there looks like he's sleeping but looks awful form all of the equipment at any time?", but it was too long so Wizardboy777 changed it to make the Table of Contents less sad.

What if you want to look at them? I still want to post all of my builds on my created builds list, but as a mini skills bar. "cause, um, umm...all 26 of my posted builds have been rejected.--FireFire Tock SigPic 2.jpgTock 21:54, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Use your userspace if you want a place to link to. In fact, that'll also give you a place to get the data for the mini skill bar from. And any admin will move a build to your userspace if you ask. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 13:34, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Hey my build was called "Build:Team - Shake&Bake" it consisted of 3 eles, and 2 days ago it suddenly dissapeared from my watchlist, I click on "Show edit and complete watchlist" and it shows my build as a red link, like someone deleted my page, I'm thinking it was the guy who I replaced the main page build with, because instead of my deleted build, it shows his old build that I replaced. I don't know. Isn't that a violation? I've checked trashed builds, and if it was trashed, the link wouldn't be red.--Rella 21:20, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Btw it's off my contribs too.--Rella 21:21, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Only admins can delete, and it seems to be deleted. ~~     Frvwfr2     talk    contribs    admin   21:26, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
Special:Log/delete You can confirm if builds were deleted by checking here. - PANIC! Panic sig4.png sexiness! 04:36, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Deletion of one of my builds

I'm a bit pissed right now. My build "Mo/any Basic Support Smiter" was deleted without any advanced warning. It tried to consolidate all the Smiters Boon builds out there which have most skills in common. The only comment for the deletion was "Unneeded". Judging from the discussion on this and most other smiters boon builds many people wanted such a page. Is there a way to at least restore it into my userspace? Deleting builds without a warning, especially when they were changed just 2 hours ago, isn't the best way to keep contributors to the wiki. Masta Lani 14:08, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

ask an admin and they'll be able to restore it to your user space. ~PheNaxKian (T/c) Phenaxkian sig phoenix.jpg 14:19, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Archived builds

does it apply to archived builds (as in one is inferior to an archived one)? CABOSE(LVPoW)"Hey chicka bum bum!" 20:32, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes. Most archived builds still work, they are just outdated. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 12:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Inferiors to PvE 5 physicals

Recently I have seen many builds I used, liked, vetted great/good, tested and recently used to be tagged WELL, because they are inferior to the PVE 5 physicals build. Also one of my ideas, The build:Team - PvE Ritway tagged because it was an idea trashed before. I got NO information why was it trashed, nor anything about when. Because if it was before August 8th update, then it was trashed because it was superbly inferior to ursan. If after, then it was trashed because it didn't include two things:

1:Imbagon. I don't think that Imbagons are so widespread. I'd Rather use a warrior/necromancer with Mark of Fury to keep up SY. Also An AP spirit spammer does a fine job.

2:Scythes. Another thing I don't agree with that only the physical skills of the party can prove to be useful.

Theese two things make me, and many other people who have experience in all the hard parts of GW, who are skilled, who I listen to in many parts of life AND gw, to have a mistrust in the whole pvx wiki.

ANOTHER thing that if all other physical builds are inferior to that PvE 5 physical builds, AND most caster-related snare/tank - nuke builds are inferior to physical concepts, then PvX wiki defeats the purpose of the word "Comparable" you use in your policy. It also defeats the purpose of doing things not in the PvE 5 physical way, while defeating the concept you built pvx-wiki upon. So all Elementalists, Mesmers, AND Dervishes can go home and qq, because they don't posess the infinite energy-supply of Necros, Heal less than HB/seed monks, Can't do as much damage as assassins, and cant summon so powerful allies like necros. So Eles and Mesmers are even not comparable to other classes.

In Your Sense...

Yours Faithfully:

Borotvalt 12:45, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Your point has been lost, please clarify. - Misery Is Friendly Misery Dog obaby.gif 13:46, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
I want to know:
  • Why Is the build: PvE Ritway tagged to deletion? the tag doesn't say anything about the problem of the build.
  • Why All physical builds are inferior to PvE 5 physicals?
  • Why all builds include an imbagon? they are NOT so powerful. The enemy gets aegis/guardian/any blocking on or cast blurred vision/blind on the imbagon and then he is screwed. Adrenaline-denial is something I'd not mention. Borotvalt 14:40, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
PvE is broken as all hell. There's practically nothing better than the 5 physicals build for PvE at this point, end of subject. Sucks, but it's true. I can't give you the specifics for the ritway build as I've not looked at it, but I can pretty much guarantee you it's worse than the five physicals build.
Builds include imbagons because they provide +100 AL, 33% damage mitigation, and big partywide damage boosts in addition to maintaining high damage on their own. Also, if you can't get around blind, block, or adrenaline denial, you need to bring hex/condition/enchantment removal. It's not hard.
-- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 22:47, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Which Builds Are Good and which bad?

I see millions of builds that are decided bad and archived before their time. For instnace, the touch ranger build. It is such a good build, if you just tweak it a tiny bit. I don't even get a chance to contribute, as it's resetfive seconds later with some invalid point, that was untested by all but myself. Though I'm on here to complain about that. The point is, people will bash a good build just because they personally don't like it for can't pull it off. So I agree, we shouldn't let all builds crappy and not stay. But we should have a good, fair process that lets all people decide whnever a build build may be good or bad. Otherwise There will be many, great builds that wil be lost to the process. Excuse the typos, the computer's being a bitch, and I don't want to take the effort and correct every mistake on this retarted computer. 15:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the WELL tag system is interfering with the Rating/Vote System that will get bad or redundant build deleted anyway. The WELL system supposed to bypass the Vote System ?
Having a double tag to vote for a build and to delete it is ridiculous see : [[Build:E/any 50s Infinite Energy]] Elephantaliste Noir 12:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You just don't understand PvX:WELL. A build may be voted Good or Great and still be deleted under WELL for being an inferior duplicate of another build because WELL acts separately from the voting process. Since we work in the spirit of the policy, "duplicate" does not need to be literal; if it is similar or works similarly to another build but is inferior, then it can be deleted per WELL. There is no interference.C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic?Panic Sig Cursor.gif 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, what you are saying is that intereference of PvX:WELL on Rating System is legitimate. Then the problem is that new Build Writer are missing that PvX:WELL system is preemptive to the standard process of Stubbing/../Testing/etc... (since only Trash rate is supposed to get an article deleted in this process) Elephantaliste Noir 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Both systems run in parallel. Sometimes a build that will obviously be deleted as a trash build will not be deleted under WELL and the opposite also happens. For example, the Elemental Attunement build is perfectly functional, but the MB version is just better. I'm sorry you can't accept that, but it's true. WELL works on consensus, Real Vetting works on voting. Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I accepted that and I agree that build is trash. Let me reword what I said : new users aren't aware of how it works. Just don't veil the face, many new users have already been complaining for a long time. Not for good reasons, maybe.
But don't you think it just means there is a problem somewhere ? Elephantaliste Noir 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Basically what Misery said. WELL'd builds will either be deleted or retained. If they're deleted then it's because a superior version of the build already exists and has been voted on. If it's retained then it remains in the Trash, Other, Good, or Great category to run its course. So once again, WELL does not interfere with Real Vetting. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic?Panic Sig Cursor.gif 14:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I have read article already, ty Elephantaliste Noir 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like it since you've been arguing against what I just said. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic?Panic Sig Cursor.gif 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Just for clarification, this works across classes for a certain type of build as well. A Necromancer that deals huge damage with Hundred Blades and Mark of Pain is still inferior to a Warrior doing just about anything with Hundred Blades. 15:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally I don't care to attempt to retain the kind of contributors who cause massive drama when their build comes up for deletion. I am willing to explain the process when someone asks, but this really happens a lot. People will always drama, it doesn't matter how we word it or enforce it. Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That is the problem : people aren't aware of the process prior it get applied. That what I am trying to say. Well, if you don't understand that, I can't help you more. Elephantaliste Noir 16:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I am aware of that. But how can we make people aware of it before it is applied? Force people to read policies before contributing? That's a recipe for failure. Reasonable contributors will attempt to understand what is happening, unreasonable contributors will drama. Builds very seldom get instantly deleted, especially for new contributors. See how long I have let that dual attune drag on. I still don't think he really gets it. Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, that's less of a "didn't read the rules" problem, than a "doesn't speak our language well" problem.--Kammorremae 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Trying to contribute to a community where you can't understand the language (and therefore the rules) is also a recipe for failure. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic?Panic Sig Cursor.gif 18:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Inter-Profession WELLing

Do we perhaps need to include something about how we feel about builds that another class does better (e.g. is it worth having a warrior that can Farm Nolani if there's a Sin build that does it better, should the Warrior one be WELLed as inferior, or kept as a Warrior Alternative?) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 19:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think saying permasin is better is a pretty pathetic reason, having an alternative is good as many people don't have sins and some, like me get bored of permaing.----Signature-Liger414.pngThe Liger is looking for a HA guild 19:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If a build is inferior, it has to go. Why run suboptimal when you can run the best for that area? Its like saying 'What about running Pious Assault instead of Wounding Strike?' You just don't ask it because its damn stupid to. Nai Bomb 20:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
We're talking about builds that perform the same task in entirely different ways with entirely different skills and professions. Like "55 monk vs permasin" different, or warri stance tank vs ob tank ele. And I would say that that different of a build should not be well'd. especially in a pve setting. ~ ZamaneeJinnSig.jpgZamanee(point out my idiocy) 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Builds taken out of context

[[This build page]] and its associated talk page seem to indicate that this policy is used in the deletion of builds that are useless outside of particular team settings. Should this page include the deletion of such builds? also autism lol ~ ZamaneeJinnSig.jpgZamanee(point out my idiocy) 17:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, isn't this common sense that a build which doesnt function properly outside of a team build shouldnt have its own build space? Athrun FeyaAthrun Sig.gifRwrRr 18:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
this seems to contradict that sentiment. ~ ZamaneeJinnSig.jpgZamanee(point out my idiocy) 20:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Also part of the PvP section where the same rules dont nessecarily apply. Athrun FeyaAthrun Sig.gifRwrRr 20:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just a huge autist. ~ ZamaneeJinnSig.jpgZamanee(point out my idiocy) 20:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Restrict the usage of PvX:WELL when it is not for pure maintenance like for uncontested abandoned builds, etc...
The "Clearly inferior builds" argument is sometimes disputed, when it does, it should lead to another Tag referring to the dispute. Such a tag should be named to something like PvX:Disputed to allow consensus in a less biased way, not suggesting it is gonna get deleted anyway (all the more it doesn't imply it).
Moreover, having such an additional step/tag will help admins to see which pages and builds reached a consensus or are still disputed. It doesnt prevent admins to have final word when they are called for.
A Dispute policy will clarify and specify conditions of end of disputes (Normal real vetting processus or Delete). Elephantaliste Noir 22:43, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

PVX:WELL isn't used for abandoned builds anyway; abandoned and trash-abandoned should be. A new tag does not need creating but WELL tag needs to make it very clear that it isn't an immediate deletion, it is just a tag for admin review. New users, however, do not understand this and then usually go on to persue 1RV fights, which I'm finding increasingly boring. Sometimes I feel builds get bottlenecked between no one wanting to vote on them because a. no one cares and b. drama occuring because the author feels votes are unfair and huge drama when someone slaps a WELL tag on it. AthrunAthrun Sig.gifFeya 12:16, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
new players use immediate possibilities offered to them. Current formulation of WELL does not inform them of possible appeals like PvXwiki:Build Masters/Appeals for example. My suggestions are :
  • Inform more clearly users about possible appeals, either in WELL policy giving some links to other current conflict resolution policies, or having more reference in WELL Template, so users can quickly check them. (saying please discuss is ok, saying how to discuss (pointing at conflict policy) is the best).
  • Adding a Appeal State/Tag that doesn't require adminship or submission to admin board.
  • Use more the CHILL policy...

Elephantaliste Noir 13:19, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you've just repeated what you said and it's surprisingly still a bad idea. The tag already implicitly says users can appeal (albeit not amazingly clearly) on the talk pages, except no one seems to be able to do this (and those that try can't do it without caps on cruise control). WELL tags have always and will always instigate terrible authors of terrible builds to cause drama, we dont really want to be giving excuses to these kind of people to prolong drama. AthrunAthrun Sig.gifFeya 13:35, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
The only time problems occur is when people don't read the tag or the relevant policy, get worked up and do stupid things. Making it more complicated is not going to fix this problem. If someone is incapable of reading and understanding 4-5 lines of text in a tag and acting appropriately, they are probably not fit to contribute to a wiki anyway. No changes are necessary. Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 13:54, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
@Misery, ok I agree on that.
@Feya So you get bored by all drama ? GL with that because you are just saying you resign yourself to that... whereas i am convinced there are always preventive solutions.
Between you said "WELL tag needs to make it very clear that it isn't an immediate deletion,"
WELL template says :
"Please discuss this imminent deletion on the build's talk page or save it to your userspace if you wish to see it again."
isn't it "surprisingly" contradictory ?! Elephantaliste Noir 17:45, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
Not at all, you just need learn the English language a little better. Last time I checked, imminent and immediate didn't mean the same thing. Immediate means it will happen NOW, imminent means it will happen eventually - it is impending deletion (maybe impending would confuse people less?) AthrunAthrun Sig.gifFeya 17:52, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
personally I think it should be something like:
"this build is pending deltion for the following reason: <reason>. If you think the build should not be deleted don't remove this tag but instead add your reasoning to the <link> talk page </link>.
just my thoughts =p. ~ PheNaxKian talk 18:40, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
"is being considered for deletion" means you can flame them for panicing at it. ---Chaos is gay - 18:42, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with a minor reword like that, but it needs to still say that deletion can happen without warning and Phen shouldn't write it as evidenced by his abysmal spelling. Misery Cow.pngMisery Says Moo 20:34, September 30, 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed

That this policy has no mention anywhere of the abandoned process. While we're adding it to this page, could we get rid of abandoned-trash and just delete after 2 weeks abandoned? There's not much reason to store a build no one works on for 6 weeks. ToraenTheJanitorToraenSig2.png 02:10, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

i don't like the idea of deleting after 2 weeks, if the user goes away on holiday or has an accident/falls ill then they can't always edit for a couple of weeks. I have no objection to making it 4 weeks instead of 6 (so instead of 2 weeks being unedited, 2 weeks in abandoned and then 2 weeks in abandoned trash before being delete, it's deleted after 2 weeks in abandoned). I couldn't find anything about the abandoned process either, so feel free to ad something in =p (although i wonder if it would be more ap. to put it in editing builds) ~ PheNaxKian talk 12:02, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
I meant 2 weeks after the abandoned tag. I'll add something later when I'm more inclined to write. ToraenTheJanitorToraenSig2.png 16:46, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
Ok, addition is done, and appropriate changes have been made at Template:Abandoned and Category:Abandoned. ToraenTheJanitorToraenSig2.png 21:11, October 17, 2009 (UTC)


I'd like to implement some kind of grace period to it, so a user has a chance to see "hey it's been tagged for WELL, let's go take it up on the talk page" (<--- clearly I'm incredibly optimistic). I'm only suggesting something along the lines of about 3 days. That's still reasonably quick, and it gives a user chance to see it and contest it. Thoughts? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phenaxkian (talk • contribs) 18:50, February 15, 2010 (UTC).

Just add it to it. --Chaos -- 18:32, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. WELL tagging and delete tagging are needed to clear out a lot of the terrible/duped builds that we get around here. I, personally, try to leave them for 2-3 days before deleting; however, some builds that are WELL/delete tagged are obviously inferior or a joke and should just be immediately deleted.
I think rather than worrying about people bitching on the AN, maybe we can take the time to make a {{your build has been deleted}} tag (obviously not the real name, just a description of it's purpose). That way, when we see someone who's made a blatantly inferior build, we can delete it, and explain it all at once. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 18:50, 15 February 2010
Delete tags are for general maintenance such as the author doesn't want it here any more, or Joke builds (because they're disruptive).
WELL tags are for builds that are either Dupes or inferior to another build. just wanted that clearing up
I personally don't see a huge need for this, but because it's been such an issue that people are getting their builds deleted (specifically WELLed) really quickly (i.e. less than a day from WELL --> delete), the newer users are having problem understanding why their builds are getting deleted. I just think it could help stop a lot of drama if we just give users a chance to see their builds' getting WELLed.
Just as an example of what I mean, the request on the AN, there wasn't a WELL tag placed on it at all, Torean just deleted it straight off. There was an incident a month or so ago where Big deleted a build 5 mins after it was WELLed.
The point is if we give a few days before deletion, hopefully we shouldn't need to say "oh we deleted your build because 'blah'" ~ PheNaxKian talk 19:09, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Well, in an attempt to reduce the spam of builds around here, how about making the grace period 3 days rather than 2 weeks? That will at least give the author time to see it without letting useless dupes or inferior builds fill up the build space. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 19:20, 15 February 2010
I said 3 days to start with >.> ~ PheNaxKian talk 19:26, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
oshit. Sorry. It's been a loooooong day :/. Just go ahead and do it then. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 19:30, 15 February 2010
No, fuck off. Just tell the terrible admins who are deleting builds before the author has a chance to even see the tag to stop doing it. We don't need to add a stupid layer of bureaucracy to the WELL tag because a few people have been too hasty with the delete button. Usually that happens when there are like 50,000 builds in WELL, but I always check the date of the tag when I am deleting, which is why I was pissed when you (a general you, not you) edited the tag to remove the date as a requirement. Misery 21:14, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
if it makes you feel better about the date thing, I did create this page a while ago. The table on the left shows pages up for WELL and when they were tagged. ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:38, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't make me feel better because I am having an emorage bad mood tonight. Misery 22:01, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
My lap is very safe and soft, if it comforts you. Also, you're not the only one. --Chaos -- 22:03, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

I think we ought to at least make author's aware of WELL tags before we remove the builds, I've seen a few cases recently at people asking where their builds are, because admins have too hastily deleted. Also, I thought i'd mention it here: people keep WELLing things that shouldn't be WELLed and giving poor reasoning for those that should be WELLed. If a build isn't directly inferior to another build it shouldn't be tagged - I keep seeing it being used as a replacement for vetting into trash. Obviously some of those builds aren't going to get vetted but that doesn't mean they instantly fall under WELL category. I'd prefer people try to improve stuff at least slightly before slapping WELL tags on. People should refrain from WELLing until the Testing stage (apart from in the case of obvious dupes) since builds can change significantly before between Testing and Trial. When people DO tag builds they should at least link to the build in question, I've seen this cause a number of dramas recently too (comments along the lines of "inferior to all necroways ever" are dumb and unhelpful). I have and will continue to remove WELL tags which I feel have been placed there unfairly, regardless of how shitty the builds are. - AthrunFeya - 22:58, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we need our admins to not be terrible, not a change in policy. Misery 23:27, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
I have read very little of this, but I agree with the above statement. That is why I tag WELL builds and wait 3 days ZzzzZzzz. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 23:41, 15 February 2010
and sometimes 3 days isn't suffice... - AthrunFeya - 00:19, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Always exceptions to the rule *shrug* but after 3 days, we've given the author plenty of time. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 01:19, 16 February 2010
Clearly, none of you are experienced administrators other than Misery. Allow the old dog to explain why Misery is right and why you're all dumbasses.
Adding a specific number to how many days a build should be means that users will bitch when their build is deleted. It will increase your stress level because people on PvX are fucking retarded. Seriously, it takes a certain mindset to go on PvX often or, even worse, be a PvX regular. You know, the mindset of a highly argumentative, overly competitive prick that has nothing better to do because he's never been down on a girl and doesn't know how. For your mental health, I strongly recommend not making it a set-in-stone number. You'll thank me later.
Counter-opinions might say that this isn't as good for the user and admins are here to serve the user. I'll run counter to that and say 2 things: 1) admins are here for the long haul. It's important to keep them sane to prevent them from becoming pricks (see: User:Readem, User:Mgrinshpon). 2) build authors usually check back on their week every goddamn second to see if anyone has made postings on their talk page, either retarded or intelligent (since there's no middle ground here). I would say 3 hours is enough but making it a minimum of 1 day will probably be better. Still, set in stone: bad. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 12:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly the point. Basically admins should be able to judge when it is suitable to delete a WELL tagged build (like I said, after the author has been made aware and had reasoning explained but before real drama kicks off). However, this isn't happening in the majority of cases - they are being deleted too hastily - which is why Phen probably made the suggestion in the first place. I don't think it is something you can put a specific timestamp on but regardless, I think often many of them should be left for a little longer than they currently are. - AthrunFeya - 13:13, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
There's only half a dozen active Sysops of which three have posted in this topic and you all seem to be pretty low on the dumbass scale. Just tell Toraen, Frosty, and Bignig to make sure the author has been properly informed before enacting any WELL tags and I'm sure they'll be happy to do so. If anyone REALLY feels the policy needs clarification, then just do it; at the end of the day everything a sysop does is down to their own discrtion anyway. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic?Panic Sig Cursor.gif 13:39, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Again, I don't really think this needs to be added (because it'll get thrown in our faces if we delete earlier than the allotted time), but I don't really care. If one of you feel it's necessary, then go ahead. Karate KJ for sig.png Jesus 18:00, 16 February 2010
I strongly oppose ^______^ Misery 22:13, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Just agree to not delete builds the second they're put up and we'll call it a day. Flexibility is a fantastic thing. Especially in bed. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş Grinshpon blinky cake.gif 14:55, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Admin Discretion, like grinch said, just don't delete within an hour of it being tagged and be done, if it is being welled there is a 99.9% chance that the build being deleted won't matter. --Frosty Frostcharge.jpg 15:06, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Something for Untested-Testing Builds?

Theres a hell of a lot of builds in the Untested-testing build category, is there anything we can tag builds with when they're blatantly inferior to existing options but they've passed the trial period? (WELL is for trial builds right?) -- Chieftain Alex Sig.jpg Chieftain Alex 21:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

WELL is for any build that's not a stub (as they can change significantly). That means you can use it on a build in trial, testing or even one that's gone though the vetting process (something may come up that makes it vastly inferior, and it's not worth archiving for instance). ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of "WELL"?

Something I always wondered since I've been here: What's the meaning behind why it's called "WELL"? Kaizerfreak (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, since this policy (and many other core ones) were established before I even knew PvXwiki existed. I think it was something like a requirement that "Builds work well" that evolved into the WELL system. -Toraen (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)