What constitutes a 'major' change? What would be considered a 'change to the build'? Obviously, changing a skill is a major change to the build, as would be reallocating attribute points. How about adding a completely new variant? Adding a similar variant?

Can the policy include some working guidelines (not black-and-white absolutes necessarily) for clarity? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolo (contribs) .

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~~~~) ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (EST)


Hey, i finally figured out this process and posted my very first build in the trial section (w00t!) but, it appears under the "G" section, instead of the "D" section, for dervish, can somebody help me fix that? Gabe 22:11, 19 February 2008 (EST) Gabe

Fixed. Since you originally had it in your userspace and then moved it, the sortkey (the name the build gets placed under in the category) was still set as "Gabe". All you have to do when that happens is hit the edit tab on the page and then save it (it works even if you don't change anything ^_^) ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 01:14, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Naming Your Build

Under the "Naming Your Build" section N/Any Saccer is listed as both acceptable AND unacceptable. Also, there are several broken links. — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig.jpg 12:28, 20 February 2008 (EST)

No... it's not. Build:N/any Saccer is listed as acceptable. N/any Saccer, on the other hand, (note the lack of the "Build:" prefix is not acceptable, nor is N/Any Saccer (note the capitol "A" in "Any"). And the broken link isn't really broken (I assume you mean Build:A/any Palm of the Golden Phoenix)... I believe that build was deleted a long time ago. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:42, 20 February 2008 (EST)
No, I mean there's a couple builds there that are nowiki'd. Not sure why. If they're been deleted, why not just remove the link, or point to a build that HASN'T been deleted.
Also, Examples of correct build names include Build:A/Me Solo Sin, Build:N/any Saccer... versus Unacceptable versions of these names would include Build:A/Me solo sin, Build:A/Any Palm Of The Golden Phoenix, Build:N/Any Saccer...( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig.jpg 15:26, 20 February 2008 (EST)
Right... in the case of Solo Sin, it's a capitalization issue, and in the case of the Saccer build, it's the difference between upper case "A" and lower case "a." Defiant Elements Sig Test 2.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:43, 20 February 2008 (EST)
Gotcha (facepalm) maybe that should be made a little more clear? — ( ɔ \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ Reithan Sig.jpg 16:38, 20 February 2008 (EST)

how exactly do I "place" builds into testing from my user page?My Name Is Fuz 21:17, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Adding {{Untested-Testing|farming}} to the build page will automatically make it show up in Category:Untested testing farming builds and Category:All untested testing PvE builds :) ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

tyvm :DMy Name Is Fuz 21:38, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Also, add colons : before your comments to indent them. One colon per indent. Makes talk pages easier to read :) ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
Ty, Now I need to know how to make it a featured build.My Name Is Fuz 22:07, 15 May 2008 (EDT)


Reguarding builds that have been previously archived but are still in wide usage. What is the proper method of reviving those build pages so that they can be placed back into the working builds categories? Specifically, most of the builds that revolved around the use of Shadow Form elite were placed into archives after the July 2nd nerfed the damage by 50% while under that enchantment, but there are many builds that are still widely used which depend on that skill, including currently used team builds for underworld. Skie M 23:40, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

Build Archive

I added some notes from the build archival suggested policy. The short cut links can be changed. PheNaxKian Sysop 08:25, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

So what about previously vetted builds that have been archived, should people (BM's, Admins, generally nice people) go back and check to see if they should have been archived or not? Maybe if a tag could be made with something like: This build is a candidate for archival, please leave responsed on the talk page to whether it should be archived or deleted. I dunnozzz --FrostyMini england.jpg 08:28, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
well there's {{Archive-suggestion}} and {{Archive-Pending}} but they're not massively used. I'll add a note to the tags/templates bit at the bottom. PheNaxKian Sysop 11:53, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Archived votewipe

Builds in the archived section should have votes wiped.

This line should be removed. Votewipe is enough when the build gets unarchived. Also, we can avoid drama like the one we had at Shock Axe. ~ ĐONT*SYSOP 01:48, 19 December 2008 (EST)

"It is the responsibility of the 5th voter to change the tag of the build"

And yet this is overlooked quite often. Remove it from the policy? Jebuspachi-1-1.jpgMcPachirisu 00:32, 1 February 2009 (EST)

no, it is the responsibility of the 5th person to change the tag, but usually people are just to lazy, or just forget. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 06:30, 1 February 2009 (EST)


PvXwiki:Mature Build Writing Frostrage.jpgFrosty po! 21:25, 16 February 2009 (EST)


PvXwiki:No Builds Based on Leaked Info --Frosty Mc Admin 14:42, September 30, 2009 (UTC)


About keeping builds split for PvE and PvP? This is practically already done, but I'm currently about to get in a revert war due to a dumb build tagged for AB, CM and PvE. It'd just be a sentence or two somewhere on the page. --DANDY ^_^ -- 15:06, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

I approve, PvE and PvP are fundamentally different from each other Tyrael Strikes Back- 15:17, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
yeah do it. lau 17:11, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

What about Merging?

This doesn't mention any rules about merging builds together. Is there a seperate guide on PvX that discusses that, or is that more of just allowed as long as I don't break any other rules? --Supernick530 07:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You're allowed to as long as the merge makes sense and looks proper when you're done. While i agree that the 2 spiritways should be merged, the page layout when you were done was fairly confusing. If you get it to make more sense to the casual user, it'll stay. Life Guardian 08:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy Revision: Build Names

PvXwiki:Editing Builds/Build Name Revision --Krschkr (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Policy has been updated, and I've done an initial pass through the PvE builds to rename the most obvious ones (generally ones that repeated the profession in the name). -Toraen (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"For ease of searching and proper functioning of the rate extension, the only symbols allowed in the name of the build are the slash ( / ), hyphen ( - ) and apostrophe ( ' )."
Eh? Why no quotes and exclamation marks? -Chieftain Alex (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Older versions of recent ratings and user ratings barfed on certain special characters I think. Though quotes aren't allowed in filenames so build packs disallow them (I'm pretty sure I coded in a substitution just in case someone ignored PvX:NAME though). -Toraen (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you recall if it was just that the links didn't work (i.e. not escaped properly for URL's) or something else?
edit, actually I remember updating SpecialRecentRatings to use fullurl: instead of just specifying the whole site URL, that may mean its been fixed. I'll test it anyway.. -Chieftain Alex (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)