PvXwiki
Register
Advertisement
Archives
Archive 1

Enjoy! --Mgrinshpon (T) 22:20, 14 May 2007 (CEST)


Build namespace or not? This isn't really a build, more of a guide... -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 07:44, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

It does have builds, I suppose. Could it just be "Invincimonk Guide" in the builds namespace? There isn't a real guides namespace here. --Mgrinshpon (T) 15:09, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
I was thinking more move it to the main namespace (Invincimonk guide). Shouldn't it be lower case anyway? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 18:13, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Want me to? No skin off my back if you do. This should, however, remain in the builds category. --Mgrinshpon (C/T) 19:56, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
My argument is that, as this is a guide and not an actual build (with the exception of three builds at the very bottom - hardly a large percentage of the article) that it should not be put in the build namespace at all. As I think this decision should be made by more than the two of us, I'm going to go bug a few people to pitch in here. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 19:59, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Maybe Builds > Guides, such as Builds > Tested (or whatever the outcome will be). Swiftslash \\ Impale 20:04, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
That's an idea. I know I'm sounding bullish, but why not just put it in the main namespace and add it to Category:Guides or Category:Build guides? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 20:08, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Yeah that was my other idea. Since there are and will be more guides like this(general barrage, interrupt, etc) having all 'guides' on one place makes more sense than putting them all under builds. Since guides and builds are very close in their actual content I think Guides might as well stand under builds, as a subcategory. Swiftslash \\ Impale 20:15, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
Are they similar? I don't see how it's all that similar - one lists attributes and skills, while the other gives suggestions and recommendations based on certain situations and a given goal. I honestly think it would be a bad idea to keep this in the build namespace - gw:Invincible Monk never was. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 20:45, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

They're similar since both give guidelines on how to spec your character and play it. Guides are more general while builds are more in depth. Swiftslash \\ Impale 21:16, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

I will vote for creation a new namespace Guide: . Only more and more guides will be needed. But it is IMPORTANT to remmber that build does NOT dublicate a policy. Sliver and HoD based 55 build is not the same thing. GCardinal 23:13, 15 May 2007 (CEST)
I agree that we should keep guides out of the builds namespace, especially once we have a vetting system in place, it will just complicate things. Everyone remember how long that Dire Pet Guide was kicking around in the untested section on gwiki? As for whether to create a guide namespace or add it to the main namespace and assign it to a category of guides, either solution seems fine with me. -- BrianG 01:00, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
To me this isn't a big deal. Either solutions will do fine IMO. As long as it looks pretty on the site and is easy to access I could care less to be honest. Swiftslash \\ Impale 01:29, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
Let's be honest, what else do we have in the main namespace? Not too much. And if people want to look for a guide quickly, are they going to type in the search box "Guide:Monk guide" or just "monk guide" or "ranger guide" or "invincimonk guide"? And tbh I think the guide namespace looks ugly. >.> -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 01:34, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
Your issue is easily countered Armond, with redirects. But I think it would be a good way to organize guides by using the "Guide:Monk" or "Guide:55". My only real reasoning behind this is just because it would look more professional, neat and all that. Redirects could be made for someone typeing "guide to monks" to go to "guide:monk" And of course there should be a link on the main page to a guide category.--Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 03:44, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
Sorry if some of this was commented on above. Just adding my two cents to the discussion.
On the article, I fully support the idea of guides; but keep them out of the build namespace. As BrianG pointed out, guides really aren't vettable in the same way. I think they can just go into the Main namespace. Categories can do a better job of organizing, no need for a namespace for guides. I don't see any problem using the main namespace for it.
Within this particular article, I would STRONGLY encourage the community to remove the three builds at the end. Those should be in their own articles, so that they can be trully vetted. The guide can then link to the individual build articles to show the example builds. As it is now, their placement reads to me as a sneaky way to suggest specific builds while bypassing the vetting process for them (whatever vetting process eventually goes into place). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:48, 16 May 2007 (CEST)
Advertisement