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:Untested 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? -- 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 WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 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 , there are currently 16 shortcuts that begin with "PW:", and 9 shortcuts that begin with "PvX:". -- 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. Shireensysop 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 ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (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:"? -- 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 ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (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:

[[gw:Image:rajazanmap.jpg||right|thumb|200px|Detailed Running Map]] to [[Image:rajazanmap.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Detailed Running Map]]

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:

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. DE Sig Test 2 *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)


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? ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 14:55, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Love it, that's so creative! TBH, that is SO like the event! ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (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. ‽-(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. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature 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. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 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. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (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. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 13:54, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Read ~3 responses up... ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature 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. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 14:40, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Solution being- have a section called minigames completely separate from buildspace. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (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. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 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.-- 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. ‽-(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 WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 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)


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 [[1]]. 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.


So are we using Templates to change the category, as it is now? As in, should I make a Template:Works/Great? ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature 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? ‽-(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. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature 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. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 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. ‽-(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? Shireensysop 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. 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? {{trash|...}} > {{archive-trash|...}} - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 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? ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature 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. User Frvwfr2 signature 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)? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 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. 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. ‽-(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. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ Napalm Flame Sig Image (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. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 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 Shireensysop 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? Kastore 04:08, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

No, not that I'm aware of. ‽-(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. ‽-(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 ([2]). 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. ‽-(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! 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? ‽-(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 (talkcontribs) - 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... [3]. Well, i'm not really all that sure, so I just made that one for now. --Flag of South Korea 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. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 07:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Copy the ones from this site to the test if that is possible. ‽-(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. --Flag of South Korea 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 --Flag of South Korea 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 [4]. That alone confused me a little. ‽-(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 (talkcontribs) - 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 --Flag of South Korea 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 {{Great-Build:GvG}} 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 {{Great-Build|...}}, {{Good-Build|...}}, {{Other-Build|...}} and {{Trash-build}}. Taken over from the old system were {{archived-build}} and {{build-stub}}. 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. ‽-(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. --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 09:44, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
Can someone list all the templates for me to copy and try to have memorated. ‽-(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.

  • 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

--Hhhippo 03:27, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

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 (talkcontribs) - 13:48, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Shireensysop Starts the I love Hhhippo Fan Club. Shireensysop 09:59, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk Joins the "I Love Hhhippo Fan Club." DE Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:03, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
yor mom... I might join... ‽-(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. Shireensysop 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? --Flag of South Korea Grumpy (Talk | Contrib) 04:59, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

As far as I am aware, we're still using the old Archive tag. DE Sig Test 2 *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. – HHHIPPOsysop› 10:18, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

Initial Quality Control Sweep

Did an initial quality controll sweep through testing and trial sectors of the site for both PvE and PVP. I moved builds to stups or up and down on the ladder mainly according to formatting, and not viablility/quality. 1 merge build was deleted during this phase along with like 2 or 3 PvX:Well candidates. No other builds were harmed during this. Now for some reason Warriors and Dervs seem to regularly submit better formatted builds, but they also tend to be the most similar. Assassins an Necro's were the worst. We have a foot hold on quality controll now, lets maintain it guys. Shireensysop 21:49, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

Rating feature request

If it is not too difficult, can you add wikicode support in the rating comments? I often want to link to other better builds when I give a slam rating, not to mention linking to gw: when mentioning skills, etc. Thanks. (If this is the wrong place to post this, please advise or move as appropriate.) Esan 05:09, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

While I am at it, another thing that would rock is if build ratings were roped into Special:Contributions/USERNAME, or if there were a Special:Myatings or Special:Ratings/USERNAME. Esan 05:18, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
We'll have a look at it, but I can't promise anything right now. – HHHIPPOsysop› 11:26, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
Is the source for the Vote extension available publicly? I can take a shot at it myself. Esan 21:13, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
Rating comments: You can use html tags, including links. Is that good enough?
Votes showing up in User Contributions (and Recent Changes etc.): We plan to upgrade the extension such that it updates the build's category automatically after each rating. I think we can do that such that an entry on all these special pages is triggered. Please be patient...
Source available: No, sorry. You would have to ask Gcardinal. – HHHIPPOsysop› 21:44, 3 July 2007 (CEST)
Update: The comment box now supports wiki markup, but no longer html. Votes in Special:Something is being worked on, but will take a while. – HHHIPPOsysop› 00:57, 4 July 2007 (CEST)


I guess the only thing I have against the rate tab, is its inconsistency with the templates. The rate tab shows percentages, while the templates show the scale from 1-5. True, we are voting on the 1-5 scale, but since they are not evenly distributed in the percentages, it may confuse some people. Not me of course, I'm a math major, but some people may not know what template to put on the updated ranking. Just something I thought should be brought up. Bluemilkman 23:12, 3 July 2007 (CEST)

Known issue, is fixed now. Have a look again. – HHHIPPOsysop› 00:57, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

looks great now. good job, keep it up. Bluemilkman 02:03, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Images on the Front Page

I posted this a few days ago and it's gotten some support; maybe we could use icons on the front page, icons on the front page in place of text, for where the categories are? Graphics can be a bit more descriptive that words at times - IE, it's easier to identify types of builds, visually. It's easier to see the differences between Great vs Good vs Other rather than the textual "Great" vs "Good" vs "Other." That, and eliminating the text saves room and makes the front page look a little more clean and understandable. =] --Talonz 20:03, 10 July 2007 (CEST)

Supported by me. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 17:41, 19 July 2007 (CEST)
And me, although get a new untested image first (I'm thinking caution tape). -Auron 17:45, 19 July 2007 (CEST)
I like it alot.--Coloneh 21:10, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

Unfavored Builds Wipe

It is now nearly two weeks since Real Vetting was launched, and it's soon time to get rid of the first big bunch of Trash builds. About 1600 builds which were unfavored at Guild Wiki were put into that category and their grace period is running out. The coding team is happy to announce that most of this job will be done by a maintenance script running directly on the database. The script will delete all Trash builds that have not been edited in these two weeks, have not been rated, and have no talk page. This covers >90% of all Trash builds, leaving around 100 builds for manual inspection.

The script will be run on Sunday, 15 July 2007. If you want to keep any of the affected builds, now is the time to move them to your user space. Completion of the wipe will be announced here.

The builds left by the script will have to be inspected manually (this is a job for all admins):

  • Check if meaningful edits were made to the build or if a rating >2.5 was submitted. If so, reset the grace period accordingly.
  • Check if a user expressed interest to keep the build. If so, move it to his user space. If several users are interested, priority goes to the author, then to the first claimer.
  • If none of this applies, delete the build and its talk page.

– HHHIPPOsysop› 11:35, 13 July 2007 (CEST)

As you might have noticed, the "wipe" is done, see here. Please review the remaining Trash builds. – HHHIPPOsysop› 00:53, 18 July 2007 (CEST)


User:Bluemilkman/Pvxguild Something I thought would be cool to do. If you want to, please vote. You don't have to be in it if you vote, but if you would leave some suggestions on it, that would be awesome. Thanks. Bluemilkman 16:18, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

Featured Builds

What are they and how do they get there? Ereanor 21:41, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

my Votes?

Is there away to see the votes you have made? similar to "my contributions"? If not, would it be possible to add it as something that would show up under "my contributions"?--Coloneh 09:26, 19 July 2007 (CEST)

They are working on it... Also for it to show on My Watchlist (Any votes) and Recent Changes. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 15:52, 19 July 2007 (CEST)
cool--Coloneh 21:11, 19 July 2007 (CEST)


Would be possible to make some sort of announcement clarifying a little about rating categories, I feel like im the only one using the categories. Many builds like Build:W/any Triple Chop PvE Warrior have votes that say things like "cookie cutter" yet they still get a 5 in innovation, or farming builds for a single thing that get a 5 in Universality, these dont make any sense at all.--Coloneh 10:01, 21 July 2007 (CEST)

Flaws of voting. Ideally, people should vote according to criteria, but they don't. Just like in RL, when people vote for politicians for all the wrong reasons. These things happen. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 07:37, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
yes, but there are steps taken in real life so that some people actually vote on what the polotician stands for. there are no steps like this here.--Coloneh 10:26, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
What steps might those be? Besides, if I voted a 5-5-5 on one of those ridiculous "Cupido" monks, who's to say that that isn't exactly how I feel about the build? Voting permits users to express their feelings and opinions about a build, no matter how misguided those opinions might be. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:00, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
Ill use the Triple chop warrior as an example. Do you really think Rapta and Frvwfr2 believe that its an innovative build? I think not. its mostly not even the new users that are the problem, its experienced users who we all know know better.--Coloneh 20:50, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
Problem is, until we can read their thoughts, we can't prove that they don't really believe the build deserved a 5 for Innovation. Besides, when it comes to users like that, they are probably giving inflated Innovation scores to improve the build's rating. I often do it myself; I argued strongly against having the Innovation category count for anything, but people were so excited to get Real Vetting up and running that it got lost in the clamor. In your example, you can see by your vote that the Innovation score can make all the difference between a 'Great' build and a 'Good' build. Problem is, most great builds aren't very innovative at all. Some may be "cookie-cutters," while others simply came out months or years before PvXwiki and its vetting system did; by now, they hardly seem innovative. If a user were voting his own build in this way, I would be more concerned. However, if people want to score great but common builds more generously, it is a minor (possible but unprovable) infraction. No one knows who "invented" the Triple Chop Warrior, or the Touch Ranger, or the RC Monk anyways. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 23:02, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
Sounds like a change is needed to real vetting then. I suppose i understand not voting right when voting correctly will hurt the build. Ill go post there.--Coloneh 08:21, 23 July 2007 (CEST)
What irks me is when people do a 5/5/5 vote (I have done it twice so I am also ragging on my self in a way :P). It makes it really difficult to send a build to the trash area. Examples of this are R/any Marauding Master and D/any Mystic Strength. Same reasoning with Great builds going to good due to being "overrated" (R/any General Barrager and R/any Tank Master). On a personal note, I hate Barrage and yet I still gave it a high rating since I know how effective it is.--Sirron Eblibs 18:22, 25 July 2007 (CEST)

(ri) I think it is important to note that those two 5-5-5 examples were both cast by the respective authors of those builds. As you can see here, that is another thing I would like to see fixed. It's hard to argue that we should allow users to vote their own build like that, in the face of evidence such as that. While some of us more upstanding users may seek to improve the wiki, many users come to the site to throw up their build(s) and get it rated as high as possible. That on top of the fact that it effectively reduces the number of legit votes that are needed to vet a build from 5 to 4 (a 20% difference, pretty significant). - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:23, 25 July 2007 (CEST)

Vote Revival

If a build is deleted, is there a way to revive the votes for that build to see them. If not, I suggest we start pasting the votes in the talk page before deleting, that way we have some way to get back to the votes. (reason I ask is Fusco‎ wants to improve his build which was deleted, but doesn't know whats wrong with it.) ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 23:07, 22 July 2007 (CEST)

Do you mean the votes from the PvXwiki Ratings page, or the Rate-a-Build back from GWiki? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 23:09, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
PvX ratings page. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 23:09, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
Hmm, you restored the build to his userspace, correct? I know that only articles in the Buildspace have ratings pages to begin with; that could be your problem right there. Otherwise, possibly it was deleted because it was abandoned or a duplicate without any ratings on it yet? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 23:17, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
Whenever you delete a page, or move it, the ratings are totally wiped. Restoring page doesn't restore the votes that wer with it. I say we start C&P'ing the entire votes page onto the bottom of the talk page just before deletion. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 23:20, 22 July 2007 (CEST)
Ok, you can do that. :P Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 20:54, 1 August 2007 (CEST)

New project

We do have some great contributors on this wiki and many news builds posted and rated. And this is just a great thing to see!:) However I have this idea of a bit new thing we can do in order to get ready for GW:EN and expand our wiki a bit. Here is what I am thinking. Currently we have a few team builds that are targeting specific areas of the game like missions, quast, farming or specific teams for specific areas like Luxon/Kurz farming, Lightbringer farming +++. We do have builds and we do have some short note on how to use that build. What we dont have is a complete description that goes step by stem and that takes lets say a mission as basic and implements use of build into it.


  • Map
  • Strategy (fast, not masters)
  • Builds for people only team
  • Builds for 1 person + 3 hero
  • Strategy on Masters
  • +++

Page could have a name of a mission and will have a build for 1 person + 3 builds for hero's and what hench to bring. Build that will be posted here must think about what kind of skills a player has unlocked so far in game. The idea that any player can go to such a page, take build's, read strategy and go on with finishing a mission. Notes on how to do masters and a 8 team build for those who will do that. This also goes for Challenge missions.

Quests Same as for missions, but for some elite quests like DoA, UW, FoW and so on a more complete description on who goes where, who does what. Where tank stands, what cast first all small details that are vital for completion of a mission. There is also possibility of doing mission with different builds must be posted and explained.

I think that complete step by step guide on each mission and all major quasts will show users how to use specific but adjusted builds in specific areas. Currently GW and GWW have description on all missions. And it tales you to bring a curse necro and a monk. Some people may get it, thats we are talking about SV and HB monk, some not. So I want to link real missions, quests to all the builds we have.

GW:EN As we all know GW:EN will be a set of a huge huge missions where importance of such information will be critical. Most of builds that was possible to make are out there - but not many people uses them right or in the right place.

This is just a an idea, so please dont fight it right away :) Think of GW:EN 3-4 hours mission and 1 guy with a wrong build or as-usual tanking SB monk or something like that. See the big picture :) gcardinal 00:55, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

i think good things would be Guide:GvG Explanation and Guide:HA Explanation or things similar, to get players new to them get a good idea of what the basics of it are and what kinda of builds work there. - Skakid9090 06:00, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
Thats like a general guideline and a complete guideline's using all Rt build in HoH. Who does what, when and if do so, if do so. So new players can get team of some friends and get into action. gcardinal 06:26, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
Example - Ruins of Morah. There is a few strategics with a few different builds like SV, 55, Healing monk and so on. My idea is to have all that, but with more complete description of each strategy with builds that each strategy requeres. So you can get to a new mission, go to page Mission Test, read strategy, get all builds and enter mission. Fast, easy without loosing any time on setting up. Specialy on some booring missions like the ones from NF. gcardinal 06:26, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
Hmm, if we could make this work, we could try a similar idea in dealing with farming bosses and regions as well. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 23:56, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
Exactly there is many builds that is not really builds but are guidelines on farming. gcardinal 13:41, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
We have a policy proposal up now at PvXwiki:Guides that correlates to this project. If we enact that, would we have to create a Guides namespace? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:38, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
So guys lets get this starting. gcardinal 02:21, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Moving lots of builds to untested.

Well, considering the the Good category is littered with builds that have few to no votes, I am moving a lot of them to untested (in the PvE general section) following the precedent set by Armond. However I am doing this on my own and not by anyones direction. If you feel that I am mistaken, feel free to revert. I realize that many builds are from GuildWiki but also note that they deleted their build section due to too many bad builds being favored. Also, only doing PvE general since that is what I primarily look at. If my actions are deemed good, I hope someone else will do the moving in the other sections. It does makes the PvE General section look a bit empty though. --Sirron Eblibs 19:34, 25 July 2007 (CEST)

Had to be done sooner or later, you've got my support. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:36, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
Any movement of more then a 10 pages is a task for admins. Please leave your suggestion and admins will take action if needed. gcardinal 19:47, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
Well, like stated, I support this. GWiki really was full of bad favored builds (and a few good unfavored ones). I believe we decided a long time ago that we would eventually do this to all the GWiki builds; putting them into the 'Good' category without any votes on them was supposed to be a temporary measure. Now is as good a time as any to start rating those builds in my opinion. We could do it section by section (i.e. PvE, farming, RA etc) to keep it more organized if that's what the community wants. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 19:52, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
Movement of Build:W/E Obsidian Tank to untested is just an example on why this task should be done by admins. Even build does not have any ratings now its one of the most used ones in game, from DoA to UW. When time is right script will be made to move all builds without votes or attention to untested. gcardinal 19:57, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
I was just going off of the votes. I will refrain from my actions now. However, I believe that if the voters wanted a build to be vetted, it should default to untested till it reaches the desired number of votes. I find that the builds that get the most votes are either in the Great or Untested sections. Builds already residing in the Good category in contrast seem to get very few. Also does not help that I only vote on builds that I have tried out personally and one vote could send the build to the appropriate section on many that I have moved. A good example is the Me/D Extended Thorns which was finally put into unfavored today.--Sirron Eblibs 20:01, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
Well, if you guys want a compromise, you could post those bad builds as the 'Featured tested builds' on the Main Page. The extra attention would attract users to the build, where they can rate it according to PvX's system, rather than GWiki's. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:07, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
In all honesty, it is whatever you guys want to do. I do not pay to maintain this site nor am I an admin (obviously). I just use this site to see what is new and to help me get good ideas. Any way that encourages putting votes into builds is fine by me, whatever it may be.--Sirron Eblibs 20:14, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
Thank you for helping out it just admin has some other tools like bots and script that we can create to move builds based not only on ratings but also on activity in discussion page, how many users visited and so on to find the build that do really need to be moved. There is plenty of stuff users can help, like builds creation, discussion and voting. Or new projects like the one above :) Admins are here to do the dirty job for you:P gcardinal 20:19, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
I hope I did not cause too much trouble. I am truely sorry for wasting your time fixing all of my edits. --Sirron Eblibs 20:24, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
(edit conflict) Well, it's not against the rules, so if you can think of something really tested and terrible, you can put it up here once the current build's 7-day allotment is up. Don't clog up the featured builds with these (as in, don't use both slots for 'bad' builds). Otherwise, I guess wait for the script; the admin team will take care of that for you. (Btw, you've got nothing to apologize for bud. Thanks for contributing!) - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:26, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
Sirron Eblibs np at all. gcardinal 01:14, 26 July 2007 (CEST)

Ghostly talk pages repair

The coding team just did some database maintenance: all the old Build_talk pages from GuildWiki, which were not properly imported and thus cluttering special pages without being actually accessible, have now been properly deleted. Admins can undelete individual pages if needed, found under Build_talk:NameOfBuild/Old. In general, these pages are considered outdated and thus were not restored to their original location. Some minor inconsistencies in the data base remain, but most special pages can be used for maintenance tasks now. – HHHIPPOsysop› 01:56, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

Yay. ‽-(єяøηħ) no u 02:31, 28 July 2007 (CEST)

PvE/PvP versions

Many builds have a greatly enhanced version using PvE skills. Why not to use 2 skill bars on builds? One for general/PvP and one for PvE with rank skills?--Ttibot 20:46, 31 July 2007 (CEST)

Depends on how large of a change. Some may be better left alone, others may warrant a new page. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 20:52, 31 July 2007 (CEST)


Epiw votes

Build:Me/D_Illusionary_Earth_Prayer Anyone gets it?Ereanor 20:45, 1 August 2007 (CEST)

yeah, it's a crappy IW build. — RAWR! Skasig Skakid9090 20:46, 1 August 2007 (CEST)
Removed those, with the reason of wtf? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 20:49, 1 August 2007 (CEST)
Restored vote removed by Readem. gcardinal 22:57, 1 August 2007 (CEST)

Catergory Changing

Is there any way to automatically change the category when there are 5 votes and the overrall rating gets changed to trash/other/good/great? MisfateDaipenmon 06:00, 7 August 2007 (CEST)

Nope. GCard said to hard. --User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 06:03, 7 August 2007 (CEST)

It's on our ToDo list, but it's tricky indeed do don't expect it to happen too soon, sorry. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 09:53, 7 August 2007 (CEST)

Another Round of Deletions

Ahoy, slightly more than 2 weeks ago I moved all of the "abandoned" builds into the trash section. Considering there are a few hundreds builds that need to be deleted, I was wondering if it is possible to run that script we used before to get rid of them all. Though, I took a sample (I was stupid not to have written this down while I was trashing them) and quite a lot of them have discussion pages, though very few have ratings. If it's possible to change the script slightly to delete this ridiculous number of builds, it would be a lot easier than deleting each one manually. Garrik Fel 06:07, 7 August 2007 (CEST)

We're currently testing a new special page and a modified script to handle the expired grace periods. Will be installed in the next days. I'm afraid discussion pages will have to be checked manually, since they might contain requests for moving the build to user space. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 09:59, 7 August 2007 (CEST)
Special:GraceExpired is up now. In the next days we will run a script that will delete all trash builds that have no ratings and no talk page (that's about 180 builds). – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 23:27, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

Played Tournament Builds

How about extracting builds from [5] and converting into real thing? Maybe with a few comment on the usage and things like that? part for guide project ? gcardinal 11:48, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

User:Hikari created [dV]'s build from the July tournament I believe. Auron asked him to rename it to Build:Team - E-Denial Hex Pressure. As Hikari states on the talk page, we have all of the builds used in our 'Great' section. Do you mean to document the team builds that the top competitors use in the tourneys? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 20:50, 11 August 2007 (CEST)

Hero Builds

One of PvXwiki's greatest weaknesses is the appalling lack of Hero builds. A great number of my friends from my previous guilds have commented on this. I'll be submitting a few in the next couple of days but this is an area we need a lot of work done. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ//Д 14:55, 16 August 2007 (CEST)

Trial stage

How long a build should remain at the trial stage, if no one wants to discuss it? --Lumenil 12:11, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

Essentially, the Trial phase was intended primarily so that authors could, if they like, get some feedback prior to the actually voting period. As such, the Trial phase is entirely optional, and it is pretty much entirely up to the author. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:46, 21 August 2007 (CEST)

Editing Help

Where can i find help on the language we use in editing? And how do we do a header in user page?--Hroatgar 23:42, 26 August 2007 (CEST)

Anyone can help me?--Hroatgar 18:50, 27 August 2007 (CEST)

What do you mean by "language used in editing?" Code-wise you mean, to make a fancy-schmancy userpage or whatnot? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 23:14, 27 August 2007 (CEST)
do you mean english? or possibly this: ? any help?--Coloneh 03:26, 28 August 2007 (CEST)
No its ok i found it by myself its like HTML but whit template. Thank you anyway.--Hroatgar 04:35, 28 August 2007 (CEST)

Help needed

Please check out [6] and do what you can to make database up to date with all GW:EN skills. We need:

  • Complete gwBBcode skill database.
  • Icons (full size as the one we have now) with names corresponding with skill ID.

Please do what you can, we need this fast! gcardinal 18:44, 31 August 2007 (CEST)

How do I update the database or what can I do in general? —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 18:56, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
Also, on MSN if you want to explain to me what needs to be done. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 19:00, 31 August 2007 (CEST)
GW:EN 100 skills added . Please check for errors. gcardinal 11:22, 1 September 2007 (CEST)
Ebon assassin skill not listed:- See build

<pvxbig> [build prof=Rt/Mo name="M Bison Defeating by Servant of Glaaki (Not Argo)" pro=3 com=12 cha=9 spa=9][Pain][Wanderlust][Vampirism][Shadowsong][Painful Bond][Boon of Creation][Summon Spirits (Kurzick)][Unknown skill id 2235][/build] </pvxbig>

Umm... theres no PvE skills, cuz they are near worhtless, but will be added. The guy just wanted to get it out quick. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 00:29, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Searching builds by skill

Is there an easy way to find all the builds which contain a specific skill?

For example I want to find all the builds using the elite skill "Lightning Surge" as it is the only elite I have.

Using the search box is not particularly helpful for this as it doesn't seem to do literal searches. Bonsai nine 09:26, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Type the skill in the search, click search, set the namespace to build. That should do it. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 09:28, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
Although it does give a lot of results with just words that happen to be in the skills name in them... :/ --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 09:31, 3 September 2007 (CEST)
Oh well, I'll resort to using google site search instead, e.g. Bonsai nine 18:14, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

A build search system is being worked on by Gcardinal and Hhippo. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲShield of Deflection 23:46, 3 September 2007 (CEST)

Dungeon builds or guides?

After beating a dungeon, I got to thinking... should I write our build up as it was, with a few tweaks, and submit it as a build, or should we have a guide for each dungeon (listing the challenges posed, like enemy skills to watch out for, enemy spawn locations, and dangerous terrain) and let people decide specifics for themselves? (If such a project is already started, I'd like to pitch in, I just haven't found any such projects yet). -Auron 15:17, 8 September 2007 (CEST)

Dungeon guides seems like more of a GWiki kind of thing, a build article could also outline options and leave room for variants. Tycn 15:21, 8 September 2007 (CEST)

In principle it's a GuildWiki thing. But they don't seem to have much there and, more important, they refuse to include links to builds. So it would indeed be nice to start such guides here, with links from the guides to suitable builds and from that builds to the guides.
Furthermore, such guides could also be useful for missions and other key parts of PvE. In that case it would be nice if we could keep some builds that are available to players at that point of the game, even if they are inferior to builds that are accessible later. To that end we could either have a new category for something like 'Guide builds', or extend our (currently unwritten) criteria for archiving builds and use that category. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 15:56, 8 September 2007 (CEST)
I like the dungeon guide/build idea, but don't like the suboptimal early PvE build idea. Early PvE is just so easy, that it shouldn't really matter. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop)
Well, it's probably not urgently needed, but it wouldn't hurt either. So if anyone submits such builds, why not. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 17:02, 8 September 2007 (CEST)
Because it's really just another excuse to vet a bad build. Only times I get wiped in PvE are against those unexpected fire nuker bosses. A similar project to this was discussed about 1 1/2 months ago above on this page [7]. Still think it would be a good set of guides to host. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 18:28, 8 September 2007 (CEST)

Monday, I'll have Portal:Player versus Enviroment up and ready to go with spaces for guides and builds for all of the dungeons in GW:EN. We have to decide upon this issue now before the first steps are taken to fill in the guides. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 18:46, 8 September 2007 (CEST)

Dungeon guides are quite a good idea. Also, perhaps we should add a Dungeon section to PvE builds. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 18:51, 8 September 2007 (CEST)
Create a section with links (even if they're red) to the dungeon guides for GW:EN, and the regular missions for all the chapters, and we can fill them in once your draft is up. - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 18:52, 8 September 2007 (CEST)
Perhaps that should be put in a subpage of the main portal or divided into one portal for Proph, one for EotN, one for Factions, one for NF, or something, because every single mission and every single dungeon is going to take up a lot of space in that portal. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 18:56, 8 September 2007 (CEST)
I was thinking of Portal:PvE be more for Elite Missions and Dungeons than for things like "Kodonur Crossroads" or something. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 18:58, 8 September 2007 (CEST)

SOD and Bannings

I am making a request to have all SOD related pages, including discussions about the guild, removed from this wiki. I further request to have the bannings of Napalm Flame and Nova removed. AS per policy, Guild pages should not be here. If the PvX guild needs deleted also, so be it. I'd like opions on this, please. Bluemilkman 02:34, 10 September 2007 (CEST)

Remove ban for what? And people are allowed to make guild pages in their userspace. Єяøהħ 02:38, 10 September 2007 (CEST)
I'm pretty sure last time this was discussed consensus was that guild pages in Userspace are fine. Even if not, only User:Ibreaktoilets/SoD would need to be removed. Why is Napalm's ban even remotely contestable? One could reasonably disagree with Nova's ban, perhaps, but Napalm's was inarguably deserved, I thought. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 02:40, 10 September 2007 (CEST)
Also it was requested by Napalm. But yes, Nova's is arguable. Єяøהħ 02:41, 10 September 2007 (CEST)

When a guild causes mass chaos on a Buildwiki, something needs to be done, and as Napalms and Nova's ban came about as a result of that guild, they should be unbanned. Nova should not have been banned in the first place. P.S. I hate indents. Bluemilkman 02:46, 10 September 2007 (CEST)

Nova and to a lesser extent Napalm are the ones who caused the "chaos". --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 02:48, 10 September 2007 (CEST)
It's not the guilds fault, its cuz of NPA, etc. on here... ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 02:50, 10 September 2007 (CEST)
Napalm still violated policies and asked for the ban, weather it was Build related or not.
Nova's is arguable, so argue if you disagree. Єяøהħ 02:51, 10 September 2007 (CEST)
We don't remove bans arbitrarily. They broke policy, they got banned.
Edrama is everywhere. Edrama is, basically, an inextricable element of PvP. People rage, people burn bridges, and people make enemies; that's how it goes. I don't see the point or value in disallowing mention of a specific guild. All users involved need to grow up.
Also, I support Nova's ban. -Auron 02:53, 10 September 2007 (CEST)

SoD did nothing. Napalm+ibreaktoilets got into an argument ingame. ibreaktoilets kicked Napalm out of guild causing Napalm to post banme's. And then Napalm got banned and then Nova stepped in and told Grinch to grow up, Making lots and lots of QQ+chaos. Now Rawr left. Shield of DeflectionMisfate 03:17, 10 September 2007 (CEST)

Nah, rawr is at his gf's for the weekend. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 03:19, 10 September 2007 (CEST)
He said he was leaving the wiki... --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 03:20, 10 September 2007 (CEST)
Where?? ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 03:23, 10 September 2007 (CEST)
Rawr's talk page. Shield of DeflectionMisfate 03:23, 10 September 2007 (CEST)

More Work To Be Done: EoTN

For anyone who has some extra time on their hands, we need people to start looking through the various tested and untested categories to identify EoTN builds for EoTN or which use EoTN skills and affix [[Category:Eye of the North builds]] to those builds. Defiant Elements Sig Test 2 *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:42, 11 September 2007 (CEST)


Umm, rezz sig is a pic of a muffin, but GCard is the only one who has edited it... More errors than that too. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 22:03, 11 September 2007 (CEST)

What? Where? – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 22:33, 11 September 2007 (CEST) Here], a few minutes ago it was muffins in the rezz sig spots... Wish I had screened... Will if I see it again. ~~ User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/Sysop) 22:40, 11 September 2007 (CEST)
Ibreaktoilets was uploading stuff over our images, Thumbs up down and sideways got protected considering how many pages that affected, and I protected Res after restoring to origonal. Єяøהħ 23:11, 11 September 2007 (CEST)
You should have seen the the Untested Template glitch :/. Whole server was down, before I RV and protected lulz. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 23:35, 11 September 2007 (CEST)
What page was that? – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 23:52, 11 September 2007 (CEST)

Secondary Profession

Ive seen a few build with a secondary monk/ritualist only for a perma rez, and while I know it does make the build better, it makes it much harder to find what your looking for while browsing through builds. I think we need some sort of guideline on wether a perma-rez is reason enough to switch a build from /Any to /Rt or /Mo.--Coloneh 06:42, 17 September 2007 (CEST)

anyone have a thought on this?--Coloneh 22:43, 4 October 2007 (CEST)
I have mixed feelings on this. While sticking /rt or /mo on any random /any build for a hard res is retarded, in some cases(i.e. mesmers), Res Chant or FoMF is probably the only reason you're not /E with GoLE or something similar. For another example, an axe warrior that's W/Rt for DPS would be fine with me, because if you weren't bringing DPS, you'd go W/E or W/D. In addition, builds that are almost exclusively ran as /Rt or /Mo for DPS or FoMF or Res Chant should, imo, be stored as such. --Edru viransu//QQ about me/sysop 23:17, 4 October 2007 (CEST)
If the build is made worse by going /mo or /rt for a hard res, we should point it out as such so it can bring res sig instead. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 02:49, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

Site graphic

I've brought this up before ... but it still bugs me ...
Because the domain redirects to , the graphic, to me, should match the site name. That would help reduce confusion on other forums (I see links to both, because people seem confused on the site's name). Can't the graphic be updated to show PvX [[wiki]]? Optionally, if the current builds graphic is the preference, can be changed to be the redirect over to, and have the site reside under that address?
I just find the disconnect between site address and the name in the graphic to be an annoyance. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:26, 5 October 2007 (CEST)

Hmm... I always thought of it as PvX as the site name, with [[builds]] being what we do... This confusion isn't good. Perhaps change it to PvX Wiki on the graphic (two lines, no brackets)? -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 17:54, 5 October 2007 (CEST)
It's not a major problem - because both links end up at the same site due to the redirect. But I think it would be cleaner if they matched (of course, GuildWiki stopped matching after Gravewit attempted to build his gamewikis mini-empire ... and there are plenty more examples of similar mismatches on the internet). But still ... maybe the graphic could be modified to add the word "wiki" between the current "PvX" and "[[builds]]" labels.
Just a suggestion - nothing critical, but something that has annoyed me slightly for quite a while. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:29, 5 October 2007 (CEST)
working on it, new look just around the corner. gcardinal 02:16, 8 October 2007 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.