HB/TA Builds

I'd like peoples opinions on what to do with TA and HB builds when they're removed from GW (e.g. would you like to archive them all, archive only the great and the odd notable good or just delete them all etc.). ~ PheNaxKian talk 19:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive. Edit: Archive it all, with the vetting update we don't save much horrible stuff anyways. Also, I damn you for ruining my "First", I was waiting for you to finish editing before doing that. ---Chaos- 19:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Archive most of the ones that actually saw play. Anything that was just vetted on theorycraft should be deleted. Life Guardian 19:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Just archive it all, HB was retarded. Misery CowMisery Says Moo 17:54, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
it was in fact so retarded that i could lose to 3 IW dervs and an IW mes :< Brandnew 17:57, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
bring more snares! also, i'd only archive great. who the cares about anything that wasn't abused to fuck? ··· Dannycbf 18:33, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Suppress Redirect

Suppressing Redirects is moving pages without leaving a redirect behind. Angela said here that it's possible, but allows for pagemove vandalism. My suggestion is to allow it to registered users who have made X contributions, and just banhammer people who abuse it.

  1. Do we want Suppress Redirect?
  2. Is limiting the authorization possible? I'd suppose it can easily be allowed to the same people that are allowed to vote.

---Chaos- 20:43, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly do we need it? If the admins do their jobs, then they should be able to do what GWW does and just delete the redirects (however, assuming that admins will do their jobs here is a pretty big "IF"). KJ badge sig 20:49, 8 September 2009
How many pages are moved on GWW? Honestly a LOT of pages are moved around here, and leaving a redirect is sometimes a good idea (for pages that have lots of links to them). Besides I bet GWW people tag every moved page for deletion, unlike here. --Frosty Mc Admin 20:51, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
I do it when I cba, but there's so many of them :> if people l2watchlist it shouldn't even be necessary. I move considerably less pages than I would, because I hate redirects over all. ---Chaos- 20:55, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Nah, fuck it. You don't need it. I don't even use it. Misery CowMisery Says Moo 21:07, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

^ KJ badge sig 21:11, 8 September 2009

I can't think of a time I wanted to not have a redirect, except in the main namespace. Most of the time, I've created redirects, if anything. ··· Dannycbf 22:44, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

it would primarily be used for misnamed builds or something I would assume. You're still capable of leaving a redirect if you want (you just don't check the box that says "suppress redirect"). Ignoring point one in any cayse, it is possiable to restrict it to a certain degree; it's a case of saying people in a given user group can have it. In this case you're wanting people who can vote, which would be people in auto confirmed (so the account is ~4 days old and made ~4 contributions). ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:54, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
The only reason I see for not having it is not needing it, but I'd imagine, at least on this wiki, having it would probably do more good than bad in the end. ··· Dannycbf 23:06, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
@KJ up there: Template:Miniskillbar. Over a month old tag. There's even older tags than that one, too. Big "IF" indeed. --- VipermagiSig -- (contribs) (talk) 14:41, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
We don't do our jobs :> Misery CowMisery Says Moo 15:18, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
Aye. Having Suppress Redirect will ofc and undoubtedly be useful, but do you consider it being available for autoconfirmed users a risk? The question shouldn't really be if we want it (yes, I know I asked it), but more like if the risks are actual and do we want to take themmmmmmmmmmmmm? ---Chaos- 15:32, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
Jist take the 10 active users on this stupid site, throw them in a new group, and give them suppress redirect. Life Guardian 15:38, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
Probably more sensible, I wouldn't trust the masses with it. AthrunAthrun SigFeya 15:40, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
I'm clearly missing something, but what are you all afraid they'll do with this? >.> ~ PheNaxKian talk 16:07, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
You're not the only one missing it :> Redirect suppression only makes reverting easier. --- VipermagiSig -- (contribs) (talk) 16:21, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
I don't actually understand how it is used for "move vandalism", you would then just move it back instead of having to delete all the redirects. But I oppose to be an asshole. Misery CowMisery Says Moo 16:30, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

being able to suppress redirects on a site people care about could be an issue because temporary page outages. here, no one's gonna give a flying fuck because in the 15 seconds it takes to move a build that anyone has watchlisted back, no one's going to visit it. ··· Dannycbf 20:10, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

If I move say, Relyk's userpage and all the subpages to "Category:åäö", you can't just move it back (because it's a category space), and I don't know how well they can be moved back if the vandal is good. ---Chaos- 10:22, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
the problem there being only admins can "move all subpages". ~ PheNaxKian talk 10:41, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
I have a memory of an IP doing that, but it might've been before the wikia move. Dunno. ---Chaos- 10:42, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
when we first moved to wikia it was available to everyone, so we had a couple of vandals that targeted BM/Admin pages and moved all subpages. We contacted wikia around then and asked them to make it admin only (which they did). ~ PheNaxKian talk 10:48, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
Oki, then I don't think there is anything to stop us from either giving this to autoconfirmed users, or create a new usergroup for those who want it. ---Chaos- 11:01, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

bumping this. ··· Danny Pew Pew 19:52, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Useful when moving builds tbh.--TheShortOneKlhksjdnfsig $ɧor₮ talk 19:54, September 29, 2009 (UTC)
From what I've seen none has seen it as a threat, and we have quite many people who support it. What's the problem? ---Chaos is gay - 09:01, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
^---Chaos- (talk) -- 15:49, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
unless anyone has any reason not to I see no reason you can't have it (or request to have it). ~ PheNaxKian talk 16:08, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Angela would mind giving it to autoconfirmed users, since none sees it as a threat and it doesn't allow for serious pagemove vandalism with subpage moving being limited to admins. She already said she could do it if we just agree on it not being dumbbbb. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 16:18, October 4, 2009 (UTC)


  1. ··· Danny Pew Pew 20:04, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
  2. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 20:06, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
  3. --Jaigoda endrant Jaiwritesalot . . . 20:18, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
  4. ToraenTheJanitorToraenSig2 03:19, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
  5. Random person says yes. Zyke-Sig 06:32, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
  6. --TheShortOneKlhksjdnfsig $ɧor₮ talk 07:14, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


  1. Misery CowMisery Says Moo 06:26, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
  2. not needed now we have a superjanitor - AthrunFeya Athrun snow sig 10:11, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as how the superjanitor supported it? Maybe he's human too? ---Chaos- (talk) -- 10:15, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
It would be srsly nice if I didn't have to delete a redirect everytime someone didn't read PvX:NAME. ToraenTheJanitorToraenSig2 23:21, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


Is voting really necessary tho? There's no harm of it and some people want it. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 20:06, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

i figure it'll help coerce the proper people into putting this change into motion. ··· Danny Pew Pew 20:23, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
I thought of that too tho, so feel free. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 20:24, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

HB and TA Removal

Ok so TA and HB are going, this means we are going to have to change the front page to remove those sections from view. I believe all the TA and HB builds which are currently vetted should be archived when the update happens (obvious reason is obvious). So when the update comes, Archive HB and TA builds, some builds however will be multi arena (ie ones made for say, RA and TA), in which case, simply remove the TA/HB tag.

Now we are sure that SD is coming tonight too, which will mean we MAY have a lot of people coming here posting SD builds, which I have to say I will be against, I feel we should leave SD builds because of the obvious reasons (constantly changing skill availability and to promote people actually playing SD properly, by making their own builds). I have nothing against people making their own SD builds in their Userspaces but the Build main space should be SD free. Ofcourse, any of you who feel differently or agree, please post, there be a lot of work ahead! --Frosty Frostcharge 09:51, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Agree, no SD pages as things currently stand. What may be appropriate is ONE SD page. If as rumours have indicated, decks cycle weekly, then we could have one guide page similar to our Nick item farming guide briefly describing the shape of the meta each week, if anyone can be fucked to update it. Misery CowMisery Says Moo 10:06, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
you don't have too many pages to archive (around 100 in total, which if you have a couple of people working on it is easily done). I've not checked testing and trial builds but i can't see there being loads. Removing the 2 from the front page is easily done. I'm happy with not having a SD section, it would be impractical to do so. I just want to bring to attention the guide section for these areas, what do you want to do with them (and their respective portals)? (we do have an archived guide template so we can "archive" them) Would we also make a SD guide section? (it might just be a case of having maps and tactics and that's it, but would it be worth making). ~ PheNaxKian talk 10:57, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Yea, archive the TA and HB guides, and make an SD one. I will be happy to help make it. Also misery, maybe it would be a good idea to just have mini skill bars up of "obvious" builds. Even then I think it would be better to just not have anything, because if it comes to the stage where people come to PvX looking for SD builds, we have kinda broken the idea of SD. --Frosty Frostcharge 11:02, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
GOOD! Maybe that will make the fuckers switch to daily decks. Misery CowMisery Says Moo 11:34, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Depending on how the Sealed Deck system works, it would probably be more sensible to have a single guide page about it with the current skills listed in a section near the bottom. It might be beneficial to some people to be able to view the skills available in SD without having to have access to GWs. For instance, Misery and I could discuss builds at work. :> C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic?Panic Sig Cursor 12:53, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, I would be happy to update that, it could be called something like "This weeks current deck", kinda depends when it updates per week though. --Frosty Frostcharge 12:56, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how sealed deck works (beyond "here's some skills, make your bars and kill the other team"), but i would imagine having a list of available skills would be quite large, and it could indeed be difficult to update (depending how often they switch skills, I imagine it's weekly (and it has been implied by Linsey this is the case) but they haven't confirmed it). ~ PheNaxKian talk
I wouldn't really care how large the list is. --Frosty Frostcharge 13:05, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
(EC)If there's a certain set of skills per profession/day/week, there's gonna be profession's of the day/week, I'd guess. And that's either bad or good ;o SD meta :> ---Chaos- (talk) -- 13:07, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Removing TA/HB tags from builds would be the same as deleting single-area tags, since none will ever see that say, a RA monk build was used in TA too. Could the TA/HB categories just be made into some sort of archive categories? Then we'd archive the HB/TA-only builds. It's tricky, but the best for documentation. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 13:08, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly sure there are HB and TA categories for archived builds (like there are for every area). --Frosty Frostcharge 13:12, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
I pretty much just meant that TA/HB tags wouldn't be removed from builds. Ignore the rest, I'm not in shape of thinking. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 13:14, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
(ec)A good idea would be to make a new version of this for both TA and HB, that way it can be edited to say "Many of the builds listed here were archived due to the removal of TA/HB. Or we could simply edit that template to state some builds are archived due to area removal. Also, [1]] there you go chaos. --Frosty Frostcharge 13:16, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
we can jsut use the current tag and put the reason as "Play type removed" (or how ever you want to word it) ~ PheNaxKian talk 13:20, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I said to start with, then Chaos wanted to make things complicated I think. That's the best idea imo. --Frosty Frostcharge 13:29, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
(EC)"This category contains all builds that were designed for Hero Battles and were once in favor, but were either nerfed into oblivion or replaced by more superior builds." = Issue #1, must mention the game type being removed.
Issue #2 is likely fixable by modifying templates into linking the TA-tag to archived builds. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 13:31, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
All that would need doing is to archive HB and TA builds and leave a note on the Archive page saying "This area was removed on the 23rd of October 2009, due to this, all of the builds that were vetted at the time were archived". --Frosty Frostcharge 13:36, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Modify Great/Good templates to link to TA/HB archives instead of "Great" category? This is assuming we don't just remove tags from builds for areas outside HB/TA AND SCREW UP OUR DOCUMENTATION!!!1 ---Chaos- (talk) -- 13:47, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

So then we have builds tagged for area's that don't exist, don't think so. If the build was only good/great for the arena it gets archived (if it has an RA tag it stays great in RA), maybe add a note saying "This was Great/Good in TA/HB before it was removed on the 23rd of October". --Frosty Frostcharge 14:01, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Which goes under the Notes section? I'm fine with that. ---Chaos- (talk) -- 14:03, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Do we really give a shit if people don't know that the RA WoH monk used to also be good in TA? The build will still be recorded. Just remove the TA/HB tags, archive pure builds. The information is still there in a page that hasn't been deleted. Misery CowMisery Says Moo 14:07, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
^ Exactly --Frosty Frostcharge 14:15, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Daily, cool. Just let the GWW muppets record shit. Misery CowMisery Says Moo 23:01, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

hay gais

I know we're all excited for this, but if we wanna make things real easy we could just make the current template display TA and HB in a gray color. We could archive TA- and HB-only builds and leave the rest of the builds the way they are. ··· Danny Pew Pew 19:53, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Give me an example of what you mean, I think you mean make it so the TA or HB thing on the great/good tag comes up and gray(and black lets say), but I may have misinterpreted. --Frosty Frostcharge 19:59, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
  • PvP
meh. i can't get the style just right but you get it. ··· Danny Pew Pew 20:13, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Yea that's what I thought, I still think removing the tags is better though. --Frosty Frostcharge 20:17, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
its more of an effort to remove the tags, but it only has to be done once, and then its fine forever, so we might as well work our way through it. i remember there was something about adding a tag to every image in the database, and many members were nice enough to help out like KJ and Frosty, we can do the same thing here. Gringo 20:20, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
I'm goign to agree with gringo, while it's a bit harder, it's better to jsut remove the tags. there still is an "add a tag to all images neccassary", it still needs doing =p (i go through some when i have some time to kill) ~ PheNaxKian talk 21:10, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Ok all the HB and TA tags have been removed or builds archived, necessary pages deleted and the main page updated. Is there anything else to do other than a news update maybe? --Frosty Frostcharge 00:38, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Dont think so. All thats left is figuring out if we're going to keep sealed deck builds. Depends if the decks cycle or if it's random every time. Would be pretty difficult to keep track of even if they did cycle. UWSC is also fucked up atm. We need to figure out the new metas for each area. Life Guardian 00:45, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
I swear UW is only changing for the Haloween event. And we aren't keeping SD builds, they change every week, and I think we should promote build making for such an arena. --Frosty Frostcharge 00:47, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
Change daily actually. I also doubt that the uwsc changes will be reverted after halloween. Life Guardian 00:48, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

User:Karate Jesus/Build Pack Sign-Up. Get working ;o ---Chaos- (talk) -- 19:37, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

unsteady elementalist

build page not working, gives some weird error. this:

FMK- 04:07, December 12, 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. 04:41, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

HM Builds

Hey all, someone recently asked if we could add a HM tag for builds. We've had this conversation in the past a few times, and it's always decided not to. It's been a while since this last came up, so I see no reason not to have another discussion about it and see what you all think. Just a note on this, it would be easy to implement, so there's nothing to worry about there. ~ PheNaxKian talk 12:07, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'd be for it. More categories means simpler searches. ··· Danny So Cute 18:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Support. ----~Short~ 18:23, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
So then we'd start storing NM buildds as well?
Brb, claiming Build:Team - NM Metawaywith 8x
Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional Optional
Brandnew 19:12, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Well this is what we're discussing, do we want a HM tag, or do we just generally say if it doesn't work in HM that we don't want it? If we had it and we stored NM builds, i'd imagine it would just be a case of if it doesn't have a HM tag, then it's designed for NM. *I don't care either way at this point btw* ~ PheNaxKian talk 19:17, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
I'd argue that if it doesn't work in hard mode it's not worth keeping. With the exception of a few specific farming builds, iIf it works in hard mode it works better than a dedicated normal mode build would by definition--TahiriVeila 19:19, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
No point really - most builds work in both, just need a couple of variants. Andy 19:31, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Realistically, there's only a couple of farming builds that don't work in HM - that's about it, everything else is fine in HM so I don't think its worth creating another category, or even another tag (similar to the dungeon ones) since the pages are already getting too busy. In fact everything is currently for hard mode, except the running build for the first half of Slavers (which doesnt need to be for HM), farming builds (doesn't matter if they're HM or NM for certain things) and some elite area heroway builds. No changes need to be made imo. - AthrunFeya - 20:36, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Disregard my initial support. For some reason, I was thinking there was a point to going into NM. ··· Danny So Cute 21:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

^ exactly. I don't see a point in separating the two. Hopefully most of our PvE builds are for HM. If they don't work in HM, then they may work in NM, but who cares? If it does work in HM, then you know it'll roll NM. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 16:20, 29 January 2010

Password Reset & accounts

Hi, were the old accounts ported across to wikia, and should I be able to recover/reset the password?, Could just be an email glitch but I'd like to avoid creating multiple accounts if I can :) -- Nela / 20:15, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.