IMO let guides be under the main namespace in Category:Guides with no builds, but suggestions for skills and advantages/disadvantages of bringing those skills. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 06:04, 24 July 2007 (CEST)

i think the build examples on the pages are great, they give you an example build to use if you're lazy and don't wanna read the whole thing =P Skakid9090 06:05, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
The problem is that they're not vetted. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 19:44, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
then we remove them if they suck, gg =) - Skakid9090 19:46, 24 July 2007 (CEST)
But by having them on the page of a guide, new people will assume they're good and use them and then RQ that we suck because we put shitty builds on our guides. (Where's Barek, he can argue this actually intelligently...) -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 05:56, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
So, what's the problem? We put up good builds, no one whines. Did I miss something? - Kowal Krowman {{sysop}} 05:59, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
i trust the community to remove the crap and put on a good build. coleneh's moebius build is out of control tho - Skakid9090 06:00, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
It's the theory behind putting up builds for people to look at and say "these are good builds" without any sort of vetting that gets to me... -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 06:01, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
They're usage sections with templates and a bunch of optionals. Not builds. That's the entire point of having guide: they're not builds. If I wanted more builds, I wouldn't bother with guides. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 06:11, 25 July 2007 (CEST)
Before deciding that guides should be vetted - it appears more fundamentally important that the site define policy on what is a guide vs what is a build (but with a MUCH better policy name than that). From what I see, I view Guide:Invinci-Monk Guide as a true guide article, with links to builds that are themselves vetted. Meanwhile, Guide:PvE Moebius Strike Assassins appears to be nothing more than a list of a series of builds that are attempting to bypass the build vetting process by pawning themselves off as a guide (which to me, the article is not).
Once a policy is in place on what is valid guide content vs what is valid build content - then at that point it can be discussed on if the guides will also need a vetting process of their own. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:42, 27 July 2007 (CEST)
Thank you, thank you all. I am honored. /bow —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 02:15, 28 July 2007 (CEST)
The Moebius DB page is a build article that was moved into the guide namespace without a single change. it wasnt written as a guide, the invincimonk guide was. no one is trying to bypass the vetting procedure.--Coloneh 08:19, 1 August 2007 (CEST)

i say we just take a vetted good-great build that the guide covers and use it as an example, that way you could have to abuild to use/work off of. - — RAWR! Skakid9090 04:43, 27 July 2007 (CEST)

I say guides should be just rough outlines with possible skills one could use and links to builds that are proven to work as more in-depth examples. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 08:22, 1 August 2007 (CEST)

I think a guide should be mainly like the invinci monk one mentioned above HOWEVER, i think you could also call it a guide if it has builds on it SO LONG AS the builds put on have been vetted, and are 3.5 or higher, and with links at the bottom of the page to the actual build page, or a tag jsut above the build saying what category it's in (great good etc.). i think that the best kind of guide would be a mix of both maybe, where you get the invinci monk style, but get a couple of the more popular favored builds in? Phenaxkian 00:23, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

Use links. Both the monk guide and the invincimonk guide have links to all favored builds of that profession. The monk guide does it better IMO. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 00:59, 10 August 2007 (CEST)
Thats because you wrote the monk guide lol Grinch... meh i think you wrote the invincimonk ones as well. Meh.Signet of DisruptionRawrawr Dinosaur 18:26, 10 August 2007 (CEST)
And if I did (I did)? I don't want to have to rewrite them! The point of a guide is to make sure we get less leet builds going through our vetting procedure. I'll be happy to do more guides if that is the end result. —ǥȓɩηɔɧ/〛 18:31, 10 August 2007 (CEST)

So... I think we need, on this page: two syntaxes, one for profession and one for build/how-to guides (e.g. guides on FFFing, etc), some crap about guide vs build, content quality (e.g. writing good builds + avoiding common mistakes rolled into one), e.g. I've noticed you usually use official descriptions of attributes as the first line of info under attribute information. That's about it I would think, then a list of guides and wanted/proposed guides. Perhaps a Guide:Main Page too? I would be willing to help with that if needed. -- Nova Jirouji-Nova -- (contribs) 01:43, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

I'd be down for the that too. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ/ 04:09, 20 August 2007 (CEST)
I have a draft written up, but I've been putting it on hold until a decision is made on the current guides. The draft I've written contradicts some of the guides that we have right now. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 05:36, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

Where is it? --User Frvwfr2 signature frvwfr2 (T/C/RFA) 05:42, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

It's been emailed to Krowman. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:33, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

Guide Main Page

Your one-stop-shop for all things Guide. I made a Portal:Guides. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲŞƳŞŌƤ 02:48, 29 August 2007 (CEST)

The Rubber Stamp

... Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:48, 23 September 2007 (CEST)


Discuss changes. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 13:57, 22 September 2007 (CEST)

Ending is slightly lame imo, but good otherwise. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 02:03, 23 September 2007 (CEST)
De-lame-ify plx. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 03:14, 23 September 2007 (CEST)
Done. However: "A specific category would be "Category:GvG Guides" but the specific category is always "Category:Build Guides"". Lawl. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 05:14, 23 September 2007 (CEST)

Specifics about "no guides"

[1] <-- Links are ok. Officially now. Placing PvXcode in the article and saying "IZ GUD UZE DIS" is not, but putting links points people to builds that have/are properly going through the vetting process. The only thing is with links, they need to be watched for unfavor/delete and the page needs to be updated appropriately. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 17:39, 23 September 2007 (CEST)

is this not the place too

Make a guide on say the main usage of paragons(or any other proffesion) in pve and pvp. should that be put on like guru or something.

Fuck guru. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 15:04, 26 September 2007 (CEST)
umm dident help me muich... is this a good place to put guides about main skill and build usage for proffesions. with the final guildwars out the game wont be chaging much
Fuck guru. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 15:04, 26 September 2007 (CEST) Ibreaktoilets SignatureIbreaktoilets 20:11, 28 September 2007 (CEST)
See Guide:Paragon. -- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image{{sysop}} 20:28, 28 September 2007 (CEST)
(edit conflict)Allow me to be helpfull -_-;; basicly the guides on PVX aren't for prefesion specific guides AS SUCH, such a thing would be more Guildwiki type things HOWEVER if you look in the guide portal here there are proffesion guides, if you look at the monk guide there it will give you an idea of what the guides should be like-that's the general idea(the monk one's about done i belive-so it's to the others =D) and please sign your comments (use 4 tidles------> ~ <--------)PheNaxKian (T/c)Tag thumb 20:32, 28 September 2007 (CEST)

Might've missed it

Where's the part that says we don't keep guides for shitty styles of play? — Skakid HoHoHo 14:22, 21 December 2007 (EST)

What are you talking about? We have an HA section. —ǥrɩɳsɧƿoɲ 14:31, 21 December 2007 (EST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.