FANDOM


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