This is needed. Uses the imba Mark of Insecurity to mess up enchantments and stances. Oh and the general fact that rit runners ownz. is such bad formatting. I cleared up a build a few days ago that had the phrase "cause more boom" or something equally retarded sounding from a build 10 or 15 times. If PvX is to have any reputation at all, let's show some professionalism in the places where it's needed, and keep the trolling/nonsense/ect. on talk pages. —SkaKidSkakidasaur 21:28, 15 December 2008 (EST)

might as well get rid of the trolling/nonsense as well MuffinPWNAGEMUFFIN crabs 21:37, 15 December 2008 (EST)
PvXwiki lost its reputation a long time ago when the first build was posted--Relyk chtistmas2ChristmasRelyk 21:39, 15 December 2008 (EST)
You don't need a policy for this, people should just volunteer to do more professional descriptions since no one reads the policies anyways. Ofc the BMs could probably do this but I'm sure they wouldn't be up for the task.--Relyk chtistmas2ChristmasRelyk 21:46, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Nobody really follows NPA anyways :p MuffinPWNAGEMUFFIN crabs 21:48, 15 December 2008 (EST)
This would be an addon to an existing policy. It just really needs to be done. —SkaKidSkakidasaur 21:59, 15 December 2008 (EST)
Mmmk, might as well get it out there.--Relyk chtistmas2ChristmasRelyk 22:18, 15 December 2008 (EST)
/Agree. PVX-Zyke 22:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a pretty good example of user-generated discussion failure. A genuine, sensible addendum was proposed, and all you seem to be able to do is whine about "PvX lost its reputation long ago" and "you don't need a policy for this". The average user here seems to be quite consistent in whining about these things. Then you continue to troll onto NPA? Last I checked, NPA was a user administration policy and not a content policy. If the main function of PvX is to display builds, then it makes all the more sense to have more emphasis placed on content policies than stupidity-control policies like NPA. Rather than trying to make this QQ-forum-wiki (or rather, even more like QQ-forum-wiki), try actually doing something productive. This includes reading over what you wrote, and making sure it's worth posting before pressing that "Save page" button. You'd be amazed at the amount of crap and server space saved if everyone was a bit less retarded all the time. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 16:00, 16 December 2008 (EST)

To skakid, coming from someone who nammed a build (I know it isn't specifically build writing) someone who named a build ION CANNOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNN, that is fairly ironic, but I am complete support of this policy. skaddidles! --Frosty 16:17, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I'm all for it. I prefer the idea of putting this into Editing Builds (I'm actually surprised there wasn't something like this already in there). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 17:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)
/agree, the amount of times I see builds in testing that are clearly not finished or have been written up to a bad standard is alarming. FrostrageFrosty po! 21:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)
Don't we have a build writing section? And yes, when people fail to write up builds fully, it is annoying. --Guild of Deals talk 21:14, 16 February 2009 (EST)
I think i've only ever written up like, a total of three of the builds i've posted to pvx =\--GoldenGoldenstarStar 21:34, 16 February 2009 (EST)
then u get frosty to finish it up :3 Jebuspachi-1-1.jpgMcPachirisu 21:35, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I think a really proper write-up is outside the abilities of most PvXers, but this is needed. --71.229 21:19, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I have made a not in PvXwiki:Editing Builds that any builds not up to standard (be it grammatically/informationally) can be moved back to stub/trial. FrostrageFrosty po! 21:25, 16 February 2009 (EST)

IMO, the bottom yellow section of the mainpage needs to be moved to a top. New people need to read the Formatting build articles first. PVX-Zyke 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

We could make that section neon pink and animated at the top of the page and people wouldn't read it first. KJ needed a new sig....sig 22:25, 19 March 2009
Forced grammer test @ sign-up ftw. PVX-Zyke 22:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If we applied that retroactively, half the wiki would no longer be able to contribute. KJ needed a new sig....sig 22:35, 19 March 2009
needs be we can make it so one of those annoying boxes shows up when a new user makes their first edit ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 23:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.