FANDOM


Platform for improvement. FrostrageFrosty po! 21:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

lol i think you covered most of it --Tai Sig 21:28, 23 February 2009
my thoughts is that the template is unneeded (personally I find it ugly but that's just me =p), you could just add a category instead. If this policy is approved, i'd suggest just adding it to PvX:RV instead of keeping it as it's own policy. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to keep it here during discussion, it can be moved later. Personally, we need something to show whether shit is meta or some fags theorycraft. Either an addition to build tags or a new tag is my preference over just a category. No one looks at cats anyway. - Misery CowMisery Says Moo 21:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I did suggest somewhere to update the Build templates so you could have this build is part of the meta yadayadyada FrostrageFrosty po! 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Frosty has all the answers >: --Tai Sig 21:38, 23 February 2009
well it would be possiable to update the build tags with a PvP/PvE meta tag (basically the same as we have it say PvP HB or something), if that's what you want. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No that wouldn't be right, since PvP meta isn't really an "area". Let me Paint my idea FrostrageFrosty po! 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FrostGreat

By adding say |Meta| to the list, it will add a note saying it is in the meta game (then link to the meta category/guide), but I am not the wikilingo guy so I have no idea whether its possible and what not. FrostrageFrosty po! 21:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it's doable. You'd be best asking one of our More code knowledgeable admins. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It can be done very easily if |meta=yes| is used. |meta| would be better of course, I need more time to review the template in order to make it work, though. ĐONT*SYSOP 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I vote make the process to add it to meta long and arduous, so random anons can't add their bad theorycrafts to it =/ --Tai Sig 22:21, 23 February 2009
A consensus is needed, so yea, and if some anons just put it on non-meta builds simply revery and bring it up on the talk page, if they keep doing it tell and admin as they have broken PvX:1RV FrostrageFrosty po! 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Fuck consensi, they don't work on PvX, make it a BM-only thing. Rickyvantof 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree on that, but that might be tough to do? --Tai Sig 22:27, 23 February 2009
Nah, BM's would completely ignore all PvE builds and they can't be expected to update the PvP meta section all the time. This policy would also require our BM's to be very active GW players.. I'd rather trust active players to update it. I'd also prefer the note on the Great template to jump out a little more. ---Chaos- 08:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bringing this back up Edit

This should be merged into the Real Vetting policy, and I'd like it if the meta tag could be incorporated somehow into the Great/Good templates. It'd look a lot neater than having two separate tags. RV already has a small section on Meta tagging, but this is a bit clearer. ToraenTheJanitorToraenSig2 23:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of merging (which is a different tag btw ;D), but the BM section needs to be removed. We have a whopping 2 BMs active right now, and by active I mean that they contribute once every other day or so. Anyone should be able to tag as long as they can prove the build is meta. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 00:00, 7 January 2010
In that case, we might as well just fail this again right away (lol). The Real Vetting Meta blurb covers what we'd do if BMs aren't the ones monitoring Meta status. Of course, they still have final say on what is/isn't meta. ToraenTheJanitorToraenSig2 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
As they should, but with so few active BMs it would be ignorant of us to assume they could tag every single meta build. Karate KJ for sig Jesus 00:18, 7 January 2010
considering this is already in place (in terms of tagging) in RV why does this need discussing further? ~ PheNaxKian talk 11:25, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.