Talk: Main Page/Archive 10

Claiming

real first !

First Frosty 16:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

First to do what? God Zefir 17:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realise it will still the demo site :> Frosty

Even so, me and Chaos have already posted today. >_> God Zefir 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mwah. --—The preceding trolling attempt was made by Chaos (talk) . 19:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the accounts are getting switched over? Cause crazycow013 is taken. :< crazycow 19:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

With some luck I'll get the "Chaos" name. --—The preceding trolling attempt was made by Chaos (talk) . 20:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Did they move usernames too? (Anon here btw) --217.43.241.119 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(Yes we know you're an anon ;D) Usernames are totally screwed up so far. I happened to have a wikia account. --—The preceding trolling attempt was made by Chaos (talk) . 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

are they? I didnt have one - and since they've moved the database i do now...i think your confused --Darklɘs McChaosmongɘr 22:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

My account is working :> Frosty po! 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Renames are ongoing. Please see user talk:Angela/renames. Angela (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

this new wikia...

Is fucked. I liked the old site. -- lyssan 23:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything I can help with? Please leave a note on Talk:News/20090217 or on my talk page. Angela (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Meh, ignore him. Lyssan, everything's being sorted out, and if you switch to monobook it's virtually identical. -- 00:10, 20 February 2009

NOW SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS XDDDDD cya guys, ill forget dis site now, like deh other suckin wikia... xD--89.129.150.231 10:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

anyone else

not have the little skill description pop up? LongCat 23:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they've finished porting pvxbig over yet. --71.229 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That should be working now. Please leave a note on Talk:News/20090217 if it's not so I can collect all the bugs in one place. Angela (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

is that why my sig is boring again too? LongCat 00:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a different thing. Did you own the account "LongCat" on Wikia before today? If so, it probably took your default Wikia sig in preference to your pvx sig but you can easily re-add it at Special:Preferences. If it would be useful, I can get a list from the backup of what everyone's sigs used to be. See Help:Signature for info on how to add a sig. Angela (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratings Wipe

Who would oppose/support a complete wipe of the ratings history? Pros: It'd go along with the "new start" theme, would encourage new member participation,... Cons: Experienced/old/anti-lukejohnson members would get pwnd.

00:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats a really bad idea. Over 800 builds would have to be revoted on... Also, I doubt it would change that much except it would waste everyone's time. ressmonkey 00:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea, big waste of time, I would rather just go round all the bad builds and vote them down if I wanted to try and filter some of the crap out form pvx Frosty po! 00:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Noooo! Not the rating's themselves. Just the people who've rated. EDIT: I've taken 5 minutes to think about this, and I feel dumb. 00:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No huge reason for a wipe. Greater influx of new members = Greater outflow of ragers due to experienced PvXers, imo. --ShazamLovesObama _{obamaobamaobamaobamaobama} 05:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo don't wipe >.> It would screw things up too much. Invincible Rogue 23:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

pvx.wikia.com skills

It no skill database exists. Is this temporary or does a whole new database need to be formed? Or something else?--[[image:Healing_Hands.jpg|20px]]<b>[[user:Canderouss|<font color="blue">Cander</font>]][[user talk:Canderouss|<font color="yellow">ouss</font>]] 01:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This should be temporary. Angela (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

k. sig fix.--Canderouss 05:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Enabling PvXwiki's unique skin

The old skin should actually be the default. To enable it, however, you need to go to Preferences (under "more options" or some such in the upper right) and click the Skin tab. Scroll down until you see the Monobook option, and make sure it's enabled. Then scroll to the bottom and disable the option to let administrators override your choice and click save. -- Armond Warblade{{SUBST:bacon}} 02:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

i dont suppose

there is a way to block my userpage. i didnt think about this at first but i seem to be attracting /b/tards like a girl who is on the rebound attracts men LongCat 03:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your page can be protected, but it'll prevent you from editing it as well I believe. ~ Tycn 06:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratings - names beside:P?

I kinda liked it :P - Any idea to show who rated on that etc? atm it just says, rated 5 and date. Massive 13:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Also wtf upp whit all the votes done by ppl is renamed to something elsE:P? Massive 13:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

something broke during the move, they're working on it =). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 13:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Talk:News/20090217#Ratings There you go massive go join the club Frosty po! 13:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep adverts on other side.

I dont like that adverst are now to my right, it reduces the size of editable space making it too narrow, very disruptive. Is it possible to keep them on left side as it was on PvX if wikia really is so flexible? IMO that will appeal to many old and new users. --Anonimous. D: 17:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Add Block Plus is pro. ^_^ Brandnew. 17:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Use FF and get Add Block Plus, Anon. Right after the switch my ABP wasn't blocking everything, but now it's getting them all. (→17:36, 20 February 2009 - )

The editable space is still reduced though, and I have 'collapse blocked elements' checked. It's really annoying. Toraen Dirt to da face! 17:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

what skin are you using? Mine is almost identical to the old wiki with Monobook. (→17:43, 20 February 2009 - )

I've switched it to monobook and unchecked that box for allowing admins to override my choice. Everything looks good except for the space on the right. Toraen Dirt to da face! 17:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

yea, it has a little more space over there for their ads. I don't think there's anything you can do about that, sorry. (→17:48, 20 February 2009 - )

If you use monaco or one of the other skins, you won't see ads at all (except on the main page). Angela (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Too bad monaco is shit. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 12:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename

I HATE WIKIA!!! IT's the stupidest idea in the world. I had an account on gwiki, same name and password, and on two other wikis, also on here. All of these sites had changed to wikia. now i have like 7 account and i have no fucking idea what any of them are anymore. So, is this my origional account? or is this my pvx account? or is it my wikia account? or is it one of my 7 fucking other accounts? also, i hate wikia because its incredibly slow on my computer. now it takes me like 5 minutes to get to the main page, when before it was like 2 seconds. FUCK YOU!--‎FireTock ^Rules! 20:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm.. Whenever a wiki moves to Wikia they have this page which clearly asks for people to say "HAI I HAS ACCOUNTS ON BOTH WIKIS MERGE KTHX". Apparently you're not reading anything, or you wouldn't've missed it. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Guildwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaars. Lord of all tyria 20:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC ×2)first, Chill. second, if you want to merge your PvX account with your wikia account (or a wikia account) go here and add yourself to the relevant list. Thirdly, yes the sites slow, but that's because everything's still getting set up, things still need fixing, when it's done, it will be quicker than it was before. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 20:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your account hasn't been affected since you already had the same name as Wikia. You can log in as Fire Tock using your normal password. If there are extra accounts that you want closed, I can remove those. Please let me know iIf you need to reset your password reset or if you're still having problems getting in. You should find that the username Fire Tock will work across all Wikia sites. I tried to email you this info, but the address in your preferences is bouncing. Angela (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Is PvX Decode Broken?

I just tried to decode a template and after clicking Submit Query, it throws me out to the Main Page. --Bubba 20:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

See here. Also, your sig needs to link to your userpage. Toraen Dirt to da face! 20:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Meta Category

There looks like some room to fit in a meta category in the PvP section (at least), since we have Category:PvP Meta Builds up and ready may as well display it. Frosty po! 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

PvE will come later once i get around to it -- 20:04, 23 February 2009

Shitty servers

Wikia's servers suck dick. They can't even load my talk page, or Readem's archive. On Gcard's servers, it was nearly instantaneous. Bullocks, tbh. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 05:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I loaded both tbh. --- -- (contribs) (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive? 800KB is insane :/ ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 14:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

inorite? --Darklɘs McChaosmongɘr 23:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not the page, it's the servers. Always. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I load it in about 5 seconds, slower but not that bad considering its a massive page. FrostytheAdmin 00:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mgrinshpon, servers really aren't very fine. Usually page loading timeouts and it might take few hours of pressing F5 for it to finally show up.. Same with GuildWiki, and actually most of wikia. But with few random proxy tests, I am able to view those pages via them. Seems like wikia's servers aren't geographically so robust... 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikia's servers work better for me, amazingly. Biggles Strongfist™ Sysop 18:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not a fan of the new pvx.wikia Uraniumjoint 22:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Lawl downtime

Ha your shitty ass wikia servers went down today. Also i got my new comp today and it has vista. I would just like to inform you all of how enraged i am. Having to deal with vista (and abnormal lag at this moment despite my quad core and 4gb ram) and no pvx makes me want to go beserk with a sledge hammer and rampage my school.

System specs have little to do with browsing, because browsers barely drain RAM / CPU. And Vista just is slower than XP. Always. --- -- (srs Viper) (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Firefox has a well known memory leak. It's perfectly capable of eating up a solid gig by itself after an extended use period. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 12:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The New Firefox

[| Google Chrome.] Mucho awsomeness.--Canderouss 06:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't troll Main Page. --Shazzydiddles 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

i thought trolling was calling someone an asshole or something-- 05:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

trolling is pretending chrome has anything on firefox. -Auron 07:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

im about to troll on u in a second-- 22:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rit/P Spirit's Strength Spear

Hi guys, I'm new to this, so if I posted this in the wrong section, please forgive me... Anyways, I'm looking for the Rit/P Spirit's Strength Spear build, I can't seem to find it....it was on here a while ago. Can anyone link me the build or something? It would be greatly appreciated.

I'm afraid it got trashed and then deleted. ^_^ Brandnew. 18:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, does anyone remember/know the skill list? I'm pretty sure I know what runes and stuff to put it on, I just can't remember the skill bar...

most likely, in which the optional is disrupting throw or the one that makes you lose a condition. ;o Brandnew. 18:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

can't recall second optional. ^_^

it was OAmjAakbJTqTAZmh+iPYhiIbxbA before it got trashed -Auron 07:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

theres a reason it got trashed, fyi One Who Brings Soot 20:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it

Just be that sees a problem with the Guild Wars updates box? It says.. Failed to load RSS feed from http://www.guildwars.com/support/gameupdates/rss/updates-current.xml!88.106.58.253 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Have same problem. Probably deep in the bowels of wikia this issue is covered on some help page that you couldn't find unless you were a Wikia sysop, but for an average user, it would be like trying to find a polyp on and in your own large intestine using standard gastro intestinal surgeon's tools- and just as painful. Remoteluxury 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

panning over skill images, results in image being "locked" on page

When I try to pan over a skill image on any of the PVX build pages, the image of more detailed information will pop up, and then it does not disappear. I can move the cursor over another skill, and it will make the old detailed skill image disappear and replace it with a new detailed skill image. Once I am done looking at the fine details of the skills by panning over their specific images, inevitably one skill will remain visible and not disappear, causing important information regarding the build to be covered by the detail image. This is a source of frustration, and I would like the ability to pan over the image, and then when my cursor is no longer on top of the image, I would like the detail picture to GO AWAY completely; Making the ability to SEE the other information that is covered by the locked image. I use Safari web browser for wiki exclusively, but have the same problem when using IE. The detail pop up images will not go away once I pan over one of them, at least one of them remains and covers the text underneath it. I'm a VISTA 32bit user/ all microsoft/ intel PC high end gaming computer. I prefer Safari because it works with my Iphone, allowing me to work with PVX wiki remotely; and this problem does not relate to my Iphone but rather relates to issues when I use my PC to view a specific PVX build. As you can see I am not an editor, and I apologize for being overly verbose; Wanting to make sure I provide as much detail of the problem and provide my system information to help diagnose the issue and solve the problem if it is INDEED a problem. If it is inherent in the PVX wikia system that this is a normal function, I'd like to request that this be done away with, as it is annoying as hell. (To be fair, I believe a small percentage of people say I am annoying as hell too.) Thank you. Remoteluxury 20:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hero and General builds - can separate pages be made, or at very least d/l for both uses?

This issue might in some people's eyes be more appropriate in a suggestion box rather than covering the problem here, but since a suggestion box link does not readily appear when I load a PVX build page, and the "report a problem" link button is non-functional, I thought this might be a good place to post my issue. I don't want to cause personal misunderstanding, so when I reference a particular author's highly thought out and excellent work, I don't want them to take my complaint personally. I recently downloaded what I thought was a hero build for my guild wars warrior hero. Turns out this code, when loaded on my hero removes 3 skills from the hero's toolbar. Double checking the author's page, I read at the top GENERAL and HERO use. When I download a hero build, I expect a hero build- not a general build. To be fair, the good authors will write in names of skills to use in place of general builds skills to be used when using on a hero. That's excellent, except there is no coding available for the hero build, which makes the fast download and save completely useless. Can PVX have separate pages for heros, and general builds? With correct coding available for download without the run-around of putting skills designed for General use amalgamated with Hero skills. I realize it's an extra page, and copy / paste works wonder's btw. So I don't see having a separate page being a problem for the authors to create. When I download hero builds, I want hero builds and information about HEROS not GENERAL build information. What are the preclusions to having separate pages for heros and general builds? I am hoping for an answer and Just want to know why it's set up this way, rather than having only one download and one set of skill pictures which oftentimes are not heros, but made for General use. At the very least, couldn't code be added to the page if a build is suited for both hero and general use, and I could easily download the hero build- or using the GW's game mechanics copy/paste the code into my hero's template box? Thank you for your patience with my rant, I don't mean to be troubling, and I can foresee others seeing this as a trite issue. But I spent the time to write this out, so it isn't trite to me- and I am hoping for some kind person to answer on why General Code and Hero Code Skill bars for download can't be included on pages where the two builds occupy a single page, where (usually) the hero build is covered as an explanation somewhere in the text below the General use skill bar, download link, and General variation and explanation text. Thank you Remoteluxury 22:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but most will see this as tl;dr. I read it, and I think the builds are wrote like that for simplicity. Yes, I believe that having PvE only skills in the mainbar is bad if it has hero tagged in it. But no one really C/Ps builds anymore. Most run variants of what's been vetted as great. Load it onto your hero, customize it, then save it. I don't know what you mean for separate pages for heroes though. There is a hero section, though the build may be tagged PvE general. Unless you mean making a completely new page with the build as the hero can only run? That would be too complicated and time consuming. But you could possibly get the ball rolling on that if you'd like. Biggles Strongfist™ Sysop 22:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Truthfully, i've always thought it made more sense to have the hero bar as the main, and jsut say "if you want to run it yourself, you can take PvE skills: X, Y and Z". As long as variants are suggested for the other (i.e. if the hero bar is main, variants for general, or general is main, and hero bar variants are listed) I don't see much of a problem :/ (it doesn't take that much effort to change a couple of skills, no offense meant here). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been pushing for separate pages for a while, the pve squad have been obliging, the bars are often wildly different. Misery Says Moo 22:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the builds were always Hero + PvE-only under variants. With the obvious exceptions of builds such as the Discord team build, where the player's entire build is based around 3 PvE skills. I'd be willing to tidy up some of the PvE-tagged builds into a "Hero Bar + PvE skills under Variants" format. 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Trolling/Rating

There is a small minority of PvX users who roam around trolling and passing out poor ratings while do very little that is constructive. Some of these people have never designed a build for PvX yet claim they are qualified to trash an other user's work. What about the idea of making it so that a person with no submitted builds can not rate builds? Maybe this would be too easy to get around, but I'm just throwing it out there. -- Captain Bulldozer Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. 17:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Names or it didn't happen. ~ Big sysop 17:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

there's a variety f problems with such a system. Like you've mentioned, it would be easy to get past (creating a build doesn't take much effort). Just because they've not made a build, doesn't mean they aren't qualified to vett builds. Perhaps the most important issue, is that if they've submitted a build and it's been deleted, as far as the database is concerned, the build never existed, and that user never made said contributions, so people could have their build deleted which would be an issue. These points aside, if you feel someone is abusing their vote, you can request they review the vote, and if needs be, post it on the Admin noticeboard where and admin or BM can look at it and decide if any action should be taken, such as removing the vote, and even banning if necessary. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 17:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

theres alot: i dont like 1-1-0 and me like! 5-5-x going on here tbh Hydra 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

links please... ~ Big sysop 17:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

U dont need links for that, you just need to look at 90% of trash and great builds. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's really productive. ~ Big sysop 23:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a test! 77.185.69.35 23:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

For an example, check out the build vs the ratings of this: Build: N/any Discordant Technobabbler. There's an issue with people using rating to express idea that the ratings are not intended to discuss. Ratings are, as far as I know, intended to evaluate universality and effectiveness, not other issues like whether a build that also works well in meta-teams deserves build space, or whether you like the name of the build. I don't want to single people out by naming names, I see this more as a general problem with the current rating system. As was mentioned above, a lot of raters use all 1s if they dislike something on the build and all 5s if they like the build. These are both forms of abuse, although the all 1s seems more serious, especially for builds that are clearly effective and universally usable. Just my 2 cents. -- Captain Bulldozer Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. 01:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First off, that build IS pretty bad. People give 1-1 ratings or such because the build IS bad and deserves a trash rating thusly. You're essential arguement is saying that the rating system is "broken" because people use 1-1 most commonly on trash builds and 5-5 on amazing builds. That is just incredibly stupid. --☭Guild*talk* 01:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Guild of deals: Your opinion of the build not withstanding, (this is not the place to get into anyway... so please write about your opinions on its discussion page) you seem to be putting words into my mouth. I didn't say the rating system was broken. I'm saying that its being abused by certain people who wish the rate a build based on factors other than effectiveness and universality. My original intent was to suggest that perhaps we could have a better rating system that didn't tie up the admins' time going to check whether users rated a build badly for the wrong reasons, whether they be pure trolling or something the ratings are not designed to express (like not liking the name of a build lol). Perhaps the rating system should be expanded to include these other views/issue, or perhaps people need to be reminded/punished for not staying within the established guidelines. For example, considering a build to be "generic" says little to nothing about its universality or effectiveness, but does perhaps say something about its innovation, and as such does not warrant 1s in the other categories. I really just want a discussion about how the rating system might be improved, as the current functionality is not only inaccurate, but can also be a huge turn off to newer posters. Its a sure thing that each us will get at least one build mercilessly trashed, but I maintain it should be based off the build itself and its performance, not other concerns. -- Captain Bulldozer Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. 01:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comming from a new user with little exp with this site that has an outside view....it seems to me that it is "who you know not what you know". 00:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What about a general guide/rubric for how to rate? Something like:

• 0 for effectiveness if the build simply doesn't function (deals little to no damage or has very poor supposrt if it's a support build)
• 1 for effectiveness if the build functions barely (i.e the heals are substandard and costly, or the sources of damage are highly conditional and unlikely to be successful dealing very low damage overall)
• 2 for effectiveness if its slightly better than a 1, etc... you get the idea. Having guidelines makes it easier for ratings to be objective, and also easier for admins to decide which ratings are poor/biased/factually incorrect. In theory it would also cut down on the number of all 1s and the number of all 5s. Currently many ratings are nothing more than basically a yes vote (all 5s) or a no vote (all 1s). As far as I can see, that's not how the ratings were intended to be used. Captain Bulldozer Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is gonna be a shitter wiki until rating system is just yes and no anyway, theres shit builds in great and 99% of good and other is shit. Rawrawr Dinosaur 16:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying about builds being rated into the wrong categories. I don't like the idea of a yes/no system because it clumps all the working builds together, not differentiating between those that work very well and those that just work. As an educator, I can say that no worthwhile teacher would either give As or Fs, and to prevent that from happening teachers generally use an objective list of criteria used to assign grades. I think a similar system is needed here, as clearly many users don't use any objectivity when rating, and even when they do one user's standards may be quite different from another user. Under those contexts, of course the ratings will be inherently flawed. Captain Bulldozer Don't TELL me that you're right... prove it. 16:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Content"

Just a quick question regarding the Content bar (right under PvXConvert). It seems to me that most, if not all, of the links redirect to unexistent pages due to the lack of the Build: in the Build:X/Y_Build_Name link. Could anyone fix this? (or look it up ^^) Thanks, 20:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Guild Wars updates

It says "Failed to load RSS feed from http://www.guildwars.com/support/gameupdates/rss/updates-current.xml!" for me. Is that just my computer or is it like that for everyone? Drah McNinja 23:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

yep PWNAGEMUFFIN crabs 03:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Meta Stuff

Could it be possible for under the "portals" to add the meta pve and meta pvp categories? Cause those are what everybody is using and it just makes it simpler than to click on a build u know is in the meta then click on meta builds.Generalmurgahn 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. ~ Big sysop 06:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I second this idea! --Sam6555 02:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Third --Robadob 15:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikia noticeboard

Do we want one like they have on Gwiki? For those of you that aren't sure what it is, it's similar to our AN, but you post issues that require Wikia's attention instead of Admins, so basically it'd be where the General coding and PvX code issues would be handled (for the most part). Y/N? ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sabway vs. Discordway

Which hero set-up is better overall. I want to know as i am just going to start doing HM stuff all throughout the game from vanquishing, HM missions and dungeons. I play an assassin with builds such as a palm strike spiker with SY!, a WS crit scythe, a Critbow barrager or a MS/DB build with SY! I more commonly play the critbow. If you want my builds to look at i'll make a little template, but i'm pretty sure you can guess them. :) --Sam6555 21:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sabway is probably better with the MS/DB and critbow, and Discordway is probably better with the crit scythe. Drah McNinja 21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I find sabway to be awesome in every way, but from what Ive heard Sabway is better for physicals and Discordway is better for casters. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Discordway. Fast spikes and with a sin you get maximum energy back from AP. If you choose to critscythe, bring WS with asura scan to satisfy discord's req. Life 22:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok thats cool, I use sabway everywhere as it is and my heros are already runed for it.

Curses 12+1+3 soul reaping 12+1

Restoration 12 soul reap 8+1 channeling 10

death 12+1+3 healing 5 protection 8 soul reap 9

These are the builds I use, anything bad with these? Wanna make sure they are perfectly set for HM. (Grrr, previewed it and turns out I had to capitalise everything -_-) --Sam6555 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)::::One extra thing, for an area like sacnoth with all the savannah heat/searing flames, what could I do to maybe get past all that, it's gonna hurt in HM. --Sam6555 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Resurrect is awful. Reckless Haste is pointless. Bad attribute spread on MM. Discordway is still better. Life 22:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hero SS are just bad in general, to be fair Athrun Feya 22:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I loled, it sure as hell ain't the healer blowing the mobs up. ;D --Sam6555 23:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Question...

I use pvx to read and comment all the time, but I just made my first build today. Other than finishing the build, which I did, and removing the stub tag so its in the the trial phase, which I also did, is there anything I need to do so that people know they can discuss it and such? One Who Brings Soot 00:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

first please sign with ~~~~ and anyone can comment on a build whenever they want. Drah McNinja 00:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You can feature it on the main page. Wait for a trial build to go into testing, or put your own build into testing and wait for a testing one to be rated. Life 00:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So right now there is a free spot on the main page under PvP trial builds, which is where my build would fall. How do I go about putting Build:Mo/A Gunther's Saving Grace in that spot?One Who Brings Soot 00:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I just did it for you. Life 00:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. But for future reference, how would I do it?One Who Brings Soot 00:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

One the main page, by those boxes, it says "history|Edit". Click edit, and edit the whole page, not just a section. Replace the build there with w/e build you want to feature. Make sure to leave off the Build: prefix. Life 00:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that's easy; i had been trying to edit just the section and got confused. Thanks for all your help One Who Brings Soot 00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Too Many Rangers

There are so many ranger PvP builds that all use the general ranger template with different elites. Should they all be merged into one with the elites as variants?--ZZuuMCanderouss 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

no Drah McNinja 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

no way. different elites have different uses, enough to warrant diff builds -- 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really agree. Cripshot cripples. Melandru's Shot spikes and snares. Burning Arrow Spikes. BHA is used for...well I don't even know. But they're all basically placed on the same bars. There really should be a R/Mo template for them all. ~ Big sysop 05:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Might as well make a general hammer page too. >.> 05:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

About 2 years late to this discussion... Ranger elites completely change the way you play the build, and so they all warrant different pages. --Shazzydiddles 06:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

tbh, hammers are usually Backbreaker for spikes, dev for solos, earth shaker for aoe based teams, and magehunters for spikes/pressure. ~ Big sysop 06:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Magehunter was for guaranteeing kding the monk during a spike iirc--Relyk 06:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

PRESSURE. ~ Big sysop 08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

NPA

I say we eradicate this policy since no1 follows it anyways (no punishment for violating it either) PWNAGEMUFFIN crabs 23:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Update 5/14/09

LOL, there go about half the PvP builds on the wiki. Well, perhaps that's an exaggeration. There go about half the TA gimmicks on the wiki. --    Gah     QQ  ·  I did wut?!   00:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Package Download

Is it possible to put all of the great working builds into a package download? By this I mean having the option to download all builds in a category at once.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.67.156.33 (contribs) .

it's on the "to do list" =p. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 10:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Ratings

Is it just me or does it say December 31, 1969 and all of the times for the ratings are at 22:00? Drah McNinja 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The site title

Heroes Battle. Also, I'm sure most would agree with me that AB and HB aren't exactly the focal point of activity on the wiki. --Mafaraxas 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

truthfully i dislike it, but unles you can suggest something better.... ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 11:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"-PvXwiki, the Guild Wars wiki for character builds." I don't see why we need to mention anything else tbh. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic? 11:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

because search engines will tag us with other stuff... (it's kinda like the meta tags on a website) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. What do you mean search engines will "tag us with other stuff?" C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic? 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

essentially how search engines work. That should (hopefully) explain what I meant. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 12:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand how engines like Google work. What I don't understand is how removing the Guides, AB, and HB fluff from the title will make search engines index us with "other stuff". C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic? 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Zzz. I see what you meant now. I still don't see why we would need to mention specific areas. "Guild Wars" and "Builds" should suffice and most search engines will index uncommon phrases in the page bodies. Having it in the title will probably dilute the relevance of most pages rather than improve it. C:\PvX>Abort, Retry, Panic? 13:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw, why does it say "Heroes Battle", not "Hero Battles"?--Kammorremae 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

because that's how they put it. Anyway i'll change to what panic suggested. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 13:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me?

Or has the meta & variety become stale & stagnant? --BlazingBurdy 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

nope--Relyk 01:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

nope, no variety at all. Your either running some kind of hexgay team with pressure, or some gay gimmick build. -- 02:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

skill descriptions

<pvxbig>Why are some descriptions ([[Splinter Weapon]) PvE, some ([[Strength of Honor]) PvP, and some ([[Ancestor's Rage]) a compilation of both? Or is it just another part of the plan to cleverly hide PvX's competence? </pvxbig>--    Gah     QQ  ·  I did wut?!   21:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i don't follow...what's the question? ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

oh right I see. Because they've not been updated. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they've been updated, but inconsistently and sometimes straight up incorrectly. Read Ancestor's Rage's description carefully. ··· Danny Does Drugs 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Meta

Add Guide:PvE_Metagame and Guide:PvP_Metagame to the mainpage pl0x? -- Karasu (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

/agree, saves one click on the mouse then. :) --Sam6555 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"hey look! it's a place we can suggest improvements to the main page! Maybe we should try it out there and see what it looks like" ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 16:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Old builds

Where are elder builds stored? I'm looking for a assa/ranger build with bow but can't find any anymore :S --Birchwooda Treehug 16:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Look under the archived builds. I think you're looking for this Build:A/R Critical Barrager 16:15, 4 June 2009

Skill Database

Updated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.75.155 (talk • contribs) .

yes. every single skill is completely correct. believe everything you see and don't bother checking gww, because they've probably got it wrong. ··· Danny Does Drugs 16:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Be nice Danny. We have some issues with certain skills. The PvE/PvP split really messes up some of our skills. Just check GWW on skills that sound wrong. 17:02, 4 June 2009

Advertising

allright, the advertising was ok... but then they also moved it to the right, that was a bit annoying... now they're advertising after EVERY BUILD? i mean, it's crazy, and its the same advertising over and OVER AGAIN!!!!!! STOP IT 82.72.233.33 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Advertising is controlled by Wikia, not us. As a side note, if you create an account and log in, all advertising disappears. Misery Says Moo 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just logged out to look. Lol. That is really bad. Misery Says Moo 14:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at it in IE6, it's even funnier. Yay shitty work computers! ··· Danny Does Drugs 15:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Test my build!!

http://pvx.wikia.com/wiki/Build:N/any_Spoil_Victor_anti_melee

please test!

Wrong place to put this. ··· Danny Does Drugs 17:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The new editor thingie.

I read the message about the editor becoming more easier to use (from what I understood it's gonna be more like Microsoft Word) But pressed dismiss message and didn't see how to enable it. Could someone say how? Thanks ;) --Sam6555 16:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Today we are launching our new Rich Text Editor across all English-language Wikia wikis*. We have been working on this editor for more than a year and are extremely excited to make this available to the Wikia community. We hope that by making editing easier, more people will be able to contribute and become a part of a Wikia community.

This editor makes it easy for anyone to add and format text and embed links, images, video, categories and tables without needing to know any wiki markup. Some of you have been using this editor during our beta rollout, and now it's available to everyone. We encourage all users, both seasoned and new, to enable it now for yourself. You can always switch back to the old MediaWiki editor from your preferences.

If you have any questions please give us a shout. Thanks for your time!

16:03, 15 June 2009

PvX doesn't seem to have gotten it for some reason (the editing tab in Special:Preferences doesn't have the checkbox for "Enable Rich Text Editing" like guildwiki does.) ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 16:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's still in beta. I'm sure we'll get it soon. 16:08, 15 June 2009

[ec]Awwh :( Little bit of a dissappointment :( I hope KJ is right =D --Sam6555 16:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WYSIWYG editors are pains and are generally terrible at what they do. The first and only one that wasn't completely bad imo is Plone's, but that one's slower than shit. :< ··· Danny Does Drugs 16:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Too bad I use official wiki isn't it =S --Sam6555 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, it is. Ripoff wiki is lame anyway. Bad soles 16:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be disabled because I raged at Angela when they accidentally enabled it here once >_> Misery Says Moo 11:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Supar-Nerf?

So since RoJ scatters now is RoJ unacceptable to the community? PVX-SuperJ 15:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. ··· Danny Does Drugs 15:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. People have used things like SH forever with snares. Same will go for RoJ. athrunfeyaspeaks 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't work for JQ nearly as well, though. :< However, it still works in DoA, especially for beating the giant vagina! ··· Danny Does Drugs 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Meta...

...is stale & stagnant. GG --173.65.149.85 21:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

^ GW is boring. This should be in the Community Portal, though, and I'm too lazy to move it myself. ــѕт.мıкε 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't really belong on PvX at all, unless he's bitching it's our fault it's in the state it's in (which we get quite a lot of). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

um

What the hell is going on? Has the 'Other' section been removed? I see things below 3.75 being trashed. Which is ridiculous. All of the meta whores here really going to do that to this site? I haven't heard a single thing about any of this. And now a lot of the previously great builds are gonna be merely good, and good or below is going to be trashed. Well-planned, geniuses. ~ Big sysop 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

News/20090624. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 22:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We had been discussing it for a long time Big, heck people were proposing not allowing theorycrafts to be posted and stuff, this update is a step in the right direction. --Frosty Mc Admin 22:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

let me re-phrase what Frosty said. There was a suggestion of updating vetting, because apparently the cuurent one sucked balls and allowed useless shit to be vetted (i may hvae spiced the wording up, but it's essentially that). Then another "update" was suggested, which was sort of like mid point between what we had, and the first suggested update. After some discussion, the majority of users wanted the second "update" to be implemented, which it just has been, and the changes are being implemented ( I.E. changes to boundries). ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 22:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd, I haven't heard a single thing about this. But whatever, it's already done. ~ Big sysop 22:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

you've been away for over a month >.>, that may be the reason ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 22:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

All Untested Trial PvP Builds

The link to this page is wrong, and infact takes you to the All Untested Trial PvE builds. Can someone change please? :) --Wingsy 12:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done --Frosty Mc Admin 12:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Skill Update

Could somebody update the skill-discriptions on this site, or tell me how to do that? Thanks :-) Heldbrendel 08:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

we can't exactly do it. It requires server side access, which means a wikia staff member (ideally one of the tech team) needs to do it. We're looking at ways to improve the system though =p. You'll just have to bear with the descriptions for a bit longer until they're next updated. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 10:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe TOR is working on them as we speak, he said he would get back to us on Monday or Tuesday. --Frosty Mc Admin 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why haven't we moved to non-server side skills yet? We could easily make article pages for each of them and just have wikia modify how it reads skill data. It'd be a lot easier to basically make them templates of a sort, no? ··· Danny Does Drugs 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"We're looking at ways to improve the system though =p." TOR's said he wants to change how it's done, feel free to contact him and suggest that, but i believe they wanted to avoid us hosting the descriptions ourselves incase the wiki fucks up or some such thing. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

wat. so.. like.. they're afraid of vandalism occurring? I'm not sure I understand what you/they mean by the wiki fucking up. I'll go drop a message on his page, though. ··· Danny Does Drugs 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the original idea me and Frosty wanted, was similar to what we had just before the move to wikia (where we had a couple of pages with the code for each skill on and users updated it and it was synced with the database). The problem with that system is if we hosted it on our own wiki, and someone fucked up modifying it (e.g. forgot a "/" or something (I think the "/"'s were important)) then if the wiki fucked up and died, there'd be no easy way of seeing what fucked the wiki up, because you wouldn't be able to view the pages with the code on, and you'd have to essentially revert the whole wiki back to the last stable backup. Where as if it was hosted off site (or I believe TOR though about using .txt files and just re-uploading them when needed and syncing occasionally), if the wiki fucked up you could still check what went wrong and just modify that alone, without losing any data.

Of course what your suggesting is what I believe GWShack currently does (they rip descriptions from GWW), so I would imagine something similar could be done (though modifications might be necessary to make it compatible with PvXCode) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 16:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

We could just make it so only certain users can edit it. The only things that should theorhetically die would be pages where <pvxbig> was used. A good safety measure, though, would be to just create a selection of users who can edit it and who are tech-savvy. Would minimize the chance that anything goes wrong. ··· Danny Does Drugs 18:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

i seem to remember that you can still manually add "&action=edit" to pages broken by no closing nowiki tag. Would it be a similar issue where you could do that on the skill info page if someone breaks it? --Mafaraxas 18:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

@Danny, the problem would be they'd need to create a new usergroup, and tinker around with the settings so they can only edit given pages in a given namespace (so they can't run off and start pissing about with the common.css or something (not that we'd give such people that privilege, but you get my point)). The users don't especially need to be tech -savvy, the code was relatively straight forward (like I say it's just remembering to put in the "/"'s more than anything as they define the variables or something). PvXcode is an extension, pvxbig is just the tag which says "use PvXcode here" (similar to how dpl is an extension, if something fucked that up, the whole site (or at least the extension) would be fucked, not jsut the given functions/tags)

@Maf, like I said just then, it would likely be the whole extension which gets fucked, it's not like someone forgot to close pvxbig (which is what you're thinking of).

it's quite possiable they could do what you want, if they can that's great, but like I said, I just think they'd prefer it off site (they're more tech-savvy than me so they could probably give you the real reasons why they don't want to host it here, I'm just guessing =p) ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 11:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I wasn't thinking of PvXcode as an extension. I'm not sure how us editing the stuff could cause any huge errors, given that you can't crash anything using DPLs. For example, if I write a faulty DPL and assign it multiple faulty and specifically malicious variables, nothing would likely happen, besides possibly generating an excessively big dynamic list. I'm not sure how you could go about crashing an extension, regardless, since it's only an interface. ···  17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

this

While minor, should probably be implemented. Since we're a part of the Wikia community. Why not have all links go straight to GW wiki instead of GWW wiki?

Just to simplify things and whatnot. Merely a thought. ~ Big sysop 22:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

GWiki and GWW. It's GuildWiki and GuildWarsWiki (not Guildwars Wiki(a) and Guild Wars Wiki Wiki =p). I'm sure you're referring to the PvXBig links here (just incase you're not, you can link to GWiki with [[gw:pagename|pagename]] and GWW with [[gww:Pagename|pagename]] ). I would rather link to the official wiki for the simple fact it's the official wiki. I see no reason to switch over to the unoffical one simply because it's hosted by the same site, there's nothing to gain from it :/. I suppose we could contact wikia and see if they can install something into our preferences that enables us to chose which site the links send us to. ~ PheNaxKian Sysop 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The official wiki is terrible. Full of terrible players, idiots, and elitists. There are people here who simply have a user name just to troll the site. The unofficial site is much better, and you don't have idiots trying to argue with you over the disambiguation of a particular of the games lore, even though you're obviously correct (Ancestors' Rage, anyone?). Along with that, the site has no useful info to go with the skill descriptions, and it's only more widely used because of the huge circlejerk going on whenever a GW staff member posts something. ~ Big sysop 22:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The official site is much better aesthetically, which makes me a happy bunny. And i fidn ti easier to navigate. Not that i really use it that much anyway, they both serve their purpose fine. --Wingsy 00:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GWiki is equally as terrible and filled with equally as bad players Big. Misery Says Moo 08:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It still has better skill information. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked it had terrible, terrible skill notes and was slower with updates. Entropy tells me she worked to fix the first point, but I cbf to check and there is no compelling reason to edit server side code to change. At all. Misery Says Moo 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Annoying advert popups in text

What's up with them? Life 03:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikia blows chunky explosive diarrhea out its ass?--Goldenstar 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

lololol, when you scroll over "popups", it says something like "Download Free Trojan! Life 04:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

wat? use monobook style. it's clean afaik. ···  15:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am. For like a half hour yesterday, those really annoying "scroll over the word with a double underline thats in a weird color and a related popup comes up" were all over the site. Life 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

huh. that's cool. just use NoScript and you're fine. ;o ···  20:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikia was testing them for use on some other wikis and someone turned them on globally by mistake :/ ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 01:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

featured builds don't seem to be updating correctly.

When i look at what the featured builds are supposed to be, they aren't matching up with what is on the page.209.136.71.235 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A null edit usually needs to be made to properly update it. Or we could wait for the wiki to catch up. Toraen talk 04:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Builds that Require Consets

Personally I have become long sick of filtering through builds to load one up, only to find its just another build that requires con sets. I'm wondering how bad it could be to add a section specificaly for builds that require consets? Consets have their place but, but there needs to besome way to denote the build requires consets before you load it up to read it? Add a symbol? add CS into the name? something? Just an Idea to help sort them from the rest of the pile. 24.177.234.152 19:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

most of the builds mention it in bold text in the build description, although i do agree that a template would be nice. i'll get to work on one. ···  19:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Just do like a Template:Conset and a category. Nothing intrusive though. Dragnmn talk cont 19:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Requires-Cons}} should be sufficient, but i cbf'd tagging anything right now. ···  20:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh you're too good at wikicode. ~ Big sysop 20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

i code for a living, more or less. also, that templates srsly ugly, but there's not much else to be done about it. ;o ···  20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Requires-Cons}} works fine, anything is great and helpful. Just need something to separate and note its a conset build. Just needs to show in the title of the build before you click to get on the builds page. Its already in the build description, no point in adding to the descritions page once you have already navigated there Thanks for the quick action! 24.177.234.152 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

there's really no point in renaming every build that uses a conset. It takes about a full 2 seconds to load a build page if you're not on dial-up, and if you are on dial-up you're probably not playing Guild Wars. ···  20:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Except for the fact I am looking for builds that don't use consets and keep loading up ones that do lol. Don't see why there shouldn't be a Conset Catagory. Especially since the Require consets to work. The build is basically broken without them.. But what ever, at least there will be a notation at the top. I'm sure that will be enough to satisfy most.I was just thinking with so many builds it would be nice to have them in a catagory seeing as they are different in mechanics. 24.177.234.152 20:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That template should auto-categorize them. If you mean you'd like to see them separated, that would be far too much work. ···  20:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Like Danny said, the template adds these pages to a category, but we're not going to create a separate build tag like the Farming, RA etc. tags for it, it's a lot of effort and overlay unnecessary, and the builds would still show up in the places they currently do. ~ PheNaxKian talk 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

shouldnt the template link to here instead? Dumbo 21:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

no, this template says the build uses consumables, a conset is several consumables, and still falls under this template, where as builds that only use say an essence of celerity wouldn't fall under a template that say this build uses Consets. ~ PheNaxKian talk 22:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

true, still kinda anoying about all the alco/sweets on the same page.. not much you can do about it i guess. Dumbo 22:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel like authoring a gww article about Speed Clear cons or some such, then link there, you're welcome to, but otherwise this is probably the simplest way to handle it at the time being. =/ ···  17:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

august 6 update

and of course anet buffs all pve chars, making pve even easier PWNAGEMUFFIN crabs 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead game is dead. qq moar. ~ Big sysop 00:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dunno where this should go, so lets post it here. :)

I typed '600' in the search box to see what would appear. The 600/smite CoF team appeared. Shouldn't searching 600 come up with the general 600/smite guide that was made? --Sam6555 14:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any 600/smite guide, there was a 600/rt and an invinci monk, but no 600/smite. --Wingsy 15:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooops my bad, it was the 600/smite/QZ guide here. But maybe it should link to this instead? --Sam6555 22:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure it should link to that, however if a general Guide was written abotu 600/smite then it should direct to that. Remember this is a Build space, and 600/smite is more commonly known for CoF. If people want a guide they can read the usage on the specific page or go to Guild Wars Wikia or the official GWW.--Wingsy 00:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

About new builds...

You know, since you cannot edit the main page for featuring your builds anymore, many builds will probably pass unnoticed and then someone will come after 2 weeks period and instead of helping at talking on your build or anything they would place the abandoned tag on them.

I suggest that there`s a link on the Main Page that would say ``Latest untested/trial builds`` to prevent this.--Isaac The Sinful 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Isaac The Sinful

If you see an abandoned tag on one of your builds, but haven't abandoned it, you can just remove the tag. Policy says a meaningful edit has to be made, but as long as you haven't abandoned the build it's really not a problem. Also, the featured builds can be edited (click the edit link at the top right of either featured box). If you're bad with wikicode and can't make heads or tails of the guide, feel free to ask someone to feature for you. Toraen talk 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)