Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Builds

Using the gwShack phpbb code

As some of you may know http://gwshack.us/ have a mod for phpbb forums that allow you to use. It is possible to install this on media wiki. What does everyone think of this and should we install it? It has some great features and will benifit users and also build posters. We will to know if the people running this site will allow us to install it also. --TigerWolf 05:47, 20 February 2007 (PST)

There is no need for it. Bringing the disgrace of the GuildWiki builds section over here is a terrible idea. — Skuld 06:44, 20 February 2007 (PST)

The current consensus on the policy page seems to be leaning towards allowing build guides on the wiki for common builds, historically common builds and farming builds. For more info, have a look at the talk page for the build policy. Once that policy is accepted the formatting will be more clear as will the need for any additional tools. My initial reaction, though, is that it likely won't be necessary to install additional mods just for the build section, however, I think it'd be best to wait on the policy. Lojiin 08:08, 20 February 2007 (PST)

The only reason why adding either the GWphpBB code or the Servants of Fortuna version made by FrogDevourer is to have the little pop-up skill descriptions on any sort of build that we did put in, which are pretty cool. On GuildWiki, you had to click on each skill to bring up the description, but these give a little floating box with all that information when you hold the mouse over them. They also auto-calculate the values for each skill based on the attributes you put in the first tag. Main problem? We can't edit the descriptions/etc, which means that they would not always match the skill pages we make here. Also, they way that the code is implemented is something along the lines of [build prof=Mo/W div=8+1 prot=8+1 healing=12+1+1 tactics=7][Light of Deliverance][Infuse Health][/build] In case you didn't notice, that is also how you make an external link, so the default implementation wouldn't work for us. Much fun, and also, much work. - Pepe talk 08:13, 20 February 2007 (PST)

Bah, can't believe I forgot this part: If you want to discuss/state an opinion on the builds issue, go to Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Policy/Builds. Thanks =) Pepe talk 08:15, 20 February 2007 (PST)

External links only extrenal link if they have a http://. [build prof=Mo/W div=8+1 prot=8+1 healing=12+1+1 tactics=7][Light of Deliverance][Infuse Health][/build] works just fine w/o the <nowikis>BLASTEDT 11:56, 20 February 2007 (PST)

GWBBCODE is currently being developed so that it can more easily intergrate into mediawiki in its version 2 (more information on the website) so this is not an issue. Their database is updated quite frequently - its just the problem of if someone is willing to check the website and update (via FTP) whenever a skill update comes around. I see this as the only dificulty. --TigerWolf 12:15, 23 February 2007 (EST)

We don't have FTP or database access and besides we do have a skill database in our articles. There is no need for an additional background program like that phpBB code. Also it could be realized via DPL and Javascript but that's another issue. poke | talk 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Format discussion

:)

In the policy discussion there was a lot of talk about "guides not builds" which I take to mean we should document the how's of a build, not just the details (skills, attributes) of a build.

There are a few example formats floating around in the wiki already.

• Thumper has been around for a while
• Starburster has already had a controversial history.

Both of these capture the advantages and disadvantages of the build in preference to the actual skills used - I think we should continue with this sort of layout in mind.

I've attempted User:Aspectacle/Minion Master as a build which is hugely popular in PvE and occasionally seen in PvP and the format is heavily inspired by the examples listed before. User:Aspectacle/FoW Spider Farmer captures a farming build which I try to detail in the same way (but the order doesn't work as well IMO). I might try a few more, particularly a PvP focused build, but would like feedback on the level of detail and structure of the articles so far.

Other things to be considered for the format;

• How to capture team builds? Do we capture team builds?
• General GvG tasks, such as flag running, we don't want each flag running build article to be a "how to" of flag running. How do we abstract the information out but keep it accessable? --Aspectacle 01:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you might be thinking too far ahead. The example on the page lists Touch ranger and I just created and added Barrage ranger to the list basing it off the Touch ranger page style. It reads as a guide mostly with an example of the build details at my userspace for now. I don't see why guides can't be made like this as it does cover the role/type and some skills and options with a build detail listed at the end. As it's a "historical" role/type of ranger then it can easily be kept or modified as needed by all. The only thing that remains is the roles/types that are to have guides made for. Good thing is that a "55" guide could be made and the example links at the bottom could have one for each profession that may typically use that method. I think this should work if it keeps going as it doesn't promote new builds in a build space but it should promote a guide and one to a few example builds per role/type. Unique, specific, or unpopular builds can then easily be kept on user pages. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 10:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I started off Shock warrior — Skuld 08:55, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Though the builds look fine contents-wise, and Gwiki.org didn't do anything wrong with their templates regarding contents (summary, skills & attr., usage, counters, ext. links), I miss the graphical appearance of skills (skill bar) and their attribute distribution. Without that the article only gets longer and longer, and simply looks too plain for the common reader to read through it. If there is a possibility to have some database-system being available over at http://gw.gamependium.com, or the gameshack one's, it would add alot to the articles, and the formatting issues we experience here at the moment. Feena 04:05, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

It is true that the old builds section of GuildWiki was much better visually, but having the entire skill bar visible on the build pages is what caused most problems. People began fighting about a single skill or two as they wanted their own preferred skill bar to be shown. With the guide style that we already have on this wiki the time of the users is concentrated on writing a comprehencive guide which includes lots of variants and allows the reader to come to their own conclusions and ideas.

This article (lots of my work on that one, it's originally from GuildWiki) is close to what I would like to see here if you remove the example builds section. It includes a full guide on how to do the stuff, how to act against different enemies and a nice list of variants to give the reader more ideas for their own builds. It's also visually pretty nice with images and colorful tables. -- (gem / talk) 23:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

And if you missed the old builds section of GuildWiki, just fyi, it's been moved over to PvXwiki ;) -- ab.er.rant 01:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Avoid bullet point lists; keep content in essay form."

At the very least, I'd suggest an Overview section that provides a fast summary for people who want quick info, particularly if they're new to PvP and need the info fast as people are asking for them. ~ | Pae - Talk | 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since the formatting guide has been edited, and iirc it was inspired by an older version of the proposed policy.. Feel free to make any and all changes to it. -- ab.er.rant 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this "One or two sentences describing the build concept." could be changed to say overview (which is what is meant anyway). --Xeeron 12:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. -- ab.er.rant 05:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Any other major changes before this is moved to guideline?

If so speak up now. =) --Xeeron 12:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No example builds should be part of the formatting as per the build policy: "Only the core skill bar with the mandatory skills should be present, not an example with optional skills." There should only be the skill bar with the mandatory skills. -- (gem / talk) 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We still allow external links, but maybe we dont want to encourage them. I removed the examples part from the template. --Xeeron 19:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between General principle and Overview? Backsword 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Starburster. The "overview" was supposed to a one-liner or two, an intro text or quick summary. The general principle section is for a definition of the build I suppose. Explain it's concept, origin, key ideas... That sample template needs to be clarified I suppose. -- ab.er.rant 15:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's meant to be contradictory, as your example? Seems odd. Backsword 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe reword the whole "general principle" section. *shrugs* -- ab.er.rant 08:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The general principle should be longer, while the top should really just be a one-liner. I removed the "overview", since that was likely to be misread. Any further objections, else I will move this to accepted soon. --Xeeron 11:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Skill bar}}

Should be use {{skill bar}} on the skills which are absolutely required in the build? Like so example, for like a touch ranger, the required skills would be

Vampiric Touch

Vampiric Bite

Blank

Blank

Blank

Blank

Blank

Blank

, or something like that. Sorry, I couldn't think of a better example. — ク Eloc 貢 04:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel a more than half empty skill bar template does not really help. The skill bar template is a visual help to convey information faster, however if the number of skills to be conveyed is very low, it is better to type them or to add only those skills pictures to the article, without the empty bar. --Xeeron 14:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I would be nice to be able to put a skill bar up completed JUST as an example. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Linking to PvXWiki

Should we be linking to PvXWiki on our builds? — ク Eloc 貢 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

See User_talk:Eloc_Jcg#MM_revert. I placed a link on Minion Master which Eloc reverted. I think it is useful to provide a link to a place where people interested in the build concepts can look up specific examples. Biscuits 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as those links don't get too out of hand, such as attempting to link to too many variants on multiple forums. One or two external links should be ok. -- ab.er.rant 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Poke wrote on Eloc's talk. The form, be it text, a skill bar, or a link, is not what matters. In any form it opens up for all the problems we wanted to avoid. Backsword 15:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Except in this case, I hadn't linked to any specific builds. All I has said was basically, "here's a link to the Necromancer builds on pvxwiki if you want to get some ideas". I can't see how that can cause any problems. Biscuits 15:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Poke said to. The policy doesn't allow skills to be placed onto the page. Be it skill bar or an external link, they still are skills one way or another. — ク Eloc 貢 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The policy doesn't say anything disallowing skills to be placed on the page. It says "Actual build examples, while allowed, are secondary to the explanations, and should only serve to illustrate the ideas that were explained." It doesn't say anything about linking either. Really, I can't see why people are opposed to this, it is very useful information, and doesn't harm the wiki at all. Biscuits 13:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The part where it harms the wiki is when people start adding links to their personal builds and then we'd likely get into an argument regarding which link stays and which link gets removed. I can understand the sentiment wanting to avoid such conflicts. Linking to a general category on pvxwiki is likely not very relevant to a specific build concept article. Is it harmful to put one or two links to external sites? I'm willing to try, but if other users feel it's too open for abuse, then I won't push it. If anything, we can actually try to summarise and consolidate all the info and play styles on the variants into our build article, rather than link them. -- ab.er.rant 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Biscuits, see Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Builds#Disallowed. — ク Eloc 貢 01:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no Disallowed section there Eloc. Although, there is a handy link to PvXwiki at the bottom. :D Biscuits 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Eloc, are you saying an external link to a build article (having equipment/skills/attributes and a how-to section) is the same as posting skills on a page? I would have to disagree with you there. The primary reason we don't do builds is because we don't want to deal with the bullshit and drama, not because we are afraid of skillbars. Since PvX is so courteously offering to deal with said drama, we really have no reason not to link; especially since it makes our articles more factually accurate. -Auron 14:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote Biscuits "The policy doesn't say anything disallowing skills to be placed on the page." and I replied with Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Builds#Disallowed — ク Eloc 貢 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you didn't originally, you linked to a different page, and fixed it with your last response. On the new linked page, it just says "Avoid providing a skill bar or attribute list in the build explanation". I'm not suggesting we do that. I'm just suggesting that providing a link to PvX wiki, where people can choose to look up specific examples if that's what they want can do so. Giving an overview of, for example a Minion Master is fine, but having examples is key to learning any new concept, and as we don't do it here, I think we should link to a place that does. Biscuits 00:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We can list more of the history of the build (and the impact it's had on the meta, or the game in general), which is more wiki-relevant information than simply the build. We can still give an idea about it (for examples, a "toucher" bar is much more than just the two touches; OoB was required for energy management, dodge/zojun's was required to catch kiting targets, plague touch was required to remove condition stacks, etc). We can list that and not harm anyone; as long as we leave the optionals optional, we won't have users trying to out-epeen other users with their personal variant of each build. -Auron 10:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put the link back in tomorrow. If this type of link (to general PvX wiki pages, not specific build pages) causes us a problem, we can always remove them when that happens, rather than holding back information because of what seems like a non-issue. Biscuits 21:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's to general builds, it should not be a problem as long as we don't seem to privilige one type of builds. So, link only to MM builds, and list more than one site, like also linking to the build sections on fanforums (eg. guru or GWO). Backsword 04:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning message/Spoilers on top of every build page?

—ZerphaThe Improver 10:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like {{Community hosted event}} for builds? poke | talk 10:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah, that should be nice. I just had bad feeling if there are going to exist several build articles that actually can't be definedone to one...without little advice. —ZerphaThe Improver 14:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What's there to warn/notify about? You mean we need something to explain that Minion master is a build idea because... it could be confused with being something else? -- ab.er.rant 03:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent discussions

In light of wiki activity surrounding team roles, builds, and meta compositions, I feel it is time we update the builds formatting guideline and draft up a standardised template to update all current and future build documentations. I agree with a decent part of the existing guidelines. Though I personally see no added value in essay form, nor is there a specific need to address the readers in a toned down manner. Encyclopaedic content will translate regardless of the player's in-game experience levels, especially when kept general and to the point. I recently rewrote and reformatted Mesmer Midline's article: [1] and consider this a solid basis for build articles across the wiki. It features a short introduction of the build(s), a paragraph explaining how the build(s) became prevalent in the metagame, a bullet point list overview of advantages and disadvantages, a list of skills and visually supporting skill bar(s) to inform the reader of why these skills are relevant to the concept, and lastly the links to external sites (almost always PvX Wiki) to allow readers to learn more about the build(s) in detail. While the article has not seen any revisions since, there may still be changes to formatting that are welcome and it would help if the community discussed these in a central location such as this one. One of the observed suggestions would be to strip builds formatting altogether, in favour of a (set of) general paragraph(s) that encapsulates the most basic of information: [2]. It does remove a sense of visual flair, which is a style choice down to personal preference. Either way, this seems to be a topic without a clear consensus and would likely benefit from dialogue, since it does not have current policies and/or guidelines ascribed to it. - Infinite - talk 19:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)