Talk: Main Page/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

My thoughts

Something is wierd here, the admins don't even test out every build before commenting/approving/deleting them. Therefore, there are a lot of good working builds in "Unfavored" and a lot of bad working builds in "Tested". Sorry, but you guys obviously don't know how to run this website.

Date (Build purge)

May I suggest to add the date of the creation of a build in the template. With this date it will be easy to see if a build is out of date because an update. It should also be interesting to automatically set a build status on 'out of date' if it contains a skill that as been nerfed until a player update it.

Hey Cardinal

Can we get a public update on the whats going on with the vetting. Noticed you started moving things and lots of random chit chat is springing up. Are things to a point where it is ready to make decisions? Shireen 04:27, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Main page

[[Category:PvXbuilds introductions]]? --Rapta 21:04, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

Was in one of the templates used. Has been nuked. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 21:42, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

-With the voting banner/box you guys have lost your front page link to the build stubs secion of the site. Shireen 15:57, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

until new policy are in place no new builds submission are allowed. GCardinal 16:05, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

Can I continue to work on the Primer- Build articles? Primer Follow-up - Shireen 16:33, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

Sure no problem with that, only submission to build stubs are grounded for a while at the moment. And thanks for your contribution to this week :) GCardinal 18:02, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

i have some new builds that i designed and have used that i want to add and i was wondering if you could tell me an approxamite amount of time until i could post them

I have some builds i have design and would also like to know when we can post them.

Builds purge

Ok, I know we made this wiki to escape the builds wipe, but let's be honest, a good chunk of the reason that there was a wipe in the first place was because there were some absolutely horrible builds. So, when should we start purging builds based on PvX:WELL? I'm assuming after it's written up and approved. Armond 06:58, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

I think we need a build-stub policy for the purge as well, something so that build stubs over 3? months old are set for deletion, as there's a lot of them Category:Build stubs. --Nela 17:31, 28 May 2007 (CEST)

Standard abandoned article policy implimented. Nearly (85%) of the stubs were classified as abandoned. They have two weeks from July 6th to come claim them or they get moved to trash-builds. After that they will get deleted as per the trash builds cycle. Slowly but surely were getting this place up and running. Shireensysop 12:48, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Policies

PvX:WELL and PvX:NOTIFY have been drafted. PvX:IWL will be drafted shortly. Armond 07:48, 23 April 2007 (CEST)

Skills

I think we should make a link on the main page to a skills directory on this site copied over from GuildWiki. It would just help a but for people to make their builds, especially if they came here without knowing about GuildWiki. Dervish Mazta (Talk)

We don't do skills, we do builds. There's far too much copyright stuff in that and we don't actually need them (I've actually just gone and deleted something around 75 skills pages for that reason). What we can do is make skill lookup pages, in which we make a page for every skill with a quick description and a link to the guildwiki page for the skill. This would probably just the in-game description with any bugs, hidden effects, and so forth, condensed into a sentence or two as seen in the game - no subsections for notes, bugs, cap locations, or anything like that. The only subsection would be what builds use the skill. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:48, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

Yeah I agreed with Armond here. We will have some kind of solution but it will more of tool-box for writing a build. gcardinal 21:26, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

I saw the experimentation with gwBBcode over the weekend. If that's implemeted within build articles, then even the condensed version suggested by Armond would not be needed. --161.88.255.140 21:36, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

Yeh, with bbcode, we have no need for any kind of skill pages. The exception would be, naturally, a list of hidden skill feaures (one page of them; maybe split by profession if too many skills have hidden features/bugs). -Auron 21:40, 24 April 2007 (CEST)

I would have to say that I think bbcode is a much smarter system given the extent to which we want, or in this case don't want, to be documenting things unrelated to the builds section. I think as Auron said, that bbcode would solve a lot of our problems, and, that we can work around the flaws. *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:35, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

bbcode is outdated. <bcode>[Crippling Slash]</bcode> And probably others. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 19:45, 25 April 2007 (CEST) EDIT: Well, it was on another forums place.

Hehe I have something for you guys that you sure will Looove :) hehehe will release in a few days :) gcardinal 20:43, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

Did we ever decide on reverse lookup skill pages? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 21:39, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

Vetting

Seeing as we're going to have a different vetting system, should we just put all builds into untested for now? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:13, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

I think its best to discuss it when we have some vetting system ready to go. gcardinal 20:44, 25 April 2007 (CEST)

I agree, i think we should go with old guild wiki vetting for a while until we find a new way for this site. -Ssj2TrunksB

Added Build Page?

Hello - this might be in the wrong section, as this is my first ever post on any wiki of any sort. I'm curious if there could be an catagory for PVE - Heroes Team builds. For instance recommended builds for a 4 man group consisting of the player and his (1,2,3) heroe(s). This could be under farming, or missions, or whatever, but it would be nice to have (at least from my point of view).

An example would be a synergy build: two MM's (built as x) and a Paragon/Warrior built as such and the player, the steam roller. Specifications of where/when this would be the most effective and least effective. Also, would a two person build doing FOW or UW with MO and MO hero make sense, or does it work? Is this something anyone else is interested in? Does this even make sense to this wiki?

Thanks -- Slipmat 20:48, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

Thank you for your post Slipmat. There is sections like that both PvP Category:HB_builds and PvE Category:Hero_builds. If there is a build for a 1 player and 3 hero's it will be there with "Build:Team -" in front of a posted build. As today there is very few builds that actually use hero's so there is only 2 categories. If more builds will be posted we may consider different section for them. GCardinal 06:45, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

Conceptual

Requesting the addition of a "Conceptual Builds" section which deals with builds not designed around the PvP metagame, but regarding builds with less-often-used skills, that were written to increase the effectiveness of a few specific skill(s). Keeps people from submitting a build and then having unfavored voters being called "narrow-minded". =P Rapta 21:16, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

I guess that's an idea, but why wouldn't you just mention that in the top text of the build? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 21:36, 30 April 2007 (CEST)

The problem is that will result in people comparing tried and true builds used all the time in GvG, to those that are only used for the sake of giving some skill a use. That usually results in some form of conflict, especially with build vetters trying to decide whether to base the build on a comparison to a superior build, or a unique utilization of a specific skill in a build. Rapta 06:05, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

"Latest Submissions"

Hah, found a bug with that already. =P It seems to add any build that was moved recently, automatically to the top of the list. Rapta 06:06, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

Its not a bug as in wiki moving goes by creating a new page, then liking a old one to the new one, and since both old and new one are valid pages new one will be as a new post under namespace Build. I dont think it will be that many moves of the builds but I will look into it to find a way to fix it. GCardinal 06:47, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

Copyright progress

Hey guys, glad to see you've decided to import all old contribution history. I just have one more thing to ask. On the GuildWiki, those contribution histories had meaning, as they linked to user pages and identified a user as, say, "User:DemoGuy of the GuildWiki." Right now, your contribution history states that those articles are by "User:DemoGuy of PvXBuilds," and, in most cases, such a user doesn't actually exist. This is problematic, as it means you're not actually crediting the original authors.

I've got a couple of solutions in my head. One moderately easy one would be to hack the history action so that all actions that have a datestamp earlier than this wiki's inception link to GuildWiki users instead of PvXBuilds users. You could also merely color the rows in the table differently for those dates, and include a note at the break point from old to new that, say, "All contributions past this point were made on the GuildWiki." Since you've made some neat hacks here already, either (or both simultaneously) shouldn't take too much skill or time.

Either way, I like what you've done with the place, and once this final copyright issue is cleared up, I intend to link to you from the GuildWiki. You are, after all, a GuildWiki fork, and I'd like to encourage cooperation between us. Tanaric 18:59, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

Hey Tanaric, first of all thank you for your nice comment, and I happy that you like progress on this site. Im currently working on solving the problem of "dead" link in contribution history. It will be something like

if User != exist then

if User Special:Contributions/User before 1.May.2007 then

User.link => "gw:" . User.link;

end if

In general it will link to guidwiki if user not exists on this wiki and has contributed before 1.May.2007. I think its pretty much the solution you suggested. Currently there is only 1 problem, mediawiki 1.10, I want to test this new extension on 1.10.rc1 before putting it here, to make sure nothing goes wrong under update.

When it comes to the coloring of the links, I' will also find a way to fix that.

And both me and all other contributors of this site will be more then happy if you link to our site :) I will try to fix above copyright issues as soon as possible. Thank and looking forward to see you stepping by our site when you have some time :) GCardinal 19:16, 1 May 2007 (CEST)

Just fixed history. It splits now on 04.15.2007 as it was when I created main snapshot of the builds from GuildWiki. It also colors links and links to usepages on GuildWiki. I hope this is a good solution, let me know what you think. GCardinal 09:53, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

That's great! I'm definitely satisfied with what you've done, and I'll write a blurb about PvXBuilds to replace the GuildWiki's old builds section, at least until we create a new one. Tanaric 12:25, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

Thank you and any advice or tips are always welcome, we will do our best GCardinal 12:36, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

Late to the Party

Well, I wish I had seen your post on the talk page a few days ago. After reading about the build wipe, I did basically the same thing as you. I setup a new wiki with all the trimmings, and imported almost all of the content from GW.gamewikis.org that was going to be deleted into my wiki before finding yours. Yours is much further along then mine, so I'll abandon the project, but man that was a lot of wasted time on my part! You're doing an awesome job, good luck. Darkknight 02:05, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

Nice to see you here m8 :) By the way maybe you can be interested in helping us our on this wiki? Whats your plans around "wiki"'s at the moment ? :) GCardinal 06:24, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

I can help out if needed. I run a couple smaller wikis elsewhere on the web, and I'd be glad to lend a hand. The current plan for my GW builds wiki is to delete it. I had only setup it up so that the build information would be preserved and the community would have a place to continue adding to it. Your wiki seems to have many things that I missed. To be fair though, I only discovered the builds wipe 3 days ago. I had that long to try to export everything and setup my new wiki. Anyway, I think it's better that someone more involved in the original GW wiki, like you, runs it. I'm not as familiar with the GW wiki due to being a less experienced GW player, but I am very familiar with mediawiki software. Darkknight 09:06, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

We're at the point where any and all help is appreciated. :D -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 18:59, 2 May 2007 (CEST)

Apparently posting builds in your userspace on the wiki is illigal too

BULL F**KING SHIT I Had my 7 favorite builds erased so i vandilised a few popular pages.. so screw them

Now let's channel that anger into something constructive, and eventually we will have one of the best GW resources on the web. P.S. You Jasonstarr? - Krowman (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

Vandalizing pages doesn't do anything, it's all on the recent changes page. Misfate 03:13, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

Yes this is jasonstarr. i felt like suiciding because of that. i made an account for 1 reason for the builds, i will start helping the vetting process here so.... that will be better use of my anger.

And you can make a difference here by writing your own policy. Check out Voting on Vetting Policy. GCardinal 07:29, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

It's not worth killing yourself over, especially since everything's here anyway.... -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 18:42, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

No builds have been deleted from user spaces over there, I still have mine. They even gave instructions for how to copy them, you probably tried some other method of linking or moving them. Sorry you lost the builds, but it sounds like you screwed up and are blaming others for it.

Auron has been deleting builds in userspaces over there if they don't contain a copy+pasted history in their talk page or some such. The instructions to do that were bolded in GW:Builds Wipe, so imo if you missed it, too bad. I fully expect mine to be deleted (haven't bothered to go check to see if they have been, though) because I forgot to do that and am too lazy to do it now. It's not hard either, I just don't need the archives now that this wiki has them. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 00:00, 5 May 2007 (CEST)

Lol, I have every build in my archive XD. I will attribute them all when Summer rolls along and I have nothing to do. I also have the safe gaurd of having everything backed up and about 500 links needed to be deleted. With a single edit I'll just restore everything when I am done w/ the histories lol. Sucks about your archive tho Jason O.o. I helped create it I remember ;). Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:47, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

That happened to me too, but if you're feeling like you're going to do suicide then I would suggest leaving Guild Wars for a bit. ^_^ Or perhaps you could ask Auron or whoever deleted the builds very nicely to bring them up for a couple of hours, you can save them on your hard drive. Or you can marvel at the wonderful resource that is PvX wiki. But don't vandalize, it makes you look stupid and it can be reverted in three clicks, literally, and don't do suicide either ^_^ -- Nova -- (contribs) 20:21, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

[1] and etc. -- Nova -- (contribs) 10:55, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

new idea

For help we place somewhere on each builds page what campains you need so people dont have to browse through each skill. this gets tedious when GW is lagging your Internet speeds and you want a build.

On the new build templates when you hold a mouse over the skill pic the box shows what campaign it is for in bottom right corner--Sefre Talk*Cont. 00:04, 5 May 2007 (CEST)

It's BB code, but if you can't do that either then you're internet is probably too slow for GW too ^_^ -- Nova -- (contribs) 20:22, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

They're also categorized at the bottom, i.e. Category: Prophecies Builds, but not all builds have this categorization because it is not mandatory. -- Nova -- (contribs) 20:23, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

PvXCode

Hi. I like the implementation of the new pvxcode build templates. Is there documentation on the wiki? I noticed some problems.

• I have found no way to make a skillbar with a template without the profession header. Thus i'm unsure how to convert a page like this: Build:W/Mo_Full_Vigor_Paladin
• Some builds contain a slot for generic resurrect this is not converted correctly by PvX Convert. Since i found no docs i could not repair it by manually.

It would be nice if you could make skillbars and headers seperately if necessary. Irkm Desmet 17:17, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

Yeah, the first one is a problem. For Generic Resurrect, just pick a res and note later on the page that it can be changed around as needed. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 18:41, 4 May 2007 (CEST)

The generic resurrect can really be removed altogether. It's not a skill, so it's not really needed at all. Rapta 04:51, 5 May 2007 (CEST)

Skill bar without profession header has no meaning at all, since its not possible to create a tempalate without any attributes data. However I can create <pvxvar> where header will be hidden from users. On generic res Rapta is right, its not needed.GCardinal 13:34, 5 May 2007 (CEST)

I always liked the generic ressurect. But you are right it is no skill and serves no real purpose. Perhaps its better to loose it completely.
Skillbars with hidden headers would be nice, since multiple headers on a page are IMHO quite ugly. I noticed, that PvXcode will happyly create a template even if you give no attribute values at all. Since this will produce an unusable or at least incomplete template wouldn't ist be better to give a warning in this case? Irkm Desmet 23:51, 6 May 2007 (CEST)

Exactly. It is very flexible and I dont want it to be to restrict and be more of up to user to decide how they want it. I will also try to develop a more versions of pvxcode so it will be one for any situation. Thx for you comment btw GCardinal 01:53, 7 May 2007 (CEST) :)

Me again. I converted a few pages to the new PvXCode. All the templates that contain skills from the necromancer profession do not work. GW does not show the skills and gives a message, that the templates are damaged. Here are the pages i changed: Build:D/N_Contagious_Reaper, Build:N/any_Aura_of_the_Lich_MM, Build:N/any_Minion_Master. Irkm Desmet 21:44, 8 May 2007 (CEST)

Works fine for me. What browser are you using? -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 22:43, 8 May 2007 (CEST)

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.3 for Windows XP. I tried again, just to be sure there were no download errors. Still all three templates do not work for me. All the other templates work. I converted and tested all of the derwish builds. Strangely enough W/N templates work. Here is the broken template for N/any_Minion_Master: OABTAYyY4BoRFOq4BAAmQRIAA . Irkm Desmet 19:22, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

Thank you for great bug report. This is a real problem and it looks like this one will be hard to solve! Thank you. GCardinal 00:01, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

Problem was located in gwBBcode. There is something wrong with their template generated. Bug report posted, lets wait for the solution. GCardinal 00:19, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

Generic Res again

On the Generic Res issue, look at this example where the res is left off entirely. To me a seven skill bar just looks wrong. For one, it isn't immediately obvious that there's an available slot, the PvXcode re-spaces things so that the bar is still filled. And once you do count and realize that it's only seven skills, the way it shows makes it look like the author screwed up and left something out because it's not immediately clear that any wanted generic res was intended for the open slot.

Not difficult. I added res sig to the skills and made a note under variants. I'm against generic res now. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 23:20, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

I'm fine with using res sig plus a note, that's a clean looking solution. My comment was a result of the suggestion in the conversation above to just leave it out entirely which then caused the format problem which I disagreed with seeing.

Random Page

When hitting random page, it always goes to talk pages (which happen to be empty as of this writing). Would it be possible to make it go to regular pages instead? --Mgrinshpon 13:55, 5 May 2007 (CEST)

I know about that problem, however I havent found the solution yeat :( GCardinal 14:01, 5 May 2007 (CEST)

I see the feature has been removed. I hope you find the problem soon! --Mgrinshpon 05:50, 6 May 2007 (CEST)

Fixed. GCardinal 04:53, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

Great addition

Hi, I just thought I would say great addition to the mouse over effect in the builds. That is by far the greatest thing on a wiki ever. I'm so glad you guys implimented this. Also, is this the right place for praises? Slipmat 15:14, 8 May 2007 (CEST)

and energy cost is broken right now... Darkstone knight 16:13, 8 May 2007 (CEST)

It doesn't work in IE6 for sure as I'm on a school laptop with IE6 and no way to put Firefox on. I'm unsure of IE7 (probably does) and it definately works in Firefox and Opera. --Mgrinshpon 16:58, 8 May 2007 (CEST)

I thoguht that might just be the crappy school comps. Darn. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 22:41, 8 May 2007 (CEST)

I have a problem too, the left edge of all requirements areas is cropped off for me, losing the number or even part of the icon. Also IE6 on a machine that I'm not permitted to use a different browser. I think it's just the archaic patches in use here, haven't heard if anyone else sees the same and no one seems to be able to replicate.

You're Required to use Internet Explorer? You should sue for abuse... -- <!--Zerris--> 05:08, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

Eh, its ok I guess. Gets cut-off all the time. And the links for skills and whatnot are really wierd looking lol. Light blue ;( yuck. Readem (talk*contribs) 07:15, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

Can someone please post a screenshot ?! GCardinal 11:32, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

Problems with IE6 (happens on guildwiki too)

Done. Also, the light blue links are links to guildwiki and not to this site. All outside links are that color. --Mgrinshpon (T) 15:29, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Just wanted to add something- it's not only the casting cost that's cut off. The first digit is cut off in general. For example, on Mending, the energy upkeep cost is cut off (it's -1). However, this is probably related to IE6's poor support for standards (e.g., none at all). IE7 does fix this problem last I checked, so anyone who updated, which should be most people, are safe. --Mgrinshpon (T) 15:33, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Correct, it looks great in IE7. But I see all the same problems that you illustrated when I'm in IE6. --161.88.255.140 00:46, 19 May 2007 (CEST)

We will convert to all GIF as soon as I am done working with new extension. And ones again, all errors can be fixed by installing updates from MS. GCardinal 04:52, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

build stubs

is it just me or is the stub section missing? Darkstone knight 16:13, 8 May 2007 (CEST)

Category:Build stubs. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 23:48, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

YES

Whoever made this wiki, amen. Stike back at guildwiki!!!!!!!!!! DOWN GUILDWIKI!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.248.175.25 (contribs) .

Umm. I don't presume to speak for anybody else, but I support guild wiki. I merely believe that it did/does not have the best strategy for testing builds. And as such, I would rather have these wikis co-operate then, say, walk to each others doors with pitchforks. -- <!--Zerris--> 04:25, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

Yeh, that comment seems overzealous at best... *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:27, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

/Agree w/ Zerris --frvwfr2 (talk)(contributions) 04:27, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

Everybody seems to be agreeing with me today. It's getting downright creepy... -- <!--Zerris--> 04:28, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

Guild wiki is still one of my favorite places to visit. Just because they don't host builds anymore doesn't make them evil O.o...Guild Wiki ftw. Readem (talk*contribs) 04:38, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

GuildWiki = #1. They did a huge job there and we all can only thank them for all information they collected there. GuildWarsWiki will never be the same. official = bad. official = stupid rules. I love GuildWiki :) GCardinal 19:18, 9 May 2007 (CEST)

Ummm, official = mainly the same admins as on GuildWiki, and official site's rules are being created based on community discussions same as any wiki. I like guildwiki too, but the in-game links to the official wiki's quest and mission articles are going to be great once activated, and those links are already being tested!

Official Wiki ftl. They just pretty much copy all the good info and policies from Guild wiki. I don't even really see the point of its existance...same admins, similar policies, pretty muc the same users too...kinda lame. Readem (talk*contribs) 07:12, 10 May 2007 (CEST)

You're kidding, right? The "official" wiki is so incomplete it's laughable.Nahka 10:49, 1 June 2007 (CEST)

Here's my case...

Guild Wars Wiki is like a copyover of GuildWiki but without the ads. They steal our users, admins, information, all that we have worked two years to create. And they suck. They will have to work another two years to get what we have, and by then we will be ahead two more years. They just stole everything from us that they could steal... which really isn't a lot due to possible copyvios... and then put... toothpicks on it... -- Nova -- (contribs) 20:28, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

The best thing I like about guild wiki - admins. How fast they was to get over all the GuildWiki admins over to Guild Wars Wiki. No copyright, no other issues as admins of guildwiki dont care much about all the copy-past that is going on. gcardinal 06:25, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Help! And where to go ...

I want to add a couple builds, untested - except by me, to the site and since this is my first wiki ever, I'm a bit lost. I looked around at the rules, but all I could find was syntax not how to post. Is there a generalized rule to posting listed somewhere out there, either at PvX or just a general wiki? Thanks in advance! Slipmat 21:09, 11 May 2007 (CEST)

New Build submissions have been frozen for the time being. Here in a few days (As soon as the admins open up polocies for voting) we should be allowed back into the stubs section. In the mean time feel free to look around and dig in. Shireen 21:12, 11 May 2007 (CEST)

What you do is look for the page you want the build to be named and start typing. Make sure the page name follows PvX:NAME (which, at the moment, is an incomplete policy, but should give you the general idea). But yeah, don't post any new builds until we have an official vetting policy up and running. >.< -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 22:26, 11 May 2007 (CEST)

Er, whoops. I made Build:Mo/any_Signet_Healer a few days ago. For some reason I didn't think that a policy revision meant that new builds should be withheld for the time being. Now that it's already there, though, what's the best thing to do? Request a deletion or just leave it? 404notfound 00:23, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Just leave it, we'll have a policy in a week or so... -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 04:03, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Voting Page

The voting page doesn't have it's own talk page, move this if necessary. Anyways, I voted and it gave me lottery number of 0. I couldn't possibly be the first to vote? I smell a possible glitch.

Thank you for your time and good luck with lottery!
Your current vote is for *******.
Your lottery number: 0.

--8765 19:23, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Hmmm... yeh, that may be a glitch. I have a printout of most of the votes that Gcardinal gave me, and all of the lottery numbers are 5 digits and appear to be randomized. He's away now, but I will ask him about it when he gets back. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:37, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Oh, and I voted like 5-10 minutes ago. But you probably could have guessed that. --8765 19:40, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

I deffinently got lottery number 0 as well. Eronth 22:11, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

0 here too, for what it's worth. -- <!--Zerris--> 22:48, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Yeh, and other people have been experiencing the same problem as well... *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:50, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Same here --DragonLord 12:46, 13 May 2007 (CEST)

default search settings

You should be including the Build: namespace by default. 220.239.104.104 19:42, 12 May 2007 (CEST)

Create an account here and you can set your default preferences for those sorts of things :) Nahka 12:57, 13 May 2007 (CEST)

It's also possible to configure the server to automatically include specific namespaces in searches. In this case, I agree with the anon that the build namespace should be included as part of the default. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:38, 13 May 2007 (CEST)

It is a builds wiki, after all. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 23:24, 13 May 2007 (CEST)

Fixed. GCardinal 04:49, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

Work

I was thinking about helping out on some stuff, but when I looked for the page that says what needs done like on GWiki, and I couldn't find it. If there is one and I just missed it, please tell me. If not, that would be a great page to create so people like me who want to help, know what needs to be done. Thanks. Bluemilkman 02:34, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

Well one of the big things that needs to be done is updating of all transfered builds into the new bbcode format. This can be done by copy/pasting the old code into the PvX Convert link on side bar and then reinserting new code into build. Bots can't be used for this because there would be errors converting the code that computers wouldn't catch. All of the old format builds can be found here.

Otherwise, I guess this is the closest to what you are looking for at the moment.--Sefre File:Sefresig.pngT*C 03:01, 15 May 2007 (CEST)

GIF vs PNG

Would it be possible to change all icons on the Main Page to GIF instead of PNG format?

IE6 has a problem displaying PNG's correctly, it ignores transparent backgrounds. So all PNGs on the Main Page have big gray box borders. But the image on the Bone Dragon, which is in GIF format, does allow the box's background to show. So I'm hoping all of the images on the Main Page could be converted to GIF so that all users of the site could get the classy integrated look, instead of IE6 users getting stuck with big ugly gray boxes around most of the icons.

PS: for anons to post, the edit check routine still shows images in upper case, but requires the words to be types in lower case to permit the edit to work. I reported the bug a while ago, and just wanted to mention that it's still an issue. My mistake, entering upper case works now.

Its not a IE 6.0 problem its a Windows problem. You have to run Windows Update to get latest updates to ensure that PNG works properly. But I will see if I can fix the problem. GCardinal 22:49, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Ouch, you use Windows AND IE! That's like a double whammy. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:53, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

If you run Microsoft Outlook as well, it might be time to start crying... -- <!--Zerris--> 22:56, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

Hurrah for Firefox, what we do without you. And, my computer runs fully partitioned Linux (Kubuntu) as well as Mac OSX10. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:58, 16 May 2007 (CEST)

It is an IE6 problem, not a windows problem. This same issue had been brought up on GuildWiki more times than I can count. On my home system, I used to see this all the time in IE6, but it worked correctly in Firefox. When I upgraded to IE7 at home, with no other patches except that upgrade, IE7 also did not show the problem. On my work system, I'm stuck with IE6 - which because no one here on this wiki seems to give a rats arse for anyone using anything other than Firefox, appears to mean I'm stuck living with the hideous boxes.

Just use Firefox. It is so much better than IE. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 23:16, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Thank you for proving my point. If you bother to read my posts you would see that at home I can use FF or IE7, neither of which have this problem. At work, I can only use IE6. Also, a large number of users choose, for whatever reason or lack thereof, to continue to use IE6 over other options. It's disturbing that those users are treated as second class citizens by this site. Not a good way to welcome users. Sites should be browser neutral.

In principle you're right. But there is no such thing as 'the site' versus 'those users'. Those users are part of the site. Feel free to translate any graphics that your browser can't display and upload the new versions. In case of protected pages ask an admin to change the links to the new pictures. --Hhhippo 09:10, 25 May 2007 (CEST)

Please read every reply except yours and you'll understand why I made that comment. All others on this thread make it clear that the majority couldn't care less about non-Firefox users, and some of those are admins. As for your suggestion to upload, as you pointed out changes to the requested page require an admin involvement because the links on the Main Page are protected. You suggested requesting an admin change the links, which is what I was doing by posting here in the first place. Given the amount of consideration to the issue shown by everyone but yourself, I don't see a point in creating an account so that I can upload alternate versions as it has been made clear in the majority of replies that the majority here don't care one bit if the site is butt-ugly in IE6, as long as it looks good in Firefox. --161.88.255.140 18:16, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Actually, GCardinal said he will look into it. He's currently busy coding the new vetting system, which is an essential part of this wiki and affects all users. So I'd call it reasonable to do this first. About uploading new images, again: go ahead! Do the conversion, check if your browser can display the new versions, upload the images and then ask an admin specifically to change link X to Y. I'm sure that will be more successful than a general request to fix the problem (which involves checking the new images with IE6, which not everybody has available). --Hhhippo 19:21, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

This is issue for administrators and I will take care of it. Problem with PNG will be fixed. There is no reason for further discussion on this issue. And by the way this site will have 100% for both IE 6.0, Firefox 2.x, and Opera. However at the moment I am very busy so I would ask for your patience on this issue and thank you for reporting bugs. gcardinal 21:12, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Ãrchive

most of discussions here ended. time to move to archive? GCardinal 04:54, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

Yeah, looks like most of this has been dead for a while, I don't have a problem with archiving. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:59, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

Off-topic, but do you speak Portuguese GCardinal? - Krowman {{sysop}} 05:04, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

Um, wow. That's pretty dang off topic. ‽-(єronħ) no u 05:06, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

Lawl. My comment was in reference to this: Ã. - Krowman {{sysop}} 05:37, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

And with a burst of randomness, Krowman pops out from behind a door. rofl Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:42, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

I speak Norwegian, Russian, English. GCardinal 22:44, 22 May 2007 (CEST)

GWiki

GuildWiki is now linking to our site, for anyone who has not yet noticed. - Krowman {{sysop}} 01:02, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

How? Tellmetellmetellmetellmetellmetellme!!!! Now! -- <!--Zerris--> 06:03, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Main Page, under What's New - Krowman {{sysop}} 06:10, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Also linked to from gw:Build.

Sorry it took so long to get the link added to the Main Page over there. It had been getting discussed on the editcopy's talk page. I had hoped to have it before the vote here, but better late than never. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:16, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Oh, that? Meh. What I wanted was a way to link to here from Guild Wiki, like the way you do [[gw:Signet of Judgment]] or [[wikipedia:Monk]]. -- <!--Zerris--> 22:29, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

The link to here from GWiki was fixed by someone earlier today (it did say "PvX builds", now it says "PvX wiki"). My assumption is the confusion comes from the logo in the upper left. Any thought of changing it to say "PvX wiki". You could also fit the name "builds" or "pvxbuilds.com" under that name; but if the site wants to be known as "PvX wiki", I think it would help if the main logo matched the desired name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:37, 25 May 2007 (CEST)

Shout-link problems

I don't know if this is where I should post this... but when I try to follow links to shout/chant-skills on skillbars I come to the Guildwiki main page, not that shout's skill page. Does this happen to anyone else? 85.228.165.5 20:50, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

No need to post this more than once on the same page. ‽-(єronħ) no u 20:51, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Sorry for the doubble post, dunno what happened. Can anyone strike it out or something? 85.228.165.5 21:08, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Fixed the dobule post, and these should go to PvXwiki Talk:PvXcode This one is already posted, so dont post again. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 21:25, 24 May 2007 (CEST)

Name

I know this is probably a bit odd to suggest, but I think the name "PvX Wiki" is a bit too... busy. I suggest that the name of the site be something along the lines of "BuildWiki." It sounds a bit corny, but it's also shorter, and it does rhyme with its sister site, GuildWiki. Just an idle thought, nothing major. DancingZombies 19:06, 26 May 2007 (CEST)

/agree ~~ frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 19:36, 26 May 2007 (CEST)

I agree too--Banditda 17:44, 28 May 2007 (CEST)

This was debated. We decided against using BuildWiki because it was being used derrogatoritively at GuildWiki. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 00:32, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Well, yeah, I think BuildWiki is a bad idea for the reason Armond mentioned. But, just in terms of the general question about whether we should change our name, I think the one major issue would be that we have set ourselves up as PvXwiki. Not only do we have pages and other crap under the PvXwiki namespace that would just be a pain to move, people know us as PvXwiki. All of the "press" we have gotten has been advertising us as PvXwiki, and, a lot of people who already found the site but aren't really "members" wouldn't know what was going on. We could probably use redirects and other stuff so that it wouldn't be hard, and, I do agree with you, that PvXwiki is a little bothersome, but, all in all, it just hardly seems worth the trouble. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:18, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

I bet this site would expand ten times as quickly, under the label "Build wiki". Just saying. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 04:22, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Perhaps. In fact, you are probably right, but, I think Armond is right that "BuildWiki" just doesn't portray the right attitude. It seems less than professional, to the point of being a joke, which is in fact how it was used on GuildWiki. *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:25, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

We have www.pvxbuilds.com and www.pvxwiki.com. BuildWiki.com are taken so it not quite easy to use that name. If you ask me I like pvxwiki. gcardinal 05:22, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

As I posted in a thread above - I just request that the site graphic in the upper left be set to show whatever name it is agreed that the site wants to be known under. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:19, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

Just saying, not suggesting. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 03:23, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

Edit Copy

Is there an edit copy of the main page. Because I have a suggestion. And if there isn't an edit copy can one of the administrators consider adding this? A link of PvXwiki:Sandbox to the main page, or if there already is a link, could you make it more noticeable. Because I have tried to find the link to the sandbox on this page but cannot find it, so I have to search for it.--Banditda 17:43, 28 May 2007 (CEST)

There is not at the moment, and I'm too lazy to make one, but feel free to throw up suggestions here or on any admin's talk page. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 00:32, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Well, I'm not. The page has been created, and the Main Page now links to it. I noted on the editcopy's talk page that the two pages look a little different; nonetheless, the two pages are identical (excluding the editcopy message). Non-sysop users can still create pages, and anyone is free to view and copy the source from any protected page, just fyi. - Krowman {{sysop}} 01:16, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

Thanks for that, Krowman. -- Armond Warblade{{sysop}} 16:51, 29 May 2007 (CEST)

ok good--Banditda 01:58, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

I figured out, The only way to make the editcopy work is to get rid of the templates on the main page and just use the actual code, Thats how it works on guildwiki.--Banditda 06:25, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

No New Builds

We're getting a flood of new build submissions. Some awful. (Build:W/Mo Dragon Sword Survivor) without a real voting policy up yet. The code hasn't been done yet. What's the policy here? No new builds or are new builds ok? --Mgrinshpon (^C/_T) 14:42, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

The policy is no new builds outside user space. The question is how much effort to take in enforcing that. It's a temporary problem and these ~30 builds per week are not so much compared to the thousands of old GuildWiki ones we'll have to deal with anyway. --Hhhippo 14:52, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

Perhaps, putting it up in bold print on the mainpage would be good and temporary policy of moving new builds to userspace or just deleting them would be wise. I'm in favor of the first one. Anonymous-submitted builds would just have to stay or be deleted, I suppose. --Mgrinshpon (^C/_T) 17:15, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

Won't matter. people will continue to submit. Might as well not fight them over it. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 07:53, 31 May 2007 (CEST)

Ärchive

I would like to restate what was said on Ãrchive. I believe that this page is getting too long and is ready to be archived.--Banditda 18:58, 30 May 2007 (CEST)

PvXcode bug with Paragon skills

I'm seeing an odd bug with Paragon skills in PvXcode boxes. An example is Build:N/P Remains of Sahlahja Fun; all the N skills in the bar link to their pages on GuildWIki, but the Paragon skills link to GuildWiki's front page. Needs to be fixed. Permanganate 19:30, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

It's a bug that appears for each skill with quotation marks in the name. Was already reported here, so it will be fixed asap. --Hhhippo 20:21, 3 June 2007 (CEST)

Icon

Yay, we got an icon! I like it, it kinda shows that this is GWars, and shows PvX in a way you can read... well done GCardinal(probably), or whoever did it. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 18:21, 4 June 2007 (CEST)

YEAH! The Icon! :P hihi.. glad you like it~. btw please notice its transparent and the one on GuildWiki and GUildWarsWiki are not :P gcardinal 12:12, 5 June 2007 (CEST)

Challenge Missions

Don't know if this is the right place to put this, but shouldn't there be builds for challenge missions? I saw the Monthly top score achieved by one person and wonder how they did that, and how I can do the same. Maybe make a PvE section dedicated to Challenge Missions?75.45.88.105 04:08, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

Erm... no... we have specific builds, some of which are for CMs, but we don't house info on CMs themselves. Try GuildWiki. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:04, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

I think what he means is that there should be a builds section for it. kind of like farming builds, running builds, etc.. I think it could be a pretty good idea. 05:10, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

Erm... There already is... does no one read the main page...? If you don't look here. Jeez... I said no because I assumed people would at least look at the Main Page before making suggestions... *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:38, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

Those aren't challenge missions, theyre competitive ones. Dragon's Throat is an example of a Challenge Mission. - Skakid9090 05:40, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

I think they are the same as general PvE... right? ~~ frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 05:46, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

could be, but I was thinking, I don't know about the random guy, about team builds specifically for those mission. Bluemilkman 06:16, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

The answer would be no. We have too few Builds that would be listed under that category. Besides, its rather vague in itself. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 06:18, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

Maybe that's a result of not having a place to put them. I's actually not that vague. Look up challenge missions on gw. There's quite a few. IF people would have a place to put what their team build was to get that high score or whatever, it would help quite a bit. I know I suck at them and could use a little help with them. Besides, the NF ones have the armor things for your heros. Something to farm, if you wan it that way. oh by the way, if this doesn't make sense, it's because I should be going to bed. Bluemilkman 06:33, 9 June 2007 (CEST)

People + Read = No

Seems like we've had more recent changes today then most days =P - Skakid9090 03:54, 10 June 2007 (CEST)

Yeah, it's kinda ironic. =P ~~ frvwfr2 (talk···contributions) 04:42, 10 June 2007 (CEST)

Not so much ironic, if anything, its more on the annoying side. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 05:20, 10 June 2007 (CEST)

Right, just a question, what was the last time I could make an edit that would save from this transfer? ‽-(єronħ) ^{no u} 06:28, 10 June 2007 (CEST)

Any edit that you can make will be saved. The wiki will be technically in read-only mode during the critical phase, meaning that edits will be impossible, not just deprecated. The original message on the main page was indeed a bit confusing, it's changed now. See also here. --Hhhippo 11:44, 10 June 2007 (CEST)

wtf

There hasnt been any changes for while... wtf? Or my laptop is messed up... or recent changes is messed up. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 14:31, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Recent changes is messed up: the server is 8 hours back in time again. --Hhhippo 20:10, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Cool, so does that mean we need to find a tower and a Air Elementalist to reconstitute the Flux Capasator Experiment so we can get back on track? Shireensysop 10:44, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Or a water elementalist with a golem which suspiciously looks like an enchanted hammer to smack the server back into working life while using the new yet unstable ward to protect it from damage. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ (talk)(contributions) 10:48, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Or get Chuck Norris and all his RtL action to give it a BEAT DOWN! ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 13:08, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Please, Van Dam OR John McLain > Chuck Shireensysop 14:10, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

my grandma>chuck. oh please. ZamaneeJinn 03:57, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

When will the real vetting system be up and ready?

It said that the server would be tested for a day a week ago. can we put up the vetting system yet? ZamaneeJinn 03:57, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Just chill... let GCardinal fix any bugs, etc. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 04:36, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

The server would be tested. That was for when we were changing servers. ‽-(єяøηħ) ^{no u} 04:46, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Mini-Games

Jut finished this. Please look at it and leave suggestions. Bluemilkman 09:10, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Downloading Builds and General Comments

It says on the Main Page to report any difficulties or problems with the new server but I have spent quite a while looking for somewhere or someone I could tell so I'm posting it here. If this isn't the right place could you put a link or something somewhere visible?

I am unable to download any builds which I think might be a problem on the new server, forgive me if I'm wrong. Whenever I try I get the error:

404 Not Found

Not Found

The requested URL /template.php was not found on this server. Apache/2.2.3 (Debian) PHP/5.2.3-0.dotdeb.1 with Suhosin-Patch Server at www.pvxwiki.com Port 80

This happens with all the builds I have tried and has never happened before.

This happens to me as well, except the error i get is:

"Not Found

The requested URL /template.php was not found on this server. Apache/2.2.3 (Debian) PHP/5.2.3-0.dotdeb.1 with Suhosin-Patch Server at www.pvxwiki.com Port 80" --RHCP Fan1 05:06, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

PvE skils

Is there builds using the new pve skills yet ? Cant find any. :-(

Yes, other than the fact that the PvE only skills aren't in the server. My Seeping Wound build uses some PvE only skills, but they show up ugly looking. ‽-(єяøηħ) ^{no u} 00:33, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

BUMP? Just want to know how long it will take to add PvE skills to database (remember the Kurz/Luxon different pics, maybe make one pic, cuted from lower left to upper right, one part would be Kurz part of pic, the second Luxon part? Something like cards.), the 7 skill bar looks realy crappy... --DragonLord 14:08, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

We use gwBBcode for displaying skills. So we can't include new skills ourselves, we have to wait until the guys at gwShack update their database. So if you become impatient, sorry, you have to ask them. --Hhhippo 14:23, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

Real Vetting is working

Thanks GC. Now we can get things moving and shaking again! Shireensysop 05:19, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

Exactly. Hhhipp hhhipp hhhooray for the coder. And don't shake to much until the glue has dried... --Hhhippo 15:10, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

Category names

After discussion with Gcardinal, I moved the whole 'Untested' section to 'Untested testing' in order to make the difference to 'Untested trial' clear. Looking at the result I'm not particularly happy with the long category names. Maybe we should skip the 'Untested' in the category names, getting something like 'All testing PvP builds' instead of 'All untested testing PvP builds'. Any thoughts? --Hhhippo 15:10, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

I'd say leave them as is for the moment. As more and more users are going to need to make the transition into the new system, changing nomenclature around now probably isn't the safest idea. Once people understand the concept, the names won't be as much of a problem, but, for now, in order to learn the concept, people need to have names to attach to those concepts. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:05, 30 June 2007 (CEST)

Old unfavored builds

I'm removing links to Category:Unfavored builds from the main page. This category contains some, but not all of the old unfavored builds (only those which had multiple tags). I made sure all builds which still are in this category are also in Category:Trash builds, so they will be deleted soon. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 20:53, 1 July 2007 (CEST)

Can't Save Builds

I'm having the same problem with saving builds from here. I also keep getting the "404 Error - Not Found" message. Is there an easy way to solve this that's been explained elsewhere???

Update

Update pl0x. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 15:34, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Update what exactly...the bbcode? That we have no control over whatsoever? Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 15:40, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

The main page. That's why I'm posting here. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 16:47, 4 July 2007 (CEST)

Update again please. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:43, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Trouble with putting my build in the right place..

um... i just recently made a build and i am new to the wiki so i have no idea what to do now. i made the build and its in the trial builds section. but it's an elementalist build, yet it's not with the other Ele builds in the 'E' section. it's in its own little section labled 'S'. i think that might be because i saved it to my user page. but could somebody tell me how to put it in the ele section? --Stenzi 16:34, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Read the "Help" (left side of screen), just make a new page (instruction listed in "help") and remove first line from your user page so it will won`t appear in builds. And tbh, don`t submit it, play more in GW and look in existing Ele builds. DragonLord 17:17, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

I probabbly altered the tags on it, Let me take a look. But for future refrence, untill you can create a page at minimum standards in the first try, please use 'build-stubs' and not 'untested-trial' for initial build posting. Also, builds don't go in user space. Thanks, and welcome to the wiki. Shireensysop 17:24, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

ok thx for help guys --Stenzi 18:21, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Armor cap / Update June 15.

"Added a cap of +25 to the armor buff when stacking skills. A single skill can still push the bonus over +25. Bonuses from shields, weapons, insignia, and inscriptions are not affected and still stack."

I read this, and was a little bit suprised about how big of a change this is, but I couldn't find any comments on this whatsoever. Doesn't make this a great many builds here obsolete? Did I miss something? It feels like. 85.178.194.121 17:07, 6 July 2007 (CEST)lars

Not really. It really just means that the stackers switch it for an attack or something. It hurts farmers the most I think. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 18:03, 6 July 2007 (CEST)

Sigs...

Should we have a guide to making your own sig? Like on a page called signatures or something? I don't really care, but it would be easier to point to a link than re-type stuff. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 01:52, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

I added a short note and some links here. If you think we need more, feel free to start a page like Help:Signature. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 10:05, 7 July 2007 (CEST)

Wtf...

Wtf happened to recent changes? I have only 7 things... Did the history get cleared? ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 02:28, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

I just checked the history tabs of several articles and those still remain. From what I can see, whatever happenned only impacted the recent changes display, so it may just be a localised purge of a specific log in the database or some other server maintenance such as moving it to a new server that had the side effect of clearing the recent changes display. Hopefully Gcardinal can clarify further. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:37, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

And my watchlist got rid of the changes, probably based on same log as Recent Changes. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 02:40, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

We had some problems with the hardware clock on the server getting reset on the reboot. So mediawiki started with a really bad date/time and after it was back to normal all recent changes was kind of gone. I dont know why and have no plans on fixing it, I am just glad that server works... I took almost 12 hours to get it stable again. gcardinal 04:08, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

Recent changes and watchlist work fine. It's just that the server currently lives in a time-bubble located in August 2007. By default you see only the changes in the last few days, that is end of July, but you can ask for more using the links at the top of the page. The server date will be fixed asap, but for now, as Gcardinal said, let's be happy the wiki is up and running at all. The server was in really bad mood yesterday... – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 09:37, 8 August 2007 (CEST)

adding search to firefox

i used to be able to put in the PVX search onto my firefox search bar. yesterday it was putting me at a blank site which then redirected me to the mainpage.

now when i try to add in the pvx search plugin i didn't work. please add it to the myroft project please. ty J1j2j3 20:19, 8 July 2007 (CEST)

Featured builds

Our current featured 'Untested' PvE build has been vetted and is now 'Working good'. --Wizardboy777 22:44, 8 July 2007 (CEST)

reapers mark

reapers mark icone is certainly bugged, clicking the icon rediricts to gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Reaper%20s_Mark but it should be gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Reaper%27s_Mark Darkstone knight 13:03, 10 July 2007 (CEST) <pvxbig>[reaper's mark]</pvxbig> <pvxbig>[reaper's Mark]</pvxbig>

Not as far as I can tell. All I need to do is capitalize the M to make it work right, wich is still a bit of a bug. ‽-(єяøηħ) ^{no u} 17:45, 10 July 2007 (CEST)

clean up the front page

It's a complete mess. The first page is nothing but links to bureacratic and meta junk. I don't care about that. I only want to know about important announcements, like that most of the builds here don't suck. Don't make your website any less useful that it already is.

How Long

How long is it till your build moves out of the "Trial" section after being submitted?--Hawk Skeer 17:30, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

When it's ready to go. ~~ frvwfr2 (talk · contributions) 17:42, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Featured builds

It's becoming a royal pain in the arse to require users contact admins whenever they want to change the featured builds, especially the Untested ones. They get rated in only a few hours, or even a few minutes; just scroll up the page and see what a hassle this is. This is mostly an admin question, but does this wiki support partial protection of pages? If it does, we could remove the __NOEDITSECTION__ from the Builds table and allow all, or even just registered users to change it themselves. If this site does not support partial protects, we can create the Builds table as a template and paste it on the Main Page. That would allow anyone to change the featured builds themselves. Once I get a response here, and the answer is we don't support the partial protects, I'll start work on the template myself. - Krowman {{sysop}} 19:27, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Well, I went and did it anyways. Works fine so far. Let's see how she goes. - Krowman {{sysop}} 19:41, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

High five! Skakid9090 19:44, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Heh, I was just about to post on your talk page informing you about this. Glad you found out one way or another. - Krowman {{sysop}} 19:49, 12 July 2007 (CEST)

Builds Table

Going to fix it ok. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 21:48, 13 July 2007 (CEST)

Well, did the best I could with my limited coding skills :/. If there are any bugs, feel free to let me know :). If any of the Templates need to be changed, they can all be found here. Readem (talk*pvxcontribs) 00:43, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

Sorry to make your efforts obsolete, but I found a way to do it with just one template. So the links to featured builds are here and all the rest is directly on the main page. I think that's better than using a whole chain of templates. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 01:15, 15 July 2007 (CEST)

Heh.

The anti-builds-wipe site is having a builds wipe? Suddenly I don't feel quite so bad. :) Tanaric 03:04, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

We aren't wiping builds, just unfavoured ones. ~~ Napalm Flame ^_^ (talk)·(contributions) 03:06, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

Tanaric? Feeling bad? lololgud1 -Auron 08:52, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

Sorting Builds

A way to sort builds by profession would be helpful. Imagine checking every page to find your profession's builds versus clicking one link to find all the builds in one place.

Category:Builds by Profession? -Auron 08:52, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

sweet. needs a link on the front page, though. unless i couldn't find it either...

I'd propose this instead. Using special pages keeps the lists up to date automatically, while categories rely on users remembering to manually tag each build. Experience with the Campaign categories shows that many builds are not tagged. Btw: On the long run, we plan to establish a build search engine which will include also a filter for professions. – HHHIPPO ‹sysop› 12:01, 14 July 2007 (CEST)

TYPO On Main Page

You have two sets of featured untested PvE builds or at least it says... one is a typo under pvp builds.