Since I have been unhappy with the inconsistent and complicated way we are currently displaying build articles for a while, I decided to come up with a suggestion (User:Bishop/Builds) of what I think the main Builds article should look like. The obvious assumptions are that the current article is moved to Builds (Definitions) and that that article is expanded to include further information on how we vet and sort builds; information that is currently only available on talk pages in various places. The astute reader will also observe that I have included my suggestion for a new group of deprecated and/or weak builds, the [:Category:Unfavored builds], which I believe is a far better solution than to throw away builds that people have put time and effort into. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:33, 12 May
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - GuildWars Wikia talk:Style and formatting/Builds/archive 3
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Since I have been unhappy with the inconsistent and complicated way we are currently displaying build articles for a while, I decided to come up with a suggestion (User:Bishop/Builds) of what I think the main Builds article should look like. The obvious assumptions are that the current article is moved to Builds (Definitions) and that that article is expanded to include further information on how we vet and sort builds; information that is currently only available on talk pages in various places. The astute reader will also observe that I have included my suggestion for a new group of deprecated and/or weak builds, the [:Category:Unfavored builds], which I believe is a far better solution than to throw away builds that people have put time and effort into. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:33, 12 May
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| dbkwik:guildwars/p...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| abstract
| - Since I have been unhappy with the inconsistent and complicated way we are currently displaying build articles for a while, I decided to come up with a suggestion (User:Bishop/Builds) of what I think the main Builds article should look like. The obvious assumptions are that the current article is moved to Builds (Definitions) and that that article is expanded to include further information on how we vet and sort builds; information that is currently only available on talk pages in various places. The astute reader will also observe that I have included my suggestion for a new group of deprecated and/or weak builds, the [:Category:Unfavored builds], which I believe is a far better solution than to throw away builds that people have put time and effort into. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:33, 12 May 2006 (CDT) Oh, as an aside, we really need to decide if we want the categories to use capitalized Builds or not, as the current state is horribly inconsistent. --Bishop (rap|con) 11:37, 12 May 2006 (CDT)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)