Talk:Ultimate Necromancer

I'm inclined to delete this do to its fan-created nature, but as the wiki already has articles on builds, there's certainly a precedent. I'd rather this be discussed first from those who better understand builds. At the least, it really needs a rename to fit in with other necromancer build article titles, not to mention that "ultimate" is a very subjective term.--Hawki (talk) 12:20, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

This is hardly anything more than a slightly different Bonemancer. I say if there is anything of value in this article, merge it with the Bonemancer and delete this page. EDIT:  I just checked, this is just a Bonemancer with slightly different focuses, which are also covered in the Bonemancer article. So really, it's a needless article. Breywood (talk) 16:35, August 31, 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I don't have time to go in-depth right now, but at a glance, is there anything worth incorporating? I'll look myself too, but feedback is valued.--Hawki (talk) 23:52, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

This may have little to do with the topic at hand, but I'd just like to mention it here anyway as a response to Hawki (it seems this page is destined for the void soon, so it doesn't matter). As you may be aware, there are multiple Diablo Wikis out there. So I've asked myself, what is different about this one? What makes this wiki special? In some regards, the other wikis look much more professional with excellent design and formats. They also possess obscure lore and trivia not necessarily related to the games. But one thing I found them to lack is a personal touch. The other wikis are all about hard data and facts. What this wiki has that other wikis don't is the personal experiences of actual gamers. This wiki has the data, the lore, but it also has the experiences of those who have gone before. So while I do like to be professional and encyclopedic, what makes this wiki unique is the "fan-created nature". Don't misunderstand, articles about facts still need to be factual, and fan art still has no place here outside user pages, but builds, guides, and gameplay suggestions are what separates us from the wikis that are essentially Blizzard database clones. ◄► Tephra ◄► 04:10, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Thoughts on the other wikis aside, no-one's saying there shouldn't be no personal touch whatsoever. I'm open to stuff like saying "weapon x is good for y" or "a good way to defeat monster z is to do v." These things are inherently subjective, but they're still valuable additions because not only does it prevent articles from being a copy-paste of official material (e.g. every D3 item has stats on b.net, so providing advice on how to use them is a plus), but it allows them to grow over time, whereas more objective things (e.g. lore) have a set limit on what exists for them.


 * However, back to the point at hand. My problem with the article isn't so much that it's fan created...okay, that's part of the reason, I'm iffy about builds being separate pages rather than being incorporated onto the class pages, but that's my problem, and having build articles is something I can live with. What perturbs me about this particular page is the title ("ultimate" is a charged term, implying that the build is better than every other build when that's clearly subjective), and if it's indeed a variation of the Bonemancer build, then I'd rather incorporate it rather than making a page for every little variation. If the user made edits to the Bonemancer article, fine, no problem. But there still has to be a line drawn somewhere.--Hawki (talk) 04:35, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

◄► Tephra ◄► 04:48, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as this article is concerned, I agree. It is using an absolute to describe an opinion and if it is just a variation of another build, it isn't really fulfilling a purpose. I think builds really need to be known throughout the community and be identifiable by name before they belong here. As I noted though, what I was saying didn't really concern this article specifically - more so the "fan-created content" in general. I know you aren't arguing to get rid of builds, but most builds cover too much information to be merged into a single page. Even if you hacked it down to the extreme basics, it would look more like a semi-relevant list awkwardly attached to the end of an article.
 * Well, if this is a variant of Bonemancer, then it's probably best to add it as a subsection to that page. Like "a variant of Bonemancer exists, with the following differences". That's in case my opinion matters. Pryamus (talk) 04:56, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Finally gone over the Bonemancer article. They've definitely got the same focus. At most, I can only see this being in a "notes" section or something similar.--Hawki (talk) 06:15, September 1, 2014 (UTC)