Talk:Skill quick reference

Deletion opposition
I oppose the deletion of this page as it is required by a guideline currently in place on the basis of consensus. Hi Backsword ^^ Misery  10:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I sort of suspect it was you who added it to that guideline. Links are no reason for having a pointless page, links can be changed. Backsword 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was me who added it to the guideline, but that doesn't invalidate my point. Get the guideline changed, then we can delete the page. The page currently has a point. Misery  10:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did. You reverted me. And page who's sole purpose is to be mentioned in a guidle line, is a page we don't need. Backsword 10:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the whole purpose is to collect together lists of skills with similar mechanics so we don't have huge related skill sections or 50 small pages to keep skill pages uncluttered and well, formatted well. It hasn't been implemented on any skill pages yet, but it's a wiki, so anyone can start doing that whenever they want, that isn't my "job" per se. Also that is what happens (the reversion) when you go and try to change a guideline or policy without discussing it first, hence the week I spent with that talk page on RfC discussing the changes I made. That's how wikis work ^^ Misery  10:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Related subjects? 1. We deprecated that page. 2. This is lists of unrelated subjects. Tell me how 'enchaments with end effects' are related to 'self inflicts conditions'. Also, you can read edit summaries, can't you? Backsword 11:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said the subjects were related, but they are lists of skills with mechanical similarities within each list, but not between lists. What is "that page" that you refer to? I can read edit summaries, but you have not used any on this talk page or the page under deletion proposal, so I don't know what you are referring to here ^^ Misery  11:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * List of skills by related subject. As I said, it's old and deprecated. We decided it was a bad idea for the same reason this page is a bad idea. There isn't anyone who needs to compare the things, and it isn't where people look for information.


 * Es was in refrence to what it was in response to, your comment on your revert. Backsword 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only on one page because it makes it possible to find what lists already exist. I don't think we want 50 pages with titles "List of skills that ". Some of the lists will be very short, such as "Skills that remove stances". Even if we did separate the lists, we would then need a list of lists (perhaps as a category) to prevent duplication. If you can think of a better way of doing things, feel free to propose it. I do not think a separate page for each list is appropriate and I cannot think of a better way of doing it on my own. Misery  12:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Addition: The edit summary refers to our other discussion, please try to keep that all in one place. Looking at the list you linked, it actually seems to be very similar to this list, but I don't see why you call it deprecated, it is simply unused, perhaps a merge would be appropriate now that it has a use, but it is getting rather long. Misery  12:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was responing to you... Backsword 12:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On gww, we have categories for that. And plenty of short pages. Not collections of unrelated short pages stuffed into one. Backsword 12:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Skill pages already have a lot of categories on them, I don't really want to add more. Add too many and they become pointless. I am not massively opposed to splitting this page, but we need a way to keep track of them. Would a category suffice and a rewording to "a link to a relevant page from " work for you? Misery  13:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The cat would obviously sit on the list page. How would it help keeping track, the concern you listed, if it was on some skills page? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Backsword (talk).
 * It wouldn't I thought you were proposing categorising skills instead of using lists at all, like with "Skills that have earshot aoe" etc. Going with separate lists in a category would be a proposal to split this article rather than a proposal to delete it however, hence my confusion. Misery  13:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A split would leave a single article, or a disambig page, hence deletion. Backsword 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to split this and reword the guideline I won't oppose you and it's still well within what was discussed, so I can't imagine anyone else trying to stop you either. I don't have time to split it today though, not to mention I am bad with categories. Misery  13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys still attempting to resolve this? -- ab.er. rant  16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to have died down to nothing. I am tempted to say that if no one is going to work to change the guideline, this needs to stay as it is for now. Misery  11:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm for splitting it.
 * On an unrelated subject, what exactly is the difference between this and the list of skills by related subject? [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The main difference is that I didn't know the other one existed :>
 * This also has some other random relationships that people feel are important for some reason. I don't really care how it's done, I just don't want this crap in the related skills section. Misery  15:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there should be different categories for "related":
 * Skills that could replace each other in a build (i.e. Disrupting Shot and Concussion Shot are both bow interrupts).
 * Skills that share an uncommon application (i.e. Complicate and Icy Prism both interrupt+disable signets).
 * Skills that are mechanically related (i.e. Glowing Gaze and Glowing Ice both... do the glowing... thing).
 * Ideally, only the first (or maybe the first and second) would show up on a skill's page, imo. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  is for   Raine,   etc.  21:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Skills that benefit from hexes/conditions
Should these sections be split into hexes/conditions on allies/foes? Discord and Divert Hexes aren't really that related, is my thought.

On another note, should we list attributes or assume people can click? -- Armond Warblade 20:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See List of skills by related subject for a page that split skills that affect allies or foes and also lists attributes. --Silver Edge 20:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that, since the condition section specifically mentions enemies, while the hex section doesn't. Yeah, I think splitting them would be good. I'd rather not have attributes, at least not like the linked page. Also, exclude all shouts and chants from Skills that affect an area, or include all of them? Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Neptune.jpg|19px]] 20:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Make Haste!"; "For Great Justice!"; "Coward!". &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  2:24, 18 Sep 2010 (UTC)
 * What an embarrassing error. Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Neptune.jpg|19px]] 03:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of thinking all the sections should be split into offensive skills, defensive skills, and skills in which the category applicable is a drawback (i.e. skills that disable themselves). It sort of makes sense if you think of it in the same way you think of organizing the sections by their verbs - that is, organize it by what one is likely to be searching for. I'm just not sure in what way they should be split. I personally am not fond of bulleted subsections such as on the linked page, but I'm not sure subsections (three-deep headers) would work either.
 * One last thing before I forget: is the current way of organizing duplicate skills useful? If so, would it be worth using this to list them (and move said template to the mainspace)? -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 05:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Skills that disable skills
Is there a need for that section, since it duplicates the tables at Disable, which can be sorted by name, cost, attribute, campaign, and alphabetically? --Silver Edge 05:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Tbh, I'd love to get a version of that code that lets you choose which skills go into the list without adding a thousand categories to each page. Then it'd be more like "since we're making them load a 400mb page anyway, why not duplicate what's at the disable page". -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 06:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Skills that inflict conditions on self
I differentiate between skills that inflict conditions and skills that transfer conditions. Am I being too pedantic? Misery  00:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope --JonTheMon 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just annotate it with "transfers conditions from ally". &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  2:06, 19 Sep 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not just have a "Skills that transfer conditions"? --JonTheMon 04:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It'd technically be a subcategory of "skills that inflict conditions on self", except that it would also have Hypochondria &co on it. &mdash;  Raine Valen  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  5:43, 19 Sep 2010 (UTC)
 * Not if you consider infliction and transfer different. The point is, infliction creates the condition. This is useful for builds like Contagionway. If you only used condition transfer in that build you would be relying on the other team having a lot of conditions for it to be effective. It is also useful for builds using Angorodon's Gaze so that you don't have to rely on the enemy team having conditions. Misery  08:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Draw, FF and Martyr should really be on a different category since really you are not inflicting the condition. --Frosty  [[Image:User Frosty Frostcharge sig.jpg|19px]] 08:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Skills that Target an Area
The description is quite off. Several of those require a target character, and fail if that target dies. This would include every warrior skill listed, Healing Burst, Defile/Desecrate Enchantments, E-Surge, Ice Spikes (I think. I am not entirely sure about the last one). FleshAndFaith 05:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole thing is pretty whacky. The basic thing I was aiming for was that the skills affect a burst around a certain point in space (as opposed to around a character, since e.g. Teinai's doesn't move if the target moves). -- Armond Warblade[[Image:User Armond sig image.png]] 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of it is clearly wrong, just remove it. I can't remember if they changed Whirlwind Attack so that it needed a target, I know it didn't at some point. <font color="#A55858">Misery  13:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I know for sure cyclone axe didn't always need a target. You could just do a graceful pirouette for the hell of it. Either way, I'll also try and clarify the description of that section. FleshAndFaith 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting even more whacky. Do we want to create a different section for skills that center on self, as there are quite a number of them just in the Ele tree. Also, how do we want to treat spirits and nature rituals? Namely, Rejuvenation and Agony. FleshAndFaith 00:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)