User talk:TheRealGriz

Functionality vs change in functionality
I'm sorry you didn't like my edit of Functionality. If you can find another way to begin the article by defining functionality first before discussing what constitutes a change in function, that would be helpful. If you look again, you would see that I didn't intend to change any of the previous ideas, just the introduction; all the original is it a function vs it isn't a function info remained. (I happen to find it easier to read distinct ideas when they are in bullets, but I can see that perhaps you prefer them in paragraph form.)

Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 23:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * We have talked about this "bulleted" form before, this wiki caters to individuals from different countries that don't speak English as their primary language as well as people with different levels of education. Bulleted formats focus on a summary of powerpoints and does not take into account that some readers might need more clarity than others. This "specific" page Functionality is used as a reference to define the word as it relates to this community. This doesn't just effect a page or two, it effects up to and including the wiki guidelines themselves. Can you imagine the chaos if America made laws based on "Powerpoints" instead of detailed explanations of purpose, content, application and limitations? I see the same potential chaos being created when we alter "reference" pages. This page is being used for a long time debate on the proper use of the "related skills" section, as well as a "linked" reference for people reverting edits they feel are outside the scope of the meaning of the word. I don't want to have to argue what the meaning of the word "is" is. You don't need to apologize, as this is not personal, but I feel justified in being "bold" about guidelines and what I feel is best for the community. I stand by the idea that details are a very good thing, and I truly believe that consensus would agree with me on this issue. Thank you for this post, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.


 * I need to respectfully ask, what have you identified as being something that "needs" to be changed? The article clearly states:


 * Functionality in Guild Wars refers to the effects unleashed by a skill, the prerequisites for those effects to be triggered and the order in which those effects take place.


 * It then goes on to explain the involved specific details? I don't see what you are looking to change. That is the definition first, is it not? I would be happy to offer a suggestion but I'm not sure I understand what is missing or what the intended outcome is. TheRealGriz 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * After the opening, the article covers changes to functionality, as opposed to the actual functions. I find this confusing; the article isn't about what a change is, it's about what we mean by functionality.


 * Since, as you state, this article is used as a reference, of course it makes sense to make it as easy to read as possible. I don't care about power point; that's not why I prefer bullets. IMO, lists of things are easier to parse when they appear as lists, e.g. as bullets. (And, I assure you, that when I'm reading in a foreign language, the shorter the phrases, the more chance I have of understanding what was meant. My reading comprehension is very low outside of English.) It strikes me that the wiki community is of two minds about this: we list NPC skills and locations in bullet form, but in some articles, we use paragraphs for similar purposes.


 * But the bullets are only one way of summarizing details; I don't mean to suggest that they are required.


 * So, the opening paragraph is fine; however, the subsequent paragraphs are about defining what we mean by a change to functionality &mdash; an important concept, but not the topic of the article. I'd like to see if rephrased so it's about function details.


 * BTW: I wasn't apologizing for my efforts; I was apologizing that it created extra work for you. I didn't post here because I thought your edit was unwarranted. On the contrary, I think we both want the same thing: a clear presentation of what the wiki means when it uses the term. — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 00:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a better understanding now of the intention, it does need some cleaning/clearing up. I would suggest something that keeps the details but removes the "rambling". I think the "examples" should be maintained in both of the secondary paragraphs. You used the term "function details" and I think it is important to identify what those are, in fact I even considered creating a page to define a "function detail" at one point. Within the section that explains what is NOT a function change it lists examples of mechanical related things and leaves a very fine line (IE or other numerical values will not be considered functionality changes) that is meant to outline, what I refer to as, a "function detail", as you know, this is usually the most common type of change when they do skill changes in updates. Where they don't alter the function itself, but only the time limit or amount of damage, or healing or even the wording of the function. I do think that little line could be better clarified, because it can be considered vague to some people. Perhaps something like:


 * Changes in the behavior of the skill, such as: Target, Damage types, change in Conditions dealt, triggered Effect, order of triggered effects, or number of times an effect is triggered, will be considered functionality changes.


 * Changes in Adrenaline or Energy costs, Activation or Recharge times, Attribute lines, Skill types, Range, wording or functional detail values that do not change what the skill does, will not be considered functionality changes.


 * Would something like that accomplish what you were wanting to fix? Or is it still missing something or everything? BTW you didn't create extra work for me either, I enjoy guidelines, formatting and I see ALOT of your edits and I very rarely disagree with them. You save more time for more editors fixing things then you ever could in creating more work for them, and you identified yet something else that could use some refining. Good Work TheRealGriz 02:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's the phrasing that I find problematic: the article isn't about changes it's about function. (I also think we can avoid the passive voice.) So, I would prefer to see something like:
 * That's the phrasing that I find problematic: the article isn't about changes it's about function. (I also think we can avoid the passive voice.) So, I would prefer to see something like:


 * "Functionality refers to any description of the skill's effects, specifically: the type of target, the area of effect, type of damage, conditions inflicted, triggered effects (or the order or number of times in which they are applied), or any wording that describes what the skill does."




 * In other words, let's stick to describing what is/is not function (and not about what constitutes a change in function). — Tennessee Ernie Ford ( TEF ) 17:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The article IS about changes though, if you look at the "What Links Here" section of the Functionality page, you will see that three years ago the page Functionality change was redirected to the Functionality page. The page is meant to incorporate both subjects.TheRealGriz 19:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article IS about changes though, if you look at the "What Links Here" section of the Functionality page, you will see that three years ago the page Functionality change was redirected to the Functionality page. The page is meant to incorporate both subjects.TheRealGriz 19:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

indents on talk pages
Can you use the standard wiki convention for talk page indents? I'll make the changes on your talk page to show you what I'm talking about. It just makes it much easier to read who is writing what. Thanks! :) --Lania  03:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)