Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Skills/Archive2

Attribute levels in skill descriptions
GWiki uses Attribute level 0 to level 12 in the skill descriptions and uses 0 to 15 in the Template:Progression. Since A.Net is using 0 to 15 for its skill-update pages, would it be a good suggestion to move from 0..12 to 0..15 in the skill descriptions? - CoRrRan 04:29, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * Good point. This has lead to confusion after game updates quite a few times when people just copied ANet's text. I'd support switching to ANet's standard. Or how about 0...12...15, to cover both? --Tetris L 04:34, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * That might be a better solution indeed. (I'm a big fan of gwbbcode's skill database and I know that 'tool' also provides 0..12..15 for skills.) I even know that it parses that style from 0..15 to 0..12..15, perhaps something that might be possible with MediaWiki coding? But I guess the skills should then be set up with templates, like GWiki. (Correct me if I'm wrong, not a MediaWiki-expert) --CoRrRan 04:38, 13 February 2007 (PST)


 * I have been opposed to both the 0..12 notation and the 0..15 notation. However, 0..12..15 sounds kinda cool! hehe LordBiro 09:04, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * I am now worried that CoRrRan's 0..12..15 has just created a monster, and his name is LordBiro. ;) &mdash; Gares 09:09, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * 0-12-15 sounds good to me. I have no problem with 0-12 seeing as that's what's in game, but there always seems to be headaches when skill updates are rolled out so this'd be a good compromise. --NieA7 11:34, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * 0...12...15 is the best choice, but if that doesn't work out we should keep with the in-game system, ie 0...12. --Gem (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2007 (PST)
 * If this could be set as variables in the skill description, it would work. I was thinking about doing such a thing before on the GuildWiki, but became busy with real world stuff after copying the template to my sandbox and never did work on it.  Something like prog1 prog2 prog3 variables that automatically filled in the values in the description, depending on which progression bar (or level) they came from.  I am not a wiki coder (newb to it), but I don't see why it could not be done.  The main problem with this is it would further distance your average user from knowing what was going on if they went to edit a skill's details.  EMonk 11:49, 13 February 2007 (PST)


 * Well, again, please don't presume that we will be using the template. To think in the same terms as we used on the GuildWiki will only limit our imagination as to what other solutions we could come up with. LordBiro 11:58, 13 February 2007 (PST)

I personally think that 0..15 is horrible and dumb. What significance does 15 hold? 12 is the highest without runes, 16 is the highest with runes. Those two numbers are important, 15 is basically second highest, which doesn't make sense to me. If people weren't so used to the 0..15 and 0..12 formats, I'd suggest a 0..12..16 format. But if that isn't an option 0..12..15 is superior to 0..15 and 0..12. --Vindexus 17:32, 13 February 2007 (PST)


 * From what I remember, A.Net skills guys put two numbers into each skill, then there's a program that generates a curve between those two numbers. The attribute levels for A.Net's numbers are 0 and 15. On a side note, I don't mind the idea of 0..12..15 at all. Those are the real key attribute level points as I understand it.--VGJustice 18:48, 13 February 2007 (PST)


 * And 15 is what the update notes use. :) --Gem (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2007 (PST)
 * Correct, A.Net uses the 0 and 15 values to calculate the linear dependence between all skills. Referring to GWiki, where 'we' use the template formats, it also calculated every value dependent on the 0 and 15 attribute values. Then you'd have to manually change the skill description to use the 0..12 style. This created a lot of extra work. I agree with Vindexus that 0..15 doesn't mean anything to the regular GW player, but for A.Net it is vital, as the skills are calculated from those two values. Why not use that in the wiki? And since I've been using gwbbcode (which also uses 0..12..15-style), I've become used to it. --CoRrRan 10:23, 15 February 2007 (PST)


 * Speaking of gwbbcode - look at this conversation on my talk page. If it's true that gwbbcode uses a 0..12..16 format, then ALL the elites are wrong. Please say it ain't so - I couldn't bear having to go over them all again for the third time :( Oh, and while I'm on the subject: where ingame can you display the skills with 0..12..15 format? I know I've seen it, but Priest of Bally just shows me the skills at my current attribute setup. Am I losing the plot here, or is it lack of sleep? -- Snog  rat [[Image:Trigsig.png]] 21:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)
 * And on another note: if you're smart, you download the gwbbcode from the gwshack website, open the archive and locate the skill_db.php-file. In this file is EVERY SINGLE SKILL with 0..15 attribute levels. HTH in your effort. --CoRrRan 09:00, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I can't figure out from the above discussion what the consensus was, 0..12..15, 0..15, 0..12..16, what should be used? &mdash; Anja  06:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 * AFAIK: 0..12..15 . 0..15 is used for progression calculation and 12 is of course the obvious max for secondary professions attribute lines. -- [[Image:Corrran.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 06:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I also like 0..12..15 more. However, currently some users are changing skill pages from that system to 0...12...16 - I think it would be good to have some sort of consensus about this soon, at least to prevent people from wasting their time like this. Erasculio 19:35, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
 * 1-15 sucks! My trapper and SS necro use 16 in their attributes permanently. How are we going to know now? - B e X o R  20:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
 * (enter newb) What if we do something new? I like the idea of the 0...12...15 system to keep consistent with the official Guild Wars site and all the updates.  Then, why don't we create a standard "Note:" or something below the skill description listing the numbers for the 16 attribute damage.  Consistency + GWW exclusive = all the information one could desire.  Heck, if anyone had the energy and brains, we could even include another note that lists the +1 attribute 10-20% (or whatever) damage amounts.  That would not be me. :-) lol   BTW, can someone give a quick lesson on how to do the 0...12...15??  What code do you use?  Is it:  Can you use that code on all varying numbers (energy, damage, etc.)?  Thanks!  --Mask 01:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Uhm, all other numbers can be seen in the progression box, which is slowly but steadily being added to all skill pages. It shows all values at all attribute levels (standard is max 18, but that can be changed). Yes, you do the 0..12..15 with the gr and put the value at attribute lvl 0 and the value at attribute lvl 15, like this . And it works on any numbers, damage, energy, adrenaline, anything you want :) -  Anja Astor  03:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 * ...or we could do that. :-) I see it on Arcane Larceny.  Looks good to me.  --Mask 13:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I disagree with using 0-12-15. At least leave it in the code for calculations and such but highlight useful numbers. 0-12-16 has always been the basic numbers we use when creating builds. Why do you want do display useless information ? Leave to 12 but never show this awful 15 that is not meaningful. I don't care for patch notes numbers...12:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)Truthseeker

OMG what were you thinking with 0...12...15? Its so awkward. Personally, I think Anet should consider using 0...12 or 0...16 because 15 is awkward. and the 0...12...15 looks weird and nowhere in game would you see 2 breakpoints like that. even 0...12...16 would be ok but the max amount (excluding uses of Glyph of Elemental power and the likes) should reflect the actual amount you could use. 15 is like, you can get around this high but really higher. 12 and 16 make sense because it would be how high you could go with secondary and primary profession but the 15...I know I'm late to the table but I just started wandering around in here and its icky looking =(. JediRogue 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you think it should be 16 instead of 15, then it should be 13 instead 12. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 00:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would A.Net change the 0...15 skill progression when EVERYTHING in this game is based on it? And you'll get used to it. ;) Personally, I wouldn't even go higher than 14, just because I don't use any Major or Superior runes in PvP, but I find that 15 holds such a big significance, that it is warranted to use it like this. -- [[Image:User Corrran sig.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 11:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Template
Are there meant to be dual pages like this: Template:Troll Unguent Troll Unguent? - B e X o R  07:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 * As far as I know, this was something that wasn't going to be used in this wiki. But I can be mistaken. -- [[Image:Corrran.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 09:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 * No decision has been made yet IIRC - FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.png]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 * In this particular case, Troll Unguent isn't linking to the template, so I see no reason for the template. Arkhar 19:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd prefer templates to make it easier to create quickrefs. -- Gordon Ecker 05:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I think there is a possible solution to that without using templates, explained up there. &mdash; Anja  05:50, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Sorry, I should've been clearer. I was referring to quick refereces like this or this, which list certain relevant numbers for quick comparison. -- Gordon Ecker 06:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * And those numbers cannot be pulled out of a normal article but must be pulled out of the template namespace? Or will the code just clutter the skill page too much, so it becomes hard to edit? Just want some clarification, so I can have a relevant opinion on this :) &mdash; Anja  08:24, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm not an expert on templates, but I believe that the numbers cannot be pulled out of a normal article. Templates can define values, which can then be called by other templates for "complex" quickref articles. Another problem with simply using is that the current skill article format is fairly bulky, even for "simple" quicref articles like this. I can think of two options. One option is to use a template with an "edit skill details link" for the skill description and quickref data like Guildwiki ("view" and "history" links could also be added), which has the advantage of keeping the skill data in one place, making out of date quick ref data unlikely and the disadvantage of being less intuitive to edit. The other option is to keep the skill descriptions in the main skill article, and having templates with names along the lines of template: skill data, template: quick reference data or just template:skill name, which would have the advantage of making the skill articles more intuitive to edit, and the disadvantage that quicref data is more likely to be overlooked and not updated. Quickref data shouldn't clutter things too much, as it could go at the bottom of the template, and wouldn't require any alteration of template:skill infobox, see Guildwiki's Expert's Dexterity template for an example. -- Gordon Ecker 20:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


 * Gordon, the example that Anja mentioned above, which uses inside an article, could be used to produce quick references just like the ones on GuildWiki. LordBiro 20:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * It would still only work for the "simple" quickrefs. -- Gordon Ecker 21:36, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I put up some basic examples of "complicated" deep wound quickrefs at http://en.guildwars.wikia.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wikia:Sandbox&oldid=12068 . Is that what you mean? --Rezyk 22:52, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


 * I've just had a double check, because your response, Gordon, was so certain. It would not only work for "simple" quickrefs. Anything we could do with templates we could do with in articles. The only difference is where the information is located, and the location of the information is an important consideration (as discussed above). LordBiro 06:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


 * Are you sure? According to this article on the Wikimedia meta-wiki,, the and do not allow the kind of flexibility that would be required for "complex" skill quick refs like this. -- Gordon Ecker 06:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps I am mistaken, but where in that section does it say that we would not be able to use this in the way we expect? LordBiro 06:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Sorry, I missed Rezyk's example. You and Rezyk are correct, the skill data does not need to be inside a separate article in the template namespace in order for the data to be called by another template. The part about, and tags threw me off. -- Gordon Ecker 07:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


 * Phew :) I was worried I'd missed something. I've produced a very simple example at User:LordBiro/Skill name. It is annoying how similar "onlyinclude" and "includeonly" sound, when they in fact do very different things. LordBiro 07:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


 * The reason GuildWiki uses templates instead was due to server-performance issues, which I've also mentioned in a previous section here. -PanSola 08:31, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Adding gwBBcode support
I would really like to implement gwbbcode onto the wiki. It is afar simpler and efficient way of displaying skills that the gwwiki one. gwiki.fr has done it and it really a great feature. PogS 07:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 * This should by handled through Requests for technical administration. -- Gordon Ecker 19:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Really seems pretty easy to edit the skills. --VeNoM 22:31, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Acquisition
I'd propose that for acquisition, the location of where you get it from is specified before the boss or the trainer or the quest name. It's kinda the same reason why we list campaign before boss name. -PanSola 07:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

What about adding the Profession Changers to the Skill Acquisition? I've added those in the few Skills I've edited: [] -Arduinna 06:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

"In-game description"
Is there any particular opposition to labeling the in-game description section with the header "In-game description"? I kind of think we should have it as a matter of site-wide consistency in labeling our non-GFDL stuff. --Rezyk 01:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 * We've been discussin this abit, over here User talk:Aspectacle, and we have a "policy" that says an article should not start with a heading, which the skill article would do if we have the "In-game description". Personally, I like both ways, but this one follows the format of the rest of the wiki better. And I don't think it's very important to tell this is non-GFDL, it's a skill description, and as such, a fact.. - Anja Astor  01:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 * The skill detail makes good introductory text which is something we're trying to consistently introduce across different articles - in terms of formatting the page is better off without the header. It is unnecessary to label everything from in game as from in game - particularly when it is obvious that it is so, skill descriptions, objectives, reward and dialogue sections are examples of this.  Further I believe the licensing statements cover all aspects of the ArenaNet vs GFDL copyright and to specify in game vs user content in the wiki is not a legal necessity if ArenaNet wished to pursue copyright violation against other sites or whatever. --Aspectacle 02:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Campaign
Do we have to list the campaign in the aquisition part if it's a campaign specific skill? (or similarly just available in one campaign, but that's just single-campaign skills, I think). Imo, it's not necessary, if it's a Prophecies skill it should be obvious the locations listed are in Prophecies.. - Anja Astor  02:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I've been adding it in (sometimes :P) but I did wonder (briefly) about it, because it certainly is redundant for non-core skills.  I'd be fine with leaving it out, but don't have a strong opinion on it.  As a related item, if the only way of acquiring a skill is through SoC I'd still like 'Signet of Capture' listed before the bosses. --Aspectacle 02:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes, that's what I've been adding too :P I think it looks odd without something, but both skill trainer and prophecies, for example, isn't really necessary for prophecies skills, imo. I'm in favour of not more text than necessary, when making lists ;) - Anja Astor  02:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Skill taxonomy
I've been wondering about the skill taxonomy lately. The current skill infobox auto-categorises every skill into Category:Skills. This is pretty unwieldy. Here is my suggestion for how it should work (it's not particularly revolutionary!).


 * 1) All skills should be categorised into  where  is the type of the skill.
 * 2) If a skill has a campaign it should be added to  where  is the type of the skill. (I say if because Signet of Capture has no campaign, maybe others too, not sure).
 * 3) If a skill has an attribute it should be added to  where  is the attribute name.
 * 4) If a skill has no attribute but a profession it should be added to  where  is the profession name.
 * 5) If a skill has no attribute or profession (e.g. Signet of Capture, Lightbringer and Sunspear skills) it should be added to

Does this make sense? LordBiro 07:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I like the idea of more specific categorisation, but should that be . I also thought I'd let you know that I like the CSS skillbox, with the tango icons (I think the new ranger paw and mesmer hand should be implemented for consistency though). My only concern about the CSS skillbox is that presentation to users without the required stylesheet isn't correct. I assume that either the stylesheet will need to be implemented globally or the CSS re-integrated within the infobox template.  Also, there should be a way to auto-categorise some or all of the above list, would we be doing this, or trying to get it working manually?. --Indecision 07:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I apologise, it was a typo, I have corrected the above to.


 * Regarding categorisation, I believe this could all be done automatically. All of the above information is provided as a parameter. I will make some additions to the test skill box to show how I would do it. LordBiro 07:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


 * In case #2 there are skills which have type "Core" which SoC, Ressig, Fire Storm, Watch Yourself! and others fall. , which is a simple variant on  , should cover that.  I know that the template has no particular way to differenciate elites, but are there categories around that we want?
 * Definitely auto-categorise, all of the categories specified are straight forward to implement. --Aspectacle 07:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Not a problem Biro, was pretty sure that was the case, just thought I'd point it out in case people got a touch confused :). I can also see how Core skills could be categorised relatively painlessly. I'm sure that categorising elites could be done by adding a parameter to the template and avoiding displaying it (using style="display=none;", or some other method) and then categorising off of that (if its necessary). As for other categories, maybe PVE only skills (as we are getting another 50 of them later in the year)? --Indecision 08:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I would suggest we use the same division Dirigible proposed for green items. Here:


 * We could then have a skill classified by attribute (and then, higher in that tree, by profession), by campaign and by type. It would be consistent with the classification of the unique items (and ok, I just love that image : D). Erasculio 08:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Didn't I already say that? :P Also, the articles using User:LordBiro/Skill infobox now all also include a list of the categories that they would exist in if the template were live. LordBiro 08:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Heh, sorry, I think I misread your original comment. I thought you meant that the only skills linked to a profession would be the ones without an attribute, while in the division above all skills would be linked to an attribute (even if it is the lack of one) and then linked to a profession as a step further in the same tree. So, say, going to the Dagger Mastery category would show the Dagger Mastery skills and it would be a part of the Assassin skills category, which would have 5 subcategories (Dagger Mastery skills, Critical Mastery skills, Shadows Arts skills, Deadly Arts skills and Unlinked Skills). Erasculio 08:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Ok, I see that you were saying something different to me ;) but I don't agree with the need for what would effectively be 10 "no attribute" categories, one for each profession. I can see your point but it doesn't sit well with me. LordBiro 08:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
 * If you liked that picture, you should see the original version. :) --Dirigible 06:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * That picture is beautiful Dirigible, I love it like I have never loved a diagram in all my life! --Jamie [[Image:User Jamie.gif|(Talk Page)]] 13:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Maximum attribute levels
The note Gordon added about what max level each attribute can have is just confusing, to be honest. Could we have a table or something instead? Or make a note of it in the attrivute article? (for example Attribute or Hammer Mastery) - Anja Astor    (talk)  03:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * or both? When I saw Gordon add that information I was like "Of course!" but you're right about the formatting. Here's a quick table which needs a tidy which captures the same information;

!Profession !! 18 att points !! 19 att points !! 21 att points
 * Warrior || || All
 * Ranger || Wilderness Survival Expertise Beast Mastery || Marksmanship
 * Monk || || All
 * Necromancer || || Death Magic Soul Reaping || Blood Magic Curses
 * Mesmer || || All
 * Elementalist || || Energy Storage || Air Magic Earth Magic Fire Magic Water Magic
 * Assassin || Critical Strikes Deadly Arts Shadow Arts || Dagger Mastery
 * Ritualist || || All
 * Paragon || Leadership|| Command Motivation Spear Mastery
 * Dervish || Earth Prayers Mysticism Wind Prayers||Scythe Mastery
 * }
 * --Aspectacle 03:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Assassin || Critical Strikes Deadly Arts Shadow Arts || Dagger Mastery
 * Ritualist || || All
 * Paragon || Leadership|| Command Motivation Spear Mastery
 * Dervish || Earth Prayers Mysticism Wind Prayers||Scythe Mastery
 * }
 * --Aspectacle 03:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Dervish || Earth Prayers Mysticism Wind Prayers||Scythe Mastery
 * }
 * --Aspectacle 03:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * --Aspectacle 03:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I agree, we really need that info somewhere. Maybe like this?

!Prof || ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  ||  || ! 18 ! 19 ! 21
 * || WS, Exp, BM ||  ||   ||   ||   || CS, DA, SA ||   || Lead || EP, Myst, WP
 * All || Marks || All || Death, SR || All || ES || Dagger || All || Comm, Spear, Mot || Scythe
 * ||  ||   || Blood, Curses ||   || Air, Earth, Fire, Water ||   ||   ||   ||
 * }
 * - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  04:15, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * The compact one is excellent for the formatting guide, that orientation is much more space efficient too. The abbreviations stop it from being really useful for putting into the article on attributes if we were to make a general overview of max attribute values there - it may be interesting to have but isn't strictly required, where perhaps details of how to get to 21 might be of real interest in the attribute descriptions. --Aspectacle 04:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I guess abbreviations is only good for articles like this, where you want space efficient info. I prefer not using abbreviations in articles like Attribute since it is an atricle to describe attributes, not to do a quick style information to be used in other articles. Uh, that went confusing. And now my keyboard messed up, I hope you get my point :P - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  04:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
 * It's too bad we don't have a set of icons that could be used. --Rohar ( talk|contribs ) 08:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


 * If there is a clear criteria for which attributes have which maximum value then it makes sense to me that a switch can do that job. So I made one.


 * Healing Prayers =
 * Wilderness Survival =
 * Blood Magic =
 * Beast Mastery =
 * Skill progression limit =


 * This could replace the default value in Skill progression, so that if an attribute is present, and no maximum value is set, the template figures it out.


 * I wrote the template on the understanding that every attribute would not be linked, but according to the formatting article attributes in the progression table should be linked. I think it makes sense that the attribute either not be linked, since it is already linked to in the skill infobox, or is auto-linked, which I know would be a little messy since the other parameters are not auto-linked.


 * I really favour the first option, where attributes in a progression table are not linked.


 * If it is decided that attributes should be linked then Skill progression limit will need to be altered. LordBiro 06:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Forget what I said, I altered Skill progression limit. There is no longer a need to use the 'maximum' parameter, since the progression template can figure it out itself. LordBiro 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Nice. Now all that needs to happen is for people to stop using incorrect maximum parameters and we'll be great. :) I'm for completely removing allowing the maximum to be set, because afaik there are no exceptions.  Although Gordon might be better able to confirm that. --Aspectacle 13:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I think I might alter the template in that way now, since I don't think there are any exceptions. If Gordon says otherwise then we can always revert it so that maximum takes precedence. LordBiro 14:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)


 * With the addition of the Golden Egg these ranges might need to be increased again by 1. --Indecision 20:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I think you're right - it appears that the effects of the Golden Egg do stack, so the max should be able to go up by one on all of these - I haven't tested yet to confirm, but that seems correct so far.
 * At least by using a template to control the max level, it's easy to do blanket updates to all skills at once when this is confirmed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Definitely! LordBiro 18:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

If illusion magic can go to 19, can't every spell hit its 19 value with Signet of Illusions? --Rezyk 20:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Maybe. It depends on how they interact with 20% +1 items. -- Gordon Ecker 21:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I just tested it, while Signet of Illusions is active, +1 attribute procs will not affect any spells. I tested it with Wastrel's Demise and a 20% +1 Domination Magic offhand, Wastrel's Demise and 20% +1 Illusion Magic offhand and Accumulated Pain and a 20% +1 Illusion Magic offhand. -- Gordon Ecker 02:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Apparently non-instantaneous attribute bonuses only stack up to 20, resulting in an absolute cap of 21. I think we should show progression at least up to 20 because of hard mode, I'm not sure about showing progression up to 21. -- Gordon Ecker 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion and Discussion of pop-ups
I recently found the pop-up script used on wikipedia can be also be used on any wiki. So I tried to install it in here. It worked, but the page loaded from the pop-up shows nothing. How can this be fixed?

I suggest of adding pop-ups to all users, but only for skills, that means...only skills (or maybe armor too) will pop-up with description when mouse hover over it.

What do you guys think? Lightblade 20:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * See GWWt:RfTA#Navigation popups for instructions on how to properly set up the popups so they work with this wiki.
 * As for using those popups for skills, it's a very bad idea, I think. Lupin's Popups have been designed for editors's ease, not for the reader's. GwBBCode is probably far more appropriate; the discussion for that started at GWWt:RfTA#Mouse-over skill descriptions, but it seems to have stalled. Might want to bump it. --Dirigible 21:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Maximum option on Skill Progression
Is the maximum option still used or is the maximum attribute value now automatically placed in based on the attribute?--Valhallan 14:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Automatically set. I don't think that it works anymore so you should remove it where ever you see it. --Aspectacle 16:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Yes, it is too prone to error, so you can remove it, or leave it, it's up to you. It doesn't do anything :) LordBiro 16:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Skill descriptions (once again)
Should skill descriptions be written exactly as in-game or should we use lower case as in the rest of the wiki? For example, in many places in-game it's "Energy" in the middle of sentences, where I would prefer to use "energy". Same applies to conditions etc. - Anja Astor    (talk)  17:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I support ulc in skill descriptions personally.--Dirigible 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm in favor of keeping the skill descriptions according to in-game descriptions, it is also much easier to compare skill descriptions after skill updates. -- [[Image:Corrran.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 18:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 * IMO anything taken directly from the game (skill descriptions, quotes, quest logs, etc...) should be copied verbatim, including any typos. --Rainith 20:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree with Rainith. If it's a typo use (sic). - B e X  00:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 * In theory, I support quoting text exactly as it appears in-game ... but as far as skills are concerned, we've already varied from that practice by using three values in the effect number ranges in the gr tag. So, for skills, precedent already supports allowing some flexibility in this.  I would like to see more arguments on both sides before giving my own opinion.
 * As for where exact text is used and the term "sic" is utilized, I also support porting over GuildWiki's (sic) template, as well as creating our own quoting guideline, which could be based partly on GuildWiki's quoting guideline (I believe that the only significant contribution to either of those which has not been released under GFDL is some minor formatting and the specific example shown). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Designating duplicates
Just a minor issue, what would be the 'best' way to show that a skill is a duplicate:
 * Vs.
 * Vs.

I noticed that I have been reverting stuff from 'option 2' to 'option 1' myself. (And 'option 1' does have my preference.) -- (CoRrRan / talk) 14:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd change your #1 to read the link literally. Make it say "Duplicate skill" instead of "duplicate."  I see no reason not to.  Other than that, I like option 1 too.  Simplicity is my new motto. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  15:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * After pondering about this, I may suggest something like. This method may still get the message across that there is a duplicate of the skill for another campaign without noting it in the notes section.
 * and
 * The reasoning behind this was to eliminate the noting of duplicate skill informations in the notes section for duplicate skiils like how it was done at Guildwiki and for simplicity. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Bane of Worlds . 16:53, 18 April 2007
 * I agree if it was in the skill template that would be much nicer and probably the correct step to take. Who should we involve in this to get it looked into to be added in the template? --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  13:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * It's simple to add it to the skill icon template. So are you suggesting something like ? Or something like   and have it automatically detect that it's a duplicate skill? -- ab.er. rant  [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 23:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 * You would use 220.239.104.104 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's simple to add it to the skill icon template. So are you suggesting something like ? Or something like   and have it automatically detect that it's a duplicate skill? -- ab.er. rant  [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 23:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
 * You would use 220.239.104.104 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(ri)I agree 100% with Vallen Frostweaver's comment. There is no point to state the campaign name. The only duplicate skills so far are from Prophecies and Factions. So if Griffon's Sweep is from Prophecies, then Leviathan's Sweep is from Factions. Redundant information is not needed. --Torak321 23:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a point to state the campaign name - not everyone has every campaign and it saves them going to the other article to find out. But then again, this doesn't affect me. :P - B e X  03:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It affects me. I don't recognise duplicate skills so easily. Also, mentioning the campaign has an added bonus of allowing people to easily decide that I don't have to jump to Tyria, then to Ember Light Camp to buy from Dakk when I can just go to Kaineng from the ship and buy from Michiko. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

TOC
After starting to update several skill notes and such the addition of the extra topics has cropped up the table of contents in weird places. See Mark of Rodgort or Maiming Strike for examples. My question is, should we send a bot out to adjust the TOC and if so do we remove it or move it (and then if move it, where to move it to)? Thanks. --  Vallen Frostweaver  15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * My vote is for _ on skill pages. We already use that on some other short articles, I think it was weapons or other items. - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I think NOTOC makes most sense. LordBiro 16:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Agreed. - B e X  16:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm all for it. Problem is, I know nothing about going about doing it (as I will not add NOTOC to each and every skill page).  Anyone got any bot friends? --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  07:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Simply adding a to each skill article is something I can easily just let AWB do overnight, but do we really want to add that to all skill articles? If I'm not mistaken, the majority of them don't have a table of contents, so NOTOC wouldn't do much there. In other words, do we want to use it manually only on pages that need it (like Mark of Rodgort), or are we going to NOTOC everything? --Dirigible 08:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Actually, scratch that, we don't even need a bot for this. We can simply just use Skill infobox to insert the NOTOC in all pages if we decide to go that route. I don't mind either option, so you guys decide :) --Dirigible 08:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * NOTOC in the skill box seems nicer to me, I don't think there will happen to be any skill page that will need a TOC? It makes the skill page cleaner and creation of skill pages easier :) - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  08:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm for the skill info box. You never know when a skill will have a new heading added and it would self create a ToC on the page.  An imbedded notoc in the skill info box as you describe has my support. --[[Image:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG]]  Vallen Frostweaver  08:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Listing
In which order should things be listed? As skill trainers, skill quests and such? My proposal is Availability for trainers and quests and alphabetical for bosses and related skills. Then, Firstwatch Sergio would be listed before Dakk, he's available before Dakk if you play normally. Or should we just list them all alphabetically, plain and simple? - Anja Astor    (talk)  09:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Personally sorting skill trainers by availability sounds good. Due to the possibility of rushing and shortcuts the availability not really depends on storyline, so that could be an argument against that. I would prefer Skill quests over Skill trainers, because it is cheaper to get them this way, so skill quests should be listed earlier than trainers. Alphabetical for bosses and related skills sounds good. - MSorglos 09:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I think sorting by cost makes most sense. Cheapest first (i.e. quests). LordBiro 09:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * And internally, within the quest/trainer list? Atm we are listing trainer before hero skill trainer, maybe that should change also? - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  09:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I don't really have an opinion on it :) hehe LordBiro 09:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I would say that the ordering should sorted by availability for quests and skill trainers(reg and hero). For bosses, they should be ordered alphabetical (then by availability if the boss is in multiple locations). As for the sorting by cost, I approve of it since  players do want to know if they can get a skill cheaper. Ordering should be like Skill Quests, Hero skill trainer, skill trainer, and Signet of Capture.--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 12:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Sounds really good to me :) - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Since bosses can also be sorted by availability (earlier areas are usually easier to reach), why not just make it consistent and have everything sorted by availability? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:01, 20 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Is Snake Dance available before or after Spearhead Peak? That's the hard thing about bosses. - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  06:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I see. Then when you say alphabetical ordering, is it by boss name, location name, or elite name? Can I suggest regionally grouped bosses sorted by profession then by boss name? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Profession? I'm talking about skill pages here, so hopefully the bosses who have elite skills only have one (primary) profession ;) Sort by region and then alphabetically by boss name, that sounds good to me. - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  03:39, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Err... yea, umm.. not profession. It just kinda slipped in :P -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 13:12, 22 April 2007 (EDT)


 * For bosses how about alphabetical with the elite at the top? It'll be that that most people are interest in after all. --NieA7 04:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Summary of what's said so far

 * 1) Sort by cheapest method first:
 * 2) Skill quest
 * 3) Hero skill trainer
 * 4) Skill trainer
 * 5) Signet of capture.
 * 6) Sort Skill quests, hero skill trainers and skill trainers by availability
 * 7) Sort signet of capture by region and then alphabetically.

Just tell me if I read something wrong :) - Anja  (talk)  03:39, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Count me out for updating the skill-pages again to do this. :-D -- [[Image:Corrran.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 13:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Hehe, yea, I've noticed you've done alot of skill editing the last days ;) - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  15:39, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 * LOL, we forgot about the Profession changer which allows a character to gain skills for free in Prophecies and for 500gold in Factions and Nightfall so do we put Profession changer between the skill trainer and the SoC method since it is cheaper than buying skills from skill trainers less of a hassle than getting skills from bosses from SoC or do we just leave these after the skill trainer?--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 11:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Profession changer should be between hero skill trainer and skill trainer imo. Cheaper then skill trainer, more expensive then hero skill trainer (in most cases). - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  12:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Are we bothering with listing later skill trainers if an earlier skill trainer already offers it? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 00:00, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I have never understood the system of the skill trainer listing.. I thought it was all the trainers that offered the skill before it was unlocked? - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  03:39, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Actually, I think I got confused by an anon edit. Special:Contributions/67.53.246.152 thought Captain Greywind offers all skills without realising that it was because it was already unlocked. I'd better go revert. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * That was the user I asked about over at Talk:Skill :P Then we have that sorted out. But I still don't understand why we are listing both the Kaineng Center and Senji's Corner trainers sometimes.. Am I just slow? - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  04:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Of course you're not slow :)tThey're both always listed together (I'm thinking) because they offer the same skills. It's for completeness. Otherwise the rules might need an extra clause along the lines of "if A offers the same skills as B, then omit A." Which would in turn imply that it needs to be explained which skill trainer takes precedence. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 04:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Because every skill trainer on the Canthan mainland except for Zenaida (who is believed to have all core and Factions skills) offers most of the core and Factions skills, but is missing a few, and those few are different for different skill trainer, for example Michiko has Restoration and lacks Nightmare Weapon, while Yokuni has Nightmare Weapon and lacks Restoration. I think that for Factions, we should get a list of all skills shared by all mainland trainers, list those common skills in the quickref, and only list the "non-standard" skills offered by specific trainers. For Nightfall, it's a lot easier, as each trainer offers the skills of all previous trainers. -- Gordon Ecker 04:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Sometimes I hate Anet for their not-so-logical way of making things... :P Like the three different armor systems, three different skill trainer systems etc. - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  04:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * EDIT. If we list both Michiko and Akane since they have the same skills, shouldn't we also list Ziinyingmao Kaga? He/she also has the same skills as Michiko, according to GuildWiki. (I'm checking facts over there, since I don't know much about it myself) - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  04:49, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Yea, looks like it. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 04:52, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * By the way, by copying and pasting the lists from GuildWiki into a text editor with a word / phrase counting function, I managed to get a list of all skills confirmed for all mainland Factions trainers. -- Gordon Ecker 05:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Ok. So by the current system, all the skills you listed there should have all skill trainers in Kaineng City, Jade Sea and Echovald Forest typed out under skill trainers? I just want to clear out what should be listed and what should not. - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  11:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Golden Egg
CoRrRan has just pointed out on Template talk:Skill progression limit that the Golden Egg increases all attributes by 1. Should we reflect this in the progression bar? The changes seem straightforward; altering skill progression limit and skill progression line would be enough. But 22 columns on the progression table seems a lot. Is this really necessary? I'd rather just leave it as it is. LordBiro 05:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I guess this page is as good as any: shouldn't we REDUCE the maximums as they are now, since AFAIK Lunar Blessings are involved in calculating the maximum:
 * 12+1(headgear)+3(sup rune)+2(Awaken the Blood)+1(20% chance focus/shield)+1(God Blessing)+1(Lunar Blessing) = 21.
 * I guess some more opinions are needed on this. -- [[Image:Corrran.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 06:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * If Lunar blessing/god blessing is included in maximum calculation, then golden egg should also be included. Or every of these boosters is not included, only headgear, rune, awaken the blood, focus (as these are the ones available everytime). - MSorglos 07:07, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree with MSorglos. But I like having the extra progression. 22 columns doesn't really affect me, cause everything still fits on the page with my resolution. - B e X  16:38, 3 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Brag brag brag :P LordBiro 16:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I am getting troubles with Demonic Flesh. That page dislikes 1280 with bookmarktab. Luckily my other monitor runs @ 1600. :) -- [[Image:Corrran.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 17:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I run at 1280 also, but my bookmarks are on the toolbar thing, not in the side window. Firefox is the best. ^_^ -  B e X  21:09, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * half-opens a tired eye* - FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.png]] 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Lurker. :P - B e X  21:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)


 * lol... LordBiro 04:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I guess I'd like to see the maximum possible covered on the skill templates, but with all the holiday items it's starting to get a little silly. How about a hard cap at 20? Most professions won't be able to reach that consistently anyway, when using an attribute boosting item it's normally safe to just assume that stuff'll get better rather than having to know precise numbers. Nobody should be relying on being able to do everything at 22 Curses. --NieA7 06:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Yeah but people that have lower resolution than that (like me) won't see it clearly. Dunno for you but it really looks messed up (Demonic Flesh) for me with the skill bar and the table overlapping. Is there any additional code I need to implement? Sith talk 09:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
 * It isn't possible yet. So far the skill progression-template isn't based on CSS. However, you can already try it out with the skill infobox-template, look at LordBiro's suggestion here: Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Infoboxes. -- [[Image:Corrran.png|CoRrRan]] (CoRrRan / talk) 09:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I think we should use the record for the highest confirmed monster attribute level as the cap for all the tables. So far, I've seen monsters in Hard Mode with attributes as high as 20, but I haven't really been looking into it. -- Gordon Ecker 01:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Grey icons
Are there any plans to have grey skill icons available, as at GW? I can't think of a use for them outside user pages, but personally speaking I found them very useful to have there. --NieA7 09:00, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 * waste of space, you can see what skills you have ingame and nobody cares what skills you have but you
 * Exactly - I find it by far and away the easiest means of quickly seeing what elites I still need and how to get them (as opposed to continually alt-tabbing out of GuildWars and checking a complete list of elites to see what I don't have). It's not for other people, it's personal quick references. --NieA7 10:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 * By referring to your userpage you'd still have to minimize GW out to Windows, so I don't see that it would be any more convenient? When going for the Legendary Skill Hunter title I found it much easier to refer to a hard copy printed off from Guildwiki's elites article. [[Image:User Fox.jpg]] Fox (talk|contribs) 11:56, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I found them useful over at GuildWiki, since I could click on the icon and see the boss location. I had to minimize GW anyway to look for the location, so I liked to have the list on GuildWiki also, it's much easier to sort to your liking. But I have also found out I can do just the same thing with just text or smaller and bigger versions of the elite icons, no need to have the grey versions. (See here for example). - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  12:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


 * You could probably use opacity to sort this:




 * Or you could use a grey background to emphasise it:




 * Basically I think you can apply some nice effects in CSS without uploading images that are duplicate in every way except they're made greyscale. LordBiro 13:39, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


 * Totally off the subject, but you don't need to minimize GW when switching to a web browser if you play it in windowed mode, even if the window takes up the whole screen. --Rainith 14:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


 * No, maybe not, but then my computer dies totally while struggling with loading and stuff :P It simply can't handle windowed mode. And we shouldn't ignore features just because "you can do it anyway just by running windowed", it's not an option for everyone. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  15:19, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd have to agree with the anon, seems like a waste of space - FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.png]] 16:48, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent) I like Biro's example with the opacity (really need to learn CSS, HTML just ain't enough nowadays), personally speaking that'll do for me. Fox - yes, but the difference is once the list is on a page I can see at a glance what I'm missing. If it's not then you've gotta switch between the game and GW to work out what you've not got (can't order skills by what's not there after all). I'd rather not print a hard copy - save paper, save ink and wouldn't be linked to boss locations anyway. --NieA7 19:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I use excel. All the skill names are linked. You even have the option of putting the images in as well. - B e X  23:54, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 * You don't need a whole different set of icons just to show what skills you haven't captured. If a personal quick reference is what you're looking for, wouldn't a simple textual list of skills be sufficient? Just delete or strikeout the skills you've capped. If you really must have icons, just dump them all into one huge table, and play with background colors. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:31, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * If your browser doesn't support opacity, another option is only including the icons of skills you're missing. -- Gordon Ecker 00:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)


 * I think most browsers support opacity in some form. The IE6 version of opacity uses an alpha filter I believe. LordBiro 14:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)


 * User:Jack/List of elite skills by campaign. This is what I use, as can be seen here: User:Jack/Jack. Just use to strike out the ones you already have. Easy as pie. Jack 14:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Note and Trivia
It's best to keep these things in the skill's talk page. Lightblade 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Some of them aren't even confirmed, like certain skill named after some player.
 * 2) Other things like how to use the skill should also be on the talk page, this way people can add comment to it.
 * 3) It keeps the skill page look clean and organized.


 * If we move usage notes to the talk page and allow commenting, we will end up with endless build discussions. I'd rather keep it in the article, or remove it. Not have it in the talk page. But I must say I like both the trivia and notes, it's quite useful sometimes. Like, barrage also removes glyphs. That's good to know, and I would never think of looking in the talk page for that. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, keep these in the articles. -- [[Image:User Gem sig.png|Gem]] (gem / talk) 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Trivia should not get to big, but I find both useful and would argue for keeping them on the main article. --Xeeron 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Emily said once that she would try to help with confirming trivia references. But notes like the one Anja mentioned should definitely always be kept in the article. - B e X  00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)