User talk:Falconeye

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Disguises[edit]

When adding the historical templates to disguise pages, {{disguise nav}} should be removed from those pages. --Silver Edge 05:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Military vs army and categorization[edit]

Not every phrase using the world "army" denotes a military organization. The "Salvation Army" in the US is an obvious real-life example. The phrase, "Shiro's Army" means "the masses of bad guys that do horrible things in Shiro's name;" it's not a military organization, with chains of command.

Arguably, Kryta has an army composed of various different groups (I don't think I would agree with that, but I don't care to belabor the point). However, it's not useful to understanding the game to create a new category called, "militaries" and force different groups into it, for the sake of populating the page. If military organizations powered some notable mechanic or if the collection of militaries had a meaningful impact in lore, then it might be important to create such a category. But... in the game and in lore, they are just affiliations: this military isn't more important than that one, and they are none of them more significant than other sorts of notable affiliations.

Please stop using the military category until there's some consensus that the wiki is better off with it than without. Thanks. 75.36.178.190 01:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Affiliations in infobox[edit]

These are meant for mechanical affiliations only. Your changes are adding lore-based affiliations into the infobox, which is not how it should be done. Please fix it. Konig/talk 04:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

So... double/triple affiliations in infobox not allowed? --Falconeye 04:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand the point of those extra affiliation and type parameters. They're meant for the rare cases like Shiro Tagachi which at one point is one creature type and later one changes (in that example, he goes from demon to human). Other cases being Sarah, who is in some instances human and other instances ghost.
Affiliation is harder to test, but the parameters you've been filling have been lore-based, not mechanical. Except possibly The Lost, then again, we don't know whether the Oddbodies is a mechanical affiliation (though we treat it as such). Konig/talk 04:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
What non-human or other organizations/affiliations do you consider approppriate for Category:Militaries? --Falconeye 04:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
We're not given a name for non-human militaries, more or less. Most non-humans we meet are combatants of some form as well. Konig/talk 15:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
So, do avoid further confusion, lets call them paramilitaries (aka wannabe's). ^_^ Can i create/expand on existing articles/categories based on lore, such as Undead Lich's Orrian undead, or Palawa Joko's Awakened undead (the latter may become relevant once GWB-Elonian arch kicks in)? The Awakened in particular is an army by any reasonable definition... and I still believe it crazy that ALL undead are affiliated. --Falconeye 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Non-affiliated militants (or however you write it) would be a better solution than para-militaries. It gives people a better idea of what kind of groups they are. Da Mystic Reaper 21:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Category:Non-affiliated militants as a subcategory for Category:Militaries? --Falconeye 21:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
As yourself what kind of benefit such a category (or categories) would give. None. There's no need for it. End of story. Konig/talk 21:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Skill history note on skill pages[edit]

Please read GWW:PR/SH#Snippets. Also see Functionality for its definition. --Silver Edge 05:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

When in doubt, it's safer to use the plain snippet ("this skill has changed..."), since that will always be true. However, better would be to make sure you can distinguish between a change in amounts and a change in function. If you are unsure of this in general, ask here. 75.37.23.186 19:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, you've missed quite a few updates on every page! I'd recommend you use User:Chieftain Alex/sandbox for a list to search for updates, and then check the original skill data at [1] for the earliest updates. --Chieftain Alex 20:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for double-checking, Alex. I haven't been verifying whether the skill histories are complete.
@Falconeye: please don't create the history page unless you are prepared to complete the research: you need to check this site, guild wiki, and the site alex linked. I've seen changes listed in one of the above, but not the other two. (The easiest way to find if the skill was affected is to look at "what links here" and restrict that to Game update and Feedback:Game update prefixes.)
It's worse to create a skill history that is incomplete, because (a) it gives readers the impression that that's the full history, (b) it makes it harder to track completion for the skill history project, and (c) it it much harder to figure out what's missing from the history page than to get it right the first time.
I'm sure everyone involved in the skill history project has missed 1-2 changes on 1-2 skills, but never more than that -- that's why the project never has anyone working on it permanently, since the amount of research required is time consuming. 75.37.23.186 20:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there not a BETTER way to "automate" this process, so that any update to the Functionality, Skill history-related pages, Historical content, and the pvp/pve skill pages, (and the kitchen sink as well) all link/update each other? Better still, is there a template we can slap on to each skill-page after each update, that helps us recheck every skill history page that requires rechecking (already green-checked)? --Falconeye 22:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Better? Sure, but it requires building an infrastructure to support it, which is also a lot of work. Currently, GWW does not distinguish between changes to the skill page and changes to the skill due to an update. We don't track functionality as a parameter. The skill infobox isn't set up to pay attention to updates and the update pages aren't setup to coordinate with the infobox. The project page can't tell whether a skill was updated because of a typo, a function change, a numbers change, a typo, or whatever. We also don't have a good way to address the backlog of skills that need a skill history page or those that have an incomplete one.
If you want to address those type of things in your sandbox, that might be a worthwhile effort. But until then, be sure to complete the research before creating a skill history page. 75.37.23.186 02:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Historical content involving special events[edit]

You shouldn't have labeled those pages related to Wayfarer's Reverie as historical, because ArenaNet could very well repeat that event next year as a special event celebrating the GW2 anniversary. You could have just waited to see if the event returned in 2013. If it does come back, all your edits to the Wayfarer's Reverie pages and {{Historical content nav}} would have to be reverted (which means your edits were unnecessary and reverting those edits would mean more work for no reason at all). If it doesn't come back, then at that time one would label them as historical and edit {{Historical content nav}}. --Silver Edge 00:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone tagged it as a "one-time event" in the same vein as Tengu's/Gaile's events; this is incorrect? --Falconeye 00:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless there is even the slightest possibility of return you can't label it as historical right? Well i would say leave it as historical and remove the tag when it reoccurs instead. The reason is because i find it highly unlikely that Anet would celebrate GW2 b-day in GW1. Wayfarer's Reverie itself was more like a goodbye party for all those that moved on to GW2 (if you look at the rewards) than a b-day celebration of GW2. Da Mystic Reaper 00:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say revert them now. I'm saying that the method of labeling them as historical before seeing if the event returned in 2013 wasn't the best. I assume you're referring to this edit; I placed it the "One-time only events" section, because it didn't fit in the "Other annual events" section (although I probably should have created a different section for it, i.e. an "Other" section). --Silver Edge 00:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Tables on NPC group pages[edit]

Please don't use tables for single columns of NPC names - its not necessary. 109.149.130.47 21:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Move requests[edit]

Before adding a tag to rename a page, please put write an argument in support of the suggestion on the talk page of the article. You are the one recommending the change; take the time to explain your rationale. It's not enough to say consistency, especially since there are three articles that would need to be moved that are already consistent with each other.

Since your return, you've contributed twice to wiki talk pages. To build consensus with the community, please communicate your concerns and potential solutions first, before making changes or tagging articles. Thanks. 75.36.177.0 07:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Most articles that were originally Pre-searing, pre-Searing Ascalon, etc., have been moved to Ascalon (pre-Searing), which I can assume was consensus, but some have not. --Falconeye 07:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Please make the argument on the relevant talk page (or on a central discussion page), not here. The point is: it's not enough to just slap the tag on it because you perceive an inconsistency. It might be that the consensus will be to change the other articles back. It might be that people agree that it should be consistent. It might be that people think it's fine the way it is. You won't know that until there's a discussion and since you are proposing the change, it's up to you to initiate the conversation. 75.36.177.0 10:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I see you have done that for one of the suggested moves. Thank you.
To centralize the discussion, you could link the talk pages of the other articles to that same location.
One final comment: please give people a while to respond, since there is no rush to address this. And remember that no response isn't exactly the same as a consensus to make the change. 75.36.177.0 21:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more efficient to move discussion to Category:Articles to be moved in general? Serious build-up. ^_^ --Falconeye 22:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Pre-Searing Ascalon" vs "Ascalon (pre-Searing)"[edit]

Hello! As I see, you are doing the mass context replacement of substring pre-Searing Ascalon to Ascalon (pre-Searing) in the articles. Although I can understand the reason behind this, I should say that I disagree with this practice. You replace the expression with the exact name of corresponding Wiki article, attempting to make the links more regular and reduce the unnecessary, as you think, redirections. However, mechanical replacement often gives the result worse than before, even beyond the common sense, because the naming of articles may not correlate with usual order of words in the sentences. Here is an example.

Lakeside County is the most convenient place in pre-Searing Ascalon to farm for Red Iris Flowers [...]

This was a sentence before replacement with normal order of words (I intentionally omit the links). "Pre-Searing Ascalon" is a name of geographic location, like many others, in this case it's also a name of historical period.

Lakeside County is the most convenient place in Ascalon (pre-Searing) to farm for Red Iris Flowers [...]

This is after replacement, the normal sense appears broken. A common rule is, the text in parentheses is an additional explanation or info which can be omitted without significant problem for understanding; on other side, the parentheses can be removed or replaced with other signs like commas, then this part of text becomes the normal part of sentence. "(pre-Searing)" cannot be inserted in the sentence directly, we need some auxiliary words for this:

Lakeside County is the most convenient place in Ascalon (in pre-Searing Tyria) to farm for Red Iris Flowers [...]

But "Ascalon in pre-Searing Tyria" means the same as "pre-Searing Ascalon", which we started from. So, instead of using the names of articles, which are the headers where prepositions and other auxiliary words may be removed for brevity, better to use the substitution in the link, which allows to retain the normal order of words.

Lakeside County is the most convenient place in pre-Searing Ascalon to farm for Red Iris Flowers [...]

--Slavic 10:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

He has a good point here, changing every pre-Searing Ascalon into Ascalon (pre-Searing) does not always work. In certain lines such as shown above it is easier to read pre-Searing Ascalon than Ascalon (pre-Searing).
If it's "Red Iris Flower. Farm location: Lakeside County, Ascalon (pre-Searing)." then i would work. In the examples above it does not work. Da Mystic Reaper 12:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Where is the consensus that the wiki community agrees with the move? Or, having moved the articles, that the phrasing "Ascalon (pre-Searing)" belongs in a sentence?
As noted above, "Pre-Searing Ascalon" reads better (in paragraphs) than the current phrasing. I think all the related changes made by Falconeye should be reverted until and unless the community agrees that this is how it wants to present the terms. 75.37.20.28 18:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd strongly suggest that we use [[Ascalon (pre-Searing)|pre-Searing Ascalon]] instead of just [[Ascalon (pre-Searing]]. (it just reads better and won't cause users to pause to consider the grammatical sense of the word choice when they shouldn't be giving it a second glance :P ) --Chieftain Alex 18:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Well said. While some changes may be left as is, where "Ascalon (pre-Searing)" is not a part of sentence, like in the tables, all complete sentences should be revised and fixed, if need, from the point of common sense and grammar. --Slavic 20:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The only reason a page naming should be written with the suffix "(pre-Searing)" is for disambiguation when two or more places (outposts) are named the same and cause conflict within GWW. User Yoshida Keiji Signature.jpg Yoshida Keiji (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Recovered page.[edit]

"Feedback:User/Falconeye/Temp". Take what you need, then tag it for deletion and I'll trash it later. Chieftain Alex 12:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou! I'm not used to "speedy" deletes occuring the minute I tag'em; you're fast. Well, now I know what happens when that 40 character limit is exceed. --Falconeye 12:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hah, it wasn't the length, rather the symbols that messed it up - particularly the + sign, but the & sign didn't help either :) glad I could help. eventually. Chieftain Alex 12:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Got any ideas for a Guild Wars parody of The Nightmare Before Christmas? I left a note on Konig's gw2-talk requesting dialogue, since i remember/love his Mad King's parody page (was that page delete also when he officially moved?). ^_^
Restored from konig's page :P I don't know the nightmare before christmas, so can't really help with ideas :D --Chieftain Alex 13:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing Other People's User Pages[edit]

Re: your recent edit to a page in my user space.

You completely misunderstood the purpose of the page you edited. You would know if you read my user page carefully that your edits to Bear Club for Women/Bear Club for Men did not address my main concern. But that's moot, because it's not up to you to decide for me when I think an article no longer needs a rewrite. And even that's moot because you don't have permission to edit my user pages. And even that's moot, because you should know that, at the very least, it's bad form to edit someone else's user page in the first place.

This isn't the first time this has come up either. You've made other edits to my user space that had to be undone because those edits changed my conclusions, misconstrued my rhetoric, or otherwise went against the intent of the articles.

So, I'll ask you again to stop editing articles in my user space. You think something is broken or needs adjustment? Drop a note on my talk page — I'll get an email and follow-up. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

As I have asked you before, please read GWW:NAMING#Disambiguation identifiers. Others have also previously questioned your creation of disambiguation pages. It seems you think a disambiguation page is required if there are two or more articles that share a word. Based on your reasoning, there would be a Warrior (disambiguation) page listing every article name with "warrior" in it (e.g. A New Warrior Trainer, Ascalonian Warrior, List of warrior skills, Warrior's Chest, Warrior's Cunning, etc.), which is not the case according to the aforementioned guideline. --Silver Edge 10:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

On Writing[edit]

I've just commented on the content of your Skill Change Proposal. I also wanted to take time to compliment you on the presentation. It's perhaps your best piece of writing on the wiki to-date: it sets out a clear issue, a clear goal, then documents the issue and details the suggestion. I like the fact that you were descriptive rather than prescriptive: instead of telling ANet which skills to change, you gave them a set of goals for what to keep, what to remove, and a solution for what to do with all those skills. I also support your giving hard numbers to the extent of the issue, without getting too specific about how ANet is going to make it happen.

In short, well done.

I look forward to see more writing of this caliber, in your suggestions, your edits, and in your proposals for altering current practice/consensus. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Could I Get Your Thoughts[edit]

on this? You've been doing this far longer than I have and I want to know if I'm too far out in terms of design. Monk is the one I'm using as a jumping off point. Aqua (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Pre-searing Piken Square[edit]

Hi, its probably not worth an article for this topic, but it would be really nice to get a picture of it thats a bit closer than File:Guild Wars Screenshot 059.jpg + we could put it on the Piken Square page. (I think that is Piken in the background?) If you were able to get a picture that would be great - I've no pre-searing characters :( -Chieftain Alex 15:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do... though Ive never uploaded screenshots before (a "how to link" might be helpful). Also, why is Yoshida Keiji tagging recent landmarks with "CRAP"? Those were on missing landmarks 'to do' list too long time. --Falconeye 18:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I find that suprising! Just type something like File:Piken Square (pre-Searing).jpg, follow the link to the upload bit. Browse for the file you want, click screenshot + then press upload (where the save button is for regular editing).
As for YK's deleting spree, he's been rude by not putting proper tags on any of the pages.. especially tagging with something that isn't GWW policy.
Page Outcome
Cairn of Stones No - Very little info, neither of us really knows anything about it. probably better with no page at all..
Leah's island Ask - pretty, needs a picture anyway, even if we don't put it on this article
Bone graveyard Ask - source for giganticus lupicus?
Abandoned village No - source?
Sanctum Cay monastery Ask - might keep
Hulking Stone cave No - not really very notable. YK's deletion reason is even worse than the page.
Green Hills caravan No - Very little info, probably not noteworthy
Arbor Bay ruins Ask - probably keep, its a random pyramid.
Pockmark crystal Yes - keep, pretty thing, easy to talk about
Piken Square (pre-Searing) Ask - probably keep, needs a picture!
-Chieftain Alex 18:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll just make a note that Falconeye's "missing landmark" list he refers to was actually one I made up. I thought up of every odd/interesting/(potentially) significant location in the game not documented independently and basically those are what I came up. Except that Hulking Stone cave one, I believe. Each one has significance though (excluding Cairn of Stones which is an object not a landmark):
  1. The sole living plantlife on the island chain.
  2. He's wrong on the GL bit, probably got that from The Lupicus Boneyard, but that seems to be some sort of graveyard/monument made by the Forgotten (forgotten structures surrounded and decorated with those giant bones). I think it should be renamed.
  3. Referring to the unnamed town that's once a part of Elonia.
  4. An unnamed abandoned monastery once belonging to Smiting Monks and is the point where Khilbron waits for the Players during the mission.
  5. This... I don't know. It's a cave.
  6. There was a bit on that caravan, though I've forgotten what it was. But there's more to it than what's on the page.
  7. It's more than just random. It's a place where the asura decide to set up shop during O Brave New World and it shares the exact model as one within Central Transfer Chamber despite being noted as "unknown" to modern (in GW1) asura. It's the biggest hint to the origin of the Tarnished Coast ruins beyond gw2:Rata Pten - both pointing to asura. It's a pretty important yet undocumented piece. And its unique.
  8. You said it. Plus it has a GW2W page.
  9. Worth keeping IMO. It's a noticeable landmark. Konig 21:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad someone who knew the intended content has filled them in. feel free to remove deletion tags from those pages. -Chieftain Alex 21:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
New Caravan Screenshots - Which one is preferable? All posted except Monastery --Falconeye 00:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Well done! Image 1 is fine imo. (I should have linked to Screenshot#Tips_on_screen_capturing above! You can hide all your interfaces with CTRL + SHIFT + H... I'll crop out the menu button from the corner :D ) -Chieftain Alex 23:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Does Riven Earth falls and Moa nesting grounds deserve landmark status? Both are feature in quest chains. And what of The Catacombs: inner Ritual Chamber, underground chamber devoted to Grenth, etc. and other unique features not found in any other dungeon? --Falconeye 06:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

that spot?[edit]

Sorry its somewhat across the map but i'm not sure if it warrants a new section. What about that spot near barradin in green hills in the field by the channels with the 3 or 4 elementals and seeds under the trees in the shadows that you can't walk in? It's been there for years and is it documented on the wiki anywhere? Hopefully you know the spot or if not can find it and can decide is its worth documenting somewhere if it isn't yet. Sure there is hollow rocks too all over but that spot is just odd walking in an object is normalish but not walking in nothing? Durp da durp 02:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Cant find "that spot". --Falconeye 07:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Tranq[edit]

You need to create an account with that username. If you don't, someone else may create an account with that username and do as they please with that userpage. --Silver Edge 01:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah please do this ^ -Chieftain Alex 23:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:<race> images[edit]

Typically, I don't think these things are even needed - including the old Category:Charr images. If they were properly filled, it may be viable, but not even the charr images category is - and if not properly filled (which takes a lot of work, also) all that you're doing and has been done is putting EotN fansite kit images into these unimportant, unhelpful categories. Furthermore, creating such categories for a single image? Truly pointless. Before continuing, can you please state what your goal in adding all these is? Konig 00:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I aim to categorize using Category:ArenaNet Fansite Kit images and User:Santax/Gallery; then use that to help fill out relevant pages with currently orphaned images/concepts. I didn't know images like this (File:BurningTemple2.jpg) existed! --Falconeye 00:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Still, those categories are pointless just like that. Especially those like Category:Dinosaur images which will only ever have one image! You can add those images to relevant pages without adding arbitrary categories, that's for sure. Also Category:Eye of the North images exists for that very purpose, anyways. Konig 00:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy / paste from GuildWiki[edit]

Be careful with copying from guildwiki, while the spirit of the content might be correct, copying the entire item may not be - especially incompatible copyrights. In two cases you've copied farming guide stuff including references to non-existant file names! (delete this bit :P ) Also read over what you're adding and see if you can reword it. -Chieftain Alex 20:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your categorizations[edit]

Often make me want to facedesk. Just saying. Because you're often adding redundant categories, creating pointless and/or unhelpful ones, or misplacing things. I end up doing this after a while: (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Konig 23:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If its any consolation, my wrist hurts. ^_^ --Falconeye 07:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sortable tables[edit]

Why are you making tables that have only one entry sortable? E.g. this, this, and numerous others. --Silver Edge 07:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Copy paste... I literally sorted through ALL collector-related pages last night, trying to "beautify" everything I missed since last year. --Falconeye 07:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Were you not asked to discuss before making similar edits to a large set of pages when you were blocked and after your block was over? --Silver Edge 07:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Should I create a User:Falconeye/Requesting consensus or expand Projects In Progress to help resolve this? --Falconeye 07:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You could have posted that you were thinking about making those changes on the relevant page (i.e. the NPC table changes on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs) and posted a link to that talk page section on Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for comment. --Silver Edge 08:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Togo skills[edit]

Are you certain the attribute rank of the Togo skills cannot be modified? According to Slavic's edits and edit summaries to each of those pages (e.g. on Essence Strike (Togo)) they can. Couldn't a player add an Of Attribute or Of Mastery staff wrapping to Togo's Staff? And wouldn't the Weakness (inflicted by Student (female), Captain Sunpu, and Minister Wona) reduce the 14 Channeling Magic by 1? --Silver Edge 07:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Aren't those true for most (disguise)? Perhaps those could be noted on temporary skills? --Falconeye 07:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you could.(What Silver Edge said)MystiLefemEle 08:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
If that's the case, those edits should be reverted. --Silver Edge 08:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Should skill progression tables be added to other temp-skill pages then? --Falconeye 08:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Saul D'Alessio (disguise) and Turai Ossa (disguise) skills (since the disguises have weapons you can add a <item's attribute> +1 mod to and the the disguises will encounter foes that inflict weakness), but not the Gwen (disguise) skills since that disguise cannot equip a weapon and won't encounter foes that inflict weakness. --Silver Edge 06:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

One year later[edit]

Did you still want me to do this SE? --Falconeye (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Has already been completed. --Silver Edge 06:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"Culture"[edit]

Locations is not synonymous with culture. You've just been adding locations belonging to groups into the culture articles. Those should be more reserved not for articles like The Roost (which isn't wrong to put in, btw) but more for things like Test of the Chosen. Cultural aspects, and not societal or national aspects. It's not wrong to put those in, but don't bother making categories just for those things. Konig 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Casting and spell ranges[edit]

Why did you create Category:Casting ranged skills an hour after you created Category:Spell ranged skills when they are basically the same thing? Can you make up your mind on which one to use? --Silver Edge 22:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Another legacy category?! Which is the preferred or correct term? They both seem interchangeably (minus the touch, half-range, etc. stuff) and could be transcluded or redirected to the other. I'd go with "casting" since it technically applies to all skills (i.e. the player has to be within casting range to activate a typical skill) and "spell" is already associated with a skill type. But I'm cool with whatever you believe is least confusing. --Falconeye (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Categories aren't suppose to be redirected. You don't "cast" skills that aren't spells, i.e. signets, echoes, shouts, and untyped skills aren't affected by dazed, HCT, HSR, etc., so neither of them explain the range very well. --Silver Edge 23:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that its possible: what if, when left "blank", some magic wiki code auto-designates them as "standard"-range (i.e 1.2 radii common to most skills)?
What alternatives would you suggest? --Falconeye (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't currently know what name should be used for that range. I think {{skill infobox}} probably can be edited so it automatically categories pages into that category if a page's type parameter is set to skill, spell, signet, echo, shout, hex spell, enchantment spell; target parameter is set to foes, allies, or other allies; range parameter is set to casting or spell; and range parameter not set to half or touch. --Silver Edge 06:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Cape Page[edit]

Please don't pointlessly remove things from the page. Thank you! Gladiator Motoko (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback cleanup proposal[edit]

ANet intends to follow the original direction of this skill.
resolution = no longer applies (pending update).

Thank you TEF for creating that most useful template and the resolved category. There are ALOT of feedback pages: some good, some bad, and mostly outdated. My proposal is simply to update and expand on TEF's idea by creating three "tiers" of feasibility. In the slimmest possibility that Anet cares enough to update, a short "top 10" list is readily available

proposal
  1. "most-likely possible to implement", (issues that are both feasible and of upmost highest priority)
  2. "applicable for future consideration" (in a perfect world, it'd be nice to get right on it)
  3. "not feasible at all without a dedicated team of developers", (this issue is considered resolved)

--Falconeye (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Judging feasibility, even for someone that has expertise in coding and management, is nearly impossible to do without being familiar with the source-code and how parts of the game are integrated. I don't think there's anyone in this community that has the ability to start this project off with any more skill than a dart throwing monkey.
Sure, there are ones that are easy to label as infeasible. It's the seemingly simple QoL ideas that are going to be impossible to label properly. G R E E N E R 18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Wait, did you just create a move to as a means to drive me to this page?... You do have skill, I'll give you that. G R E E N E R 18:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I would rather not do this on my own (SE works hard enough as is without my mass edicts). It deals with editing semi-personal user-pages and dealing with the ambiquity of said pages (as per your examples). Thus it requires community comment/support regarding impartial judgement on whats good/feasible. --Falconeye (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I took a break during the long weekend, and while away I was thinking about this.
I've written my own fair share of computer code, and definitely enough "complex" Excel-based programs, to know that interpreting year-old code that you once wrote can be damn hard. And those pale in comparison to the complexity of the code used in GW. I honestly don't think that Anet has anyone on their team who's familiar enough with the GW code to do anything more than maintenance, and bringing someone in to update the game would cost too much, take too long, and be asking for bugs.
You've got the right intentions, I just don't see the payout... And that sucks to even think, honestly. G R E E N E R 05:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I love it when I'm as wrong as I was above. G R E E N E R 06:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, the idea is to organize what we have in such a way to help Anet prioritize any plausible updates; and to help frequent "feedbackers" figure out which ideas/fixes are worth pursuing. --Falconeye (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I know. I just wanted to point out that one of my premise to not do your suggestion was that Anet had no people capable of updating the game to any degree. This premise was obviously quite misguided, as shown by this years anniversary celebration!
I still don't know how we could organize the Feedback, but now we know that they might be able to listen and act. G R E E N E R 16:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Raisu Palace[edit]

Raisu Palace isn't a region as per Joe Kimmes' comment. --Silver Edge 04:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I wont take any further action then, and have asked Joe for further clarity. I know factions always had 4; but the game disagrees with me. How should we proceed in resolving this and avoid further confusion? --Falconeye (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Factions does have 4 regions. There is no Raisu Palace region - it's part of Kaineng City. As Joe said, it's a "special case" for the Proofs of Legend only because in order to bring the number of proofs available, an extra region is needed - and Factions has the fewest (equivalent to EotN; Proph=6, Factions=4, NF=5, EotN=4).
So how to act? Add a note on the Proof of Legion page. 75.91.90.65 04:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Charge Skills[edit]

Come on, Falconeye, are you trolling me? Neither the spear nor the urn skills gain anything by being linked to gw2:Charge skill.

Think of it from a wiki user's perspective, "Dum-dee-dum, let's see how this skill functions. Oh, okay, I want to hold and drop the bundle responsibly. Oh, and there's more information on the GW2 wiki? Let's see what that is!... Huh, that tells me nothing about what I was just reading..."

Oh, and I also wanted to comment here just for the sake of telling a short story. Thank you for the opportunity! G R E E N E R 05:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I have never knowingly nor deliberately "trolled" in my entire life... your welcome. --Falconeye (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I know that. I do have to keep reminding myself that my sarcasm carries terribly through text; zero offence was intended! G R E E N E R 09:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If it makes you feel better, I also went *facepalm* when I saw those additions.
While we're at it: Are Spear and Urn really "related"? Just because they charge up? Are all enchantments then related as well? :P Steve from 93.205.4.70 10:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Caster weapon[edit]

Didn't look much:

1)Wands can have inscriptions and wrappings (suffix). If your high energy wand has "seize the day", there won't be a prefix slot open.

2)Shields only give 16 armour if the requirement is met. I wouldn't call that unconditional. And at least mention that somewhere.

3)How do you get net energy +18 on your high energy focus item? Usually it will be 12+15 ...

4)Martial weapons can't have the Defensive prefix. Staves only.

5)I wouldn't remove the health set from the page. There's blood spike in PvP after all. I suggest to move it from the bottom of the page.

Steve1 (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently underconstrcution and is by no means complete... you are more then welcomed to help accelerate in updating the article. ^_^
  1. *under-construction*
  2. *under-construction*
  3. Most likely a typo
  4. *under-construction*
  5. Please create or link to a Bloodspike article; the bottom article is for notable one-off builds that are not general purpose enough to useful for 90% of the game or builds.
--Falconeye (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I know that I'm allowed to edit that page. :D
When I started to write the above, it looked like you were still working on the page (which, in fact, you were). And edit conflicts suck.
And at the moment I find the page so uninviting that I don't really wanna read, let alone edit, it. :/
Outa curiosity: Is that
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.175.67.121
your IP? Steve1 (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Hope you had a nice 3-day weekend! ^_^
The old version was boring and outdated. How can I make it "more inviting"?
If I were to create a "bloodspike" article, would you fill help fill it? If +60 health is that critical, then the fact that its missing must be an oversight.
My IP is 100.32.136.225, as per my recent edits to GW2 wiki; don't know who that is. --Falconeye (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The weekend was nice. Only 2 days too short. ;-P
The idea with the structure of the site is excellent, it certainly has the potential to become much more useful than the original.
One thing which could be tried: Your attempt to make things more visual (good idea!) with the white on gray item boxes kinda backfired for me. Would it look slicker without those boxes?
The health set wasn't only used against bloodspike: Obsidian Flame spike was popular a long time ago. ANet increased the cast time. People rolled Me/E. ANet nerfed Obsidian Me/E.
And then there were Esoteric Warriors who tried to win the championship with Feast of Corruption spike (and got beaten by Cry of Frustration). That one was a gimmick though.
We could try and fill a bloodspike page. I'm not certain that I remember things well enough though. Steve1 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

New player guides[edit]

Could you maybe slow down a bit? Not every guide is automatically geared towards new players.

Take WiK or WoC - you need to have finished a campain at elast once.

Or the 2 survivor guides (btw: the category can't be a NPG, can it?). That's nothing a fresh player would start with.

I'd even argue that Heroes' Ascent isn't anything for new players. Unless the guide starts with "Play PvE first in order to unlock skills and equipment or buy th unlock pack in the store". Steve1 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Skill Categories[edit]

Hey, would you mind walking me through Category:Morale boost recharging skills and Category:Skills which need recharge, both of which appear to contain the same articles, and live under Category:Recharge time skills? I'm trying to get a handle on the category use and hierarchy.

We seem to have:

Information seems too stretched out (numerous clicks just to find anything) and redundant (both categories say the same thing). I'd like to see if we can organize this in a more accessible way. If we can outline it below, I can make the moves/deletes happen. Thanks! G R E E N E R 15:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Recharge time skills - is the "recharge" container that I moved/renamed to here for consistency; this (and other resource cost categories) is tricky to populated (without manual copy/paste) due to previous contributors "wisdom in salting" the skill-info-template and related categories.
Category:Skills that recharge skills - is there a reason this is hidden? Otherwise should not belong here (see Category:Overcast skills and Category:Skills that cause Overcast for example).
--Falconeye (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"skills which need recharge" was a silly title so I've deleted it + removed references from the skill infobox too. I can see a vague argument that "recharge time" is a resource so I'll leave the rest be (even if morale boost is the only subcategory) -Chieftain Alex 01:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Moral boost[edit]

This is the real problem:
Category:Morale boost recharging skills & Category:Skills which need recharge both are redundant; yet another example of inconsistent/outdated skill-info coding.
--Falconeye (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh joy.... Well, I'm open to suggestions. I don't have the game installed at the moment, so double-checking how things work isn't much of an option for me. Then again, this isn't the biggest of deals, and if sorting it out seems like too much of a hassle, we can leave it be. G R E E N E R 10:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't need the game, these skills can -only- be recharged via Morale Boost. Since I'm not savy with wikicode, let alone what these users did to created -two- categories, we either A) get a wiki-savy active user to resolve it, or B) do what I've been doing, create a fresh one using the -updated- Skill Data and Skill Infobox rules, then "nuke" the outdated/redundant stuff. --Falconeye (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Found "root" problem: its located under template:Skill infobox, in the "resource cost" coding section. Thank you Alex for taking the time to make these templates organized and legible! We can either nuke one, or both, or take this opportunity to rename them. If these work the way they should, it solves 90% of the problem. --Falconeye (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Great job in hunting that down! I'll try to set aside some time tomorrow to take a look at it. Probably just needs a renaming of the category, but who knows which other tables may be calling for that information. G R E E N E R 19:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
So... whats the status update? --Falconeye (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh geez! I really need to get my ass in gear sometimes, sorry! I'm going to give you the okay to fiddle around with the categories if you wish (we can always revert if things break).
When you change the templates, the wiki will chug along for a bit and you may not see things appear right away. There's always this link which can show you how many jobs are currently running (I don't think I've seen it above zero in ages). G R E E N E R 08:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Lost CME and Fixing the Wiki[edit]

Guide to modifying in-game graphics/Texmod/Player made modifications is rather a long and convoluted link to find "User Generated Content" (UGC) as it is called. I believe these and other pages need to be moved and renamed with simple titles. I would do this myself, but then someone (not pointing fingers at any person) seems to revert a lot of changes I make. I don't "feel" comfortable making the vast needed changes I have accomplished on other wikis. I haven't been accused of vandalism just made to feel like my efforts are unwanted here. So I stay in my little corner. However calling this UGC would be a more relevant title. While Art Mods, Modding, or Modifying are still correct the terms have been associated with game hacking. Wendy Black 07:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If you can convince others this is beneficial, then you have my support. As for "unwanted" due to reverts/vandals/disruptions/ect., that's normal for all wiki-sites: they all tell you to be BOLD (but they really don't mean it). An inherent flaw in democratizing information; ask 3 people a question, and you inevitably receive 6 opinions. GWW is among the best wiki's from personal experience; that's why I hang out here so much! --Falconeye (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, I mainly stick to this wiki too. This was the first wiki I learned to edit. I found it enjoyable to learn new CSS styles and templates to show others. I know better than to take it personal, I don't embellish on the the facts, and eventually I know someone come along and disagree. As an author I know, the written words are without expression and sometimes convey the wrong message, if not stated with the proper feeling. Currently I have been filling in the missing "Quests" on another game wiki. I realize the other wiki is not as popular, has many red links, and has only been online for 2 years. So changes and additions seem to go unchallenged. In my opinion, that is just as bad as people reverting changes without much debate. Have fun! Wendy Black 20:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Tell me your opinion of the Root Page I have much more to do but this places Cartography in a category separate from the GUI and one click off the root. --Wendy Black 12:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I assume from the silence you are ok with the changes being discussed on my talk page? --Wendy Black 14:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd had a busy week. But yes, any input I would have given seems to have already been hammered out. Good job! ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that[edit]

Gallery of weapons with irregular skins and accompanied clean-up. I figured they needed to be categorized in some way, this is a good idea :) Chicken 1.jpg Magamdy 22:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to populate "Quest reward weapons". Also, is there notable distinction between "Differently skinned weapons" and "Weapons with irregular skins" to warrant two separate categories? --Falconeye (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. "Differently skinned weapons" is just something I came up with on the spot. Also, would quest reward weapons contain weapons ONLY obtainable from a quest, or weapons also obtainable as a reward? Chicken 1.jpg Magamdy 23:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The "Quest reward" was a byproduct of trying to make the categories logically fit; don't know if its useful or needed. Should I delete "Differently skinned quest reward weapons" and merge contents into "Weapons with irregular skins". --Falconeye (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that would be best. It's an awkward naming anyway. Chicken 1.jpg Magamdy 12:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason for someone searching through "quest reward weapons"? Do you plan on expanding upon Differently skinned quest reward weapons? --Falconeye (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Not necesarrily, but it would be helpful for wiki purposes. And I do plan on expanding it as I documents quests in Prophecies. Chicken 1.jpg Magamdy 21:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Historical guild template[edit]

Good day. Thought of letting you know that you probably missed some kind of closing tag on it. ~ Dmitri 37.110.157.92 01:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Image categories[edit]

How do I apply a category during upload? I genuinely have no idea :p Chicken 1.jpg Magamdy 12:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Our only options (to my knowledge) are on the Upload file; which is why I've spent 50% of my time here categorizing. On that note, talk to Silver Edge, who proposed that "ArenaNet image" be edited to auto-categorize pages with the parameter set to "item render" (e.g. "ArenaNet image|item render") --Falconeye (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't get it ...[edit]

http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Energy_management&curid=4395&diff=2603486&oldid=2603195

1)How do you get the values for "Maximum equivalent energy regeneration"?

1a) Both Expertise and Mysticism reduce energy costs by 4% - why the different values (I guess 3 vs 4 pips of energy regen - but besides that?)?

1b) Expertise reduces the costs for all ranger skills. So I'm fine with an "eer". But Mysticism only works for enchantments. Would your calculation require non-stop enchantment spamming? In that case it's rather ... less useful / comparable / realistic. Innit?

2) Why is energy conversation more efficient than generation?

2a) Comparing Ranger to Necro, the meer or emer (is there a difference? Why not call them the same?) are the same at level 0 and 20. At all other levels SR wins.

2b) Dervish vs. Necro: Like 1b: Would this necessitate enchantment spamming?

Cheers, Steve1 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, this claim for energy conservation being better than energy generation is based on a cross-profession comparison. It's not very useful as a result because something like a hex spreading necromancer can't reroll to ranger or dervish for energy management (you may want to make a comparison to Cultist's Fervor instead). Also Ether Renewal elementalists generate so much energy that energy conservation becomes moot. Which one is better is a matter of what options are available (profession, open elite, skill types, etc.) and what the exact numbers are. Many builds employ both conservation and generation to meet their energy demands.
I think I've previously argued against including these EER values for mysticism/expertise before, because the actual value won't be the same across all builds (depending on how many skills on the bar are affected and how often each is used). The math for determining EER/MEER may be interesting, but it's not even presented on the page (it absolutely would have to be if the EERs are going to stay) and is a roundabout way to figure out if your build is energy-stable. Toraen - talk 14:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:Ruine_Eternelle#Did_he_get_that_from_you.3F
Let's continue there. ;)
Steve1 (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you create...[edit]

A category for Unused Models? Seeing how MadMaxx and I are finding quite a lot now. Chicken 1.jpg Magamdy 14:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this what you need: Unused NPC renders? Also, found this: Category:Renders to replace. --Falconeye (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
More like models that are unused in the game, MadMaxx pulled from the .dat and I rendered. But Category:Unimplemented content will do fine, now that I think of it.

Happy birthday...[edit]

to me... happy birthday to me... happy birthday to Falconeye... happy birthday to me!!! ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC) (exact time of birth)
Happy Birthday! This user would like to wish you a Happy Birthday!
One year older, well done! And you still keep surviving those assassins I send your way. Hats off to ya! G R E E N E R 08:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)



Category:Skills extra categories[edit]

Even before getting too far into editing the infoboxes to expand Category:Skills by cause effect, conditionals are popping up everywhere. Irresistible Blow has the category Category:Blocking punishment skills, which isn't fully fleshed out, and things that punish other things, like Bull's Strike punishing moving foes, could use a category of its own, perhaps nested inside Category:Skills by requirement or something similar.
Something else that could be helpful is another category to split effects by foes and by allies/self. Hamstring and Illusion of Haste both appear in Category:Skills that cause Crippled, but one is an attack, and the other is a self-inflicted drawback. If these were split, it would be easier for someone who wants to find (for example) all skills that cripple opponents without having to also sift through the skills that cripple themselves. A link between the category pages of inflicted Crippled and self-inflicted Crippled could help someone who wants to find all instances of Crippled in the game, but I wouldn't know where to begin doing that.
If there was another parameter like Requires1, Requires2 to fill a hypothetical Category:Skills by requirement, then that would make that part easier, at least, and I'm guessing it would be a bit less intensive than trying to split the causes effect categories. What do you think? Blue Totoro 03:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'm a bit unclear which categories belong in Category:Skills by applied effect or Category:Skills by cause effect. There's a Category:Speed boost skills and a Category:Skills that cause Movement Speed Boost, and the Category:Skills that recharge skills page is actually in both categories, not to mention Category:Skills that cause Recharge. Blue Totoro 04:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. Everything you've just stated are exactly my thoughts and is on my "To Do" list.
  2. The categories themselves need to be reorganized. Some categories were arbitrarily created and manually applied by contributors. Others were automatically created, listed, and transcluded by Template:Skill infobox default parameters. I've tried manually editing hundreds of skill pages and it sucks. I've tried being BOLD and arbitrarily creating lists/categories, only to deleted and get banned for "being disruptive". So now, the smartest method is 'reprogramming' infobox to categorize/listify the skills we want, the same way it does campaign/profession/skill type/etc. --Falconeye (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  3. Unfortunately, I didn't write the info box, and beyond figuring out how change Exhausted to Overcast, Maintained Enchantment to Upkeep, and increasing "by cause" parameter from 2-5 (see: Drunken Blow); I know nothing, let alone how to create those desperately needed categories. --Falconeye (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. Alright. I suppose nobody is paying much attention to these specific categories. When/If I get more of the skills' causes parameters filled out, I might go through the redundant categories and their "What links here" pages like I did with the Not orphaned images category. Blue Totoro 05:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry I've taken a long time to circle back to this. Toss me an example of a skill that you'd like to (re)categorize in some way, but you can't due to the {{Skill infobox}}. I'll start to fiddle around with it to see how successful I can be with it (I never made it either, but if I fuck it up, people can yell at me all they'd like). I'll consider it a trial run to see what we can do, and it will let me familiarize myself with switches, etc. (it's been over a decade since I encountered them in Java...). G R E E N E R 07:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've moved discussion to Talk:Skill quick reference#Skill quick reference 2.0 & Skill-infobox categorization.--Falconeye (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason I didn't make an Increased Healing category was because there are only 4 skills that do that, and all of them have the others in their related skills sections. It's the same reason I didn't make a Decreased Adrenaline Build Rate category of two. Soothing and Soothing Images have each other as related skills. I suppose I won't stop you, but some categories aren't necessary.
Besides that, I think it's a bad idea to try to put initial and end effects in the "causes" sections of the skill infoboxes. "Skills that cause End" sounds like skills that end themselves or remove some other effect. Unyielding Aura doesn't cause an End, it causes Resurrection when it ends. I'd suggest changing the infobox to have some extra parameters. Maybe "special = initial" to make a "Category:Skills with an Initial effect", or "initial = yes", or something like that. It's fine to categorize it, but I think the "causes" section is a bad place for them. Blue Totoro 01:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Cape Trim[edit]

Why did you make a bunch of otherwise-unused redirect pages that all link to the same page and then link them 8 times from Tolkano? Blue Totoro 06:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the hench collapsed categories[edit]

I am not at all a fan of what you did here. I assume you did it to make the information more organized, but currently it just damages the accessability of the information: you cannot simply read the page anymore without having to click numerous times. Very counter-intuitive imo. Chicken 1.jpg Magamdy 14:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Oftentimes I find myself not a big fan of FE's edits. But in this case I think it was useful (imo) - a bit of finetuning and it would be spot-on. Locations (definitely) and Quests (most likely) I'd keep hidden. Skills and Evaluation is debatable and could be shown. Dialogue and Quotes shoudl definitely kept hidden. Basically, just keep the fluff, unimportant stuff hidden in order to make those very long articles shorter and crisper. Steve1 (talk) 10:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, especialy skills and evalutation was bothering, seeing how they were such short sections. I still think though, that there is nothing inherently wrong with a long page, that's why there is a section-selection box at the top. Chicken 1.jpg Magamdy 10:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed one thing: Devona, Cynn and Eve have nice skillbars, while for Mhenlo and Aidan there are skill lists. We should change them all to the nicer and more compact skillbars imo - and then we can definitely unhide them. Mhenlo's skill list covers one and a hlaf pages for me. Steve1 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we wait a bit?[edit]

I don't think it is wise to immediately start editing related articles while the PBAoE discussion is still ongoing. Perhaps outline your plans on the talk page section so we can see what your desired outcome would be? :] - Infinite - talk 22:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever is decided is fine with me; justifying the page with a "skill table" just happened to be on my 'to do' list. --Falconeye (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)