Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Skills/Archive5

Standardized Concise Skill Descriptions

Recently, I have been making the concise descriptions all use grey text where used in-game. I have stopped to make sure that it's agreed that we should use grey text in the concise skill descriptions. I believe that we should, since we also use green text as used in-game. -~=Sparky (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, since nobody is responding, I'm just going to resume putting grey text where needed on chunks of skills at a time. -~=Sparky (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fine :) poke | talk 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To add another name to the consensus, yes. I agree, it's fine. calor (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

gogogo -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 22:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Links in concise descriptions

Something related to the section above; should we keep the links in concise descriptions, so that we have them in concise-only skill list, or remove them to prevent overlinking? See also this discussion. poke | talk 16:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Since skill lists use concise, it will be useful to have the links in them (even though it looks bad). Perhaps overlinking can be avoided by removing the links from standard skill descriptions. -~=Sparky (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has really commented on this in a while. Should links in skill descriptions be in the concise or regular descriptions? Or both (which would mean overlinking)? Having them in concise is more functional, having them in regular looks better. I'm going to move them to concise and remove them from regular (due to boredom and impatience) if nobody says otherwise at this point. Functional > Attractive, IMO. -~=Sparky (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, definitely not that. First place on a page should get linked, and that happens to be the full description. I'm personally of the opinion that they shouldn't be in the concise; it doesn't really matter if the lists of skills have all the links. --JonTheMon 06:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me, I guess I'll just resume what I was doing. Once I stop being lazy. :P -~=Sparky (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Related skills again

Sparked by a discussion here, I think it's time to bring this up again. Basically, it's a question of whether or not we want to include skills that are mechanistically similar, but in practice very different. The example from that talk page is Shielding Hands with other skills that heal on end such as Patient Spirit, Blood Renewal and Vital Boon. If I were relating skills I would go for their primary purpose, so Shielding Hands is a small prot designed to mitigate small packet damage, the only other similar skill in the game is Shield of Absorption for PvP and general monking purposes. It also has a purpose in farming as it can be used to 55 monk, which is similar to the use of Stoneflesh Aura in a 330 elementalist, so I could also accept that as related, but I wouldn't relate the two myself due to the fact that Shield of Absorption (due to infinite uptime with Blessed Aura) is better in that application and it would make more sense to relate Stoneflesh Aura to that. It shouldn't be related to Patient Spirit as Shielding Hands purpose is to mitigate damage and the heal is a side affect, you wouldn't use it for that, while Patient Spirit is only used for healing. Vital Boon similarly is used to raise max health and self healing, quite different to a small prot which heals on the side. Relating based on mechanisms ends up with very long lists and some bizarre relations being proposed such as Web of Disruption being related to Shatterstone, they both have an effect on hex and an effect on end that triggers regardless of whether time runs out or hex removal is used. I think it is obvious I am in favour of rewording the related skill section to favour practical similarity over mechanistic, but I wanted to know what other people think and why.

I also wanted to add something about "lore relationships". I understand why people want to note such things, but I don't think the related skills section is the place to do it. It is just confusing. At the moment I know Mark of Rodgort is related to Rodgort's Invocation, in fact it is the example in the guidline, but the two skills only have lore in common. I consider this confusing at best. The Teinai's skills are currently not listed as related to each other, I agree with this, Teinai's Prison has very little to do with Teinai's Crystals. As such I would like to propose that such relationships be moved to the trivia section as they really are trivial in nature. Misery 13:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another thing I wanted to add was how wonderful these pages are on GuildWiki. It has been mentioned that people might be interested in mechanically similar skills, especially when new, so they can learn what exists. I think these quick references are wonderful for this sort of thing. While "enchantments that heal on end" quick reference might be too narrow, I think we could go a long way with things like "hexes that have an effect on end/removal", "enchantments that have an effect on end/removal" or "skills that affect multiple targets (e.g. Healing Ribbon, Deathly Swarm)". I think that last one is actually a good example of why I don't want these sorts of things in the related skill section. There are only a handful of skills in Guild Wars that affect multiple targets without being AoE, Deathly Swarm, Vampiric Swarm, Healing Ribbon, Arc Lightning and Invoke Lightning, but to relate those skills to each other, especially Healing Ribbon, would be very, very confusing in my opinion. Misery 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think related skills should list mechanism-similar ones (Light of Deliverance, Heal Party), not practice-similar ones (Burning Speed, Flame Djinn's Haste--note that the only obvious shared property is the speed boost!), and that lore-similar ones have no place there whatsoever. Perhaps Related Skills ought to be renamed Similar Skills, since there are oh-so-many things that can relate two skills, and so far we've been treating it as though we meant the latter.

An interesting Linguistics proposition to classify sounds is [+property, -property]. I doubt it's really practicable for all the skills on the wiki, but it'd be kinda cool. Compare:

Light of Deliverance: [+heal], [+partywide], [+notarget], [+spell], [+Healing Prayers], [+Elite], [+Nightfall]

Heal Party: [+heal], [+partywide], [+notarget], [+spell], [+Healing Prayers], [+core]

They match up on so many, they cross the Similar threshold. Whereas there are fewer links between:

Flame Djinn's Haste: [+spell], [+enchantment], [+adjacent], [+self], [+notarget], [+movespeed], [+firedamage], [+affectsrecharge], [+Nightfall], [+Fire Magic]

Burning Speed: [+spell], [+enchantment], [+adjacent], [+self], [+notarget], [+endeffect], [+burning], [+Fire Magic], [+Factions], [+movespeed]

In fact, we needn't really include non-distinctive features (Attribute, Campaign), for less clutter and to avoid false positives.

Anyway, most of what I needed to say, I said in the first paragraph :P | 72 {U|T|C} 13:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I love how we are agreeing while defining mechanistic and practical similarity completely oppositely. That would be very confusing if I didn't know what you meant. Misery 13:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, let's build a skill tree. –Jette 13:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I also aggree to this... the "Category:Skill type quick references" page(s) would take away the need for skills to be listed in the related section individually... I find pages like this to be good to speed up a newer players learning curve on similar skills and also see how different professions suffer in some aspects... MrPaladin † talk 14:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made a quick mock up of the kind of thing I am talking about here. It's clearly nowhere near complete. I don't know if the condition ones are useful/necessary, they take up a lot of room and are already on the respective condition pages. My idea was we could put a section link in the "see also" of each skill and keep all the quick reference pages on one page so we aren't making a gazillion of these with only like 4-5 skills on them. It could end up rather long, I don't know, depends on what information people consider is useful. The causes conditions sections are already long and already exist, so we could drop them and just link to the relevant section on the condition page itself. Thoughts? Misery 15:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The original question is, "whether or not we want to include skills that are mechanistically similar, but in practice very different". When I am looking up a skill, I always want to know if there's a substitute available. Typically, I want to see if I can replicate all/part of a skillbar from one profession to another (especially for elites). If the list would contain > 3 skills, then a link to the list is fine. Otherwise, I'd rather not have to jump to a new page.

I am interested in how the skills help the build, not in how the skills should be categorized. Consequently, I almost never care to see a list of those that behave similarly. However, I see how that might be useful in certain circumstances.

My strong preference is: (1) to distinctly list only skills that share similar purpose (and, yes, the speed boosts of Flame Djinn Haste and Burning Speed could be enough) and (2) a link to any relevant category or list-article that has skills with other similarities (e.g. [[List of skills that boost speed]], [[Category:Enchantment spells]]).   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea was to keep directly related skills (such as Shielding Hands and Shield of Adsorption) in the related skill section as now, with a separate page for lists of skills with mechanic similiarties (such as Patient Spirit and Shielding Hands which both heal on end). Misery 17:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So below "related skills" there'd be a "See also" section link (ie. on shielding hands) to [[List of damage reduction skills]] and [[List of enchantments with end effects]]? --JonTheMon 17:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I am proposing, yes. Misery 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty cool idea. You could even replace them with tangos to catch the eye (with mouseover titles "Enchantments with end effects"?). If you mean to supplant the current model altogether, one issue I see is too narrow lists for skills with unique effects; the list that Echo falls into contains itself and Arcane Echo, for example. Nor would we want the lists to be too broad--no one wants to be looking for a spot-heal and see Healing Spring as being close to Orison of Healing; it belongs with "AoE heals", not "Heals".. | 72 {U|T|C} 19:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, once they are on a separate page people can really make whatever lists they like. I won't care then! But the way I see this being used is for example, someone wants to make a build using Signet of Pious Light as a heal. What enchantments should they use? Ones with effects on end would be good, oh look! A list of them! Someone else wants to make a build with Contagion, what skills self inflict conditions, oh look! A list of skills that do that. Naturally, lists of 2 skills are pretty dumb. Echo and Arcane Echo should be under related skills on each other's page instead of "Skills that can copy other skills". Misery 21:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me this is baked enough to be formally proposed.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I liek the proposal... keep the Related section to skills more directly related to purpose of the skill in question, but a See also expansion on similar effects so people have options for their skillbars or can reducee their learning curve on the game by seeing the skills with similar effects (and obvious profession deficiencys)... MrPaladin † talk 11:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically just giving people time to comment now. It's been on request for comments for less than 48 hours at the moment. Maybe I'll change the guideline some time tomorrow or the next day if no one objects and I am sober. Misery 11:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I made the changes, anyone have a problem with the way I reworded things? Did I miss the consensus? Misery 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Skills that - while having similar names - are not related by lore or trivia (like Ray of Judgment and Shield of Judgment)." implies that it would be okay to list Teinai's Heat in the related skills section of Teinai's Crystals due to the lore and trivia connections, I'd replace it with something like "Skills which are only connected due to lore, trivia or similar names (like Ray of Judgment and Shield of Judgment, or Teinai's Heat and Teinai's Prison).". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How about his version, then? Backsword 08:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Backsword, I'm curious why you decided to remove the see also section when it was wanted on the basis of consensus. There are plenty of reasons to include it. For example, say someone were making a build using Contagion, they may have realised self-inflicting conditions would spread to enemies, there is no other way currently on this wiki to find skills that do that. The idea was to allow a place for people to keep that kind of information so they keep skills with similar mechanics that are otherwise unrelated out of the related skill section. Misery 09:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think people wanting to switch over to guildwiki formating based on a consensus of not including certain skills in the related skill section is the most extreme jump I've ever seen someone seriously make on this wiki. You need to explain that example to me: it seems related to the first note of the Contagion page, but I don't get what it has to do with this formnating. Backsword 10:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, that list is incomplete, see Skill quick reference#Skills that inflict conditions on self for a more complete list (see how that worked?). Also, that change was specifically proposed above and was the basis on which people were prepared to remove extra skills from the related skill section, so it wasn't an "extreme jump". Also also, there are 6 examples on the page currently. Formatting dictates how the information can be presented, so when it comes to presenting information, it's fairly relevant. I'm curious as to why you refer to it as "Guildwiki formatting", it's formatting that makes sense. Is your objection on the basis that I used a similar name for the page? Is that in violation of the licensing terms? I doubt it, but I can change it just to make you happy if you like Backsword baby ^^ Misery 10:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"makes sense" is not an objective quality, it's just code for "I like it" and thus no argument at all. And, frankly, you're the only one who's stated that guildwiki's is wonderful. You can't possibly read the above to be about that. Or that someone uninterested in related skills could not care about other formatting. Or that people actually wanted to keep such skills in the section, but where only grudingly willing to give them up in return for an unrelated switch to guildwiki formating. Also, it's impssible for me to understand your use of "that list" when eiter of use has refered to another list before. Backsword 11:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Feel free to explain what doesn't make sense about the proposed and implemented formatting. You've stated that it is "pointless", which is almost exactly as subjective, but easier to debunk as I have stated at least one point. "That list" in the previous instance referred to the list of skills in the note on Contagion. I also don't see how having any relationship to Guildwiki is a bad point, in case you don't know the quick reference section is the only reason I have ever used Guildwiki and I haven't used it for over a year. I'm hardly pro-Guildwiki. Yes, I like the new guideline, otherwise I wouldn't have proposed it.

As for "grudging acceptance", the main opponent to the removal of such skills from the related skills section was Mr Paladin. Allow me to quote him|:"I liek the proposal... keep the Related section to skills more directly related to purpose of the skill in question, but a See also expansion on similar effects so people have options for their skillbars or can reducee their learning curve on the game by seeing the skills with similar effects (and obvious profession deficiencys)...". That seems like straight up acceptance, not grudging acceptance. I see other people agreeing and not a single person disagreeing, until now after it was implemented, so we can restart the discussion now if you have objections. If I have missed someone's objection, feel free to quote them. Misery 11:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"grudging acceptance" is in reference to something you "can't possibly read the above" as. Thus you are supporting my point. You were the one who claimed it was a conditonal acceptance. The only other person I see agreeing is 72, possibly, tho' I read that more ass tossing around ideas. He certainly doesn't meantion anything related to guildwiki formating.

Yes, that 'list' is not complete, since it's not a list, just some examples. Perhaps a list would be better. I still fail to see what that has to do with switching to guildwiki formatting. You can do either under our formating, so it should be unrelated. And even if there were good reason for switching to guildwiki, that needs to be brought up on general foramting, not hidden away in a section that people would be justified to think is about the 'related skills'section on skill article. Change in nameing style, should go on the article name guideline for example, and importing standarised sections go on gen. form. Backsword 11:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The acceptance was not grudging, but it was conditional. I never proposed anything other than the "guildwiki" formatting, that is what people were agreeing to. If you reference what triggered this discussion on Talk:Shielding Hands you will see Mr Paladin was uncomfortable with the idea of removing mechanically related skills from the related skills section without any replacement. Are you actually proposing fragmenting the discussion? I don't see any relevance to general formatting, this only applies to skill pages, hence it is on the skill page formatting discussion. The two topics were related, hence they were discussed together. Where would these skills go under the previous formatting arrangement? Related skills? For skills that have an effect on end that would be ~20-30 skills. The related skills section becomes useless when it becomes that long with no additional explanation. Did you want to add the list as a list in a separate section on the skills page? That was not allowed for in the former formatting guideline and with a list of 20-30 skills would require 20-30 pages to be updated whenever a skill functionality was changed as opposed to changing one page. Transclusion would fix this problem, but some skills have multiple mechanical relationships, such as Shielding Hands, which has an effect on end and reduces incoming damage. That would add two reasonably long lists to the page and those are just the two mechanical relationships I could think of. So, I ask you Backsword, can you please explain exactly what you are proposing as a change? Is it simply the removal of the see also section and no information recorded about mechanical similarities between skills? Misery 11:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'n not proposing any of that. I'm proposing that this is not an oportunity to swtich to guildwiki formating. And that any such change needs to be discussed where people who cares about it would read it, which is unlikely to be skills#related skills, which they'd be likely to think is about the related skills section. Whether you suggest a general switchover, or a "walled garden" system, it would still affect gen. formating. Which is, y'know, general, and thus applies to skills, lists and so on too.

Asides, if the conditional was not the switch, why is it's contionalness a justifcation for that switch? Also, you didn't explain the deal with Contagion. Backsword 12:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as even approaching a switchover to Guildwiki formatting. Seriously. It's not slippery slopeism, it's a way to deal with one problem. It relates specifically to this problem, not general formatting at all.

I can't make any sense of the start of your second paragraph, could you rephrase it please? I think we do a very good job of not understanding each other whenever we discuss anything.

What further do you want me to explain about Contagion? That is one specific example, don't dwell on it. Misery 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's a Walled Garden, that in it self is something that needs discussing. I'm certain that it's something many would object to, if aware. People put a value in a systematic approach. It's really a generalisation of having specific formating pages in the first place. I could possibly be personally convinced, if there was overriding spcific untility in it, but I've seen no such presented. Which initself is an extention of not following formating guides on every article.

Clarification: If MrPaladin's acceptance was conditional on something other than the formating style, how does it being conditional justify the switch in formating style? Also, I don't even know what Contagion was supposed to be an example of, or am aware of any other example. Backsword 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I've never read any formatting guide on GWW or GWiki ever, because I don't give a rats ass about formatting, I care about content. As such, I was not even aware of possible disturbance or that I was deviating from the standard. These formatting guides also outline what content can be contained, which is why the discussion was here. If you wish to reformat the information, but keep the same content, you will receive no objection from me.

You brought up Contagion in response to my "Skills that inflict conditions on self" list, but the current not is incomplete and relevant to more skills than just Contagion. Other examples would be enchantments that have an effect on end or skills that enhance conditions or any other list you could care to think of. If you want to split the quick skill reference into multiple lists grouped by a category, you have my blessing. Misery 14:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, so I can speek for myself I shall clarify my stance... I aggree that the Related skills section could get mired down under the current formatting guide by the reasons shown in the Shielding Hands example... I aggree that a See Also section that can lead (especially new players) to skills that function in the same way (tho not used in the same way) to help reduce learning curve (the wiki is a learning tool is it not?)... finally Mis's example above of skills that are listed category style and easily linked too would seems to be quick and optimal... MrPaladin † talk 14:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, several walls of text later it would appear that Backsword's specific objection is not to what was implemented, but the format of the implementation. Misery 14:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the content of the matter is supposed to be, so I can't say what my stand on that would be, but I'm sure there have been no reason given for doing it in the style of guildwiki, which it consitently was.

Actually, you breought up Contagion as an example of why this was good. And yes, the current note is not a complete list. Such a list can be placed on it's own page, or there are other solutions. We've been there. But I still don't get what that has with this formating change to do. Perhaps you can revise that article to show what couldn't be done under current formating that this change will allow? Backsword 14:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No I can't because I don't know what on earth you are talking about. The "formatting change" is just the only way I could think of putting the information there. Misery 14:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I exect that you don't think Contagion is perfect. Per your revert, show me what you can do with it that you couldn't do before. Backsword 05:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually be changing Contagion at all. I don't see what list it would appear on, skills that spread conditions to additional targets? I don't really care. I've updated Shielding Hands as it was the original example and has at least two lists associated with it. Misery 09:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but that doesn't really explain anything. Whioch is part of the problem with that style. You've added two links, but no explanation. Why should people see those lists? I don't know, and a reader of the article wouldn't know either. I presume I was wrong in my ES and it's not based on wikipedia, but that actually makes it less informative; I could understand if it was a personal opinion on what others should care about. But if it's not, then what is it? Backsword 09:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They are lists of skills that share the same mechanics. People want these things when they are under the illusion that they are good enough to theorycraft their own builds, despite not being able to create these lists themselves on the fly. I really don't understand your comments about a lack of explanation at all, what would be explained past the fact that it is a list of skills that also have an effect on end? Misery 09:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why people should see them? What seperates them from a link to random page on the wiki? Backsword 10:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Why have those links and not the effectivle infinite other possiblities? Backsword 10:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Because people want this information apparently. I know this because I have to keep removing it from the related skills section. I care about the related skills section and want it to be useful, I don't care about the see also section and can ignore it. If you can't see the difference between linking to a list that contains the skill in question and other skills that share the same mechanic and linking Pogahn Passage, I'm not sure I can help you. Misery 10:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do these "people" want those links? How are readers of the article supposed to know why these "people" want them to follow those links? Why do they want those spficic two links, and not any of the other possibilities? Backsword 10:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

People want them for build theorycrafting, like I said earlier. Also, people always talk about information existing, and therefore should be recorded. Those two specific examples would be used for example with Mystic Sandstorm and Signet of Pious Light to see what synergised with timing the end of your enchantments and Protective Spirit to reduce damage to zero for things like 55ing and 330 elementaling. If someone doesn't want to follow those links, they don't have to, so why should they care why someone else wants to? As for "why those two links?" or the more important "What links should we include and what links shouldn't we include?", like every piece of information on this wiki that could be decided on a case by case basis and when people disagree, discussed, no different to what should and shouldn't go in the related skills section. Misery 10:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

But if those examples are for Mystic Sandstorm and Signet of Pious Light, why aren't they on Mystic Sandstorm and Signet of Pious Light with an explanaiton, rather than on Shielding Hands without one? This being the difference in formating. What justification do the have, on SS, over 'skills that cost 5 energy and starts with the letter S'? Backsword 10:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, you are focusing on specific examples. I provided specific examples because you asked for them, but there can be other reasons why people would want a list of such skills and the property relates to Shielding Hands, not Signet of Pious Light and Mystic Sandstorm. There is no justification to create that list, so it would not be created, that seems pretty simple to me. Misery 10:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm presuming the example is a valid apllication of the principle. Thus again; why have it in what seems the wrong location, and with no explanation. How does this improve the wiki? How is it more justified than that list? Backsword 10:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does it seem like the wrong location? The mechanic is a property of Shielding Hands, not of Signet of Pious Light or Mystic Sandstorm. What list are you referring to? The long list of "related subjects" you linked in another discussion? It's very similar to that list. I still don't see why you call the list "old and depreciated", there is nothing on its discussion page that suggests much of anything. It improves the wiki because the information is retained while maintaining the usefulness of the related skills section. Honestly, you are repeating yourself and I am repeating myself, do you actually have a point? Misery 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You are good at answering without answering. (And that is praise). I'm aware of all the fact. I have just two simple question: How does it make the wiki better to ahve those links on pages where they're no specificlly useful, in a way that doesn't apply to the million And how does it benefit the wiki to not explain to readers why the lists are useful on pages where they would be useful. Backsword 10:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Related skills again break

Backsword, people look for similarities in mechanics and usage. Lists aid that. So, for Shielding Hands, the similarities would be damage reduction and effect on end (or enchantment effect on end). That's all there is to it. --JonTheMon 16:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. It's the same kind of thing as how the category tags for each skill having AoE or not is on the skill itself, not on some other random page from where it might be useful to know that Rodgort's Invocation has AoE. Misery 16:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What, this is intended as homemade categorisation? I honestly did not get a hint of that before. Perhaps it neer crossed my mind that this was what you weanted as it seems so outlandish to me. Technically it's just inferior to using what the MediaWiki software has builtin support for. Even if you use DPL to parse the links here list, it is always going to be prone to error. Additionally, special pages cannot be used in templates.

WHich means I'm actually wondering why you want this style change more' now. Backsword 10:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, no idea what you are talking about. In case you haven't worked it out, I know nothing about Mediawiki. All I know of is using categories, exactly as was done for AoE, targeting, etc, but I consider that inappropriate as once the number of categories surpasses 8 or so, they start to become pretty useless. Misery 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that is a perfectly fine reason for wanting the change. Except it makes no sense; to any level it is true for caregories, it is more true for pseudocategories. Backsword 11:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Except when you have both the number for both is less. You look in once section for one thing and the other section for the other. Misery 11:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Or you look in the wrong part and has a harder time finding it. Additionally, since every wiki I know of bar guidlwiki uses the builtin exclusivly, it likely that users would be used to those only. But of course, 'looks' is subjective in the end. Th technical issues aren't. Backsword 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about technical issues ^^ Misery 11:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So, backsword, your proposal is to just use the category tree, and not actually make lists of skills that have similarities in mechanics and usage? --JonTheMon 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You can make lists if there are a use for them, but yes, using categories to categorise as we've always done seem rather obvious to me. Backsword 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he would like to replace each list with a category. Misery 13:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the issues with categories is that they don't allow comparison between skills or even sorting. One thought I had was to either put the lists on the pages that define each attribute (e.g. damage reduction) and make pages that don't exist for the other attributes, or just have a master page (List of skills with attribute) with sub pages like (List of skills with attribute/damage reduction) --JonTheMon 14:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true for all categories. You're not proposing we stop using them at all (i hope)? Also, it's not even relevant for the purpose of categorisation how they look when displayed. Backsword 11:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories are used for listing and organizing skills. Lists are for comparing skills. If you're looking at related skills, you're likely going to be comparing them. --JonTheMon 14:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, me again. I'm hoping there will be a bigger crowd here than on my talk page. I seem to attract more trolls and pseudo-intellectuals than serious discussion. Anyways... I would like to reiterate, for those of you who didn't follow those rants, that I think this idea is flawed. I think the problem lies when we try to organize any particular set of skills based on how they are used. Why? Because we are organizing them based on how we THINK they are used. A prime example of this was Protector's Strike and Magehunter Strike. A few people thought they were used solely to follow up on a spike. I'm sure thats a great use for them. However, I use Protector's Strike to put some extra pressure on kiting foes. I don't use either of them as a spike follow-up. How are they related for me? Now if you said something like Protector's Strike and Harrier's Toss, I would be inclined to agree. Both of them could have similar uses (pressuring a kiter, following up on a spike, whatever), but they are mechanically related. They are both attacks that deal extra damage to moving foes. Mechanically identical = Definitely related. I think you need to step back and realize you are trying to sort a factual encyclopedia based on your own biases. You can't possibly know how every person uses a specific skill. You have to allow Related skills to be based on mechanics. If you wished, you could continue this See Also section for a list of skills with similar uses. You said something along the lines of giving people the opportunity to see other skills which could be used in place of or with (maybe one that works better with other skills on that bar or party), so then why can't we leave the skill page for FACTS and have OPINIONS (how skills are used by every player) in a different section. Would that satisfy your need for change? We get to keep definitive, cut and dry information on the skill page, and you get to have helpful insight in a large, organized section which you can moderate.FleshAndFaith 08:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, most encyclopedia's include some measure of well-founded opinions. For example, any reasonable article on the Theory of Evolution is going to cover facts (supporting/not), controversies (facts about opinions), and opinions (birds evolving from dinosaurs is an established opinion, not anything close to a provable fact).

I agree that there's something awkward about saying Protector's Strike relates to Magehunter Strike, but not to Harrier's Toss; that's the nature of drawing arbitrary lines. I think it's far better that we include some categorization than none. The fact is that lots of people use particular skills in a certain way; I think we would be remiss in failing to document that. If we are thorough and reasonable about how we categorize, we should be able to find a way to show that Protector's Strike falls into multiple bins: spike follow-ups and kiter-pressuring skills, among others. We might miss a lot of worthwhile connections the first time around; since it's a wiki, that will be easy enough to fix as we go along.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with "effect, target and range", "location" and "trivia". They are the most important things when looking for similar skills, while things like energy costs, recharge, activation time, triggering conditions, name or acquisition are much less relevant. When you are looking for alternatives to a skill, you may look for others that may have similar effects, but maybe without conditions that trigger them, or different costs, or maybe more damage. While using F10 to look for an environmental effect, people may also find very useful to look the others that will find later, and prepare beforehand, instead looking for each one the first time they encounter it. Based on that, Searing Flames relates to Rodgort's Invocation:

• Effect: Fire damage and burning.
• Target: foe.
• Range: Nearby

And all the environmental effects found in Glint's lair, the Torment and the Anguish relate to the others in the same areas.

Skills named after an NPC and skills like Mark of Rodgort and Rodgort's Invocation(both jokes based in Trogdor) are related by trivia, and in other cases, similar names also involve similar effect, range and target, like the Wild attacks, but just names are not enough, after a skill update, if two skills have different effects and are not related in any other way but the name, they are no longer related skills. So I really think that "effect, target and range", "location" and "trivia" always work for related skills. MithTalk 12:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with listing opinions if the information is useful. People always talk about the "impossibility" of the task of relating skills based on anything other than objective facts. It's not difficult at all, we discuss it and come to some kind of agreement. If you want knowledge about how people use skills, it is pretty simple, play the game. Protector's Strike is used either as part of a spike or to add pressure. I never said it was used solely for spiking. You can observe this if you either open observe mode or play the game. I admit that Magehunter's Strike is harder to classify as it isn't actually used by everyone due to being underpowered, but it has been used a few times as a joke or for fun and it more or less slotted into the position of Protector's Strike on an axe bar, used as a spike follow up to trigger deep wounds and when available between spikes, purely to add damage pressure. The fact that one bonus damage is unconditional and the other is conditional means that Protector's Strike is more difficult to use, but the end effect is actually the same, damage. Magehunter's Smash is used as part of a standard hammer chain, or alone to knock down a monk, which may have blocking active, on a spike to increase the likelihood of a spike going through. It does not add any damage and is not quick activating, so cannot be used to increase damage pressure or follow up a spike. Both Magehunter skills could be used to get a single hit through blocking, but one recharges every 8 adrenaline while the other recharges in three seconds. Using MStrike for that would not be too terrible, you haven't lost much, using MSmash for that would ultimately achieve nothing. As such I consider MStrike and PStrike to be related, MSmash to not me related to either. Why did I outline all of that here? Simply to demonstrate that reasoned debate over subjective topics is possible, you are more than welcome to counter my points, although it would be more appropriate on the talk page for one of those skills, the page depending on which point you disagree with. This information however is very useful for a new player and as such I will oppose any suggestion of removing this information from skill pages simply because it is subjective. Mechanical relationships are only useful for people who are interested in bug and feature finding and people who are under the delusion that they are better at building new builds than a distributed machine consisting of at worst thousands of people optimising builds based upon the metagame, despite not already knowing all the mechanical relationships between skills. Misery 12:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that viable information should be on the main page. A person should not have to dig through semi-coherent talk pages to find a bit of useful information.

That said, I also think that categorizing how people use skills is an available option, but not one that can be done in a neat or orderly fashion. I will admit, you now have me somewhat convinced that it can work, but I am no where near convinced as to how you will make it work. I just think the whole "See Also" page will be more of a hassle than anything.

Maybe if we had a "See Also" header, instead of a different page, we could work with that. Change the "Related Skills" to "Similar Acting Skills" (or whatever) and have that section be about skill mechanics. Then a different header under that, which says, "See Also" and then it could have a list of skills that could be used for the same purpose. For example:

Magehunter Strike

Blah blah blah (capture info, stats, whatever)

Similar Skills

• Magehunter's Smash

See Also

• Protector's Strike
• Harrier's Toss

I think if we avoid following a pile of messy categories and difficult page navigation, we can easily achieve what we are all after. I also think it would be much easier on all of us who do contribute and moderate the wiki if we could just have everything on one page. It will be tough either way, but I think the toughest part should be making the change in the first place, not maintaining it.

Hopefully this will be taken into consideration as a viable option and we can stop the squabbling. Hell, I'd be happy if we kept "Related Skills" as skills that could be based on usage and make a new Header for Mechanically similar skills, just as long as it stayed on the main page. FleshAndFaith 23:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, there are a staggering number of mechanically related skills in some cases. If you want an example, go take a look at Shielding Hands, which I believe is the only page currently up to date in terms of formatting, but the lists are incomplete. This is the kind of information people have requested be stored and it just gets huge very rapidly. Also, if you do this on every mechanically related skill's page, one functionality change could result in many skill pages requiring editing. A big reason why I pushed for these changes was continual removal of skills that had at best tenuous links to the skill in question. Misery 12:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What about an alternative presentation that clarifies why we think the skills are similar?

Skills with useful synergies

• no more than 1–3 skills (exceptions by consensus)

Possible substitute skills

• no more than 1–3 skills (exceptions by consensus)

Lists of similar skills

• [[List of skills that [are mechanically similar]]] (where [are mechanically similar] is a placeholder for the mechanism, e.g. return energy on expir'y)
• [[List of skills that [are mechanically2 similar]]] (where [are mechanically2 similar] is a placeholder for a second mechanism, e.g. pressure kiters)

This allows for lots of useful information, reduces the need to make changes to numerous articles after game updates that affect skills, and reduces the need for peeps to sort through every possibly similar skill to find what they are looking for.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all you have done is renamed the see also section to "Lists of similar skills", renamed related skills to "Possible substitute skills" and added a "Skills with useful synergies" section which is currently covered in the notes section. I don't really vehemently oppose that in principle, but I don't see a huge reason to do it. Do I understand you correctly? Misery 19:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You are descriptively correct. However, I think that a rename would make explicit which skills should (and should not) be included on the article page. Right now, there seems to be only an awkward consensus about what belongs under Notes, similar, and see also.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, Misery, but we can break it down for skills like Shielding Hands. What does it do? Reduces Damage. Anything else? Heals when it ends. Ok.

• What skills reduce damage? Are they enchantments? Can they be put on target allies?
• What skills heal or cause health gain when they end? Are they enchantments? Can they be put on target allies?

In this case, I would say:

Related Skills

• Shield of Absorption

See Also

• Stoneflesh Aura
• Armor of Sanctity
• Patient Spirit

The primary mechanic is that it reduce damages. In this case, it can reduce damage taken by the caster or a target ally. Stoneflesh and Sanctity would be similar, in that they reduce damage and are enchantments, but can only self target. Patient is also similar in that it heals when it ends and can self target or target ally. I mean, we could always reach a consensus about individual skills at a later time. And honestly, I would rather have a list of 5 or 6 "related" and "see other" skills than cutting information which could be helpful, just to lessen the length of a page. The more I have to read, the better, as long as it is good information. FleshAndFaith 21:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC) (Yeah, I kept editting my stuff. turns out I'm really bad at formatting consistantly with more than 2 indents...)FleshAndFaith 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, honestly I don't even mind so much as long as the "sanctity" of the "Related Skills" section is preserved, but if you go for things like Patient Spirit in see also, you are going to have to argue with people as to why Blood Renewal, Pious Renewal and Vital Boon are not there. Misery 22:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying, instead of having a link to a list of damage reduction skills (or point to the list on the definition page), just list a few under see also? (same for enchantments with on-end abilities) --JonTheMon 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, basically, yes. And I think we are all prepared for some good arguments on skill relativity. Patient is a See Also skill because it can be either self target, or target other, just like Shielding Hands. That ability would be the primary difference between those skills. Of course, this is just an example of something I would say to defend that choice.

And I'm not saying we should just list a few skills and ignore others, I'm saying we should find a way to list them all, so long as they actually are related. My example with Defy Pain and Shielding Hands shows that the two skills (while both granting damage reduction) are different because Defy Pain is not an enchantment and can't target another ally. FleshAndFaith 02:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Different peeps are proposing different things. I don't like the generic headers (related skills and see also, but synergies go in notes) because it's very eye-of-beholder what belongs where. I don't like to see more than 2-3 skills per heading (except for exceptional situations) because I think less is more in this case. I'd also prefer to see well-defined sections with well-defined criteria for what belongs. Everything that doesn't make the cut can appear in linked list pages.

I think there might be 2-3 distinct proposals floating around; maybe it's time to start a new header and begin with some informal proposals.   — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's the impssible Misery refers to, but gets wrong. It is not possible to prevent specific discussions in one stroke by altering section names. If it is accompanied by a stadanriused practice, it can help, but not by general changes, you must have something secific, since it's that info you want to have an effect. Backsword 11:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Related skills proposal

Related skills would be skills that can substitute for others. Synergistic skills would fall under Notes. See also would contain links to lists of skills that are mechanically similar, aka "List of damage reduction skills" or "List of enchantments with end effects". --JonTheMon 04:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Related skills renamed to 'replacement skills' or 'substitute skills or something like that. Useful stuff explain and possibly linked in the notes section. Categories used for categorisation. Backsword 11:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I personally think 'Similar Skills' is apt to what's currently listed under 'Related Skills'. Similar means, of course, that they actually resemble each other, rather than that one skill knew the other's great aunt. Nor does it limited the perceived function of using them by saying '(Use these if this one doesn't work)'--though that may be what we want, I haven't read the whole of the above. | 72 {U|T|C} 15:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is, of course, to add an additional header to accommodate mechanically similar skills based on several criteria, as decided by general consensus. Primary and Secondary functions included (not like flail and shield stance, where the "secondary function" is just a balancing drawback, but more like the functional similarities in Shielding Hands, Shield of Absorption, and Patient Spirit). FleshAndFaith 19:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Acquisition of PvP skill versions

The question has been raised whether there should be an Acquisition section on the pages of pvp version skills. I personally believe that it is unnecessary, as all pvp skills are acquired through the Priest of Balthazar for pvp characters, or unlocked on accounts by pve characters using the acquisition methods listed on the pve version skill page. You can't go to a skill trainer and learn "Brace Yourself!" (PvP) or Conviction (PvP) etc, so skill trainers should not be listed on these pages. -- Wyn talk 02:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Seems kinda pointless/redundant. calor (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone who knows of pvp skills (aka people visiting the page) should already know how they work. A note (if one isn't there) on the Skill page (or the PvP page) would be enough. ~Shard 02:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed again. calor (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Lacky 03:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

echo. –alistic 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a not-that-skill page will link to the PvP version of a skill. ("Related skills: such-and-such (PvP).") This leads you to encounter that version before the real one. However, the problem -- if it's even been noticed by anyone else -- is obviously solved in the fixing of those links, not the fixing of all PvP skill pages. That out of the way, I'm agreed to this proposal. | 72 (UTC) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I like Shard's idea, put a note on the skill and pvp pages. -- FreedomBound 13:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for Skill History

Before I go creating some for some skills (that's needed). I was wondering if we could add the following to each skill history page. I think it would absolutely have the page looking better, and it spaces the skill listings of each changes out a bit more and has them to be distingusted. I propose to add the following to each date (like may 25, something) after all the information of that date, above the next date, but nothing at the very bottom.
---- <br>
Thoughts? An example is this page. Kaisha 05:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for that. The current headings already provide enough page breakage to separate the entries. The most I would see would be an extra line break (not br tag). --JonTheMon 05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an inactive project to do just this. Feel free to get it restarted. This does not need to be added to the guideline. -- Wyn talk 05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reason, I'm suggesting what I did is because without it. It looks too close together and cluttered. Kaisha 05:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Then propose a change on the project talk page, since that is where the format for the history pages has been discussed and decided. -- Wyn talk 05:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Balistic is going to help jumpstart the project. Have fun! -- Wyn talk 05:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty tedious project actually. I don't know how long I'll be doing it –alistic 05:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I think that might be another reason I'm not too into it. Appreciate it Balistic, you didn't have to. Just wanted actually to update the current pages, as it was done in the past. I've had a few hiccups, and mine (my gw) shows differently than a few others. I don't think they're done yet though with the planned updates for this month and February, with even the redux coming up. Kaisha 05:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Related skills - subsections

Current situation with the section "Related skills" in many skill articles is far from perfect. Lot of problems are due to a different interpretation of the term "related", when some users attempt to add to a list the skills which they count as related by different parameters and guideline is not always a good source to check whether these skills are suitable or not. After that some other users attempt to fix the list, delete or restore previous versions... I have seen this in many articles. The common bad thing is, in most cases these lists are heavily inconsistent, because the structure of list is not defined in guide at all. As a result, list are often formally alphabetised; reader can only guess why this particular skill is included (or not included) here and how this info can help in searches. Eventually reader should look at all skills in the list, and only after that the relationship becomes (or not) more clear. It's a good approach if the purpose of Wiki is to give readers as much info as possible, forcing them to read many articles... My point is not the same, though.

I suggest to use the subsections in "Related skills", grouping the skills in the list by its effects. If a skill in the article has a single effect, nothing should be changed. Otherwise, need to add the subsections with proper names. Here are the examples:

Skill. Has an Effect.
Related skills

• Related_1
• Related_2

Skill. Has the Effect_1, Effect_2, Effect_3.
Related skills

• Effect_1
  • Related_1
  • Related_2
• Effect_2
  • Related_3
• Effect_2 and Effect_3
  • Related_4

Skill. Has the Effect_1, Effect_2, Effect_3.
Related skills

• List_of_skills_with_Effect_1
• List_of_skills_with_Effect_2
• Effect_3
  • Related_1

--Slavic 12:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest you read this and the following section as I believe the issue has been addressed. If the guideline itself is unclear, that can be changed. Misery 13:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Skill Talk Page Links

While it has been enforced by moderators, there is always the issue of people discussing possible skill changes directly into the skill's talk page. Wouldn't it be beneficial to include a link at the top of all talk pages of skills which would link users directly to the related skill-change discussion/talk page on the wiki? --Curin Derwin 22:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Those pages have actually been shut down, replaced by the Feedback pages. Since you can't put a direct link to any skill feedback page, a link to the Feedback portal is a great idea. I support this. :D -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 00:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This has been up before, and the eneral answer is no, not worth the clutter and defenitly not creating pages. THat sat said, this is because by far, most skill talk pages are not abused. There have been a few however, such as ursan, where where there have been heavy discussion. And then a box with a link have been placed, not that it helped much. So for most pages no, but if it keeps hhappening, then yes. Backsword 15:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

New Synergies section?

With the Related Skills section more aimed towards replacement/identical skills, and the Notes section more geared towards additional information about that skill's usage/effects, can we add a 'Synergies' section under the notes section whose purpose is specifically skill synergies?MedicDude 08:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)MedicDude

Skills wich changes your build

Some skills are meant to give you the fealing of playinmg as someone else, such as various festival games, BMP mission, and 'mounts', in explorables. Currently we document these incosistently and incompletly. I was thinking of putting the info in a form (template) both to make sure we have it all and to present it in a standarised form. Backsword 07:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So, aside from forms and disguises, what would this cover? --JonTheMon 07:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of them don't list a skill type in their description, some have skill. Not that this hsould matter; skill type is for the infobox to document. Backsword 07:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

btw, some of your changes to the BMP disguise effect infoboxes cause them to not properly categorize. --JonTheMon 07:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)