Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Skill history/Archive 1

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Skill history.

Project's goal

This seems like a really horribly large task and doesn't imho give any necessary info to anyone. -- (gem / talk) 11:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is a big task indeed, but I think it's interesting to see skill progression and balance. Maestro Ed 12:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Where do you plan to add this info? Hopefully not on the skill pages, atleat I am against that. --

(gem / talk) 12:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, on a sub page? --

(gem / talk) 12:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I were the only one wanting to be able to see skill balance history, obviously not :) Before I referred to GuildWikis arrticle history, but it wasn't very convenient so I've just stopped :P Where do you find your information about balances and original descriptions? - anja

(contribs) 12:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

GWiki history is a good starting point. To be honest I can't think of another place where the full history is documented. --

(gem / talk) 13:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The GW updates page has a list of all skill balances so it's just a case of looking through the list to find a skill. I've edited them all together into one document so i can just search for the skill name and work backwards through it. I might put all the skill balances into one wiki page somewhere so others can do the same. The only problem is that the ORIGINAL skill descriptions are nowhere to be found, many of them I work from memory, but when you see an early skill update, sometimes you have no idea what they changed it from. That's why one of the main 'to do's is to obtain a list of all the skill descriptions in their original forms. Maestro Ed 13:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't pull stuff from memory. The stuff can mostly be found in the histories of the skill pages on GuildWiki. --

(gem / talk) 13:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so next task is to compile all the stuff from the oldest page of each skill into a file that can be used. Maestro Ed 21:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Complete skill histories

I am not sure if http://gw.gamependium.com/tools/skills/ has the complete history of every skill, but it is another resource for research. -- Wyn talk 05:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

See what I have setup at Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Skill history/Dervish skill history. –alistic 23:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding links on primary skill pages

This is most easily accomplished by adding the link to the infobox rather than adding individual links to every skill page. I suggest it's not added until the project is at least 75% complete. -- Wyn talk 02:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Skill history

→ moved from User talk:Wynthyst

What if there is no skill history for a skill? Still create one or not? As the history on this wiki is different than what it shows on a link to a site. So, I'm confused at the moment. Kaisha 23:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that GWW did not exist until the 2nd (or so) year of Guild Wars, so any changes prior to that would not be recorded on this site. You could check GuildWiki though.

elix Omni 06:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If skills never changed, Kaisha, I would recommend not creating a page, and just noting as such on the project. -- FreedomBound

14:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Or we could create the page for future updates. –

alistic 04:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Balistic that way for future updates, it can be noted as original on the skill history. Kaisha

05:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Chances are if it hasnt been changed by now then its probably not going to be.

Drogo Boffin 05:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true Drogo, but while I can see the benefit of having a page sitting around waiting for an update (?), it seems to me that your time would be better spent on skills that do have a history, especially since the ones that don't have a history are just going to be fodder for confusion, as already seen. It's your project, though. -- FreedomBound

12:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Questions? --Falconeye 06:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

* Create history page for each skill

Exactly how detailed should this be? Boss capture points, skill animations, bug/anomolies, AI/monster/hero usage, concised descriptions & corrections in grammer ect.

* Obtain original skill descriptions for all skills

Does this include removed skill concepts, alpha/beta versions, campaign previews, and previews of rebalance/updates?

* Add each subsequent rebalance change

See above. If nothing else, am i to assume focus on step 1, then move on to step 2, then 3; essentially creating a scaffold then filling the blanks?

I have prima's strategy guides for both prophecies & faction, does anyone have nighfall info (currently working on ritualist)? Also, while gamepedia's skill history is more extensive, the fact that is all written by one author (on a one time edit basis) likely makes it prone to discrepencies.

No answer? ;_; --Falconeye 05:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Any/Common skills

Any plans to include Any/Common skills in the project? I was going to add it in, but then I wasn't sure of the names to put it under etc. This would include the PvE skills like Pain Inverter, Great Dwarf Weapon, and maybe even monster skills that have changed (if any have). ~Celestia 08:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they should also be included. As well as monster skills. -- Wyn

talk 08:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So should it be "Common -> Nightfall/Eye of the North/Monster Skills" or should Monster skills have their own box? ~Celestia 08:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would probably do Common, for pve only skills (including allegiance skills) and Monster with it's own. Of course, I'm just one voice, and there may be no need to do the Monster ones, but definitely the Common pve only skills. -- Wyn

talk 09:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This project...

...fills up the Special:WantedPages like crazy. Think we can include something like a <noinclude> tag around the subpages' links so that they don't clog it up more than it already is clogged up? -- Konig/talk 22:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Stubbed skill history pages

FYI These are skill history pages that were created as stubs, without any content.

— Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, other skill history articles have been added since I posted the list above. It might be easier to create a temporary template that includes a temporary category, so that it's easier to find these in the future (especially since the list might grow before we attend to the backlog). I hate to request that they be deleted, which is the other obvious alternative. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what I think, we each pick a category like say I'm still looking to do Air Skill histories. We put the {{no|tick}} besides it to show that it's being worked on. we check each skill history that has been done and make sure it's updated with the links, histories, etc. that we can get the information of. There are sub skill history pages that can also use the no tick to show what ones are being checked, redone and then marked back green once finished. so that each skill is made sure to not have the stub. These stubs may be created to keep from having so many red links. To do this, might help one or those planning to be involved or are involved in this project. We can have on our user pages or under our names here of what part of the project we're involved in so that the others don't go "stepping" over each other's toes. Thoughts? btw, the tick was being used for that purpose - to show it was being worked on... I'd prefer to see people sign up here and pick a part, instead of doing whatever they decide to stumble on to. It'd help the project go smoother and not make others or have others get so messed up. However, someone's going to have to help see that the histories are to a good bit of an extent consistent with each other, same with the skills in the notice of the histories. I'm hoping this could help solve the stub issue that you and I both see. Kaisha

04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's unlikely that more than a few people are going to do more than stumble upon various articles. It's just too time consuming/tedious for most, so it usually only comes up when (as there's about to be) a skill update. Very, very few people are going to check here first to see if someone is working on a category.

I'm not against stubbing, but I am against creating articles if the editor has no intention of fleshing it out. When you or Blue Clouded or I have been working on a page, we might stub it for an hour or a day while we complete the research, but at minimum, we check to see whether the skill has (or has not) changed at all and find at least one significant update to include on the history page. (This isn't something specific to the project; it's almost never good for a wiki to introduce new articles that aren't ready to be read...except when there's something new that no one complete understands yet.)

Put another way, this isn't a problem for the active/semi-active contributors, it's detritus left over by those who aren't participating in the project directly. And, alas, it's up to those interested in seeing this finished to clean up after. I'm not worried at all about Kaisha working on the same thing as TEF or TEF working on Blue Clouded's area; this is about what to do with the leftovers from people who haven't read this. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, it's why I think us as contributors have to basically "go behind" and check of the changes those others have made. Marking those that we have changed a page to still watch. Kaisha

18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For anyone...

For anyone interested in this project. Please also note that this page has comments here and here as well as Skill History in my January archive, which can be found via the last link. Kaisha 07:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, these conversations from last year are interesting as history to the current project and its intentions. However (a) they don't show any clear consensus and (b) they reflected the opinions of people involved a year ago (including User:Kaisha). I think they should be used as fodder for discussion, but not as a reason for changing the current direction of the project. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Most had agreed on it then that it was not to be on the skill pages. It is clear consensus via both links for it to not be under trivia or on skill history pages. Kaisha

17:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(a) It's not clear to me and (b) that was over a year ago. New people are involved and things have changed. Until there's a current consensus, please let Blue Clouded continue what he's doing. Thank you. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I love the skill histories on the pages that have it so far. --

Kirbman 04:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Should skill histories be included under Trivia? (2011 discussion)

Should skill histories be included under Trivia? Absolutely.

Traditionally, we include all historical info under Trivia (removed content, previous mechanics, when things were introduced)
Lot of work this year has been done to create skill histories, and link them from the skill article (from the trivia section).
At this point, it is far easier to continue proceeding in this direction and making any necessary changes at a later date (which could include making use of the skill info box, the details and mechanics of which haven't been established).
There's little point to creating orphaned skill history pages while we wait for all such pages to be created; everyone who has started creating them has stopped after a while (it's just too much work).

— Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, incompleteness is not a reason not to include them for now (this issue never came up in regards to armor ratings, to say nothing of dye charts, and many more things), trivia is a historically sensible place, even if it's decided to move them later. Manifold

18:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

They really cannot go anywhere else on the page, since they do not document any part of the game or game-play. So it goes. –~=Ϛρѧякγ

(τѧιк) ←♥– 18:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll quote some comments that was given to me as to why it's not trivia. "(not) Trivia (was the subject - Kaisha) Skill history is better placed at the section notes since it relates to the skill usage itself and not to asociated information about the "lore" of the same. -Fighterdoke" "Skill history links shouldn't be placed anywhere until more are done, and then they will be added to the infobox. This has already been discussed and decided (I thought). -- Wyn " "Every link you have added manually to skill pages will need to be removed when it's added to the skill infobox. It would be much easier to just concentrate on the project of getting the history pages completed and then in one edit add the link to every skill page through the infobox. -- Wyn" That's what they say. I prefer it on the Notes section - if it has to be documented as we do, but I agree with that quote of Wyn's that it really should wait and we can add it to the info box - saving room on each page and less needing to add it to each page manually. This was done with the Skill animations and I don't see a difference in why this can't be done like that or why it needs to be "trivia". Kaisha

18:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Fighterdoke's quote: Trivia is not just about lore. Re: Wyn's quote: That requires completing skill histories for 1000 skills; no one has stepped up to do that much work and that keeps 100s of skill histories orphaned.

Re: Kaisha's question: It doesn't need to be under Trivia; that's just a better place for it at the moment for the reasons listed above. A year ago, it might have been a different story.

Re: why not the info box? The modifications required for the skill info box haven't happened yet; once they do, it's easy enough to update all skill articles using a bot to have the link be in the info box. But, since no one has volunteered to sandbox a new version of the info box that takes into account all the things that people want to see (function change or not, split or not, how to display)...it's better to put the link someplace than to avoid linking the history page altogether. The last time people stopped to figure out a better place, the project stalled for a year.

In short, it is better to allow the project to proceed as it has been doing this year rather than to slow it down...especially since we have folks (notably Blue Clouded) stepping up to do the huge amount of work required to create a huge proportion of the articles. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If we have to place it on the skill pages. I would rather go with Fighterdoken's idea of placing it in the ==See Also== (Temporarily) area as it is a history of the skill pages and not something trivial. As far as a redo of the skill history er thinking and typing way ahead... I mean as far as placing it in the infobox... It was previously done as an example (I do remember seeing this), but I cannot find the link, unless I look through the contributes of several that did this and that could take a while. As remembering this, it was apparent to be placed at the bottom in same or similar area as the skill animations, but I'll look through histories to see if I can find it or redo in a sandbox (after I finish armor pages) and give that as an example. Kaisha

19:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, far as orphaned... They shouldn't be as they're linked like for example this.... Kaisha

19:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox idea

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Arcane_Zeal Okay, see where it says animation? Right below that or right above it. I'm thinking Skill History or history in the green, but what word to link by? Click here? I'm looking more into the coding to see if I can do an example in my sandbox of a skill. But, it'd have to be optional just like that Animation one is. Kaisha 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we can do this right here in the infobox... to save from adding to the pages. Thoughts? Kaisha

20:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The location seems fine. However, the infobox needs to be able to do a couple of things that would be lost if we removed the current trivia bullets:

* Indicate whether there has been a function change or not.

* Indicate whether there are multiple skill histories (e.g. PvE/PvP).

* Take into account skills that have not changed since introduction

* Based on above, auto-cat the article into skills that have changed functionality, skills that have been split/merged, skills that have not changed since introduction.

As I've said before, I don't think we should hold back the current project work while this is being discussed. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If people see Skill History or History (which ever we choose). There would be no need for "The functionality of this skill has changed since its introduction; see its skill revision history for details." or "The functionality of this skill has changed since its introduction; see its skill revision history for details." As with the history up in the info box... it should give the same "suggestion" that the trivia note implies So, I don't much agree as skill histories themselves should and would have the pve/pvp split notes, etc. in them (Such as those that have been split and merged back). It can be integrated into the histories themselves as it is more so actual history than a trivia note... Also, the categories on the info box it's self would not change... We can add those categories via the histories... If needed... Also, as the infobox that I have done - it has ifelse in it which should and would indicate if the page has a skill history or not. If no change has been made - no need for a skill history box. Kaisha

20:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I did two more tests here and here. Just to answer any theories/questions as to it showing up on pages with animation and without skill history and without both animation and skill history. Kaisha

21:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to pinpoint a few thoughts to your inquiries on the infobox that it may not be able to do.

* The function change should be noted on the skill history page it's self, not the skill page. It is history in that the function was changed... Not something I feel to be trivial, but more so historical... as the old function becomes "historic", hence skill history. No need to be in an infobox, trivia, notes, but in the skill history section.

* Multiple skill histories like splits and merges should be noticed on each change in the skill history it's self. I do and have liked this idea and I have seen it on a link that Wyn did provide (Though I can't find that link quite yet to post as a useful link here. If it hasn't been posted already). . I think that is more so as well as mentioned in the other bulletin... Is historical more so than trivial and I feel it belongs in the skill history. To me, trivia is more so something that's trivial and not actual fact. Where as this skill history is fact... holding the histories of the changes of the skills. No need to be in an infobox, trivia, notes, but in the skill history section.

* Skills that not have changed. These do not need skill history and so as the links I have shown - can clearly pinpoint. No historical link, no need for a link on the skill page to it... No need to be in an infobox, trivia, or notes.

* "skills that have changed functionality, skills that have been split/merged, skills that have not changed since introduction." those categories I feel should be individual on each skill, because I don't really know how that can be implemented into a infobox, because those can't tell if the functionality, etc., has been changed... I don't see it being in a triva section, etc., nor am I too sure if it should go into the skill history. I can only see that being manual instead of auto-cat... Sorry... Kaisha

23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright Kaisha, I'm going to asking you to keep working on it (if it's totally okay with you). As far as how I feel the subject should be dealt with is:

* The infobox listing should be uniform with every other skill infobox on the wiki.

* It should accomodate information regarding unchanged skill histories, for the purposes of uniformity.

* It should be presented in a way that it's clearly presented, without being blatantly in your face.

That personal criteria aside, I still feel that the skill infobox is not the right place for this to be, because the skill infobox lists current information regarding the game. Skill animations, energy costs, and skill icons are all listed in the infobox, because they are still current. If you take notice, Antidote Signet had a different beta icon, which is listed separate from the skill infobox. Blue Clouded 03:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

[1]–

alistic 04:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Balistic. I though there was such a thing. @Blue, what you ask is impossible. See, this Infobox is used via all skills, not each skill. Each skill's image, etc. is pertained to the name of that skill aka File:Antidote Signet.jpg is the file used for that particular page, due to the name. The skill infobox it's self was designed to be the way it is by the community. We're only "altering" it for the sake of the skill history. If you want to revamp the whole skill infobox - take it up on the template's talk page and you can try to revamp it. I am sad to see that you did not seem to notice this... Anyway, it is presented in a clear way and is not blatantly in your face. it is like any other infobox - a box to hold the basic information. If you notice the history of each skill history page, the infoboxes there still hold the old information and therefore you can use the * bulletins to base the changes ... The trivia section is not the place. It is noted in most formatting areas of what it is for... Not historical or facts... It is for trivial information... Information that usually doesn't link to facts like histories, but more so information that may be of interest. Facts are in notes. Historical facts are in notices on Historical pages as it should be. This has been done on many pages that have come and gone and come and go again. Such as Wintersday, April fools, etc. Things that have rare recurrences but each year is documented with most of the same information copied/pasted and then archived... Hence, the historical notes of the skill histories, belong to each of the skill that gets archived and has been archived. I did a few in the Elemental like this, Balistic did more like this. Neither were documented in the "trivia" or "notes" , because it was to be documented as a link. the only thing that's really needed. You don't need that this skill has been changed by function or energy.... That's bizzare. What each skill page has is the current skill information, not what had happened. That's never been done on these skill pages as notes... Never should be as that should be for the history pages... I believe Balistic could agree with this and tell you more as he's also had a hand in this project. It's not that hard to do for an example and this isn't fact, but off top of my head as what I'd like to see in the histories that you seem to prefer on the actual page - has the countless edits by others done this? No, it'd be undone in the future by others, because it's not needed on those pages. Also, one would go later on anyway and fix the histories to have this information that I'd like to see be done now that I did attempt on...

==October 15th, 2009==

* Skill's functionality was changed in this update from 5 energy to 10 energy.

-- Information goes here , basically go from original, which should not need any notes, to the update - add the proper notes... then the next update, etc. and I hope this will solve your inquiry of wanting it on the actual page, which as I said is really honestly not needed... It's a history message in all honesty that should be in the history. You may have people who may be new players or finally notice after years of afk and go, "What the hell is this functionality changed on here?" (talking of hte skill page) some may notice the history page, some may question as to why it's not on there... Some may just remove it and you guys would place it back not understanding why they removed it... I'm giving now the possibility of opinions that can be eased and settled by the history pages themselves...

Here. I shall show you what happens to adding any "history" notes to the page [2] and [3] and [4] and [5]. Also, here's one I added that was removed here by an IP [6]. See, more were against the history notes period... it brought on this that I'm not too happy about. I was trying to add the current most history note and give link to skill history when made... (well was my entire idea/plan) >.< that never flew. So, I am trying to tell you and tef, that while it may be a good "idea"... For most, it wouldn't appear that way... Hence, put the notes in the skill histories themselves. Like here Blinding_Surge/Skill_history . I hope this helps. Anyway, to make the long story short, do you guys understand why I'm against the trivia/notes and for the infobox as well as placing the needed historical notes in the skill history pages and not on the skill pages? Kaisha

06:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to allow a non-link to skill histories that have not been altered? (Soul Leech, EoE, etc.) If you can make that happen with just a few keystrokes, then I'll hop aboard and go the infobox way. Blue Clouded 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If nothing has been altered, then there's no need of a skill history. I checked into that when one of the Elemental skills had never been touched/changed. Now if they change that skill in like say an update, you can create the skill history page, write in there what's been changed and stuff. Once saved, it'll appear in the infobox automatically (or unless one has to purge the main page, it should appear). In other words, you wouldn't have to mess with the main page at all! One less page to have to edit imo and that I love. :-) Kaisha

17:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We will be making sill histories for those that haven't changed though - we have a tag we use for those pages, and they're already in existance. Blue Clouded 20:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Having thought of this myself today, I wonder why it was never implemented, when it was set up and everything. Konig/talk 02:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Pages with no skill history change

I have found skill history pages created with no changes to them. To hide these from the suggested infobox. I would like to suggest that a noinclude be added to the page or some code for it to not show up in the infobox, until skill has changes. This is not needed to be noted on the skill page. It is an orphaned page, because it was created using a template that was not discussed and involved in part of what I consider this to be a major project. These skill history pages that are orphaned can be marked, like we do the traveler images, as not orphaned until such time is needed for them. I feel it would have been better for those who created these pages, to have discussed to create them or not, before creating them and to have created the ones with changes... Kaisha 02:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

These pages have never been noted anywhere. We have been using the "{unchanged skill history}' tag for these pages and have left them unlinked until changes have been made. Blue Clouded 20:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The {{unchanged skill history}} and {{skill history}} pages are hidden from lists in the same way: by using the parameter categorize = n in the {{Skill infobox}}.

While the work of the project is signficiant, the project itself has had little help. Almost everyone involved started off by fixing errors in existing skill history pages and/or creating new ones around the time that an update changed the relevant skills. As a result, the direction of the wiki has changed considerably since last year, the last time any significant work was done on the project or there were any significant discussions. The more recent discussions have taken place on certain users' talk pages (e.g. mine, BC's, and Falconeye's, perhaps others) and several skill or skill history pages. BC is doing a great job of catching the project up to where the wiki has gone/is going. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't nor would help hide the created ones (that have no history changes) from the infobox. Course, Balistic being a better coder imo than me, having (as shown above) added the same exact code, might be able to get the created nonchanged skill histories from showing. Kaisha

23:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

On what pages do you see unchanged skill history pages showing up? — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

When I did previews with my test in sandbox with a few other skills that I didn't think had skill history. It was when they showed up in the preview. I had to literary find one that didn't have a skill history to do my second and third test above with... I am looking into the coding of infoboxes to find a code that'd only look for {{Skill History}} and add those. If someone else beats me to the punch, they're free to edit my sandbox. Kaisha

04:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your concern. There are 50 skill histories for unchanged skills and 179 changed skill histories. Of the 50 unchanged, I believe that about 15 are stubbed (and, I have asked the person who created most of them with no content to avoid doing that in the future). If the only issue is in your sandbox, let's try to fix the sandbox rather than undoing/redoing the massive amount of work that's been done to get this far.

As noted above, it's easier to be systematic about ensuring that skill histories are uniform if we create the unchanged as well as the changed before there's another major update. As you have noticed, after an update, people tend to be less careful about following guidelines and/or precedent than at other times, perhaps in their rush to be first or to be helpful. Creating the entries early sets a good example and makes it easy to fix afterward. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My sandbox would show the exact same as an infobox would, because it is the exact code copied from what balistic linked... I'm just hoipng to find a way to show up only those using the {{Skill History}} template. Most who create or edit skill histories, should be told about the project, just like I was told and I feel Blue knows of it as well as you. Kaisha

05:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand what it is that you are seeing that you think you shouldn't see; I'm not seeing a problem when I look at automatically created skill tables (none of them display the changed or unchanged skill histories).

Also, sure BC, Falconeye, and I are now aware of the existence of the project. However, after a skills update, contributors include infrequent contributors; they won't know about the project (or care). We can make it easier for them to do the right thing by paving the way.

Which brings me to the other point: the project isn't the wiki. It's one expression of the community's best ideas for how to implement something new. However, the community's ideas have evolved away from the original direction of the project; it's important to look at what current is the de facto standard as opposed to only relying on conversations held over a year ago. There have been more recent discussions and the actual work affects people's ideas of what makes the most sense (in terms of how things look and implementation). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Update notes

Guildwiki has update notes going back to 2005. Makes finding when specific changes happened easier since the official guildwars site appears to only have notes going back to 2009.--TahiriVeila 04:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

http://guildwars.com/support/gameupdates/updatearchive-index.php --Silver Edge 05:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Bug fixes?

Ignore me if this has been considered before Should we note bug fixes to skills in the revision histories? For example, Before 12/15/05 Spiteful spirit would not trigger on shouts/stances/instant cast skills. Should bug fixes like these be noted as they involve signiciant changes to the functionality of the skill?--TahiriVeila 04:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Any update should be documented; not just the ones in the major overhauls. Does a bug fix always count as a functionality change? I think largely it will, but by accident; ANet probably wouldn't bother (and we probably wouldn't realize) if the only issue was in the skill resource costs.

* Example 1: non-functionality fix: Skill is supposed to remove two conditions after a successful attack. Instead, it removes all conditions. The bug is fixed and now it removes just one.

* Example 2: functionality fix: skill is supposed to interrupt when the item is dropped, but fails to. After the bug fix, it now interrupts nearby foes.

Although I can see alternative ways of dealing with bug fixes, the above has the advantage of being simple and not requiring us to review any of the skill histories to date; we already look for any function change before changing the note that points to the history. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

To me, I think it would be a good idea to note the bug changes Such as for example say June 8th had an update of a skill, a bug forms. A few days later they update the bug. I think we should do this.
==June 10th==
*A bug in this skill causing the spirits not to interrupt skills was fixed.
==June 8th==
<Make note of the actual changes>

I wouldn't see a problem at all of that. It would keep from having to do "Non-Functionality" and "functionality" which to me would confuse many younger people who play who are not that familiar with those "big words". I am trying to consider players as young as 14 (or younger) that I do know of that plays. I have had my nephew who played the game a few times ask questions like "what's functionality", etc. He's smart enough to know how to play the games, but the "words" can go over his head. So, I try to consider others like that. So, I try to make it more general to just write the notes on the main pages as I've changed them to and then add the notes as they "actually" are in the skill history pages. Because 1.) As an example above, you're showing the skill change in June 8th. 2.) you're showing that they updated a bug that was caused by the skill that no longer happens. Hence, being as true to the updates as possible, instead of just noting the basics and not noting that there actually have been fixes to the skills in updates, etc. Though it may require us to review the skill histories to date, I think that we should to keep it as "true" to the updates as possible as it's documenting the histories with the skills, adding in the bugs being fixed. Kaisha

19:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we should always include the official description of what was changed (whenever we have it). The note on the skill article should remain generic; there is no sense in trying to distinguish how many times and what types of changes for each skill; that's exactly why we have a skill history page separate from the main article. It's easy to keep it simple: the skill changed (or not); it split (or not); one or more of the changes involved functionality (or not).

As far as our target audience: given the amount of jargon and complex mechanics in the game, I don't think we should cater to people who might not be able to follow the link to functionality; that's not any more complicated a concept than Enchantment spell or Recharge time. As it pertains to this project, the only difference between functionality change and not is: did it change only numbers? or something else? (however, for this purpose, a change to/from zero would be a function change, since it's toggling something on/off). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Of which I feel that should only be noted on the Skill History page. Kaisha

22:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The specifics? sure, but several people have told me that they want to know whether a skill has changed in function before they follow the link. (They'd also like to see a new category, Category:Skills that have changed in function since introduction or something along those lines. The linking bit is easy; the categorization is trickier to do automagically.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I've heard others wanting what I mentioned as well as some saying that, but we need consistency with all of them and we don't want the notes on some saying the functionality has changed, while others don't say that. We've got to maintain something that can be used on all, hence those people can click on one more link to find that information. It's not going to hurt them. We have to put it on the skill histories anyway. I don't see the hurt in having those histories be put in that category either, but I think a better category or another category to add would be Skills that have changed since introduction. It would be nice to include actual skills as well in both categories. Kaisha

23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Format update

I'd like to update the format guideline for this project to one I've been currently using to keep a simplified consistency between existing and new pages. The changes are not drastic by any means - instead, it simply involves removing superfluous linking while adding Guild Wiki notes as well as undocumented updates to update descriptions (for example). Is it safe to revise the guideline at the moment or is permission or consent required before said action? Thanks. -- Azasuke1988 03:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I know I haven't worked on the project in quite awhile, but in my opinion, your formatting is just fine. Personally, clean-up in a plus, as it makes the pages look a lot nicer and easier to follow. Regarding re-wording, I would still say not to bother mentioning it unless there was another change. For Desperation Blow, I think that looks fine. Same with Irresistible Blow. Healing Signet is debatable, but because double damage can be different for different classes, -40 armor did affect how players actually interpreted it.

I guess I would say this: If the change will affect how players seriously interpret the skill, or if they decide to use or not to use it based off the change, then it's a noteworthy change.

I'm a bit confused why you chose gray, but it does highlight the changes, so I'm not too worried about it. Blue Clouded 22:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I chose grey to help differentiate official Anet updates (displayed as regular text) from Guild Wiki and undocumented updates - unless you were actually referring to the grey format in general. -- Azasuke1988 23:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Azasuke: could you create a sandbox page to outline the changes you're proposing? Unless I painstakingly review several articles, it's not obvious to me what you'd like to see done differently. Based on what I've seen, I mostly don't have any concerns as long as:

* All changes reference the relevant game update and/or developer notes and/or other documentation (e.g. if the first two options aren't avail)

* It's easy to see at-a-glance if there was a function change and, if there was, the official reason (if avail) and a text description.

* We don't distinguish between bug fixes and other changes to skills (although I'm fine if we ignore cosmetic changes, e.g. to the text description(s) ).

Gray text is used in-game as part of concise descriptions, so I'd prefer to see a different color used...but I encourage you to continue going forward with your other ideas because the articles are much easier to read and follow a more useful standard than they did in the past. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: sandbox page? For the cosmetic changes, I've decided to burn through each update since 2005 and listing any and all actual changes to the skill for now. Should updates/changes to descriptions actually become problematic or just confusing in any way, I will then go back afterwards and possibly remove them. Lastly, is grey reserved for concise descriptions only? I had chosen it as I felt it flowed nicely with the update listings and did not intrude or distract away from the officially documented descriptions. Let me know what you think. -- Azasuke1988 02:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You can use User:Azasuke1988/Sandbox to present your suggestions without affecting a mainspace page.

Gray isn't reserved for concise descriptions, but it has an official usage by ANet, so I think it distracts from the presentation on the skill history pages to use it for something other than a concise description. You can use {{textColor}} to put text into any color you like...and that would also make it easy to change later, e.g. {{textColor|#4D598C|#4D598C}} → #4D598C. See the bottom of my tools page, which has links to some CSS-color utility sites. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 14:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Which color would be suitable? Generally, I feel a change in color (other than monochromatic greyscale) would actually be distracting. And I feel changing text style would do the same to an effect. -- Azasuke1988 04:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Notes before Editing update

Considering that the first two bullets regarding Spirits and Sacrifice costs have been somewhat negated by recent updates to Skill history pages, I'd like to remove them from the project page as:

updates to all spirits - specifically Nature Rituals - affected by that particular update have now been listed per appropriate Skill History page
Sacrifice costs specifically mentioned in skill descriptions have now been reproduced verbatim to those particular skill versions as well as visually listed on skill infoboxes alongside Energy cost, activation time, etc.

Note that the latter is purposed for the sake of faithful accuracy to original skill descriptions. Please let me know if this request may bring up any problems. -- Azasuke1988 06:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC) I have applied the previous suggestion to the Skill History Project page. Please feel free to discuss any problems or conflicts this may incur. -- Azasuke1988 19:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Your changes look fine (or better) to me. Thanks for letting us know. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Cosmetic suggestion: Rearrange update descriptions to below infobox to save space?

First and foremost, this is absolutely a suggestion on page cosmetics: Would it be fine to relocate update listings/descriptions to below each infobox in order to remove the white space that comes with lengthy update listings? For a clear example of this question, please view the two most recent revisions for the Deep Freeze skill history page. Other than perhaps minor disorientation in editing the pages (considering that update descriptions are now sandwiched within the code), I wouldn't actually see any problems with this change. -- Azasuke1988 14:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, nevermind. I just realized the folly of my follies. -- Azasuke1988 14:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)