Talk:Skill quick reference

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Deletion opposition[edit]

I oppose the deletion of this page as it is required by a guideline currently in place on the basis of consensus. Hi Backsword ^^ Misery 10:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I sort of suspect it was you who added it to that guideline. Links are no reason for having a pointless page, links can be changed. Backsword 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It was me who added it to the guideline, but that doesn't invalidate my point. Get the guideline changed, then we can delete the page. The page currently has a point. Misery 10:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I did. You reverted me. And page who's sole purpose is to be mentioned in a guidle line, is a page we don't need. Backsword 10:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No, the whole purpose is to collect together lists of skills with similar mechanics so we don't have huge related skill sections or 50 small pages to keep skill pages uncluttered and well, formatted well. It hasn't been implemented on any skill pages yet, but it's a wiki, so anyone can start doing that whenever they want, that isn't my "job" per se. Also that is what happens (the reversion) when you go and try to change a guideline or policy without discussing it first, hence the week I spent with that talk page on RfC discussing the changes I made. That's how wikis work ^^ Misery 10:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Related subjects? 1. We deprecated that page. 2. This is lists of unrelated subjects. Tell me how 'enchaments with end effects' are related to 'self inflicts conditions'. Also, you can read edit summaries, can't you? Backsword 11:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I never said the subjects were related, but they are lists of skills with mechanical similarities within each list, but not between lists. What is "that page" that you refer to? I can read edit summaries, but you have not used any on this talk page or the page under deletion proposal, so I don't know what you are referring to here ^^ Misery 11:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
List of skills by related subject. As I said, it's old and deprecated. We decided it was a bad idea for the same reason this page is a bad idea. There isn't anyone who needs to compare the things, and it isn't where people look for information.
Es was in refrence to what it was in response to, your comment on your revert. Backsword 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It's only on one page because it makes it possible to find what lists already exist. I don't think we want 50 pages with titles "List of skills that <something>". Some of the lists will be very short, such as "Skills that remove stances". Even if we did separate the lists, we would then need a list of lists (perhaps as a category) to prevent duplication. If you can think of a better way of doing things, feel free to propose it. I do not think a separate page for each list is appropriate and I cannot think of a better way of doing it on my own. Misery 12:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Addition: The edit summary refers to our other discussion, please try to keep that all in one place. Looking at the list you linked, it actually seems to be very similar to this list, but I don't see why you call it deprecated, it is simply unused, perhaps a merge would be appropriate now that it has a use, but it is getting rather long. Misery 12:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I was responing to you... Backsword 12:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
On gww, we have categories for that. And plenty of short pages. Not collections of unrelated short pages stuffed into one. Backsword 12:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Skill pages already have a lot of categories on them, I don't really want to add more. Add too many and they become pointless. I am not massively opposed to splitting this page, but we need a way to keep track of them. Would a category suffice and a rewording to "a link to a relevant page from <category name>" work for you? Misery 13:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The cat would obviously sit on the list page. How would it help keeping track, the concern you listed, if it was on some skills page? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Backsword (talk).
It wouldn't I thought you were proposing categorising skills instead of using lists at all, like with "Skills that have earshot aoe" etc. Going with separate lists in a category would be a proposal to split this article rather than a proposal to delete it however, hence my confusion. Misery 13:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
A split would leave a single article, or a disambig page, hence deletion. Backsword 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to split this and reword the guideline I won't oppose you and it's still well within what was discussed, so I can't imagine anyone else trying to stop you either. I don't have time to split it today though, not to mention I am bad with categories. Misery 13:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you guys still attempting to resolve this? -- ab.er.rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have died down to nothing. I am tempted to say that if no one is going to work to change the guideline, this needs to stay as it is for now. Misery 11:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm for splitting it.
On an unrelated subject, what exactly is the difference between this and the list of skills by related subject? User Raine R.gif is for Raine, etc. 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The main difference is that I didn't know the other one existed :>
This also has some other random relationships that people feel are important for some reason. I don't really care how it's done, I just don't want this crap in the related skills section. Misery 15:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be different categories for "related":
  • Skills that could replace each other in a build (i.e. Disrupting Shot and Concussion Shot are both bow interrupts).
  • Skills that share an uncommon application (i.e. Complicate and Icy Prism both interrupt+disable signets).
  • Skills that are mechanically related (i.e. Glowing Gaze and Glowing Ice both... do the glowing... thing).
Ideally, only the first (or maybe the first and second) would show up on a skill's page, imo. User Raine R.gif is for Raine, etc. 21:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am removing the discussion tag. The reason is that the discussion was mainly between two people and a long time ago, so far consensus looks like we keep this page as it is.

Skills that benefit from hexes/conditions[edit]

Should these sections be split into hexes/conditions on allies/foes? Discord and Divert Hexes aren't really that related, is my thought.

On another note, should we list attributes or assume people can click? -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 20:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See List of skills by related subject#Hex for a page that split skills that affect allies or foes and also lists attributes. --Silver Edge 20:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering about that, since the condition section specifically mentions enemies, while the hex section doesn't. Yeah, I think splitting them would be good. I'd rather not have attributes, at least not like the linked page. Also, exclude all shouts and chants from Skills that affect an area, or include all of them? Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 20:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
"Make Haste!"; "For Great Justice!"; "Coward!". — Raine Valen User Raine R.gif 2:24, 18 Sep 2010 (UTC)
What an embarrassing error. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 03:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm kind of thinking all the sections should be split into offensive skills, defensive skills, and skills in which the category applicable is a drawback (i.e. skills that disable themselves). It sort of makes sense if you think of it in the same way you think of organizing the sections by their verbs - that is, organize it by what one is likely to be searching for. I'm just not sure in what way they should be split. I personally am not fond of bulleted subsections such as on the linked page, but I'm not sure subsections (three-deep headers) would work either.
One last thing before I forget: is the current way of organizing duplicate skills useful? If so, would it be worth using this to list them (and move said template to the mainspace)? -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 05:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Skills that disable skills[edit]

Is there a need for that section, since it duplicates the tables at Disable, which can be sorted by name, cost, attribute, campaign, and alphabetically? --Silver Edge 05:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, I'd love to get a version of that code that lets you choose which skills go into the list without adding a thousand categories to each page. Then it'd be more like "since we're making them load a 400mb page anyway, why not duplicate what's at the disable page". -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 06:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Skills that inflict conditions on self[edit]

I differentiate between skills that inflict conditions and skills that transfer conditions. Am I being too pedantic? Misery 00:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope --JonTheMon 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Just annotate it with "transfers conditions from ally". — Raine Valen User Raine R.gif 2:06, 19 Sep 2010 (UTC)
Then why not just have a "Skills that transfer conditions"? --JonTheMon 04:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It'd technically be a subcategory of "skills that inflict conditions on self", except that it would also have Hypochondria &co on it. — Raine Valen User Raine R.gif 5:43, 19 Sep 2010 (UTC)
Not if you consider infliction and transfer different. The point is, infliction creates the condition. This is useful for builds like Contagionway. If you only used condition transfer in that build you would be relying on the other team having a lot of conditions for it to be effective. It is also useful for builds using Angorodon's Gaze so that you don't have to rely on the enemy team having conditions. Misery 08:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Draw, FF and Martyr should really be on a different category since really you are not inflicting the condition. --Frosty User Frosty Frostcharge sig.jpg 08:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Skills that Target an Area[edit]

The description is quite off. Several of those require a target character, and fail if that target dies. This would include every warrior skill listed, Healing Burst, Defile/Desecrate Enchantments, E-Surge, Ice Spikes (I think. I am not entirely sure about the last one). FleshAndFaith 05:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is pretty whacky. The basic thing I was aiming for was that the skills affect a burst around a certain point in space (as opposed to around a character, since e.g. Teinai's doesn't move if the target moves). -- Armond WarbladeUser Armond sig image.png{{Bacon}} 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Some of it is clearly wrong, just remove it. I can't remember if they changed Whirlwind Attack so that it needed a target, I know it didn't at some point. Misery 13:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I know for sure cyclone axe didn't always need a target. You could just do a graceful pirouette for the hell of it. Either way, I'll also try and clarify the description of that section. FleshAndFaith 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Getting even more whacky. Do we want to create a different section for skills that center on self, as there are quite a number of them just in the Ele tree. Also, how do we want to treat spirits and nature rituals? Namely, Rejuvenation and Agony. FleshAndFaith 00:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is a pain in the ass & isn't kept upto date[edit]

moved from Talk:Skill quick reference#This page is a pain in the ass & isn't kept upto date

I'd like to suggest deletion. 19px Chieftain Alex 14:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Instead of deletion, it could be rewritten to show all the categories in a bullet view instead of the category tree. Or delete -- article only makes sense if it's kept up-to-date and that doesn't seem likely anymore. 75.37.20.209 08:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. Most of these list-sections could be [transcluded] on their respective (or relevant) pages; that would diminish the need to double check this list. It could be rewritten to present an outline that can be automatically maintained via transclusion. Its handy for having every non-traditional/non-official 'list of skills' in front of you... its just LONG!
  2. An additional option is continuing the campaign of adding and/or expanding the existing categories to assist with transclusion (see examples: Category:Lists of skills & Category:Skills by cause effect); that way we only need to update the relevant changes to each skills' page themselves.
--Falconeye 18:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
How much of this is actually out of date? (this page has been here for years and really I'd hate to delete something that so much effort by many users went into..) -Chieftain Alex 19:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It becomes out of date every time there's an update, because no one thinks to double-check this list. The question is: how much work is required to make this article useful to readers? If you already know the "related subject," then you can check an existing article. If you don't, does this page help you find a useful list? Is it accurate? How would we know if some other editor made a mistake? Falconeye's idea of using transclusion could work, but requires a lot of effort even to do it poorly and more effort to do it well. 75.37.16.51 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Shifuimam's Proposal[edit]

Could this solve/tyin with this pages' issue, in addition to Functionality page, all skill lists/pages labeled with Category:Skills and Category:Lists of skills (& subcategories), the kitchen sink, the above mentioned lists, etc? --Falconeye 11:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Every single bit of content in this page could be dynamically reproduced with the above-referenced proposal. Then there would be no need to maintain individual pages for skill lists such as this one. In the meantime, why are we not using #dpl syntax to generate these lists? It would SIGNIFICANTLY cleaner and 100% current all the time, as long as the skill in question is categorized properly. ETA: Okay, so the skills aren't categorized at all. I'd argue that there's a definite benefit to adding skill categories for effects - particularly things like health or energy degeneration and various negative effects like bleeding, crippling, armor penetration, etc. We need to have all the skills categorized as semantically as possible in preparation for the upgrade to Semantic MediaWiki, which (I think) will make my proposal painless to implement. --Shifuimam 00:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Project: Alpha[edit]

Is there a way to alphabetize the list like they do on Wikipedia for insanely long lists? --Falconeye (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please take this opportunity to glance over current lists; make alterations and diffuse lists further as necessary. Next week we'll systematically merge lists into existing lists, polish them, and create missing lists. Case example: "Skills that are replaced with other skills", very unique effect; are these listed somewhere, and if not, should we call them "Echo skills", "Mimic skills", or something else? --Falconeye (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Most dagger skills (see Twisting Fangs) skill infobox has "requires = offhand", "checks = hit", "checks-true = bleeding,deepwound"; are these relevant? outdated? what do they do, and how do they work? Is there anyone this wiki or gw2wiki I could contact thats knowlegable about skill infoboxes? --Falconeye (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
At first glance I can't find any call or use for those parameters. It may be that they are remnants of a past project. No harm in keeping them there if you find them. G R E E N E R 17:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Skill quick reference 2.0 & Skill-infobox categorization[edit]

References for your concenenience

Main discussion[edit]

I've been working on the effects categories, and I just finished the learnable Core skills, so I figured this was a good time for an update. I've expanded the subcategories of Category:Skills by cause effect and emptied some categories that overlapped. I've tried to avoid making categories for effects that only a few skills have (ie only Soothing, Soothing (PvP), and Soothing Images would fit in a hypothetical Category:Skills that cause Decreased Adrenaline Build Rate), but 7 skills could cause Miss and 10 could cause Fail (not counting failure chance linked to attribute). I wasn't sure if more skills cause increased damage to a specific target (the way Frenzy does, like the opposite of Damage reduction), so I didn't make a category for that, either. I also didn't make a Category:Skills that cause Resurrection, which is currently the domain of Category:Resurrection skills, but I could. I'm also holding off on making a category for Attack Speed Reduction until these three move suggestions are resolved.
Finally, I'm having some trouble with damage types. I've ignored bonus damage like that of Power Attack (because all weapons can have several different kinds of damage, plus other reasons), but some of them directly cause damage of their own. When the skill explicitly says Fire Damage or Piercing Damage, that's one thing, but I'm not sure what to make of skills that just say "Damage". I'm not sure if I should list it as typeless damage, shadow damage, armor-ignoring damage, physical damage, or what. Vile Touch, Obsidian Flame, and Backfire are some good examples of the types of skills I'm talking about here. Blue Totoro 04:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. More category-cleanup. What we need is a standardized "prefix-"/"-suffix" pattern that is grammatically correct and easy to remember. Looking at "Cause effect" holistically, words like "Increased"/"Decreased" as a prefix flow better. In-game description terms takes priority (unless its just plain-stupid); we should avoid unofficial terms (i.e. "special", "boost", "buff") as those are often "terms of convenience" created by contributors for lack of agreement or official sources (i.e. Vanguard Foes). I also believe we should "import official GW2 terminology" (i.e. Control skills, Echo-type skills) if doing so makes it more concise or better grammatic sense.
  2. There's always going a few one-offs that wont fit; no matter how hard we pigeonhole them. I've' created Category:Skills by unique classifications as a container for those, and we can always revisit those issues. Damage only matters to armor/skills. Anets' rule of thumb is that any effect that is not <lifesteal, degen, etc.> is considered "damage" if they trigger damage-dependant effects.
  3. Does anyone know who coded Skill infobox and how to contact them?
  4. Is there any reason to keep "Special skill"? Ive asked User:MithranArkanere (who created it) opinion of it. --Falconeye (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Quick steps:
  1. I've created User:Greener/Skill infobox testing for anyone to play with. Break it all you wish. I'll start to go through the other issues you've been coming across.
  2. I'm not sure if skills need a parent categorization of Special skills. It's not an official term, so anything under that heading can be turned to either a root category, or given a more descriptive/useful parent category.
  3. For skills of unknown damage type, create a category for them called "undefined damage type skills" or "undetermined damage type skills" (no coffee in system, so my creativeness is lacking).
  4. Sometimes there may be only a small handful of skills which fit into a category. If the category is important, then make the category. Missing and failing are different. Some categories are being used by DPL to populate lists, for example this list of skills that fail. Moving these categories around may have already depopulated some DPL lists (but heck, that just means more going back and editing of pages).
  5. I'm indifferent when it comes to those three category moves. That's more of a "Can we get a bot to clean that up later" issue, and can be pending for a bit. Once you've got a full list of swaps that you'd like done, you can swing by Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Editing bots at any time. Who knows, maybe Mike O'Brien will dust off his wiki bot and help :D.
I'll keep going through things here while I've got time this morning. G R E E N E R 17:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

<indent> Update time again. I finished adding effects to all the learnable skills, including PvE-only ones. For the most part, it's consistent, but there are some odd spots where I changed my mind halfway through or someone edited after me. I never made any categories for increased or decreased durations, and I treated some decreased duration skills like removal skills (e.g. Recovery is in Category:Condition removing skills) but I think I missed some. I also made a new category Category:Skills that cause Skill Copying near the end. I put in all the ones I could remember but I might have forgotten some. I didn't make categories for effects that only a few skills have, especially if every one of those skills are in each others' related skills sections. I also didn't edit any spirit attack skills. Bloodsong got Category:Skills that cause Life Stealing, not Bloodsong (attack). Same goes for necromancer minion skills and ranger and ritualist passive skills. I didn't add the skill effects for the Asura summons or Ebon Vanguard Assassin Support, though. If someone objects, I'm fine with a change, so long as they remain consistent. Finally, I'm not sure if I should add effects to temporary skills or monster skills. It might be more obstructive than helpful if each category is full of skills the player can't use, but there's arguments for the reverse, too. Anyways, sorry it took me so long to finish this. I had some weird things going on. Blue Totoro 04:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

That's an incredible amount of work you've put in! I know that FE has some modification's that he'd like for the skill infobox that I've not been able to make happen, but if there's something else that you'd like, let me know. G R E E N E R 17:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
What is currently needed is a "parameter" for affects that benefits from or only triggers on condition. Category:Skills by requirement already exists. Greener, can you create a "requires1-5" and auto-link it to that category: basically make it behave exactly as 'Causes' and 'Removes'. Actually, measure twice, cut one: we should double-check to make sure everything is named/cat- exactly before we do that. Is there ANYTHING that should be changed/fixed before we continue? --Falconeye (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The veracity of the work is something that will take me longer to dig through, if that's where you'd like some immediate help. Setting up those parameters shouldn't be to hard once you think we're ready. G R E E N E R 20:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Currently on condition-related lists. New parameter options are:

  • Skills that interact with <"insert">
  • Skills that prevent with <"insert">
  • Skills that benefit from <"insert">
  • Skills with <"insert">-dependent effects

Doesn't have to be worded exactly as such. --Falconeye (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Test example[edit]

I just finished tidying-up List of consumables. Compare before and after; you can reach any item within 2 clicks. Its an excellent example of SQR would look like. Also please check for errors, as I always manage miss at least one. --Falconeye (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A couple of things you'll need to be conscious of:
  1. The Table of Contents at the moment is non-functional.
    • People attempting to use it for navigation will get frustrated.
  2. Having the "show" appear on the far right means that it's out of view from people who are scanning the page.
    • The page simply looks like it has no content.
    • NPC's like Cynn have the "show" moved closer to the centre, which may be more useful.
I'll ponder ways to make the ToC more user friendly. Otherwise, I do see what you're attempting to do. Keep using List of consumables as a testing ground; that was a good call to do so. G R E E N E R 07:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Latter fixed: What is minimum "width" standard these days for tablets, smartphones and desktops? Is this something to keep in mind, or is the wiki already capable of factoring those in? In the old-days, web-designers only had "liquid" and "solid" formats; now they are able do "jello" (a term coined by my teacher). --Falconeye (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Damn good question, one I never thought of, and one I don't have an answer to. We may not know unless we either get a complaint or test it out (which I'm not able to do). G R E E N E R 06:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I wonder what happens if anyone get asked to unveil the meaning of "jello"? I mean, depending on the situation and the status of the person that were asking it they might feel it rightful to demand economic repayment to respond. --Corporation (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
"jello" is a dessert made made with sweetened water and flavored gelatin. My teacher used it as a metaphor for the best attributes of "solid" and "liquid" webpage design; and compensation is not required. ^_^ --Falconeye (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes! Jello like in Jelly Bean.. I thought the obvious meaning of it was to point out that jellous people were around or that a frightened shaky person has got legs like jelly. --Corporation (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

2k17[edit]

I appreciate the in-depth discussions above, but in my humble opinion:

  • This article seems like it will most likely be too much work to get done.
  • I find little differences between this and actual categories with sub-categories.
  • Categories are already in place and there appears to be a great selection of them to quickly reference multiple types of skills.
  • Every sub-type you can imagine can yet again be split to more specific parameters.
  • A quick reference article where you have to figure out which letter is used for a query seems counter-intuitive.
  • Bullet points with skill names and profession icons is the opposite of a quick reference, because you have to click the actual skills and leave the articles to figure out what they do.
  • Most of these entries are done more effectively on articles specifically for the various parameters.
  • The more lists we make, the longer the page load time will be. Splitting them up further detracts from the quick part again.
  • It is very messy and has existed messily on the main space for a long time. This is not a good look.

Also, this article would be instantaneously replaceable by the basic features of the semantics web. Although that won't be much of an argument here, due to the nature of its development. (But it would be so sweet to have!) Either way I am and have been struggling to see the point in actual practise. Wise me up, Scotty! - Infinite - talk 15:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)