User talk:Falconeye/Archive02

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Hey hey hey..[edit]

No, you don't put links in the concise description. →[ »Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png (talk ]← 04:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this the official policy? I keep getting alot of mixed messages on this issue (read above posts/links) --Falconeye 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not that you don't put it in the concise, the policy states, if it's already linked once. Doesn't need to be linked again. →[ »Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png (talk ]← 04:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
And what of the policy regarding listing pages (such as List of elite ritualist skills or List of PvE-only skills)...Ive asked about this beforehand and the responce regarding this was "I never considerd that.../I suppose ok to continue". If I and/or they were incorrect, and this is indeed the correct policy, should I undo -ALL- my concise edits over the past years and remove all links from the "List of..." edits ive made? --Falconeye 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Nah, just leave it as is. →[ »Halogod User Halogod35 Sig.png (talk ]← 06:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Henchmen attributes[edit]

When adding attributes for henchmen found in Shing Jea Island [1] [2] or any other region where the level of the henchmen differs from outpost/explorable area to outpost/explorable area, please indicate at what level the attributes correspond to. --Silver Edge 06:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Work in progress. Feel free in taking the initiative to edit anything you find to be incorrect and/or dont agree with. With the exception of 22nd October 2009 update, the majority of these were disorganized/inaccurate/outdated, as few seems to bother with them and with little imput from anet. Thus im forced to use a combination of probability/testing/guess-work. ^_^ --Falconeye 06:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
So.... do we need repetitive lists of skills, if the skills are pretty much the same? --JonTheMon 01:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The Henchmen formatting is all over the place. im trying to aggragate them into standardize layout that is detailed and informative for newbies. And I really tired of looking at these bars and wondering what exact skill and what extact attributes, ect. --Falconeye 01:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, pretty much, if there's a () after a skill, you probably won't have it until the character is level 20 (either naturally or in HM). And do we really need to say in what areas the character is what level? I do agree that knowing the attributes is nice. --JonTheMon 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Repetative bars were not my intention, since still in midst of editing dozen hero pages simaltaneously while triple checking thier skills/behavior in the game and cross referencing various outdated pages looking for errors. If I were a newbie with little knowledge of gw, id appreciate the levels since there may be instances where such info is relavent/useful (as an Allied NPC for instance) and/or may directly corralate with Attibute spread. Attributes are nice! Again Im not 100% certain what attributes they have (only Anet knows for sure) particularly the newbie areas, so im left with a combination of testing vs. comparisons and level-advancement vs. the "learning curve" and the assumption that Anet also tweaked the attributes in a way Players/Heroes would actually use. We both assume elite skills are available to henchmen for HM-play unless proven otherwise, but someone might not which is what this wiki is designed for in mind. But then again Aidan and Odurra and Gehraz -never- had elites in either level 20 (either naturally or in HM) before the update. Since the October update, many of the heroes (and relating pages) "...contains information...that has changed since the original writing... updated to reflect the current state of the game..." and thats what im trying to do, since mostly everyone uses heroes and didnt bother editing/updating anything beyond skill-bar changes. As a side note perhaps I should create a feedback page requesting attribute/skill-bar displays (same way they display for GvG/HA Henchment) that could double in giving new players effective "sample" builds. That would be nice. ^_^ --Falconeye 02:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gods and their patronity[edit]

I think you're going overzealous with that. For instance, Grenth is the only patron of Ritualists, so all of their attributes is his. You're doing the same thing that you did here on all of the god pages, and this is incorrect. All of rangers goes under Melandru, all of Necromancers and Ritualists go under Grenth. Not every profession is split so much like you seem to think - which, by the way, your additions to the Gods of Tyria article were very off, and now you're doing the same to the individual god pages. Please look more into these things before adding. -- Konig/talk 04:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Odurra[edit]

You should read this. - Reanimated X 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rotting Flesh?[edit]

Rotting Flesh doesn't function even remotely similarly to Glyph and Signet. Why are you adding it to the various notes? User Felix Omni Signature.pngelix Omni 06:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If an error is made, please correctl; its late and im tired and may not be thinking straight. Also see this build AP Signet Synergy. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falconeye (talk) at 06:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC).
Having the skills in a same build doesn't mean they always have a synergy. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 06:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Skill history[edit]

Hey there Falconeye and thank you for your interest in the Skill history project. When creating skill histories, please follow the guidelines. Here is an example for you. –User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 23:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget {{Skill history}} and also a {{clear}} isn't needed at the end of a page :P –User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 02:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I can't remember where, but at some point it was recommended to wait til many pages had skill history before putting a link in the infobox, making your added notes obsolete. Just pointing it out. i'll try to find where we talked about that. --JonTheMon 04:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, here Template_talk:Skill_infobox --JonTheMon 04:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your changes to NPC lists[edit]

Was there some discussion where name suddenly meant profession because last time I checked a name doesn't mean one's profession. For instance there are multiple names to a single profession in many groups of NPCs. Likewise, there are some which have a single name with multiple professions. So surely there was a discussion I don't know of where there was a consensus to change profession to name despite the fact that it is simply wrong. Mind linking to where that is, please? -- Konig/talk 20:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ive been updating/merging/cross-referencing/correcting incosistencies to the Creature type/Affiliation, and been using links to and from relating pages as an example. If ive errored, then is there a standard formatting applicable to all? --Falconeye 20:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't know but Profession!=Name. That, aside from you adding creature types to creature type pages (such as you did with Nightmare), is the only issue really. -- Konig/talk 20:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you took it upon yourself to clean up the army/affiliation/creature pages, but it does seem that "army" is the semi-official way of referring to the different groups. Any way that this could be brought up? Also, the current way that you have Species and Army set up leads to some circular searching. I don't know what your final plan is, but could you make the proper information easier to find from those pages? G R E E N E R 18:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Feature[edit]

Only put the feature tags on pages nominated here, please. The purpose of the tag isn't to put it up to nominated but to make nominated pages recognizable by those who are not commons in the project, and to direct them to the project/discussion on the article. -- Konig/talk 20:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "shadows"...[edit]

There's no such thing as that. Nor is there an "Joko's Army Awakened" and the like. Also, please don't put specific names in the lists of hostile NPCs - those are meant for generic members otherwise we'd be putting in every boss (also, Joko in the desolation is never hostile). Please be a bit more careful with your edits. Thank you. -- Konig/talk 06:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was figuring that out until you resolved the issue. The mummies have Awakened and Ancient, and others have distinctions between region/affiliations. What should i use in place of shadows and darkness in terms of affiliation? --Falconeye 06:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the Awakened and Ancient pages are perfect for the armies of Joko and Zoldark (and not just those with that name in it). It shouldn't be done by name, otherwise we'd have a Charr Lord page, and many others. Why would the shadows and darknesses need an affiliation when there is the Shadow Army and most of the things which I'm assume you mean are Nightmares in elite areas. If there isn't a known affiliation in lore, it is most likely just a <region> wildlife affiliation or no affiliation. I don't know how people classify non-elite area wildlife, so if there isn't a known affiliation (lore or not), I just leave it as "unknown." -- Konig/talk 06:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd just assume there was different "subtypes" of Nightmares should it be proven that Nightares were not a subtype, but infact a Supertype/Type. So I am to assume that the FoW army of shadow, the RoT army of shadow, and the DoA army of darkness are in fact the same Shadow Army fighting force, just operating in mutiple spheres of conflict, in the same manner as we veiw our U.S. troops operating in Iraq, Pakistan and Afganistan? --Falconeye 07:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Like I said over on Talk:Nightmare, I don't think there are any "sub" and "super" for either creature types or affiliations. There are just multiples for some creatures. And I fail to see how there would be any subtypes among the Nightmares. And yes, all three Shadow Army groups are indeed of the same Shadow Army. They are all explicitly called such in-game and are all said to be serving Menzies. And it isn't so much as three areas of conflict so much as it is all in the Rift in a war against the then five gods - mostly against Balthazar, the others are aiding Abaddon (or Mallyx). -- Konig/talk 07:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Trait, susceptibility, resistance[edit]

Those don't seem like noteworthy terms needing their own articles. --JonTheMon 18:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Source. It may very well be a necessisary distinction; I know it looks messy, but its a place holder until a better version is found... the undead are driving me crazy. --Falconeye 18:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Mith helped clear things up over here. Undead have one affiliation: Undead. Not all undead take double damage from holy due to having or lacking a skill (as I thought but couldn't remember the name nor find it). -- Konig/talk 22:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Kanaxai Trivia[edit]

I don't recall a "Kanaxai" ever being added to Cthulhu's name. Where is Kanaxai in any of the Cthulhu mythos? -- Konig/talk 22:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Source. Kanaxai is a play on Cthulhu's many name references. I tacked the wiki link for independed research, since ive got 5+ reference-books currently laid out infront of my desk regarding creature types/affiliations (undead chiefly among them), and digging threw Lovecraft material is time consuming itself. --Falconeye 23:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I went through the wiki and found no "Kanaxai" so I think that your source is incorrect. At least, with the Kanaxai name. Cthulhu is indeed served by "Deep Ones" - and Oni do have a Cthulhu-like look (just take off the wings), but aside from that what else is there aside from similarities which can be found in, well, any cult. -- Konig/talk 23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
A valid point. ^_^ --Falconeye 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

New Suggestion: Lore Faction[edit]

(Repost)

Based on Mith's details. In cases of Creature Type overlap, the primary takes precedence while the secondary takes desciptor "(-)", and Lore Faction frees up Affiliation for The Undead Army while allowing StoneSummit/Dredge, Afflicted/Sickened/Shiroken, etc. This would actually allow for notable distinctions such as Bandits, Guilds, Warbands, etc, (such as Arred's Crew, The Fierce, The Oddbodies, The Obsidian Flame, The Peacekeeper, and The Ebon Falcon) that operate seemingly independently within any said Affiliation/Creature Type. --Falconeye 05:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Example 1: After presearing, "<-insert your party->" are recruited into the ranks of the Ascalon Vanguard, an elite "special forces" Faction of the greater Ascalon Army Affiliation composed entirely of the Racial Creature Type known as Humans.
Example 2: Maybe D&D Ranger and Hunting Grounds can help is out with better ideas.
Region Type Affiliation Faction Name Trophy
Guild Wars Nightfall
The Desolation Elemental
(construct)
Undead Awakened Elementalist 24 (26) Carven Effigy Mummy Wrappings
Guild Wars Eye of the North
Vloxen Excavations Elemental
(construct)
Undead Ancient Elementalist 28 (30) Ancient Effigy
Assassin 28 (30) Ancient Statue
Undead Bone
Guild Wars Bonus Mission Pack
Kourna
(The Battle of Jahai)
Elemental
(construct)
Undead Awakened Elementalist 24 Carven Effigy N/A

Stop with the affiliation page[edit]

Most of the things you're putting up are lore only (Affiliations and Creature types are mechanics!). Nearly everything you put up should be removed in fact. So please, stop editing. Before you said you can research but it takes too long in regards to the trivia - but research, it's better than having to go back and undo everything you did (or fix it). -- Konig/talk 10:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please hold up with your template changes.[edit]

Before you go spreading the template changes any further, I'm trying to figure out a good way to condense these into fewer templates without making the templates too big. So, to avoid unnecessary changes in the (near) future, please hold off on those changes. -- Konig/talk 02:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Minigame[edit]

Were you planning on creating the categories and their structure for the minigame tag you added? As well, use plurals for the 'affiliation'. G R E E N E R 00:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Were you going to tackle this? Or shall I just do it tomorrow? G R E E N E R 21:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I just tossed the categories under Category:Minigames, but I didn't know if you wanted to move the actual minigames to the new sub-categories. I really think there's a better way to handle Tolkano's service, as I don't think it's even necessary in the infobox and it's category would be awkward. Suggestions? G R E E N E R 06:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, was away for the weekend. Honestly whatever you feel is necessary is fine with me, i was looking for proper affiliations, services, professions, etc. to fill in on various pages that had those blank, and thus minigames was the only one that seemed appropriate, so i used it. Unfortunately, im not wiki-savy enough as id like to figure out half the things your guys do here. ^_^ --Falconeye 07:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries! I've been busy too, and I've only learned a small amount of the wiki code, etc., through trial and error. The infobox tends to create categories for most of the information that we put in there, such as affiliation and type. It also combines information, such as campaign and service to create different categories, such as what happened with Tolkano and the attempted creation of Category:Core automated tournaments. I think it would be best to strip poor Tolkano of the "service" detail for the moment. G R E E N E R 18:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not add unrelated templates to pages[edit]

I'm talking about the {{continents nav}} template. Stop adding them to every race article. It's irrelevant! -- Konig/talk 04:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Should I create a "Races" template instead? --Falconeye 05:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be an unnecessarily and pointlessly large template. Categories are used for a reason. Template navs are not needed to be put on every single article... -- Konig/talk 05:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Spirit note[edit]

I removed that note because I tested the behavior you mentioned and was not able to replicate it. Have you found otherwise? --Irgendwer 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There is almost-to-always an average 1 second lag between the completion of a ritual's skill activation, and the actual skill effect. Before Signet of Spirits became meta, I would use Offering of Spirit noticed that when skill-chained to Ritual with no existing spirit, while using a 40/40 mod, I would still sacrifice health even as my spirit was halfway through its "rising from the ground" binding animation sequence. For all the Spirit Lord variations ive ran since Factions, the spirit range effects of skills such as Recuperation and Shelter have on average 1 second lag after completion of the skill's activation time, which is approximate to the spirits binding animation sequence, which also leads me to believe that the spirits lifespan and "other" variable statistic factors dont kick in until after it completes its binding animation sequence. Now that Im thinking about it... would Banish or Spiritual Pain trigger their conditional effect in mid-binding? --Falconeye 02:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been able to reproduce that at all using Spirit Siphon, a 40/40 set, several different binding rituals, and 16 Fast Casting for overkill's sake. Even for Displacement, whose effect icon doesn't appear for an unusually long time after it is summoned, I was able to queue Siphon and get energy every time. I tried Offering of Spirit too and got the same results. --Irgendwer 03:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
So, at what point was this anomoly changed/fixed? Mind you I havent rigorously tested this since the last big rit update. --Falconeye 03:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea. Judging by a note in the Offering of Spirit revision history, I'd say...more than 9 months ago. I didn't even start using spirits until some time after the SoS buff so you know more about their history than I do. --Irgendwer 03:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
That does place it roughly the same time as the last rit update... Ill need to retest parameters/variables for both PvP and PvE. If you or others feel this anomally has truly been removed, then perhaps this shouldbe marked as a historical footnote like so many other anomolies/glitches? --Falconeye 03:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If the change was indeed made, it's a fairly minor mechanical detail. I don't find it nearly as interesting as balance-related historical notes such as these. Of course, that's just my opinion and others may feel differently. --Irgendwer 04:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Henchmen Categories[edit]

Hey, just trying to figure out the structure that you wanted for the Category:Henchmen. Obviously this category holds all of the possible henchmen by name, but were you hoping to create sub-categories based on profession, or in-game title, or both? For example, the disambig page Assassin Henchman is included under Henchmen, which effectively is redundant as those henchmen are already listed in Henchmen. But if you had wanted to create a sub-category for all assassin henchmen, that could be possible. I'm just trying to figure out the over-all structure you were hoping for so that I can help organize it a bit better. G R E E N E R 00:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly sub-categories based on profession and those sharing the "--- henchmen" descriptors in addition to the existing campaign-based category; ran into problems with descriptors such as Monk Henchmen, and redirected pages like Grave Henchmen. --Falconeye 03:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, I see how Monk henchmen would be a pain. Let me sit down with a quick pen and paper, and see if I can get some nicer subcategories done. You've basically mapped them out already. G R E E N E R 04:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to try something like User:Greener/Sandbox/Henchmen categories. Let me know if you were planning something different. G R E E N E R 04:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe... to help prevent "--- henchman" clutter on the Subcategories section of Category:Henchmen (particulary since Pages in category "Henchmen" already lists them) and to kill two birds with one stone... it could be something like: <Category>Henchmen → <Subcategories>"by Campaign" and "by Profession" → <Pages in category "Necromancer Henchman">"by Blood Hench, Cultist Hench, Grave Hench, Vile Hench, ect.?
Yep, that's basically what I've done. If you look from the standpoint of Category:NPCs by profession, you can see how each profession now has two sub-categories (bosses and henchmen). I've also gone add added professions under Category:Henchmen. For those categories which didn't fit into either profession or campaign, I've chosen to delete them. I'm sure there's some fine tuning that can be done, but I hope this is close to what you were aiming for. G R E E N E R 06:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ritualist Playing guide article[edit]

I know you want this article to be complete and up-to-date as possible but can you please keep in mind that these playing guide articles are meant to be for beginners? Adding more information to these articles that can be confusing to starting players. Especially information of niche builds that are either non-viable, hard to play, or mediocre. The article grew by over 6kb since my last pruning. [3]. It is by far the largest playing guide article, and I would like to get it back under 29kb by highlighting the skill combinations that ritualists excel at instead of having every possible combinations of everything in there. Thanks! --Lania User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg18:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Pointless categories[edit]

You know most of the recent categories you've made are fairly pointless, right? Particularly the Category:Toy makers and the Category:Councilors... and all those other empty ones. They serve no purpose, really. Along with half of the stuff in Category:Occupations. That category should be shrunk, not expanded. Because it's just not that useful. And going into specific jobs is less helpful. -- Konig/talk 05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I was covering as many broad categories I could think. I suppose Toy makers could be moved to category:artist. Wikipedia defines Artificer is a specific-kind of engineer/mechanic. Are there no NPC's that can remotely be considered Doctors or Scientists? --Falconeye 06:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
For the last: No specific NPC. There's only one person called an artificer that I know of. And really, the whole occupations category is unnecessary. It was a set of categories made to link like-in-universe job NPCs together... for some odd reason. -- Konig/talk 06:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Merging Artificer with Engineer; tagging the rest for deletion; should Toy maker be renamed, or moved to engineer/golemancer or artist? --Falconeye 06:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Artist for now. Though I'd prefer all of those categories removed. -- Konig/talk 07:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Stub pages[edit]

Stub implies that it has some sort of content. Just stub by itself is worthless. --JonTheMon 21:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Skill split[edit]

I see you've not given any reason for these splits. Yes, i've made contributions on these pages myself. But some of these skills, like Endure Pain, function just as it's warrior skill duplicate, which clues that it is infact the same skill. Then the split would be absolutely pointless... So i'd like to know your reason behind the splits. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 23:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, poke has a point at Talk:Dragon Slash (Turai Ossa). - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 09:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Attribution[edit]

I see you've created a bunch of articles on aoe and spirits and stuff. And that's perfectly fine, if you htink they are needed. And I see ypou've done it by copypasting stuff ftom other articles. ANd that's fine too, in a way. But you haven't attrbuted the stuff ypou copy.

This site is under the gfdl license, and that means content is not free to use. You must pay, not in money but in other ways. One of the key ways is in recognition, and thus the license has a lot of requirements for that. The easiest way is normally just to post a line to the original in the edit summary, but listing the contributors on the talk page will do.

Psating this because I don't want to go around and delete tag all the articles you've made. I'll hope you can do this. Backsword 15:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What is attribution? Can you please elaborate/link to it, because im just a non-wiki fluent-user getting by though oberving, and have always tried to make things better (and not worse). ;_; Besides thoughs youve mentioned, I have no idea what (let alone how many) pages relate to this matter; do I need to manually go to EVERY page (over +3 years) to "post-originals/list-contributors"? --Falconeye 08:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Flash spell and Flashchant?[edit]

First of all, these are not general terms. And second, are these commonly used, or did you just make them up? - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 10:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ive encounterd random Zaishen PUG's throughout this week that used these (and other variations), and specifically several allaince members have used these two abbreviations (they claim to be Magic:tg players). I have no knowlege of it being more common-usage then that though. --Falconeye 10:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Please comment[edit]

Talk:Shiro_Tagachi#Demon_creature_type. I'm curious why you put Shiro as "Demon" - I have a feeling it's due to the Lightbringer skill (which actually doesn't look at the type of a creature, despite the wording, since NF titans count but not Proph titans, or NF torment creatures count but not Proph/Fact torment creatures, etc.) -- Konig/talk 22:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Because 4 of 5 envoys had their type set as demons. --Falconeye 22:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Quest lists navbar[edit]

I've undone some of your recent edits adding {{quest lists navbar}} to quests. As the navbar documentation indicates, it's meant for quest list articles, not every quest.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nav bar on the UI page[edit]

I moved the navbar on the User interface article to the bottom (where navbars are located on all/nearly all other articles). You reverted. Could you explain your reasoning? Thanks.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I was confused with the Navbar on quest pages; so thank you for that; same goes for the User Inferace as I dont even remember how/or if/or when i reverted them. Sorry! I need to stop wiki-editing during graveyard hours ^_^. --Falconeye 07:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
NP either way. For the UI page, I thought you might have had a specific reason why it made sense to be above the fold; thanks for changing things back...at least until you remember why it made sense to you earlier.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I may have been thinking along the lines of "... that UI box could replace that list of Panels and dialogs, for a "at a glance" effect ..." but by then was close to falling asleep (insomnia sucks). --Falconeye 07:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there's probably a better way to show the panels and dialogues (but probably not the navbar and the current list). Hmmn, let us both give that some thought. (And, yes, worrying about insomnia keeps me up all night).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Skill history[edit]

Thanks for creating some of the missing skill history articles for the Avatars. Remember to add {{skill history}} to the top (that also categorizes the page as well).  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do; Truthfully, im tempted to tag EVERY skill page with an actual history with the "Trivia: this skill has undergone revisions..." since I think the majority of folks who would taken the time to edit Skill History pages do not know or are unable, as there is now easy/direct/non-confusing link to the "Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Skill history" nor easy access to references to skill versions available BEFORE this wiki came online (Gamependium helps; but its accuracy at times are questionable). I do plan on (eventually) completing the Ritualist skills with as much accurate-details as possible whenever I have the time/energy/boredom, but its impossible for me to check the other 3,000+ skills. So im thinking of doing that (even if they are RED) to help motivate others players/wiki-users into updating on a need-to/case-by-case basis. I didnt know the project existed until I stumbled on it by accident and tag-lined to my user-page. Are there plans to make these skill history "Standerd" in the skill info boxes, similar to skill animation and other? If so, waiting until there is a "sizable archive" before unloading such a feature will take forever! --Falconeye 06:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a worthwhile project, but I wouldn't tag every skill. (1) Some skills haven't changed (not many, but there are some). (2) Putting the trivia in the article begs the question, what was changed; if we can't answer that, well, it's not a very helpful note. Plus, if we can't document the changes, perhaps people only think it has changed. However, if you really think it's important, please raise the issue in a more public forum to see what the community would like to see. (Near as I can tell, many would love to see the histories; some don't care at all; and hardly anyone wants to do the painstaking work — it's like baking cookies: everyone wants to eat 'em, no one wants to clean the dishes.)
Guild Wiki (this wiki's predecessor) has older information about skills in its history. You can check there and there's a handy tab on each article that allows you to go from Guild Wiki directly back to any identically named article here.
The project has evolved some since the project page was started, so perhaps you want to update it with the current practice:
  • There's {{skill history}} and {{unchanged skill history}}.
  • There are standard notes (but no template) for the skill pages: for split skills, combined skills, and skills that have been split (but no longer are).
  • When the skill has changed, the original project participants tried to include all iterations of the skill on the page: current, original, and everything in-between.
    • PS Don't forget to also add the current version of the skill.
  • When the skill has changed, folks have included links to the update in which they were changed.
    • I haven't done this in my recent edits (why? laziness).
Again I think it's great that you are adding more skill histories (esp. for the Derv update). Thank you.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
You may want to double-check the {{removed skill history}}, as it was my attempt to address the "skills that have been split (but no longer are)" annoying issue, as im pretty sure ive goofed somwhere. I may as well do seperate tags "split skills" and "combined skills" for easier editing references, as once this project gets halfway done (if ever) the primary category:skill history page will be MONSTROUS! ^_^--Falconeye 07:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't use removed skill history; after a merge, the PvP skill article gets retired, but its skill history still applies (we just add the merge as current). In other words, there's nothing inherently different about a a skill history page for a PvP skill vs a PvE skill (regardless of how many times it was split/merged). I think it's more confusing to add a third template into the mix.
However, as with adding a note (even without a skill history), it might be good to check with others. I have a strong opinion, but I can see others strongly disagreeing for good reasons.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
So... it makes simpler to do something like this Ritual Lord and let readers compare, then to do this skill's history is listed under these categories as "split skill", "merged skill", "removed skill", "unchanged skill", "capture/aquisition skill", "alpha/beta/original-version skill", etc? What about profession based sub-categories; Ritualist skill histories? How i wish for standardize policy/format so I can at least do Ford's assembly-line style editing without condradicting opinions from other respected users. --Falconeye 08:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you please[edit]

Remove your skill balance suggestions from the pve category? Cuz it really doesn't belong there. --Boro 10px‎ 08:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Which one(s)? And why do they not belong there? --Falconeye 01:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently, some (all?) of the skills are classified as:
  • Skill feedback → [Prof] → [Skill] and
  • Player vs. Environment → PvE skills, suggesting that they are PvE-only skills
I don't find it a problem, but others might not understand why e.g. Feedback:User/Falconeye/Earth_Shaker appears on the second list, instead of merely on the first. If you remove the second categorization, others might find it easier to filter. I guess the thinking is that, if you want to comment on a split skill, you could create a suggestion for [Skill X] and another for [Skill X (PvP)] rather than adding the second category to distinguish. Ultimately, though, I think it's up to you.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
So some are confused by how the "Feedback:List of X" organizes and displays suggestions, and cannot discern the difference of PvE-version of skills suggestions from the PvE-only skills? (I never had trouble with those distinctions.) So Boro is requesting I post BOTH PvP/PvE-versions of skills using only the Prof → Skill categories, instead of using multiple overlapping categories when more then one equally applies? I suppose if its easier to him filter things, then its maybe easier for Anet. ^_^ Anything else? Will others be recieving this notice, because im not the only one who does this.
And while on the subject, theres been alot of traffic on John Stumme's feedback-page; is there concencus regarding outdated feedbacks (such as all those Shadow Form ones) and those that are just not technically feasible for whatever reason? I feel that most wik-users who use the feedback process would benefit 100% from any kind of vetting/filtering process; I'd even welcome deleting most of my pages, as it will only serve in forcing me to redirect my focus on refining the good ideas. --Falconeye 03:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't speak for Boro, so I'm not sure whether I've ID'd the issue correctly or not. In your shoes...I would probably drop the second category because the first would be sufficient. (I would use the second for a generalized suggestion about skills.) However, as I mentioned, I think it's your call.
On the other topic: I don't see any consensus developing about evolving the current feedback space much...and least, not yet. (I have some strong personal opinions about it, but those aren't relevant to the current topic.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Functionality has changed vs will be changed[edit]

Could you explain why you are marking skills such as Oppressive Gaze and Invoke Lightning as if they have changed already?

I commented out the text for OG so that it will be easy to make the page current whenever ANet releases the update. But until then, the skill remains the same. It's especially confusing to follow the link to a skill history page ...and find that it shows the same functionality as on the main article.

Thanks.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So he like to get an early start on things, good for him.
Tho i would suggest keeping them on your user pager for now, as thing do change and maybe these skills won't get changed as planned --BobbyT User Talk: BobbyT 05:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Existing pages are easier to edit then creating new ones for most users. Apologies for any errors. --Falconeye 05:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that editing the existing pages is the easier way to go. My question is: why are you changing them before the skills have actually changed? You can easily use <!-- --> to comment out the changes until the day they go live.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I plan to work on each individual skill using Gamepedia/Guild Wiki as reference while they are presented on Feedback:Skill update previews while the are presented in bite sized chunks. ^_^ I doubt it will be an issue within 5 days by anet's reckoning. (the dervish updates were so massive, i was in "oh, hell no!" mode) lol. --Falconeye 06:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What is wrong with using commenting to add the notes, but suppressing the display until the release actually happens? For all we know, it might be delayed a week for a variety of reasons. As it stands now, the articles incorrectly state the functionality has changed. And the skill histories incorrectly imply the same. I think it's especially confusing to anyone who isn't aware that ANet sometimes releases update notes in advance of a release.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that changes to the pages should not be "visible" until the changes are actually made in the game. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Again, please hold off on making visible any notes suggesting that a skill has changed unless it has already done so and you are prepared to create the skill history article in full. If ANet releases on schedule, it will be a week before the changes are in the game; we document the game, not what might be. The skill update preview articles tell us ANet's plans; we don't need to confuse the readers by acting as if those changes are already in effect.

Thank you. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

Articles should only have a disambiguation identifier in its article name when two or more different articles share the same article name. See GWW:NAMING. --Silver Edge 03:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Disguises[edit]

Can you explain why you moved all of those disguises to different naming convention? Take a look at Disguise. We don't add terms such as "Costume brawl" to the disambiguation unless needed. G R E E N E R 08:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I had asked that questions, then initiated bold 5+ months later. About 25% of them had Costume Brawl, and since they are all costume brawl variety disguises, its makes better sense as its more accurate, less confusing, and conforms with Saul D'Alessio, Lieutenant Thackeray, Gwen, etc. On that note, I was also considering costume brawl skill page versions of past skills but stopped after considering that they arent static like Mission-oriented ones and thus time would be better spend on Skill History with links to those pages.
Yes, sadly they aren't static. Sorry I had missed any old push on the topic, but the recent alteration had caught me off guard. You've got some gusto when it comes to making changes, I'm just not always following your line of thought. Even the odd "Summary" note could help in explaining the direction you're hoping to go with some items. G R E E N E R 04:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Hey Falcon, would you mind accessing this page? I wouldn't mind having a chat with you off wiki, if you're comfortable with it. If you're not, no worries. I'm not sure if you need to have entered your own email address into your preferences to properly access my email, but if you must, and you don't want to put your email on this site, let me know and I can visibly post mine here. G R E E N E R 04:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

<removed email> << I will delete this after three days. ^_^ --Falconeye 04:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambigs[edit]

Do we really need all those disambigs you are creating? --JonTheMon 18:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It does helps with short names, spell errors, and abbreviation from within the game's chat and search options. --Falconeye 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
But how are your disambig pages any better than just a search? --JonTheMon 18:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Not all variations of a keyword search appears on the list; im attempting to create ones that matter to the user/play and also works inconjuction with skill nomanclacture's main page list. --Falconeye 19:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
So how are Wrath and As One any better than the search? --JonTheMon 19:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Granted, not all of them would benefit, just getting an assembly line going and will likely tag a deletion on any that dont work out after completion. --Falconeye 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Wrath in particular is awful. Pages like that aren't useful. -Auron 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If anyone here would like to assist me, please red tag any keywords on the Skill Nomanclature page that you feel could be linked, and I will leave the black/non-linked pages alone; this should be a reasonable compromise. ^_^ --Falconeye 19:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Extend enchantments[edit]

For Extend Enchantments, you might want to make use of {{Skill progression}} to complete your table (since the results will be linear progressions). Probably:

  • attribute = Mysticism
  • var1 name = Base: 5s
  • var2 name = Base: 10s
  • etc

(Then you just have to fill in the at0 and at15 variables, which will be a lot easier than calculating everything.)

Until you have the table fully fleshed out, please make use of a Sandbox for editing; it doesn't do the wiki readership much good to see partial tables. Thanks!  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I original did so 10 days ago, but Silver Edge reverted, stating the table doesn't work for that, which I assumed he was refering to variables not syncing correctly (as was the case with Destruction and others). --Falconeye 00:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Right! I forgot about that; that was a clever idea. You'll have to ask Silver Edge what he meant by that. My spot-checking of the numbers didn't reveal any significant discrepancies (although I'm not sure if {{skill progression}} handles rounding the same as +20% enchant items do).
Regardless, please make sure you've checked the numbers and filled in the table before adding it back in...and it wouldn't be a bad idea to publish on the talk page first, to make sure folks think it's helpful.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Skill damage types[edit]

The skill damage type categories that you are adding should prove useful. Couldn't we figure out a way to update the skill infobox to include damage type (and/or healing type) (so that we don't have to manually cat the skills)? Is it worth postponing further updates while we figure out how to make that work?  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

TBH, when I saw you were doing that, my thought was that it was an overly broad categorization that isn't even specific enough nor helpful enough to aid organization. E.g. Avatar of Grenth converts your attack damage to dark, but it doesn't directly deal dark damage and Mantra of Earth deals with earth damage but only when you take it. --JonTheMon 12:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmn. Jon makes a good point. Is category:dark damage appropriate for AoG? Or should the categories include category:deals dark damage and category:converts damage type?  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Whatever concencus is reached, I would like to know before continueing with my BOLD categories. ^_^ --Falconeye 05:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I would like to say no, since the damage type pages themselves can handle the lists. --JonTheMon 13:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
But do you think those pages it look better as they are now, or with the list format (as Ive gradually been doing with all the other "List of 'related' skills"). --Falconeye 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think i like the skill tables, since it's just needs a list, and many of the entries don't need more than the name and possibly a quick note. --JonTheMon 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Entry 51[edit]

Interrupt effect... the page is not completely filled out. I saw you created so if you want to fill it out, I have most of the skills that say interrupt effect or might be interrupt triggered in a link on the notes of the interrupt effect page. Previously Unsigned 01:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC) I also think that on Professions Roles, you have Mesmer and Necromancer mixed up. Previously Unsigned 01:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)