User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford/Archive06

Talk

Suggestions

Builds

Rants

Tools

Encyclopedia GaileGrayica

Guides

Farming

Price checks

Projects

---

Previously on TEF

---

• Join – May 2010
• May 2010 – Nov 2010
• Dec 2010 – Feb 2011
• Feb 2011 – May 2011
• Jun 2011 – Jul 2011
• Aug 2011 – Aug 2011
• Sep 2011 – Sep 2011
• Oct 2011 – Nov 2011
• Dec 2011 – May 2012
• May 2012 – Dec 2012
• Jan 2013 – Dec 2014

---

:<

you broke it! 24.130.140.36 16:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Weird. I didn't touch that section (in fact, you can see in the edit history that I only changed the Outpost bug section). (That happens sometimes if there are simultaneous edits.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Titan

I'm reviewing Shaman caste and referenced the titan article for some info, found that the second paragraph seems written primarily int he passive voice, would you mind looking over it? thakns 24.130.140.36 20:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't too bad. But I fear I mangled the Flameseeker line (although, arguably, it might not belong in the intro to Titans in any case). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Column width

← moved to Talk:Effect stacking#Column width

Dragon's Throat

← moved to Talk:Dragon's Throat#Removed note re: respawning bosses

Disambig

I sent you an email on my thoughts of the disambig. I couldn't quite figure out how to accurately do it here as it's much easier there. I <3 gmail. :-) That and if another pop-up happens then it's automatically saved and I don't loose any work/typings. Anyway, I saved er submitted this quickly. I just wanted to let ya know, so it'd probably help with the potential template that you're working on. Kaisha 20:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! (I meant to post that earlier, but got caught up in something else). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Great Northern Wall (disambiguation)

← moved to Talk:Great Northern Wall (disambiguation)#Why disambiguate?

Who are you?

I added a new section to a posting that was inadequate. I did not want to undo or redo any ones work so I added a section that had a better map and more complete guide on my route and you come along before I am even finished with the fine tuning and delete all my work and use my map I made and attached it to the previous post which was not even close to the same route or description. Then when I thought I had goofed some how because yes I am new to this I found a recent change log and found you deleteing my work. If you are and admin or a modertator then fine be it but remove my work completely and I will never use Guild Wiki again as I will have learned it is not a public site but a private run one.

I am new to posting here but I have a 6 year Guild wars account, When I found a better way of doing something I wanted share. I will learn more if allowed but not by having my work trashed seconds after I post it.

--KoJawn Macloyd 04:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

From the editing screen: Please note: If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. I can't be bothered trying to figure out what the hell you were doing to that guide, but it looks like you're trying to force your ideas on the article, and that's just not going to end nicely. TEF likes guides (and probably wishes I'd pay more attention to my HM guide than to the various indie games that have been stealing my time as of late) and is really, really good at making articles look nice, so in general you should be asking him what's up instead of raging and/or reverting. (On a related note, your builds template fails when it gets to the profession names, is outclassed by more mature templates on this wiki, and is completely unnecessary on that article in the first place.) -- Armond Warblade 05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The build template is a cut past edit from the one that was there and will do fine for now till I can find a better way of showing the build I use. As for the build itself if you have not tested it then you have no way to know how well or not it works. I was not trying force my ideas on the article I was trying to add to it. I was attempting not to change any of the previous post but add a new sub section that had a IMO a better map and how to guide. It was not till TEF took it upon him self to attempt to merge the two post that it started looking like the second poster (me) was taking over the post when in reality I was trying to ADD to it not change it. If you have a better way of showing builds them please link the how to on it as I have not found any other than that was on the page as of yet.--KoJawn Macloyd 05:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to see a way that worked for all and I usually agree with Tef as he usually tries to make things practical and help to work with the community. Perhaps, you might consider a sandbox of your ideas, etc. as to how you'd like to change that page. Propose it on that talk. Get other ideas, suggestions, etc., before applying to page. Wouldn't that be better than being reverted more than once? No one likes another to push their ideas onto a page, even if it's "right" or "updated" or what not. It's still not "practical". I hope this helps for things to consider the next time one feels a page needs to be updated/changed. It'd be nicer as well, because you'd be getting involved with the community, instead of defensive. Thank you kindly, Kaisha 17:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

(Re-indent) Kojawn: please allow me to apologize. I should have explained the reason behind my edits more clearly rather than relegating them to an edit summary. The short story is: your farm and the existing one are more alike than not, so there's no advantage in having two sections. In fact, it's worse for most people because they have to read twice as much to get only a little extra info.

For a useful guide, the most important principle is: less is more. Given the size of this wiki, we can assume that people reading the guide might be new to the farm (or mission or boss) but are familiar with Guild Wars. That means: leave to other articles what they already cover (e.g. boss deaths boost morale no matter who kills 'em) and leave out basics. Also, the point is to offer advice rather than to tell people how to play (e.g. pull rather than stand at this exact spot, use a flatbow on the group, call the healer as a target...).

For a farming guide, what people need to know is: what's the route, where/what are the gotchas, are there any useful tricks, and are there types of farming builds that won't work. Your edits added a new route suggestion, but the gotchas, tricks, and builds are the same.

A few notes about wiki practices: I might be misunderstanding your remarks, but you seem to be equating the wiki with a forum. Forums have posts, where the content is controlled by the contributor. Wikis have articles, where the content is a shared responsibility. There isn't your guide and my guide — there's just one guide, which we collectively work to make as well-written and useful for the greatest number of players. Accordingly, one should rewrite inadequate or incorrect sections; adding (rather than merging) on a wiki makes things more confusing, not less. And, except in very, very rare situations, an article should never impose a point of view (e.g. best build or I find this helpful). (To discuss those, use the talk page for the article.)

Finally, for a variety of reasons, use the Show Preview button to make sure your edit is as good as possible before saving. Fine tuning suggests correcting a minor typo or adjusting grammar to prevent a misunderstanding. There are plenty of good text editors that you can use to adjust your text offline before pressing Save Page.

Good luck, welcome to the wiki, and I apologize again for making your initial contribution a less pleasant experience than it might have been. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this post it made me rethink the page as a whole I have posted on the page as I do not understand how to use the sand box. Please look at the page and see what you think I have italic text in it as notes that will be removed later.--KoJawn Macloyd 06:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've setup a new Sandbox for you. Why don't you work on that (and I — as well as others — can provide feedback there); when you think it's ready for public consumption/editing, you have two choices:

1. Overwrite the current guide to feather farming with your version or
2. Leave a note on the talk page asking for feedback on your version before updating.

The first option is good for non-controversial changes (or for those contributors who are well-enough known that most of their work is trusted). The second is better when the changes might be debated, when unsure about whether it fits the style, when it's a change to the status quo, or just to get feedback before a major edit.

Generally, it's considered inappropriate to update a draft to a mainspace article, since those are always assumed to be ready-for-prime-time. (I'll take a look at what you've done so far and comment at your sandbox.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifu discussion

Hey TEF, I'm on now, contact me in game when you get a chance so we can talk about the skill usage and weapon mod lists. My character names are on my GuildWiki profile. -- Kirbman 23:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you get my reply emails? I haven't heard from you in a bit. -- Kirbman 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm... it looks as if I might have missed something. I think we were discussing how to have a real-time discussion...which conflicts with my paranoia about privacy (e.g. I don't mix my IGN with my wiki-name). I think I was suggesting IRC (both GWW and GWiki have primary channels that we can use to connect; any convo could be in a private room or not). The other issue is that my schedule is unpredictable. So, the best I might be able to offer is a probable/possible range of time and/or ad hoc (e.g. if we've both recently posted...we might be able to take that opportunity).

I am sorry for putting road-blocks into something that should be simple. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

wait, there are times when you're not on wiki? :P 24.130.140.36 23:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why he has so little time for chat! ;) | 72 | 00:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There were 5 emails total: to me, to you, to me, to you, to you. We decided we were going to try the IRC even though it didn't work for me in the past. I told you what times are best for me but you didn't decide when we should try it. Just let me know when, this weekend won't work for me though. Btw, I still think vent is a good idea if you've got a microphone though, since we could actually talk and still comply with your privacy concerns. All that you reveal is your display name, which can be anything. -- Kirbman 17:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

serial comma

You make me proud, sir :D | 72 | 02:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (to be fair, I think that is the consistent usage on the wiki... and mostly in American English — British English, and many newspapers, dislike the comma-and convention). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 04:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I forgot it wasn't you I had a similar conversation with, if I remember it correctly!

However, I should note that when I wrote that, I took the Wikipedia article's 2nd argument against it less seriously than one should.| 72 | 13:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Kinetic Typography: Stephen Fry on Language. Must viewing for those who enjoy language, grammar, and/or words that come alive literally as well as metaphorically. (Mind you: I'm also a big fan of Eats, shoots, and leaves.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Broken link! | 72 | 17:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Rats. That's what I get for copying from an old thread without rechecking. Try this one instead. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent video.

A few notes: I agree with him on some points -- but not as far as pedantry's utter meaninglessness. Many things, like the serial comma, are of secondary importance, sure.

Interesting, though, that he should include "uninterested vs disinterested" and "infer vs imply" in distinctions that are of no importance to him; unlike "less vs fewer", those pairs (at least the former) have meanings that don't overlap enough that one can serve for the other without confusion! Particularly telling is the fact that he justifies the unimportance of the distinction by the fact that a listener can judge whether the speaker is using it correctly!

Another point is that "action" is much harder to verb than "sanction" and the others he listed, because there is already a verb in that slot (namely "act", whereas no "sanct").

Also, I believe I can claim the happy position of both enjoying language and being able to tap into correct usage, as do, I suspect, you.

What I end up believing in these cases is: know the rule, then break it. Yes, innovation is godly, but ignorance is not innovation! | 72 | 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I had very similar thoughts when listening to him speak. He makes a compelling point...but veers into Humpty Dumpty territory (particularly, that egghead's remark that, "When I use a word...it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.")

My take is that grammar is a critical convention that we use to make communication easier.

1. We should follow hard/fast rules because (outside of specific rhetorical devices) breaking them makes it harder to understand each other. (It's appropriate to use an apostrophe only when its inclusion is appropriate.)
2. We should be consistent withing a format when using an recognized variation (e.g. a specific essay, wiki, or newspaper), because jumping around distracts from effective communication. We can, of course, be inconsistent across formats/forums. (Serial commas are eschewed by newspapers, but rarely by English teachers in the US.)
3. We should allow language to evolve, e.g. chastise a notable figure when they misuse a term, but be more forgiving when it starts to catch on Many Al Haigravations have made their way into the language, e.g. his use of prioritize was eschewed by linguists as bureaucratic jargon but is now pretty much accepted as ok. His original use made things worse, but, to arrange in priority order is always an unnecessary mouthful.

Fry, in my opinion, is too lax about (1) because he's so keen on (3), whereas Truss (E/S/L) is too unforgiving of (3) in her defense of the importance of (1). (It would be fun to see the two of them try to out-language each other.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. About the fight -- indeed, though to be honest I think Fry would win. I wasn't that fond of Truss's book, actually; she was a bit too absolute about rules that change according to various style guides. But so are we all, about our favourite rules! :) | 72 | 19:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. Fry would win on style points (he has sooooo much more fun than she does — her humor is bitter at violators of the faith, his is in the joy of language), but Truss might win on argument (Fry has a tendency to stick to a point because it fits his philosophy better, whereas Truss sticks to the communication party line better).

However, if we have to adopt a language mascot for the wiki, we might want to choose Tom Lehrer, who said, "I feel that if a person has problems communicating the very least he can do is to shut up." — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Formatting and consensus

You have been going against a guideline, changing it as per a talk page. Instead, you should bring it here Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Missions to the talk page. Else you are going against the consensus of the community. Revert or I will take you to the Admin Noticeboard for vandalizing the Mission pages as per the formatting guideline and not because some started the "Redundance" talk. On a template, instead of the accurate and needed page. Hence, they need and should have made suggestion to the changes of the guideline first, before trying get changes on the pages... Please revert, until consensus is changed on the formatting page. Else, we shouldn't even have guidelines if people like you refuse to use them even for discussions. Kaisha 06:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You missed a couple of conversations about this. Konig had started the work and asked me to finish on his behalf. I spot-checked and didn't see any support for having two navbars on every mission page and a couple of comments that suggested people thought them redundant.

I don't see the advantage of reverting at the moment while the conversation is going on. You have a fair point about where the conversation ought to have taken place; you have a fair point about there being a guideline. But let's see where people stand. Naturally, if the community wants two navbars, one of which duplicates the data on the other, then the community can decide that...and Konig and/or I will restore them. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I cannot let you go and change things against a guideline. I couldn't do that myself with the armor art pages. I couldn't change those pages until the formating page was done, hence my sandbox. If I cannot do this to the armor pages to "fix" them, because of their out of order... I don't believe it'd be fair with you. Understand where I'm going? Even if it's "Redundant" and you're removing because of that, of which I understand. It's still going against the formatting. Change formatting first, then the pages can be changed. However, must get consensus on corresponding talk page first. Other talk pages just won't do. Just say I learned from Wyn about some of these things back when she was a sysop and the others that reverted me on my changes. Kaisha 06:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you about what should have happened, but this isn't at all the same as with the armor pages. This is a minor edit (remove/add the navbar), whereas the changes to armor that you wanted to make are more substantial, complicated, and not as easily reverted or even adjusted.

I've supported you in saying this ought to be discussed. And, of course, I'll go with the community decision, whether I agree with it or not. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Meant to say this first: you are correct that I should have checked the policy page for greater consensus before completing the changes that someone else started. I agree with you raising the issue for discussion. I was blinded by the idea of finally getting rid of double-navs...so I spent no time to check what others might have to say about it. I relied on someone else telling me that consensus had been reached. I'll have to be more careful in the future. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not mad at you as much as I am disappointed in you and Konig. I know you two are very smart with the pages, etc., but I'd thought you two would have considered in the formatting... and considered that changes should be made there first, before making the changes to templates and pages, etc. over someone yelling redundant, when they should have been redirected after their comment to raise it up at the formatting missions page. Anyway, what's done is done. It's happened before, it'll happen again. Best is to just learn ourselves and help others to try and not make the same mistakes that we did. Kaisha 07:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you were mad at me; I was just supporting your point about how we should have taken time to invite more discussion.

However, I do not support the undoing of the work that had been done: the wiki was not in any danger of falling into anarchy (and it gave ppls a chance to see if they missed having double navbars). The worst thing that could have happened is that the community decided to restore double navs after a week of going without. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

*cough* alright. tbh, It wasn't just me who noticed, but others. I was playing in game when I notice commotions. I don't lie. I'm not really liking when I do get accused of "lies". There are a lot that play still, not just a handful. I know there's 4 sets of full alliances. 2 of which I'm considering joining if things don't pan out in this alliance. both are made up of a bigger alliance. Another alliance I had joined, but left recently. I just know from all of that plus others even friends that there are a lot that play and yea I do come across things, even wiki being mentioned in outposts, guild or ally chat, whisper, etc. Words can travel fast. The in game community, the majority uses gww that I do know of. for builds, pvx. So, I do try to help those that I do know that are only readers and not editors. Not everyone edits and this wiki as far as I had learned was supposedly suppose to be on the direction on the ease of the reader more-so than the contributor. I was told this by quite a few. I had understood that along with that ease was links, etc. I quite frankly understood that a good deal of creation was to help the players get to what they need. Now, I'm looking a bit into some of the still nominated for deletion templates and I feel some of this can be made into notes while other parts be left on the campaign template. I do feel strongly of a possible/probable solution, cause I feel no doubt we will end up with just one nav. I am, trying to think, as a reader... how would it appeal to those that only read that look for information and how can we as editors deliver? It shouldn't matter quite so much if it's redundant or not as long as it helps the players with the game, the readers. That's what I feel our focus should be. The readers, not the editors so much. There are solutions. If we can find that, then I'd love to be the one to revert myself and help with those (changes) as well. Kaisha 17:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can offer you. I've agreed that we should discuss 4-year old style guides before altering them (even if there seems to be general agreement). I've agreed that I should have taken the time to check.

With regard to what we decide: absolutely, the readers ought to be the only focus. The only issue now is whether a double-navbar is a better aid to navigation than a singleton. If people are saying in-game that they are, then please present those arguments on the relevant talk. As a reader of many wikis, I find double-navbars more confusing: it means I have to look in two places or that I have to know which place is better. As a reader, I am always against being forced to read 30% more to get 3% extra benefit. (I believe we can almost always display things so that people can read half as much and gain twice the benefit.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Agreed. May we come up with a helpful solution that'd help better than the current/previous usages of double navs and the previous way that we've used for years without change. Kaisha 17:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

User creation

I will admit, it is frustrating that a log may/may not show up, either on here or on GW2W, but the easiest way to tell is to look at what the wiki says about the user's page. User:Imjustabrian has not been created. User:Vesuvan has. G R E E N E R 09:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Man, I checked for User:Vesuvan (redlink), contributions, and the user creation log. I could find User:Vesuvan55, but no other instances. Sigh.

So, you are saying I cannot rely on the combination of this + that?

— Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I had even checked those on the GW2W, as the account creations are shared, and sadly no, in the end we cannot rely on them. One can dredge up a conversation from last year on some random page concerning this, but it's too late at night for me to search. Those big red letters is what I've been told to go by. G R E E N E R 09:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Weird. Well, don't worry about tracking down the conversation. I'll just remember that I can tell for sure that someone has registered, but cannot confirm that they haven't. Thanks for the gen. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that is probably the best phraseology for it, and with our Assume Good Faith style, we should go that route for those cases. G R E E N E R 10:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

What I looked at was the Feedback page history, which didn't have a registered user contribution (and, by the Feedback area policy, the only person who is supposed to create the page is the registered user... of course, we usually just fix that for people rather than force them to start for scratch). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, practice beats theory in this case (too many contributors have created/used the pages while not signed it; too many IPs have created an account after making the page). But yes, with eyes that are far more open, I think I found the quickest solution. G R E E N E R 20:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Commando is commanding

← moved to Talk:Brave Brent Poltroon#Commando is commanding

Amber Chunk from Amber Wand

← moved to Talk:Amber Wand#Amber Chunk from Amber Wand

Spirit attack range

How do you differentiate between spirit effect range (Shelter) vs spirit attack range (bloodsong)? --JonTheMon 17:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Erm... I could be over-aggressively reverting Falconeye. The problem is that we are trying to impose our template onto the mechanics, instead of adapting the template to fit the game.

However, in my strong opinion, it's a mistake for us equate longbow range (which is ill-defined by us) with attack spirit range (which is also ill-defined) for two reasons: the fact that we haven't clearly established a consistent system for defining distances and the fact that there's nothing tying bows to spirits (for that matter, why not flatbow range?).

In other words, spirit range might be the wrong term...but longbow range isn't accurate either. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The game DOES have a clearly defined coordinate system though. Intercepting and decoding packet logs makes that very clear. In fact abusing that coordinate system is how most bots work. So, potentially, GWW could define how far spirit range and longbow range are in terms of distances in game if so desired.--Four Year Strong 17:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have access to that data, I would be very interested. (We currently use guestimates for distances based on ranges and areas of effect.) Even if longbow range ends up equaling spirit attack range, I don't think we should equate the two, as it wouldn't surprise me if those are distinct variables in the game innards...and that ANet might change one or the other (esp. if they ever get around to any ritualist or ranger rebalancing). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's something I could probably figure out. Whether or not GWW would approve of my methods is another question though, since the primary tool I would be using is GWCA.--Four Year Strong 18:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Data is data; what you choose to do with your knowledge... that would be something else. So, if you are simply offering to post a percentage comparison of distances based on the baseline of the aggro bubble...then I don't see any problem. (On the other hand, I would see an issue if you are offering to tell people how to build a better bot.)

For a sample of distances we might want to consider, I have started a draft for a distance article. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that article is superior to Range, except it may present that data in a different manner. I believe longbow was chosen b/c a spirit's attack has the same range (1.35 agro bubble) and it doesn't have the high arc of a flatbow. --JonTheMon 18:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Range only presents ranged distances. The draft article presents both AoE radii and ranges (but it's a draft, so it's not really good at much of anything).

Attack spirits might use the same exact distance as a longbow, but we have no evidence that they use the same mechanics. In fact, can you dodge spirit attacks? And do they use an identical arc to longbows?

My point is that we are forcing the game into a neat little box by saying spirit range = longbow range without the detailed research to back it up. But we don't need to do that: we can specify spirit attack range, spirit passive range, and longbow range as distinct. If later it turns out that some of these concepts are identical, we can say so. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Spirit attacks can be dodged. I don't know if the arc is the same, but it wouldn't surprise me. Occasionally forcing the game mechanics into the same box works, since one huge benefit of that is ease of understanding by the user; bow ranges are one of the standards and easiest things to relate to. --JonTheMon 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to the benefits of combining like ideas (after all, many of my contributions are to do exactly that); I only ask that we follow the normal practice of confirming the validity first. I don't see the evidence that we have compared the mechanics and I think it's premature (and misleading) to equate them at this stage. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

They've been combined for ages and going back to "longbow range" would actually be a return to the status quo. But if you insist on going that way, what is your proposal for a new term? --JonTheMon 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of things that we've done for ages that have turned out to be incorrect. I don't know if this is one of them; I'm saying that we should be careful to wait for appropriate research documenting that terms are interchangeable before we interchange them.

The term people have been using on GWW appears to be Spirit attack range (in contrast to Spirit range for passive effects). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That is clear enough to be a separate term, but I'm just concerned that introducing that term will cause some extra confusion that might not even be needed. --JonTheMon 19:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, let's see if Four Year Strong comes up with any data one way or the other. Either way, you and I can probably figure out some basic tests we might perform to either confirm that these are different mechanics or eliminate the likelihood that they might be (different). The distance part is easy to test. I'm not particularly good about testing miss/dodge rates (although I suppose one might be able to buff a toon to nearly impossible to hit using Winds and so forth...and see if that has the same effect on attack spirits as it does on bow attacks).

I dunno what you want to do with the spirit attack articles in the meantime. I would think that leaving the range empty might be the best thing to do...until we decide.

FYI after a few more edits, I will be away-from-wiki until next Monday (mainly to edit my Nick predict article — not sure how free I will be then)... so: (1) I trust any relevant changes you want to make during any transition and (2) I apologize for not being able to follow-up more directly for so long. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Undead Illusionist type (again)

[1] (← original title)

← moved to Talk:Vanguard foe#Undead Illusionist type (again)