GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills

Quick reference box layout
I liked them before, but I don't now that I've tried to actually use the skill list. The new boxes are pretty, but putting them in a list makes it exceedingly hard to actually read it: the icons are distracting, green/blue is too low contrast, and it difficult to quickly look at names when they are separated by descriptive text. A list that actually has all the names in a separate column would be much more user-friendly. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 00:21, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * The green wasn't my idea. Pick something. - 00:39, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Maybe a lighter (pastel) green that lets the black lettering stand out better? Yes, I too miss the ! for questable skills.  -Pandelume
 * It's not just the green, mostly (same color as the regular background would be ideal, though, if you're asking). It's the fact that there isn't a column that just has skill names and nothing else in it anymore. Your can't scroll through the list with your eyes very easily anymore. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 00:45, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * Agreed. The previous lists were far more readable and informative. I miss the green "questable" exclamations. Seventy.twenty.x.x 00:43, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The question mark has its own problems, and has been discussed elsewhere with no one ever proposing a solution that they favor personally, muchless trying to reach a consensus on what to do. - 01:14, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Ok I just gave skill name its own column, but I think the rest of the row looks worse now than it used to... - 01:21, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * You're right: it's a bit uglier but way more readable. I find it much easier to look through the list now, at least. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 21:13, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * Might I suggest switching position of the Prophecies/Factions box and the skill stat box? It would be nice to see that skill stats near the skill name (all at a glance, so to speak :) Another possibility would be to use a narrow column on the right for the letters 'P', 'F' or 'C' since it's more a tag for searching skills. It would reduce some of the visual clutter in the main body (description area) -Pandelume
 * There are only 26 letters in teh alphabet, and I wouldn't be surprised if by campaign 6 we are already running into duplicate letters. I personally would like to see numbers ("C1", "C2") etc, but that hasn't garnered much support from other ppl.  As for location of the stats, it was placed there to mimick the location in hte in-game skill menu.  If ppl are used to the skill menu layout, this would be pretty natural. - 00:34, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * If and when that becomes necessary, I'm sure commonly accepted two letter abbreviations can be used, like Mo and Me (for Monk and Mesmer) for professions. If the stats are moved to the left, I'd suggest not even boxing it, since the icons would be distinct from the description below them anyway. Simpler is always better, IMO; it makes it easier to see each skill as a single big description block. And surely there must be a way to restore the ! questable. Just some suggestions. -Pandelume
 * The problem with the ! mark isn't not knowing a way, but that neither of the two ways to do it are supported by anyone. As for the stats, I am for keeping it boxed in order to keep them aligned between skills. - 23:32, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * In terms of usability, the Campaign vs. stats boxes should definitely switch location. The campaign is generally of very minor importance, while the stats are vital and essential to what people are looking for.  I do like the current form with the names in a column.  And frankly, I'm 100% about usability and readability, and overall "prettiness" is irrelevant.  It's not ugly if I can read it easily.  =)  --JoDiamonds 09:42, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

I love usability, too. Since most people seem to think the old one had more usability going for it, let's try this: everyone who cares, describe what works about the old boxes and what doesn't. Here's me starting... &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 23:54, 13 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * It's nice to have each entry on an individual column, as it makes it easy to scroll down visually. Though I think this is an ironclad requirement only for the name column.
 * Having some visual cute to a skill's elite status is good, though it needn't be egregious.
 * Factions/Prophecies/Core could've used some kind of symbol or color-coded letter. Just a word can be annoying sometimes.
 * Giving casting/recast times is absolutely vital.


 * Having skill stats be column-aligned is good. - 23:59, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

--Chi Li 02:58, 14 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Green and Yellow Backgrounds to distinguish Elite from usual skills is not necessary - I find it distracting and it makes things harder to read. The yellow border around the Skill Icon is enough, just like on the skill pages.
 * Factions / Prophecies / Core should go to its own column, and something else than just plain text would be easier to distinguish, maybe an Icon or an iconic Letter (F, P, C).
 * The Information that a skill is questable (green exclamationmark) should be included in the skill template to be evaluated by the list.


 * See User talk:PanSola for a quick rundown on the quest marker issue. The issue came up probably 5 times in the past, and no one, to the best of my memory, every expressed favoring one solution over the other.  Thus I never did anything with it. - 03:22, 14 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks for that link, I havent thought that much about the issue yet, just saw the loss of information compared to the old pages. I'll do some testing in my User namespace and hopefully come up with a possible solution, but maybe not. --Chi Li [[Image:Chi_Li.gif|Chi Li]] 03:51, 14 June 2006 (CDT)

I personally have nothing against this new look (except the bold black border around the whole section which I think should be removed), however, might I suggest moving the Campaign link, something like this?


 * rowspan=3 width=64 style="height=64px; background: black;padding=3px"| [[Image:Diversion.jpg]]
 * rowspan=3 align=left valign=top width=130 style="height=1px; background: lightgreen; padding-left:6px;padding-top:3px"| Diversion
 * rowspan=3 align=left valign=top style="padding-left:6px; padding-top: 3px"| Hex Spell. For 6 seconds, the next time target foe uses a skill, that skill takes an additional 10...47 seconds to recharge.
 * width=1 align=left colspan=9 valign=top style="padding-left:6px"| Domination Magic
 * width=1 align=left colspan=9 valign=top style="padding-left:6px"| Core
 * width=1 style="border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right: none"| [[Image:QuestSkill.PNG]]
 * width=1 width=5 style="border-left:none; border-right: none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none"| 10
 * width=1 height=1px align=left style="border-left:none; border-right:none"| [[Image:Energy.png]]
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none"| 3
 * width=1 height=1px align=left style="border-left:none; border-right:none"| [[Image:Activation.png]]
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none"| 10
 * width=1 height=1px align=left style="border-left:none;"| [[Image:Recharge.png]]
 * width=1 height=1px align=left style="border-left:none; border-right:none"| [[Image:Activation.png]]
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none"| 10
 * width=1 height=1px align=left style="border-left:none;"| [[Image:Recharge.png]]

Padding could be discussed, though I never realized why wikipedians are so afraid of space that they want the text right next to the border. Also re-introduced the quest-marker. Even though the confusion of multiple campaigns still remains, I still believe it's better to have a marker that it's available in any campaign rather than not marking it at all. The skill name column has a fixed width of 130 px + 6 px padding since GuildWiki is being run in standards compliance mode, so all skills would have the same width on all columns (icons taking up 64 px, skill names 136 px, attribute/campaign/etc as much as it needs, skill description the rest). Only suggestions though. Also, obviously the attribute wouldn't be shown in quick reference pages. But since it's in the template, I put it there in my suggestion too. &mdash; Galil  20:12, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * After looking at the Mesmer skills quick reference page again, I saw it says this right after the quest icon: "This skill may be earned from a quest. See skill information for details.". Since it says in the description that you should check skill information for details related to skill quests, I do not think it matters if we have only one icon.&mdash; Galil  20:15, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Finally! Someone who at least have an opinion on this matter!  BTW, I would put the quest marker by Campaign, instead of skill stats.  And I would move the Skill Stats row to the top.  I have no clue what this fixed width and standard compliance you are talking about though.  What standard is it from? - 02:39, 24 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I seriously don't understand what people are using the exclamation mark for. Do Questable Mesmer skills (Prophecies), Questable Mesmer skills (Factions), Questable Mesmer skills (All), and Questable Core Mesmer skills (Factions) do whatever it is that exclamation marks do better?
 * Here's the old standard array of skills in almost the same format.

{| width=100% cellpadding=0 border=1 cellspacing=0 style="clear:right;"
 * rowspan=3 width=64 valign=top| [[image:Unyielding Aura.jpg]]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Unyielding Aura [ Edit]
 * rowspan=3 align=left valign=top style="padding:2px"| Elite Enchantment Spell. Bring target dead ally back to life at full health and full energy. If you stop maintaining this enchantment, or if this enchantment is removed, that ally dies. Deaths while enchanted with Unyielding Aura do not incur a death penalty. (50% failure chance with Divine Favor attribute 4 or less)
 * width=1 align=right height=1 style="border-right:none; padding-left:4px"| -1
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 5
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 3
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 45
 * width=1 style="border-left:none;"|
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| [[image:Monk-icon.png|16px]] Divine Favor
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Prophecies
 * rowspan=3 width=64 valign=top| [[image:Glyph of Elemental Power.jpg]]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Glyph of Elemental Power [ Edit]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"|Glyph. Your elemental attributes are boosted by 2 for your next spell.
 * width=1 align=right height=1 style="border-right:none; padding-left:4px"|
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 5
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 1
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 5
 * width=1 style="border-left:none;"|
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| [[image:Elementalist-icon.png|16px]] No Attribute
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Core
 * rowspan=3 width=64 valign=top| [[image:Rush.jpg]]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Rush [ Edit]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Stance. For 8...18 seconds, you move 25% faster.
 * width=1 align=right height=1 style="border-right:none; padding-left:4px"|
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 4
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"|
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"|
 * width=1 style="border-left:none;"|
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| [[image:Warrior-icon.png|16px]] Strength
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Prophecies
 * rowspan=3 width=64 valign=top| [[image:Call of Protection.jpg]]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Call of Protection [ Edit]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Shout. For 120 seconds, your animal companions have a 1...11 base damage reduction.
 * width=1 align=right height=1 style="border-right:none; padding-left:4px"|
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 5
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"|
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 115
 * width=1 style="border-left:none;"|
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| [[image:Ranger-icon.png|16px]] Beast Mastery
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Prophecies
 * rowspan=3 width=64 valign=top| [[image:Offering of Blood.jpg]]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Offering of Blood [ Edit]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Elite Spell. Sacrifice 10% maximum Health. You gain 8...18 Energy.
 * width=1 align=right height=1 style="border-right:none; padding-left:4px"| 10%
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 5
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 1/4
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 15
 * width=1 style="border-left:none;"|
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| [[image:Necromancer-icon.png|16px]] Blood Magic
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Prophecies
 * rowspan=3 width=64 valign=top| [[image:Troll Unguent.jpg]]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Troll Unguent [ Edit]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Skill. For 10 seconds, you gain health regeneration of +3...9.
 * width=1 align=right height=1 style="border-right:none; padding-left:4px"|
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 5
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 3
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 10
 * width=1 style="border-left:none;"|
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| [[image:Ranger-icon.png|16px]] Wilderness Survival
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Core
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Prophecies
 * rowspan=3 width=64 valign=top| [[image:Troll Unguent.jpg]]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Troll Unguent [ Edit]
 * rowspan=3 valign=top style="padding:2px"| Skill. For 10 seconds, you gain health regeneration of +3...9.
 * width=1 align=right height=1 style="border-right:none; padding-left:4px"|
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 5
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 3
 * width=1 style="border-left:none; border-right:none"|
 * width=1 align=right style="border-left:none; border-right:none; padding-left:5px"| 10
 * width=1 style="border-left:none;"|
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| [[image:Ranger-icon.png|16px]] Wilderness Survival
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Core
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| [[image:Ranger-icon.png|16px]] Wilderness Survival
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Core
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Core
 * width=1 valign=top colspan=8 style="padding-left:2px"| Core


 * --Cloak of Letters 09:01, 24 June 2006 (CDT)


 * How about moving the stack of stuff left of description? Like this:


 * Compared to having the stack on the right, which one do you guys think work better in terms of ease of reference? - 17:19, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Edit: I think I like it on the right (Cloak of Letter's example) more than moving it left, but just want to toss the idea out there. - 17:21, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Have to say I liked it more to the right too. Also, a quick search on google with the keywords "standards compliance vs quirky mode" led me to this. Basically, they are different modes in which web browsers render pages. Back when (X)HTML and CSS started getting standardized, web browsers needed to be able to draw the old pages which didn't follow the new shiny standards. So if a browser finds a page without a -tag at the top, it draws in quirky mode (old messy mode), if it does find it however, it draws in standards mode. This is also the reason most people used to hate browsers other than IE, cause other browsers drew a whole lot better in standard mode, but wasn't too good with quirky mode. That's beginning to change though as more pages becomes standardized. If you wanna see what mode a page is being rendered in, right-click it, click View Page Info, and it should state somewhere in the middle of that dialogue (Firefox, quickly translated due to me using a swedish version).


 * Anyway, about the skills, I could live with the first of those 2 suggestions (if we switch to the small icons for professions eg., , etc) and I really think some padding was good for the readability. Ohh, and by fixed width I meant that I had set the column with skill names to , so all skill name columns have the same width. I did indeed like the skill cost, recharge, etc more at the bottom though, but will go with whatever is decided. &mdash; Galil   17:53, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Also, after looking again, I felt I had to add that I hope we aren't making the skill-boxes with that many links (as in the first suggestion with Unyielding Aura). One link to each page the first time it occurs would be enough. For example, enchantment. It's linked to twice. Once would be enough if it was at its first occurence. &mdash; Galil  18:01, 25 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the questable ! marker should be there: If a skill is questable, you'll look into the skill description to see in which quest anyway, but opening lots of pages to find out "which skills could I quest?" is wasteful. Also, I strongly dislike the horizontal splits in the new templates, it makes scanning the list for skills with a certain desired property a lot harder. Personally, I'd even prefer a true table that forces horizontal scrolling onto my browser over the "5e 1s 30s / No Attribute /Core" vertical stacking in the examples above. (And while I'm writing here where knowledgaeble people might read it: is there an easy way to change the alt tag for images from "Image:whatever.jpeg" to just "whatever"? That'd be nice.) 134.130.4.46 23:46, 29 June 2006 (CDT)

I use the quest mark to look for skills that can't be quested, which is a lot easier than opening up every skill trainer page, and the Questable Mesmer skills (Prophecies) page doesn't tell about them. As for their implementation, how about this: = skills questable anywhere = skills questable in Prophecies = skills questable in Factions That or make a "Non-Questable Mesmer skills" page. Also: Why do we need to see the skill pictures on the reference page? They can be seen on their own pages. And as I saw was said before, the green and yellow blocks of color aren't necessary, plus they're ugly. &mdash; Schnozzinkobenstein 15:47, 13 July 2006 (CDT)

I'm not happy with the quick skills formatting such as on the Mesmer page and no-attribute monk skills. It's hard to use as a quick reference! The cell with the skill desciption should be the full height of the line for each skill, so one's eyes can easy scroll down the page just reading skill descriptions. As it is with the newer formatting, ones eyes have to skip the campaign and attribute box that have been forced in to your field of view. --71.240.46.46 12:08, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Acquistion
I put the cantha and tyria subs for future consideration but it takes up too much space and i'm sure we can do that just as easily in future chapters. Number two is easier to read imo &mdash; Skuld  03:36, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I think continent is not important, but campaign is. How about:


 * Sigh... in general I hate putting bullet points inside tables, the wikicode is just ugly, yet here I am... - 06:08, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * How does not using bullet points inside tables make wikicode look ugly? Without them, the generally structure of the whole thing ain't really that much different right? Using tables always makes things look complex. --Ab.Er.Rant @ User:Aberrant80 (msg) 06:19, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I meant using bullet points inside tables make the wikicode look ugly (or messy).  This is because the bullet point has to start as the first character of a new line.   - 03:24, 14 July 2006 (CDT)

Energy per second in Progression
Can we please separate the actual parameters from the random statistics? The specific ones posted are fairly useful (unlike some of the old Ollj info that used to litter various pages), but I really would split them off from the actual list of green number values by level. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 17:07, 11 July 2006 (CDT) )
 * Tried it... thoughts, folks? better or worse? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 17:13, 11 July 2006 (CDT) )
 * I'm torn. Two tables looks A LOT more cluttered to my eyes. Decentralizing information is more work on the eyes and brain. On the other hand, separating out the derived information from the listed skill information is nice. --Kryshnysh 19:51, 11 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I am biased towards my old edit for Energy Drain . Energy gain per second is overly ideal and doesn't scale linearly with the effects of being dazed, interrputed, and the need to kite etc, becauase of initial casting cost.  The two rows above gain per second seem to me are just there in case anyone challenges the math, or to help out people who cannot do simply arithmatics.  If there is any value to those, I really feel they belong to the Notes section and not clutter up the "Main" part of the article. - 20:02, 11 July 2006 (CDT)


 * For what it's worth, I think it looks alot more cluttered with a second table in the notes section. Also, changing it here means creating second tables for all the other energy gain skills that already have the merged information. --Kiiron 21:01, 11 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't feel any energy management scales linearly with any of those things you mentioned. I initially thought that putting the second table in the notes would be better too, but it seems to be more of an eyesore to me to split the tables up all over the article. I think the tables are probably best at least together (if not in the same table) or not at all on the same page. I think my preference (biased towards reducing eye strain) is Not on same page > one table > tables together > tables separate places. --Kryshnysh 21:07, 11 July 2006 (CDT)


 * As for presentation, I think I prefer the dual-table progression over split into progression and notes. I dislike the single table.  As for content, I'd be worried people would add in relatively useless or obvious statistics if this starts showing up in a lot of articles.  Personally, I think an energy gained or net energy gained row is a little too far into the latter.  --68.142.14.78 21:16, 11 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the extra sections should be removed, actually, because:
 * Energy gained: You only get the full energy if your foe actually has 4-6 energy.
 * Net energy gained: This value is only true if the above condition occurs, and is just the previous cell -5.
 * Energy/Second: all the stuff PanSola mentioned applies. Additionally, this is a Mesmer skill so it's not unlikely that the caster will have Fast Casting to modify the casting time. Overall, there's just too many variable. What if the caster has Mantra of Recovery or Serpent's Quickness? Et cetera. Writing "the skill recharge on this is pretty bad; consider figuring out a way to boost it if you actually want to use this to regain energy" in the skill description is easier than spelling this all out numerically anyway.
 * This is what I want to avoid at all costs. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:09, 11 July 2006 (CDT) )
 * ... *looks at Energy Drain* Ugh. The same applies for all other energy gain skills. These giant tables are a terrible eyesore and contain a lot of overly generalized calculations presented as useful information. Who decided to make them all this ugly and complicated? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:12, 11 July 2006 (CDT) )


 * "I don't feel any energy management scales linearly with any of those things you mentioned." Good (for the argument I want to establish). The fact that they don't scale linearily means the information isn't actually useful, considering I mentioned quite a number of things that are quite common on the field.  I think the additional info may have value, but if it does, it is of a very secondary nature that people who just care about the actual skill stats should be bothered with.
 * In other words, I would place the ease of use of users who don't care about that secondary information, before the ease of use of users who are interested. From my perspective, placing the secondary info above skill Acquisition is way too much.  I also agree with 130.58 on pretty much all his statements.
 * "Also, changing it here means creating second tables for all the other energy gain skills that already have the merged information." Wait, how many are there (originally I thought it was just Drain, when I was posting the previous note I thought it was just Drain and Tap)??? When did this happen????? o_O" -  00:56, 12 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Ok, i started to add all those extras to elite skills. This is a copy from JoDiamonds talk page since he supported the added tables
 * Copy
 * It was my intention to add the energy/second to the progression tables, so i have some basic information for such an article. GWiki lacks an article with all necessary information for choosing and comparing possible energy management skills. The only article, that covers many issues is the Survey of PvP Energy Management Skills article. It's far from perfect, but provides infos to advantages and drawbacks. Energy/second is in my opinion the first guide value, when it comes to a comparison. Other values like recharge, beeing an enchantment etc are the secondary values. No one thinks about using a skill with a bad energy/second ratio. The problem is, how can you put all those variables into an article without overloading the layout. Adding just the progression tables and some pro and cons, is suboptimal. Usually, you have to know everything about the skill. Example, beeing an enchantment can be an advantage as cover, but a drawback is shattering. Adding this as a pro and a con? Certainly not, but what are important facts to players? Clicking an a skill shortcut like Offering of Blood takes time and the benefit of an easy to read table is gone. Using energy/second has some other problems. You have to make assumptions, like casting the skill in chain. Many skills need other conditions for providing the mathematicaly perfect energy/second. If you have ideas for a layout, i'm glad to help. Nemren 14:11, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * End of Copy
 * It was never my intention to add those energy/second to every skill with any energy gain for the caster. The whole energy gain/second is pure theorie. In fact, the best energy skills are elite skills and a comparision is needed. Look at the usual energy managment skills now, without any extra tables. You read:
 * Ok,skill 1, i could use it, the recharge time is 20, hm i get 6 energy,
 * Hm, oh theres another good skill 2, gives 23 within 45 seconds, bad, another attribute 
 * Ok, would it matter to put a few more points into attribute 1? hm now i get 8 energy 
 * Hm, what now, i could spend them into attribute 2, or lower it, hm, hm 
 * This happened to me everytime, when i was looking for energy skills. You can avoid it at least a bit by using the energy/second value. There are still more things to consider, but it shortens the whole process. 68.142.14.78 already reflected my opinion. Take out all the energy/second tables and make one seperate article for those, interested in those more theoretical information. BTW, i stumbled across this discussion, where are those matters usually discussed? --Nemren 06:18, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't think any of this stuff is, definitionally, part of the "Progression", though. We've only been putting the empirically observed variable skill values there, not calculated statistics (that's different from just always listing the "green numbers": e.g. Balthazar's Spirit lists adrenaline gain because it's a hidden variable). I think there's good reason for this. And, like I said, if we start keeping track of random derived statistics in the table, there really is no end in sight. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 08:34, 12 July 2006 (CDT) )


 * In my opinion, calculation 1.2*enchantment duration by head is a no-brainer. Doing this calculation for the energy/second for each skill that suits a build is a different thing. Sorry, but thats not what i would call random derived statistics. Yes, it's statistic analysis, but not random. From my point of view, it's one easy method to determine whether a build will face energy problems or not. Please have a short look at the discussion from this build and compare the first paragraphs. The part with energy left and gained enery is hard to read and to understand. My short calculation using energy/second is easy to read and finds a conclusion very fast. I agree on removing the calculated stuff, but not by deleting, but moving the table to an article, which deals with energy management like the Survey of PvP Energy Management Skills article. --Nemren 11:07, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I say we 1) scrap the energy gained by caster row and 2) scrap the energy/second row. For 1), if you can't multiply by two, you need to stop playing Guild Wars (this stat is always constant anyways). For 2), this isn't very solid information since it makes the assumption that the enemy always has energy to be drained. If just one cast happens to draw a little bit less than par, it really messes with the calculations. It sort of helps when comparing to other energy gaining skills ("vs P&H ok this gives more/less blah") but it doesn't immediately strike me as useful information as standalone. Inspiration Magic, energy lost by foe (standard progression stuff), and net energy gain are the real bits of information that will help players the most. --Vortexsam 02:40, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I really think the energy/second row for energy gaining skills is important because it provides a quick, "at a glance" way to compare energy management. True, things like fastcasting or the enemy not having enough energy to inspire or whatever will skew the results, but not by so much that the numbers are unusable: they're still valuable for comparisons, and are hardly random stats at all. If the energy/second numbers aren't included in the pages for the skills themselves, then they should be included in Survey of PvP Energy Management Skills or another energy management article. Other than energy/second, there's no real way to compare the skills that actually yeilds usable information. Energy Drain, Mantra of Recall, Ether Prodigy and Offering of Blood all also already have derived stats. --Kiiron 10:34, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry if I wasn't clear before. Yes, they're present all over the place, and thus the discussion is more general than just Energy Tap/Energy Drain. No, I don't like them in the article at all. The second option of Kiiron's above is my preference (move them to Survey of PvP Energy Management Skills or find a new place to put them, I just couldn't find that page earlier. Only if people want to keep them on this page would I argue for keeping them together. Personally I'd like them off the page and then all of these articles linked to a page containing general energy management. As an addendum, another page that I've seen with derived stats: Boon Signet. --Kryshnysh 11:04, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The derived stats do have some value, but only under a certain evaluation framework. As such, it's best to put the stats with the article that sets up the evaluation framework (i.e. Survey of PvP Energy Management Skills) rather than with the skills themselves. Whether the evaluation criterion works or not depends on what framework you're using, so these stats should live in the article that espouses that particular style of skill analysis, not in the general skill descriptions. Now, energy/second or whatever may seem like a no-brainer to you, but people often argue about skills based on more nebulous concepts like "healing efficiency" or "net DPS". Some people will think those are useful; other people will think they're crappy and pointless. It's better to just dump this kind of stuff in its own article rather than pollute every skill page. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 12:50, 12 July 2006 (CDT) )

All things considered, I would prefer the analysis comparasons to be moved off skill articles and contralized into a separate article. If they are staying on the skill article, then I prefer the analysis to be moved into notes sections instead of being part of progression. - 12:07, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Wow, I missed much of this conversation. I feel I should chime in as I added some of the offending rows.
 * Everyone's comments about the dangers of adding too much stuff seem reasonable and sensible. I do think some people are perhaps overreacting, though.  Just because things can get out of hand (by adding non-vital information) doesn't mean they will.  Yes, I saw the entirely bizzarre Healing Breeze version.  Sure, we want to avoid that.  We do that with tiny changes on a daily basis.  =)
 * As far as this specific change, my major concern is that the information not be lost. Personally, I consider the one-table method extremely useful as well as extremely unobtrusive.  That said, the information there probably should all move to another location at some point, so maybe now is as good as any other time.  (Also, the "Survey of PvP blah blah blah" article should probably be renamed and merged with all this stuff, but that's mostly another discussion.)
 * If the information is left above "Acquisition", it might as well be in the same table. Making two nearly identical tables next to each other is just ugly and obtrusive.
 * If moved elsewhere but on the page, shove it in Notes. That would suit me fine (although I like it slightly more as an integrated, less obtrusive one-table with all the information).
 * If people are really offended by having this information on the same page, I suppose it's not terrible to move it to another page entirely. I do believe it is at least as relevant as most Notes on an average Skill page, though.  For instance, I like the way Second Wind handles its extra information right now (while not actually being a 0-16 attribute progression).
 * As always, I'm willing to submit to the will of the people. My personal preferences are (1) Leave as one table (2) Move to Notes (3) Put as second table under Progression (today's Energy Drain version) (4) Something else that keeps the information on the skill page (5) All energy-related stuff like this moved to one page, put links to that page in the Notes on each of these skills (which should maybe happen regardless of any other changes).
 * Yeah, I know I'm bucking apparently popular opinion, but there it is. I don't feel the current stuff is over the line (and that we can keep over-the-line stuff out using normal guildwiki diligence).
 * --JoDiamonds 15:18, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I will admit that Second Wind is pretty well-done. The information is fairly unobtrusive and is presented in a minimalist fashion. I've slapped the same table format onto Energy Tap to see how quickly it could be refactored. Took me about 5 minutes to figure out the table and another 2-3 to tweak the dimensions. Here's that attempt. Thoughts? (Feel free to revert to whichever format is preferrable, of course.) &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 17:06, 12 July 2006 (CDT) )


 * That looks much more preferable to me. Does anyone object to moving all of these elsewhere in the near future? Since that seems to be everyones' real preference. --Kryshnysh 18:30, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Aesthetically, I think the table in second wind is poor. The background is dark, the first column is incredibly wide, and the whole table is centered.  Change these things and it ends up looking like the progression tables, minus the darker borders.  I also think the first two rows fail the non-obvious test.  I stlll greaty prefer the aesthetics of this version (and still would even if the first two rows of the additional table were removed). --68.142.14.98 20:18, 12 July 2006 (CDT)


 * My big objection to that one is that it's using the Progression table to display stats that don't necessarily relate to the Progression (note, for example, how Second Wind's energy gain is based on exhaustion instead) and that, as a result, there's a lot of wasted space. If these energy tables are going to live in articles (which does make sense, on some level), I think it's better to make them compact and to-the-point. Mostly by not having a column for every attribute value from 1-20 (which is good for Progressions since those are charts of empirical observations, but hogs a lot of space for other stuff, in my opinion). It adds needless clutter and only makes it harder for someone trying to browse 10 skill pages at once to actually figure out what the stats are. If I slap the Progression table style onto the smaller table, would that be good? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 09:46, 13 July 2006 (CDT) )


 * Well done, good information content, packed in a concise table. The choice of the attribute borders is comprehensible. It doesn't disturb the general view of the whole skill page. My favourite until now. --Nemren 12:12, 13 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Agreed. Not quite my favorite choice, but close enough for compromise.  I'd be happy enough for them all to be like that version of Energy Tap. --JoDiamonds 13:32, 14 July 2006 (CDT)


 * i had not seen this discussion, and went to review Boon Signet for an unrelated reason, and saw the energy/second table at the bottom. i believe that article is the example for your proposed standard.
 * the stable looked so out of place that i stopped reviewing the build i was working on and changed the table into a standard progression. it wasn't until much later when Nemren pointed me to this discussion that i found it is the new proposed standard for this information.
 * perhaps you should consider a format that fits into the page more gracefully? the "3-6" break point style table is not used anywhere else. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:51, 18 July 2006 (CDT)


 * ok, after reading this thread's backlog, looking at all the examples, and the pages in question, i have to say the only path that makes sense to me is Survey_of_PvP_Energy_Management_Skills. people looking up skill descriptions are not going to need to know the efficiency per micron, and people who want to know the dilithium distribution per capita in PPM are not concerned about the text of the skill, or basic usage notes. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:09, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Energy_Tap was the initial example. Those energy gain tables should show a small overview of the energy gain, so a player could decide, whether the skill is worth to use it. Thus, showing the full progression is unnecessary. A few break point are enough. For more backgroud information an article, like Survey of PvP Energy Management Skills, is much better. I changed Offering_of_Blood's table to a format, that fits those points. If you are a primary necro and use blood magic, then Offering of Blood will be first choice. The numbers above 12 are therefor unnecessary. Anything under 8 is not worth using OoB. Any secondary necro usually will spend points for an attribute level from 9 to 12, so this is the informative part of the table. This is, in my opinion, a reasonable way. This has a few drawbacks. Skills from primary attribute, like Divine Favour, are harder to handle. A player will use the upper range of progression. --Nemren 14:22, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * my point was that none of that minutia belongs in a skill article. a seperate guide is ideal, thou. because it reduces this:

This presumes Offering of Blood is cast as often as possible (activation + recharge time) before any activation/recharge time modifiers.
 * into this:


 * for additional information on this and other energy management skills, see Energy management Guide
 * --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:29, 18 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I wouldn't mind that at all. I just want all that extra stuff out of the "Progression" table and out of the "Progression" format (which adds a lot of unnecessary values to the charts). If we can get all that stuff out of the articles and into an Energy management Guide, that would be great. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
 * As I've previously stated, I'd personally prefer to keep the energy information in the Notes area in general (more or less as Boon Signet currently has it). Obviously we can all keep discussing this, but I'm against simply removing those tables from the skill pages.  I think they are as relevant as other comments in the Notes section, (such as the ones on Mantra of Recall).  To summarize, apparently this discussion is still going.  We've apparently only decided that it doesn't belong in the regular progression table.  --JoDiamonds 13:09, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't think we've decided it doesn't belong in the regular progression table entirely. If anything, I thought the decision was to move it elsewhere. If we did so I think a link in the notes would be good. Personally, if it has to stay on the page, I'd rather keep it all together. Some of them are just going to be too messy to split down into tables, such as the one for Offering of Blood above. I think the ambiguous values detracts from the table. --Kryshnysh 13:27, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

Energy Gain/ Second Skill List
Please add more skills with Energy Gain/ Second tables, if you find them.


 * Energy Boon
 * Offering of Blood
 * Mantra of Recall
 * Boon Signet
 * Peace and Harmony
 * Energy Drain
 * Energy Tap
 * Second Wind

using templates for some related skills sections
There's certain clusters of skills are all related to eachother by a common property (spells with armor penetration, multi-target attack skills, damage prevention skills, energy denial skills and the numerous subcategories of damage spells), which would make it practical to just use a template for the related skills section. Then again, categories might be a better idea. -- Gordon Ecker 01:30, 21 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd certainly favor categories for some of these. For instance, damage prevention or healing skills (since they cross classes and attributes) would be fine choices for a category.  Possibly broken down (i.e. the utility is being able to say, "I'm a Ranger/Assasin, what are my options for self-healing / other-healing / AoE or multiple attacks / energy denial, etc.").  Certainly my current method is to just try to read all the skills, which will become less and less feasible over time (for the core professions). --JoDiamonds 23:46, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I dunno, you're potentially going to have a lot of new categories, many of which will contain a couple of articles... Currently related skills are listed on the skill page, it's unwieldy to have a link to out energy denial category and having a list and which is exactly the same as what's contained in the category... We already have this kind of info anyway in Category:Skill_quick_references for major smiliar skills. --Xasxas256 00:12, 24 July 2006 (CDT)
 * On a related note to what Xasxas256 said--For example, if you want to see related skills on Distracting Shot, certainly not all of the related skills that also interrupt should be listed on its "Related Skills" section--as they're already somewhat easily accessible in the Skill quick references as he stated. It is really redundant and not to mention hoggish of space to list ALL of a related field on the Skill's page itself. But on the same subject: What should ultimately be listed in the Related Skills field? I felt silly when I almost tried linking ALL of the skills that Interrupt through the Related Skills field of all revelant skills... It just felt very wrong to do--so I ultimately only listed other interrupts in that Profession's field. So where is the line really drawn, in the higher authorities opinion? -- Feather 09:14, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
 * In some cases a template would be unwieldy since you might not want to break up the "related skills" and give them headings. In such a case the list may end up being "out of order" with skills not grouped by profession or in the prescribed profession order (not that people pay attention to that anyway).  --68.142.14.19 03:57, 24 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Might I suggest a template add-on(?) such as the mini Profession icons before each related skill as the norm? Its aesthetically pleasing and the images are of small size... One could easily recognize to which class the skill originates from--and it doesn't account for vertical clutter. (Stating the Profession in Text-form uses up a line.) -- Feather 10:21, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't think anyone would complain if you went through and added the icons into the articles. --68.142.14.39 16:02, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Okies, I can see that Feather (who possibly was 24.23.114.242) has gotten onto this. Anywho, does any one else like/dislike the profession icon? Theres no note on it on the actual article so I thought it was worth furthering this discussion if we're going to add it to the S&F guide. My own opinion is that I don't mind it, it's certainly far perferable to having the skill icon. --Xasxas256 21:51, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Given that Feather/24.23.114.242 have now done about 100 of them, I've added it to the example and the S&F pages.

Skill icons in Related Skills

 * Why is it far preferable to the skill icon? I would prefer the skill icon. Some people have said that they recognise skill icons better than skill names for the beastiary pages. Also, simply by virtue of the colour of the skill icon is likely more than enough to identify the profession. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:15, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh god not this vote again! Look it's just the small related skills section do we really need them? It's overload for a small optional section which is often not even there. And hey you voted for the good guys last time! Damn swinging voters! --Xasxas256 22:24, 14 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Another point is that Bestiary articles normally only concern one profession, there's very few creatures with dual professions. With related skills there could be any profession. At that icon size Ranger and Necro skills can look the same, as can Assassin and Mesmer ones. To me it just adds confusion, adds a lot of work, makes standardisation a lot more difficult without much payoff. --Xasxas256
 * Ok, ok, I'll just... swing back! No to skill icons! :P --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:58, 15 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Cheers big ears! ;) --Xasxas256 23:16, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

Summary of When/Where Decision Were Made
I haven't mucked about with skills in a long time, and looking at them now, I wouldn't know where to start.

When did this subtemplate nonsense become standard? I thought I, Karlos, Nunix, and  shot this stuff down back when Ollj suggested it a year ago. It took me 10 minutes to figure out how to edit a skill article&mdash;there's absolutely no way Random McNewbie will be able to use them.

*mutters something about damned kids wrecking the place*

&mdash;Tanaric 06:06, 2 August 2006 (CDT)


 * lol, have I mentioned how glad I am that you're back Tanaric? :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:48, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * it is a bit daunting, but it has it's uses. consider the attack speed skills quick reference. all that data is pulled from the skill templates, dynamically. should another IWAY nerf happen, one edit on template:"I Will Avenge You!" fixes that and two or three other references. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:56, 2 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The coder in me (and that's a big part of me!) absolutely loves the elegance of that solution. I'm not saying it isn't pretty or that it doesn't work. However, it's unwiki. The point of wiki is that, since we have a million pageviews every day anyway, if something changes skill-wise, somebody will see the wrong information on any page where it's redundant and fix it.


 * The current status quo of template use establishes an editor class within the wiki. There are editors who know what they are doing and therefore can contribute and control the direction of this place, and there's the rest of us, who are so in the dark that our voices are essentially meaningless, because we lack the ability to create change anyway. You guys with intimate knowledge of templates are the bourgeoisie, and I'm trying to get the proletariat to rise up against you. :)


 * In all seriousness, though, I believe the barrier to entry created by this current method far outweighs any advantage they can possibly provide. As Karlos noted on his talk page, much of our information is out of date simply because people don't know how to edit anymore. It's sad, but we were more current back when Nunix, Biro, Karlos, and I were writing most of the content -- there were a bloody ton of manhours dumped into it, and mistakes were definitely made, but there were so many anon and new member edits keeping us in line that it didn't matter. We've scared away a lot of these single-edit wonders, and I think the GuildWiki is weakened as a result. &mdash;Tanaric 04:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I completely agree, Tanaric. I believe I said so during the discussion too, but my objections were not heard. I wish those who are now voicing this opinion would have said something back then instead of waiting 'till now. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 17:11, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Reading up on the discussion, the above statement is not quite fair. There was indeed voices raised in concern (and right now I can't even seem to find where I objected although I'm sure I did). Just not loudly enough, I guess. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 17:17, 4 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Most of the relavent discussion can be found here and later GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive_5. Much of those discussion took place when implementation started on Mesmer skills, but haven't been completely spread over to other professions yet.  Anything I currently can think of to say on the matter have been expressed in those two discussions. - 16:39, 2 August 2006 (CDT)
 * BTW, maybe we should start some kind of campaign to promote contributors to edit via the edit section links. It helps auto-generate a edit summary and makes Recentchanges-patrolling much easier anyways.  It also would've saved Tanaric 10 minutes of his time. - 16:43, 2 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Section edit links are optional&mdash;users have the ability to turn them off in Preferences. In addition, I think some of the other skins don't offer them at all. We can't rely on those mechanics to make the wiki functional. &mdash;Tanaric 04:25, 3 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Personally, as I'm sure I've said before, I don't think that making the wiki less redundant is worth the price of increased complexity.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:06, 3 August 2006 (CDT)
 * some templates are harder to understand then others. i personally do not wish to repeat my experiances with attack speed skills quick reference, i had to ask another user to create the appropreate template for me (the fact that it was an anon that actually created template:skill box ias is rather... counterintuitive). however, some templates, like Template:skill bar and template:TOCright are great effort savers, and make it easier to edit. the skills data is fairly straight forward, all game data is stored in the template, and usage/progression/experimental data is stored in the main namespace. the game data will only change with a rebalance, which is fairly rare (a handfull of times in the past six months), and the bulk of the changes are to the main namespace. The Deep and Urgoz's Warren (Mission) are strangely free of the type of template we are talking about. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:24, 3 August 2006 (CDT)