GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills

= Voting =

Note: There is currently TWO votes going on. One at, and one at.

= Skill Box =

Deciding the new skill box format
I would like to get this thing sorted out quite a bit before the preview event. The new skills for the core professions could possibly start appeearing then.

Proposed timeline:
 * Now ~ March 7th - Propose new skill box formats
 * March 7th ~ March 14th - Voting
 * March 14th ~ March 24th - Crusading through existing Chapter 1 articles (leave Chapter 2 articles alone unless have extra time) to update to new skill boxes.
 * March 24th ~ ? - Check for Ch2 skill description updates (there might be balance changes since the PvP weekend), and update to new skill boxes while at it.

Please put your proposals at the bottom.

Rules for Proposals

 * 1) You don't have to know how to code the template for it, as long as you can graphically illustrate how it will look like under different conditions.
 * 2) Despite the previous rule, syntax for the template MUST be specified (you can make it up if you don't know how to code a template, but you must decide what people need to type when using your template).
 * 3) If a proposed layout cannot be coded by a template (which would be pointed out by other people who know how to code templates), or if the syntax cannot work with the template, that particular layout cannot be used unless the issue is resolved.
 * 4) All proposed layouts must be able to work singluarily in a skill article as well as work with multiple skills in Quick Reference Lists.
 * 5) All proposals must illustrate how the layout look under Unyielding Aura (unless a skill with longer description is found) and Glyph of Elemental Power (unless a skill with longer name is found)
 * 6) If March 7th isn't enough time for you to finish your proposal, please mention it beforehand for your circumstance to be considered.
 * 7) Please only put completed proposals in the proposal section (you can still modify it later).  If you are still working on something and want ppl to take a preview, you can put it in the discussion section.


 * If you have deletion, modification, or addition to the above set of rules, please post in the discussion section below.

Things to consider when proposing new formats

 * 1) How it looks for an elite skill vs non-elite skill
 * 2) How it look for a skill with very long description at common resolutions (try Unyielding Aura).
 * 3) How it look for a skill with very long name  at common resolutions (try Glyph of Elemental Power).
 * 4) How it look for a no-profession skill (try Signet of Capture).
 * 5) How it handles skills that require upkeep, sacrifice, or causes Exhausion.
 * 6) How it looks for a skill that has no recharge and/or casting time.
 * 7) How it looks in a Quick Reference List.  Do you want to keep the columns aligned, or do you not care if they are misaligned?
 * 8) Syntax design.  What are the tradeoffs you conciously made between simple syntax and better layout/functionality?
 * 9) What is the lowest resolution it will still look nice (if it was supposed to only take one row, what resolution would cause things to wrap to the second row)?  Keep in mind the skills with long names, types, attributes, or descriptions.

Extend Timeline?
Eh, by the original timeline, there is only one day left to vote. Personally I don't mind extending it, seeing as how ppl haven't really started voting yet, and my own version wasn't finalized until just now. Thoughts?
 * Yes, I think we need more time. -- 01:55, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * How much more? I still hope to get it decided before prevew, but I'm unwilling to name a specific length of time to extend by (and it might be that we need more time than "until the preview", I can't really judge).  This proposal/vote process has already been going on for about 14 days, so it's really hard to say how many more days it need.  -PanSola 06:01, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Proposals
(All the old stuff are in /Archive 4, feel free to dig them out as-is and use them as proposals)

PanSola Proposal 1 (aka "Skill box landscape v4")
See User:PanSola/Skill chart test. Glyph of Elemental Power and Unyeilding Aura are in Sublist 2. Syntax are specified at the bottom. -PanSola 07:34, 1 March 2006 (CST)


 * UPDATE: I am going to add an indication of whether the skill is Core, or one of the chapter-specific skills. Will work on that over the weekend. -PanSola 20:43, 10 March 2006 (CST)
 * Update: version 4 is done. It now comes with chapter information built in (core is considered chapter 0).  It's still at User:PanSola/Skill chart test, with syntax at the bottom of the page.  Features:
 * Similarity with the in-game Skill Menu layout
 * Still displays decent in 800x600 1024x768 resolution environment
 * Even though Skill Type is no longer in its own cell, it has been made bold to stand out.
 * "Plain English" for the elite field.
 * Compactness to minimize vertical space occupation, for the sake of quick reference lists.
 * Edit: Nevermind teh 800x600, I forgot to include long attribute into the test. Combo of long name, long attribute, and 4 stats will make the "head bar" take up two rows.  While it doesn't look ugly, it's longer theoretically optimally compact (though it only affected Glyph of Elemental Power, which had a rather short description to negate the two-row head bar effect, so it was still optimally compact).  For Chapter 1 skills I think they'll have optimal compactness even at 800x600 when dumped into a mixed quick reference list, but for future skills that might not happen.-PanSola 20:09, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * For what it's worth (and this may be a bigger discussion elsewhere), I find the "Ch0" chapter reference ugly and unnecessary. I hope we can at least put something like, "Core", "Propecies", or "Factions" in there.  Or icons, if we have symbols for those three things.  (Hint Hint, ArenaNet people who will never read this: That would be a good thing to put in the game anyway.)  Icons would be great since they are more compact, even if we have to try and make them ourselves.  --JoDiamonds 00:49, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * I like icons. "Prophecies" ets is way too long for my tasts, especially for quick reference lists. -PanSola 05:20, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Skuld's easy syntax
User:Skuld/Skill_box/index - plain english, even if you don't like the style etc I think we should use the code from that one :p 00:10, 2 March 2006 (CST)
 * I've incorporated "elite?" into my proposal. I'm not doing it for the rest of the template though. -PanSola 06:03, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Greven's newbie attempt
See User:Evil_Greven/Skill_Box. There's a very slight variation due to the icons. Basically a reworking of Skuld's skill list, with the option of the old-style box with the exact same syntax (only a different template name). -- Evil_Greven 09:50, 3 March 2006
 * Honestly, I think PanSola's Horizontal format looks better than mine. The whole reason for messing with this was my desire to see the the Vertical format still used in skill articles.  In that, I feel I've succeeded.  Please review the updated page and check out the first section after formatting.  While I do like the current Vertical format, some of its design is lacking (hence I shifted my design to model the Skill Box 2, which is more compact horizontally).  I added a Description to it as it always seemed odd that this piece of information was not included with all the *other* crucial information like recharge/cost/activation.   - Evil_Greven 03:16, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * As a comment, this format will work on 1024x768, but for 800x600 some of the skill articles will look really messed up with a clash into the progression table (User:Evil Greven/Aura of the Lich, and probably Aura of Restoration too). To be fair, there is probably no way for any vertical proposals to avoid collision with progression table at 800x600 for Aura of Restoration.  -PanSola 05:23, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * With the PanSola's new vertical skill box design, and superior horizontal format combined with better interface, I'd like to withdraw my proposal as everything has been addressed better than I could have. - Evil_Greven - 07:11, 15 March 2006 (CST)

The Hybrid
See version 5 near the bottom of User:PanSola/Skill chart test. I guess this replaces Evil Greven's proposal. Features:
 * 1) Keeping the vertical box for skill article, yet also have the landscape box for quick reference, while still eliminating the data redundency, and at a cost very comparable to the pure-landscape version (my original estimate thought the cost would be much higher).
 * 2) Works at 1024x768 resolution, but absolutely clash at 800x600 due to vertical part intersecting progression table.
 * 3) Retains almost every single aspect of the Pan Sola Proposal 1 benefits for the quick reference page (landscape now has slightly more issues with 800x600 due to using campaign name instead of numeric code).
 * Ok, issue one with the hybrid: Is it still meaningful at all to float the box right? The main article seems pretty empty now that the description has been incorporated into the info box... -PanSola 08:15, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * Is it possible to put it on the left? I actually think it'd look better there, if it doesn't obscure things. Upon seeing it on the left, I've revised my opinion. - Evil_Greven - 08:20, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * The argument about "obscure things" assumes important info are on the left and are being obscured. In this case, teh MOST IMPORTANT part of the skill, the description, has been moved into the info box.  So I'm making it float-left.  You might have checked it at a time when the margin was messed up, check again to see if it is still the way you dislike. -PanSola 08:43, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * Yeah, it looks a lot better now. My only concern is for User:PanSola/Aura of Restoration's progression table falling off the white edge of the page, but that's a very minor thing (only happens at 800x600, but not above).  I feel that having it on the left is more natural (at least, for people who read right to left, maybe not so much for those who read left to right).  - Evil_Greven 08:46, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * Eh, I DO read left to right... confused what you are talking about.
 * Anyways, the progression is the least of my worries, as least there's no overrapping thing now. I am more worried about things like User:PanSola/Mind Shock2 looking ugly -PanSola 13:23, 15 March 2006 (CST)

Skill Box Votes
Format is Majority rule w/ instant run-off


 * PanSola Proposal 1 (aka "Skill box landscape v4")
 * 1) Pan Sola (secondary vote Hybrid, even though it will clash with progression table on 800x600)


 * Skuld's easy syntax
 * 1) Barek (moved my vote from 'other': took a while to sort through archived data and other talk pages on the subject)


 * Greven's newbie attempt
 * The Hybrid
 * 1) Evil_Greven
 * Other
 * 1) Xeeron (quite honestly, I dont understand what I am voting on. Is Greven the only one keeping the boxed version as opposed the row one?),

Why?
I've been away for a while, so apologies if this has been covered elsewhere :) What is this other template going to be used for? 21:49, 11 March 2006 (CST)
 * Check the talk archives for this page, mostly it was because of the quick reference tables and having to update twice for each skill when ANet changed them. --Rainith 06:27, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * I just read up on Archive 4. Personally, I don't think it's a great idea to use the same template for articles and the quick ref. Possibly too late in the day to resurrect this argument :) But I think that the horizontal box is difficult to read. It doesn't present the information as clearly as a vertical floating box. I can see from a redundancy perspective that this is much easier. But I'm sure there's a way to have both a horizontal and a vertical skill box read information from the same included location.


 * Perhaps if we had an article such as Balthazar's Spirit/Details containing the details and having the horizontal box on the quick ref page and the vertical box on the skill page both include this information? I can't currently visualise how this would be possible. But I think this would be a way of removing redundancy without significantly alter the look and feel of the skill articles, which I personally think look damn good at the moment. 20:39, 12 March 2006 (CST)


 * You're preaching to the choir with me. I only voted for using the slimmer vertical box because I have run into the progression tables running into the skill boxes on my computer at work which is set at 1024x768.  --Rainith 20:45, 12 March 2006 (CST)
 * That's one idea I have brainstormed, but in order to have the same content display differently on different places, you'd have to do crazy gymnastics with includeonly and noinclude tags, which prevents you from dumping the formatting into a module, or even a template. You have to keep the crazy interleaving of tags and formattings in the skill's article page itself, and then that will just look super daunting to new wiki users.  So yes, there is a way of removing redundency without significantly altering the look and feel of the skill articles, at the cost of crazy code that is cannot be hidden in a template.  I think Skuld's "plain english" movement is overkill in one direction.  This crazy code business is the opposite extreme which I also oppose. -PanSola 04:38, 13 March 2006 (CST)


 * I'm going to spend some time thinking about this. It seems a shame that the only options in the vote for part A were "keep it as it is" or "do it this way". 04:51, 13 March 2006 (CST)
 * You might also want to talk to Evil Greven, who also wants to figure out a way to keep it looking different. And to clarify, the options for part A were really "Remove redundency" vs "Keep redundency".  Removal of redundency does NOT require landscape format, and was not mandated by option A1 ("most likely entails" doesn't mean "will be"), it's just the easiest thing to do when you don't want to scare off new wiki users with a huge code of interleaved formatting not hidden in a template.  Also, I thought it was clear that the "Keep redundency" choice allows the redundent info to be in the same article, so it's centralized and not too hard to edit.  I hope ppl voted being aware of that. -PanSola 05:08, 13 March 2006 (CST)


 * For the actual skill pages themselves, I think it would be a shame to actually move to the wide horizontal boxes. I quite like the taller rectangles Evil Greven has posted, which are much the way they are now.  Given that individual skills are probably one of the most used and popular pages on GuildWiki, we should makes sure they are highly legible and useful.  Also of note is that humans don't like reading wide boxes of text; taller and thinner (to a degree) is almost always preferable.  (It's partially why newspapers are printed in columns the way they are.) --JoDiamonds 00:59, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * Note that with the exception of the skill description, the landscape format is actually internally columned, so there isn't really "wide boxes of text"... at least not in my proposal. As for a reason to move against vertical format, try viewing Aura of Restoration with 800x600 resolution, and imagine we DIDN'T hack the page to put acquisition above progression.  I already changed the skill box (to skill box 2) to make the box and the progression barely overlap at 1024x768 if acquisition is moved back down, but decided to keep acquisition improperly above progression for the sake of ppl with 800x600 resolution. -PanSola 05:09, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * Well, to be fair, it is exactly the text of the skill description that bothers me the most, because we present text about as wide as it will ever get. I'd probably prefer to see a vertical Progression instead. ;)  (Since I'm unlikely to have time to make this myself, I'm not actually expecting to see it.) --JoDiamonds 07:40, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * Guess what I am doing just to spite you? d-: -PanSola 07:43, 15 March 2006 (CST)

= Skill Icon Format =

Skill icons: screen cap or fansite kit?

 * Echo screen cap, 16kb: [[Image:Echo.png]]
 * Echo fansite kit, 3kb: [[Image:Echo.jpg]]

Over at the Task list the opinions has been to use the one from the fansite kit, but the issue that there is no golden border for the elite skills was not brought up. I still vote fansite kit though. -PanSola 06:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * IMO, we should go with the fansite kit images. The golden border shouldn't be that important if the skill article itself says that they are an elite skill.  --Rainith 11:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Or if someone is willing they could simply add the border. I can do it if I have the time, but that's an option as well. --GraceAlone 23:37, 16 February 2006 (CST)


 * I certainly favor anything that keeps the gold border. I don't know all the skills as well as I'd like, and it's an excellent UI reference / support.  Leaving out the gold border is bad UI and would make me sad panda.  (Even if we just get a surrounding table with a gold border or something, that would do it.  I certainly see the appeal of using official fansite stuff.) --JoDiamonds 13:11, 8 March 2006 (CST)
 * Please scroll down a little ways to see how the FSK icons can be given a gold border. --Rainith 13:15, 8 March 2006 (CST)

Skill Icons: Mix of Old and New fansite kit, or new fansite kit only?
Old fansite kit icons does not have elite skills. New fansite kit have all skills, but are smaller.

Do we want a mix, use old by default and new only if old doesn't have it? or do we want to go uniform on size? Rainith has expressed a preference for uniformity (use all new), and I also support that position.

Relavent discussion at GuildWiki:Task List#Task: Skill Images Revamp. -PanSola 09:11, 12 February 2006 (CST)

Moved from GuildWiki:Task List
Moved from Task List

Re-upload or rename all skill images to their correct skill name (skill name.png). The template:Skill bar, which would improve all build articles a lot and is easy to use, requires properly names images. Proper names are good whenever you need the image anyway.

Update: Since the recent update many skill icons have changed. Another reason to get this done.

--Xeeron 05:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a note, but it looks like ANet changed their fansite kits for the skill icons. At a quick glance I saw that some (maybe all) of the elites are in there now.  The (possible) down side is that they changed the size of the graphics to about half their old size.  If all the elites are included in these, I think we should use them, that way all our skills will be uniform.  --Rainith 11:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. With all the new skill icons, this would be a ton of work otherwise. Hopefully ANet has a full set of the new icons somewhere. --Xeeron 05:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure all the elite skills are included. However they are now .jpg and not .png, AND the elites don't have golden borders. -PanSola 00:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a template for getting the images uploaded with the correct name, i'll be looking through them and listing them all. Template:Moveimage 05:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since there is no way to "move" images (w/o re-uploading them) I think we should just straight upload the new images from the kits, even if the elites don't have golden borders. --Rainith 11:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to help gets these updated since I have the time, but need to know where we stand: are we using the official images from Anet, even with the smaller size, or are we doing something else? --GraceAlone


 * I think we have a majority in favor of using the new fansite kits from Anet. I tried to stir up another discussion here but didn't get many responses... -PanSola 22:05, 15 February 2006 (CST)


 * Another issue to debate, if we use the FSK images, do we convert them to PNGs or do we change our templates here to accept them as JPGs? Just throwing that out there.  --Rainith 01:30, 16 February 2006 (CST)
 * Personally I'm not happy with the quality and size of the FSK icons (but that's my opinion). I think we have the majority of the icons, we just don't have a uniformity. As it stands now I think we just need to rename the icon, re-upload, and then edit the skill description (at least that's what I've been doing). --GraceAlone 02:37, 16 February 2006 (CST)
 * Well, the skill box templates do not asume any extensions currently. I don't know about the templates for builds.  I say keep them in original JPG format.  As for the "quality and size" of the FSK icons, see this link about what *I* am not happy about in terms of quality and (file) size. -PanSola 06:36, 16 February 2006 (CST)


 * Generally, I am in favor of keeping the golden border. I have come across a few articles with the new "borderless" skill icons and found that very irritating. --Xeeron 20:55, 21 February 2006 (CST)


 * Ditto. 21:19, 21 February 2006 (CST)
 * Well I'm proposing adding our own golden border with the skill boxes, see GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills which would mitigate the issue a lot. Even vertical skill info boxes can have golden border added skill box 6 and 7 from this link.  You guys should go and vote on the skill boxes (-: -PanSola 22:12, 21 February 2006 (CST)
 * The problem is: In nearly all build articles, we now use the template skill bar, which displays the skill image. Very neat looking, but the yellow border needs to be in the image itself. Apart from that, its the way it is in the game. --Xeeron 06:19, 22 February 2006 (CST)

Skill Icons - the ballot
Blah, sorry, when I said "Please don't start voting until the skill box layout format is decided." I was thinking the vote currently in Archive 4, as opposed to the one that hasn't ended yet now. If no one has any objections, we will start the 7-day vote for this ballot item. If anyone think this ballot should wait, speak up now. -PanSola 05:55, 13 March 2006 (CST)

Voting format will be Majority vote with instant-runoff.

Neither the original or the new fansite kit provided icons for Res Signet and Sig of Capture, nor at of this moment, Ch2 skills.

Skill Icons Ballot
I have taken the liberty of removing PNG format from consideration completely. If anyone wants PNG back, use "Other" and sue me. -PanSola 05:55, 13 March 2006 (CST)

I have also taken the liberty to only offering edited golden borders (plain one-color edition) for elite icons in the new fansite kit (see ballot item discussion). This is with the understanding that the artificial border in the skill box will be removed, being redundent now. If you do not want the image edited, use "Other" (and specify whether you want the skill box to provide artificial golden border).

All options will use screen capture for unavailable/outdated icons.


 * 1) Use original fansite kit images, but in JPG format (as opposed to the currently used PNG).
 * 2) Use original fansite kit images in JPG format, new fansite kit for outdated icons (but not elites, which will be screen caps to perserve original golden border).
 * 3) Use original fansite kit images in JPG format, new fansite kit for outdated and elite icons (edited golden border).
 * 4) Use new fansite kit JPG images (edited golden border for elites).
 * 5) Use new fansite kit JPG except for elite (which will be screen caps to perserve original golden border).
 * 6) Use screencaps for everything to ensure ultimate uniformity
 * 7) Other (please specify)

Skill Icon Votes

 * Option 1 - old FSK only (screen cap elite/outdated)
 * Option 2 - old FSK default, new FSK (w/ edited border for elites) for outdated (screen cap elite)
 * Option 3 - old FSK default, new FSK (w/ edited border for elites) for anything missing
 * Option 4 - new FSK (w/ edited border for elites) only
 * 1) PanSola (2nd choice 3, 3rd choice 5, 4th choice 2, 5th choice 1)
 * 2) Rainith
 * 3) Barek
 * 4) Evil_Greven
 * Option 5 - new FSK except for elites (screen cap elite).
 * Option 6 - Screen cap everything
 * Option 7 - new FSK, with images altered to include the actual ingame border (haven't found anyone to do the border yet)
 * 1) Xeeron
 * 2) JoDiamonds
 * Option 8 - Other
 * 1) LordBiro I vote for PNGs. I don't think there would be any discolouration with resize if the host had ImageMagick/NetPBM and the wiki was set up to use them.
 * 2) * My post here wasn't very clear. I've explained in detail on my talk page.
 * 1) * My post here wasn't very clear. I've explained in detail on my talk page.

Ballot Item Discussion
Please discuss what should be added to the ballot or the pro/con summary (or if either lack neutrality).
 * If I could suggest a slighly different idea, how about using the new FSK jpgs with a slight change for the elites: [[Image:elite-example.jpg]] vs. the original: [[Image:warriorcleave.jpg]]
 * All I did was take the FSK icon and color the black border with a color taken with the eyedropper tool from the elite border of an older icon. I'm not sold on this color, but it is a very easy fix and I would be happy to do all the borders of the elite skills (I would do it over a weekend, so if everyone decides that this is a good idea on a tuesday, don't expect to see them done on wednesday morning).  So what do people think?  Have a better color suggestion for the border?  Post a pic with the color and I can use that.  --Rainith 11:47, 25 February 2006 (CST)
 * EDIT - also as the FSK icons are in jpg format they scale much better for use in the skill bar than the png format ones. --Rainith 11:51, 25 February 2006 (CST)
 * For the other professions this might be quite nice, but with warriors teh color isn't standing out a lot, in the particular icon you posted anyways. Excellent idea. -PanSola 03:54, 26 February 2006 (CST)
 * The color stands out when compared vs. the original, see above. Anyways, like I said, suggest a better color and it can be used, I just didn't want to upload 20 different versions.  --Rainith 10:49, 26 February 2006 (CST)
 * I am all for editing the FSK files.  Besides, they are much easier to get a hold of.  Less work for those involved. -Novalith 12:24, 27 February 2006 (EST)
 * While in theory I am fine with all three options, I would very much oppose any solution that does not include the golden border as a part of the picture. Using templates to add it is cumbersome and makes for much harder to understand templates, while simply the picture might be enough otherwise. --Xeeron 20:23, 27 February 2006 (CST)
 * Can you use the "gold" color from this wiki (they are floating everywhere in /Archive 4)? Being something NOT directly in game might make the border standout more (since whatever color we pick, it's going to be mono-tone, picking something from actual icon might blend in too well esp with warrior skills).  -PanSola 07:42, 1 March 2006 (CST)
 * Per your request:
 * [[Image:elite-example-2.jpg]]
 * --Rainith 13:53, 1 March 2006 (CST)
 * Yeah I like this one more than the previous one (-: Thanks -PanSola 14:01, 1 March 2006 (CST)
 * I also like this one a lot. Additionally, I'm agree with Xeeron that the gold border should be included as part of the image itself if possible, for all the reasons mentioned, especially simplicity in the long run.  --JoDiamonds 00:42, 9 March 2006 (CST)

As a random note, the old FSK actually had JPGs. For unknown reasons, Martin (the original uploader of most of them) converted them to PNG. He couldn't remember why he converted them when I asked him months afterwards. --Fyren 02:01, 27 February 2006 (CST)

Suggestion: Make item 3, "Use old FSK images in JPG form, new FSK images for outdated images, convert skill bar template to look for JPGs" -- 08:36, 1 March 2006 (CST)

For those voting for option 7, who is offering to make the new images for the elites? I'm offering to do that for option 4 which would look like this:

As far as putting the actual border from the game in there, someone else will have to do that, my way is very easy to do in Photoshop, putting the ingame border on the images is more than I am willing to do. --Rainith 02:56, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * The example you put up there is one for option 7 actually, so we have found one volunteer already ;-)
 * As I said, I would prefer the actual ingame border, but given my total noobness with anything related to grafics, I will settle for the second best (i.e. that golden border) if the ingame border turns out to be too much of an effort. --Xeeron 04:18, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * Actually if you read the description, that example is for #4:
 * Use new fansite kit JPG images (edited golden border for elites).
 * --Rainith 04:32, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * Yeah the current 7 overlaps with 4... ppl need to specify "Other" if they don't want the gold border.  Sorry it was not super explicit. -PanSola 04:44, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * I edited option 7 so it IS for the actual ingame border, to remove overlap with #4. Ppl who originally voted for 7 might want to rethink their decision, and if they still choose to vote 7, they probably want to specify 4 as their second choice seeing how the original option 7 was worded. -PanSola 04:58, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. :)  Sorry if the tone of my original post on this today sounded kind of "whiney," it has just been that sort of day, where one thing after another has been pushed off onto me.  I'll be happy to put the psudo-golden borders on the elite skills if that option wins, my concern was that I would never be happy with the outcome if I tried to "merge" the in-game border with the new FSK icons, plus that wasn't something that I wanted to try to do in the first place.  *Whew* It is time to go home, not a minute too soon.  --Rainith 07:58, 15 March 2006 (CST)

=Categories=

Categories for "Related Skills"
So far, we are maintaining all lists of "related" skills manually. See Index of Skill Lists. What about doing this with categories? I know, this would be a major change to the way we handle skills, and we'd have to do yet another crusade, going through all the skills, but I think it may be worth it. Considering we'll get about 200 new skills with every campaign and two new campaigns per year, we'll loose overview some day. And if we combine it with some other skill crusade (for example the upcoming landscape info box crusade) it may not be that much work after all. Thoughts? -- 20:07, 3 March 2006 (CST)
 * Fully agree. I think manually kept tables might still have some value (to see a short summary at a glance), but I realy think we should add categories for ease of maintainence. -PanSola 00:58, 4 March 2006 (CST)
 * I have some strong concerns:
 * I can't see a categorization scheme sustaining the info about the skills' general relation (currently given as subheaders like "Skills that profit from Deep wound"), nor profession, unless we resort to severe overclassification. This is a non-negligible loss in practical value IMO.
 * I worry about how well the category structure could deal with various complications I've come across; relations have a strong tendency to not be as cut and dry. (Example: How to deal with the relation between skills that cause healing and skills that cause health gain?  On one hand the distinction between the 2 mechanics has real implications; on the other hand, depending on the interpretation of the terminology, either set could be considered a subset of the other.)
 * I don't understand how there is any benefit of reduced long term maintenance. It seems like people consider categorization to be automatic/free while a list is manual/tedious.  But really...you have to edit in each relation either way!  The only reduced cost I see with categorization is the initial overhead in working out individual pages' layouts (and IMO this freedom of layout in lists is tied to benefits mentioned above).
 * --Rezyk 03:10, 4 March 2006 (CST)


 * I'm inclined to agree with Rezyk. If nothing else, the current format of, say, the Deep Wound page is quite good and helpful.  Any way I can imagine that being done with categories seems messier, uglier, and less immediately informative than having it manually laid out on one page.  The one compelling argument I could agree with is that if there are so many skills that the Deep Wound page needs to be broken up into separate pages, well, that's already like Categories, I guess, but it's not going to happen to all pages at the same time.  --JoDiamonds 04:03, 4 March 2006 (CST)

Skill Efficiency
This has been an idea I've been mulling over for awhile. I'd like to see a skill efficiency table in the skill articles. This would provide a quick reference by which to compare similar skills and their cost-vs-effectiveness ratio. This would likely be in the form of a 3-field table. Divine Healing has an energy cost of 10, an activation time of 2, and a recharge time of 30.
 * Example A:

Orison of Healing has an energy cost of 5, an activation time of 1, and a recharge time of 2.
 * Example B:

Heal Other has an energy cost of 10, an activation time of 3/4, and a recharge time of 3.
 * Example C:

Any thoughts on this? - Evil_Greven 16:47, 6 March 2006 (CST)


 * I like it - you can tack it onto the bottom of the skill page, under notes or something. Maybe slightly worried about people not reading the whole article and just getting confused by seeing two similar-looking tables.  Evan The Cursed (Talk) 11:53, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * This is a good idea at a glance. For quite a while I've wanted to do something similar. But there are a few difficulties to keep in mind:
 * It works fine if you do it for a simple skill that heals or causes damage. But what about skills that inflict/remove conditions or hexes. Is a skill that heals 40 points more or less effective than a skill that heals only 30 points, but also removes one condition or hex?
 * What about skills that affect more than one target within an AoE? Is a skill that deals 40 damage to one foe more or less effective than a skill that deals only 30 damage, but to all foes "in the area"?
 * What about skills that prevent damage, like Reversal of Fortune?
 * many more problems ...
 * -- 01:32, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * Take Divine Healing, which is listed here, for instance. Its effect is variable -- if it's one person getting healed, the effect is shown. If it's multiple people being healed, simply multiply the numbers by however many people.  My thoughts for this were a general comparison, and the description elaborates on what they do already.  I'd planned this for the skill pages (just the skill in question, not each related skill), not one page out by itself. - Evil_Greven 03:35, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * I think it's a neat idea, but should be in a separate section, an efficiency comparison for example. Too many skills have variable efficiency rates - how do you possibly compared Heal Other and Healing Seed?  What about the skills/items typically used in conjuction with skills - you'd be foolish to not count Mantra of Inscriptions for some builds for example, as it's standard - the same is true of a 20% enchanting wrapping for example - since it's standard if you are using enchantments for your heals.  It's a complex topic, and while I think a page devoted to it is needed, I don't think it should be a main feature of most skill pages. --Epinephrine 04:59, 15 March 2006 (CST)
 * I think it's a neat idea, but should be in a separate section, an efficiency comparison for example. Too many skills have variable efficiency rates - how do you possibly compared Heal Other and Healing Seed?  What about the skills/items typically used in conjuction with skills - you'd be foolish to not count Mantra of Inscriptions for some builds for example, as it's standard - the same is true of a 20% enchanting wrapping for example - since it's standard if you are using enchantments for your heals.  It's a complex topic, and while I think a page devoted to it is needed, I don't think it should be a main feature of most skill pages. --Epinephrine 04:59, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * See the thing is, I don't think the charts will show some definitive data. Like finally resolving which is better Healing Hands vs Word of Healing, since that would deserve discussion in another area (like the page I just linked).  I view it more as a simplified, generalized view of how the skill functions.  Not how "good" it is.  Just how effective it can be under certain circumstances.  Let the user/viewer decide -- but help him do so.  He knows what situation he's going to get into, but with those charts he can probably become a bit more keen on which skills will serve his purposes better.  Evan The Cursed (Talk) 12:49, 15 March 2006 (CST)