User talk:Stabber/Skill categorization proposal

THIS PAGE IS NOW OBSOLETE

Looking at proposal 0-2 gives me the creeps. Looks like some sort of alien invasion plan...

but no matter which proposal we choose, we should keep all skills in the parent categories as long as possible (as long as the number does not lead to a second page). So Primal Echoes would be in categories: Ranger skills, Beastmastery Skills and Ranger Core skills. That puts a cap on the amount of subcategories we can create, since we dont what to have articles with 20 categories around. --Xeeron 01:20, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * Actually, this page is not in its finished form. I just realized that there is a neat trick that I can use to generalize all of it and present just four or five different features to tweak. Give me a bit longer to get this straight, and then I'd like to hear your re-evaluation. 01:24, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * All right, I've made my edit. Does the final figure still scare you? 01:46, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * I like it, it's what I've been hoping for all along. Evan The Cursed (Talk) 03:09, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * Very useful to color the "buerocratic" categories. Dont worry, I was just poking fun at the grafics, they are (and were) useful =) --Xeeron 03:54, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Forgive a poor anonymous user, but how is this different than the categorization scheme already used (and besides the campaign categories, this seems to be how it's been for several months)? To me, this matches the current system with more or less trivial differences (like Pan pointed out below, or having additional categories like "Spell (untyped)" instead of putting those skills in the parent "Spell"). I may just be reading it incorrectly, I guess. --68.142.14.53 18:27, 21 March 2006 (CST)


 * It's too hard to explain if you don't know the full story. In short, the categorization that is in place is ad hoc and incomplete and has been that way "for several months". You can try following some of the links from GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting. 18:37, 21 March 2006 (CST)

is the proposal complete yet?
don't want to start firing my comments away before you consider them in a more or less ready state. -PanSola 04:44, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * Yes. Comment away. 05:51, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * There is an inconsistency in saying there are "Untyped skills" vs there are "Regular spells". What are you going to do with other non-leaf skill types such as Attack and Melee Attack?
 * I think "Regular spells" should just be "Spells", and "Untyped skills" should just be "Skills" (except it gets ambiguous so name that "Skills (skill type)" instead. If you are against my proposition, please definitely make clear what you are planning to call skills that are just "Attack" and "Melee Attack" -PanSola 06:01, 17 March 2006 (CST)
 * Nature Ritual and Binding Ritual should both fall under a "Rituals" subcat. Or at least if you are unsure, test it out with Ritual Lord on 3/24. -PanSola 06:02, 17 March 2006 (CST)
 * OK, I wasn't careful enough in that section, so your objections are valid. I've made a first pass at cleaning it up. Take a look. 06:04, 17 March 2006 (CST)
 * You missed "Melee Attacks", which is a parent category of Axe, Sword, Hammer, and "Melee Attacks (Untyped)". Something else that is Factions specific, is whether you plan to make a category "Dagger Attacks" and put Lead, Offhand, and Dual under them, or put all three directly under "Melee Attacks". -PanSola 11:30, 17 March 2006 (CST)
 * Also, while that solves the consistency issue, I feel ackward considering Melee Attack a type of attack, yet having untyped melee attacks... -PanSola 11:34, 17 March 2006 (CST)
 * *bump* -SolaPan 09:38, 20 March 2006 (CST)


 * I think anything saying "Skills by..." should have skills two levels below it. In fact, I think skills by type should say exactly what the skill description says.  So instead of Skills by type -> Rituals -> Binding Rituals, just go straight Skills by type -> Binding Rituals/Nature Rituals et. al.  Though perhaps you can put Rituals under Skills by type as well?  Evan The Cursed (Talk) 12:03, 17 March 2006 (CST)
 * Fully flatting the tree is one option, but I personally prefer to preserve the tree structure. BTW, there are no plain Ritual skills, at least not yet.  -24.7.179.183 19:45, 17 March 2006 (CST)


 * Not flattening the tree so much as twisting it in on itself. Or separating it into three separate trees that all eventually link the same target articles.  It's all about sorting preferences, since I really can't decide on which would be a more appropriate cover subcategory:  by campaigns, by type, by target, by profession, by attribute?  (though I think attribute can safely go under profession).  And also, when I said to put Ritual in the same categor as Binding Rituals and Nature  Rituals, I knew that there were no plain "Ritual" skills.  I meant, giving it as a separate subcategory that lists all the skills in binding and nature rituals.  User will Be Right Back  02:05, 21 March 2006 (CST)


 * This is generally pretty great and has at least solidified some things in my mind. Thank you, Stabber.  Now, to go back and forth to the discussion and try to really straighten my head out!  --JoDiamonds 11:28, 17 March 2006 (CST)

Missing levels
the "by type" graph is missing the "Melee Attack" level, under which sword, axe, hammer, lead, offhand, and dual belong. And it's also missing the "Melee Attack (Untyped)" type -SolaPan 17:05, 21 March 2006 (CST)


 * Uh, what about the "Attack" node towards the right? It's missing the assassin stuff, but has the other things you mentioned. 17:55, 21 March 2006 (CST)
 * "Melee Attack" is a subtype of "Attack"... But now that you have withdrawn the thing I'm not sure if this is still the right place to discuss it anymore o_O"" -SolaPan 19:23, 21 March 2006 (CST)