GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Professions

Someone should go over the current pages and see if they're really -missing- any information, anything that might conceivably need to be regularly added/updated. If not.. do we need a style guide for this? New professions will just be added with expansion packs (probably) and they're not very complicated as-is. Nunix 06:50, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

Profession Combinations
Do we really need the Profession Combinations section on each of the profession pages. As far as I can tell most all of these link to either empty pages, or to pages with one line saying that combination x/y is a charater who's primary class is x and who's secondary class is y. Everyone knows that. A few of these have slightly more detailed discussions of one or two small ways x and y's skills could benefit one another.

Obviously, there are a large number of ways that the total number of skills between two classes can be combined. Different combinations suit different purposes and playstyles. It's quite a lot to expect one article to cover all of these details. I think the topic would be more suitably discussed through categories and smaller build specific articles. Many of these already exist. Something like builds -> necromancer primary builds -> necromancer mesmer builds -> Condition Spreader: a condition spreader focuses on .... and uses skills from both classes ...

There are already several articles about PvP builds and these would fit nicely under such a system. We could then link the profession pages not to the "builds -> monk primary" category instead of an empty or nearly empty professions combination page. Otherwise, more rudimentary discussions of the most basic strengths/weaknesses of general profession combo's could take place within the professions article itself, fleshing it out.--Squeg 03:37, 19 October 2005 (EST)


 * All I can add is place it in Category:Guides. --Karlos 04:43, 19 October 2005 (EST)

Profession Combinations: New Format
The other day I added an alternative table format to the Dervish article, which looks like this:

! Rowspan=2 | Secondary (by campaign) -> Primary || colspan=6 | Core (Prophecies) || colspan=2 | Factions || colspan = 2 | Nightfall
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * - align="center" valign="bottom"
 * Warrior || Ranger ||  Monk ||  Necrom. ||  Mesmer ||  Elem. ||  Assassin ||  Ritualist ||  Paragon ||  Dervish
 * - align="center" valign="bottom"
 * Dervish || D/W || D/R || D/Mo || D/N || D/Me || D/E || D/A || D/Rt || D/P || -
 * }

Because of this, MRA left me the following note on my talk page, which I copy here to continue the discussion. -- 06:37, 21 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I have seen you proposed an alternative table format for the list of profession combos at Dervish. This is maybe a good idea thinking of the growing number of combinations. But what do you think of using a navbox like the following instead? (Colours and details are, of course, open to dispute.)
 * --MRA 05:09, 21 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I prefer the content of my table, which is clearer and more structured. But MRA's version has the better look. I think a combination of the two would be best. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:37, 21 July 2006 (CDT)


 * How about something like this?


 * It's similar to MRA's, but adds slightly more structure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:31, 21 July 2006 (CDT)