GuildWiki talk:Standardizing skill templates

I'd vote for "takes" instead of "suffers." "Suffer" is used as a verb with damage as the object in only ten skills (and two of those don't ignore armor). "Takes" is used in 68 skills by my count (admittedly, six are armor respecting skills), but at least it's commonly used already. --68.142.14.92 01:05, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ditto. - 01:08, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * WP:BOLD &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 01:11, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * We are not Wikipedia - Any policies we share, but lack an actual policy article for, should be ported over here; it is bad form to link a Wikipedia policy article in support of any action, even if that policy is the same as one traditionally held by the GuildWiki. Besides, I'm lazy d-: - 01:31, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Just curious; is the goal of this article to create new wording to insert into GW skill articles? If so, will we over-write the in-game descriptions, or insert this version next to the current in-game descriptions? Or is this one of the "Changes that ArenaNet should make" type articles? --24.19.168.170 01:20, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The latter. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 01:27, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would recommand this to be placed side-by-side with the in-game description in the skill article. Thus, we will have a "In-game Description" that copies in-game word by word, and a "GuildWiki Description" that is more standardized.  This might also replace the errata section. - 01:28, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * That step can be taken when this project matures a lot more. It's still way too early, and we're still brainstorming about the standard glossary. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 01:30, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I too would like to see a standardized description within the skill articles - there's room for that to be added to the Skill Box Template. But let's first find some general understanding and wording for the descriptions that is
 * easy to understand and
 * able to represent the maths behind the scenes
 * --Chi Li [[Image:Chi_Li.gif|Chi Li]] 08:48, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

"start using"
Is there anything that triggers off "start using"? - 01:42, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I was envisioning it for cases like using a spell on someone protected with Spell Breaker. I also think it is important to mention that the end of the activation is the trigger for pretty much everything. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 01:48, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You might want to reword it then, since if you are putting a long-cast spell on me, and I start fast-casting Spell Breaker after you have started casting your spell, your spell won't fail until I finish casting my Spell Breaker, so technically the effect didn't happen when you start casting your spell. I think it's more important to keyword the verb fail (not the same as the attack-related failures). - 01:53, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * BTW, I'm assuming Guilt and Shame treats "fail" the same way Spell Breaker does. If not, there's another inconsistency for us to iron out. - 01:57, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Condition causing skills
Rotting flesh, sever artery etc all try to describe the conditon they cause &mdash; Skuld  02:31, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I recommend removing such descriptions, as we, at least, have an article on them. A player in GW, optimally, should be able to hover over the condition when affected by it and get a desc out of it. On the flip side, if a player is rarely affected by such things, there is no source for their information on them ingame. What it really needs is some sort of glossary for conditions. :P --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 17:21, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Some consistency issues
These aren't really important issues besides that they should be consistent but the manner in which they should be isn't clear: Maybe more after I think about it. --68.142.14.92 02:31, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * "Damage sentences" vary a lot in sentence subject and verb conjugation. Sometimes "you strike for," sometimes " strikes for," and sometimes the enemy "is struck" (and probably other forms, too).  It even varies within the same skill sometimes.  I'm not sure how far standardization should be taken, such as making attack skills and spells all fall in line or having potentially different schemes for different types.
 * Self reference. Some skills say things like "this attack" and some use the skill name.  Sometimes there's more than one self-reference so using either form twice might seem like jilted English.
 * Flavor text. Distracting blow swipes, phoenix raises a fiery phoenix that flies out and explodes, lightning orb creates a lightning orb, broad head arrow shoots out a broad head arrow.  The latter two are clearly less "flavorful" but not necessary.  In some cases this seems to indicate projectile attacks (as in dodgable attacks and not automatic hits).  I'd weakly favor all flavor text getting removed.


 * For self-reference, I recommend self-reference every time. Protective Bond, for example -- instead of "While you maintain this Enchantment", do "While Protective Bond is maintained", as there is no point in mentioning that it is an enchantment when the first two words in GW are "Enchantment Spell". In fact, I recommend removing second-person altogether if at all possible, unless it causes undue awkwardness. This would also solve part of your "damage sentences" bullet. I wonder if I should "be bold" when we're trying to standardize. --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 17:18, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

ANet
Stabber wrote "there is no guarantee" ANet will use this information. Actually, there is no way ANet can use this information because of the wiki's license. --68.142.14.92 17:19, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * This can and should be rectified immediately. Suggest adding a banner at the top that releases material in this article into the public domain, with contributors implicitly agreeing on contribution. 85.25.141.60 17:32, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Life stealing vs. damage
Please, for the love of god, don't introduce confusion where none exists at the moment. Do not call any cause of health loss that Protective Spirit doesn't limit "damage", or the Baby Prince Rurik will cry. 195.169.149.213 17:38, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Unfortunatley, that's how ANet defines it. Read damage -- it does not include Life Stealing, etc. Edit: I think I read your comment backwards. I was in the process of fixing my recursive definition, oops, but the page is way too active. --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 17:43, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree life stealing should have some different language attached to it to make sure it is not confused as the d word. Say, health loss or loss of health maybe that would keep things better separated? --Chrono traveller 17:46, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * But you don't have to lose health for things to count as damage. "-0", if not life stealing, is damage. Hence my earlier definition of "A red number above an actor's head that is preceeded by a minus sign", or the wordy version per below, "A red number above a player or non-player character's head that is...". --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 17:49, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Agreed, but that is not what I was argueing. My comment (and 195.169.149.213's too) was that the word damage should not appear in the definition of life stealing since, as you have already pointed out, life stealing isn't damage.  In other words, I would say
 * damage is loss of health due to x,y, or z (stuff that is on the damage article)
 * life stealing is loss of health of one actor that heals another actor
 * So while both are loss of health, both aren't equivalent. --Chrono traveller 17:57, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, I was actually trying to fix my life-stealing definition, as it was recursive, but it got reverted out too quick. Edit: Unless we define damage without negatives, it is defined as "everything but this this this this this this this and this" in its article. Is there a better way (red numbers caused by somebody else that doesn't heal them...?) or should we use the "everything but" version? "Being bold" was reverted too quickly for me to actually fix it. :P --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 17:59, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I don't a big problem with stating something along the lines of
 * damage is any loss of health not specifically stated otherwise
 * I agree that it is less than appealing to state what something is not, instead of what it is, but as a personal opinion, I like it better than your red numbers definition. Maybe combine the two, somehow? --Chrono traveller 18:16, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Actor?
Can we at least institute a policy of sticking as close to the existing terms as possible? Why introduce completely new terminology? 195.169.149.213 17:41, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Sure. I was trying to avoid wordiness by specifying "player or non-player character" each time I would have written "actor". Also, I was in the process of fixing my recursive definition, but the page is too active right now... --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 17:43, 7 June 2006 (CDT)