GuildWiki talk:Skill Template Guide

I know I've covered this somewhere, but is there a hard and fast rule about number range emphasis? For example, I see lots of the skill articles say "does 10..35 damage" and some say "does 10...35 damage". We should normalise this. I personally think bold is better, because that's the really pertinent information in the article. Gravewit 02:51, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)

Templates dont work for me, giving me an error: - A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: - (SQL query hidden) - from within function "MediaWikiBagOStuff:_doquery". MySQL returned error "1030: Got error 134 from storage engine (localhost)". Ollj
 * I'm getting those SQL errors about 75% of the pages I am trying to access. It's been like this for about a week. For instance, every link on the Elite Skills Location page triggers this error. --Jackel 05:53, 27 Jul 2005 (EST)

This is being worked on. It's been discussed across several pages. 68.251.127.146 05:59, 27 Jul 2005 (EST)

Ollj skills
Ollj, so far your unilateral action has been about as much trouble as it has been worth. How about before you do anything else you get involved in the discussions in the Style and formatting sections?

since i got a table with all 345 skills in it and detailed knowledge of all those i would like to bring all skills out of stub status...

BUT I also have sugggestions to change the skil template:

1) I want all the out of the value!!

That way i could use categorize_ Skills for a SKILL CLASS categories and categorize: for a SKILL TYPE category inside the templates also, and they would be automaitized becausae their category is in a template like in "Template:Skill_begin" !

2) skill "effect" and "targets" in the template?

You can sort skills by their "effects". I alredy wikified a LOT of verbs in the descriptions, but it doesnt follow certain rules yet. You could categorize there also into "changes health" "changes energy" "Armor/blocks/evades" "causes condition" "interrupts" "use on foe" "use on ally" "use on party" ...

3) I already worked on formating all the 1...32 ranges to wikify them, most are done, want them into the template?

4) i want | "icon = ..." out of the proffession entry template, because it can be puzzled out of "value" with IF the image names are all formated that way. It just makes less to type and saves some memory!!! Skill_image has the same, i dont have to type the skill name twice if i put more in the template and less in the skill! Actually just include skill_image and skill_begin into skill_start and save 2 lines in each skill.

5) get (elite) out of the atribute entry and make it a seperate entry!

6) include relative increase and increase peaks to it :)

7) reduce "Enchantment spell" to "Enchantment" and "Hex Spell" to "Hex" and "Signet Ring" to "Signet"

so skills look basically like this:

and ill change the template, so the result is basically the same. and we could have it automatically in the categories: "Elite" (is "category:elite skill" or not) "Target foe" (targets foe) "Health x" (chaning health with x=heal,gain,steal...) "36...55" (note that this stanxs above skill_energy... because its linked to it) "Energy gain" (changing energy with x=drain,steal,gain...) "Defense x" (with x= block,evade,armor...) "Condition x" (causing conditions with x beingthe contidion)

Of course you can keep empty entrances (with an x here) out or make them multiple times if they are in multiple times with different x.

1) No, if someone puts "?" in the entry then it would add it do "Category:?" which is undesirable. Using links inside entries makes sense because we might not want to link to a page. We should remain flexible.

2) This isn't a bad idea, I think we should formalize the terminology though.

3) I don't like the way they use templates, as I commented on one of them (can't remember which), but overall I don't mind these pages too much. I think it's better than including the information in the page. So yes, I don't mind if you link to the pages.

4) No, profession can also be "artisan" or "trader" or "skill trainer" that don't have icons. The way icons are treated in templates should remain the same, for similar points to (1).

5) Yes, this isn't a bad idea. Any suggestions? (Please don't go ahead and change anything yet!)

6) I think this should be included on the numbers pages rather than skill pages themselves. It's detailed information that is deserving of its own area, and I think this area would be best on the numbers page.

7) Yes, I agree with this.

8) (your other suggestions) I don't like all the stuff in the template. Could you create a sample skill article at User:Ollj/Sample Skill without changing existing templates to demonstrate what a page like this would look like? Any changes you do make to existing skill templates without prior discussion will be rolled back. 22:16, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)

2) I've been thinking about something like this. It's a good idea.

3) I still see no point to the range articles instead of including a table on the skill page. I would not want to click a link to get that info instead of having it in front of me already when looking at the skill.  As with everyone else, I think the work you did on this is brash and you need to slow down.

5, 7) The reason they say "enchantment spell" and such is that's what the game says. For elite status, I would say either make it "elite enchantment spell" like the game or leave it as it is ("enchantment spell (elite)").  I'm not sure what having "elite = x" accomplishes in the template.

I also reverted one of Ollj's changes to the skill template since he changed it without discussion. --Fyren 23:31, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)

Ah right, good stuff Fyren. 00:00, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

The reason I like seperate number-range pages is because the format is still undecided really. It's the lesser of two evils to have a seperate page with this info on. 00:03, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * I'd rather have no pages or no tables than a gazillion pages we end up not wanting or a gazillion tables to edit out. Of course, we already have the pages now... --Fyren 00:08, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

if its "x" just do not insert the template line and you dont get an "x"-category.
 * Then you're saying just like .  --Fyren 05:21, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * No Ollj, it's still a bad idea because it ties you in to something you might not want. It's no big hardship to add a template AND add a category, and I don't think I'm going to budge on this. 10:08, 31 Jul 2005 (EST)

No dictionary
(merged from user talk Ollj) There is no point to creating Guild Wars articles for words like "touch" or "foe" or "attack". If people really don't know what common english words are, there is a dictionary for that. --Jackel 03:55, 1 Aug 2005 (EST)

last time I checked this was no dictionary. attack and touch are not as clear as you might think.
 * You are the one trying to make this a dictionary. Touch is the only term that might need a bit of explaining in a game sense. All the other terms you have wikified dont need explaining. --Geeman 04:25, 1 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * tell that to all the players I killed with Empathy, spirit shackes, spinal shivers, clumsiness, inerpitude ...
 * There is no reason to have a an entry for touch. We should have an entry for Touch Attack, Melee Attack, Ranged Attack. Players die because of Empathy and Spirit Shackles because they never bother to learn what those little icons on the top left mean. Not because they don't understand what attack means.
 * Overall, please try to think in terms of a process, not just something you like or not like. As a process, if you wikify attack, you will have to wikify the whole article and explain go, come and enter. If someone doesn't understand what the word "Melee" itself means, they should consult a dictionary. We should only try to explain what a Melee attack in guild wars is and what can cause it and what can stop it and so forth. --Karlos 05:21, 1 Aug 2005 (EST)

What to wikify?:
so far the following dextription segments got wikified:

exhausted weakness (most done, some still not bound to Conditions ) (note to split up "the bars" and "bar changings", i dont think the site Health regeneartion is that usefull)
 * Ranges: like 1...32 (all done)
 * "Conditions" Conditions dazed bleeding diseased on fire crippled deep wound death penalty knocked down blind poison
 * Damage Types damage fire damage earth damage cold damage lightning damage chaos damage holy damage shadow damage piecing damage slashing damage blunt damage physical damage (status not clear)
 * Skill types arrow (against arrows) adrenaline Attack (if the skill type is an attack) Attack (if the skill targets attacks) action (targets all) Melee (if the skill targets melee (block and evade skills)) Hex Spell Skill enchantment Signet maintain ... (status nor clear)
 * preventing armor block evade interrupt (status not clear)
 * the bars Energy Health (most not wikified, some even wrong)
 * bar changings regeneration degeneration Heal steal lose (most not wikified, some even wrong)
 * Activate/cast . activating cast (linked 27 times to cast because spells ... get cast (and not activated), should we just Redirect to Sklls or change it all to Skills#Activation time or use "disambing" ?)
 * Sacrifice (i think i wikified all those)
 * armor piercing (i think i wikified all those)
 * animal companion (i think i wikified all those)
 * resurrect (heh i linked to a skill without thinking much about it, but i donw want to "disambing" skil land verb)
 * corpse (never wikified, just a suggestion)
 * minons Minon Minon Minon (status not clear)
 * distances nearby adjanced area explode (barly wikified, not sure)
 * targets foe ally party creatures undead
 * Out of this huge list, the ones I think should be wiki linked are the conditions, the skill type (hex, etc.), and maybe the target type. I think the target type should also have a field in the template with choices being self, ally, other ally, enemy, and minion.  I think this covers everything, since "party" spells actually only target yourself but have an effect on your party (this can be observed with divine favor, zealot's fire, and probably other stuff like that).  --Fyren 04:21, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Out of this huge list, the ones I think should be wiki linked are the conditions, the skill type (hex, etc.), and maybe the target type. I think the target type should also have a field in the template with choices being self, ally, other ally, enemy, and minion.  I think this covers everything, since "party" spells actually only target yourself but have an effect on your party (this can be observed with divine favor, zealot's fire, and probably other stuff like that).  --Fyren 04:21, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Here is my input:
 * They are called "articles" not "sites," you confuse other readers when you refer to them as sites.
 * COnditions are fine, except "on fire" should be Burning.
 * There should be no wiki for "damage" that's again, English. You cannot use it in a Guild Wars reference and mean something OTHER than the english meaning. But we should have a Category called Damage Types that includes a reference to all the different types.
 * I think prevention technicques should be Blocking (though I wrote Block) and Evasion. Armor is a defensive/equipment issue. It doesn't prevent an attack. Interruption is an offensive move it does not necessarily protect you as much as it annoys the begeebers out of the enemy (you even see them cuss and curse).
 * There is no armor piercing there is armor penetration, right?
 * Minion should be a category undear Bestiary and within it there should be those three creatures.
 * Targets is not completely coherent. What does undead have to do with party? I think perhaps Ally should be explained in Guild Wars sense as well as Other Ally. Foe and Creature are not needed.
 * --Karlos 08:37, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I think what Ollj meant by undead was minion. Whether we link them or not, does anyone disagree with "Target: whatever" being in the template?  --Fyren 08:50, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * I like that, yes. I finally understand what you mean now! :) Skill Target! Yes, I think that's a good idea. Target: Self/Ally/Other ally/Pet/Minion/Corpse/Enemy (or Foe) Also we could have Area of Effect. Target, Adjacent, Nearby and then Target AND Adjacent and Target AND Nearby. But we're inching ever so close into putting the whole description in the template! :) --Karlos 09:14, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)
 * Would firestorm-like areas count as nearby? Also, the well spells target only a corpse but then have a rather large area of effect for the well.  Spirits have an even larger one.  --Fyren 10:16, 2 Aug 2005 (EST)