User talk:Fyren4632

Old talk stuff.

Categories &amp; Trees
I'd like to discuss your notion that categories should form separate trees -- and even whether they should really be true trees (where branches have no common leaves). My hope is to convince you otherwise. To start off, what are your thoughts on Wikipedia:Categories_do_not_form_a_tree? If you like, I can provide an argument for why this Wikipedia guideline is best. (Also, are you familiar with graph theory terminology?) --Rezyk 03:50, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I know something of graph theory, since I have a computer engineering degree. If you have an argument, it's fine to bring it up,  but it should be relevant to GWiki, not just Wikipedia.  In very short, for things like skills, we have something like Skills -> Mesmer Skills -> Domination Magic -> backfire, but backfire is in each of those categories.  But then for Skill (which is for the skill type "skill") -> Spells -> Hex Spells -> backfire, it's only in Hex Spells.  Perhaps the root category for the latter structure should be different, but backfire is inconsistently not in spells or inconsistently in skills and mesmer skills.  At the moment the structures we have might actually be trees because of shuffling around done by people other than me, but the skill categories once had, for example, Skills -> Warrior Skills -> Shouts -> Otyugh's Cry.  Shouts was also under "Ranger Skills."  The major top level categories we have now are for items, skills, and locations/things in a location.  With the categories we have, I do not think it makes sense or is helpful to the reader to have duplication within our current structures.  --Fyren 12:28, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I think you're misinterpreting me (my bad, I should have said "where separate branches have no common leaves" or "exclusive subcategories"). I think Backfire should not be directly linked in Category:Skills, Category:Mesmer Skills, or Category:Spells (Worded as a guideline: an article should not be directly linked in a category if it's in a descendant category).  We seem to be agreement here. --Rezyk 08:07, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * What I'm asking about is why would you think that "perhaps the root categories [..] should be different"? Or: in Category_talk:Warriors you imply that for "articles to end up in the tree twice" is bad -- what is bad/nonsensical about it (if they're appearing twice through different subcategories)? I'm not arguing yet as I simply just don't see your reasoning (my only guess is that you're getting there by oversimplifying the above guideline..?). --Rezyk 08:07, 5 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I completely forgot about this, heh. Sorry.  Anyway, I'll try to start over since I don't think either of us is understanding the other.  First, the root category comment is a separate issue.  Category:Skill was created as the root for all skill types, since everything is at least a "skill" but sometimes more specific, like "hex spell."  I'm not sure if you've interpreted me as saying things should only be in one tree overall, but that's not what I mean.  Things should only be in the same tree once, which is what I think you just agreed with.  --Fyren 21:26, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I agree with a more loose rule: things should be in any path at most once. (where Skills->Mesmer_Skills->Domination_Magic and Skills->Spells->Hexes are 2 examples of paths) So with these paths I'd only put Backfire in Domination_Magic and Hexes.  But that would put in the Skills tree twice, which you're against (if I'm interpreting you right).  If you are against that, why so? --Rezyk 17:07, 15 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Because I've been trying to get the two "paths" as seperate trees with a "skill (skill type)" or something similar root. --Fyren 20:01, 15 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * So you're against having things in the same tree twice because you want separate trees, but it always seems like the reasoning you give for separate trees is to avoid having things in the same tree twice! What's the initial reasoning that necessitates either of these? (Or, what is wrong with stopping at "things should be in any path at most once"?) --Rezyk 03:54, 16 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * No, the specific reason for backfire was that. I guess I'm mixing the issues (again).  My first reply had "I do not think it makes sense or is helpful to the reader to have duplication within our current structures" (so I did a bad job of starting over, too).  In Category talk:Categories, which I suppose prompted this all, I mentioned "spaghetti" as in the categorical equivalent to spaghetti code.  At the moment, every article is everywhere, making it easy to find a skill not because the category structure makes sense but because you can't wave your arms around without smacking whatever you were looking for.
 * If it's set up as in your example, the spaghetti-ness mostly goes away, but "Skills" still will contain a seemingly random selection at first glance. It'll have "Enchantment Spells," "Mesmer Skills," and articles like shock and contemplation of purity.  Which way do you go if you want to find an enchantment that's a mesmer skill?  Well, either way, it would turn out, but I think it would be helpful if the question didn't exist and the user started out in the right root to start with.  Also, all categories currently have an is-a or does-this relationship with its members (well, and is-in for the categories named after zones).  In the example's structure, "Skills" doubles up and takes two meanings for "skill."  Shock is in the root and "Mesmer Skills" is also in the root.  The general relationship doesn't hold for a single meaning, since it either implies shock is a professionless skill or mesmer skills are all a certain skill type (as in spell, enchantment, etc.) and further that domination magic is also.
 * Breaking it into two trees ends up fixing both problems and, to me, is the best solution. If you make it so there's Some Root->Skills by Profession/Attribute and Some Root->Skills by Type and so on, then that root is essentially useless because it only contains those two subcategories.  If we had enough things to go into Some Root then that would probably make sense.  --Fyren 07:18, 16 October 2005 (EST)

Related skills decision
Moo. Can you post your decision on Talk:Hex so that Rezyk can go ahead and apply the great list of related skills he has compiled for all effects and conditions. So that then I can start fighting with him about his choices in each page? >:) --Karlos 15:43, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Moo. Been playing a lot lately, so less wiki time. --Fyren 21:27, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)

Nitpicky typos
"Malion's Malign Hammer" should be "Malinon's Malign Hammer"


 * Done. --Karlos 08:56, 15 Oct 2005 (EST)

Actually, the way the typo is ingame, it should be "Malion's". Even the pic shows it.
 * Actually, no. We are listing the weapon's name relative to the boss' name. If you check the page it has a note about the item's name being messed up. --Karlos 08:49, 16 October 2005 (EST)

Also, some of the bosses have specific locations listed, which is simply incorrect. With the exception of Final Assault, the bosses' locations are random. --Savio 00:17, 16 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Only the unique items list article is protected. You can edit any other article, such as the individual boss articles.  I have no clue about recent PvE stuff, but it looks like many of the boss articles have multiple spawns listed.  --Fyren 00:25, 16 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * No, he's right. The boss locations on the Grenth's Footprint and Sorrow's Furnace pages are not fixed. That said, my approach is to upload a map of the place with all boss spawn locations, THEN edit these boss pages and say that they spawn at one of those locations. For now, the location info is not "incorrect" so either list all possible locations or leave it be. --Karlos 08:49, 16 October 2005 (EST)


 * My point was more that he can just fix it, since it's not on the protected page, but okay. --Fyren 08:52, 16 October 2005 (EST)


 * Oh, okay, I can change that stuff then? I wasn't sure if I could. The problem with listing all of the possible spots is that it's pretty much the same for all bosses, or for a certain group of bosses (such as during Orozar). I'll get on it. --Savio 19:11, 17 October 2005 (EST)


 * There are very few pages you can't edit. The note on unique items list is just there because, as you may have noticed, non-admins don't get an "edit" link at the top.  Anything else you're free to edit (as long as you don't do something stupid).  --Fyren 19:13, 17 October 2005 (EST)


 * Well, I can't change Malinon's Malign Hammer back to Malion's as it is showed ingame. It should stay consistent like Worth's. Other than that I can edit it. --Savio 19:16, 17 October 2005 (EST)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Worths were all renamed to Wroths. Even the old items were. This is because of the update. Also, make a note that The Rockmolder still exists in its old form, however, all new drops only have a 10% skill recharge. Thanks. -unienaule, from GwG


 * Has this been fixed, as Mr. Anonymous pointed out for Wroth's items? --Fyren 05:24, 22 October 2005 (EST)


 * Yes, Worth's is now Wroth's, and the Rockmolder now exists in two different flavors. I uploaded new pics but left the old ones on their pages so as not to cause any confusion. --Savio 08:23, 22 October 2005 (EST)


 * Indeed, Wroth's stuff has been renamed also retroactively. Which makes me doubt that Rockmolder has not been fixed retroactively. If anyone who has it presently can confirm, that would be great. --Karlos 16:07, 22 October 2005 (EST)


 * I have both old and new Rockmolders. The old ones are still at 20%, but the ones that drop now are only at 10%. --Savio 17:07, 22 October 2005 (EST)


 * K, thanx, I updated the Rockmolder page. --Karlos 19:18, 22 October 2005 (EST)