Talk:Skill details

Why a simple reverse? As it is, the article is incomplete and inaccurate, many pieces of info are redundant, don't fit the article's scope or are flat wrong. Roland of Gilead 17:46, 26 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I explain the reverse on another page (Talk:Skills I think). This page serves only as an explanation for those details shown in the Skill Box on skill pages. If more detailed information exists on other pages then feel free to link to those pages. If the information here is wrong by all means correct it, but this page is only supposed to serve as a guide for someone reading a skill page who is unsure of a term inside the box. 21:05, 26 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Even though I'm just replying to myself I feel like I'm on a roll, so here we go! The changes made to the Skills page are good, and I'm all for many of those changed being made to the Skill details page, but merging the two pages and making Skill details a redirect is, in my opinion, a bad idea; the sections "Learning Skills", "Unlocking Skills, "Equipping Skills", "Using Skills" and "A general Skill Timeline" are relevant to skills in general and the information is very useful, but Skill details serves a different purpose. It just reminds people what is meant by upkeep etc. 21:24, 26 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I understand and am ok with the purpose of Skill Details, i.e. providing details on the Skill properties. However, a link to Skills would do exactly the same as a link to Skill Details, so why store and maintain 2 pages if 1 does the job? If something relevant changes or has to be added, we would have to modify 2 pages each time. This breeds de-sync and one article lagging behind the other. Plus, if we merged the two, we would have all info on Skills on exactly one page so that viewers dont have to go to Skill Details first, then over to Skills, in which they will see the same content again. Not very professional if you ask me. It just makes no sense to keep two pages, if one is just a true subset of the other.
 * Bottom line is, I still am in favour of replacing the content of Skill Details with a redirect to Skill. Maybe I have made a better case this time than when just doing it.
 * Oh yeah, by the way: You wrote If the information here is wrong by all means correct it
 * Well I did as you know, but for some reason it was totally reversed, throwing out the good with the allegedly bad ;) I just don't feel like doing the same work again, even if it involves just copy&paste Roland of Gilead 01:50, 27 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * "Well I did as you know, but for some reason it was totally reversed", please check the history of this article. The only change you made here was to replace the page with a redirect.This is what I reversed. The changes you are referring to are still visible at Skills.
 * In my opinion using Skill details to explain what terms in the skill box mean is straightforward; a user can click on skill details and get a short description of what each entry represents, and if they want more knowledge they can look at a more in depth page such as Skills. The information in Skill details is a specialisation of the information in Skills, and for that reason I think it's justifiable to maintain 2 seperate articles. If the majority disagree then I am willing to stand down on this issue, as always. 06:19, 27 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * ok, I understand a little more with each comment :) However, this time it even raised more questions than before. Let's see, this could take a while.
 * In my opinion using Skill details to explain what terms in the skill box mean is straightforward
 * Straightforward to us - the regulars (which I might not yet be; but Im getting the feeling) - or to the casual visitor which we should always have in mind while writing, structuring, and presenting? I doubt the latter. Here's why:
 * Let's assume a user wants to know about Flare. The link to "Skill Details" is embedded very prominently in the middle of this template box which is all about Flare. Also, there already are some direct links to, for example, Spell, which is an obviously general category term that will be explained behind this very link, and the reader is right in assuming so. Why, then, should he assume that "Skill Details" will lead him to a another general page which, for example, explains Spell again, instead of further details (get it?) on "Flare"? Also note that not all key words are wikified. Why is Spell wikified but Skill Type is not, although it even contains Spell?
 * Note: I don't think any of our readers is stupid or unable to click and search around a little, but if GuildWiki wants to outcompete any other potential GW wiki out there, such hurdles should not stay in the way.
 * and if they want more knowledge they can look at a more in depth page such as Skills
 * How will a user come to even suspect that there is more info than what he has seen in a "detailed" (hence the name) explanation? Specifically, under what rationale should he assume that "Skill" is more detailed than "Skill details"? Link setting, placement within the box, and title of "Skill Details" suggest that "Skill Details" is a skill-specific and detailed explanation of skill attributes. However, the precise opposite is the case, as you stated above (a short description of (...) each entry).
 * The information in Skill details is a specialisation of the information in Skills
 * Does this refer to the current states of the respective articles? As it stands - excuse me for repeating myself - most of the info in Skill details is of inferior quality compared to Skills, while not being of significantly lower quantity.


 * Sorry if I sounded too harsh in places, sometimes I just get carried away. But I strive to be a constructive critic, so here's my ideas for doing it - I think - better, with minimal editing effort:
 * Complete wikification of all key words in the Skill box template
 * Moving the "Skill Details" content (which implies deleting "Skill Details") to something more appropriately named, like "Skill Property Overview" or something to that effect. Since the links are all in the Box template, they can all be re-wired with a single edit.
 * Alternatively, just delete Skill Details without replacement. Every property described in it is already present (or can be made with minimal effort) as a single article. Why not just wikify the box? Same effect, less overhead. If you believe users will definitely want an overview over all possible skill properties, send them to "Skill#Skill Anatomy", for which I still fail to see the difference to the current "Skill details".
 * In the skill box template, rename "Skill details" to something like "general skill overview" or something to that effect, if we basically keep Skill Details. Title, reasonable reader expectation, and content just have to be matched, no questions asked. Titling A, writing about B, and letting the user assume C is bad policy. Roland of Gilead 11:06, 27 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * I agree with Roland for what it's worth. This is not an area I am teribly interested in. But what he says makes the most sense. Wikify the items in the skill box and then lose this article. --Karlos 11:20, 27 Jul 2005 (EST)

I have rolled back the delete, primarily because every skill template now points to a non-existant page. The skill template was based on the taxonomy boxes used in wikipedia. I think it is very necessary to have them point to a page that explains the contents of that box. I would argue that if "Skills" (the article name should surely be "skill" anyway?) contains more valid info than skill details then that info should be included in "Skill details". The reason you may fail to see much of a difference between "Skill details" and "Skills#Skill Anatomy" is because Ollj Roland of Gilead copied and pasted it. Personally I still think the two seperate pages are more useful than having 1 very large page. If you think this page is ambiguous in explaining where more detailed information exists then add a link to it. If no one agrees with me I'll delete the page, but I just want to give it a chance first :) I'll leave the delete box on the page for a couple of days before I throw in the towel. 21:39, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Leave information on skill details and on skill. &mdash;Tanaric 22:26, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Damn good idea Tanaric! 22:29, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * Done. &mdash;Tanaric 22:30, 3 Aug 2005 (EST)

Skill Types
I disagree with the current organisation of Skill details. Firstly (and pedantically) I don't see why an ordered list is used for the "Basic Skill Types", and secondly I think the "Prefix Skill Types" is confusing. It just seems overly complex. I think the section over-explains what really seems to be a lack of imagination from ArenaNet/NCSoft when naming skills and only being able to come up with "skill" for the skill type. I would prefer to see it organised more simply like this, since each "Prefix Skill Type" as they have been referred to will always have the same "parent".


 * Skill - As explained above, the most basic Skill type. Pure Skills are hard to counter, because their Casting Time is usually very low and their effects instantaneous, which makes them hard to prevent or cancel. Only few Skills can interrupt pure Skills directly.
 * Attack - An enhanced attack on an enemy with any weapon. For Warriors, it often requires Adrenaline instead of Energy to activate.
 * Axe
 * Bow
 * Hammer
 * Sword
 * Melee
 * The Prefix types mentioned above can be summarized as the Weapon Prefix types.
 * The Weapon Prefix types are restricted to Attack skills.
 * The Weapon Prefix types are mutually exclusive.
 * Melee effectively counts as a combination of the Axe, Hammer, and Sword prefix types.
 * If an Attack skill has one of the Weapon Prefix types, then it can only be activated with one of the respective Weapons equipped.
 * Glyph - A skill that affects the next spell you cast in some way. Only works with spells.
 * Nature Ritual - Creates a Spirit creature that affects both allies and enemies in an area surrounding it. Nature Rituals give a 5% Death Penalty to the caster.
 * Preparation - A skill that enhances your attacks for a certain time span. Different preparations are mutually exclusive, at most 1 at a time can be active.
 * Shout - An untargeted Skill which instantly affects either nearby allys or nearby foes.
 * Signet - A skill without Skill Costs. Generally, when compared to a different Skill with similar effects, a Signet will have a balancing disadvantage such as higher Recharge or Casting Time.
 * Spell - Skills that mostly have instantaneous effects on either friend or foe, for example dealing damage, causing a Condition, or providing a healing effect. Most interrupting Skills are limited to Spells.
 * Enchantment - A spell that puts a positive, duration-based effect on an ally, such as improving Armor level, Health regeneration or Movement speed. Only applicable to the Spell type.
 * Hex - A spell that puts a negative, duration-based effect on one or more enemies. Only applicable to the Spell type.
 * Stance - Instantly activated Skills that affect only the caster. Like Preparations, Stances are mutually exclusive.
 * Trap - A Ranger Skill that sets up a Trap for opponents. When an opponent walks through the trapped area, the Trap will be activated and its effects resolve.

This could be furhter reoworded: I'm not sure if the extra bullets under "Melee" are all needed. 01:14, 5 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * That's okay for me. The recent basic/prefix type edit was just the attempt to formalise how Skill types combine with each other, but since it seems unlikely that whole new Skill classes will be added at least before the Expansion comes out, I'm ok with your list. I agree we can lose at least the first 3 bullets under Melee Attack, but I would say the remaining 2 are useful info. Just one thing: in your above list, where's Elite?


 * Also, we need to think of a more clever way to include this article in Skill, because the include statement there doesn't check for new versions of Skill details. Remember, if all else fails we can always just move all content to Skill and fill in a redirect to Skill. That's still my favorite solution, even more so after include turned out to be impractical. Roland of Gilead 11:05, 5 Aug 2005 (EST)