Talk:Hex

I'm too lazy to look them all up, do Monks really have hexes?--Jackel 09:51, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * Scourge sacrifice and healing, at least. Nothing else came to mind when I thought about it.  --Fyren 10:31, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * Amity, Pacifism, Defender's Zeal, Scourge Sacrifice, Scourge Healing, and Scourge Enchantment.
 * Only two years late. --Fyren 09:57, 22 March 2007 (CDT)

Definition
Again: For a time OR until a condition is met. --Karlos 19:29, 16 October 2005 (EST)

Skills that are kinda somewhat related in a way, sort of..

 * (copied from User talk:Karlos)
 * Here's some things wrong with your changes to the skill lists in Signet, Stance, Hex, Enchantment, Sacrifice, and Knockdown:
 * The new list titles are way too subjective in meaning (for example, someone added Diversion to "Skills that harm/hinder Signet users", which would have much less of a case in the old list title).
 * The user can no longer tell that all skills that directly involve those skill types are among the lists, and that the lists are limited to such.
 * The lists are sometimes broken up into multiple very, very short lists; some have a single item! ::These are a lot less convenient for the user to navigate.
 * For the information of how the skills relate to the skill type: unless it adds a lot of utility to the user and is objective enough, please consider keeping it limited to parenthetical information after each element in the list instead.
 * --Rezyk 15:24, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)

Hmm, Rezyk, you made an edit and devised a nice idea of also listing skills that revolve around the said condition or spell, this is great. I merely divided it into clearer categories. You are reverting my "good faith edit." Which did not remove your information but simply sorted it. I am making a note of this in light of our earlier discussion.


 * Oh, come on! We were specifically discussing these exact reverts in that same discussion, and I couldn't see how to interpret your answers in a way that suggested you were not OK with it.  I also honestly do not understand how you can claim my edits (that you reverted before) to not be "good faith" while your edits are. --Rezyk 19:01, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * To be clear -- I do see clear advantages to your version of the lists, where my version is deficient. But there are clear disadvantages too; neither is strictly better, and I think it warrants discussion. --Rezyk 19:01, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)

Now, with regards to the categories, in response to your points: 1) If anything in those lists was subjective, you put it there, so blame yourself. I merely categorized what you put there. I think I added one skill. Subjective means that not everyone agrees it should be in the list. Well, you put them all there, so take it up with yourself.

Now, if you are saying my categories are "vague" or unclear, you have to ask yourself.. Which is clearer: "Skills that hinder signets" or "skills that are kinda some what related in some way." What is the criteria for the first: Simple, a skill that makes using signets harder. Increases, cost, activation or recharge. Now, what is the criteria for the second? Only you know. In your design scheme. A user is plagued by hexes and wants to know how best to prevent them. He types "Hex" in the search box and gets this article. Then gets a list that says: "Skills related to hexes in OTHER ways" He has no clue what that means. He has to read each and every entry to find out which ones concern him. In my view, he has a list ready for him.

2) The titles to the sections are very clear and each group is directly invovled in the way the title of the sections says they are. Your title makes it VERY vague how the skills below it are actually involved.

3) So some lists are short.. So what? Arena Net only made one skill that can do this or that. Who cares? There are only two skills that affect Stances any way. Any way you sort them they will look few. I guess that's a very good way for readers to know there are VERY few ways of stopping stances. So, Category:Dryders only has 4 beasts under it? Shall we merge it with Charr just so that it doesn't look so lonely over there?

I am not defending the spcific choices. It's fine with me if you believe Rend Enchantments is a skill that hinders not removes enchantments or whatever. I am defending the concept that we divide the "related" skills into clearer divisions.

Finally, I ask others to weigh in on this because, quite frankly, I think this is ridiculous! The divisions I made are clearly adding to the VERY good work you made. I ask others to weigh in on this before we have another revert/edit war. I will go the whole nine yards on this because I believe your request is completely lacking in objectivity. I have no nice way to tell you that. Sorry. --Karlos 16:30, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * * sigh* For the second time in less than 24 hours I find myself agreeing with Karlos. I'm kinda concerned.  :P  In all seriousness though, Karlos' way does seem to make more sense.  You search on "hex" and you find a page that gives you a link to a list of hexes (link to the category could use a little visibility though), and a list of what other skills interact with hexes and how they interact with them.  That gives me more info that just "these do something with hexes."
 * I know from personal experience that Karlos can be a bit... blunt, with his critiques, but I agree with him in this case. And I honestly doubt that there is anything personal to them.
 * Edit - I was just about to save this when I noticed this little line from the bottom of the edit page, I thought it might be worth putting it here: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. This is something that everyone needs to keep in mind when contributing to the wiki (myself included).  --Rainith 17:49, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * If the issue is just layout/whitespace/short lists, perhaps lists like this, instead of basic wiki lists:
 * Hexes that maim kittens: Rabid Pitbull, Hungry Bear
 * Hexes that make little girls cry: Dead Bunnies
 * --Fyren 18:42, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * 1): The subjectivity I'm talking about is whether a skill belongs under a given list title! I will stand by the skills I put under my list titles, and even claim that they clearly belong.  It is different when considering which skills belong under your list titles. Is Diversion a skill that is harmful to signet users? If "yes", your lists are taking on an entirely different meaning than mine...  If "no", well, one could argue against that pretty easily.  Also, could you stop paraphrasing my version in distorted ways that make them sound especially bad?  I never put things in those exact terms.  Anyways, your point is valid; there are clarity issues with my version, and I wish it to be improved.  I see your version as having lots of ambiguity of a different sort, though. --Rezyk 19:01, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * 2): I think you misinterpreted my point here; it wasn't about clarity of the list titles relating to the list items, it was about indicating completeness to the user. With regards to showing how the list items are involved, I proposed using parentheticals after the items.  --Rezyk 19:01, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * 3): "So what?" Like I said, these really really short lists are less convenient for the user to navigate. That is worth noting for this discussion! --Rezyk 19:01, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I am not attacking the specific choices of skills within the lists. I am not even wholy attacking the concept of dividing the skills into more divisions. (I've even made divisions myself, like "Skills that can remove hexes" when the pros outweighed the cons)  I am saying that there are disadvantages with these specific divisions -- essentially that overcategorization is hurting usability, but usability should come first. --Rezyk 19:01, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)

I propose something like this: --Rezyk 19:51, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)

Skills that directly involve hexes

 * [[image:Ranger-icon.png|15px]] Melandru's Resilience
 * [[image:Ranger-icon.png|15px]] Nature's Renewal
 * [[image:Monk-icon.png|15px]] Dwayna's Kiss
 * [[image:Mesmer-icon.png|15px]] Hex Breaker
 * [[image:Mesmer-icon.png|15px]] Mantra of Persistence
 * [[image:Necromancer-icon.png|15px]] Feast of Corruption
 * [[image:Necromancer-icon.png|15px]] Soul Barbs
 * [[image:Elementalist-icon.png|15px]] Lightning Touch
 * Skills that can remove hexes:
 * [[image:Mesmer-icon.png|15px]] Shatter Hex (from ally)
 * [[image:Mesmer-icon.png|15px]] Inspired Hex (from ally)
 * [[image:Mesmer-icon.png|15px]] Shatter Delusions (from foe)
 * [[image:Monk-icon.png|15px]] Contemplation of Purity (from self)
 * [[image:Monk-icon.png|15px]] Convert Hexes (from other ally)
 * [[image:Monk-icon.png|15px]] Holy Veil (from ally)
 * [[image:Monk-icon.png|15px]] Purge Signet (from ally)
 * [[image:Monk-icon.png|15px]] Remove Hex (from ally)
 * [[image:Monk-icon.png|15px]] Smite Hex (from ally)

I'd say Karlos' "short lists" are much more usable. You separate "skills that can remove hexes" and "other." If someone actually wants to know what "other" means they have to click through every skill article. I'd prefer any version with short descriptions ("extra heal per hex," "illusion hexes last longer," etc.) over one with none. --Fyren 20:18, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Fyren, all of these list organizations can easily support short descriptions like those. For example:
 * [[image:Mesmer-icon.png|15px]] Mantra of Persistence (illusion hexes last longer)
 * --Rezyk 21:16, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * And I propose you define to us what "directly involves" means. I honestly don't have a clue. I am not making fun of your title, it really makes no sense to me. What do you mean "directly involves"? As opposed to "indirectly involves"? Which is what? So, does Glimmering Mark cause blindness or not? No, it's a hex, the NEXT lightning attack causes blindness, does it directly involve blindness then or not? What about Thunderclap? Does it directly cause knockdowns? No. But the following lightning attacks will. What then?


 * You will need to explain to us what that means. Everyone seems pretty clear on what my lists mean.


 * Personally, I don't like the wording "directly involves" either. A better wording for the superlist would be "Skills that involve the Hex skill type", "Skills that involve Blindness", "Skills that involve Knockdown".  Regarding what causes blindness/knockdown, all of our systems use the same list title for them, so I don't know why you are splitting hairs there. --Rezyk 22:13, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * With regards to "Diversion" I don't see it as a big deal, but if you do, it is easy for us to state that those skills listed below MUST specifically target signets. I think that is a useless distinction, though. For example, Cry of Frustration interrupts ALL skills, I think it should be listed as a skill that that disrupt all kinds of skills. So what if it apprears six times. It's a pretty useful skill.


 * This is a very important distinction for me, and is what I was getting at regarding ambiguity/subjectiveness. I think it should be clarified whether or not those general skills are to be included in your list version. --Rezyk 22:13, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * The example you give above is completely confusing.. What is the common denomenator between Lightning Touch and Dwayna's Kiss? They do the opposite of each other. Just that they are based on hexes?


 * That they involve the hex skill type. I thought it was plain that that was the common denominator of all skills in these skill lists.  (Why else are they appearing in these articles?) --Rezyk 22:13, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I propose a structure like this:


 * Skills that Affect Hexes
 * These skills boost hexes:
 * Uber Hex
 * Hexasination
 * These skills weaken/remove hexes:
 * Unhexable!
 * To hex or not to hex?
 * Hex THIS!
 * Skills Affected by Hexes
 * These Skills boost hexed players:
 * Don't feel so bad
 * Hexes Shmexes
 * These skills harm hexed players:
 * The hex is on you
 * Neener neener neener


 * Also, I happen to know for a FACT that Rabid Pitbull is also a skill that makes little girls cry! So, there! :) --Karlos 20:24, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I would like it to be noted that Rezyk, seeing clearly that three people (of greater experience in the wiki) favor the sorted lists design over his "directly involved" design still went ahead and reverted all the lists back to his design. I believe this is a serious issue. --Karlos 20:40, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * That is outrageous. Some points:
 * For the record, there were only 2 people, Karlos & Rainith favoring "sorted lists" at the time of my last revert.
 * This discussion is still ongoing and not a day old! Proposals are still being made/refined.  The current article state shouldn't be tied to any results of this discussion yet.
 * I originally reverted your change because I felt it warranted discussion first, and I initiated discussion with you in your talk page. This is something I have known you to do yourself.
 * Since then, while in the middle of discussion, you have reverted more than me (and doing so before adding discussion, and marking them as minor!). We are both going back and forth completely ungraciously in a revert war. =(
 * Now you are apparently going ahead and editing one of the articles under discussion Signet further, under your design..
 * I guess I would like it to be noted that I feel Karlos has using his seniority to bully me toward accepting his versions without a proper discussion. I believe this is a serious issue.
 * --Rezyk 23:06, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * You reverted more than me! My first revert was not a revert, but YOUR first revert is a revert! You touched me! You touched me first! I am out of this part of the discussion. --Karlos 23:29, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Yes, "I originally reverted your change because I felt it warranted discussion first, [...] This is something I have known you to do yourself.". --Rezyk 23:46, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Please do not intertwine your paragraphs with mine as it makes the talk page harder to read. Just write a response below. Answering point by point is also an easy way for us to get off on tangents and get caught up in arguments and counter arguments.
 * I believe it is apparent "directly involved" or "related to hexing" are vague terms that no one likes. The response you gave to the question about Lightning Touch vs Dwayna's Kiss is odd. It completely does not factor in the user. So, how would the user ever know which is is relevant to him and which is not? He does not care that you think they are related to the hex spell type in a way you do not wish to divulge at the moment (no disrespect), he wants to know which one he can use to stop those hexes of the Summit Taskmasters from hurting him.
 * No one likes the example you posted about "Directly Involve" then "Remove" can you rework it in some way? Can you work off the attempts Tetris and I are doing in Signet? --Karlos 22:24, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Fine, I'll avoid intertwining here (although I think a tree structure is better for going through the variety of arguments). A user can know whether Lightning Touch or Dwayna's Kiss is relevant to him if we add the relevant parenthetical blurb after the skill.  I don't have that in my current incarnation, but I've been mentioning that as a potential solution.  Really, everyone seems to be getting hung up on this being a straight battle between your version and mine, when we should still be looking for ways to improve on the deficiencies in both. --Rezyk 23:22, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Since you are working on your version in Signet, I'll claim Hex, Sacrifice and Knockdown to work on mine (this also leaves you with Enchantment and Stance that I won't revert). Hopefully this will help us end the revert war. =P --Rezyk 23:22, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * This is not a turf war, Rezyk. We're not gonna cut up the wiki into your articles and mine. You can see that the other two who responded favor a categorized explanation of how these skills affect hexex/signets/... so Can you post an example of how you'd change Hex for example to cater to that. An example is worth 372 words. Just change one article. Change Signet itself, I don't care. --Karlos 23:29, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * No this isn't a turf war, but unfortunately it has already escalated to a revert war, and that my proposed solution to at least halt it during the discussion. --Rezyk 23:46, 1 Oct 2005 (EST)

Stop.
If you two were anonymous, I'd set these pages as protected. As it is, NEITHER of you revert or make changes besides typographical or factual errors to the other's version, regardless of who has the last revert... unless you both agree on the change. Keep the discussion to the page contents, not about "how things are done" or who is "wrong." If there's not something of an agreement about it tonight (US east coast time), I'll rewrite the list to my arbitrary liking. This I'm saying as an admin.

And now as a normal user. I prefer the list with profession icons as opposed to headings. I don't like the indenting or bulleting on Rezyk's current version. But these are aesthetics. I'd be fine with the section heading being "related skills" and a straight list, one per line, with the icon, name, and then short descriptions, with no subsections. The descriptions would provide better info than subsections/headings and it's not a whole lot to read (as I mentioned in my last comment here).

I'm going to sleep. --Fyren 00:53, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Roger. --Rezyk 01:19, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)

Hex is ready for merciless critique. --Rezyk 01:19, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * With this version, I've addressed (or at least, tried to address) all the discussed problems. If anyone feels a previous or new criticism still holds, please speak up.  --Rezyk 07:54, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)

I have submitted my example (for the same article for ease of comparison). It's under Talk:Hex/Sample. Here is what it offers that I believe surpasses the model suggested by Rezyk:
 * 1) Biggest point: No repition of skill descriptions. We are already suffering enough with each batch of "balance updates" that ArenaNet does. Rezyk's design repeats half the skill's description in these pages about Hexes and Signets and the like. This is a poor design for data integrity and maintenance. My desgin places the skills in clear groups that tell the user where to look but at the same time, do not repeat each skill's description.
 * 2) This design is much more user friendly. It is clear what each batch of skills does. Cycling between them is now a question of finding which one suits the user's needs. Not guessing which one is related to what he needs to begin with. It is also easier to edit.

Those two things are also the problems with Rezyk's design. There is a redundancy of what each skill does (and a poor redundancy at that, for example, Soul Barbs triggers when a foe gets hexed... Triggers what?). In addition the lists are still sorted according to vague headings. "Skills that deal with hexes on foes" is a vague expression. I also do not understand the indentation. --Karlos 12:40, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)

Regarding repetition of skill descriptions: I do agree that it is bad for data integrity and maintenence, but I think that the difference is really miniscule compared to the straight-up gain in user utility of having these details (versus the level of detail in your version). I'm not sure what you mean by "poor redundancy"; I could add more detail to the Soul Barbs blurb if you prefer. --Rezyk 18:23, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)

Regarding user friendliness: Huh. I actually think my version is more user friendly overall, even from just the utility gained with the description blurbs! In practice, most users' needs will coincide with "what's effective against hexes cast on my self/allies?" or "what has synergy with my hex casting build?". These 2 correspond simply to my main 2 titles; I dislike how the user would have to consider 5 titles in your version. --Rezyk 18:23, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)

Regarding vagueness: I tweaked my version some more to address vagueness and the indentation (which is now simple standard wiki list format). See Hex Sample B. Vagueness is actually the main issue I have with your version. Some rhetorical examples: --Rezyk 18:23, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Isn't Power Leak a skill that hinders hex casting?
 * Isn't Life Siphon related to hexes?
 * Doesn't Judge's Insight boost a hexed creature?

Vagueness and user friendliness (both mentioned above) are the only issues I have with your current version. --Rezyk 18:23, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)

Talk:Hex/Plain. I fiddled with the descriptions. No arguments about the meaning of the headings for this, I presume. --Fyren 22:20, 2 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Still, this sample, like Rezyk's, is based on redundantly repeating the skill definitions. I believe this is bad. What if a skill definition is changed from allies to nearby allies or from foes to everyone and so forth. This has happened twice in the last month or so. Our skill reference pages are inaccurate as it is. Why add more pages to that list?


 * Look at Contemplation of Purity, you (Fyren) had to list the entire definition while Rezyk had to list a partial definition. His definition lacks the integral piece of info that Enchantments are also lost. Your definition is a near replica of the skill definition. His is lacking in info (compared to what it's trying to do) and yours is redundant.


 * Rezyk, whether or not a skill ends up in my list (or yours, or Fyren's) is a different debate.


 * My example gives the right amount of details without redundancy. I do not think ArenaNet will alter a skill such that it no longer benefits from hexes on a foe but instead from enchantments on allies. But they will alter skills such that some of the definitions in your lists will be changed each time. --Karlos 02:55, 3 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * To add some perspective: I think the only recent change that makes a difference in these redundant descriptions is Holy Veil's (and there's Nature's Renewal before). For both of those, every version so far, including those by Karlos, would have needed editing. --Rezyk 10:47, 3 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Yes, those are the only changes that have altered what my definitions would have been if I wrote them in April. Because of brevity, they're written in such a way that they're unlikely to change.  I think in this case the headings come up with so far are so useless as to be essentially "these remove hexes" and "other."  --Fyren 11:36, 3 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I wasn't suggesting that skills like Power Leak and Judge's Insight be added to the lists. My point was that we should use wording where it's clearer whether or not they belong (which is very relevant). --Rezyk 10:47, 3 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I suggest inserting just the link "Skills that are Hexes" as the first item in the section. Other than that, I have no major issues with Fyren's version. I like its structural cleanliness. --Rezyk 10:47, 3 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Fyren, I find your position confusing if not self-contradictory. You said up there that I'd say Karlos' "short lists" are much more usable than the headings in Rezyk's and now you say they are so useless as to be essentially the ones Rezyk came up with.
 * The discussion comes down to whether we want to group skills under general headings that categorize them or under loose categories and then describe each one. This is really what the vote is about right now. The specific wording of a specific category/heading/skill description is not the issue as much as the philosophy itself.
 * At this point I suggest we move to a simple vote. Leave it on for a day or so and then tally votes and move forward. The vote is between:
 * Talk:Hex/Plain: General skill group of "other related skills" and then under each desrcibe briefly how each skill is related.
 * Talk:Hex/Sample: Specific Grouping of skills inside basic categories such as "hinder/enhance casting" "remove/prevent" "harm/benefit characters under this effect"
 * User:Rezyk/RelatedSkills: Categorization only for strong elements (like #1). No further descriptions of relations.


 * Please cast your votes (place your name below). Rezyk, if you feel your model is essentially different from Fyren's please add #3 and describe it, I do not mean to exclude your model, I feel they are the same. --Karlos 16:09, 3 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I'm fine with omitting my previous model in light of Fyren's, but I'll add a new model that represents my uncompromised ideal version. =) I'll save the arguments for now and just say this: #3 has lots of pros and cons in comparison, but is the best option overall especially when taking into account how things will pan out on articles other than Hex. --Rezyk 16:44, 3 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Votes:
 * 1) Fyren 148.177.129.213 Xeeron
 * 2) Karlos Rainith
 * 3)


 * I vote for #3, then #1. --Rezyk 16:44, 3 Oct 2005 (EST)

My stand isn't confusing, it's just that the content put forward by you both changed. Rezyk had a list under headings with no descriptions. Karlos later put forth a list under more headings, so the lists were shorter, but in doing so described the skills better. At that point I prefered Karlos' version. But then, one of you made a version with descriptions. They were so you could easily tell if you didn't care about the skill (so you wouldn't have to click through to read it and come back), and so were even more usable. I THEN said "I'd prefer any version with short descriptions ... over one with none." My order of preference is 1, 2, 3. I'm placing my name under 1. --Fyren 17:29, 3 Oct 2005 (EST)

Perhaps a good compromise would be to use Fyren's version, but omit the descriptive blurbs for the "Skills that remove hexes from allies", while keeping them for the "Skills related in other ways". That way, every item gets its relation described exactly once, and we don't have to rely on (what some feel is) excessive categorization to do it. Thoughts? --Rezyk 02:13, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Hmph. --Rezyk 09:26, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)

If there's no objections, I'm going to start sticking these into the 30+ relevant articles, since they represent most of the work needed towards all of the proposals anyways (just add blurbs to get Fyren's, just add categories to get Karlos'). I'll hold off on the 6 articles that were disputed here. --Rezyk 09:26, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Please hold off until the decision is taken or use one of the two formats that will likely be used. As it stands now, your approach and model of dividing up those skills is only voted for by you. It makes absolutely no sense to use THAT while we decide which of the other two models we will use. --Karlos 16:45, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I'll hold off for the sake of diplomacy, but you're absolutely wrong about it making no sense. It's not about adopting my model, it's about fixing up articles with the common work (to be done under any proposal!) instead of basically forcing everything to stagnate.  --Rezyk 17:45, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * The very size and enormity of the change requires that we pause and make sure we are in sync. We have dones this for the beast box, for the skill box, made sure people were in sync then applied the change. If anyone will be "moving on" on this issue it's Fyren. In this issue I completely lay down my role as an admin. You already "touched" up the Hex article while adding a couple of skills, disobeying Fyren's order. --Karlos 18:09, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * -_- I already said I'd hold off; I'm just defending/explaining myself with respect to you saying that my proposal "makes absolutely no sense"! --Rezyk 19:23, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Fyren's order is about changes to each other's version, not our own. This is frustrating.  I'll revert my changes. --Rezyk 19:23, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)

As it has been a while and there is no clear consensus in the votes (and because a ton of fixes are now waiting on this issue), I move that we either go forward with the current winner now (#1), or try more discussion to reach a better consensus. Personally, I think there is still some progress to be made with the latter. --Rezyk 17:45, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * How did you surmise that Fyren's is the winner? 2 votes for 1, 2 votes for 2, one scond place vote for each. --Karlos 18:09, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I presumed we'd use a Condorcet method of vote counting if it came down to it. (Basically, when you discount option #3 then #1 beats #2) --Rezyk 18:55, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Are you pulling #3? If you are, then: a) please make that known to everyone, and b) obviously you can't change all those pages to a style that is no longer even on the table. --Karlos 19:09, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * No I am not. How do you want to proceed? --Rezyk 19:27, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * It's up to Fyren. He said if no clear choice is obvious he will choose, so let him choose. I am fine with whatever he chooses. As soon as he decides, you are free to apply that decision to those 30 pages you've been storing up. I think they are great work that will add a lot once it's in place. I may have a few bones to pick with a few choices here and there, but there is no question about the value being added. If you don't hear from Fyren by tomorrow, ping his talk page and tell him it's time to decide and move on. --Karlos 19:35, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)

Opinion of a new guy The lists are great. I quibble over wording and indentation. "Deals with" is really not great verbage and the indentations as they sit now don't really clarify anything. If it were me I'd break them into three lists: "Hex Removal," "Hex Manipulation: Allies," "Hex Manipulation: Foes". Those say basically the same thing as what you have but shorten things up quite a bit. I'm not completely happy with the word manipulation, but in this case you can read it to mean anything that isn't removal.

I understand that this still leaves Nature's Renewal as a bit of a gray area. Perhaps you need one more category called "other" or "Hex Manipulation: All".

I would also do something with the category presentation, maybe bold the categories in a way similar to what Karlos did in his sample. --Squeg 10:37, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * How's this? Took care of the indentation/bolding, and changed the wording (I never cared for "deals with" either).  I didn't want to go with just "Hex Manipulation: Allies" because skills like Dwayna's Kiss really don't manipulate the hex, and it's still not clear if it means hexes cast on allies or hexes cast by allies.  I'm not too fond of this wording ("affects or checks for hexes") either, but it is accurate and works for all Related Skills of other subjects. --Rezyk 14:56, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I think that looks a lot better. Great work.  A couple more comments on wording: I'd change "Skills that are Hexes" to "Hex Spells", Hex Skills", or "Hex List".  Shorter is usually better.  Similarly, I'm still troubled by the wording of the first two categories.  Looking at it, I really think you might be better off just making two categories, "Hex Removal", and maybe "Other Hex Related Skills".  The descriptions after each spell are quite helpful for differentiating further.  The way it's worded now, it's still pretty hard to figure out what's supposed to be in each category without reading everything anyway.  Just my 2 cents. --Squeg 18:39, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Thus the wheel is fully re-invented! :) --Karlos 18:53, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of the 3 categories as they're listed now, but the fact that we can't seem to come up with a clear way to word them does suggest that two might be simpler for both the author and the reader.  In my opinion a title like this shouldn't be more than 3 or 4 words without a really good reason. --Squeg 19:03, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I was just teasing. :) You see, we STARTED with "Hex Removal" and "related in other ways" and after a week of deliberations, we return to the same point. :) --Karlos 19:30, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Talk:Hex/Plain!@# --Fyren 00:04, 9 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Just curious why you decided to revert the page back to the tiny titles and extra-indentations again. --Squeg 02:49, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Long story short (all the details are above in this page), I was involved in a revert war on this page that ended in admin intervention, so I ought to be cautious with my edits. Anyways the change will probably be moot soon as it seems the discussion above has reached a verdict on the structure to use.  --Rezyk 06:28, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)

Vote result?
Well, not too many voted, but Talk:Hex/Plain got an edge. I'm wary of saying "vote's over!" since the last vote (which gave my candidate the edge) was pretty recent, but this has dragged on and it seems Karlos and Rezyk want me to choose. So, plain is the one to go with. So for other related lists, use the same format (very generic headings, try not to get into the same argument, heh) with short descriptions worded so they're unlikely to get changed with patches. Reword the actual headings in plain if wanted. --Fyren 21:10, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * For the other pages, the short skill descriptions would just be what's necessary to describe the relation to the specific effect, I think. Like, for holy damage SoJ might just be "ranged AoE" and for knockdown griffon's sweep might just be "when evaded."  For hexes, secondary effects like AoE damage from smite hex or armor from convert hexes can be removed if we want, since it's not directly relevant to hex removal (but, say, contemplation of purity would need to keep the note about enchantments).  --Fyren 21:20, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Excellent, I hope now we can move on. Rezyk has some good stuff to add. --Karlos 23:04, 11 Oct 2005 (EST)

skillbars
Were those unfilled bars meant to be there? If so, then revert my edit, if not, read on:

Some of those bars refuse to be bars (i have no experience with wikis) and instead load the whole article onto the page, as opposed to just that bar template.

--AkumaZ 07:16, 13 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I think those skill displays need to be removed. A link should be sufficient enough.  The page looks pretty bad as it is. - Greven 14:35, 15 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh one other thing, the reason it isn't totally working is due to issues that PanSola is working on, in relation to server loads. So for now, it can just be a list.  Until this issue is resolved, at any rate.

could an expert add rending sweep to the list
removes an enchantment if target foe is hexed, dervish skill though(and dervs don't have hexes) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.126.73.174 (contribs).
 * Which list are you referring to? -- Xeon 06:54, 22 March 2007 (CDT)