Talk:Item Spell

Vote: Renaming
7 day vote. -PanSola 22:45, 15 February 2006 (CST)

The Ballot

 * Option 1: Keep as "Ashes Ritual"
 * Option 2: Rename to "Ashes Spell"
 * Option 3: Delete this article. All skills under this category should simply be moved to Category:Spells
 * Option 4: Other (please specify)

Short Reason for Each Ballot Option

 * Option 1: These skills share a common and unique characteristic, thus deserve a category. "Ashes Ritual" because they involve the ghosts of the dead.
 * Option 2: These skills share a common and unique characteristic, thus deserve a category. "Ash Spell" because they are all spells, and involve ashes.
 * Option 3: In the game their skill type is Spell, and we go by what is in the game.

The Votes
Option 1
 * Stabber (Ash Ritual, no es)
 * 1) Tetris L (Ashes Ritual)
 * 2) "Evan the Cursed" (the anon user who is too lazy to register, who also likes Ashes)
 * 3)  (Ashes Ritual)
 * 4) Lunarbunny

Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
 * 1) PanSola
 * 2) LoginError
 * 3) 130.58
 * 4) FireFox
 * 1) Ravious
 * 1) Stabber (Ash Rite)

Discussion
If option 2 gets the least votes then I transfer my vote to option 3. I am strongly against calling these skills "rituals". -PanSola 22:26, 15 February 2006 (CST)

"Ashes Spell" would be okay, I think. "Ash Spell" sound too weird. With that in mind, even though "ashes ritual" sounds really cool, I vote for "Ashes Spell". I think you should keep this page as a redirect, though, as it seems the term "ashes ritual" does have some traction (i.e. popular use) already. --130.58 06:27, 17 February 2006 (CST)

It sounds cool, Ash Ritual and Ash Spell, but unless we are going to uncanonically always do so for all types of skills, I say we just categorize them as A.Net does. If Option 2 is the winner, I hope the skills will be both in the Spell Category and Ash Spell Category. --Ravious 00:08, 18 February 2006 (CST)
 * If option 2 wins, Ash Spell will be in the Spells category, and the skills will only be placed in the Ash Spells category and not the grandparent category. At least that's what we usually do, this case could be argued for a special treatment. -PanSola 00:24, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * My rationale behind "Ashes Ritual":
 * I picked the name "Ashes Ritual" because it is performed by a Ritualist and because the spell obviously involves the spirit of a ghost, even if you can't see it. "Ritual" felt like a good name for conjuring a ghost to me. Who defined that every ritual must spawn a visible spirit?
 * I created a separate article, because these spells/rituals share a common and unique characteristic. This is comparable to Wards, which are simply spells too, according to the game mechanics. I created Category:Ashes Rituals (as a sub-category of Category:Spells, but I pointed out in the category description that according to the game mechanics Ashes Rituals are spells. I see very little room for misunderstanding.
 * In summary, I vote for Option 1, i.e. keep the old name. (I assume Ash Ritual is an error, as the current name is Ashes Ritual. -- 00:26, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * As we don't have a Category:Wards, so should we not have a Category:Ashes Rituals. Additionally, "Ashes Foo" irritates my North American English speaker biases with regard to how apposition should work with nouns. I prefer "Ash Foo", perhaps even "Ash-Foo". The article itself, suitably renamed, is OK by me; no reason that a ritual can't be a spell, especially considering that ritualists are spellcasters. 00:36, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. What is your grammerical rational for "Ash X" over "Ashes X"?  It seems to me that these skills involve specific ashes, not ash.  You don't say, "Grandpa's ash is in the urn over the fireplace."  You say, "Grandpa's ashes are in the urn over the fireplace."  As for what we call them, ritual or spell, it makes no difference to me, but IMO it should be ashes, not ash.  --Rainith 00:46, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * As I noted, it's a bias. You are asking me to be rational about a bias. Anyway, here's my attempt at a rationale: when I say "Ash Foo", I mean that "Foo" is imbued with the concept of ashes, rather than the actual ashes themselves. This is why I would call a golem made of ashes an "ash golem", a mudfight in an ashpit an "ash fight", a large gaping void in the burning embers of a post-apocalyptic scenario an "ash hole", and so on. 00:54, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * Stabber: Just for the record, I think we should have a Category:Wards. Wouldn't hurt, would it? :)
 * As for Ash vs. Ashes, I used the plural because it is used in plural in all skill descriptions. -- 02:04, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * I'm all for Ashes Ritual and a Category:Wards. I mean for all we know, Anet might include skills or other features in later chapters that target specifically Ashes Rituals and not other spells. It's all for clarity and disambiguation. Technically yes, they're spells, but they're not general spells. They have a defining characteristic about them.  And even more notably so than Wards -- I mean, you carry an object due to casting them. Of course that doesn't seem to be the heart of the problem... it's the "name" isn't it? Something wrong with "Ritual"? Well, the spells involve ashes so I'm all for calling them Ashes , and I believe it should be Ashes Ritual because it is not too ambiguous to be confused for nature or spirit rituals.  We should call them what A.net does unless there is already a precedent -- for clarity's sake. Calling them Ashes Spells would be like having a Category:Wards with every spell that began with "Ward of..." but then somewhere else on the Wiki we take other spells which are technically Wards and specifically do not include them in this category because their name does not follow that attitude.
 * Basically, if the game treats it as different from other Spells (as I'm sure it does, considering you're holding an urn due to the spell), it should have its own category. I apologize for the length in my explanation, if anybody bothered to read the whole thing. "Evan the Cursed" 69.124.143.230 02:15, 18 February 2006 (CST)


 * On the subject of "Ashes Spell" vs "Ashes Rituals", calling it a Ritual WOULD be too ambiguous to be confused for a Ritual, and whlie we don't have an article on it yet, Ritual Lord's skill description say it work on Rituals, not "nature rituals and binding rituals".
 * I also disagree with your analogy of Wards. If there is a skill that is a spell and involves holding ashes for a certain timie, we will call it a Ashes Spell, regardless of its name.  So your analogy is incorrect.  -PanSola 13:38, 18 February 2006 (CST)
 * I definitely DO NOT want Ash(es) Ritual. There are Ritual skills that are defined as Rituals, Nature and Binding, and they act differently than Spells (like Glyphs not affecting them). I see a definite likelihood of confusion by calling them Ritual. I remain. --Ravious 02:14, 18 February 2006 (CST)

The bone of contention seems to be whether "ritual" is proper here, as there are other distinctly non-spellish skills that are also rituals. Perhaps we can use a different synonym here? My trusty thesaurus suggests: rite, ceremony, routine, praxis (!), form, observance, etc. I wouldn't mind "rite" myself, as it fits the funereal context of holding urns of ashes. I am therefore officially switching my vote to "Other (please specify)" 02:38, 18 February 2006 (CST)

Conjuring ghost/spirit?
It is my theory that by holding the ashes of the person in the skill name the ritualist conjures the ghost of the person, so the ghost will grant the ritualist a bidding. That's how I put it in the original version of the article. This was changed to a plain and strict "No spirits are involved in Ashes Rituals." Simple question: How do we know that no spirits are involved? Just because none is visible? Hmmm ... isn't it the nature of spirits that they are invisible most of the time? -- 02:18, 18 February 2006 (CST)
 * Sorry, it's "no spirits are involved", not "no siprits are involved". Subtle difference.  At the top of the spirit article, there is a disambig note: This article is about the creature type Spirit in the context of skill descriptions. For information on spirits of mortal creatures that have died, see Ghost.  Thus "no spirits are involved" does not conflict with your theory, though it does not mention your theory either.  It is neutral where your theory is concerned. -PanSola 13:31, 18 February 2006 (CST)