Talk:Skill (skill type)

Given that this is parallel of other skill categories (Signet, Stance, etc.), shouldn't skills that are (only) of the base type be listed here? Or be party of a Skill (type) category? (At the least, I was looking for such a list and couldn't find it... perhaps I'm merely unable to locate it?) --JoDiamonds 14:02, 9 March 2006 (CST)

I would like to suggest that the skill type "skill" is really just a skill type that every single skill has, but is displayed in-game only when there is no other subtype to use. It makes a lot more sense than the interpretation currently being given (that only skills that start with "Skill." in their description are of this type).

The argument I can see for the current interpretation is to only go by what is explicitly stated in the descriptions/categorizations in-game. The argument for my proposed interpretation is that you don't have to confusingly make 2 separate definitions for the same terms.

The same issue exists for the skill type "melee attack". Is it a supertype of "sword attack" or completely disjoint from it? How can you tell if a magnetic aura will block a savage slash?

--Rezyk 07:05, 22 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I agree with Rezyk; The current article interprets skills in a convoluted fashion that leaves a fair amount of ambiguity about what skills really are. For example, skill interrupts can also interrupt glyph castings; That implies that Glyphs are skills as well, yet, they are specifically labeled as "glyphs." I'm more inclined to buy into the explanation that anything that fits on your skill bar is a Skill, and that there are subsets of skills (e.g. spells, signets, glyphs). --Razorfish 07:40, 22 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I think we should rename this to "General Skill" or something. Because all skills are skills. :) These ones are basically, skills and nothing more than skills. Also, the article is written from the perspective of interruption almost entirely. --Karlos 13:49, 22 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * While this article is very... Olljed... I don't really think it's misnamed.  We have two articles, skill and this one.  The former is about skills in general and this one is about skills as a specific type in contrast to spell, Enchantment Spell (stupid capitalization), and so on.  The best way to disambiguate things that should have the same name is the parenthetical note rather than mess with the main article title.  I can guess what an article named "skill (skill type)" or "skill (type)" is about, but I'd have no clue about "general skill."  Maybe we don't even need this article if the only thing someone can come up with for content is about "skill" as a type in respect to what that means for interruption.  In that case, it can just be discussed in interrupt.  --Fyren 07:33, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Are we following this categorization: Skill?? If a skill is a hammer attack it should be categorized ONLY as a hammer attack. Then Hammer attack is a sub of Melee attack and Melee attack is a sub of attack which is a sub of skill. With a proper set of categories and defnition articles, we can then link to those articles (whic point to their categories) and it won't seem as random as it is now.
 * Look at Heavy Blow.. It's a shambles! It's a skill AND a hammaer attack AND a warrior skill AND a hammer mastery skill even though ALL of that IS included in calling it a "Hammer Attack" --Karlos 15:25, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * Everything is currently categorized like that. I brought this issue up in Category talk:Categories to little discussion (Talrath disagreeing, Biro seeming to agree).  Specifically for skills, category "skills" is the root of the first tree I mention there (which EVERY skill is currently a child of).  Category "skill" is currently in the second tree as a child of the root and contains all skills of type skill.  The name is wrong since it's not plural, but it would logically have the same name as this article.  --Fyren 16:33, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * No, skills that are just "skills" will be categorized as "skills" everything else will be in a higher sub-category than that. For example "Meteor Shower" will be a "spell." And then in the definition articles, we can perhaps show the hierarchy so users understand what "labels" apply to a specific skill type. i.e. in "Axe Attack" we would point out that:
 * Skill->Attack->Melee Attack->Axe Attack
 * And that skills/effects that affect any of the above would affect Axe Attacks.
 * Shall I set out and implement this? --Karlos 16:51, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I dunno if you took a look at the talk page link I mentioned, but I envisioned two separate trees. "Skills" is the root of the first one, "skill (skill type)" would be a child of the root of the other.  --Fyren 17:03, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * I saw that structure (and I storngly support it by the way), I was trying to say that (in that structure for example) a skill like Healing Spring (which I believe is just a skill with no sub type) would be an article in "Basic Skills" (which you call "Skill Type") right away. I would not put:
 * SkillType->Skill->Helaing Spring.
 * I would put:
 * Basic Skills (or Skills or General Skills) ->Healing Spring. --Karlos 17:40, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)


 * That works as the root, too, I guess. But I still think "Skills (Type)" would be a better name for it.  --Fyren 17:48, 23 Sep 2005 (EST)