GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills/Archive 9

Suggestion: linking elite skills to builds
moved from Community Portal

While trying to figure out ways to better display and make accessible our builds collection, I've come up with the following suggestion: I think we should make an addition to the default skill template for elite skills (possibly even for all skills), called "Builds focusing on this skill" or similar, and under the headline, link in the builds in the that make use of the skill in question. This would showcase and make the good builds more easily accessible, make it easy to see if your idea for a build has already been done, and just plain be a practical reference for finding a build you know is here (but don't know the exact name). Thoughts? --Bishop (rap|con) 21:55, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The way current template mechanics are, the section you want will appear above progression and acquisition. I do not believe it is the proper place for it.  It should be manually added towards the bottom of the article, if the linkign is to be done. -PanSola 23:13, 10 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Agreed. I wasn't suggesting, or even thinking of, anything automagic. --Bishop (rap|con) 00:11, 11 May 2006 (CDT)
 * To showcase, rather than explain, what I mean, I have taken the liberty of adding my idea to the IW article, as an example. --Bishop (rap|con) 00:34, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

No comments on this for over a week. If there are no objections, I'm going to start implementing this soon. --Bishop (rap|con) 09:52, 19 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Exactly why would this need to be done? I do not think the builds need to be more accessable, it will be alot of data to update if a build was updated/removed than just the build page. I would rather not see such variable and technically opinionated information be added to the skill pages which should be entirely concrete fact. --Draygo Korvan 10:13, 19 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I think it would be useful. A major part of what makes a Wiki (or the web) more useful than a static manual is hyperlinks.  I think that players who are looking at a skill will often (say, at least 10% of the time, which is enough for me) be interested in seeing how the skill is used in action, or "vetted" methods of use.  Sure, people will ignore it much of the time (like most of the wiki), but otherwise users are simply not likely to even realize the information exists. --JoDiamonds 21:38, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * While I can see a potential use for it, I think it's a maintenance nightmare to maintain. Builds by their nature are dynamic over time.  Even established builds in the game have been known to evolve, yet maintain the same original build name.  Add into that the build variants and just the number of builds that are currently languishing in un-tested states, and I just see a major headache in attempting to maintain this.  I think this trully needs to be thought out more fully before implementing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:44, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Okay, I thought about it more (I know, I just posted, I thought fast). My main objection here is that this design requires maintenance in two locations; both in the build, and in the skill article.  This isn't efficient to me, and prone to missed edits.
 * Alternate idea: Add an optional row into the skill box for elites only. That row can contain a link to a category for builds using the elite skill in question.  It's then easier to maintain as all maintenance would be in the build article itself to include both the elite skill and the category tag.  No maintenance of the skill article would be needed beyond the original linking to the category page no matter if the skill remained in a build over time or not. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:53, 21 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I like the having a link to category idea, but I think it should be manually added to the bottom of hte article instead of going into the template. - 00:18, 22 June 2006 (CDT)

Factions Skill Icons
Some of you may have noticed I uploaded a clean good looking skill icon for Bull's Charge, Resurrection Signet, and Signet of Capture. Thats because I found them, and all the factions skills, at 50x50 on the Guild Wars Japan site. Because those were all core/prophocies skills I figured I should take advantage of that and resize/add border to them and upload them so we have good looking versions. However, I'm not sure what to do about the factions ones. I could easily take all the factions icons and resize/add border to them and upload them but do we want to instead wait for the fansite kit to come out first? The icons already formatted to 64x64 from the fansite kit would look much better and it looks like it might be out soon seeing as they are already using the icons for those skills. (T/C) 23:26, 14 May 2006 (CDT)
 * We have no clue when the fansite kit will be updated, as a point of information. -PanSola 00:28, 15 May 2006 (CDT)

Discussion with major implications
Not sure if anyone would be paying attention here but not GuildWiki talk:Community Portal. Anyways, there's a discussion over there about how data used in multiple places is to be handled. Just follow this link: GuildWiki talk:Community Portal. -PanSola 05:58, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

Elite Skills categorized
When an elite skill is categorized in any category page other than Category:Elite skills, it should be added with the keytag (Elite) this will make it easier for people to spot elite skills from regular skills eg: Illusionary Weaponry (Elite skill)  --Jamie 04:01, 4 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't understand what you are talkinga bout... - 04:45, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would have thought it was simple, basically to make elite skills easier to find in the category sections we tag then with the suffix (Elite skill) in every category they are in. Except for Category:Elite skills where all the skills are Elite Skills.
 * What this achieves:
 * Easier for users to find & locate Elite skills in category pages like Category:Illusion Magic skills. --Jamie 05:09, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Um, that wouldn't help. It doesn't change how the skill shows up in the category page. - 05:28, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Alright.. it was just an idea, I was thinking it would be like Pipelinking in category pages, but obviously not... --Jamie 06:03, 13 June 2006 (CDT)

Vote: Format of Fractional activation time for Skills
I apologise if this has been finally settled before, but I am unable to find a decision about this within the WiKi (and especially within the Archives of this very talk page).

What's all this about? There's skills like e.g. Blessed Light that have a fractional activation time like three quarters of a second that can be written in different formats:

1 (aka: plain text)
1/4, 1/2, 3/4
 * 1/4, 1/2, 3/4

2 (aka: htmlchar)
&amp;frac14;, &amp;frac12;, &amp;frac34;
 * &frac14;, &frac12;, &frac34;

3 (aka: htmlcode)
1/4 1/2 3/4
 * 1/4 1/2 3/4

4 (aka: latex)
, ,
 * [[Image:Frac_1_4.png]], [[Image:Frac_1_2.png]], [[Image:Frac_3_4.png]]

Note: GuildWiki does not currently use the latex plugin to support variant 4, so I just uploaded the corresponding images created on wikipedia.

5 (template)
1⁄4, 1⁄2, 3⁄4
 * 1⁄4, 1⁄2, 3⁄4

Pros and Cons
Variant 1 (plain text)
 * Pro
 * simple
 * readable in any browser


 * Con
 * harder to recognize as a fraction

Variant 2 (htmlchar)
 * Pro
 * conforms to html standard
 * easy to recognize as a fraction


 * Con
 * very small and hardly readable

Variant 3 (htmlcode)
 * Pro
 * easy to recognize as a fraction
 * good readable


 * Con
 * not the standard html representation
 * considered ugly

Variant 4 (latex)
 * Pro
 * easy to recognize as a fraction
 * good readable


 * Con
 * requires latex plugin or images
 * huge as compared to the others and the non-fractional numbers
 * not scalable with user font size

Variant 5 (template)
 * Pro
 * conforms to html standard
 * easy to recognize as a fraction
 * easy to input without memorization of fancy stuff
 * inflatable


 * Con
 * 3 more templates for the wiki

Vote

 * Please place your name by your main preferences, and specify alternate backup choices after your name for the purpose of instant-runoff.

This vote is open until 7 July 2006

Variant 1 (plain text)
 * Latecomer vote for a totally unpopular option. Really, though, this option has the lowest barrier to entry. I would even propose a decimal notation (i.e., 0.25, 0.5, 0.75) because it is the most flexible; for instance, Fast Casting already uses this format. Seventy.twenty.x.x 05:13, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 03:33, 24 June 2006 (CDT) Plain and simple is the best. Alt: 2,5

Variant 2 (htmlchar)
 * --Bishop (rap|con) 04:36, 8 June 2006 (CDT) Standards, standards, standards!
 * --Theeth (talk)   06:08, 8 June 2006 (CDT) Except with the html entities instead of the unicode code points.
 * --Draygo Korvan 11:14, 8 June 2006 (CDT) Standards!, i think templating it is a seperate issue. The template should use the HTML standard. using &lt;sup&gt; is too messy!

Variant 3 (htmlcode)

Variant 4 (latex)

Variant 5 (template)
 * . Alt choices in order: 1 > 3 > 2
 * Chi Li [[Image:Chi_Li.gif|Chi Li]]. Alternatives in order of preference: 3 > 1 > 2
 * User:Xis10al Alternative choices: 1 > 2 > 3
 * Xasxas256 Easy to use, easy to read
 * Skuld Easiest to read, easiest to use 3:2
 * Chrono traveller I like it since it is (currently) basically 2 but larger font, for those who may have problems reading it, alternate choices: 2 > 1 > 3 (alas my poor latex fractions aren't an option till the math plugin is implemented)
 * Rainith Oh god, another fsking skill vote. :(
 * --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 11:10, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thank you for not making the template link to an image. I'm voting for it. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 11:15, 8 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * HopefulNebula 02:01, 9 June 2006 (CDT) alts in order: 1, 3
 * User:LordBiro This is a very old discussion on the GuildWiki, and I'm sure it was settled, but I can't find it anywhere. Maybe it wasn't! Anyway, I think template is the best choice.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:58, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * P.S. After reading GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills/Archive_2 it looks like Tanaric and myself already made this suggestion a year ago :) hehe  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:04, 10 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Lord Ehzed 08:19, 19 June 2006 (CDT) (then 1 > 3 > 2 > 4)
 * Galil  15:56, 20 June 2006 (CDT) Preferrably templates written to agree with the xhtml standard, so I'm for both variant 2 and 5 put together.

P.S.
Please don't feel offended by me using my preferred variant while moving skill pages to the new template. As stated on my talk page I volunteer to change every skill template to the standard format once a decision is reached. --Chi Li 04:21, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Discussion
As I see it, there have been various attempts to standardize this tiny aspec ot the Skill description, but none of them led to a final decision. In the recent past the discussion about this fractions was brought up again on various talk pages, including Chrono traveller (talk) and Chi Li (talk).

On the existing skill pages and skill templates the variants 1, 2 and 3 are used, so in fact no standardization has taken place yet. The Example Skill currently uses variant 2, but that's IMHO just a result of an unfinished discussion from the past.

I'll try to summarize the pros and cons for each variant (these are initially based on my opinion, so please add your own pros and cons): - Chi Li

Previous discussions on this issue: - 04:35, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Skills/Archive 2
 * GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills/Archive_5


 * Variant 3 will look like ^1/[4] on text browsers, so I reject that option. If variant 2 gets passed, I'm just going to ignore it, type "1/4", and let other people clean up after me, because there is no way I am going to memorize the htmlcharr code.  This is a wiki for the love of Cunningham.  Variant 4 is currently not pratical, so is a moot option. - 04:53, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * That totally works for me. 2 is the correct one to use, imho, but if you feel like using 1 instead, that's fine because content over presentation. --Bishop (rap|con) 04:58, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Correct with respect to what? Half the point of wiki is to avoid html code.  Kinda ironic to be using something that is being labeled as "htmlcharr" (unless that's just a random misnomer invented by Chi Li).  Granted, I'm guilty of using lots of fancy formatting and templating to enhance presentation, but I pay extra attention to make sure those fancy stuff are hidden away from the average contributor, so all they need to do is filling out a template without needing to know how the fancy formatting/character stuff works (separation of content from presentation).  I'm fine with variant 2 and content over presentation (as long as ppl clean up after me), but I challenge it being "the correct one to use". - 05:20, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Correct with respect to adhering to established standards whenever possible. I did point out that it was in my opinion, nothing more. Your point about acessability is valid, however. On reflection, I may be inclined to support option 1 equally. I would have supported your option 5, was it not that I think we have much too many templates as it is, and they're not making it easier for new users at all. --Bishop (rap|con) 05:29, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Fair enough (-: - 05:33, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It is correct with respect to HTML. Anything between "&amp;" and ";" is HTML-code for something you can't otherwise format with plain ASCII. I used term htmlchar to indicate that in this case a single character (char) is represented in html-code where the term htmlcode describes that a more complex structure is used to represent basically the same semantic value.
 * Would it be better to memorize or use for the average wiki contributor to implement something like : a template that would automatically fill in the same html-code on every occurance? This would be mainly used within a template anyway, so I see no harm in that.  Edit: Just recognized that this is the newly added Variant 5, I'd support that (if the magnification to 125% or 150% is kept). --Chi Li [[Image:Chi_Li.gif|Chi Li]] 05:35, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I actually do think it'd be better to implement 1⁄4 than to memorize that 190 gets turned into this, and 188 turns into that. "Mainly used within a template" is only a good reason when you don't need to type out something in order for something to be displayed.  In this case, to have the template display the 1/4 sign, you need to type the 1/4, which is quite different from the auto-generated male/female symbol of the armor boxes. - 05:42, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Just curious (and hoping for an honest answer): Are you (or anyone you know) really browsing this wiki with a text browser? --Chi Li [[Image:Chi_Li.gif|Chi Li]] 05:06, 8 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ask LordBiro. He's the major advocate for it back when we were re-designing the skill box templates. - 05:15, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

For Variant 2, instead of the unicode code point, why not use the HTML entities: &frac14; (&amp;frac14), &frac12; (&amp;frac12), &frac34; (&amp;frac34). This is much easier to remember. --Theeth (talk)   05:44, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Probably because none of us knew it existed. - 05:45, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * True for me :) Still I do favor encapsulating that into a template thats even easier to remember, at least for me. Chi Li [[Image:Chi_Li.gif|Chi Li]] 05:48, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I also didn't know about this. But, I do think the template is probably the best way to go, since the htmlchar without an increase in font size is more difficult to read than others, but looks the best.--Chrono traveller 08:29, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

For what it's worth, the only ones I really like at all are plain text and template. I'm not scared of the template, and making the template 1⁄4 actually simplifies things, because plain text is exactly what novice users will put in, regardless of anything we say. (This makes it easy to change by throwing braces around it). I mostly hate the idea of using anything at all complicated for something that will be so very common. --JoDiamonds 12:48, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Section ordering
This article and the example skill page currently have different orderings of the sections: versus which should we use?
 * Progression
 * Notes
 * Acquisition
 * Notes
 * Progression
 * Acquisition

Also, I have seen many pages rename the section headers and sometimes split them to be more specific, e.g., "Notes"/"Usage Notes" or "Additional Notes"/"Trivia", is this desirable? --66.92.33.187 01:19, 9 June 2006 (CDT)


 * 1) Progression
 * 2) Errata/Clarification
 * 3) Acquisition
 * 4) Notes


 * My suggestions would be Progression/Notes/Acquisition/Trivia. My reasoning is to list the things people are mostly likely to want to read first; Progressions is a key property, and Notes generally include things people don't know they are looking for but are generally relevant.  People looking for the Acquisition will find it quickly regardless.  Trivia is entirely superfluous and therefore can be last.  =)  If something isn't applicable, just leave it out.  I think Errata/Clarification is just a more specific type of Note (as are Usage Notes, etc.  Just fold nearly everything else into "Notes".  I'd be happy supporting an optional "Trivia" section for things which are clearly irrelevant to gameplay. --JoDiamonds 19:12, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm not too fussed about the order, but I do think it makes sense to show progression first, then a clarification of the finer points of the skill, i.e. "you can use this skill with this other skill to blow up parliament", then acquisition, and then trivia, such as "rodgort is trogdor backwards".


 * I think the term "Clarification" is better than "Errata". Errata means a correction, whereas in many cases on the GuildWiki we are really trying to clarify points. It is not often that skill descriptions in-game are totally wrong, but it is often the case that they could be elaborated upon.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:49, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The slash is meant to be "whichever is/are applicable", where the slash in that statement means "whichever is applicable". - 07:03, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

"Errata/Clarification"
I think errata/clarification is a poor choice for the section name since not everything currently in... whatever each skill article calls it (I think mostly notes or usage notes?) could be called errata or clarification. I think just notes is best as it's the most general. --68.142.14.40 04:10, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * General notes belong to the Notes section. Errata/Clarification is only used for things that could be called errata or clarification.  Hope that addresses your concern. - 04:15, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I suppose I don't feel there's any advantage to breaking it apart especially when it'd mean sifting through all the articles. And even then you'd have "additional notes" sections where there's no errata, so they're not additional.  --68.142.14.40 04:23, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The point about the Errata/Clarification being its own section is because it is important enough that people shouldn't need to sift through the entire article to get to it, whereas other types of notes are unimportant enough that they should be left at the end. Why does it require an errata/clarification in order for the notes to be additional? - 05:06, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Otherwise they're just notes and not additional notes? --68.142.14.40 05:53, 24 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Why not just call it Clarification and be done with it? Errata is unnecessary. Clarification encompasses Errata explanation as well. If you'd like a suggestion, I say Overview gives a more general section. That way, any description, clarification, special notes, and known inaccurate information can be added in. So it'll be Progression - Overview - Usage - Acquisition - Related Skills - Notes. I also see no reason to specifically say "Additional Notes". I mean, if something is in the "Notes" section, and not in all the other sections, it sort of already implies the "additonal" part right? :) 08:46, 24 June 2006 (CDT)

Monster Skill format..
Ok, let's talk about how we want to standardize/format monster skills. While we're at it, let's do the same for Environment Effects and Blessings. What should definitely be there, what would be cool, what should not go in? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karlos (talk &bull; contribs) 14:08, 27 July 2006 (CDT).
 * I just thought of this too, so I took the liberty of uploading Image:Monster skill.jpg to use for monster skills. I believe consistency is important so unless someone objects, I will start updating pages.


 * Also, skill icons should not have their own icons in my opinion. For example; Image:Breaking_Charm.jpg and Image:Brutal_Mauling.jpg should be deleted and links to them should be pointing to the same skill icon for ease of updating, eg. Image:Monster skill.jpg. The only monster skills I believe should have their own icons are skills which do have their own icons in-game, eg. Corrupted Breath. &mdash; Galil  20:48, 1 July 2006 (CDT)


 * After looking through some pages using these icons, I found User:KhanRKerensky already created, which could definitely be used. Will keep that template in mind when editing boss pages. &mdash; Galil  21:21, 1 July 2006 (CDT)

Skill Data

 * use the official skill icons when they are available (in the fansite kit)
 * Possibly add a "flavor" aspect to skill descriptions as per the ideas of the GuildWars community. As in, adding short, possible historical, notes about certain skills and what they do in a flavorful sense. Almost flavor text for skills, much like Magic: the Gathering has on a lot of it's card.
 * I would be willing to get the ball rolling. --Blacklock
 * Something like what's currently done with Jamei's Gaze or do you have something totally different in mind? - 17:19, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, say I was going to do Jamie's Gaze. It would read as, "Monks learn to focus their healing energy so devoutly that even a mere glance can brighten an ally on the battlefield, helping them recover from wounds." It's not vital to the game, but it could add a nice dose of flavor for the RPers out there. --Blacklock
 * I have a small doubt if we should add this kind of stuff to a wiki, especially if it only depends on one mans thoughts. However, as a major RPer I ahve to say... Go for it! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 02:16, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I understand, which is why I haven't gone around doing it yet for fear of massive retalliation... or something. And, also, I was hoping to get the support of RPers who edit the wiki, too. There is over 300 skills. That's a lot of little tidbits of history and flavor.
 * If it's info taken from the game, then I have no issues. Otherwise I think some kind of note should be added to make clear that it's personal creativity of the GuildWiki contributors as opposed to in-game lore. - 04:37, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It wouldn't be part of the original skill discription or anything, just a little piece of lore on the bottom. ArenaNet can only give us so much information, and the community makes the rest. Hence RPG.
 * And even though it won't be part of the skill description or anything, I believe it still needs to be clearly marked as a player-created text and clearly marked as not being in-game lore. I'm not against its existence.- 05:31, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I am strongly opposed to violating GW:CONTENT for no clear benefit. Please reconsider your idea. You may find that other fansites such as guildwarsguru will be more receptive to it. –70.20&#x260e; 04:40, 13 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Um, this has NOTHING to do with Content over presentation. - 04:50, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Obviously, I have no problem with anything from the game being documented on the wiki. And if you want do document and add flavor with previous uses of the skill, add trivia notes about the possible pop-culture origins of a title and/or ways it was referred ingame or by NPC's, go right ahead. But I strongly oppose making up canon (history, background) on our own. In fact, I think it would be directly hurtful to the vision of the actual writers doing the background story if the lines were to start blurring on the wiki between what is made by them and made by us. In summary: Don't do this! GuildWiki is not the place for such a thing. A fanfic site for RP'ers might be a cool idea and all, but it would need to be a clearly defined part of how that site operated, not hiding among documentation. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 05:20, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't need to write my explanations, Bishop does it for me. I agree completely with Bishop.  Were we to consider adding non-canon storylines or anything of the sort to this wiki, I would want it clearly separated on different pages -- the skill pages shouldn't have flowery prose added by use (only factual or strategic items).  (I realize that probably kills the idea completely, but some people do have fan-fic on their user pages, which I think is great and fine.) --JoDiamonds 09:54, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Fair enough, I just thought I would suggest it as part RPer. Thanks for the input, though. --Blacklock 13:27, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think it's a bad idea. I won't elaborate too much, but it is not our aim to invent.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:43, 13 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Another main problem: Highly subjective content. User A thinks the skill is awesome so he writes something lik eyou wrote about Jamei's Gaze above. User B however, thinks the skill stinks, so he removes that prose and puts something about how this skill is obnoxious. Do we consider that vandalism? It's open mic and anyone can say what they like abuot that skill. That's what talk pages are for. --Karlos 17:23, 29 June 2006 (CDT)