GuildWiki talk:Standardizing skill templates

Take versus suffers
I'd vote for "takes" instead of "suffers." "Suffer" is used as a verb with damage as the object in only ten skills (and two of those don't ignore armor). "Takes" is used in 68 skills by my count (admittedly, six are armor respecting skills), but at least it's commonly used already. --68.142.14.92 01:05, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ditto. - 01:08, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * WP:BOLD &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 01:11, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * We are not Wikipedia - Any policies we share, but lack an actual policy article for, should be ported over here; it is bad form to link a Wikipedia policy article in support of any action, even if that policy is the same as one traditionally held by the GuildWiki. Besides, I'm lazy d-: - 01:31, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Purpose
Just curious; is the goal of this article to create new wording to insert into GW skill articles? If so, will we over-write the in-game descriptions, or insert this version next to the current in-game descriptions? Or is this one of the "Changes that ArenaNet should make" type articles? --24.19.168.170 01:20, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * The latter. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 01:27, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I would recommand this to be placed side-by-side with the in-game description in the skill article. Thus, we will have a "In-game Description" that copies in-game word by word, and a "GuildWiki Description" that is more standardized.  This might also replace the errata section. - 01:28, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * That step can be taken when this project matures a lot more. It's still way too early, and we're still brainstorming about the standard glossary. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 01:30, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I too would like to see a standardized description within the skill articles - there's room for that to be added to the Skill Box Template. But let's first find some general understanding and wording for the descriptions that is
 * easy to understand and
 * able to represent the maths behind the scenes
 * --Chi Li [[Image:Chi_Li.gif|Chi Li]] 08:48, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

"start using"
Is there anything that triggers off "start using"? - 01:42, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I was envisioning it for cases like using a spell on someone protected with Spell Breaker. I also think it is important to mention that the end of the activation is the trigger for pretty much everything. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 01:48, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * You might want to reword it then, since if you are putting a long-cast spell on me, and I start fast-casting Spell Breaker after you have started casting your spell, your spell won't fail until I finish casting my Spell Breaker, so technically the effect didn't happen when you start casting your spell. I think it's more important to keyword the verb fail (not the same as the attack-related failures). - 01:53, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * BTW, I'm assuming Guilt and Shame treats "fail" the same way Spell Breaker does. If not, there's another inconsistency for us to iron out. - 01:57, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Condition causing skills
Rotting flesh, sever artery etc all try to describe the conditon they cause &mdash; Skuld  02:31, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I recommend removing such descriptions, as we, at least, have an article on them. A player in GW, optimally, should be able to hover over the condition when affected by it and get a desc out of it. On the flip side, if a player is rarely affected by such things, there is no source for their information on them ingame. What it really needs is some sort of glossary for conditions. :P --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 17:21, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

Some consistency issues
These aren't really important issues besides that they should be consistent but the manner in which they should be isn't clear: Maybe more after I think about it. --68.142.14.92 02:31, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * "Damage sentences" vary a lot in sentence subject and verb conjugation. Sometimes "you strike for," sometimes " strikes for," and sometimes the enemy "is struck" (and probably other forms, too).  It even varies within the same skill sometimes.  I'm not sure how far standardization should be taken, such as making attack skills and spells all fall in line or having potentially different schemes for different types.
 * Self reference. Some skills say things like "this attack" and some use the skill name.  Sometimes there's more than one self-reference so using either form twice might seem like jilted English.
 * Flavor text. Distracting blow swipes, phoenix raises a fiery phoenix that flies out and explodes, lightning orb creates a lightning orb, broad head arrow shoots out a broad head arrow.  The latter two are clearly less "flavorful" but not necessary.  In some cases this seems to indicate projectile attacks (as in dodgable attacks and not automatic hits).  I'd weakly favor all flavor text getting removed.


 * For self-reference, I recommend self-reference every time. Protective Bond, for example -- instead of "While you maintain this Enchantment", do "While Protective Bond is maintained", as there is no point in mentioning that it is an enchantment when the first two words in GW are "Enchantment Spell". In fact, I recommend removing second-person altogether if at all possible, unless it causes undue awkwardness. This would also solve part of your "damage sentences" bullet. I wonder if I should "be bold" when we're trying to standardize. --Tinarto [[Image:Tinarto-gold-Monk-icon-small.png]] 17:18, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

After some pondering, here are some of my preferred answers to the issues I came up with and some more new issues: Once again, more as it occurs to me. Speak up or one day when I think I've got a consistent system that covers most things, I'm going to push all these changes into the article. --68.142.14.91 21:52, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Flavor. Kill it all.  The effort is to standardize.
 * I never liked how enchantments were phrased. They mix the "enchantment" and the "spell" parts together.  For example, if you hover over the healing breeze status icon, you get the exact text of the skill description.  I think you should get "For 10s, you gain X health regeneration."  Showing the target of the enchantment the "target ally" part is just weird.  OoP says "whenever a party member hits a foe," but it really means that when YOU (the enchanted) hits and that when the enchanter casts it, the whole party is enchanted.  Unfortunately, I have no clue how to concisely and unambiguously phrase them.  Hexes have a similar problem.  I suppose weapon spells, too.  Does anyone else even see this as a problem?
 * Attack skills deal bonus damage that ignores armor. The base attack itself respects armor.  So, attack skills should use "take" and not "strike."
 * Self reference should be in the form of "this skill/attack/whatever." It is likely the shortest choice for almost everything.
 * I don't think it's possible to remove all second person references, but I may be wrong. Searching for "you" in the skill descriptions shows second person is used quite often and would be a pain to rephrase around.  I don't think it's worth the effort and likely awkward phrasings to remove all second person references.
 * So, this leads us to phrase attacks as something like "deal an additional X damage if this attack hits." Alternatively, "if this attack hits, you deal an additional X damage."
 * Spells should say "Strike target foe for X earth damage." The change is that most spells currently say "target foe is struck for."  Alternatively, "you strike target foe for X damage."
 * We need a phrasing for projectile spells. "Send out a projectile that strikes for" is wordy, but I have no good suggestion right now.  Perhaps "strike with a projectile for."

ANet
Stabber wrote "there is no guarantee" ANet will use this information. Actually, there is no way ANet can use this information because of the wiki's license. --68.142.14.92 17:19, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * This can and should be rectified immediately. Suggest adding a banner at the top that releases material in this article into the public domain, with contributors implicitly agreeing on contribution. 85.25.141.60 17:32, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * If we want to do this, we need agreement from every editor that touched the article (or, excise parts from anyone who doesn't consent). --68.142.14.91 18:27, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree with the anon above you. This should be done. I of course give consent. Will add this to the article now. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 18:42, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

License
Should it specify "you, the user" in some format that clarifies that user is the one that uses the data, not the person who logs in? I don't know anything about these things, but at first I thought it was talking to me, the contributor. --Tinarto 19:11, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * IANAL, but these sorts of things are usually intended to address the reader. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 19:13, 7 June 2006 (CDT)