Category talk:Skills (Core)

If we are going to categorize monk chapter 1 skills as, wouldn't it be more consistent to name this category ? -PanSola 21:49, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * My understanding is that we are dropping the "ch" schema as the official terminology is "campaign" now, not "chapter". Moreover, the "chapter" 1 monk skills will be, I presume. Tetris? &mdash; Stabber 21:51, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * Where was that discussion? If we are dropping chapter in favor of Campaign, then I advocate .  But let's talk about it where the discussion to switch over to  occured. -PanSola 21:53, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * Certainly. Look at GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting. &mdash; Stabber 21:56, 14 March 2006 (CST)
 * That was pretty much about categorization, I doubt anyone paid attention to naming... o_O""" Even Rainith's "lack of opposition" was about the categorization process, no one talked about the naming of the categories... -PanSola 22:03, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * Several notes:
 * I think we should still keep ALL core skills in (in addition to any other subcategories).
 * The category tree should look as follows, for example for
 * Category:Skills > Category:Skills by profession > Category:Monk skills >  >
 * Category:Skills > Category:Skills by campaign >  >  >
 * The discussion about "Chapter" or "Campaign" wasn't finalized. It has only just started. see: Talk:Chapter. Since we had a vote to decide for the scheme, we should probably have another vote to decide if we roll back the old decision and how the new solution should look like. -- 22:04, 14 March 2006 (CST)


 * Yaaaay! More rolling back and re-voting! YES!!
 * The above example does not make sense to me. Shouldn't it be:
 * Category:Skills > Category:Skills by profession > Category:Monk skills >  >
 * Category:Skills > Category:Skills by campaign >  >  >
 * Anyways, I think I am about to give up on this side of the wiki and stick to authoring. :( --Karlos 08:04, 15 March 2006 (CST)