Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Skills/Archive2

"In-game description"

Is there any particular opposition to labeling the in-game description section with the header "In-game description"? I kind of think we should have it as a matter of site-wide consistency in labeling our non-GFDL stuff. --Rezyk 01:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

We've been discussin this abit, over here User talk:Aspectacle#Description heading, and we have a "policy" that says an article should not start with a heading, which the skill article would do if we have the "In-game description". Personally, I like both ways, but this one follows the format of the rest of the wiki better.
And I don't think it's very important to tell this is non-GFDL, it's a skill description, and as such, a fact.. - Anja Astor 01:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The skill detail makes good introductory text which is something we're trying to consistently introduce across different articles - in terms of formatting the page is better off without the header. It is unnecessary to label everything from in game as from in game - particularly when it is obvious that it is so, skill descriptions, objectives, reward and dialogue sections are examples of this. Further I believe the licensing statements cover all aspects of the ArenaNet vs GFDL copyright and to specify in game vs user content in the wiki is not a legal necessity if ArenaNet wished to pursue copyright violation against other sites or whatever. --Aspectacle 02:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Campaign

Do we have to list the campaign in the aquisition part if it's a campaign specific skill? (or similarly just available in one campaign, but that's just single-campaign skills, I think). Imo, it's not necessary, if it's a Prophecies skill it should be obvious the locations listed are in Prophecies.. - Anja Astor 02:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I've been adding it in (sometimes :P) but I did wonder (briefly) about it, because it certainly is redundant for non-core skills. I'd be fine with leaving it out, but don't have a strong opinion on it. As a related item, if the only way of acquiring a skill is through SoC I'd still like 'Signet of Capture' listed before the bosses. --Aspectacle 02:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's what I've been adding too :P I think it looks odd without something, but both skill trainer and prophecies, for example, isn't really necessary for prophecies skills, imo. I'm in favour of not more text than necessary, when making lists ;) - Anja Astor 02:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Visual errors in templates

Necromancer and Elementalist info box have slight visual errors. Compare Blinding Surge and Awaken the Blood to Disrupting Chop. The profession name is written below the line in which the profession should be named.Sith 04:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I can't see the difference..? At the risk of sounding dumb, could I ask you to be more specific? Do you mean "Elementalist" appears on the next line down from "Profession"? Admittedly, I've been looking at the screen for a long time, and I may be failing to see the wood for the trees Fox (talk|contribs) 04:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't have the problem for elementalist, but for necromancer, the word necromancer is pushed to the next line (ie - it isn't beside the "profession" header). If it has something to do with the profession name length I could imagine that the Elementalist might have the same problem for others. It seems the profession icon interferes with the profession name bounding box forcing it onto the next line. --Aspectacle 04:33, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

This must be a browser/user text size problem then? Because the text all appears exactly where it should be on my screen. We had vaguely similar problems with the crafting materials navbox - depending on the text size, the template would break to a new line at less than aesthetically pleasing places Fox (talk|contribs) 04:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

And now it has changed :S  ! The necro box has broken to a new line. I feel a Twilight Zone fast approaching lol Fox (talk|contribs) 04:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I thought it to be so. Well that I was talking about name of profession getting into newline.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Sith .

For a while now I've been working on a redesign of the skill infobox, but I was initially delayed because user CSS was not enabled. Now that it is I've done more work on it. Have a look at User:LordBiro/Skill box draft 5 and let me know what you think. LordBiro 07:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I really like your proposal LordBiro. It looks really nice. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 07:46, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with CoRrRan the icons seem really good and unique, though less GW styled. Only problem I see is will it be that high (rectangle) or will it be reduced to a square? Sith 13:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what you mean, Sith. Could you make your question a bit more specific? LordBiro 16:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I think he means this problem? (image link) - Anja Astor 17:01, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I think he means how the current skill bix is more or less a square (more or less, I know), while the link provided by LordBiro shows something that is a lot higher than it is large - meaning, it would be more of a rectangle than the current skill box. I don't really have a problem with that, though. Erasculio 17:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I really don't see that. Here's a comparison of what the Disrupting Chop infoboxes look like to me, Picture. --Dirigible 17:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Dirigible, is that what you are seeing on the link LordBiro posted above? I see this on IE. Erasculio 17:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

You need to modify your Special:Mypage/monobook.css file, because the skill infobox you're looking at right now is unstyled. :) Instructions. --Dirigible 17:33, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Duh, my bad. Thank you for the link and the explanation : ) Erasculio 17:38, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The problem is that the word necromancer is too long at standard font and it has to push underneath the image to display correctly. --Lemming64 17:10, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, he said two different things, which of the questions Biro meant.. is not obvious :P - Anja Astor 17:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Well I'm thoroughly confused :D LordBiro 19:18, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sith and Erasculio were looking at the unstyled version of your new infobox, saying it doesn't look right because it's unstyled. Lemming and Anja are talking about the old version of the infobox. CoRrRan and I are the only ones that are commenting on the new infobox properly styled. To sum up, your infobox looks good and seems to be working fine, when can we launch it live? :P --Dirigible 19:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Lol, ok :) My main concern before launch is that I've not only altered the template but the icons as well. I'd prefer it if more people could see it before it is implemented. I don't have a replacement for the adrenaline icon yet, as it's quite detailed for its size. Equally there has been no discussion on the profession icons, on both the new style (even though it seems to have been well received) or on whether the mesmer and ranger icons should use the new outline or the old outline. And I haven't been able to produce suitable 20x20 icons in this style yet.

So there's a lot to consider :/ LordBiro 19:45, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah Dirigible is right. I saw it without the .css addition. It looks excelent and I say go for it. The style is very refreshing. Sith 12:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Adding headers to the description and progression sections...

I thought that the headers made the pages look better (and I thought they were supposed to be there) but apparently there are suppose to be no headers for those sections. It's a small change but it separates those sections so they look more organized. Is it possible if we could add in those two headings (proposal)? Thanks for your time! --Valhallan 14:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Description shouldnt need a heading. The article name is a level one heading (that is how media wiki works). Progressions doesn't need a heading because it's now in the table instead. - BeXoR 14:54, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I wasn't thinking that it would help to clear confusion as much as help with spacing (thus looking better). Right now, at least to me, the description and progression table seem to be squeezed together. At least with a Skill Progression header, this would allow more space and consequently, a better aesthetic feel.--Valhallan 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

EDIT: Here's an example (remember on skill pages these would have titles above them):

Current format:

[[Axe Attack]]. When this [[attack]] hits, you deal +{{gr|5|20}} [[damage]]. If target [[foe]] is suffering from a [[Deep Wound|deep wound]], you [[interrupt]] that foe's action.

{{Skill progression
|attribute = [[Axe Mastery]]
|maximum = 19
|var1 name = +[[Damage]]
|var1 at0 = 5
|var1 at15 = 20}}


Proposed format:

==Skill Description==

[[Axe Attack]]. When this [[attack]] hits, you deal +{{gr|5|20}} [[damage]]. If target [[foe]] is suffering from a [[Deep Wound|deep wound]], you [[interrupt]] that foe's action.

==Skill Progression==

{{Skill progression
|attribute = [[Axe Mastery]]
|maximum = 19
|var1 name = +[[Damage]]
|var1 at0 = 5
|var1 at15 = 20}}


Or this:

[[Axe Attack]]. When this [[attack]] hits, you deal +{{gr|5|20}} [[damage]]. If target [[foe]] is suffering from a [[Deep Wound|deep wound]], you [[interrupt]] that foe's action.

==Skill Progression==

{{Skill progression
|attribute = [[Axe Mastery]]
|maximum = 19
|var1 name = +[[Damage]]
|var1 at0 = 5
|var1 at15 = 20}}

I've put a pre tag around your example, it makes things confusing to post wiki code in the middle of a discussion. I think this is totally unnecessary. You end up with two headings when you need none. LordBiro 16:01, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Biro and Bexor, I don't think this is needed. The page looks cleaner to me without it. Erasculio 19:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Another here who says no to the headers - particularly as the progression box has a title "progression" as part of the box. Perhaps we could add white space to the top of the skill progression template so it doesn't sit right up against the description? --Aspectacle 19:26, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd be happy with that. I just thought it'd be better with headers, but as long as there is something to separate them, I'm happy. Any objections to just extra white space between them?--Valhallan 21:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Just as a note, I'd prefer to add "margin-top: <N>em;" to the template table description than go through each of the pages adding in extra new lines. It will be easier to tweak to get a nice look and is less effort all around if extra space is desirable. --Aspectacle 23:39, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

If you want an example of a good looking page without any headings go look at the armor art pages. :P --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:BeXoR .

You just think they are good looking because we made them Bexor ;) - Anja Astor (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

What can I say, I love our work. ;P - BeXoR 04:02, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I think a space between description and skill progression look better. See here in comparison to Word of Healing. Poke 05:55, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, Valhallan already changed it ;) Poke 12:15, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Problem solved ^^. That looks a lot better with some space between them, at least in my opinion.--Valhallan 14:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Skill taxonomy

I've been wondering about the skill taxonomy lately. The current {{skill infobox}} auto-categorises every skill into Category:Skills. This is pretty unwieldy. Here is my suggestion for how it should work (it's not particularly revolutionary!).

1. All skills should be categorised into [[Category:<Type>s]] where <Type> is the type of the skill.
2. If a skill has a campaign it should be added to [[Category:<Campaign> skills]] where <Campaign> is the type of the skill. (I say if because Signet of Capture has no campaign, maybe others too, not sure).
3. If a skill has an attribute it should be added to [[Category:<Attribute> skills]] where <Attribute> is the attribute name.
4. If a skill has no attribute but a profession it should be added to [[Category:<Profession> skills]] where <Profession> is the profession name.
5. If a skill has no attribute or profession (e.g. Signet of Capture, Lightbringer and Sunspear skills) it should be added to [[Category:Common skills]]

Does this make sense? LordBiro 07:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I like the idea of more specific categorisation, but should that be [[Category:<Campaign skills]]. I also thought I'd let you know that I like the CSS skillbox, with the tango icons (I think the new ranger paw and mesmer hand should be implemented for consistency though). My only concern about the CSS skillbox is that presentation to users without the required stylesheet isn't correct. I assume that either the stylesheet will need to be implemented globally or the CSS re-integrated within the infobox template. Also, there should be a way to auto-categorise some or all of the above list, would we be doing this, or trying to get it working manually?. --Indecision 07:40, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I apologise, it was a typo, I have corrected the above to [[Category:<Campaign> skills]].

Regarding categorisation, I believe this could all be done automatically. All of the above information is provided as a parameter. I will make some additions to the test skill box to show how I would do it. LordBiro 07:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

In case #2 there are skills which have type "Core" which SoC, Ressig, Fire Storm, Watch Yourself! and others fall. [[Category:Core skills]], which is a simple variant on [[Category:<Campaign> skills]], should cover that. I know that the template has no particular way to differenciate elites, but are there categories around that we want?

Definitely auto-categorise, all of the categories specified are straight forward to implement. --Aspectacle 07:52, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Not a problem Biro, was pretty sure that was the case, just thought I'd point it out in case people got a touch confused :). I can also see how Core skills could be categorised relatively painlessly. I'm sure that categorising elites could be done by adding a parameter to the template and avoiding displaying it (using style="display=none;", or some other method) and then categorising off of that (if its necessary). As for other categories, maybe PVE only skills (as we are getting another 50 of them later in the year)? --Indecision 08:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I would suggest we use the same division Dirigible proposed for green items. Here:

We could then have a skill classified by attribute (and then, higher in that tree, by profession), by campaign and by type. It would be consistent with the classification of the unique items (and ok, I just love that image : D). Erasculio 08:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Didn't I already say that? :P Also, the articles using User:LordBiro/Skill infobox now all also include a list of the categories that they would exist in if the template were live. LordBiro 08:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Heh, sorry, I think I misread your original comment. I thought you meant that the only skills linked to a profession would be the ones without an attribute, while in the division above all skills would be linked to an attribute (even if it is the lack of one) and then linked to a profession as a step further in the same tree. So, say, going to the Dagger Mastery category would show the Dagger Mastery skills and it would be a part of the Assassin skills category, which would have 5 subcategories (Dagger Mastery skills, Critical Mastery skills, Shadows Arts skills, Deadly Arts skills and Unlinked Skills). Erasculio 08:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I see that you were saying something different to me ;) but I don't agree with the need for what would effectively be 10 "no attribute" categories, one for each profession. I can see your point but it doesn't sit well with me. LordBiro 08:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

If you liked that picture, you should see the original version. :) --Dirigible 06:49, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That picture is beautiful Dirigible, I love it like I have never loved a diagram in all my life! --Jamie 13:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Maximum attribute levels

The note Gordon added about what max level each attribute can have is just confusing, to be honest. Could we have a table or something instead? Or make a note of it in the attrivute article? (for example Attribute or Hammer Mastery) - Anja Astor (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

or both? When I saw Gordon add that information I was like "Of course!" but you're right about the formatting. Here's a quick table which needs a tidy which captures the same information;

Profession	18 att points	19 att points	21 att points
Warrior		All
Ranger	Wilderness Survival Expertise Beast Mastery	Marksmanship
Monk		All
Necromancer		Death Magic Soul Reaping	Blood Magic Curses
Mesmer		All
Elementalist		Energy Storage	Air Magic Earth Magic Fire Magic Water Magic
Assassin	Critical Strikes Deadly Arts Shadow Arts	Dagger Mastery
Ritualist		All
Paragon	Leadership	Command Motivation Spear Mastery
Dervish	Earth Prayers Mysticism Wind Prayers	Scythe Mastery

--Aspectacle 03:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, we really need that info somewhere. Maybe like this?

Prof
18		WS, Exp, BM					CS, DA, SA		Lead	EP, Myst, WP
19	All	Marks	All	Death, SR	All	ES	Dagger	All	Comm, Spear, Mot	Scythe
21				Blood, Curses		Air, Earth, Fire, Water

- Anja Astor (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

The compact one is excellent for the formatting guide, that orientation is much more space efficient too. The abbreviations stop it from being really useful for putting into the article on attributes if we were to make a general overview of max attribute values there - it may be interesting to have but isn't strictly required, where perhaps details of how to get to 21 might be of real interest in the attribute descriptions. --Aspectacle 04:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I guess abbreviations is only good for articles like this, where you want space efficient info. I prefer not using abbreviations in articles like Attribute since it is an atricle to describe attributes, not to do a quick style information to be used in other articles. Uh, that went confusing. And now my keyboard messed up, I hope you get my point :P - Anja Astor (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's too bad we don't have a set of <attribute> icons that could be used. --Rohar (talk|contribs) 08:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

If there is a clear criteria for which attributes have which maximum value then it makes sense to me that a switch can do that job. So I made one.

• {{Skill progression limit|Healing Prayers}} = 21
• {{Skill progression limit|Wilderness Survival}} = 20
• {{Skill progression limit|Blood Magic}} = 21
• {{Skill progression limit|Beast Mastery}} = 20
• {{Skill progression limit}} = 21

This could replace the default value in {{Skill progression}}, so that if an attribute is present, and no maximum value is set, the template figures it out.

I wrote the template on the understanding that every attribute would not be [[linked]], but according to the formatting article attributes in the progression table should be linked. I think it makes sense that the attribute either not be linked, since it is already linked to in the skill infobox, or is auto-linked, which I know would be a little messy since the other parameters are not auto-linked.

I really favour the first option, where attributes in a progression table are not linked.

If it is decided that attributes should be linked then {{Skill progression limit}} will need to be altered. LordBiro 06:22, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Forget what I said, I altered {{Skill progression limit}}. There is no longer a need to use the 'maximum' parameter, since the progression template can figure it out itself. LordBiro 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Nice. Now all that needs to happen is for people to stop using incorrect maximum parameters and we'll be great. :) I'm for completely removing allowing the maximum to be set, because afaik there are no exceptions. Although Gordon might be better able to confirm that. --Aspectacle 13:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I think I might alter the template in that way now, since I don't think there are any exceptions. If Gordon says otherwise then we can always revert it so that maximum takes precedence. LordBiro 14:33, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

With the addition of the Golden Egg these ranges might need to be increased again by 1. --Indecision 20:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you're right - it appears that the effects of the Golden Egg do stack, so the max should be able to go up by one on all of these - I haven't tested yet to confirm, but that seems correct so far.

At least by using a template to control the max level, it's easy to do blanket updates to all skills at once when this is confirmed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Definitely! LordBiro 18:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

If illusion magic can go to 19, can't every spell hit its 19 value with Signet of Illusions? --Rezyk 20:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe. It depends on how they interact with 20% +1 items. -- Gordon Ecker 21:16, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I just tested it, while Signet of Illusions is active, +1 attribute procs will not affect any spells. I tested it with Wastrel's Demise and a 20% +1 Domination Magic offhand, Wastrel's Demise and 20% +1 Illusion Magic offhand and Accumulated Pain and a 20% +1 Illusion Magic offhand. -- Gordon Ecker 02:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Apparently non-instantaneous attribute bonuses only stack up to 20, resulting in an absolute cap of 21. I think we should show progression at least up to 20 because of hard mode, I'm not sure about showing progression up to 21. -- Gordon Ecker 03:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion and Discussion of pop-ups

I recently found the pop-up script used on wikipedia can be also be used on any wiki. So I tried to install it in here. It worked, but the page loaded from the pop-up shows nothing. How can this be fixed?

I suggest of adding pop-ups to all users, but only for skills, that means...only skills (or maybe armor too) will pop-up with description when mouse hover over it.

What do you guys think? Lightblade 20:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See GWWt:RfTA#Navigation popups for instructions on how to properly set up the popups so they work with this wiki.

As for using those popups for skills, it's a very bad idea, I think. Lupin's Popups have been designed for editors's ease, not for the reader's. GwBBCode is probably far more appropriate; the discussion for that started at GWWt:RfTA#Mouse-over skill descriptions, but it seems to have stalled. Might want to bump it. --Dirigible 21:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Maximum option on Skill Progression

{{Skill progression
|attribute = [[Axe Mastery]]
|maximum = 19
|var1 name = +[[Damage]]
|var1 at0 = 5
|var1 at15 = 20}}

Is the maximum option still used or is the maximum attribute value now automatically placed in based on the attribute?--Valhallan 14:32, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Automatically set. I don't think that it works anymore so you should remove it where ever you see it. --Aspectacle 16:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it is too prone to error, so you can remove it, or leave it, it's up to you. It doesn't do anything :) LordBiro 16:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Skill descriptions (once again)

Should skill descriptions be written exactly as in-game or should we use lower case as in the rest of the wiki? For example, in many places in-game it's "Energy" in the middle of sentences, where I would prefer to use "energy". Same applies to conditions etc. - Anja Astor (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I support ulc in skill descriptions personally.--Dirigible 17:38, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm in favor of keeping the skill descriptions according to in-game descriptions, it is also much easier to compare skill descriptions after skill updates. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 18:32, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

IMO anything taken directly from the game (skill descriptions, quotes, quest logs, etc...) should be copied verbatim, including any typos. --Rainith 20:00, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Rainith. If it's a typo use (sic). - BeX 00:32, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

In theory, I support quoting text exactly as it appears in-game ... but as far as skills are concerned, we've already varied from that practice by using three values in the effect number ranges in the {{gr}} tag. So, for skills, precedent already supports allowing some flexibility in this. I would like to see more arguments on both sides before giving my own opinion.

As for where exact text is used and the term "sic" is utilized, I also support porting over GuildWiki's (sic) template, as well as creating our own quoting guideline, which could be based partly on GuildWiki's quoting guideline (I believe that the only significant contribution to either of those which has not been released under GFDL is some minor formatting and the specific example shown). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Designating duplicates

Just a minor issue, what would be the 'best' way to show that a skill is a duplicate:

• *{{skill icon|Teinai's Wind}} ([[Duplicate skill|duplicate]])

Vs.

• *{{skill icon|Teinai's Wind}} is a [[Prophecies]]-only [[Duplicate skill|duplicate]] of this skill.

I noticed that I have been reverting stuff from 'option 2' to 'option 1' myself. (And 'option 1' does have my preference.) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 14:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd change your #1 to read the link literally. Make it say "Duplicate skill" instead of "duplicate." I see no reason not to. Other than that, I like option 1 too. Simplicity is my new motto. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 15:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

After pondering about this, I may suggest something like. This method may still get the message across that there is a duplicate of the skill for another campaign without noting it in the notes section.

• *{{skill icon|Teinai's Wind}} ([[Faction]] [[Duplicate skill]])

and

• *{{skill icon|Whirlwind}} ([[Prophecies]] [[Duplicate skill]])

The reasoning behind this was to eliminate the noting of duplicate skill informations in the notes section for duplicate skiils like how it was done at Guildwiki and for simplicity.--The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Bane of Worlds .16:53, 18 April 2007

I agree if it was in the skill template that would be much nicer and probably the correct step to take. Who should we involve in this to get it looked into to be added in the template? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 13:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

It's simple to add it to the skill icon template. So are you suggesting something like {{skill icon|Whirlwind|Prophecies}}? Or something like {{skill icon|Whirlwind}} and have it automatically detect that it's a duplicate skill? -- ab.er.rant 23:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

You would use {{duplicate|<skill>}} 220.239.104.104 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(ri)I agree 100% with Vallen Frostweaver's comment. There is no point to state the campaign name. The only duplicate skills so far are from Prophecies and Factions. So if Griffon's Sweep is from Prophecies, then Leviathan's Sweep is from Factions. Redundant information is not needed. --Torak321 23:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a point to state the campaign name - not everyone has every campaign and it saves them going to the other article to find out. But then again, this doesn't affect me. :P - BeX 03:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It affects me. I don't recognise duplicate skills so easily. Also, mentioning the campaign has an added bonus of allowing people to easily decide that I don't have to jump to Tyria, then to Ember Light Camp to buy from Dakk when I can just go to Kaineng from the ship and buy from Michiko. -- ab.er.rant 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

TOC

After starting to update several skill notes and such the addition of the extra topics has cropped up the table of contents in weird places. See Mark of Rodgort or Maiming Strike for examples. My question is, should we send a bot out to adjust the TOC and if so do we remove it or move it (and then if move it, where to move it to)? Thanks. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 15:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

My vote is for __NOTOC___ on skill pages. We already use that on some other short articles, I think it was weapons or other items. - Anja Astor (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think NOTOC makes most sense. LordBiro 16:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. - BeX 16:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for it. Problem is, I know nothing about going about doing it (as I will not add NOTOC to each and every skill page). Anyone got any bot friends? --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 07:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Simply adding a __NOTOC__ to each skill article is something I can easily just let AWB do overnight, but do we really want to add that to all skill articles? If I'm not mistaken, the majority of them don't have a table of contents, so NOTOC wouldn't do much there. In other words, do we want to use it manually only on pages that need it (like Mark of Rodgort), or are we going to NOTOC everything? --Dirigible 08:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, scratch that, we don't even need a bot for this. We can simply just use {{Skill infobox}} to insert the NOTOC in all pages if we decide to go that route. I don't mind either option, so you guys decide :) --Dirigible 08:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

NOTOC in the skill box seems nicer to me, I don't think there will happen to be any skill page that will need a TOC? It makes the skill page cleaner and creation of skill pages easier :) - Anja Astor (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm for the skill info box. You never know when a skill will have a new heading added and it would self create a ToC on the page. An imbedded notoc in the skill info box as you describe has my support. --File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 08:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Listing

In which order should things be listed? As skill trainers, skill quests and such? My proposal is Availability for trainers and quests and alphabetical for bosses and related skills. Then, Firstwatch Sergio would be listed before Dakk, he's available before Dakk if you play normally. Or should we just list them all alphabetically, plain and simple? - Anja Astor (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Personally sorting skill trainers by availability sounds good. Due to the possibility of rushing and shortcuts the availability not really depends on storyline, so that could be an argument against that. I would prefer Skill quests over Skill trainers, because it is cheaper to get them this way, so skill quests should be listed earlier than trainers. Alphabetical for bosses and related skills sounds good. - MSorglos 09:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think sorting by cost makes most sense. Cheapest first (i.e. quests). LordBiro 09:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

And internally, within the quest/trainer list?
Atm we are listing trainer before hero skill trainer, maybe that should change also? - Anja Astor (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't really have an opinion on it :) hehe LordBiro 09:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I would say that the ordering should sorted by availability for quests and skill trainers(reg and hero). For bosses, they should be ordered alphabetical (then by availability if the boss is in multiple locations). As for the sorting by cost, I approve of it since players do want to know if they can get a skill cheaper. Ordering should be like Skill Quests, Hero skill trainer, skill trainer, and Signet of Capture.--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 12:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Sounds really good to me :) - Anja Astor (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Since bosses can also be sorted by availability (earlier areas are usually easier to reach), why not just make it consistent and have everything sorted by availability? -- ab.er.rant 05:01, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Is Snake Dance available before or after Spearhead Peak? That's the hard thing about bosses. - Anja (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I see. Then when you say alphabetical ordering, is it by boss name, location name, or elite name? Can I suggest regionally grouped bosses sorted by profession then by boss name? -- ab.er.rant 21:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Profession? I'm talking about skill pages here, so hopefully the bosses who have elite skills only have one (primary) profession ;) Sort by region and then alphabetically by boss name, that sounds good to me. - Anja (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Err... yea, umm.. not profession. It just kinda slipped in :P -- ab.er.rant 13:12, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

For bosses how about alphabetical with the elite at the top? It'll be that that most people are interest in after all. --NieA7 04:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Summary of what's said so far

1. Sort by cheapest method first:
   1. Skill quest
   2. Hero skill trainer
   3. Skill trainer
   4. Signet of capture.
2. Sort Skill quests, hero skill trainers and skill trainers by availability
3. Sort signet of capture by region and then alphabetically.

Just tell me if I read something wrong :) - Anja (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Count me out for updating the skill-pages again to do this. :-D -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 13:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Hehe, yea, I've noticed you've done alot of skill editing the last days ;) - Anja (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL, we forgot about the Profession changer which allows a character to gain skills for free in Prophecies and for 500gold in Factions and Nightfall so do we put Profession changer between the skill trainer and the SoC method since it is cheaper than buying skills from skill trainers less of a hassle than getting skills from bosses from SoC or do we just leave these after the skill trainer?--Bane of Worlds (talk • contribs) 11:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Profession changer should be between hero skill trainer and skill trainer imo. Cheaper then skill trainer, more expensive then hero skill trainer (in most cases). - Anja (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Are we bothering with listing later skill trainers if an earlier skill trainer already offers it? -- ab.er.rant 00:00, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I have never understood the system of the skill trainer listing.. I thought it was all the trainers that offered the skill before it was unlocked? - Anja (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I think I got confused by an anon edit. Special:Contributions/67.53.246.152 thought Captain Greywind offers all skills without realising that it was because it was already unlocked. I'd better go revert. -- ab.er.rant 03:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

That was the user I asked about over at Talk:Skill :P Then we have that sorted out. But I still don't understand why we are listing both the Kaineng Center and Senji's Corner trainers sometimes.. Am I just slow? - Anja (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Of course you're not slow :)tThey're both always listed together (I'm thinking) because they offer the same skills. It's for completeness. Otherwise the rules might need an extra clause along the lines of "if A offers the same skills as B, then omit A." Which would in turn imply that it needs to be explained which skill trainer takes precedence. -- ab.er.rant 04:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Because every skill trainer on the Canthan mainland except for Zenaida (who is believed to have all core and Factions skills) offers most of the core and Factions skills, but is missing a few, and those few are different for different skill trainer, for example Michiko has Restoration and lacks Nightmare Weapon, while Yokuni has Nightmare Weapon and lacks Restoration. I think that for Factions, we should get a list of all skills shared by all mainland trainers, list those common skills in the quickref, and only list the "non-standard" skills offered by specific trainers. For Nightfall, it's a lot easier, as each trainer offers the skills of all previous trainers. -- Gordon Ecker 04:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Sometimes I hate Anet for their not-so-logical way of making things... :P Like the three different armor systems, three different skill trainer systems etc. - Anja (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

EDIT. If we list both Michiko and Akane since they have the same skills, shouldn't we also list Ziinyingmao Kaga? He/she also has the same skills as Michiko, according to GuildWiki. (I'm checking facts over there, since I don't know much about it myself) - Anja (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Yea, looks like it. -- ab.er.rant 04:52, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

By the way, by copying and pasting the lists from GuildWiki into a text editor with a word / phrase counting function, I managed to get a list of all skills confirmed for all mainland Factions trainers. -- Gordon Ecker 05:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok. So by the current system, all the skills you listed there should have all skill trainers in Kaineng City, Jade Sea and Echovald Forest typed out under skill trainers? I just want to clear out what should be listed and what should not. - Anja (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Golden Egg

CoRrRan has just pointed out on Template talk:Skill progression limit that the Golden Egg increases all attributes by 1. Should we reflect this in the progression bar? The changes seem straightforward; altering {{skill progression limit}} and {{skill progression line}} would be enough. But 22 columns on the progression table seems a lot. Is this really necessary? I'd rather just leave it as it is. LordBiro 05:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I guess this page is as good as any: shouldn't we REDUCE the maximums as they are now, since AFAIK Lunar Blessings are involved in calculating the maximum:

12+1(headgear)+3(sup rune)+2(Awaken the Blood)+1(20% chance focus/shield)+1(God Blessing)+1(Lunar Blessing) = 21.

I guess some more opinions are needed on this. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 06:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If Lunar blessing/god blessing is included in maximum calculation, then golden egg should also be included. Or every of these boosters is not included, only headgear, rune, awaken the blood, focus (as these are the ones available everytime). - MSorglos 07:07, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with MSorglos. But I like having the extra progression. 22 columns doesn't really affect me, cause everything still fits on the page with my resolution. - BeX 16:38, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Brag brag brag :P LordBiro 16:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I am getting troubles with Demonic Flesh. That page dislikes 1280 with bookmarktab. Luckily my other monitor runs @ 1600. :) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 17:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I run at 1280 also, but my bookmarks are on the toolbar thing, not in the side window. Firefox is the best. ^_^ - BeX 21:09, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

• half-opens a tired eye* -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Lurker. :P - BeX 21:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

lol... LordBiro 04:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I guess I'd like to see the maximum possible covered on the skill templates, but with all the holiday items it's starting to get a little silly. How about a hard cap at 20? Most professions won't be able to reach that consistently anyway, when using an attribute boosting item it's normally safe to just assume that stuff'll get better rather than having to know precise numbers. Nobody should be relying on being able to do everything at 22 Curses. --NieA7 06:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Yeah but people that have lower resolution than that (like me) won't see it clearly. Dunno for you but it really looks messed up (Demonic Flesh) for me with the skill bar and the table overlapping. Is there any additional code I need to implement? Sith talk 09:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It isn't possible yet. So far the {{skill progression}}-template isn't based on CSS. However, you can already try it out with the {{skill infobox}}-template, look at LordBiro's suggestion here: Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Infoboxes#Font_size. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 09:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I think we should use the record for the highest confirmed monster attribute level as the cap for all the tables. So far, I've seen monsters in Hard Mode with attributes as high as 20, but I haven't really been looking into it. -- Gordon Ecker 01:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Grey icons

Are there any plans to have grey skill icons available, as at GW? I can't think of a use for them outside user pages, but personally speaking I found them very useful to have there. --NieA7 09:00, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

waste of space, you can see what skills you have ingame and nobody cares what skills you have but you

Exactly - I find it by far and away the easiest means of quickly seeing what elites I still need and how to get them (as opposed to continually alt-tabbing out of GuildWars and checking a complete list of elites to see what I don't have). It's not for other people, it's personal quick references. --NieA7 10:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

By referring to your userpage you'd still have to minimize GW out to Windows, so I don't see that it would be any more convenient? When going for the Legendary Skill Hunter title I found it much easier to refer to a hard copy printed off from Guildwiki's elites article. Fox (talk|contribs) 11:56, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I found them useful over at GuildWiki, since I could click on the icon and see the boss location. I had to minimize GW anyway to look for the location, so I liked to have the list on GuildWiki also, it's much easier to sort to your liking. But I have also found out I can do just the same thing with just text or smaller and bigger versions of the elite icons, no need to have the grey versions. (See here for example). - anja (contribs) 12:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

You could probably use opacity to sort this:

Or you could use a grey background to emphasise it:

Basically I think you can apply some nice effects in CSS without uploading images that are duplicate in every way except they're made greyscale. LordBiro 13:39, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Totally off the subject, but you don't need to minimize GW when switching to a web browser if you play it in windowed mode, even if the window takes up the whole screen. --Rainith 14:09, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

No, maybe not, but then my computer dies totally while struggling with loading and stuff :P It simply can't handle windowed mode. And we shouldn't ignore features just because "you can do it anyway just by running windowed", it's not an option for everyone. - anja (contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to agree with the anon, seems like a waste of space -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 16:48, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

(reset indent) I like Biro's example with the opacity (really need to learn CSS, HTML just ain't enough nowadays), personally speaking that'll do for me. Fox - yes, but the difference is once the list is on a page I can see at a glance what I'm missing. If it's not then you've gotta switch between the game and GW to work out what you've not got (can't order skills by what's not there after all). I'd rather not print a hard copy - save paper, save ink and wouldn't be linked to boss locations anyway. --NieA7 19:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I use excel. All the skill names are linked. You even have the option of putting the images in as well. - BeX 23:54, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

You don't need a whole different set of icons just to show what skills you haven't captured. If a personal quick reference is what you're looking for, wouldn't a simple textual list of skills be sufficient? Just delete or strikeout the skills you've capped. If you really must have icons, just dump them all into one huge table, and play with background colors. -- ab.er.rant 21:31, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

If your browser doesn't support opacity, another option is only including the icons of skills you're missing. -- Gordon Ecker 00:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I think most browsers support opacity in some form. The IE6 version of opacity uses an alpha filter I believe. LordBiro 14:38, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

User:Jack/List of elite skills by campaign. This is what I use, as can be seen here: User:Jack/Jack. Just use <s></s> to strike out the ones you already have. Easy as pie. Jack 14:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Note and Trivia

It's best to keep these things in the skill's talk page.

1. Some of them aren't even confirmed, like certain skill named after some player.
2. Other things like how to use the skill should also be on the talk page, this way people can add comment to it.
3. It keeps the skill page look clean and organized.

Lightblade 17:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If we move usage notes to the talk page and allow commenting, we will end up with endless build discussions. I'd rather keep it in the article, or remove it. Not have it in the talk page.
But I must say I like both the trivia and notes, it's quite useful sometimes. Like, barrage also removes glyphs. That's good to know, and I would never think of looking in the talk page for that. - anja (contribs) 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, keep these in the articles. -- (gem / talk) 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia should not get to big, but I find both useful and would argue for keeping them on the main article. --Xeeron 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Emily said once that she would try to help with confirming trivia references. But notes like the one Anja mentioned should definitely always be kept in the article. - BeX 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)