Template talk:AxeSkillNavBox

Can I just say, this is ridiculously hideous. Can we have a consistent color as opposed to different colors for each profession? --hnzdvn 15:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Or can we just have it deleted completely? I thought we agreed that these were utterly pointless... Can we have them removed? --Naut 17:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not just have profession skill navbars...a) they wouldnt be a random mix of colors and b) you probably care about the other available skills? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

^ That is the best idea I've seen in ages. --Naut 17:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the navs, see Venom's talk page. - Infinite - talk 17:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean like these that I made for my own personal needs? Also, I know that everybody hates the colors (which is why they're in my userpsace) Venom20 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If you did away with the colors of infinite ugliness, those would be immensely useful (I'm doing something similar with trait nav bars... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

All mainspace templates that never reached consensus need a delete tag. - Infinite - talk 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) May I edit your class skill templates Venom? Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

here you go infinite {{delete}}, go wild. As for the colours that I'm already aware are not for everyone but for me. They are a way to segregate weapon skills from utility skills at a quick glance. Venom20 17:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

But if you want that, then you go too the skill list page... --Naut 17:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes aquadrizzt, feel free Venom20 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I have an idea, may I edit the page? Ariyen 18:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, edit away. Just please leave a note (if you are talking about the ones in my user space) in discussion to talk about it, or in the history. I tend to want to keep track of everything. Venom20 18:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on the new box? (can revert). Ariyen 18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Still not needed, to be very honest. There should be a list Skills for (main-/offhand) axe. - Infinite - talk 18:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it to be needed to be used in each skill so it'd be easier navigation from one skill to the next that's similar. Ariyen 19:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then add a small list of similar skills, like on GWW. Nothing wrong with that? - Infinite - talk 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Prefer not to copycat, do you? Let's make this one different than their's... Ariyen 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They're both official wikis, might as well go for general consistency. There's almost *nothing* wrong with GWW's lay-out and formatting. - Infinite - talk 19:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so intent on making everything different from the GW1Wiki? Has it ever occurred to you that they might've just had good ideas? --Naoroji 19:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to go for a bit of style? Ariyen 19:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting appearance over function? You should know better. --Naoroji 19:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Copy GWW's style, except for the skill infobox. Swap that for Loquay's version 2 for style and that immediately adds to your nav tendencies, namely: a list of skills per type of weapon. Solved? - Infinite - talk 19:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They did have good ideas, but I think we could be creative a little and have pages just a tad different, maybe better? Could be better navigation, function, etc. I'd say let people be bold instead of stuck on a certain style. Ariyen 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be bold in discretion, or on userspace unless we want Wikiwars. - Infinite - talk 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's being bold and changing stuff because you think it functions better, and then there's trying to be different for the sake of being different. Which is,... Officially, the worst reason ever to be different. --Naoroji 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think it is ironic that anet is being bold in regards to redesigning guild wars, but there is fear that trying anything new on a wiki would be bad. Does anyone else see the irony here? This isn't the same game, why should we use the same wiki? Venom20 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Grandfathering. - Infinite - talk 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To grandfather something generally means to retire it. Venom20 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On the wikis it means to carry on with the systems we had on the previous wiki. What we do after is based on consensus. - Infinite - talk 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no fear, Venom. We just know that the old ways are better. We're omniscient, haven't you heard? --Naoroji 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought being bold was trying new things and different. Not copycat another wiki as gw2 is bigger and different compared to gw. It has totally different stories with very little gw1 in there. I would like to see that with this wiki. not for the sake of being different, but for the sake of trying new things, being bold, being our own wiki. Not a copycat of gw1. To me that'd show that we just didn't want to take effort in doing things our own way with consensus, etc... It'd show laziness that I don't think needs to be here or should be here. Ariyen 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Being bold is not an excuse to ignore consensus, though. - Infinite - talk 19:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you're forgetting something Infinite. It's not letting people be bold and show different ways, etc. It's not letting people be creative, but more like holding people back rather than giving chances that could be better. That was one of the problems gww had, please don't bring it here. Ariyen 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Heh, omniscient, nice one naoroji, made me laugh. It just seems an insult to anet, when they can redesign something, but their very own fans cannot. Venom20 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is; ANet needed to redesign their game, so they could sell it moar, be a bigger game moar, and just pretty much everything moar. We don't need to change most of the stuff we do because it already works, evident by the GW1Wiki. Glad you caught the joke though, since it most definitely wasn't an attempt at trolling :). --Naoroji 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

:), I know why anet is redesigning the game, but they're not just redesigning the game, they're redesigning the genre. They are creating their little MMORPG baby and we're bringing along their grandfather to partake in the events. Venom20 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then design it in userspace PRIOR to uploading it to mainspace, solved. I have been stating this for a few million times now. - Infinite - talk 19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

^+1. Actually, that's Wikiquette, right there. --Naoroji 19:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's comical that you always say that. I can tell that you are irritated Infinite. There is no need to take things so seriously (with the caps and the over-estimation of how many times you like to repeat yourself). Tell you what I'll do, I'll head to the gym and then walk the dog. This personal comment towards me is better suited in a user's talk page, it is counter-productive towards the topic at hand. I'm interested in hearing what others think about navs and lists. And I'm aware that I have asked this already (not in this discussion) but why can lists and navs not work together to bring information to readers (obviously not on the same pages). Venom20 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you purposely ignore the important part of his comment? Templates should be made in the userspace for testing and there should be a consensus for that template appearing in the mainspace before it does. --Naoroji 20:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I know you haven't been here for a little while Naoroji. But Infinite has been saying that same phrase many times for the last few days. The intent to bring it up again in a public discussion (as opposed to my talk page) indicates something more purposeful towards me. See the comments here. In point of fact, I don't feel comfortable hijacking this active discussion to talk about it. however, that being said, I'd be more than willing to discuss it on my talk page. Venom20 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you trolling or something? I think he's hinting to move this to the userspace so that we can reach a consensus, because it seems to me that there are disagreements here. --Odal talk 20:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) That's it, I'm done. I took that last comment offensively. I'm not irritated in the least, I'm feeling dumb enough to talk to a clearly BRAINDEAD person who feels intelligent enough to speak for the community as an indivdual. I'll tell you this much; I've been discussing your every argument with my alliance. They think you're absolutely naive at this point. This wiki doesn't revolve around you, nor your opinions, and that very same goes for me. I keep objecting for community's sake, not my own. You keep objecting for your personal perspective of the community's views. Stop objecting as an individual when addressing a group, your opinion weighs no more than one other's. All you're doing is "remaining calm and collected" just to kiss up to the sysops, according to a guild leader within our alliance. You're no longer out to improve this wiki, you're out to object to my and others' perspectives. Call this a Personal Attack as you wish, but I'm no longer argueing about the crap you put up as navs, intended to make things more user friendly. A long list in a drop-down box (much like an order button) is messy, chaotic and disorderly and most importantly, totally unnecessary. People who don't like to use the wiki will not use it. People who like to use the wiki expect it to look like GWW as close as possible, because it's a working system and they have gotten comfortable with it. Don't change things for the users for change's sake, it only confuses the community. Keep things in general consistency, because consistency is good.

Reach consensus prior to mainspace, period.

I expect an NPA report of myself within the next 3 hours, or I'm calling a consensus of me not having made a Personal Attack, you know. - Infinite - talk 20:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The template's formatting and name is inconsistent with existing navs, so this one would look out of place in articles. Also, users are welcome to make templates and put them in articles. If people oppose, a consensus should be sought; that does not mean consensus is required before making the template, nor does it need to be made in userspace (unless its there for testing purposes).

I would also ask people to consider how quickly they respond, as a short time span between individual comments can often raise tensions. pling 20:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it not make sense to move this to the userspace until we do reach a consensus. Because it's pretty clear that there is disagreement here. Mainly being over whether it should go to the userspace or not, admittedly. But it really would just help certain drama levels it seems. --Odal talk 20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we avoid the hostility and reach a consensus. Personally, I think the navs are unnecessary and ugly. What happens are when we get all the skills? Are we going to have half page long navs? Not only would that be ugly, but it would also get confusing. --hnzdvn 20:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here I come to save the day

""messy, chaotic, disorderly, confusing, unnecessary, ugly.."" I guess the navs are a matter of personal taste and the fact that people aren't much used to them from the other wikis doesn't help either. I for one find them over thousand times better to navigate in, than I do in skill lists or categories due to navs being much smaller and just overall much easier to quickly check out all what's in there. However, I see there are also quite a few people who don't like them, therefore I still think it would be the best compromise to use the navs only for each profession (these, needs more work) and get rid of the other ones (like this one) to stop the hostile discussions which seem to lead nowhere anyway. There are quite a few users who like them and disagreeing with having one expandable nav at each skill is seriously a bit ridiculous even if you don't like them, so this seems like the best way to satisfy both sides. What you say? ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like those nav boxes. IMO, we should try the opposite direction - instead of having lists and categories and then navboxes because lists and categories suck, I would rather improve categories and lists so they are easier to find and easier to use. Having all those redundant ways of saying the same thing feels like a waste. Erasculio 00:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, except there's not much to do to categories since the very point of lists is to make categories pretty and easy to organize. I would prefer if (and I know this sounds a bit odd) the navboxes consisted of links to the lists of skills in particular categories. I'll try to craft an example. --Kyoshi (Talk) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree a bit... I think lists work very well as a way to see a lot of skills and organize information from the skill pages (such as the very nice DPL generated skill lists from GW1W). But they are very bad tools for browsing the wiki - once you go to a page, you don't have links sending you back to the list. Categories have the advantage that, while not being suited to show information about a skill, they are made for navigation, making them far easier to browse. Erasculio 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but not my main point. The navbox is (if I understand the arguments being made here) supposed to make it easier for new users to get around. And new users aren't looking for categories, which are more suited for use by people who understand wiki-formatting better. Lists are better suited to a feature like this.

Anyway, I just realized I don't have a clue how to edit navboxes, and I think it would be a better idea to simply have a "related skills" section that lists more than just skills with similar effects. Since, y'know, a list of lists will be significantly shorter than any of those individual lists, especially all skills for one profession. --Kyoshi (Talk) 00:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x3 D'oh. We are at the same thing again. Lists and categories will never be good enough for me as I just use all these features in a very different way.

Let me explain:

When I want to quickly jump through without having to browse any unnecessary text, I use the nav. (most often)

When I want to deeply inspect the information and know more, I use the lists. (less often)

When I want to go even deeper to the roots or just use AWB, I use the categories. (rarely)

None of these can do the other's purpose, at least for me. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Kyoshi, I do not understand what you mean by "links to the lists of skills in particular categories." For instance, in the templates here, the title of each box does not link to the class itself. But a list of skills. Is that what you were meaning? Or were you thinking more like this, where there is a small icon for a link to skills? Lists do serve a purpose as well though. Although when they are large, I would not recommend using them for navigation. But now that I say this, I think I remember reading that there won't be as many skills anyways in GW2. I think a large problem is that we (as a community) might be envisioning the same number of skills for GW2. Venom20 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The reduced number of skills is what makes me think there is only need for a nav on each profession's skills, other navs like the signet and axe skills could be omitted due to this. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 00:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Lists and categories will never be good enough for me as I just use all these features in a very different way": why don't you use categories when you want to quickly jump through without having to browse any unnecessary text? Erasculio 00:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I find categories to be the slowest browsing tool because it is often not easy to even find the one you want when they are often broken into sub-categories which are again a part of another sub-category and so on.

To give you an actual example, let's take Conjure Frost. Okay I want to quickly see all other Elementalist skills so I scroll down and click on Category:Conjure Spells. Oh damn, this category leads nowhere but only to 1 more other skill, if you would like to get to Category:Elementalist_skills from here, you would need another 4 pageloads and know exactly what you're doing.

Well, let's try again, I choose the other category, Category:Water attunement skills, hmm, seems like I found a few other, but I want to see all in one place! Okay, so I click on Category:Elementalist skills, that should finally show me ALL the skills I want. Blast! The page is cut into another 6 subcategories! <sarcasm> That's just great, now I need only like 12 more clicks back and forth to see them all and it was all so very quick! </sarcasm>

I could go on but that would be just wall-of-text'ing. I think I have explained well enough that categories are absolutely not meant to be used for quick-browsing or jumping through. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"I think I have explained well enough that categories are absolutely not meant to be used for quick-browsing or jumping through": they are. Categories are meant exactly to be used for jumping through, if not for quick browsing. The fact that you cannot use them to do so is a failure in how the categories have been set, not a failure of the categories. Instead of adding a navbox, I would rather change the category system so it works as it should (in your example, a link to the list of elementalist skills from Category: Elementalist skills would give you access to far more information than a navbox would). Erasculio 01:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Perhaps that's the problem. I also find using the cats to be tiresome. I don't consider myself great when it comes to navigating, but I think it should be easier than what it currently is. Era, would you be able to correct it, or at least fix some pages to reveal how it should work? I tried in the GWW as well occasionally, but it just takes forever. Usually I just search for the class of spell (hex, enchant, etc.) and ctrl+F the list. Which is bothersome because I have to wait for 200+ skills to load. Venom20 02:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree the categories surely could be improved, I am still not sure if they could be as friendly to an average not-so-exp wikian as the navs. Also, again, when the number of skills listed is not as high, categories could work fine, but on big lists the categories will get beaten by navs again, because they will simply get too big and it will be harder and harder to find anything. The categories are getting hard to browse in also because they can't be sorted by anything but alphabet, which sucks bigtime when you have 60 skills pretty much randomly floating around there and you want to browse quickly.

Well, if the categories could be adjusted to deal with at least these issues:

1. Having to search content though several sub-pages to find what you wanted. (surely can be fixed)

2. Category content only sortable by alphabet. (not sure if this is possible to change)

then I think I could be able to use them instead of the navs. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are my concerns with using anything. Lists are good at relaying all information in regards to skills. In this sense they are the best for locating information, but the worst at providing useless things that you might not want (if you are looking for something specific). Navs are good at relaying minimal information. This makes them easily tucked into any article. But unfortunately if you are looking to compare skills or want information on more than on in the same nav, you need to open multiple windows or keep clicking. Cats are excellent in organizing things. But an inexperienced user can easliy get lost in them whilst trying to find something particular. Each way of presenting data is unique in the edge that it can give a wiki user, or someone who is just passing through. My only concern with the current nav, is that without having an expandable pane, it would eventually get entirely too large to be placed anywhere. If a design on a nav can be reached, would it be possible to have both navs and lists, to please anyone looking to browse? Venom20 02:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep that's another thing that bothers me, the navs can be expandable, thus taking about no space at all for those who don't like them, so it would seem better to just have all three instead of trying to make the other two be at least as good as navs at what they're for. Navs will always be at least slightly superior, because they just contain all the info you need on the page you are actually viewing at the very moment and you don't have to waste time by finding anywhere else. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 03:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd use the word superior, but they would generally be the fastest way to locate something I would say. But in terms of content, they are equal to cats. Venom20 03:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"they just contain all the info you need on the page you are actually viewing at the very moment": not really. They are a list, but not the lists filled with content like the GW1W lists, rather just a collection of names. If someone is seeking information about a skill, or anything other than its name, the navboxes don't really contain all the information they need. They would just work as a browsing tool, which is what categories are for; which is one of the reasons why I don't think we need both.

IMO, we could merge categories and lists (the content lists, not the navboxes lists). So when an user tries to see the "Water Magic skills" category, he would see the list of Water Magic skills at the top of the category. He would then have the option of going to the root "Elementalist skills" category, which would again begin with the list of elementalist skills; and so on. It would merge the content of good skill lists with the navigation tool of categories. Erasculio 03:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds good in theory, but I think I'd have to actually see it in practice. Forgive me if I sound blunt or am blanket statementing people, but I feel that the less clicks someone has to perform to get information, the better. Venom20 03:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think that is a good idea to merge these, but it will also make the navs more needed because the pages will get even more huge. Also, guess I've worded that a bit wrong so let me try again: The navs are a bit like elite versions of categories, much like categories, they have only the info you actually need when jumping through, but at the same time navs are much smaller (thus overall easier to browse), they are sorted by various criteria which are actually related to the skill (thus even more easier to browse), and they are not located on any different page than the article = no loading and easier browsing (thus superior). ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 03:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Use category and list instead

No reason for a type template. -- Itay Alon • Talk 06:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then what about the navs at the Elementalist Armor Page (or any other Armor page that has navs on them) on gw1? What about the navs with the henchmen? The navs with the party stuff? or even the navs on the professions, etc.? Are you saying those are useless? Really, Give this a try and stop this "lists and categories only". As It could work, just you people won't give it a try. let them be bold and show you how it's done on their user pages then, if you all are going to cry about it on actual template pages and articles. I don't see this to hurt, but I don't understand all the negativity. I used navs when they were available on gww. Ariyen 06:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Does gww has nav template for each attribute skill? Or a skill nav template for each profession? The only skill nav template gww has is the minion skills template. And if you ask me, I think is pointless because of this. For axe skills this is enough.--Sharkinu 07:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to sound like a broken record again, but I think that it is worth hearing. I think we should compromise and have all three active (cats, lists, nav). Based on the discussions it doesn't look like there will ever be an agreement on which is "best". And I don't think there is a "best" one. Like I have said, each method of navigating to what a user wants is different and servers a different purpose altogether. Arguments about taking up server space is useless (navs can collapse and are generally small files (~5kb)), (full) lists should not appear in article pages and cats also aren't on article pages. Ugliness does not factor into functionality. Having something that is new does not automatically make it bad or worse than before, it's merely something different. I'm sure anyone can look throughout history and find changes that were made (and hated at first) that improved communities. Sure redundancy is redundant, but redundancy generally serves a purpose. Venom20 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think one thing that is getting lost in this discussion is how the infobox will play into this. If we take GWW for example, a skill there has links right at the top to the profession, attribute, and skill type. So, links right there to the axe page (presumably). Now, I'm not going to outright say that navs are bad, just that they need to have enough focus and not detract from the page. Having a 7+ layered infobox with skills from all the professions on each axe skill page is just too much. --JonTheMon 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Having a 7+ layered infobox with skills from all the professions on each axe skill page is just too much." agreed, but this is why they were proposed to be expandable. Then they're just be 1 small bar at the bottom in a neutral color, say grey. Venom20 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

an excellent page for an example is the hex page from GWW. At the top there is a link to a list of hexes. Then for reasons of easy navigation, the majority of the article is filled with sublists of other skills that relate to a hex. There is a sublist of hex removal skill and a link to a list of hex removal skills. Why have a link to a list in a list that is the same? This is what I would call an example of useless redundancy. All of the lists towards to bottom could have been managed by an expandable nav. The page would have then focused on the text, and would not have to appear so bloated. Venom20 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the part you didn't get from my statement was "on each axe skill page". Large lists and navboxes have their places, but not on skill pages like those. And even if it is hidden, it is still a very large index on a small page. --JonTheMon 15:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If we have one hidden navbox on each skill page I really fail to see how could that be "very large". As a side note, that has been bugging the hell outta me as well lol. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) speaking of useless things, why does the list of necro skills have a category that is identical to the page? Because it looks to me that the cat is the list and it's linked to itself? I'm trying to understand the purpose of this navigation. I myself like redundency in different forms. My question is why is this type of redundancy accepted, but a clean nav is not? And please, don't give me any "that's how we did it on gww" bs. Venom20 03:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, see here Venom20 03:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"why does the list of necro skills have a category that is identical to the page?": so people can use the list to browse skills. Lists have the problem that they only lead people to the skill articles, not from the skill articles. Categories, in other hand, are sometimes too complex to simply show people a list of available information, but they allow readers to browse to a skill article and back from said article into the root trees. What we do - which is more or less what I have stated above - is merging both systems in order to have something easy to browse through and easy to find information in - the list leads to a skill article which leads to a category which leads to the list. It's a lot cleaner and a lot less redundant than the navbox. Erasculio 04:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's more redundant now because the list pages will eventually include energy costs, recharges, and other different ways to organize them, and we have very little of that information available to us at the moment. In fact, the current setup is not how we did it on GWW. The GWW setup is precisely how we plan to make the lists look, once we have the mere ability to do so. If that's what you're asking. --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So... Why can't the navs link to the actual skill pages? I kind of like this for the facts that it doesn't contain all of that additional information that I can find out on each skill page. I think a nav would be even easier and less of a hassle. Also, it's not something so ridiculous to scroll through just to find the skill I'd be looking for. Ariyen 05:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As kyoshi said. The list page will eventually hold informations about energy, casting time, recharge, traits and required weapon. That's why looks redundant now. But a skill nav template is too much. If we keep it that way then why not a nav box for skills tied to sam attribute, or same trait, or same proffession. Then you yo will have a page with a skill description, skill infobox, a damage table and, here is the problematic thing, 5 or 6 navigation templates. Does that looks normal?--Sharkinu 06:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@first part: Yeah, lists have their own purposes.

@second part: Sure, that's why I propose one nav for each profession to prevent this. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 06:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. with one nav - it's not so big than to combine all the professions, etc. There's also that show/hide that can help from someone to scroll a lot. You can have a nav that doesn't need all the information that you've seen on some lists. The list I did here does not have all that recharge time, etc. as you can find that on each skill. Why have it other places? Redundant. It lists the elites per profession. I would have liked to have done that for normal skills, but it was done just poorly with description, detail, etc., that would be useless for someone to click on the actual skill for... I think that with a nav. you can do one as similar to the henchmen, profession, etc. that's done on gw1 for navs and save room, plus file size that'd been on a list full of information that's needless that could have been found on each skill anyway. There's not a list full of henchmen, etc. is there on gww? I haven't found it. I've found the nav and have loved the ease of it more than I have a list full of information that I'd preferred to have found on the proper pages... Gww is not consistent with things as we can start off to being consistent and have things flow better and easier. Ariyen 06:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"There's not a list full of henchmen" There you go

@ EAGLEMUT - I'm not worried about the size of nav box, but about the number of nav boxes a page will eventually have, if we continue in this direction. Even with nav box for each proffession you will still have on each skill page a nav for sills from the same proffesion, one for skills from the same trait, one for skills on the same attribute, one for skills tied on the same weapon, and so on, and so on. We really dont need this. On gww we had a special section on the page called "Related Skills" or "See also" with links to list of skills and that worked great. For some things we preffer navs for others lists are better. I dont think we need nav templates for skills and even if we do need, I think is better to decide that closer to release or after, when we will know more about skills and how things works.

Also, can we keep this discussion on one page? Is not easy to repeat the same thing on 2 pages. This is not a discussion about signet nav or axe skill nav, but about skill nav in general.--Sharkinu 07:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you totally didn't get me right. I meant that I do NOT support navs for "skills of the same attribute, skills of same weapon" etc.

I propose only one navigation temple on each skill based on profession, much like this.

Also, I agree the page divide is annoying but I don't see how/where could we merge these and if it's a good idea and wouldn't make it all even more complicated. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 09:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Look at the bottom of henchmen, you still have a nav bar! aka {{Henchmen nav/Quickref}} which contains... a quick reference and if you go to the henchman_nav you have a list of henchmen, but wait there's more... in the what links here.. it's used in the list of areas (for each campaign) and used on each henchman. I don't see a problem with us using a skill nav bar in each skill area or page that would provide the information of that particular profession and the skills for that profession. After all, wasn't it told that these professions won't have secondary? If that's the case, why the fuss? Ariyen 09:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, all three navigation tools living in harmony. And what this, on their connecting pages (and on he henchmen pages themselves there are 2 navs) I also just want to say, that that is by far the ugliest list I have ever seen. So again, if lists,navs, cats can live in harmony on GWW, why can they not on GW2W?! Venom20 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"if lists,navs, cats can live in harmony on GWW, why can they not on GW2W?!": I think someone replied to that kind of reasoning with "And please, don't give me any "that's how we did it on gww" bs". Erasculio 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see what you did there (aside from not answering the question). So many people are retorting with "that's the way it was done on GWW". And what they should understand, is that this isn't GWW. If you (in general) want GWW style, go to GWW and discuss GW1 things. I still stand by both quotes (as you understand that text based chat cannot convey nuances). There's a contradiction here. The harmony style exists on GWW and people don't want to change style. But there is all this contradiction in regards to a nav, because they believe the GWW style should not change. Venom20 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think one issue that is being used but not actively stated is scalability. Small lists like armors and conditions are relatively small and finite. Skill lists tend to be much, much larger. And while you could put a large list into a navbox, past a certain size it starts looking bulky and becomes harder to use, even if it is collapsed by default. --JonTheMon 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, Venom, that's not the only place on gww with categories, lists, and nav templates. But if we have them in some places, doesn't mean we must make nav templates for everything. I do not agree with nav templates for skills. Skills are too many. Even with a separate template for every class, there are far too many skills. Then there will be duplicates for skills with pve and pvp version. I dont want to see a template of this size on every skill page.--Sharkinu 14:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Duh, I seriously can't see the problem with having such expandable nav on each skill page. Those who feel it's too hard to use for them are free to use lists and categories instead. I just don't get it, I would understand if we would want to replace lists with navs, but nobody wants that, so why can't you accept another tool for navigation which will not restrict you in any way nor will anyone be forced to change their ways of browsing? I still see entirely no negative impacts at all for implementing navs. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 14:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy. Same reason why we have deleted "War in Kryta", why we don't keep two of the same image under different filetypes, and so on. Erasculio 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy is a bit weak reason since quite a few users consider the navs very useful. This is more like a matter of taste. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's just a matter of taste, you could have fugly colors or 5 pt. font or everything in BIG BOLD LETTERS because someone would want it that way. This is an aesthetic discussion, but it also involves redundancy, clutter, and simplicity. --JonTheMon 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Redundancy is a bit weak reason since quite a few users consider the navs very useful. This is more like a matter of taste." Then put it in your userspace... --Naut 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@Jon Well, I have actually meant it's more like a matter of taste in matter of functionality, I could care less how the navs will be designed, their biggest point is that they're right at the place where I want to use their abilities.

@Naut I totally don't get that. How would they help all the users if I put them in my userspace? Also, it's Venom who is making them, not me. I only made the signet nav which I soon admitted to be a fail. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) There is not a single bit of discussion about the GWW disguise nav. And I don't see anything wrong with any form page. IMO, it looks quite respectable. It is very easy to jump to another form. It is very easy to jump to the page on disguises. If you do not like the look of the nav box, you don't have to use it. There is a cat that can do the same thing. Choices to users is what makes a wiki easy to navigate. It's very user friendly. In short I ask, what is wrong with that page? It seems to have been doing well for over a year with 13,151 visits. Venom20 15:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My opinion: Navs will include a lot of information - to much. moreover, we got lists and categories that could used instead, and built for a lot of information. and it easier to find and read about skills in lists / categories. -- Itay Alon • Talk 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So, as Eagle said over on other template and in so many words... If someone wanted to go from one skill to another of same profession (as I have), they'd have to click on 3 or so pages instead of a nav that possibly wouldn't be as big as some might think and save those 3 or so pages to surf? None of you seem to be making any sense with the "list and categories" only (Sorry, but I don't see how nav can be so bad or cause any harm or any problems on this wiki). Honestly, I see no one giving a chance at the nav system and I believe it'd work as there's several different types of navs on gww that work. (despite lack of skills, I believe it'd worked too and been easy to nav with. After all, I have seen in game in a guild or two that have complained about lack of navs for skills and how they had to consult to 3 pages, etc. just to find what they need or spend 15 to 30 minutes scrolling through a list to find what they need. How they have mentioned pages like the armor, etc. on the ease of navs). Ariyen 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So, they can't just hit the attribute to get skills from the same line? and if you really wanted all the skills from a class, you'd have something that would be bigger than this. That's bigger than many pages. At that point, pointing them to a page that is dedicated to the list would be better. Or even take them up the organizational hierarchy (skill->(attribute->)class->attribute->skill) That would help them get a better feel for the class if they didn't know it already. --JonTheMon 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* I am going to quote Eagle here "If we have one hidden navbox on each skill page I really fail to see how could that be "very large"". So what your sandbox shows seems pointless, sorry... It's just if you have a box that only shows title (just look at how my user space, etc. is done) it's not that big, unless you hit "show" and I can only see that being useful for someone wanting to find another skill, Hidden to those that are only wanting to view the current skill and when collapsed you don't have that much to scroll up and down... Ariyen 20:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Both require the same amount of clicks: one to click "show" (which then bloats the page with a large nav), another to select the skill; one to click the attribute/list link, another to select the skill. The nav would show just the name of a skill, whereas the list can show other details such as energy, maybe description, recharge, etc. This is an easy decision for me: no nav, link to a list. pling 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so it's hidden, lurking at the bottom of the page... waiting... then when you click it it POPS UP AND ATTACKS!!!..... not really, but once it's open, it becomes big and unwieldy. And with lots of text that small, it's not easy to read or skim for the next article desired. --JonTheMon 20:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No one appears to have commented on the functionality of this yet. It's a wiki trifecta. And @ pling, I think you missed the meaning on click. Generally, for the better part of this debate, the word click is referring to the act of actually loading a new page. Not so much depressing the mouse button. Firstly, I understand that many skills can make it bloated (think of GW2 ele staff skills (4 attunements * 5 slots = 20 skills)), but if you don't want to see the bloatedness, don't depress on show. Lists, if anythings are bloated, with all their descriptions and icons. If I wanted a description of a skill, I'd go to that skill's page and not a giant list of other skills I'm not interested in. When I say "I", I'm speaking generally. Venom20 21:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tbh, I don't like that nav template. I'm assuming that it was created when there were few forms, so there wasn't a plan for scaling it. And just 'cause something is hidden doesn't make it automatically less cluttered and usable when it's shown. --JonTheMon 21:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

3 days = this much text :P --The Holy Dragons 21:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) x3 Note that although it may both require only 2 clicks, the list way also requires loading through a huge page which your Internet may load for over half a minute (do note you must load it every single time), and the time wasted doesn't end here, your two clicks with a nav will take about 5 seconds total because you don't load any other page and the 2 clicks are very close to each other, on the the other side, lists are usually filled with a lot of details you don't really care about at all when you are just trying to browse some specific skills and must ctrl+f or whatever to find each of them.

Jon, to that I say again, nobody is forcing anyone here to use the navs, if you don't like how they work you can freely ignore them and they will not make it harder for you to browse or anything.

Also, just so you know, right now I am trying to update all skill pages but the current navigating is so lame that it is faster for me to write down each name of the skill manually to search, which is pathetic. All the work-arounds you are saying here will, even if you believe they will be better, take several weeks if not months to design and implement for the wiki. So since we can't agree on navs which are pretty much already done, the only real working browsing tool is currently "Search" + lists and categories being half-done or broken or not present at all. gg. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 21:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@Holy Dragons Yep, that's what always happens when people think I am wrong on the Internet. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 21:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not just saying that I wouldn't want to use it; I'm saying that it doesn't do a good job for the people who would want it. And why are you having to search for skills? That seems more like a failure of documentation than a failure of "easy browsing". --JonTheMon 21:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wherever is the failure, navs can fix it. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 22:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Holy: gw1:Talk:Shadow Form

"lists and categories being half-done or broken or not present at all." Half-done because we don't have all the skills even released yet. And if you notice something is broken, you don't have to wait for someone else to fix it. Or you could at least point it out. Same for them not being present: point it out. --Kyoshi (Talk) 22:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, of course I am trying to at least clean it up myself, but it's no easy task. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 22:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think we should stop this discussion untill we know more about the game. I'm not against nav boxes. I dont think is bad to have a nav template for skill from a special item (like rabbit, or a rock, or a banner, or a wooden stick) because most probably those skills cant be changed. But for now we dont know exactly if those 5 skills for each weapon are really fixed forever or we will be able to change them using traits or attributes. Moreover, nav boxes are usually more usefull for wiki readers than for wikipedians and is not like people will suddently start reading wiki and try to make builds for a game that is not already out. I think is better to wait and see what this wiki really needs.--Sharkinu 06:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say navs are equally useful for both readers and editors, at least I use them for both. Moreover I'd say it's much better to clear these things now before the game comes out, after it is released there will be hell of a lot more work to do, so waiting with things we can do now seems like a bad idea to me. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 15:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

365

posts on the page.
running around, running around
and going nowhere
365 yes' and no's
365 tries to make it right
So, the point is that this discussion is really going nowhere, apparently there is no way we can reach a consensus about the nav templates. Each side strongly oppose the other and no compromises were accepted so far, not to mention not many were even suggested. Placing any more walls of text explaining the pros or cons seem rather pointless to me.
What are we to do when no consensus is reached? What is the next step? A rock-paper-scissors match with Lucky Hochei? ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 22:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"What are we to do when no consensus is reached?": nothing. Erasculio 00:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You either do nothing, or you keep on discussing to figure out the underlying reasons (or simplified reasons) and try to reconcile those. I'm not categorically against nav templates, I'm just against big ones. --JonTheMon 01:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@Erasculio So, when no consensus is reached about the options, you say we better choose your option, good idea.

@All This way we could very well be discussing here forever with no real agreement possible, at least that's how it's going for the last ~100 comments.

This section is also about: What will we do when more of such conflicts like this pop up? There seemingly should be a way to resolve these issues instead of eternal discussions or shedding it off the table into the bottomless pit. And I assure you, be prepared for more of these. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 15:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"So, when no consensus is reached about the options, you say we better choose your option, good idea": not really. As mentioned above, since no consensus was reached here our best option is to wait. You cannot make the real navbox simply because you do not know which skills or how many skills the full game will have. Likewise, we cannot make the lists we keep talking about because we don't know nearly enough about the existing skills to do them. I wouldn't be surprised if the game has too many skills to make the navboxes viable, or if the tiered skill system makes it impossible to use the lists. Considering how the information currently available is limited and not enough to bring a consensus, waiting for more information is our best option.

"What will we do when more of such conflicts like this pop up?": the same as always, we try to reach a compromise. If someone claims "I want X, and I won't accept anything else", leading to a yes/no situation, then we likely won't reach a compromise (and we better ignore that someone anyway). If a contributor states what he/she believes to be a problem and becomes willing to find a solution for it, in such a way that a compromise can be achieved, then we reach such compromise. Erasculio 19:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@1st part: Yet contradicting to what you say, skill lists and other navigation templates are already being made, even though we don't yet know how many skills or lists will there be. How come those somehow got through? Should I flag them for deletion as well since we don't know if they can work in the future like you say?

@2nd part:Yeah, but at the moment I don't have any more compromises other than what I already said and there doesn't seem to be many more coming. The only bigger two I saw were from me (which made some users change their minds), and from you (which got abandoned although I tried discussing about it).

***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel we won't reach a compromise, because we have so many being negative not willing to compromise on a nav (As Eagle pointed out - other navs are created with nothing being said.), no matter how it'd be done. In all honesty, I don't feel that this is more about content than it is dissing the user that created this. This is not how a community should do in my opinion. This is more how I feel as being trolled and so nothing's being actually compromised, considered, discussed out completely, willing to see another's view, etc... That's just my opinion though. Ariyen 20:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we will not know how many skills the game will have in total;however, we do know enough to formulate weapon skill templates. We know that any staff weapon will have 5 skills. We know that a Main-hand dagger will have 3 and an off-hand axe will have 2. We may not know the names of skills, but we can certainly predict the number of weapon skills. While I agree that it may be a good time to wait until more information is presented, I disagree for the reason that we don't know how many skills. Venom20 21:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I still wonder one thing. Why this rush? As you said: "We may not know the names of skills". So now we should make nav templates and fill them with "unknown skill", "unknown skill", "unknown skill"? Also we dont know if those wkills will be unique: lets say a weapon has 3 skills a, b and c then another weapons has also 3 skills: d, e and c. So now on the c skill page we have to put 2 nav templates for skills from the first weapon and skills from the 2nd weapon. I dont like this idea. And a nav template for all skills from one profession will be too big.

So why the rush? is not like there is nothing left to do on this wiki but those nave templates. If later we will find out that a specific nav template is required, then we will create it. And to Eaglemut about being too busy with other things on wiki after the game is released: we dont have to get everything ready on wiki one week after release; we will have enough time for everything.--Sharkinu 21:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"I wouldn't be surprised...if the tiered skill system makes it impossible to use the lists." It's not like it'd be significantly different from the attribute scaling from GW1. --Kyoshi (Talk) 22:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"@1st part: Yet contradicting to what you say, skill lists and other navigation templates are already being made, even though we don't yet know how many skills or lists will there be. How come those somehow got through?": we need to have one system in place in order to allow people to see the skills. Notice, though, how both of those are just placeholders - the skill lists are not the real skill lists (compare what we have with the lists from GW1W) and the skill categories have been created without discussing their category tree first, so I wouldn't be surprised if they get replaced and deleted when we learn more about the game. Considering how there was no consensus for the implementation of what would ultimately be just a placeholder navbox, I think we should wait and later see if there's consensus for the implementation of the real, definitive navbox (which we cannot make now).

"It's not like it'd be significantly different from the attribute scaling from GW1": depends of what the attributes and the tiers change. If damage is a function of both attribute and tier, and energy cost is a function of tier, it would become hard to make the lists. If the skills also earn levels themselves, like the skills in Aion do, we would have uneven steps in progression, preventing us from using the same system used on GW1. We will only learn about this kind of thing later, anyway, so there's no much point in trying to guess now. Erasculio 23:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Attributes have been stated to be much more general; probably just "increased damage with x weapon" or somesuch. Anyway, absolutely no reason to worry about it yet. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-block, let's re-try to reach consensus :)

I'd like to propose a new attempt on consensus, as it seems to be the way we should go. I know many oppose and also some support, hence we should find a medium: Here - Infinite - talk 23:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, I thought about this a bit. While there's no reason to create a nav for all skills of one profession (or even elite skills, or healing skills, even within one profession or race), I think a nav for a single weapon crossed with a single profession would probably be fine. After all, at maximum, there's 5 skills to put in such a nav (or 20, but only in the case of elementalists, in which case we could cross it with attunements). Having all professions with one weapon in the same place could obviously get messy--even with just three professions using axes so far--but it seems like quick linking to skills that will all be forcibly equipped at the same time has some useful value. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget about chain skills. There's a maximum of seven skills. Not that it makes a huge difference, as long as elementalists don't have chain skills (so far, it doesn't look like they will) or other professions pull some similar tricks to get tons of skills per weapon. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 02:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. A nav for skills based on weapon AND profession that has all the skills you're likely to want to view should be fine. You choose a weapon and the skills are dependent on that. Also, you're profession-bound so showing *all* professions' skills for a weapon is sort of redundant, we could have lists for weapon-type skills for all professions.This *should* grant many groups their wish; there can be a nav for quicker browsing and still lists for more detailed browsing. It won't be long (and likely messy/chaotic), yet it will be encompassing and purposeful. The only true objections I can still see are either extreme: No navs on skill pages altogether and/or no half-arsed weapon type navs on skill pages. If wikis are truly about consensus, a combo like this is as close to a perfect medium I could get on short-term notice. - Infinite - talk 03:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So just to clarify, would the navbar of necromancer axe skills be on every necromancer axe skill page? (as an example) (Xu Davella 03:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

@Xu: Yep, that's the idea.

@Sparky: Yeah, forgot about chains. But yeah, not much difference. --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is there a proposal to have a single nav for each profession and weapon. Like a necro focus would be a single nav and a ranger dagger would be another separate nav. Although I like the nav, I don't think I could get behind this suggestion. After all a necro focus nav will have 2 skills, and you'll already be on a page that is one of them. Venom20 11:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could try to figure out if it's best to put all off-hand skills per profession into 1 nav? :) - Infinite - talk 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

All two-hand, main-hand, and off-hands in their own navboxes could work (maybe), but then we would definitely have to split the Elementalist ones by attunement. --Kyoshi (Talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That honestly seems a bit arbitrary... With Ranger, for example, you'd have a navbox for sword which has 3, a navbox for all the off-hands with 8 (or 6), and then what about axe? Does its navbox get all 5 skills, or the 3 for main hand and the other 2 included in the off-hand box or what? Based on the current information, my leaning if there's to be a navbox at all would be toward a navbox that has the various weapon skills for a single profession (without utility/healing/elite skills or environmental weapon skills), as it seems the most useful with regard to figuring out what weapon sets you want. That said, I'd probably wait until we have more information. - Tanetris 17:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

An Axe off-hand would be just another off-hand, so we'd keep those in an off-hand nav, I guess? - Infinite - talk 17:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You guys have totally lost me with how to do the navs, but I am glad to see them being considered now. I see it being a possibility with it alone being so different from the way anet has the skills, etc. treated on gw1. I don't see it being quite as huge as so many are making it out to be. I do see us making a way to make this all work and this is what I had hoped for. Thank you. Ariyen 17:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Without pretending I have an ounce of skill with wikiformatting, I've made a few examples. This one is just a general example showing what we're getting at. For elementalists, I've made two possible versions: this one including all attunements, and this one narrowing to a single attunement. --Kyoshi (Talk) 18:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I designed the same navs, but apparently forgot to save them in the end (this was all during the slow wiki phase). The only thing I had put up next to it was a coloured header variant, in consistency with Loquay's skill info boxes. Very nice work though! I wouldn't mind seeing those compact navs around at all and they do make navigation easier, for they're not chaotic. - Infinite - talk 18:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)