PvXwiki talk:Style and formatting/2011 Rewrite

Technically a guideline revision, but we don't have a template for that and don't really need one. -- Toraen TheJanitor 06:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

comments/thoughts


I personally don't like the phrasing here. I'd rather it be "list suggestions for any optional slots" as it makes the point of an optional come across (i.e. there's a choice, it doesn't necessarily have to be one of 2 or 3 skills. As opposed to "take one of these skills, anything else is crap").
 * In "External Links" (in pre):

other wiki articles aren't external (unless you mean GWiki or GWW, in which case rewording would be needed).

Redundant. If it's a skill that's required for the build to function correctly then the slot isn't optional, it's filled with the skill. If it's a choice between multiple slots the best one's put on the bar, and the other's are variants.

Don't see the need to create it as a separate section. There's no benefit to it.
 * Under "Variants":

Variants != optionals. you may have duplicate skills placed under here but it may be necessary. I might need to know that a variant for Searing Heat is Teinai's Heat, because it might not be necessary or wise to take both (that's perhaps a bit of an extreme example, but it's to show my point more easily).
 * under "notes":

I belie we said that we wouldn't include anything like that (PvE title track) as it meant basically telling the player to grind to max (and it falls under the "we assume they're competent players and have a decent enough level in it" (unwritten) clause)
 * in "external links"

so...you're arguing the users are stupid and retarded, so you figure making them do an extra step which most users inevitably screw up (be it naming or failing to correctly tag the image (or both)) is a good plan...I'd rather they upload externally, it saves people having to clean up messes and messes...(some in the uncategorised files page need null editing to fix but I think last I saw we were at #4000 untagged images)

It doesn't really ("Mo/Any Healer" would suffice but i wouldn't call that a "good descriptive name"), and this is the wrong place for that any way (PvX:NAME is that (<-) way).

I'd argue both are needed (there are counters that might not apply to a single build that might apply to the team's build (for instance a physical in a mostly caster team would have "anti-physical" as a valid counter but the team wouldn't, and "anti-caster" would be a team counter but not necessary for the physical(s)).

I think that's my small rant over.  ~ PheNaxKian talk  23:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * list suggestions does sound better.
 * yes, implied GWiki and GWW.
 * there are cases where skills are interchangeable. This happens with an IAS or a set of skills for example. Example would be bringing Flail, Burst of Aggression, or Drunken Master; you need at least one of the skills in an optional. Another example would be using Shadow Sanctuary/Feel No Pain or Mystic Regeneration/Intimidating Aura with the D/any vos smite farmer.
 * It's more "list elite skills sequentially" since they're all go in the same optional slot. Just makes the page look more organized that way. There's a special case where the elite skill replaces another skill on the bar (Soldier's Fury instead of Aggressive Refrain), where having it listed with other elites lets you keep track of optional slots.
 * I think "usually" covers any cases where that doesn't. I agree it isn't a very good statement though.
 * Notes on pve title tracks are for breakpoints 95% of the time, otherwise they're supplemental like with raptor farming. The practice has been it's fine if the page doesn't explicitly require it but it's still a bad practice I guess.
 * The problem with having images off-site is if they're being used to explain usage and the usage refers to such images (or videos) rather than explaining how to use the build. I'm fine with external links as long as all the information you need is already there on the build article.
 * It's to avoid generic names like Healer, Nuker, Melee, etc. since you're not following the actual policy because profession is implied from the overview/actual build. If it's too redundant, it can be removed.
 * They aren't mutually exclusive. It's mostly a preference where you want the counters listed.
 * If my view of the optionals and/or variants is too restricting, it doesn't have to be changed. I just think people are missing the point of using optionals and variants whenever someone gets angry about a build getting tagged for WELL or merged because it's similar.-- Relyk  talk  00:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Objections?
I'm rather happy with the current rewrite. Is there anything else that could need changes that I've missed? -- Toraen TheJanitor 01:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer gww instead of gw but otherwise I don't see anything atm. Dzjudz sig.pngtalk 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it's too late/i'm too lazy(/busy) to check if they've since been resolved, but my main observations were listed above. My main concern is this is trying to tackle issues that don't really fit into this, or any policy (or trying to do the impossible, per the variants/suggestions issue). I think this is trying to define things that can't really be defined accurately, and will just lead to further confusion, rather than less.  ~ PheNaxKian  talk  00:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously
effing move this to become official already.  Anvil God  zzz... 00:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)