Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Requests for comment/GWW Links on Skills

Well, Just thought i'd post it on here since I wanted to raise something. Regarding skills, there have been a number of skills reveleaed. Some of these having the same names as skills on the Original guild wars. So some people have been posting GWW templates onto skills. Personaly I don't think this should be done due to them being completely different skills and the other thing linking them is the name. Dicuss pl0x :P --aut (t) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the GWW template is usually to show the connection between something in GW1 and GW2 where the GW1 info is semi-relevant but not overly important. As Oneshot said on Talk:Eviscerate, a bullet point under a trivia section may be better (something like "A skill with the same name, but different function, exists in Guild Wars"). pling 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed as well. It's insignificant gameplay-wise.-- Shew ♠♠♠ 20:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Pling's got the idea to go with. :D --Unending ♥ fear 21:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, that's still too much. A trivia section dedicated exclusively to the GW1W link has more or less the same size as the GWW template, so I don't really think it's any better. I would rather have a broader approach - a trivia section on the Skills article mentioning how many GW2 skills share their names with slightly similar skills from GW1, linking to the GW1W, and nothing more. Erasculio 01:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal having trivia sections that potentially only have the notes about GW equivalents, but either method sounds good to me.-- Shew ♠♠♠ 04:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, as per example with Eviscerate, the only Trivia noted is 'A Guild Wars skill bears the same name as this skill.'? What is wrong with that? --Naoroji 09:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I can find myself in both ways, however the way stated by Pling might be more specefic.. -- Cyan 09:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of linking to GW1. After all, there can be no doubt that the skill names were inspired by the respective GW1 skills. In any other case (skill name inspired by some movie, etc) we would include the origin for sure, so why not here. --Xeeron 09:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not in favor of linking to GW1. It seems that there will be a lot of skill/monster/trait (or attribute) names reused from GW1; putting this same trivia note on every single thing with a reused name seems very unnecessary. Also, are we going to link every page on GWW to this wiki too? I think a better idea would be to create a page specifically for all the things which share a name, like what has already been brought up. ~ Bow 02:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, I've created {{GWSN}} purely because it's a lot easier then C&Ping it in every article. --Naut 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a template should be used for this - for one, the template name is terrible (but that could be improved), but it also removes the ability to edit/customise an individual trivia note. If you're looking to put the note on a page, it's easier to type it out than try to remember a template name that's hardly instinctive (even if it's renamed). Alternatively, you can just copy and paste the note from another page. Either way, the template isn't necessary. pling 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, the GWSN (GW Same Name) Template is easy to use and adds a single line to link to a GW skill with the same name on the GWW, this will avoid linking using different phrasing and adds consitency to the GW2W. I say we keep it. - Infinite - talk 19:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I'm going to rename it to a sensible name (perhaps Template:Guild Wars skill), clean up the code (remove NOEDITSECTION, which affects each page where it's used), and remove the asterisk so there's consistency in articles' trivia sections (i.e. asterisk followed by text/template). I still favour its deletion, however. pling 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

From Eviscerate page

→ moved from Talk:Eviscerate

I need a better place to put this, but I don't think they should be put on skills. They seem a bit stupid, and a waste of space. The name is the same, but the actuall skill itself might be completely different. Just thought i'd start a discussion. --aut (t) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Trivia?--h. 19:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, are we really going to put that trivia on every single skill that shares a name with a GW1 skill? ~ Bow 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it'd only be logical.--Neil • 16:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with adding the links myself, it IS trivial. Vald Sunday 18:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If there were only a few I'd be more in favor of mentioning when a skill exists in GW1, however, it seems as though at least half of them do. I'm guessing there's going to be several traits named after GW1 skills too. And there will probably be quite a few enemies that share a name with GW1 enemies. Maybe an all-encompassing "something by this name existed in Guild Wars 1" category instead of a trivia note on so many pages? Manifold 22:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We have the {{gww}} template for a reason, I see no reason why skills shouldn't get it if they have the same name. Like all other pages it should go to the bottom-most section where applicable, as to be out of the way. I don't see why there's need for special treatment. -- Konig/talk 23:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Should probably discuss here instead? Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_talk:Requests_for_comment/GWW_Links_on_Skills the location is a bit more general. -- Aspectacle  23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved this over here to keep it all together. -- Konig/talk 23:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Manifold. There's really no point in mentioning so many times that "this skill/trait/enemy/etc shares a name with something from GW1". Mentioning it in a more general place (such as just adding a trivia note on the Skills article about how many skills share names with GW1 skills) would be enough. Erasculio 23:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In the trivia section, we generally put where the name comes from (if applicable). I don't see why we wouldn't put trivia just because a lot of things come from the same place. It would be like removing all mentions of Monty Python and the Holy Grail from GWW and just making a general trivia note that a lot of things in GW were based on MPatHG. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 21:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be done in ==Notes== instead of trivia... Cause my issue with gww and i'm not too keen on here is having too many subtitles so to speak and I don't see why we can't combine trivia into notes and not have a page full of things like that. It'd be helpful and it'd shorten the scroll. Ariyen 17:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Trivia" is for unimportant but possibly interesting things - they're trivial. "Notes" are usually for important things that don't fit nicely into the body text. This is more trivia than notes. pling 17:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The way that I would like to think about it that notes should pertain towards the skill itself. Whereas, trivia could pertain to something about that skill that may not be needed to actually use it or play with it. Venom20 17:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's trivial. The skills on GW1 only share the name and it doesn't affect GW2 in any way. We're likely to see many more equally named skills, though. I think we should remove the trivial fact altogether. If any need, we *could* make a seperate page with these facts. (That'd beat the "trivia" topic, unfortunately, so I'm not so much into that idea.) - Infinite - talk 00:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What to do with Template:Guild Wars skill.

Since the template is in a stable form (i.e. no people are still dinking with it to get the wording perfect), could we start substing it onto pages? --Riddle 00:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)