The Introductory Paragraph.

There's an edit war going on between me and Tellos on whether to keep the introductory paragraph. I think it's important to convey the fact that Windmill is widely considered to be a very useful skill and that it is extremely dependent on Combat Power such that waiting too long to rank it will make it extremely difficult to do so at all. Tellos has argued that the introductory paragraph should not be included because it is "subjective", "goes against the required tone", and "is useless clutter". I've read the wiki policy and I see absolutely nothing in there that says there is any guideline that sets a required tone or that demands objectivity other than the requirement that articles be written in the second or third person. Thus, I see no reason why it cannot be included. If Tellos thinks that some parts of it can be improved, I invite him to do so, but I'm posting here to protest his wholesale deletion of it.

Any encyclopedia must be written in the neutral tone. This isn't a Mabinogi FAQ or Mabinogi Walkthrough. Why do we need an introduction to the skill? I know people who have 1400+ CP who don't think ranking windmill is a big deal. I also know people who think windmill is a useless skill when compared against other skills. Simply put, the introduction is not fact its opinion. When writing the wiki what you think doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that the concrete information goes on the page and is easy to understand and complete.

Since when is this an encyclopedia?

Uh, since forever? I hope you'll notice the wiki in the address bar. Like Wikipedia, you cannot express opinions. Only factual information can be put here.

How does the fact that this website uses wikimedia software imply that it's an encyclopedia? I've been to plenty of wikis that allowed subjective material and this one has nothing in its policy against that.

introductions are good for new players who want a general idea of the skill without having to read the wall of text that follows. i agree that the previous introduction for windmill was slightly opinion based, but it can be edited...

You do know that a wiki is a "collaborative user-based electronic encyclopedia" right? While other wikis are free to do as they please, they have nothing to do with this wiki. This wiki will continue to maintain its professional appearance that many users have worked hard to give it. As for new players, as I have been saying this is NOT a Mabinogi walkthrough, it is a mabinogi encyclopedia. It does not exist to instruct new players on how they should play the game.

World English Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/wiki) "a web application that allows anyone visiting a website to edit content on it"

Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki " a website that allows the easy creation and editing of any number of interlinked web pages via a web browser..."

And you still haven't cited any policy on this wiki that would support your position.

This is a mabinogi encyclopedia regardless of what you want to think. If you or anyone else makes subjective edits that are not within the encyclopedic tone, I will personally remove them.

I haven't stated any opinions that are outside of the guidelines specified in the wiki policy page.

One can make introductions with a neutral tone it isn't that hard. If I was new to Mabi I personally would want an introduction for the skill instead of reading through the article not understanding a thing it's saying. The intro is just a summary of the skill and what it does, not a walkthrough.

That is what the Details section is for. No intro is needed in that case.

"It should be noted, however, that while Windmill is a very useful skill, it is also one of if not the most difficult skills in the game to rank due to the large amount of monster kills required in order to rank it, and the fact that most of the kills must be against BOSS level monsters. Rank 4 for humans, for example, requires a minimum of 3,550 kills. For this reason, it is recommended that the anyone wishing to rank this skill do it early or else be prepared to purchase Combat Power lowering enchantments. " This, which was added in, is pretty much useless.

• "if not one of the most difficult skills in the game to rank" - opinion. It can be easy to some and hard to others.
• "Rank 4 for humans, for example, requires a minimum of 3,550 kills" - This sentence is useless, one could just look down at the page for rank 4 training and add them up.
• "it is recommended that the anyone wishing to rank this skill do it early or else be prepared to purchase Combat Power lowering enchantments." - Recommended, but not necessary. It's very possible to rank the skill with high CP and no CP modifiers.

• "'if not one of the most difficult skills in the game to rank' - opinion. It can be easy to some and hard to others."

All right I'll give you that. How about "is one of the most Combat Power sensitive skills in the game"?

• "'Rank 4 for humans, for example, requires a minimum of 3,550 kills' - This sentence is useless, one could just look down at the page for rank 4 training and add them up."

Just because all the data is there doesn't mean it can't be restated. Take Healing for example, the mana cost and healing amount are there, but why do we need the efficiency listed as well? Couldn't someone do the math on their own? Yes they could, however, it draws the reader's attention to a useful fact that may not at first be obvious just from looking at the numbers, or that may be easily overlooked. I'm pretty sure that windmill requires more kills to rank up than any other skill in the game, and that number provides context and a sense of scale for that fact.

• "'it is recommended that the anyone wishing to rank this skill do it early or else be prepared to purchase Combat Power lowering enchantments.' - Recommended, but not necessary. It's very possible to rank the skill with high CP and no CP modifiers."

It explicitly says "recommended". What's wrong with that? I'll remind you that as per wiki policy, the wiki's goal is "...to provide as much information as possible on all aspects of Mabinogi." I don't see why that fact would be excluded under that mission statement.

Because thats a matter of opinion. Opinions are not relevant when providing information.

You could always just take that part out and remake the introduction to be non-biased or subjective. And besides. Look at the upgrade paths on weapon pages. Some weapon pages have descriptions of versatility of weapons and recommended paths. Are these neutral toned?

Opinions are in and of themselves information.

Just because they are information, it does not qualify them as FACTUAL information.

An opinion is something that cannot be proven. How that is useful, I have no idea.

From wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn:

• a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"; "what are your thoughts on Haiti?"
• a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"
• public opinion: a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; "he asked for a poll of public opinion"
• the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; "opinions are usually written by a single judge"
• the reason for a court's judgment (as opposed to the decision itself)
• impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

You just failed.

@kaede-kit "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."

-Random House Dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

I'd make the distinction between not being based on certainty and not being based on complete certainty.

If you can't understand how opinions are useful you have my sincerest sympathies since performing every day activities like choosing between two brands of cereal must extremely difficult for you.

@Wolven all the objective information is already listed on the page, so that is needless.

@Strill Opinions contain objective information on the judgement and logic of the person who formulated them. They contain no objective information about the subject outside inference. Encyclopedic tone requires that implication not be used because inference is subjective and therefore implication contains no concrete meaning.

Once again this is not Wikipedia. There is no guideline in this wiki requiring objectivity, no guideline requiring neutral point of view, and absolutely no claim is made anywhere of being an encyclopedia. All of those claims are entirely based on your opinion, which is ironically exactly the thing you're arguing against.

My claims are based on the tone required to convey concrete information. "The Rules of Definition" so to speak. So I'm not basing anything on opinion.

Fact: This is a Mabinogi Encyclopedia.

Fact: Encyclopedias have specific content guidelines which must be followed in order to ensure that the information contains no ambiguity or implication.

I am speaking purely in fact. The only opinion here is yours.

Fact: This is a Mabinogi Wiki. Nowhere is "encyclopedia" mentioned at all.

Fact: Mabinogi wiki has specific content guidelines enumerated in the Policy Page. It includes none of what you said.

I am speaking purely in fact. The only opinion here is yours.

One of the content guidelines is also that you must cooperate with other users. Simply put this comes down to majority rule until a policy is made. I will not be allowing any subjective introductions, and if an intro contains redundant information it will be removed.

Would you mind showing me where that policy is? I don't see anything about that in the Wiki Policy page. Regardless, it's me and Wolven who have made opinions for keeping the introductory paragraph, and you and kaede-kit who are against. Two for and two against is hardly a consensus.

In any case, this argument is going nowhere. I'll be contacting an administrator.

Question and Answer. Here you go. That is where anything gets decided. Also, quit acting like a brat.

I don't think the introductions are necessary. The details section should have all the info needed. In my opinion, there should be some mention of how reliant the skill is on CP to train somewhere in the details section.

All of you are being incredibly stupid, so just shut up until an admin makes a decision. Strill, you just seem to be whining that someone took your edit out. Wolven's actually made a good point. You, not so much.

Just to make a point, if you want to add an introductory paragraph to this page, you'll have to write one for every other skill to keep the wiki consistent. Also, I do believe that even though some things you have said are widely accepted Strill, they're still opinions.

We're not talking about adding an introductory paragraph to this page, we're talking about restoring the one that's been there for a little over a year. And as I've said, I don't see what's wrong with opinions. As Wolven said, there's opinions on the weapon pages with comments on the overall usefulness or versatility of each weapon, and I think that information is beneficial to the wiki.

If it's been there that long, I must be blind for never noticing.

As far as opinions go, I think it's better to stick strictly to the facts. This wiki, at the very least, is meant to be used as an informational resource. Opinions are best left in guides and whatnot.

If it's been there that long, I must be blind for never noticing.

As far as opinions go, I think it's better to stick strictly to the facts. This wiki, at the very least, is meant to be used as an informational resource. Opinions are best left in guides and whatnot.

Also, I'm pretty sure the only admin active here - Angevon, would agree with us ~◕Д◕ ^TALK_CONTRIBS2010:12:30:01:02 (Thursday)

Even so, it's perfectly possible to come up with facts indicating that windmill is difficult to train. One could compare the minimum and maximum number of monster kills required to obtain exactly 100 training experience and find that the maximum is much higher than the minimum. Or one could note that even looking only at the minimum number of kills required, windmill requires more kills than any other skill in the game to rank.

It's the same as the reason for including efficiency in the Healing table. Is the efficiency subjective? No, it's a fact. Is the decision on whether to include it in the table in the first place subjective? Yes. Anyone could hypothetically calculate efficiency themselves, but most people won't, and it's something people would likely overlook if it weren't in the table. In the same way, facts could be highlighted demonstrating that windmill is difficult to train. The decision to highlight them would be subjective, but the facts themselves would not.

Uh, efficiency ratios are standard measurements taken from the JP wiki (also used in other skills), which has repeatedly shown its reliability and validity (much more than this wiki, especially with the numbers tested and viewed by many more players than that of NA.) Oh and I am the editor that started the introductions. Had the introduction been kept, I would have removed the part about combat power in Windmill on my own, (in fact I was going to revert your edit when Tellos removed the whole thing) as it is not 1)not newbie friendly 2)does not flow with the rest of the intro; the intro cannot contain info on Combat Power and still be a intro, because it had nothing to do with the topics of what is previously said in the intro. Although the policy does not state anything about introductions, I personally have my own rules (on my user page) on making it:

• Write Introductions for all the skills. The intros must give more information than the article already has (non-redundant) and must sound (new) user friendly, explaining generally what the skill looks like, what it does, and usefulness.

Seeing that no one has added a new intro to skills since I last started, I would be in favor of removing them because I myself would never be able to cover all the skills. Also, I also thought that it was not possible to write an objective introduction and still follow the premises above.

I do however strongly object any subjectivity, or implied subjectivity in the in-game info (anything other than the intro) that could easily be stated in a neutral tone, especially with a recent editors edits and with past incidents, and I have no doubt that other editors are also frustrated by this. It is possible that the introductions may encourage such edits into the article and we do not want those type of edits to occur in the future. Thus, it is best to remove all the introductions so that such edits will be minimized.

The efficiency ratios weren't taken from the JP wiki. For one, the JP wiki lists them to two decimal places while this wiki only uses one. For two, I'm the one that put the efficiency ratios in the Healing article in the first place.

Revision as of 01:58, 9 April 2008 And how do you know user:Ziv did not look at the JP wiki and got the idea of HP/MP efficiency and rounded the decimal places? At that time, most of the info was only taken from JP wiki.

I am user:Ziv. I can't log on to that account for whatever reason, probably because the forums don't accept 3 character usernames, and not even the password recovery function works. I created a new account because it was too much trouble trying to contact someone about it.

Windmill's training difficulty is subjective because its possible to kill anywhere from 1 to 20 monsters with a single use (technically infinity, but 20 is about as much as you'll find in a single spot). So the rate it trains varies with the method used to train it. Efficiency on the other hand is the same all the time so it is in no way subjective. Every decision anyone makes is subjective so thats just a nonsensical argument.

When I say including efficiency in the healing table is subjective I mean that it implies the notion that people will want to know about it. One could come up with all sorts of statistics about healing, such as maximum and minimum training exp per mp, or HP per second, or MP per second, but no one cares about any of those. The fact that efficiency is there implies a subjective decision on the part of an editor that efficiency was a statistic readers would want to know about more than any of those others.

And as for windmill training varying, every skill's training rate varies with the method used to train it. The method used doesn't change the challenge itself.

Not quite. Efficiency is there because Mana->HP is what healing is. HP Per second is non-applicable as healing is instantaneous, not continuous. MP per second is not applicable because healing is not continuous, its on a per cast basis. This only proves that you had an erroneous inference.

As for windmill's training varying, that is true which is why Training Tips were not included in most articles except as a means of clarification (for example, how to fulfill the blaze requirement "use the skill just before the enemy is knocked back".) Those sections are subjective as well and I was planning to remove them next. I will wait for the Admins to make a call before I act since it is apparently an issue which you so strongly oppose that you have to write an entire page arguing the case.

HP per second is absolutely applicable. In fact, that's the only thing that consistently improves about the skill as it's ranked up. You charge the skill, then use it don't you? That takes time, and during that time you get HP and use MP. Even if it's on a per-cast basis, you can still calculate it.

And if "mana->HP is what healing is", then why not include damage/stamina efficiencies with the combat skills like Smash or Magnum Shot? The answer is because it's not something people are interested in. Efficiency was added to the Healing table specifically to highlight the fact that it does not always increase with rank, which is a redundant observation since the hp and mp values are already in the table, and a subjective decision because some people may care only about how fast they can heal themselves and not care about the efficiency at all. The Healing page presumes that people care more about the details of efficiency than speed, or that efficiency is significant enough to include directly at all when readers can calculate it for themselves. In this way it uses redundant information to focus the reader's attention on particular facts because those facts are widely considered useful, just as the Windmill article could use redundant information to focus the reader's attention on particular facts because those facts are widely considered useful.

"HP per second" is heavily dependent on lag, so it is not a constant would not work at all. One can heal up to 4x per second when lagless and less than 0.5x per second when the player is halfway around the world. Also, like i said above the JP wiki has a much heavier weigh on the numbers that are put into the article. Even the client files are sometimes not accurate.

You won't listen to reason, and you're not making any solid arguments. This discussion is over.

What's not solid about my arguments?

To be honest, I don't think we need an introduction paragraph. Do you think that the windmill page just gets to have its own opinion-based introduction paragraph when all of the other skill pages don't? --Kevin38017 13:29, 31 December 2010 (PST)Kevin38017

Why can't we just add a "Tips" or "Suggestions" section? I feel like this information could be pretty useful to someone who doesn't know much about skills in-depth. A friend of mine mentioned that I should train Windmill, so I came here looking for more information on it, I found all these numbers and technical details, but I wasn't sure I should focus on it soon until I came into the talk section and read all of this. Not many people are going to look here.

Oh dear god. This is probably the longest single discussion thread on the wiki by now.

Anyway, examine the dates. This is quite old, Windmill is easier now, and this thread is miles away from its original topic.