Talk:Mana

Permanent access to Mana Loss

[1]: Darnassus Aspirant destroys a Mana Crystal too - and if you steal or copy it e.g. via Mirror Entity then "it is impossible to disrupt the opponent's access to mana" is out of date, right? I don't follow the logic between temporary and permanent loss though, so I just dropped a note here. -- Karol007 (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the section needs updating to reflect the latest additions to the game. "Temporary" is just referring to being locked out of Mana Crystals due to Overload. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wiki style

This is more of a general question but it's come up here so I'll ask it here: What's our objective for maintaining "encyclopedic style" on the wiki? I have read other wiki guidelines recommending sections be written in prose and avoiding lists/bullet points, except (obviously) when setting out specifically to create a list. On our wiki Notes and Trivia are clearly lists, since they are miscellaneous "extra" pieces of information supplementing a card itself, and often don't have a direct relationship to each other. On the other hand Strategy is usually not a list because each part of it describes one (or a few) overall concept(s).

That's obviously for card pages. On pages like this, what is our aim? I do believe each section should at least start with a paragraph of prose to create a gentle introduction to the topic. A new reader with no idea how mana works may be overwhelmed by a list of detailed bullet points, but the advantage of a well-written paragraph is that it can lead readers through related ideas in a more natural, narrative style. Prose provides context that puts the pieces together for you and creates a general picture of how something works, while lists require the reader to put the different bullet points together. That said, we do have a lot of technical descriptions, examples, and exceptions, so I would say once we at least have an overview for the section, it's fair to organize points in whichever form feels most effective for getting the information across. I actually do tend to use bullet points myself, but I have been trying to use more of a mix to make things as clear as possible lately.

Anyway, I wanted to ask before editing because we may decide the guidelines from Wikipedia/others don't really apply on this wiki, since it's so focused on mechanics and rules. Just wanted to get some input. - jerodast (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Overall I would agree with your first paragraph: bullet points for bits that are specifically lists, otherwise prose. It does get a bit trickier when it comes to technical stuff. Certainly if you're doing a number of steps (although probably better #s than *s), or listing exceptions, examples, etc, bullet points or such make sense.

In truth I feel like bullet points do sometimes make info easier to absorb, just because they break stuff up into bite-size chunks. But writing entire articles in bullet points still feels a bit wrong to me. A slightly separate point is that adhering to general writing standards usually makes the wiki look more standard, and thus respectable. That means prose is going to make the wiki look better in most cases, I believe.

It's subtle, but bullet points also tend to produce a different writing style. This can be either a pro or a con depending on the case, but it's usually noticeable; bullet point text tends to be more concise and/or exhaustive (listing exceptions, etc), but also more discrete; prose text tends to flow and meander, and is generally a bit more conversational and inclusive.

Since we're discussing it, rather than edit the page I've posted a draft of a less bullet-pointy version here. This also makes it easier to compare and contrast with the current version, in terms of the overall impression. -- Taohinton (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Without any more responses on this, I definitely feel we should be going for regular prose articles rather than moving into bullet point articles (a shift that's been happening lately). I've pasted the draft into the page, but I'm still open to feedback. -- Taohinton (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Mana curve

How much overlap is there between the content of Mana curve vs the "On curve" section here? Many ideas seem very similar. I wonder if we shouldn't just put all strategy related to mana in that article, since that's pretty much what "mana curve" is (whether you're constructing it or staying on it). - jerodast (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I've moved the content here to Mana curve and incorporated it all into a single article. In the process of doing this I realised there were actually two separate uses of the term; the page had previously primarily addressed the latter, but both are now included. The overall concept makes it a good place for the strategy (distinct from the general subject of mana itself). -- Taohinton (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)