GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Professions

Someone should go over the current pages and see if they're really -missing- any information, anything that might conceivably need to be regularly added/updated. If not.. do we need a style guide for this? New professions will just be added with expansion packs (probably) and they're not very complicated as-is. Nunix 06:50, 22 Jun 2005 (EST)

Profession Combinations
Do we really need the Profession Combinations section on each of the profession pages. As far as I can tell most all of these link to either empty pages, or to pages with one line saying that combination x/y is a charater who's primary class is x and who's secondary class is y. Everyone knows that. A few of these have slightly more detailed discussions of one or two small ways x and y's skills could benefit one another.

Obviously, there are a large number of ways that the total number of skills between two classes can be combined. Different combinations suit different purposes and playstyles. It's quite a lot to expect one article to cover all of these details. I think the topic would be more suitably discussed through categories and smaller build specific articles. Many of these already exist. Something like builds -> necromancer primary builds -> necromancer mesmer builds -> Condition Spreader: a condition spreader focuses on .... and uses skills from both classes ...

There are already several articles about PvP builds and these would fit nicely under such a system. We could then link the profession pages not to the "builds -> monk primary" category instead of an empty or nearly empty professions combination page. Otherwise, more rudimentary discussions of the most basic strengths/weaknesses of general profession combo's could take place within the professions article itself, fleshing it out.--Squeg 03:37, 19 October 2005 (EST)


 * All I can add is place it in Category:Guides. --Karlos 04:43, 19 October 2005 (EST)

Profession Combinations: New Format
The other day I added an alternative table format to the Dervish article, which looks like this:

! Rowspan=2 | Secondary (by campaign) -> Primary || colspan=6 | Core (Prophecies) || colspan=2 | Factions || colspan = 2 | Nightfall
 * - align="center" valign="top"
 * - align="center" valign="bottom"
 * Warrior || Ranger ||  Monk ||  Necrom. ||  Mesmer ||  Elem. ||  Assassin ||  Ritualist ||  Paragon ||  Dervish
 * - align="center" valign="bottom"
 * Dervish || D/W || D/R || D/Mo || D/N || D/Me || D/E || D/A || D/Rt || D/P || -
 * }

Because of this, MRA left me the following note on my talk page, which I copy here to continue the discussion. -- 06:37, 21 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I have seen you proposed an alternative table format for the list of profession combos at Dervish. This is maybe a good idea thinking of the growing number of combinations. But what do you think of using a navbox like the following instead? (Colours and details are, of course, open to dispute.)
 * --MRA 05:09, 21 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I prefer the content of my table, which is clearer and more structured. But MRA's version has the better look. I think a combination of the two would be best. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:37, 21 July 2006 (CDT)


 * How about something like this?


 * It's similar to MRA's, but adds slightly more structure. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:31, 21 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Looks fine to me, too, yet I would strip the boldface from the list and rather replace it by italic or no text decoration at all, such as:


 * BTW, I added an align-option to the Template:NavBox so you don't need your copy of the template anymore and since it is a good idea anyway. But you already know, as the recent edit conflict told me ;) --MRA 14:53, 21 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Yup, already deleted the temporary copy of the NavBox from my user space. It was a quick and dirty way to produce a conceptual compromise between your two designs.  You're right, adding the variable is by far the better solution.
 * I liked the bold to distinguish the campaigns clearer from the combinations. Italics is okay, but maybe a colored bullet (similar to the bullet produced by * in wiki formating) could be added to the start of each row?  I think it would help for those with narrower screens and the core list wraps. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:01, 21 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Boldface for chapters would be better. Remember when you are designing this how it will look with more than 2 or 3 chapters.

Boldface does distinguish it a little better, but look at all the wasted whitespace on the right, perhaps if it was made into two cols with core spanning 2, and each subsequent chapter only getting one it would look better. --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 15:05, 21 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Boldface is something like the natural enemy of the ergonomist. ;) The box above looks that heavy to the left that I might fear it could tip over to the left anytime. What about simple centering instead?


 * --MRA 15:28, 21 July 2006 (CDT)


 * I like the centered look too, looks better as a footer or header than something that's skewed to one side. We can worry about how to add in chapter 4 when we actually know more about it. Maybe they aren't even going to introduce new professions then... or maybe not. How about this for something that looks less cluttered (although it might be misleading...):

--Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:00, 21 July 2006 (CDT)

Profession Colours
The only suggestions of which colour to use for which profession is here. While it is a great idea to fix some colours, the suggested ones are a little unfavourable (compare my fist box above which uses them with the following boxes), but the discussion ended two moth ago with no conclusion.

Is there another proposal list somewhere where the better looking colours are from or should we maybe make up a new list? Style and formatting/Professions seems to be the right place for such a list to be posted. --MRA 15:58, 21 July 2006 (CDT)


 * The subject of color is going to be really subjective, probably hard to come to full agreement. Regarding that old talk, I do believe those colors are currently ignored and probably never followed anyway. I think we should start discussing about where we use these colours first. I have very little idea on where these colours can be applied aside from the skill references and user pages. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 22:04, 21 July 2006 (CDT)
 * It does need some work to standardize the colors used. The ones that I used for the Warrior box proposal (above) were partially derived from the henchmen article.  I've documented those colors below:
 * {| border="1"

! Profession !! Border lines !! Header background !! Body background
 * - align="center"
 * Warrior || style="background: #E3AD35" | E3AD35 || style="background: #FFEC80" | FFEC80 || style="background: #FFFADF" | FFFADF
 * - align="center"
 * Ranger || style="background: #72C900" | 72C900 || style="background: #DEFFB0" | DEFFB0 || style="background: #F6FFEB" | F6FFEB
 * - align="center"
 * Monk || style="background: #0090FF" | 0090FF || style="background: #B8E2FF" | B8E2FF || style="background: #EDF7FF" | EDF7FF
 * - align="center"
 * Necromancer || style="background: #00D245" | 00D245 || style="background: #BFFFD4" | BFFFD4 || style="background: #EFFFF4" | EFFFF4
 * - align="center"
 * Mesmer || style="background: #FF36F7" | FF36F7 || style="background: #FFE5FE" | FFE5FE || style="background: #FFF8FE" | FFF8FE
 * - align="center"
 * Elementalist || style="background: #FF6A3D" | FF6A3D || style="background: #FFDBD0" | FFDBD0 || style="background: #FFF6F3" | FFF6F3
 * - align="center"
 * Assassin || style="background: #EE00EE" | EE00EE || style="background: #FFBBFF" | FFBBFF || style="background: #FFEEFF" | FFEEFF
 * - align="center"
 * Ritualist || style="background: #00FFFF" | 00FFFF || style="background: #C1FFFF" | C1FFFF || style="background: #EFFFFF" | EFFFFF
 * - align="center"
 * Dervish || ||  ||
 * - align="center"
 * Paragon || ||  ||
 * - align="center"
 * }
 * For an idea of how these colors look on a full page, you can look at my user page User:Barek/PvE.
 * I'm not sure if those are the best colors to use, and I'm open to improvements, they're just the ones I've been using. I do like most of them better than what's found at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting, but several are still not quite right.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:18, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Without the other nearby to contrast, I don't think I'd be able to tell the difference between mesmer/assassin and ranger/necromancer. I prefer Gordan's colors over these.  --68.142.14.19 17:10, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Good point, several of the ones I copied from the henchman article are so close that the muted variants of them are almost identical. My main complaint about Gordan's colors is that they are, in some cases, too bold; and in some cases they become muddy / brownish.  I'll play with some of the colors and propose some middle ground options. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:29, 23 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Here's a revised variant:
 * {| border="1"

! Profession !! Border lines !! Header background !! Body background
 * - align="center"
 * Warrior || style="background: #FFFF0F" | FFFF0F || style="background: #FFFF88" | FFFF88 || style="background: #FFFFE1" | FFFFE1
 * - align="center"
 * Ranger || style="background: #97FF2F" | 97FF2F || style="background: #CCFF99" | CCFF99 || style="background: #F2FFE5" | F2FFE5
 * - align="center"
 * Monk || style="background: #6FBFFF" | 6FBFFF || style="background: #B8E2FF" | B8E2FF || style="background: #EDF7FF" | EDF7FF
 * - align="center"
 * Necromancer || style="background: #2FFF97" | 2FFF97 || style="background: #99FFCC" | 99FFCC || style="background: #E5FFF2" | E5FFF2
 * - align="center"
 * Mesmer || style="background: #972FFF" | 972FFF || style="background: #CC99FF" | CC99FF || style="background: #F2E5FF" | F2E5FF
 * - align="center"
 * Elementalist || style="background: #FF2F2F" | FF6A3D || style="background: #FF9999" | FF9999 || style="background: #FFE5E5" | FFE5E5
 * - align="center"
 * Assassin || style="background: #FF77FF" | FF77FF || style="background: #FFBBFF" | FFBBFF || style="background: #FFEEFF" | FFEEFF
 * - align="center"
 * Ritualist || style="background: #2FFFFF" | 2FFFFF || style="background: #99FFFF" | 99FFFF || style="background: #E5FFFF" | E5FFFF
 * - align="center"
 * Dervish || ||  ||
 * - align="center"
 * Paragon || ||  ||
 * - align="center"
 * }
 * For comparison, here's User:Gordon Ecker's from GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting:
 * {| border="1"

! Profession !! Border lines !! Header background !! Body background
 * - align="center"
 * Warrior || style="background: #666600" | 666600 || style="background: #FFFF00" | FFFF00 || style="background: #FFFF99" | FFFF99
 * - align="center"
 * Ranger || style="background: #336600" | 336600 || style="background: #99FF00" | 99FF00 || style="background: #CCFF99" | CCFF99
 * - align="center"
 * Monk || style="background: #000066" | 000066 || style="background: #9999FF" | 9999FF || style="background: #CCCCFF" | CCCCFF
 * - align="center"
 * Necromancer || style="background: #006633" | 006633 || style="background: #00FF99" | 00FF99 || style="background: #99FFCC" | 99FFCC
 * - align="center"
 * Mesmer || style="background: #330066" | 330066 || style="background: #9900FF" | 9900FF || style="background: #CC99FF" | CC99FF
 * - align="center"
 * Elementalist || style="background: #660000" | 660000 || style="background: #FF0000" | FF0000 || style="background: #FF9999" | FF9999
 * - align="center"
 * Assassin || style="background: #660033" | 660033 || style="background: #FF0099" | FF0099 || style="background: #FF99CC" | FF99CC
 * - align="center"
 * Ritualist || style="background: #006666" | 006666 || style="background: #00CCCC" | 00CCCC || style="background: #00FFFF" | 00FFFF
 * - align="center"
 * Dervish || ||  ||
 * - align="center"
 * Paragon || ||  ||
 * - align="center"
 * }
 * That's all the effort I'm putting into this for now. Color pallettes are a very subjective preference, so I doubt that we'll get a large amount of concensus.  But at least now there are at least three possible pallettes available here for people to consider and/or use in articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 23 July 2006 (CDT)