GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Armor/Art

Armor art box
Details about usage of the armor art box will be added soon. - BeXoR   11:57, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * Can I suggest that the lower sections of the armor art box (in the mesmer example), the "Used by:" and the "Crafting" to be centered? It kinda looks skewed to one side, especially so when the entries might be few. Also, I think the colon at the end of "Used by:" should be removed, for consistency. -- Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 01:10, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * If you would like to change it, please do so. I am not good with templates. :) - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 01:21, 25 January 2007 (CST)
 * Done! (I'm becoming brave now with my new template editing powers.)  --Glynnis   15:42, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Grey armor images
I have one question... What's the point of all the grey armor pictures? They look HIDEOUS, they don't show what the armor will look like when dyed (gray usually blends in with many undyeable armor details), and it takes up so much space! And, especially, the grey ones are annoying on the main profession armor pages, when you're trying to pick an armor you want to craft for your character, and have to click like a maniac to get a general idea of what they all look like... Please, someone justify why these pictures exist? I'd really appreciate the answer... RoseOfKali 07:04, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Because after months of discussion by the many people who worked a great deal on the armor area, we decided that we would present the armor the way every player sees it when they purchase it. We present the pictures so that people know what they are buying. The dye pictures exist solely to show which areas are colorable. This isn't a fashion gallery, it's game documentation. - B e X or  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 01:40, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

crafting vs acquisition
The general guidelines section calls it acquisition as do serveral articles. However the example box has crafting. I thought it was supposed to be acquistion and changed a few articles as such but then looked again and noticed the difference. So which is it? I think acquisition makes more sense as some of the armor is collected, acquired as a pvp reward, etc. &mdash; JediRogue  16:26, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well it says acquisition pretty much everywhere. Seeing as no one is objecting, I'll change it. &mdash; JediRogue  [[Image:JediRogueSig.jpg]] 01:04, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
 * It says acquisition because the pages werent finished being updated after this was revised. If you want a heading called acquitistion it should be level 2 and crafting and trading would become level 3 headings and then campaign would become level 4 = huge nightmare. It's unecessary to change it. Just correct the articles as intended, rather than changing the formatting to fit the errors. - B e X or  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 03:45, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

should be updated
To reflect what our armor art pages actually look like, they are much cleaner than the style guide &mdash; Viruzzz 04:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose something like this, Style_and_formatting/Armor/Art/Suggestion_sandbox
 * What changed from the copy-paste:
 * Changed order of Crafters/collectors, I think with the game being the age it is, few people would come looking for collectors over crafters, since most collectors offer low armor
 * Added note about title requirements (only used for eotn armor afaik)
 * what isn't there but is inconsistent on other pages:
 * Some pages have clipping issues at the top of the page, some have it in the gallery pages, I think the gallery pages make more sense as the clipping issue is usually gender-specific anyway.
 * &mdash; Viruzzz 04:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Viruzzz 04:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally, clipping issues go where they make the most sense. As you say, a lot of them are gender-specific, and those should go in the individual galleries; however, those that apply to both genders should go either just above the galleries or in a collective "Notes" section after the galleries (I bet we have some galleries that do both of those).  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 05:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's a clipping issue for both genders that would put it 3 times on the page, would it not? one for the actual page, or one for each of the gender art galleries. I think it would make more sense to have it be gender specific, and just put a note at the top saying something along the lines of "there are Clipping issues with this armor set, refer to the galleries below for details". &mdash; Viruzzz 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I mean if the clipping issue is identical for both genders, then it should only be listed once instead of being duplicated in both galleries. Example: Warrior Primeval armor.  Very few armors have more than 1-2 clipping issues anyway.  &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 05:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, but I think it would just be confusing to have the armor art gallery style guide differ depending on where there are clipping issues, I also don't really have a feeling on how many articles this would actually apply to, if it's only a handful it's not really a big deal to manually edit those, if it's every 3rd it's just going to be confusing.
 * You have more knowledge of the armor art pages than me since you did the giant update to them more or less on your own, so you most likely have a better idea of how many pages this affects than I do. &mdash; Viruzzz 05:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with a flexible style guide to deal with various situations. &mdash;Dr Ishmael Diablo_the_chicken.gif 05:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)