Category talk:Collectable Drops

Template for collector item rewards
I'm considering a template based on the collector reward item format I've used. Are these valid assumptions?
 * Collector items are all blue names
 * Damage and AF/Energy bonuses are always white
 * Properties are always blue (fast recast on smiting prayers, etc)
 * Conditions (required attribute level, change %, while hexed, etc) are all grey and applied inline after properties.

I'm thinking the template could be like this: cir-start cir-name cir-dam cir-en cir-prop cir-cond (conditions applied inline after damage, propery, or bonuses) cir-end

Should the table that houses these items (the 2 column structure used to pair up items) be another template or a normal convention? Adam - I've made the template based on these assumptions and structure. There is a page about it here. Adam

Isn't great to have the image of the item in order to have better visual ? stonebeard

Collector Items that no one wants
Any thoughts on if we should include collector items that currently have no collectors that want them? I'm thinking of the items that you find in the Ring of Fire and surrounding areas, like the Igneous Humps (similar to the Hardened Hump and Icy Hump) and I know the Hydras in the area drop a claw item too. As far as I know there are no collectors for these items currently, should they be included now as in future updates there may be collectors for them? --Rainith 11:42, 03 Aug 2005 (PDT)

AFAIK, whether a collector will take an item is what distinguishes collector items from salvage items in general. All collector items are salvage items, but not all salvage items are collector items. If someone creates a page with all the items listed, I'd suggest a format that starts as a chart of salvage items, as this one from gwonline, but those items which are also collector items would click thru to our existing collector item stubs. (I take your point that a.net could turn a salvage item into a collector item in a future update.) --Krissy 10:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * While I've stated my opinions down somewhere on this page, it also kind of belongs here. Basically, the Game distinguishes certain things as "Salvage Item".  The game did NOT distinguish Icy Hump and Hardened Hump as "Salvage Item".  Just because an item is salvagable doesn't make it a "Salvage Item", the Game decided to use that term selectively.  -PanSola 22:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Earlier today I thought I realized this isn't a battle I want to take part in, but just now I realized something else, so I'd at least point it out. When people have played the game for a while, they start to grasp some patterns.  One such pattern is "What is a collectable item".  Based on the pattern, Karlos developed a set of definitions for "Collectable Item", whereas Krissy (who unfortunately is done with this issue) and Raineth feel the definition should just be whether collector takes something or not.  Now, from the shoes of a player, who has played Guild Wars for sometime but still want to look up info on Guild Wiki.  When that player gets a Mahgo Hydra Claw, based on the patterns throughout the game, s/he will expect it to be a Collectable Item.  Now, even if we decide that GuildWiki should NOT treat Mahgo Hydra Claw as a collector item, not put it in that category, at least the article should mention that there are currently no collector for the item.  Why?  Because of the patterns in the game.  We don't need to say "There are no currently collectors" for spider webs, ettin hides, hunter's ale, raven staff, or lump of charcoal.  But for the Hydra's claw, which we KNOW there are no collectors for it, we have to explicitly state it.  Just like we should explicitly mention Innis the White does not have armor for warriors, instead of not having a row for warriors at all.
 * This might not be a good enough reason to consider it as a collector item, but there exist a certain class of items, and the players expect items of that class to be collectables. For items in this class that no collectors want, regardless of whether we want the definition of Collectable Items to include them or not, we need to as a minimum mention there are no collectors for them. -PanSola 23:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * PanSola - I don't disagree with you that it should be noted that there are no collectors for these items currently (even if you didn't spell my name right) :P
 * My initial thought on these items (back when I first made this post at the beginning of August) was that there should be a sub-category for these things in the Collector Items category. I couldn't come up with a good name for it ( Category:Collectors Items w/no Collectors (at the moment, but more may be added later) seemed too long for some reason), and until very recently, no one mentioned it at all.  Even if we make Collector Items only for items that collectors currently take, that doesn't mean we need to remove the line from the item article itself that says there are no collectors for that item.  We could even change it to say "Umbral Eyes are similar to other Rider Eyes but currently have no collector."  --Rainith 00:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hehe apologies on the name, my, um, spellchecker didn't catch that q-: Yeah I want to have that note about there are no collectors, regardless of how we end up defining Collectable Items, but the definition itself is not a battle I want to fight in (-:  BTW, how does "Collectable Items/Collector-less Items" sound as a sub-category?  Yeah I really want to rename this category to "Collectable Items" (-: -PanSola 00:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Images
Are we bothering with images for these? -Caspian


 * So far I haven't been. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't though.  Put up an example if you have something in mind.  --Rainith 01:53, 21 Sep 2005 (EST)
 * How about something like this: Enslavement Stone? - Caspian
 * I think we should use the pic of the item from the inventory screen. Just my personal opinion, but that way all the pictures would be of the same size (griffon wings) and some items (skale fins) don't show up very well when they're on the ground.  Also I think we should use an item box like those found in this article: Flute.  Just my $0.02.  --Rainith 03:03, 21 Sep 2005 (EST)

Collectable sub-categories
Tetris, for this and other items that you recategorized last night/today.. I think the sub group name should indicate that it is a collector item immediately. e.g. "Collectable Seeds" instead of plant seeds. The reason is that while we can make all sorts of categorizations, we must not impair functionality. If I land into "Gloom Seed" and see that it's categorized as a "plant seed," well, duh! :) But I won't know that this means it's a collector's item.

So, I suggest we move each of these new categories into something that says they are "collector items" just like we did with skills (Warrior skills, Air Magic Skills) let's do that here too. "Collectable Seeds" "Collectable Hides" and "Collectable Horns"... --Karlos 09:08, 8 November 2005 (EST)


 * I started off simply calling them "Carapaces", "Seeds", "Eyes", etc. Then I noticed that in some cases there is room for missunderstandings, for example "Eyes" (Rider collectibles) might be confused with the Elementalist Headgear "Eyes", so I put the species name as a prefix for each collectible subcategory. I wouldn't mind adding another prefix or suffix to indicate that those are collector item subcategories. The names might get a bit lenghty though.
 * One thing that we might want to reconsider here is whether collector items should be listed under the main category "collector items" as well as the respective sub-category. If the Gloom Seed was categorized under Plant Seeds as well as Collector Items, the connection would be pretty clear.
 * One last thing: If I land into Hand Axe and see that it's categorized as an Axe, well, duh! There is no indication that "Axes" is a subcategory of "Weapons". Okay, okay, that was a bad example, as everybody knows that axes are weapons. What I'm trying to say is that if we look around a bit we might find more cases of non-self-explanary subcategories. We need to make a general decision whether we want to show the whole tree structure in the category name or just the last branch. --Tetris L 05:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that kind of information belongs directly in the article somewhere. Using categorization to provide it can be a slippery slope.. --Rezyk 06:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How about we keep the sug-categories named as they are now, but also keep the items in Category:Collector Items if they have a collector that will trade for them? The sub-categories could even be moved out of the Collector Items category and just put in the Items category.  That way if someone is looking specifically for Collector Items, they can find that in the category, but we also keep the species specific drops in seperate categories?  Just my (sleep-deprived) thoughts.  --Rainith 18:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keeping all collector items under Category:Collector Items even if they are also in a sub-category would be an option, but in no case should we treat collector items differently depending on whether there is a collector for it or not. A collector item is a collector item per definition, even if there is no collector for it (yet). --Tetris L 12:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, but where do you see on an Umbral Eye for example the words "Collector Item"? All it shows you when you look at it is the name and the value, just the same as a Skale Fin.  Calling these Collector Items is an artificial and arbitrary decision, they are really just items.  Ask yourself, "If there is no collector for an item, and nothing in the item description that calls it a 'collector item', than is it really a collector item?"  --Rainith 12:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * EDIT - As a side note, I've met people on the game who when they say "Collector Items" are refering to the items that collectors give you (armor, weapons, scrolls, etc...). --Rainith 12:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Tetris you appear to conflate the term "collector items" with two different meanings, which most people call by two different names. Your first meaning is all salvageable items, regardless of whether an npc collects them. Most people and websites, in my experience, call these "salvage items." Your second use is shared by most people: (salvageable) items that an npc collects. Collector items are a sub-class of (what most people call) salvage items. A chart of all salvage items -- and the salvaged materials they render -- would be a good service to GuildWiki users. The salvage items guide at gwonline, for instance, is badly in need of an update. But, a salvage items guide is significantly different from a collectors items guide. Given that collector item info is among the most sought-after information, I'd urge keeping easy, intuitive use at the forefront of consideration. "What is the shortest, easiest path we can provide to a user looking for info on a collector item?" --Krissy 15:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, Charr Hide is the UNIQUE EXCEPTION where a "Salvage Item" is being collected. It is also the unique exception where a crafting material (not to mention it's a rare crafting material) is offered for the salvage item.  I don't care what other fansites and what "most other people" you have encountered say, when there is direct in-game evidence to the contary.  Basically, there are two types of common stackable mob drops.  One type says they are "Salvage Item" in their description, the other type does not.  Therefore, I will call it MIS-information if anyone calles a Stormy Eye a salvage item.  And if you want to argue that Stormy Eye can be salvaged for crafting material, well, so can a raven staff.
 * I would consider "Collectable Items" to mean all stackable mob drops that are NOT labeled as "Salvage Item", plus the one exception of Charr Hide. If the game is altered later so this categorization is no longer valid, we will deal with it then.  But for now, that seems to be what is most sensible.-PanSola 16:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We have an honest difference of opinion, then. In my book, if an item can be salvaged, it's a salvage item. If it can be collected, too, then it's also a collector item. A simple, intuitive (common-sense) definition that covers everything. So, I also call your Raven Staff a salvage item, among other things, and if I were to create a salvage items guide for people, I would include it, since people will want to know what they get if they salvage their Raven Staff (wood, btw, unless it can yield a staff head or staff wrapping. See how common-sense that is?).


 * You are incorrect when you say that there is in-game evidence to the contrary of my definitions. If a charr hide is labeled "salvage item" in-game, that's certainly evidence that it's a salvage item (confirmed when you actually use your salvage kit on it). The absence of a "salvage item" label is NOT evidence that an item is not a salvageable item, and hence not a "salvage item." Are you willing to deny that Stormy Eyes are collector items? The game does not give them a label. Is that evidence that they are NOT collectable, and are not collector items? Nonsense. That's the same (fallacious) logic used by "Intelligent Design" promoters -- with my apologies to Intelligent Design adherents reading this.


 * You advance a definition of "Collectable Items" that is hardly sensible. The intuitive definition is: if a NPC collects it, it is a collectable item. Yours is: "all stackable mob drops that are NOT labeled as "Salvage Item", plus the one exception of Charr Hide." No thank you. As a side note: what are you to say when an elemental drops a lump of charcoal for you, or a devourer drops a shell? They're stackable mob drops, not labeled salvage items, but they're most certainly not collected by an NPC. Too often, people make things more complicated than they need to be. :-)


 * EDIT: Collectable item vs. Collector item. I've nothing against calling items collected by NPC's, "Collectable Items." All my above uses of "collector item" mean the same thing as "collectable item." --Krissy 17:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to throw my comments in ('cause I like to 'hear' myself speak), IMO:
 * If a Collector wants something, than it is a collector (or collectable, whatever) item.
 * If an item is labeled a Salvage Item, then it is a salvage item.
 * If a collector wants an item that is labeled a salvage item, then it is a collector item and a salvage item.
 * If a no collectors want an item, then, even though that item may be similar to a collector item (Umbral Eyes vs. Stormy Eyes), than it is just an item. Not a Salvage Item or a Collector Item.
 * --Rainith 18:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * While you have nothing againt calling "Collector Items" vs "Collectable Items", I think there is a BIG difference between "Salvagable Items" (anything that can be salvaged) and "Salvage Items" (a label GW applies to only certain mob drops). The ONLY thing you cannot salvage are starter equpiment, pre-searing trainer equipment, quest items, and collector... "rewards" (since "item" means something else on this wiki currently).  My 15k armor, for gods sake, is salvagable.  However, the game chooses specifically to label certain things as Salvage Item, and others not.  Therefore, items that are salvagable, but not labled as "Salvage Item", are not Salvage Item.  They are still salvagable.
 * It IS a different standard. There IS an in-game use of the name "Salvage Item", whereas "Collector/Collectable Item" is a completely user made-up term.  Therefore they are treated differently.  There is an absolute on what is "Salvage Item" and what isn't.  There is no absolute on what is a "Collector/Collectable Item" and what isn't, and this discussion helps to find a consensus on how GuildWiki will treat that term.  If you read my previous comment, I used the word "I would consider" for what is "Collector/Collectable item", I said that is what I felt more sensible.  I did NOT say it's the TRUTH, while I consider it the TRUTH that Charr Hide is a "Salvage Item" while Stormy Eye is not.  And because there is no in-game definition of the term "Collector/Collectable Item", you CAN tell me Stormy Eye is not a collector item.  It wouldn't be sensible in my opinion, but there's no Truth of lack of because the Game does not define such a term as "Collector/Collectable Item".  We can debate on how to define Collector/Collectable Item.  "Salvage Item" is decided by whether that label appears in the in-game description of the item.  Salvagable Item, however, is not defined by the game so feel free to do whatever you want with that term. -PanSola 18:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also note that Runes cannot be salvaged into crafting materials, and I believe (not sure, can't remember if I tested this) that weapon upgrades cannot be salvaged into crafting materials. (Completely off topic, but I wanted to get those out there too as un-salvageable.)  --Rainith 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks (-: I appreciate your patching my omission (-: -PanSola 18:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, somehow I completely missed Krissy's third paragraph when I last responded. The reason I chose "all stackable mob drops that are NOT labeled as 'Salvage Item', plus the one exception of Charr Hide" as how defined it, was because originally the Ring of Fire stackable monster drops don't have any collectors, but after one of the updates, they (well, some of them) now do have collectors.  That gave me the anticipation that in the future other collectors will be added to collect things no one collect yet.  On the other hand, I do not expect there will be collectors added for snow ettin hide or ebon spider webs.  Thus to me Charr Hide will be an added exception.  I guess you can argue that, "when the collectors for a molten claw is added, we will deal with that then, and add molten claw into the Collector/Collectable item category".  That's fair too.  For now, in response to your critique of crafting material drops, I'll revise my internal definition to "All stackable untyped mob drops, plus Charr Hide", where "Type" means any categorization well-defined by the Game. -PanSola 18:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, do what you want. I've suggested simple, comprehensive definitions that end-users will intuitively grasp, which -- when the definitions are implemented -- will feel natural to them. Exceptions? Qualifications? Not needed! If folks want to do contortions to adhere other defintions, be my guest. If you want to make a page of "salvageable items," but sub-categorize them into official "Salvage Items" and unofficial "Not Salvage Items yet Still Salvageable Items," o0,  have at it! :-) I'll let the ridiculousness, IMO, stand for itself. Honestly, I'm intellectually and emotionally done with the issue. --Krissy 23:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not *doing* anything (in terms of taking actual wiki actions). I'm trying to communicate myself, explain why I feel a certain way, because you didn't find it sensible.  I even used the term "internal definition", meaning that's not something I'm going to impose on others...  I'm sorry that you got emotionally started on this issue, glad you are emotionally done, though sorry you are also intellectually done. -PanSola 23:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the comment I made 2 sections above, for a different way of talking and thinking about (and organizing) salvage & collector items. The collector items page is my single most used page on guildwiki and, for me, the new format is less intuitive and more burdensome. The simple list was a quick, functional reference, for all my collector item questions. Consider from the point of view of a first-time visitor who wants to find information on "spiny seed:" she doesn't care if spiny seed is a subcategory of seed; she just wants to know who collects, and what she can get for, spiny seeds. Anything that stands between her and the answer feels like an obstacle rather than an aid. I realize that I'm unknown here, and I readily admit that I don't understand everything in the foregoing discussion. I'll be grateful if you'll consider my input. Thanks. --Krissy 10:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Krissy: The info that you want is just one click away. Once you have reached the article Spiny Seed (which you can reach various ways) you got the info. The article lists the collectors. Click their names and you got all their details, their location and what they trade in return for the Spiny Seeds. --Tetris L 12:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be an example of making something harder for some end users of the site without having a good enough reciprical benefit for the site itself. Just my $0.02.  --Rainith 12:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * EDIT - I may be wrong, and I just don't see the benefit to the site, I did not mean to imply otherwise. Sorry if I did.  --Rainith 12:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The devil is in the details. Looking for spiny seed, I didn't find it. So, I scanned for "seed", and couldn't find it either. So, I did a Ctrl-F for "seed," and found it under "Plant Seed." Then it was one additional click away. I'm just trying to keep you focused on user-experience, and this feels to me like a degradation of that experience. That's my piece. I'll bow out and live with whatever y'all decide to do. --Krissy 15:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I may not have been clear in my post above. I was actually in agreement with Krissy, in that Collector Items should be in that category.  If they are also in their component categories (Plant Seeds or whatever), that's fine, but people shouldn't have to click on Collector Items and then click on Plant Seeds to find the elusive Spiny Seed.  --Rainith 15:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Eh, if you are looking for info *that* specific, why don't you just type "Spiny Seed" into the search box? That'll take you directly to the article... Though I find it more informative to sub-catagorize by region.  The "type" is really just of interesting tibit value, but not that helpful most of the time. -PanSola 15:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, I also agree with Rainth that the items should remain in the main category. -PanSola 16:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Because, like many people, I have a bookmark directly to the "Collector Items" page, from which a single click used to take me to any collector item I wanted, be it spiny, scorched, alpine, or any other seed or item. --Krissy 16:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting discussion. I would like to place a few things in my limited perspective. I think there are a few issues at play here: --Karlos 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The ease of finding info: Why I may agree or disagree with Tetris' tree structure, Categories were always just for browsing. For searching anf for quick referencing, Categories, by design, are a BAAAD option. So, I am thinking that Tetris' tree format of Collector items has no bearing on the findability/readability of collecotr items pages. i.e. There should still be a master page that lists all collector items (including those without articles). Just like we have this elaborate Skill category tree, then we have the skill reference pages. So, don't hate Tetris for re-aligning the trees, but also, whatever he is doing should not replace a general list of collector items.
 * 2) Collector Items (for those wondering what they are) are items that fall from monsters which are unique to a species and stack and have a fixed sell value. They are not labeled collector items by the game, but they are treated in a consistent stand alone way. They all have a fixed price, they all drop from their respective monsters and they all salvage to exactly the same thing and (if you have not noticed), they have the EXACT same price for their respective region (i.e. Umbral Eyes, Dark Remains and Gloom Seeds are all 60).
 * 3) Collector Items vs Collectable Items: The way I understood what was done here on the wiki is... Collector Item is the item collected and Collector weapon/armor is the item rewarded. We may opt to change that terminology since it's not exactly intuitive.
 * 4) Finally we come to the issue I was originally asking about. I believe that in the Minotaur Horn article, if the category at the bottom says "Minotaur Horns" the user will go "Duh!" and might not even click on it. But if it's under "Collectable Minotaur Horns" then he'll porbably click on it to see what OTHER collectable minotaur horns are out there. Si? :)
 * Just a side note about your number 2, Charr Carvings must be the exception that proves the rule. They are 3 gold and are used by collectors in post searing ascalon.  Also your defination would include all hides then, not just Charr Hides which we have listed as a collector item/salvage item.  --Rainith 17:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Darn, never noticed that... -PanSola 18:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, hide drops are pan-species, not unique to each species, so the above definition would actually exclude Charr Hide as opposed to include all other hides. And technically, Charr Carvings are available as early as pre-Searing.  So the real exception for Carvings is that it's a cross-region drop (or rather, Charr are cross-region spawns), and that collector for it are only in the second region. -PanSola 19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would Charr Carvings break my definition? They drop from Charr and only Charr, they stack and they have a fixed value. That makes them a collector item in my book. If you compare say "Flame Wielder Trappings" you'll find that they don't have a fixed value (changes with armor rating and of course with runes). --Karlos 20:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Charr Carvings break your definition as they are 3 gold while all other items wanted by collectors in Post-Searing Ascalon are 5 gold. You state:"...and (if you have not noticed), they have the EXACT same price for their respective region (i.e. Umbral Eyes, Dark Remains and Gloom Seeds are all 60)."  As for Flame Wielder Trappings, read my comment closer, I said Hides, not salvage armor in general.  --Rainith 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And I want to argue that Charr Carving drop as early as Pre-Searing, where collectables are 3 gold. It is Charr Hide, which also drops as early as Pre-Searing, that breaks the definition.  Both are reallly special cases since they cross regional borders... -PanSola 22:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, my definition is not incorrect. Charr Carvings drop in Pre-Searing where everything else is 3 gold, so definition still holds. --04:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I realized the battle I really want to fight isn't that "drops with no collectors yet should still be called collector/collectable items". Thus I now vote only consider items actually being collected as collector/collectable item, if the ones with no collectors yet also get a category called "Not Yet Collectable Items" or something that sounds better but more ore less mean the same thing...  That is still not what I ideally want to see done, but I haven't figured out how to acheive what I want to see yet. -PanSola 18:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To what end? We all know they are the same thing. Look at the Ring of Fire, two months ago, the Ring of Fire collector items were non-collector items according to your definition, but lo and behold, now they are. I do not see a gain from "withholding them" from the rest of the collector items when we know that they are one and the same. --Karlos 20:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And two months ago, the ROF stuff would not have been collector items, as there were no collectors for them. Then bam, Sorrow's Furnace update, and we change the category to Collector Items.  I don't see the problem with that.  If people see Collector Items they expect there to be a Collector for the item.  --Rainith 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I feel the same way as you do, Karlos, more or less, but that's precisely the battle I don't want to fight ^^" It's either to restrict definition to strictly whether there are collectors accepting them (in which case, Game updates can easily change item's status as you pointed out), or come up with a rule that has 2~3 exceptions now, and might have even more exceptions when the Game gets furtured updated. Maybe one day a collector will start taking spider webs, maybe another day a collector will start taking beer, and yet another day a collector will start taking clean max damage raven staff.  One definition will adapt easier with game updates than the other.
 * I personally believe there should be a category for the unique-per-regional-species stackable monster drops not labeled as "Salvage Item". That category has 90~98% overlap with the Collector/Collectable Items category, depending on whose definition of "Collectable/Collector Item" you use.  But that category does NOT include Charr Hide (one drop per species, Charr's is the carving).  That's the battle I want to fight, but the name of that category has not been found yet.  And that is really the category that "we know that they are one" as you said.  I still want to change the name of this category as "Collectable Item" though.  -PanSola 22:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Collectable is fine with me. I don't agree with excluding items for which there are no collectors. Those will be weeded out from the "usability views," i.e. the list of collectors, the list of items I can get from collectors, these will not bother with items for which there is no reward. But If we are looking at a list of items, then I think those not-collected-yet-collectable items should be there. --Karlos 04:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * On your point 4, considering only one type of minotaur horn would be available in a region, why is it relavent to a user (who hasn't noticed all minotaur hors are collectable) to look up other collectable minotaur horns? I see the species-subcatorigorialization only as interesting to see how the name of drops for the same species change through out the regions (scorched or burned in Ascalon, frozen in Spiverpeaks, bleached in the desert etc). -PanSola 19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This thing has kinda gone off topic into the how we should define Collector/Collectable Items. Anyways, on the ORIGINAL point of the section, here is my thoughts: This, is my response to the original topic of this section. -PanSola 22:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it as "Rider Eyes" and "Devourer Carapaces". People aren't going to care more just because you slap on the "Collectable" name in front of it.  Well, if anyone does, s/he probably mistakenly expected to find other monster drops in the same region too.  If I ever click on "Rider Eyes", that's because I want to find out what eyes the other riders drop.  I never need to find out anything related to a collector for a different type of eye while I'm looking up one of them.
 * ADD a category for regions. "Ascalon Collectable Items", "Ring of Fire Collectable Items".  THAT would be of more use/interest.
 * If there's no regional subcategory, then I vote to keep the items like Fetid Carapace still under the "Collector/Collectable Item" main category, even though it already belongs to the Devour Carapace sub-cat. However, if there is an "Ascalon Collectable Items subcategory, then Fetid Carapace won't need to be under main category.  Kind of like, a Gun is obviously a type of weapon, so anything that is a type of gun is obviously a weapon.  But things-with-sharp-edges are not obviously a weapon.  So putting something under things-with-sharp-edges does not immediately signify to ppl that it is a weapon, even if we decided that things-with-sharp-edges is a sub-category of weapon (and that's a big debate right now).

Naming...
If I get a 20/20 firestaff from a collector, I call it a "collector firestaff". If I got a full set of Stylish Attire from the collectors, I call that my collecter (stylish) armor. For that reason, I vote to call the things that collectors actually collect "Collectable Items" to reduce confusion. I know that'll be a lot of pages to edit and stuff, but should add clarity to the wiki. -PanSola 15:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Or you could continue to call them "Collector Items" and give the name "Collector Reward Items" to the items that collectors give in return. You'd still talk about a "collector 20/20 fire staff" or "stylish collector armor," but they're members of the class "Reward Items" as a general reference. At least, that's how the people I play with mostly talk about it. "Salvage Items," "Collector Items," and "(Collectors) Reward Items." That said, "Collector Items" --> "Collectable Items?" [Shrugs] It's a minor change (from end-user's POV) and doesn't do any harm that I can see. --Krissy 16:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The ppl I play with and the ppl you play with seem to have quite different naming conventions ^^. Anyways, "Collector Item" is a grey middle ground that to some means "Collectable Item" to others mean "Collector Reward", so if we can avoid the grey term alltogether that reduces ambiguity.  While me and ppl I play with don't use the word "Collector Reword", the meaning is immediately clear, and vice versa (-: -PanSola 18:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We always use the ingame names in this wiki. "Collector Item" is the name that the game uses in the item description, so that is the correct name per definition. Period. If we want to come up with a general name for the items that you get in return for Collector Items, I'd suggest "Collector Reward". But most of the time people will be talking about "Collector Armor" (which is clear) and "Collector Weapons" (which is also clear). --Tetris L 02:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with the policy. My bad for never noticing the game actually calls them "Collector Item"...  Thought it was a player-madeup term >_<" -PanSola 02:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually can you be so kind as to point out exactly where in the game the term "Collector Item" was used? I'm having trouble locating it... ~_~"""  Tried pre- and post-searing collectors and no luck. -PanSola 03:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Highlight any item in your inventory so that you get a description (it may be in the mouse-over). The name should be in the description ("Salvage Item", "Quest Item", etc.)--Tetris L 06:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahem. The game never called "collector items" that name, we (the players) did. Collector items never have anything in the description other than the value. --Karlos 08:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing it up Karlos (-: Since it is NOT an ingame name, I am continuing to advocate for avoiding the use of "Collector Items" and switch over to "Collectable Items", since the latter leaves no room for ambiguity no matter what the players used to call things among themselves.  Are there any other issues with changing the terminology? -PanSola 19:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)