Talk:Armor types


 * Old discussion are moved to Talk:Armor Types/Archive
 * Talk:Armor Types/Archive2

Some meta/semantics stuff regarding "Armor Types"
This article is titled "Armor Types", and "Armor" redirects here. But for some reason, I feel like it's better to have an article on "Armor", and if necessary, have "Armor Types" redirect to "Armor". At least, some content in the current article are about the basics of "Armor" and not about "Armor Types". It also feels ambiguous what the "Types" in "Armor Types" refers to. At least seeing the names of section 2, 6, and 7 ("Collector Armor", "PvP Armor", "Special Events Armor"), makes it seem that "Collector Armor" as a whole is considered one "type" of armor (as opposed to each profession's collector armor being an individual type), and "PvP Armor" as a whole is considered one type, etc.

For an article that is titled "Armor Types", it also feels awkward to scroll down at least a full page to find the section called "Types of Armor", which is the 4th section, and not having a Table of Contents (Why NOTOC for this article?). The word "Types" within the context of this section does seem to be referring each armor set as a different type, which is in conflict with the feeling I get from section 2,6, and 7.

Is "Type" being used as a very general term, so that "15k Armor" and "Fissure Armor" are each a (sub-)type of elite armor, and that "Enchanter's 15k Armor" is a (sub-)type of "15k Armor" as well as a (sub-)type of Mesmer Armor? Are headgears a type of armor, and leggings a different type? Do armor sets with different names but same bonus count as one type? Do sets with SAME name but different art count as two types?

Some stuff I would suggest, but I'm not going to feverently defend them if anyone else opposes (esp if you state why you oppose it): --PanSola
 * 1) Enable ToC
 * 2) For the name of section 4, use the word "Set" as opposed to "Type", since inside the section we are saying "Mesmer Sets" and "Monk Sets" as opposed to "Mesmer Types" etc.
 * 3) Move this article to "Armor"; OR create two new articles, "Armor" and "Armor Sets", move content from here to the new articles, and depreciate this article.
 * 4) Avoid the usage of the word "Type" altogether, unless there is a clear and consistent definition/use/treatment of the word "type" in the context of armor.


 * I agree to all of the above, I have been wanting to bring that up for ages. This should be Armor not Armor Types. I'll do the TOC change because it's benign, I'll wait to see what others think regarding the rest. --Karlos 20:20, 3 November 2005 (EST)


 * /agree! --Rezyk 02:30, 4 November 2005 (EST)


 * I did some restructuring for the page, including collected several sections into a new "Obtaining Armor" section. Makes it feel more organized, I think.  There are still some little stuff that bug me, but I'll fix those later. -PanSola


 * /agree --Tetris L 11:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As kind of a follow up to this old topic, I have since realized the term Armor itself serves as two different meanings in the game. It's rather annoying )-: -PanSola 03:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Plan to greatly reduce "Obtaining Armor" section
So it resembles more like the corresponding secgion in Weapon. Most of the textual description being removed already exist in other relavent articles anyways. If no objections, will do it in 7 days. -PanSola 21:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"Chapter One"
There is no way to verify that armor is chapter one only at this point in time. Putting it under a "chapter one" heading is misleading. It is entirely possible that somebody with only chapter 2 can purchase this armor from a Canthan armor crafter. &mdash;Tanaric 23:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Additionally, some armor for some professions might be chapter-specific while the profession isn't.  I don't want to find monk armor split into to tables in different parts of the page.  It'd be better to label individual profession, or individual armor as chapter-specific (IF we verified it is), as opposed to splitting the sets by chapters. -PanSola 23:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Reformatting
Regarding the description box, isn't the Item details bar rather pointless? There's never anything under it, and I'd think either it should be eliminated from armor description boxes or the Armor Types bar should be. An additional note, some of the boxes are now overlapping the descriptions (ie: Gladiator's Armor). - Evil_Greven
 * The "there is never anything under it" just started recently, as Skuld is nuking the item value template.-PanSola 13:13, 2 March 2006 (CST)