GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Armor

/Archive

Headgear Articles
Will Factions introduce new headgear? If so, should we split the headgear articles? -SolaPan 12:09, 22 March 2006 (CST)

Icon images
I'm not comfortable with how the icon images seem to be handled currently. The armor box template generates the image links from the "name" variable. So far so good. In the example here, as well as in the "live" articles about Enchanter's Armor and Enchanter's Armor (15k), the image shows both the regular as well as the 15k version. The "name" on both articles is "Enchanter's Armor", without distinguishing whether it's 15k or not. Sure, the name of the items in the game doesn't seperate 15k from normal either, but here on the wiki I find this somewhat confusing. An article about 15k armor shouldn't show the regular icons and vice versa. After all, we don't show Rotscale's image in the article of Rotscale (Boss) ;). This is even worse with fissure armor: On the Fissure Mesmer Armor page, the "name" is set to "various" (of course, there are various names in the game). If we do the same for all the other fissure sets we need to put the icons for all of them (across all professions!) into one image, because the template will generate the same image name for all of them. This is not aceptable. We either have to change the template so that the image name is not automatically generated, or use more concrete descriptions for the "name" variable, even though they'll not match the ingame name (like "Fissure Mesmer Armor" on the Fissure Mesmer Armor article). --84-175 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2006 (CDT)
 * oops yeah, that issue came up in my mind but I lost track of it. I'll think about it some more.    For now I'll go with the second option as teh immediate patch.  -PanSola 13:23, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

Ok, the solution currently implemented:
 * Now there is a "name" parameter and a "art name" parameter. Icons will use art name, but if art name is not specified, then icons will just use name. -PanSola 13:54, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Actually, why are there even the icon images to begin with? I can't prove it, but really doubt anyone is interested in seeing those. And since a lot of armor articles are missing these icons, the boxes end up showing the intended file names instead, making the armor boxes really wide and unsightly--not to mention the potential layout problems. Are they really needed? - Ledrug 04:01, 9 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I actually agree with Ledrug on this one, but i guess it has been voted on and decided through the usual process. &mdash; Fenris  [[Image:FenrisPaw.jpg]] 04:23, 9 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I tend to agree with Ledrug as well. I don't see the point in having armor icons in the armor box. If you are buying armor because of the way it looks then you surely only care about how it looks on your character.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:45, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

The umbrella before it starts raining
At the FPE we saw a separation of functionality and art. If this isn't merely place-holder art, but rather a real move in separation of functionality and art, then the current way we do our armor articles will have a LOT of redundency.

With prophecies, we already have some of the symptoms:
 * 1) Same art being shared across different armors
 * 2) Same type of armor (functionality/name) having different art

Without knowing whether the separation of art and functionality was just for the FPE or will be for Factions, I'd like to be prepared for the latter case and start brainstorming on how to restructure the articles so we will be ready when Factions is released. -PanSola 13:41, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

Ok, User:PanSola/Mesmer armor is my proposal on how to reorganize the information. Please comment. -PanSola 15:27, 11 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I like this very much as it solves much of the confusion. If you can complete a few pages (in terms of what the functionality page will look like vs what the art page will look like and how the disambig will take place) that would help. I have a small note on how to make the headings clearer. We have had this problem with "basic" for a very long time where people keep going in to edit the page, over and over because they don't understand the headings. May I suggest renaming "Functionality" to "Additional Functionality from Basic" or just additional functionality and then state in the note above the table that all armor stats are relative to the basic one. Thanks. --Karlos 18:44, 11 April 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm taking transformation a few steps at a time. Right now I am separating the gallery into their own pages, as well as collapsing 15k & Fissure crafting info into the basic armor articles.  Eventually I'll figure out some big revamp of the armor description, merging articles and/or splitting off the crafting information.  I'm figuring things out as I make the transformations. -PanSola 22:53, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

Current plan: Enchanter's Armor (15k), Rogue's Armor (15k), and Fissure Mesmer Armor will be deprecated, as all the art-related information will be mirrored in the gallery pages (each of these 3 still keep their own gallery pages), while all the crafting info will be mirrored in the armor articles bearing the in-game name of the respective armor. -PanSola 00:50, 12 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Current status: If you see a blue link in the first column in the "By Art" table, then the related armor types are ready to be examined. I haven't done Faction's galleries yet, but most of the Prophecies armor will have additional links in the "Detail view and customization" section to the Luxon and Kurzick galleries. -PanSola 02:16, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Ok I'm mostly done. Most of my work went into Virtuoso's Armor and Enchanter's Armor, so those two should be the most complete if I happend to overlook anything. -PanSola 02:27, 13 April 2006 (CDT)


 * The only thing I don't really like is that a lot of the tables (armor box itself, crafting table) have broken/missing lines when I look at them (in Firefox anyway, haven't had time to check them out in other browsers). This seems to fix itself when you look at it a second time. Something to do with the 'collapse' command I think, when we started using that is when I first started to notice it.  That and we really need to get the platinum icon fixed so that the background is clear.  --Rainith 11:17, 13 April 2006 (CDT)
 * Missing lines also annoyes me, but I'm just lazy so I call Template:STDT which auto-collapses it. I will not oppose anyone who edit STDT to remove border collapsing. -PanSola 11:21, 13 April 2006 (CDT)
 * The problem with no lines in tables with the collaps command can solved for Opera with : rules="all", i have done this on the Ritualist Shing Jea Armor page for the aquisition. But I haven't tested it with Firefox, maybe someone with firefox can test it. Trilo 04:01, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

It looks like a good idea. I'd also add a unified headgear article and a unified headgear gallery (although combining the headgear article and headgear gallery also sounds like a good idea). I also think that the galleries should show at least one alternate skin colour (preferably in the same images as the alternate dye colour), since in a fair number of sets it's not clear what's opaque armour and what's sheer armour or just skin. The most prominent example I can think of are female Mesmer collector armour, female 15k pyro armour and male Necromancer fissure armour. -- Gordon Ecker 18:45, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

Update: Confirmed that Art and Function are going to be separate. I've moved the experimental article into Mesmer armor now. -PanSola 08:36, 27 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm currently in the progress of taking screenshots of the new armors, as far as they can be easiely accessed via pvp chars. But before I go berzerk creating all those galleries - one thing that came to my attention is: Material costs are linked to the armor designs, not to the functions. This means we would need one article for each armor by function (i.e. Infiltrator's), one article for each design (i.e. Seitung), where the table with crafting information goes, plus the galleries. Suggesting following sturcture:
 * One article Assassin Armor. Similar to the one we have. Would need to link to the crafting articles for armor designs (see below)
 * One article Infiltrator's Armor. Would be very small. No crafting info, no images (of course, as those are linked to designs), only basic features and maybe a list of possible designs
 * One article Assassin Seitung Armor. Crafting info goes here, links to or includes the galleries, lists possible function variants
 * One article Assassin Seitung Armor/Gallery Female. Indentical to what we have, just move to new name
 * One article Assassin Seitung Armor/Gallery Male. Indentical to what we (currently don't) have, just move to new name
 * Maybe we should only list possible design/function combinations in the main "Assassin Armor" article, as listing that everywhere will create too much redundancy. Thoughts? Comments? Rotten Tomatoes? --84-175 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2006 (CDT)
 * For design/funciton combinations, I think we should still have for each function to list which arts are available, and for each art to list which functions uses it. If someone is just looking up infiltrator's armor, it'd be quite a hassel to check out its available art if the only way to get to that info is via the Assassin armor article.
 * I agree with putting acquisition info in the art articles, that's how I'm slowly reorganizing the Mesmer armors now. -PanSola 16:37, 30 April 2006 (CDT)

Ok, I have finished re-formatting the Mesmer armor articles. The only thing missing are the art articles for Canthan 15k, Luxon (reg and 15k), adn Kurzick (reg adn 15k). Even the headgears articles are done. Let me know how you guys like the new format. Start from Mesmer armor. -PanSola 02:53, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Credits in images
I can understand the desire to take credit for these images, but it goes against a community effort to give credit for something as common as images of armor art to individuals. We have been very consistently against aggrandizement, be it of individual players or guilds of players, and I do not want to see credits for every damn thing. If I want to reference an image, I specifically do not care who posed for that image, and shouldn't have to remember if some yahoo's character name was "blitz frinkle" or "grink ballaballa". &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 15:06, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
 * in general I agree. In the special case of armors I especially agree. -PanSola 15:36, 3 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmm, let me clarify my position. I'm especially against (and thus agree with stabber) about credits within the image, or as text annotating the image.  When those happens, I believe they should be removed immediately.  On the other hand, if the credits occure in the filename (and only in the case of filename), the image should be reuploaded under a creditless name, BUT before that is done, it is ok to keep the image.  As anyone can download the offending image and reupload it under a new name, I think if someone got enough time and will to put noinclude tags and delete tags around the image, it actually takes less effort to simply download and reupload, and solves things faster. -PanSola 16:18, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

taking a break
I'm taking a break from patrolling newly created armor pages. The only thing I'll definitely keep a close eye on is the mesmer armor pages. I'll pay some attention to warrior and monk, and perhaps a bit of Ritualist. But otherwise I'll leave the other professions' armor articles to whatever evolution other contributors will take them through. I'm spending WAY too much time on these things, and I'm not even playing the game. If anyone needs specific help with formatting guidelines or advice, feel free to leave note on my talk page, or just check how the Mesmer articles worked. -PanSola 23:15, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

Gallery standardization
I know it is still a bit early to start talking about standardization as not all armors have pictures yet, but I think we should start work on a standard format for these galleries. Obviously, I am biased in favor of the format of the ranger galleries (1, 2, 3, 4) that I myself created, but alternative viewpoints should be expressed and examined. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 05:51, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm highly biased toward the formate of the female mesmer galleries d-: -PanSola 06:36, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * BTW, are you volunteering to make sure the Warrior, Monk, Necro, Ele, Rit, and Assassin galleries stay with whatever standardazition we decide on? I tried making things comform to Mesmer, for a while, but then I gave up.  Now I just stay in my little female mesmer world and not worry about how the other galleries evolve.  We have enough trouble getting ppl to upload ICONS, standardizing the galleries and keep it enforced is way harder. -PanSola 06:41, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Hell no. They'd have to pay me a full time salary to slog through that much PvE grind. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 06:44, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I meant just keeping pages to teh standardized format, as opposed to getting all the images. d-: -PanSola 06:46, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, it isn't possible unless I get the images myself. Look at Ranger Ascended Luxon Armor/Male. I couldn't possibly edit those images to fit the female gallery format. &mdash; Stabber &#x270d; 06:47, 9 May 2006 (CDT)


 * BTW, I'm starting to take headgear visibility into consideration when creating new characters. That means a bald monk and a necro whose hair is all tied in the back.  All those hair blocking the head gear, arg. -PanSola 06:48, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Ok, 2 questions to toss around: -PanSola 07:09, 9 May 2006 (CDT)
 * 1) . How come you don't make profile view for the components? I think if any view is interesting then the components should definitely use it, especially since art and functionality is disjoint in Factions, it makes mix-matching from different sets much more viable.
 * 2) . How many columns should be the limit? I don't want things to span too wide that most ppl will need to scroll horizontally to see everything.  On the other hand, I want things to be as compact (vertically) as possible.
 * To breathe some life into this discussion after a few months, Stabber's format isn't bad, but I prefer this kind... 1 2. Any ideas/suggestions? -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 05:37, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * One problem is, as already discussed by Stabber and PanSola, that there are so many different sets of pictures in the different galleries. Some have profile images, some don't, some have headgear closeups, some don't... simply for that reason a template would be difficult to apply to all of them. However, I agree that a common formatting would be a nice thing to have (i.e. table with visible borders or no borders, descriptions above or below the images, etc.). I personally like your approach very much, looks a lot like what I've been using lately :). To pick up some of PanSola's thoughts from above: I think we should keep the maximal number of columns at four, like it has become custom by now. However, we should limit the number of images in total. For example, I don't think it is necessary to include three "overview" pictures with and without helmet each. One set of pictures with helmet should suffice, for the look without helmet, people can refer to the component view images. Likewise, we could limit the dyed images to one set of pictures of the full armor set, it shouldn't be necessary to go that much into detail here again. --84-175 (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree... the heading I've always seen was "colorable areas" and not "dyed armor," so we only need one set (AKA one dye color) to show. Even though the majority of armor pages need lots of work, we need a general format so they all look alike. I like your idea about no "without helmet" overview, I've always thought that was silly. To answer PanSola's question (#1) from ages ago, we could make a profile view of the components... but it would be split into vertical (i.e., the Chest/Boots Front, Back, and Profile, and under that would be the Gloves/Leggings Front, Back, and profile). That would include a profile view, and wouldn't go past 4 images horizontally. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|||My Talk]] 15:39, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Gender Icons
Sorry it's taken so long, but I've just modified the Armor box to use male and female icons.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:09, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks. Don't forget Template:Armor art box! -PanSola, LAFTable (sing) 08:48, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah, thanks PanSola. What's all this LAFT business? :P
 * Click on it to find out! -PanSola, LAFTable (sing) 20:06, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * How come in, the width of the icons is set to 30px, while in it is set to 50px? I believe some consistency is in order. If not, I do believe it should be the other way around atleast, the art pages being the more detailed ones. For example, compare Gladiator's Armor (art) and Gladiator's Armor). &mdash; Galil   00:08, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Art boxes are by naure usually shorter than funciton boxes. The 30/50 are experimental values that usually best matches the natural hight of the boxes.  They are thumbnails anyways, so it doesn't matter that much.  At least that's what I was thinking when I designed them.- 00:11, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Perhaps this is the wrong place to ask, but function armor boxes are big enough as it is, do they really need the pictures in to? Seems a waste to me.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 01:28, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Not sure. Having pictures is more or less a tradition that I didn't bother to question. - 03:22, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Easy way to get M+F icons
If you own the female ele armour for example, put it in the vault and make a male pvp ele. Access the storage and it will show male icons. Or so i've heard :) &mdash; Skuld  20:33, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Color coding in the crafting tables
I've noticed this in the armor tables. The green and gold have clearly defined uses. But, why the alternating gray/white? It appears to be decorative and nothing more. Can we just standardize all non-max armor to one color? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:52, 15 September 2006 (CDT)