GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Weapons

Where can i find those Firey Dragon swords?
 * In the game, or buy them from others. --Karlos 21:26, 13 Sep 2005 (EST)

Collecter reward listing in weapon articles
I find the tables been added having no real resource value, but that might be just me. If I care about where to find a collector for a certain weapon, it's because I am looking for a 20/20 staff for x attribute or a shield that gives me HP when I am in a stance. I'm going to head for Collector rewards for that list, instead of trying to figure out "Is a 20/20 staff in protection prayers going to be a Holy Staff or a Smiting Staff?" and check both articles for the listing. It's taking up a lot of space as a trivia. IMHO -PanSola 07:50, 16 March 2006 (CST)


 * I'll agree with that, looking for an item it is easier to look it up on the Collector rewards. However, I think that the notible collectors items, should be included on an items page. If no one else responds, I'll remove the collectors items that don't need to be on those pages. My 2 cents - Serenlo 04:41, 16 March 2006 (EST)

Formatting article for weapons
I've been going through the weapon articles (both Prophecies and Factions), trying to set them up in a similar format and adding info where needed. Once I've gotten it the way I like it I'll post a formatting article for them here. *EDIT: Formatting article has been added, as well as templates for the item boxes. I'll be tweaking it over the next few days, feel free to post any comments, suggestions, or criticism. -Scutilla 17:44, 06 April 2006 (EST) (Edited at 23:36)


 * At a quick glance it looks good. On a personal note, I'm glad you did away with the image captions in the item boxes as that is one thing that drives me crazy (why have the same thing listed above the image in the box and then below it too?).  One thing that may be problematic is the locations section.  A lot of 'coveted' weapons (cleaver, sephis axe) are pretty common drops in pre-searing, but no one really wants those because of the very low damage that they do.  But IMO if we have a location section and they drop in pre-searing, that should be listed.  --Rainith 16:03, 7 April 2006 (CDT)


 * On a related note, I'm not sure how useful the min/max damage values and the salvage quantities really are. As I understand it, the damage and salvage quantities are both somehow proportional to the difficulty of the area in which the item is found (correlation, though perhaps not causation).  That is, they're not really a property of the item itself but instead just indicate where an item can be found (e.g. anything findable in Pre-Searing will have very low minimum damage and only salvage for 1 unit of material).  If someone has an item and wants to check how much material he'd get from salvaging it, the listed range isn't really useful, since some of the values there came from entirely different areas.
 * There's also a whole lot of uncertainty with that information; we'll never really know when we've got the correct ranges listed, since there's always the chance that a new value will be discovered later. And if the range is edited, we can't be sure that the new information is actually accurate.  You can't check the game and find out that a certain damage value is impossible.  If a game update makes certain values impossible, we'd never be able to catch the change and update the pages.
 * Because of this, I think those things should just be removed from the info box. If something has really remarkable damage or salvage quantities (e.g. Icy Dragon Swords always having max damage, Candy Cane Swords having 10-10), this can be stated somewhere outside the box. --adeyke 18:01, 7 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Duly noted. I didn't see much point in the damage ranges either, took them out and added any specific damage ranges to the Location section (items with exact stats like the Candy Cane Swords will still use the Weapon Stats section). I'm aware that some of the rare weapons drop a lot more often at lower levels, I'll try to point them out when I go back and do all the weapon pages.
 * I've decided that the general section isn't necessary- most of the information from it can be found in the sidebar. Notes on whether the item is campaign-specific will be moved to the Location section --Scutilla 11:13, 10 April 2006 (EST) (Edited at 11:23 and 13:57)


 * Have you thought of adding the campaign info to the weapon boxes? That might be a good way to do it.  --Rainith 13:39, 10 April 2006 (CDT)


 * That might work- in any case, I'll be fixing the Prophecies item pages first, so I don't have to worry about it right away. If I decide to, it'll be a simple matter of adding it to the template. --Scutilla 16:46, 10 April 2006 (EST)


 * What's now with the campaign info in the weapon box? I had updated most of swords and axes and would like to continue with the other weapons, but when this will be changed, someone has to update it all again. --Trilo 09:33, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I realize that I'm extremely late to this conversation, I missed it when it took place. But, on the topic of weapon damage, I really like having the max damage for a weapon type listed.  It's good information, especially for someone new to the game, or just new to a particular profession.  I don't want to see a "max range" and "min range", I agree, maintaining those is problematic.  But I think that a single max damage value should be documented. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:55, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * If someone is not use to a type of weapon they should just read on that type of weapon. Dont see why we should repeat it on each page.-- ├ A  ratak  ┤  14:01, 16 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm thinking of simplicity of use. It's much easier to locate the value in a table or info box rather than buried at varying locations within the text of each article.  If left only in the generic weapon articles, then I feel that those articles should be standardized, and possibly have an info box added to them as well. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:08, 16 July 2006 (CDT)

image: item holder
why does it matter? o_O" -PanSola 07:50, 16 May 2006 (CDT)

Templates
Staves can use the WeaponInfo template too, because there is no more an energy line in the StaffInfo template. --Trilo 07:15, 18 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Also, Shield and Focus can be merged into a single "Offhand" template. -PanSola, LAFTable (sing) 09:38, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
 * What about changing the BowInfo template to include the bow class, not the Maximum Range, Refire Speed and Flight Time? --Trilo 11:51, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I would support that. - 06:27, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Divine Path unique items, Merge or Split?
I find it semi-odd to split the Unique item version from the regular item version, yet between different stats of the "same" unique item we keep things in the same article. We should either fully split them, or fully merge them. For example, Straw Effigy should either have 1 or 25 articles, not 2.

I support a merge, and just use sections to separate acquisition/stats data of regular vs unique. And in all honesty, I see the non-Shiro weapons just like other collector weapons except colored green, and the item you need to trade with much harder to farm (keep deleting and recreating new characters to be run through the entire PvE... or just buy from other players). - 06:24, 25 June 2006 (CDT)

Vote

 * Keep the green links
 * --LordKestrel 20:11, 20 June 2006 (CDT) I guess I'm alone in liking the Green Links, it really makes them standout, which IMO is a good thing. Icons aren't so great.
 * Use the icon
 * I'm a known icon-fan(atic). Second choice is plain text. No colored text please. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 09:58, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Since I made the icon it seems wrong to vote for plaintext :P but I really don't mind either.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:15, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * (your vote here)
 * Use plain text
 * --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] Green links as second choice. No for icon.
 * --MRA (while I would rather like to see the icon than the technicolor-links)
 * --Nilles 16:47, 18 June 2006 (CDT) (second choice: icon)
 * --66.92.33.187 16:50, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 20:42, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Rapta 22:07, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd be okay with icons, too... overriding the text color is just a bad UI idea, however. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:23, 18 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * --Rainith 23:55, 18 June 2006 (CDT) Green links as second choice. No for icon. (I'm not copying your user page Gem, just your vote.) (Biro, while I like your icon, I dislike the addition of said icons to that area of the bestiary pages.)
 * --Xasxas256 07:44, 19 June 2006 (CDT) no icon, no green text, just good old wikification.
 * --Lord Ehzed 07:54, 19 June 2006 (CDT) (but would also be happy with the icon)
 * --Draygo Korvan 10:50, 19 June 2006 (CDT) (Plain text is fine and dandy. Perhaps under a subheading (like: Unique Items) under items dropped)
 * --Gares Redstorm 11:53, 19 June 2006 (CDT) (Anything, but the icon. No offense to Biro, but I'm not much for icons.)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:36, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Abstain
 * Galil  16:22, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Galil  16:22, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

In case green links wins:


 * Bold
 * (your vote here)


 * Normal
 * --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]]
 * --Nilles 16:47, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 20:42, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Rapta 22:07, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Rainith 23:55, 18 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Lord Ehzed 07:54, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 09:58, 19 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --Karlos 16:16, 19 June 2006 (CDT): Making things pretty in a simple way is something we should always do.
 * --Galil  16:22, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --LordKestrel 20:11, 20 June 2006 (CDT)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:36, 20 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Abstain

Discussion
I'm not sure if or where this has been discussed before, but I recently encountered several wikilinks leading to unique items in boldface typeset and green characters, see Rotscale or Gargash Thornbeard for instance.

From a design persepective, I am not very happy about this idea, since (beside the fact that boldface rarely is a good design decision) it weighs to heavy in the eye, distracts the reader from the text and makes the page too colorful by a color that does not belong to GuildWikis usual color palette. Moreover, since the color of wikilinks used to be connected to some functionality aspects of the site (like 'red' impliyng the article doesn't exist) I find this somewhat confusing. I really believe mere being an unique item doesn't qualify for an own link color. What comes next? Each boss getting a link in the color of their profession, like #FF0088 or #008800?

If there has already been a community decision/vote upon this matter please give me a hint where to find the discussion and please excuse for bringing up the matter again. --MRA 08:44, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree. I hate the green links.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 09:12, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I like them and have nothing against them. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 11:50, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Use your own CSS to override them. See User:Deldda Kcarc/monobook.css for how I do it, because I hate technicolor links also. Deldda Kcarc 12:17, 17 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks for the hint, but my comment was less about how I can avoid these links and rather about how this wiki presents itself to the casual reader per se. --MRA 12:33, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yeah, I'm fully aware I could remove them. That's besides the point really. I think it makes sense from a usability perspective to have links blue and underlined, and to have links to blank pages red, and no other colours.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:28, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * While I am not arguing in favor of the green links, I would like to point out that they do have blue underlines for created articles, and red underlines for missing articles. --Rainith 13:41, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * No harm, some benefit, echoes ANet's growing obsession with green items. I am fine with them. If the template is straight forward, and the effect is desirable, then why not? --Karlos 15:55, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Like Rainith pointed out they do show red or blue underlines, and how many green item templates are to red links anyway? I'm sure users find it helpful to have uniques picked out different from regular items &mdash; Skuld  16:13, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I understood your point perfectly, MRA and LordBiro. My suggestion was a short circuit to the only workable solution because I expected the strong showing of support for the green links, as seen above. If this were to be put to a vote, our side would lose soundly. Deldda Kcarc 17:37, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't agree that it does no harm. Personally I believe that valid links should be blue, underlined, not bold. It's what people expect to see. If links don't look like this as standard then it's confusing. We could change all links to a different style, but having some links using one style and some links using another style is a bad design choice.


 * Because the green colour is unusual within the GuildWiki itself you have to move your mouse over the text to clarify if it's a link or not. That is really poor interface design.


 * I don't think this is a case of "no harm, some benefit". There are plenty of items ArenaNet colour purple or light blue, we don't change our links to reflect that. Equally Henchmen are coloured green and friendly NPCs are coloured yellow-green and we don't use those colours for links. Enemies are coloured red, and we don't use red for links. It just seems like a bad idea to me.


 * I wouldn't even mind if an icon was used next to links to unique items, at least then the link itself would still be blue!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 18:29, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * P.S. Sorry if it feels like I'm picking on you today Karlos, I love you really :P
 * I would say get rid of the boldface but go ahead and leave it green. --Draygo Korvan 18:49, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think removing the boldface might be a good idea, but I still want the green to stay. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 19:03, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I am fine with removing it, fine with removing the bold and fine even with switching the template to an icon of a green weapon next to a regular blue link. I just think distinguishing the drops is cool and does no harm. --Karlos 19:11, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * The boldface is kinda blatant, but distinguishing green drops from normals is not a bad thing, don't you think? I think LordBiro has made a very good suggestion there. An icon to point them out would be less confusing than the formatting. --Nilles 19:42, 17 June 2006 (CDT)

Oh god no! Not more icons, keep the green text, unbold it if you want. --Rainith 20:13, 17 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Hope you like it Rainith ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:31, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I see the green template as straight to the point what the items are. In Guild Wars their text is always green and I would think users associate that color to those items. As for icons, I am in agreement with Rainith on this one, for the love of Pete, no. You have skill icons, what more do you need? :P --Gares Redstorm 07:42, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

Most of all, I don't understand why unique items should be so special to Guild Wars that they deserve a special representation on the technical layer of this wiki (the color of the hyperlinks). Of course, unique items are special compared to common items, but no more special than Boss mobs are special to common mobs, Elite Skills are special to common Skills or Elite Missions are special to usual storyline Missions, etc. Are we going to give all these special topics some special representation on the technical layer, or why are unique items so special special? (Ok, I'll stop using the word special now.)

BTW, LordBiro, the icon looks really nice, but I don't understand what is wrong with a simple listing like:


 * Items dropped
 * Thornbeard's Horned Bow (Unique)
 * Enslavement Stone
 * Dwarven Armor
 * Stone Summit Badge

as we have:


 * Skills used
 * Melandru's Arrows (Elite)
 * Precision Shot
 * Tiger's Fury
 * Troll Unguent

--MRA 15:02, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I have to say MRA you are right, I hadn't thought of it like that. I just tend to like icons :P but you make a valid point. If a lot of people would rather have icons then fair enough, at the moment I'm somewhere in between icons and plain text. But still 100% against bold and/or green links.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:10, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I also have to admit that I would prefer some lean icon like the one you proposed over the green text links. Taking server load into account, I just think some plain text comments like given in the example above would be wiser.
 * So what is going to happen about this issue? I also notice some strong support for the green links within the community. Is there going to be some vote or is it still too early for such a thing? --MRA 15:31, 18 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Vote sounds like the way to go, since strong support was voiced for each option. I'll add one at the top. --Xeeron 15:41, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

as super pretty as that icon is, i think it's not required. --Honorable Sarah 20:44, 18 June 2006 (CDT)

End of Vote?
So, it has been about a week with no new vote having been cast. When do we call this vote closed? And can I assume we decided against the green links, so I can start removing the templates? Yet, I'm kind of confused since far more people argued pro-green-links in the discussion than voted for it. --MRA 12:23, 27 June 2006 (CDT)
 * (Hmm ... seems like talking to myself? ;) So, I'll start removing the green tags within the next days. Please stop me in time if you disagree. --MRA 13:30, 29 June 2006 (CDT)
 * For now just change the green template to make the links normal, dont go editing the actual pages and removing the template =). --Draygo Korvan (Yap) 13:36, 29 June 2006 (CDT)