Template talk:Armor art box

Redesign?
I don't feel very strongly about this at all, but...

Looking around the armor section shows rather poor compliance with the inventory icons. Many armors just have ugly broken links there. Given that there was recently a move to get rid of icon/stat images for weapons, should we maybe do the same for armor? I'm not really clear on what purpose these things serve at the moment...

Hmm, okay, here's one: helping folks know what's up when they're buying them.

But, anyway, the question remains: do the little mini icons truly serve a purpose or should they be removed? &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 17:37, 7 June 2006 (CDT) )
 * Actually, I like having the icons; and, honestly, I feel the inventory icons for all items - weapons, crafting materials, etc - serve a useful purpose in helping the user cross-reference from their in-game inventories over to the Wiki. I know there was a recent move to get away from them for weapons, but I'm not really sure why (which brings up the stats image - which I still feel was useful to help ensure no one enters bogus text stats, as it's now harder to be certain that a change is legitimate or vandalism ... but I digress). --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 17:48, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * AFAIK, there was not a real push to get rid of the icons, it was more to get rid of the stats images. Most, if not all, of the conversation was in Talk:Canthan unique items list, there is no mention of the icons there.  As for these icons, I say keep them.  --Rainith 20:21, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks for the responses. I don't really want to axe them, but I wanted to make sure there was still logic behind what we were doing, as certain templates and crusades have gotten randomly carried away in the past. Apparently, there is logic in the system! Rock on. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:19, 7 June 2006 (CDT) )

Icons
"Please use the art corresponding to the PvP armor" Huh? No? This is used on the armor art pages, then we should use the arts own icons? ― Stylva 08:38, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Questions
Is there a reason there is still type and art as options? Most of the function specific armor is no longer function specific. Wouldn't it make sense to just have it listed as an art type, even if it is currently restricted to one associated function?

I was also rethinking the idea to get rid of the armor icons. I see no use for them and most of the time they aren't even there. If a person needs to cross-reference their inventory over to the Wiki isn't the name enough for that? I personally have never thought to compare the inventory pictures, and in fact, despite the armor area being the one I use the Wiki for most, have never actually used the icons for any reason.

Lastly the categories that the pages get added to automatically may have been misnamed according to ULC. For example "Mesmer Luxon Armor" is an item. "Luxon Armor" as a type should really be "Luxon armor" correct? Yet the category is named "Luxon Armor". Stylva made a good point on my armor project talk page about this.

Please visit User:Bexor/Armor Project if you want to see what I am working on in regards to armor style and formatting or if you have any ideas to share! - BeXoR   11:59, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes
We want to implement this: User:Aratak/Sandbox. We need approval before it's done. See talk page. - BeXoR   13:19, 10 January 2007 (CST)
 * Looks good to me. Removing the inventory icons is a great idea. I always wondered why they were there. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2007 (CST)
 * + we get rid of the awfull notice at the bottom and the red links on most armor pages. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Campaign
The only proper inputs here are proph/factions/nf right? I see some armor has "Core" (most incorrectly). BTW is pvp armors now core or is obsidian the only true core armor? The "needs icons" output is still there btw. - BeXoR   12:42, 16 January 2007 (CST)
 * Is there a reason campaign2 gets put before campaign? Correct options for campaign should be "Prophecies", "Factions", "Nightfall" or "Core" in response to my earlier question. And PVP doesn't count as core. In case anyone else sees that and is wondering. - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 10:15, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * It was for the structure. All the page have campaing already on it.  It's easier and smaller in the code to make it add campaign2 in front.  So it appears like "campaign2" and "campaign".  If there is 3 it would look like "campaign3", "campaign2" and "campaign".  Too keep a good format in english it would be harder to code it the other way.  I do see that you would expect prophecies before the other one but since there is very little armor that need 2 campaign that I tough it would be easier to just change them then change all the other one.  Just have to make a note maybe that if there is more then one always keep prophecies last.  I don't think theire is a 3 campaign armor yet, so maybe I could change it to only 2 parameters, then the "and" wouldn't matter since theire can be only 2, it would always be in the middle.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  10:33, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * Sorry, I edited the template before reading this. It now lists campaign before campaign2, but it includes no "and". Revert if you find it necessary. &mdash; Stylva  (talk)(contribs) 10:36, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * Well english ain't my cup of tea, so an english person would be better fit to judge this.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  10:37, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * If it is something complicated then it doesnt matter. I was just wondering. I instead put Prophecies as campaign2 and Factions as campaign and it turns out fine on the page! - BeXoR  [[Image:Bexor.png]] 12:04, 19 January 2007 (CST)
 * Well better revert Stylva's work then.&mdash; ├ A ratak ┤  12:05, 19 January 2007 (CST)