Talk:Warrior armor

What's with the gibberish at the top of this page? --Karlos 19:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's for the table in Armor Types, cuz I was rearranging the order and don't want to mess up the color with the table, I included them in the module. I tried verious ways (see history for Armor Types/Mesmer probably) to incorporate the gibberish into a inner table, but it just messes up formatting on the main Armor Types page, even though the module's own page looks nice -PanSola 19:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The link to wyvern armor is broken. http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Wyvern_Armor -Only a Shadow
 * Hun? the link looks fine to me.-PanSola 14:19, 24 April 2006 (CDT)

I find this table highly confusing. Going to edit it to make it more readable. - Lagg
 * You are welcome to try. I've been trying to find the best way to present the info since October, and have seen many others made attempts but simply create more confusion and/or ambiguity than they solved. -PanSola 08:11, 11 May 2006 (CDT)

While all the information is here, it doesn't help much when you're trying to decide what armor you want to wear at endgame [I mean, I know I want one piece of either knights or ascalon armor, but I'm not sure what other armor set I want, and which piece would fit best in with them]

Is the top note with "Basic warrior armor provides..." really necessary? In my opinion, the table would be more readable if the true armorlevel was to be read out of it. But maybe this table should apply to all armorlevels, not only max armorlevel? Then maybe the wording of the top note should be considered... - Stylva 01:16, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Because the table is meant to apply to all armor levels, and not max armor levels, that's why the note on the top is worded the way it is... - 01:32, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I still find it confusing, but it may be the best way to write it. - Stylva 02:05, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Oh, just saw the edit done to the top note, without the "exception". No problems there, sorry for interfering =P - Stylva 02:06, 21 June 2006 (CDT)
 * No worries. Without your comment, the added "exception" that caused your confusion might go unnoticed for quite a while longer, so thanks (-: - 02:14, 21 June 2006 (CDT)

Picture wrong for Kurzick
The picture is wrong for the male Kurzick armor and is wrong for every page of warrior armor. The image calls it undyed but it is not. It is, in fact, dyed silver. I suggest using the male armor on the page Kurzick Armor and wonder why that was not used to begin with in support of consistency... also, it's the only correct one. - 12.218.6.223 13:30, 2 September 2006 (CDT)