GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Armor/Archive

Template brainstorm
I started to toss one together myself, but then realised I know nothing about wiki style formatting stuff. so we get text-talk first instead. ;p

upper right portion of article: two tall-rectangle images; one with a female character in a full suit of the armor with its default color; and a complimentary male image of the same. I'm thinking having these images on a colored background would be pleasing to the eye?!

Kind of outlined the rest of what I'm thinking at Talk:Armor_Types but I'll repost it here:

==Description== General text description + image of the armor in its -default coloration- ===Stats=== important things: armor factor, modifiers ===Usage=== This is the kind of environments/player styles it's good for ===Customisation=== Color combinations that look particular interesting? Possibly also something with runes ===NPCs that craft it=== * (begin list of npcs; link to the NPC) ===NPCs that will trade for it=== * (begin list of npcs; link to the NPC)

ALSO! As stated on that Talk page, the Armor:Whatever I came up with is bad! If Armor/Whatever is fine with people, switch to that; otherwise perhaps just name the articles  Armor Set, or something similar.

ALSO-ALSO! re: Stats: I'm not sure we really need a taxonomy box, if for no other reason than.. it'd be ridiculously huge, or there'd be too many. I think "armor set" pages are the way to organise this stuff. Specific instances of "this armor with this protection level" can be left to the individual NPC (collector, crafter) pages. Nunix 16:15, 20 Jun 2005 (EST)

More Brainstorming, and a little bit of doing
Ok, I read Nunix's ideas, and have begun to put something together.


 * 1) Pictures in top right
 * 2) * I agree with this completely.
 * 3) * LordBiru recommended using item-stub for this, so I have.
 * 4) * You can get pics for 20 of the armor types by creating a PvP. That's 40, when you include M/F.  I've uploaded all 40 of these now.
 * 5) * The rest of the armor pics will have to come from users. I'm unsure if user images posted to other fan forums would qualify as free to distribute.  Since the users posted them publicly, I think it may be ok to use these.
 * 6) Stats for the top right
 * 7) * I think we need to show which materials are used for building this type of armor
 * 8) * "Salvages into..." could be a useful stat.
 * 9) * "Sells for..." may be useful. It would be a range.
 * 10) Armor:Whatever for name of armor types
 * 11) * I agree with this. I think we should keep 's when they appear in the item names.
 * 12) * I am in the process of converting all the other pages to this type of name.
 * 13) * I created Armor:Class Headgear for each of the classes
 * 14) Armor Stats (on left side of page)
 * 15) * Personally, I see the purpose of armor pages to help people decide when to buy armor, and when to wait to the next city. So, I think stats for each city are very important.
 * 16) * Wyvern Armor had stats for 3 cities in a really neat mono-spaced text format. I kind of like it.
 * 17) * I've been playing around with the tables, to see if I can make it look better. See Armor:Elementalist Armor to see what I mean.  So far, I'm not impressed, but it can be improved.
 * 18) * I'd like to hear more inputs about which format to use. (Please message me!)
 * 19) Types of armor: standard, collector, 15k, fissure
 * 20) * My proposal on how to arrange all this stuff for each class:
 * 21) ** One category for all the headgear (Standard and Collector's)
 * 22) ** Separate categories for each type of armor (Standard and Collector's)
 * 23) ** Separate Categories for each of the types 15k armors and headgears (they look different then standard and collector's)
 * 24) ** One category for all the Fissure of Woe armor (these all look the same)
 * 25) * If we go with this proposal, we'll have about 15 armor sets listed for each class from the main armor page. (total 60)
 * 26) * If we go with this proposal, some of the sections suggested by Nunix won't be applicable in some cases. Other than those sections, I have no problem using what he has suggested.

I'm still kind of new to wiki too, so let me know if I'm doing something wrong. I'll probably end up doing most of the work for the armor, but I'm going to pause now for a little more input before I go to far to turn back.

10:49, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)

Just a quick opinion on each of the points: And that's everything I think. Hope it helps :) 21:08, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * 1) The pictures look ridiculous atm. The layout should probably be changed so 2 smaller pictures are displayed side by side, rather than 2 large ones on top of each other. Someone browsing in 800x600, which is a resolution we HAVE to cater for really, would have to scroll down over 2 pages to see everything in the taxo box.
 * 2) The 'salvages into' stats are already included in some items. The sells for range would be tricky. I think the user is better off seeing that the armor will cost him "100 fur squares, 15 feathers, 800 gold".
 * 3) Creating a namespace for a certain type of item is ridiculous, especially when its the only one that uses this standard. You don't see Mission:Fort Ranik or Item:Gwen's Flute, so what justification is there for Armor:Elementalist Armor? These names should all just use the armor name, e.g. Elementalist Armor, Ascetic's Armor etc.
 * 4) There has already been one complaint on Talk:Armor:Elementalist_Armor that the stats table is not visible in Opera. I think it's unnecessary. I appreciate what you've tried to do, I too started making fancy tables when I first started on the wiki, but they are more trouble than they are worth. Just create a plain table with the stats in, that's all people come here for. Forget about the colors completely. As for stats for each city, yes this is important, but please bear in mind that the Armor:Wyvern page is not using a "monospace font" it is wrapped in a pre tag, which while producing the same visual result is not the same thing. pre tags should only be used when the information inside them requires no formatting at all. The information on the Wyvern armor page should be rewritten to improve the semantics of the article.
 * 5) I don't really know how this should be organised. I would rather just see Ascetic's Armor with the information about each type included on that page.

In response to LordBiro: Thanks for all the help! 23:50, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * 1) I'll see what I can do to reduce the size of the pictures.  Alesia is 220 pixels, and the picture is only for reference (so people can identify which henchmen she is).  For armor, I had envisioned the picture as more of the focus of the article.  People pick armor based on how it looks.  So, that's why I used 250 pixels.
 * 2) I don't understand your salvage comment.  Should I leave that field in, or remove it?  The "cost" is just as tricky.  Gloves cost less then vests, and armor from ascalon is cheaper than from Droknar's.  So, we could have "3-75 cloth, 0-25 feather, and 50-1500g".  Since the cost is so complex, that's why we need a table.
 * 3) Justifications for "Armor:Something" format is found in Talk:Armor Types.  The other suggestion is to use the  "Armor/Something" format.  Personally, I don't care.  I just want to do whatever everyone else likes.
 * 4) I really think some table of some type is needed (whether it is an html table, or just pre tags.  I don't understand why you say that pre[formatted text] tags should not be used for formatted text.  I thought that was the idea.  What would you suggest?
 * 5) I fixed the table color stuff for opera.  It was my mistake.
 * 6) LordBiro, I'd actually like it if you just took one of the sets of armor, and showed me what you envision.

I've found the table kind of confusing. Maybe make another column on the left side to put the type into (leggings, body, boots, gloves)? Then the price, armor, materials, and other mods would go into a single, larger cell for each. Here's a simple, if ugly, example of what I mean: This is intentionally minimally formatted since I'm lazy. I tried to avoid tables within tables, but maybe it would help to color the background of some of the text, I guess. --Fyren 04:30, 9 Jul 2005 (EST)

It seems you've changed the order of the list so I'll just use bullets :)
 * Well, I dont personally buy armor based on how it looks. If thats why you buy armor then you can always click on the small picture to see the bigger picture. I mean, I can understand some people just wanting to buy good looking armor (obviously this is the case with the 15k armor, afaik), but if they aren't bothered about how the armor looks then they wont care too much about the picture. Also, just because an article exists doesn't mean it sets a precedent or anything, the Alesia article picture is too big imo too :P But let me point out this is in MY opinion! I'm not the owner of this Wiki, no one is. Well maybe gravewit is, but he's not the owner of the content. We have to come to democratic decisions.
 * Sorry, I may have misunderstood your original point 2, I mean I'm certain that the salvages into template already exists in some form for items in general, and is already used on most armor pages, so I didn't think there was any need to discuss it further.
 * Well, there is an ongoing discussion over this. And it is an ongoing discussion. I noticed you have changed many of the Armor pages based on my opinion (and perhaps others). Plenty of people have disagreed with me! Please don't go and change things if you don't agree unless there is a group consensus! I don't want you to think that just because I, or anyone else says that "this is the way it must be done", then that is how it must be done, rather the decision should be discussed first. Although I'm not complaining too much since it's a change that I favour :P
 * I agree, some type of table is needed, I'm not against that. I do think that the coloured table is unnecessarily over-styled, although the information it contains is very useful. I do think it might be better to have the different armor classes (head, arms, body etc.) along the top and the locations along the side, since there are potentially more locations than there are classes (not sure of my terminology there). This would reduce the need for using colspan to have 'sub-headings' of sorts in the table.
 * I am only against using the pre tag in this case because the information can be better represented in a table. My criticism was more pedantic than I'd realised :) sorry! Really pre is not suitable for displaying information in this way.
 * I prefer Fyren's suggestion, although I would like to see it reversed if you like (locations along the side, as explained earlier). So it would look as shown after this list.
 * My name is LordBiro, like the pen. :P

Looking at my initial reply I seem a bit rude, sorry if I came across that way! 07:04, 9 Jul 2005 (EST)

Ok, my turn to respond again :) I'm finaly begininng to like the way this looks! 09:43, 9 Jul 2005 (EST)
 * Sorry about the name typo. Fixed now.  Sorry, also about changing the order of bullets
 * I tried the side-by-side pictures. It looks good!  Unfortunately, I had to give up on the item templates, since now I need 2 columns.
 * I scrapped all the salvage/NPC value stuff from the top-right listing. I replaced with the stats that do seem relevent.
 * Your table: !!WINNER!!. I think that it still could use colors, just not as vibrant as I did before.  Maybe just grey and light blue, to help make it more readable.  But, I'll leave it out for now.
 * "Armor:something" format: I scrapped this too.  I moved all the pages.
 * I put all of this together for Pyromancer's Armor. Let me know what you think.

That does look much better Uigrad :) My only concern now is that the wiki code inside the article is a bit messy. I notice you are using a forced row to create the profession icon, this should really be part of the template as it is with skills, see Unyielding Aura (our first most complete skill) as an example :) There are some otehr improvements to the use of templates that I'll try out, and post back here when I have. But otherwise good work :) Looks quite nice, and the minimal styling on the table looks great to me ;) 21:04, 9 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I've altered Pyromancer's Armor slightly to make better use of templates. What do you guys think? If everyone agrees I think we've ironed out most of the issues and can start writing out the standards. My only concern is that bonuses could have lots of s in it, but that's not too bad really.  21:48, 9 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Looks good. I haven't written the standards yet, (not sure where they go), but I did all the elemental armors except for the headgear and fissure armor.  I'm also almost done with the monk armors.  06:38, 10 Jul 2005 (EST)

We also need to make up pages for the different crafter NPCs. I don't think it's worth making a new "Style&Formatting page", so I'm just writing it here. I completed the crafter in Stingray Strand. Is there anything else the page should include? 06:38, 10 Jul 2005 (EST)

1.5k/15k/etc. armor
I don't know if you've noticed but the cost of the Ascetic's Armor at Droknar's Forge is only 800 gold. Should it still be classed as 1.5k armor? And the special Ascetic's is also less than 15k, but I can't remember how much... 22:57, 10 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * The ascetic 15k armor costs 8k per piece. I state that "interesting fact" both on the Ascetic's Armor 15k page and in Category:15k Armor.  When I took standardized tests in high school, I was required to use a "lead pencil", even it's been known that graphite is not a type of lead for 220 years.  And, at most grocery stores, eggs are found in the dairy aisle, even though they clearly are not made of milk.  I think the categorical reference is fine, even if not technically correct.  00:05, 11 Jul 2005 (EST)

Personally, if I could, I would have everyone refer to pencils properly, and make sure eggs went with the meat. On some sites they refer to the armor as 'Ascended Armor' and 'Fissure Armor'. Wouldn't this be a better solution? 03:26, 11 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Ok, so you would call 1.5k armor "Ascended Armor", which isn't entirely accurate, because a lot of people rush to Droknar's to get it. I would prefer calling it "Droknar's Armor".  "Fissure Armor" would continue to keep the same name.  What would you call 15k (non-fissure) armor?  All I can think of is "High-detail armor" or "Elite Armor".  I suppose it could be subdivided into two categories: "Citadel Armor" and "Grotto Armor".  No-one really likes calling it '15k armor', but there's not really any good alternatives.  05:53, 11 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Ok, that is a better point Uigrad :) I'll concede that unless we name armor by their location then no name would be wholly accurate. And that subdividing by location would produce unnecessarily small groups of armor. So yeah, 1.5k and 15k etc. is ok :) 08:45, 11 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Anet refers to the 15k and Fissure armors as "Ascended Armor" and "Obsidian Armor" respectively. -PanSola 21:10, 17 October 2005 (EST)


 * While this is a pretty old discussion, the reason we ended up not using "ascended," at least, was that no one actually uses that term. --Fyren 02:30, 18 October 2005 (EST)

New skill boxES
The old syntax is SOOOO ugly, I merged all of them into a single template, and tweaked it slightly. This is one of the situations where I feel like the change doesn't need to go through a vote.

That said, I am proposing a NEW skill box, not this new one you are looking at, but a differently layed out one. See User:PanSola/Enchanter%27s_Armor for how it looks.

Again it is a horizontally-inclined box. It does NOT suffer the same penalty that landscape skill boxes have, namely the text reading width being too wide. In fact, the text reading area remains the same. The ONLY difference is that screnshots are moved next to, instead of on top of, the actual info we are providing.

Since armor articles typically have enough sections to start with a TOC, and always have a TOC section, this box makes better space efficiency than the original one. And it reduces the chance of overlapping with the trading/crafting information tables, since it's a lot shorter.

I am soliciting feedback on this Armor box2 template. I also don't feel like bothering with a vote, but if ppl think there should be one, set one up. -PanSola 15:44, 15 March 2006 (CST)


 * Here is User:PanSola/Stylish_Armor, showing how the box looks when there are two different armor art. Not as elegant as I'd liked, but still beats current system IMHO (users don't have to scroll a full page down to read info and the collector table no longer look so crammed). -PanSola 15:54, 15 March 2006 (CST)

I'm gonna ditch the Armor box 2 idea. Proposing Armor box 3 next weekend. -PanSola 18:54, 16 March 2006 (CST)

Armor box 3

 * Source code: User:PanSola/Armor box3
 * Examples:
 * User:PanSola/Enchanter's Armor AB3
 * User:PanSola/Stylish Armor AB3

The original pictures uploaded for each armor will still be used, just relocated to teh gallery. This way the info box remains compact, and the textual info are actually easy to find and to read (as opposed to needing to scroll down). The shorter box also reduces overlapping/crowding problems with other tables at low resolutions.

This is such an unimportant change that I'm not going to bother with a vote. A lack of opposition implies consensus. -SolaPan 11:48, 22 March 2006 (CST)
 * I actually like that better, that way you get both the icons and the actual armor picture. --Rainith 11:56, 22 March 2006 (CST)
 * Additionally, we can get the icons without actually buying the armor (though I prefer the background effect from the equipped view). -SolaPan 12:09, 22 March 2006 (CST)
 * I think this is much better too. Also solves the problem that the pictures almost always come in different sizes and proportion. -Thundergrace 21:53, 23 March 2006 (CST)

Since it's been over two weeks from the most recent feedback, and there are only positive and no negative feedbacks, I'm implementing the changes now. -SolaPan 23:04, 4 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I didn't realise this discussion was going on :) Would you mind if I created some icons to replace the male and female characters that are used? They don't show up very well at all on my computer. 21:43, 5 April 2006 (CDT)


 * I think that would be a good idea, I just checked and if you hadn't mentioned it, I wouldn't have noticed the characters myself. --Rainith 01:07, 6 April 2006 (CDT)


 * yeah go ahead. It shows up much better on Opera than on Firefox. -SolaPan 03:40, 6 April 2006 (CDT)