GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Armor

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 LordBiru: 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) LordBiru, 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)