GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Collectors

About the formatting of this article itself, don't use first level headings (single equals) and try not to ever start an article with a header. Intro text for an article should sit by itself under no heading and show up before the default placement of the TOC. --Fyren 21:24, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Sorry I copied format from GuildWiki:Style and formatting/NPCs. - BeXoR 21:33, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Could fix it there, too, heh. --Fyren 21:39, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Collectors

Some talk concerning this article can be found here: User_talk:Bexor/Collectors. One question that still remains: It is generally standard to link to an item only once in a page. In Collector subsections (the table part) things get linked every time they appear. Is that fine to happen there or should we think of some way to limit the over-linkage.? Perhaps include a notice to say "Link to associated attributes only once". I can't decide so I just left it the way it was before. If you have an opinion please post!'

Personally I think we should link every time. Linking every use of a term in a paragraph of normal text is silly, but in a table of information it's just fine. --NieA7 17:36, 24 December 2006 (CST)

I personally think it looks better when all attributes are linked, but then I knew that rule was floating around so I wasnt sure if we should reconsider it. I saw someone that made a table and only linked the name once. It was interesting. I suppose you could support the argument for keeping them by saying if someone reads a table they look across the row in a line, and don't scan the other rows, therefore missing other links. - BeXoR 07:39, 25 December 2006 (CST)

Value

I've seen some collector tables with the value of each item listed at the end. Is this something everyone should be doing? - BeXoR 10:30, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Collector weapons pages

I have drafted a proposal for a possible standardization of the collector weapons pages on my user page. I'd like some feedback on the ideas so I can refine them a bit, and perhaps we as a community can come up with a very good idea and maximize the usefulness of these pages. -- IzzionSona 10:44, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I don't really have an opinion on that stuff, but maybe posting on the community portal will get you some more traffic. And also looking to see contributors to the existing pages and post on their talk pages. - BeXoR 11:17, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I must warn you, I don't think anyone takes notice of this talk page. :P Put a copy of this on GuildWiki talk:Community Portal - BeXoR 12:02, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I do take notice actually, since I have most of the S&F pages watched :p IzzionSona, the reason most of the pages have little consistency is mainly because they were worked on by different people, mostly by people who are interested only for that profession. I think your idea is sound, and yes, grouping by type feels more useful, so feel free to try and standardise them. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 19:15, 16 January 2007 (CST)

One thing I forgot to mention: if you have a better idea for the "=>" to link to collectors, feel free to discuss it. I really didn't like that "=>" thingy as I feel it's not intuitive. I'd rather have the collector name in parenthesis rather than that symbol. Or at least add a legend about it. --Ab.Er.Rant (msg Aberrant80) 19:22, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I guess I went for the "=>" thingy (the HTML code is &-rArr; with the - removed) because that is what is currently in use on the Elite skill pages and it seemed to be fairly effective there. If we go with collectors' names in parenthesis, would that make the tables too unwieldy for people on small resolutions? (I'm thinking 1024 and smaller) -- IzzionSona 19:40, 16 January 2007 (CST)