GuildWiki

GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

READ MORE

GuildWiki
Advertisement
Archive

Archives


  1. Archive 1

Functions[]

My opinion on function articles is that they should be removed, all of them. And then reworked into something going with the insignias and their names. At the moment they are very uninformative, since they are quite confusing, with all the different names. If you take a look at Monk armor at the function section, I would like to move the Insignia names to the "Name" column and put the names already there under PvE name variants or something like that. And then tidy up the Insignia table so it nicely shows what function names corresponds to that Insignia function. I hope you understand what I mean, I just got home from New Years celebrating and I have a lot to read and consider atm ;) — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 15:04, 2 January 2007 (CST)

I was thinking the same thing. Now that we have insignias it does seem a bit silly that all the functions are spread out. Because now the functions are the main name for each stat type. The only problem I can think of is when the insignias cross professions, though it can probably be worked around. It would probably just require a link to each armor type that can be crafted with those stats (a lot of links in some cases).
Perhaps for example, Survivor insignia. It would list what it does. And then have a section for use or whatever. For each profession it would need to list campaigns and what art the insignia/function is available on. So for Prophecies whichever armor was + health. For factions, it can be used in all, so maybe link to a page that has just factions armor. For nightfall the same.
I don't think the images are very useful on the insignia pages, because they are to me, very confusing. I switch between windows for an art and a function and get confused because they both have heaps of pictures. I think it should just contain text links. - BeXoR Bexor.png 15:41, 2 January 2007 (CST)
I see your point.. and.. I agree. Aside from being confusing, they are a (sorry about the words) HELL to update and keep in nice shape. Away with images fron function, if I'm to decide. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 15:46, 2 January 2007 (CST)
I think replacing armor "functions" with insignia is a great idea, although a lot of work. Something to remember is what PanSola suggested for the armor crafters (see Alemeth compared to Samuka). Each piece of armor should have 2 links for Prophecies (art and function/insignia), 1 link for Nightfall (art) and 1 link (or 2?) for Factions. Perhaps that helps to decide what should be in function / insignia pages. Sorry to (literally) jump in the middle of the discussion. --Glynnis (talk|contr) 13:32, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Hmm... I'm not sure my comment was clear. Do some examples help? --Glynnis (talk|contr) 14:36, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Okay at the moment I am not thinking straight (its 6am and I've been up all night). This is what I propose to do:
Basically there are only a certain number of functions in the game. Some of them have multiple names like with dreadnoughts and dragon and wyvern and whatever. Some are cross profession (like +health ones) and some are profession specific (like stonefist or whatever).
I say we make one page for each function, and combine the functions and insignia details onto this one page. I also propose that the functions are named after the insignias.
So for example, you have Survivor insignia. The page would be named after that and it would have headings for campaigns and subheadings for each profession. Under each profession would be the corresponding function name (like for Warrior it's called Berserker's and Assassins it's called Valkyrie's) with links to all the art pages that you can buy with this function. So under Prophecies it would link to nothing afaik, Factions would just link to a quick reference for Factions armors, cause you can get it everywhere, and Nightfall the same.
I also propose that these function pages are without images, and as many have agreed with me, because it becomes redundant to have the armor galleries as well. Plus the pages end up looking like CRAP with all the aquisition tables and image tables.
So the goal of this would be to make the functions less confusing. I personally don't think dreadnought's insignia and dragon armor are different at all, so why shouldn't they be combined?
How does this sound so far? I can mock up a few pages soon, but I want to mostly finish the art gallery s & f first. :)
How would this get referenced in a gallery article though, I wonder. Under uses, say for example, Assassin armor, when it can have the +health thing would you make the function in the box "Valkyrie's" and then link to "Survivor Armor"? I also don't know if function is the best word for this, because it's not an in game term. - BeXoR Bexor.png 14:56, 4 January 2007 (CST)
I agree. /cheer. Replace the idea (and even word?) "functions" with insignia. Create only one function page per insignia (like "Survivor insignia"). On each function page, include many armor arts and profs. No pictures on function pages.
The assassin "Valkyrie's Armor" page could be a redirect to "Survivor insignia", which says that survivor insignia is available on Valkyrie's Armor for the assassin with Shing Jea, Canthan,... art. This is similar for necro "Revenant's Armor".
One other thing to think about: what do we call the functions of headgear? Insignia?
Don't let me distract you from the art stuff. And I hope you're getting some sleep now. :) --Glynnis (talk|contr) 16:24, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Thank you for summarising my ramblings so well! I think we would need to come up with another term for functions though, like "built-in" insignia (I'm sure I've seen it written somewhere but I can't remember the term they used). That would separate it from the actual item "insignia". That would solve the problem with the headgear naming too.
And don't worry about distracting me. They tend to go hand in hand. There are parts I can't do on the art guide til we have this sorted out anyway! And no, no sleep for me! I'm nocturnal. >:) - BeXoR Bexor.png 17:30, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Inherent insignia? Specify that it cannot be removed or changed? - BeXoR Bexor.png 17:34, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Permanent insignia? As in, "permanent insignia cannot be salvaged or replaced". --Glynnis (talk|contr) 13:14, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Well inherent is a term already being used on the wiki, and I prefer that as it suits better imo. As long as we specify on the page with a note that says inherent insignias cannot be salvaged or replaced then it should be fine. - BeXoR Bexor.png 13:40, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Too many indents, left column now. :) Okay, I updated the notes on my example armor crafter tables using "inherent insignia". Is that what you were thinking? I also searched the Nightfall manual and it doesn't even use the word insignia. o_O Google-searching the Guild Wars site lead me to Arming Yourself and Donning Armor. Headgear have insignias. Hooray! --Glynnis (talk|contr) 13:54, 5 January 2007 (CST)
I like inherent, and I also agree with removing the images from the function page. I was also about to suggest that something like Valkyrie's Armor would be a redirect to Survivor Insignia, so I support that. I do like the chart on the Insignia page at the top, describing the similar functions. I am ALL for this project. - Lord Ehzed 14:09, 5 January 2007 (CST)
The headgear thing is confusing. Cause they have the +1, but you can apply an insignia too right? For instance you have Glad's helm which is tactics +1 and the en +1 right? Maybe they have changed it but you can replicate it with elonian armor with glads insignia and attribute is inherent. Maybe have it listed underneath as well? Looks good though.
And I'm glad to see people are agreeing with what we're trying to do! :) - BeXoR Bexor.png 14:12, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Yes, you are correct. Headgear can have Attribute +1, an insignia and a rune. Nightfall headgear comes with an inherent insignia (like Curses +1) and an empty slot for normal insignia (like Survivor). Now that I think about it, this is similar to body armor. All necro chest armor comes with Energy +5. What is that called? --Glynnis (talk|contr) 15:07, 5 January 2007 (CST)
"Basic Necromancer armor provides +10 energy, +2 energy regeneration, and up to 60 armor." I would say it would be similar to that, apart from the fact that you can buy super basic armor with no attribute point. Why'd they have to make things so complicated. :P - BeXoR Bexor.png 15:11, 5 January 2007 (CST)
It's complicated so we can have all this fun getting it sorted. ;) I try to think of things from Samuka's point of view... "Winter sure is long this year. Maybe I should craft myself a coat." Oh wait, perhaps that's a bit much.
Here is my current idea. Every piece of armor has "base stats". On headger, Attribute +1 is part of the base stats. Some armor have inherent insignia, some have an empty slot for insignia and some have no insignia. See my example page again, now with monk armor! --Glynnis (talk|contr) 04:28, 6 January 2007 (CST)
I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there! - BeXoR Bexor.png 09:24, 6 January 2007 (CST)
Great! Let me know how I can help with the function pages when you're ready. --Glynnis (talk|contr) 16:28, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Votes[]

I don't know if you have noted the votes of mine that you may already know, but I will post my votes anyway.

  • Remove icon images from art box - For
  • Remove images from function articles - I have other opinions on function articles here (see above), so no opinion
  • Get rid of alternating grey and white backgrounds in crafting tables - Against. IMO, it makes it easier to read.
  • Collector table underneath crafting table in acquisition - For. It will look better, I changed my mind :P
  • Rename of categories from "X Armor" to "X armor" - For

Stylva (talk)(contribs) 15:05, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Thank you! :D I will make that voting section a little clearer. :) - BeXoR Bexor.png 15:16, 2 January 2007 (CST)
I feel tired today, so I'll only give a vote about what you asked me about on my talk page. I've not got another example than armor pages where several colours are used in a table, but I wished there was. In my opinion tables get very difficult to read without those. I can't decide if it's worse in Internet Explorer or in Mozilla FireFox, but I do not like it. Although, the reason I changed back the Mesmer Ascalon Armor article is that I didn't know about what you said and I want all armor pages to look as alike as possible.
My vote: Keep the grey and white backgrounds in the crafting tables.
Helena Ranger-icon-small.png 16:27, 2 January 2007 (CST)
Heh. I'll copy-paste Stylva's list, and add my response.
  • Remove icon images from art box - Dunno what those are.
  • Remove images from function articles - For. It's redundant if we have an (art) page for it.
  • Get rid of alternating grey and white backgrounds in crafting tables - Against. Same reason as Stylva.
  • Collector table underneath crafting table in acquisition - Meh. Don't care either way, I almost never get Collector armor...
  • Rename of categories from "X Armor" to "X armor" - For
-Auron My Talk 22:52, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Templates[]

I am currently educating myself on template making. Do people think it would be convenient with a template for the crafting tables? If so, someone expert on templates could make it if they have time, but I will make a try in my namespace over the next few days. Remember, I'm a newbie on templates, so it will take time. I think it would make it alot easier for everyone if there was a template. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 16:05, 2 January 2007 (CST)

I can barely use templates, let alone make them, lol. I'm probably not the best person to ask, but I think it would be a great idea. I'm not sure who would be a good choice to ask about it. Perhaps PanSola, as he was a major contributor to the armor art box. - BeXoR Bexor.png 16:20, 2 January 2007 (CST)
Template aren't very hard. the problem I see would be make it easy to edit. We would end up with a lot of parameters since some armor have many place to craft them, many differents requirement in material and tat numbres change from on armor to another. It can be done but not sure if its that convieniant.—├ Aratak 16:28, 2 January 2007 (CST)
I suppose any template that would allow that much customization would just be like copying and pasting lines of the table and filling the correct information in anyway. - BeXoR Bexor.png 16:35, 2 January 2007 (CST)
Actualy no, the table would have to be created separatly with the template refering to them. Its a lot of trouble at the moment to create a table in wikicode inside a template. So if we want to create one table it would be easy but to attach a new row is hard since the template see the pipe in the table as a pipe for her to stop reading. I would have to check if we can have spare row in a table that do not show with a certain parameters.—├ Aratak 16:39, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Dyed[]

Do you think we need dyed component view? I just relised some armors you cant see all the effects when the set is worn at once (eg Mesmer Hose). - BeXoR Bexor.png 07:45, 3 January 2007 (CST)

I think colorable areas should always be component view, preferably almost the same pictures and poses as they are in the undyed component view. That way, it's more visible. Mostly you dont need to see the whole armor dyed to get the picture, just one piece. Also, component is great for those only buying parts of the armor, for example. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 08:43, 3 January 2007 (CST)
Well think you just need an idea how dye affect the armor and most piece that you can't see with the full armor on wouldnt be seen with other armor set too. I think that the simplest stuff is best.—├ Aratak 09:33, 3 January 2007 (CST)
I'll explain my view a little more. If we begin to do that we will end up with a piece by piece gallery. That will even be harder for formating and size, a pain for normal user to do ( they don't even try to have a plain background so I doubt that this much rule will make them help us) and just end up with too big articles that don't have much value.—├ Aratak 09:40, 3 January 2007 (CST)
I like the component view very much. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2007 (CST)
Sure, its more info but I'm just afraid we will end up over doing it. If we do that why not a both side, back, front, side with different angle, top view and view from below ;) ok maybe I'm seying this to big but if we are looking to have a standard most component vary a lot in size it woul would be a lot of trouble. I just think thing should stay simple. —├ Aratak 09:54, 3 January 2007 (CST)
Well my goal was to make the articles more concise. At the moment there are ones with overview without helm, overview with helm, component view, dyed overview, dyed component view, headpiece and dyed headpiece. Frankly I think it's going a bit too far.
If we do add in this, it is liable to make the pages a lot longer and more complicated. Generally if a piece of armor isn't visible when all are equipped, in 80% of cases that won't matter because it wont be shown. But there are people who, for instance, buy mesmer canthan hose to go with their 15k rogues top. But in that case, wouldn't the dyed canthan picture be reference enough to which parts of the armor dyed and how the dyed affects it?
I also don't trust most users to submit images that are high enough quality or follow the guidelines that are set out. I see people breaking them everyday. I am quite happy to go through nearly all of the armor and take new screenshots, apart from the prestige armors which I just can't afford (I don't really have much money and paying 500g for dye for just 1 set is bad enough as it is). But before I start that I want to know exactly what images are going to be required for the galleries.
So to be a little more concise, I think that we shouldn't have dyed component view. I think that the galleries are there to document the art, not dye effects, and what we already have is enough. It is easy enough for people to buy the cheap versions of armor and test dye on it with the preview window if it is that important to them. - BeXoR Bexor.png 10:11, 3 January 2007 (CST)
That is true, with the new dye preview it's alot easier to try out dye. Before, the "colorable areas" was much more important to show what kind of material the armor was and how they dye would affect different parts of the armor. If we have a good, undyed component view, we probably wont need a dyed component view also. But still, I would like it, but I see reasons not to have it. To take armor pictures is a very big hassle just as it is now. The style and formatting guide is NOT good linked in a way that helps people find the guidelines on armor screenies. And personally I have problems with making good pictures with the right width and height, I simply don't know how to, my Photoshop don't want to work with me all the time. And, if you don't even have Photoshop (or similar) but just Paint, I can just imagine how hard it is to make it an exact pixelwidth. Oh.. going off-topic here. But my point is, the less pictures that needs to be taken, the better for the contributors. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 10:27, 3 January 2007 (CST)
A good point. A simple overview of the dyed set from front back and possibly sides is enough. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Crafting box template[]

Here are my first attempts on making a crafting box template. I know it should be possible to put in more rows, that doesnt show if they are not specified, but I haven't figured it out yet. And I can't get the Cost-template to work with me yet. Here are the template and the outputStylva (talk)(contribs) 07:24, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Cost-template is working in my template now *happy* — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 07:38, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Awesome! It's looking very good so far. :) You've certainly accomplished a lot already. :) - BeXoR Bexor.png 09:56, 4 January 2007 (CST)
The #if's are taking over my world... ;)
Some mroe updates, if someone is interested. Still working on putting in ability for a third material, and for second and third material on different headgear costs. I'm considering not counting headgear in the total column if it's different materials than the other parts. The reason is mainly Monk Ascended Luxon Armor and the likes, because I have no good way to calculate all the jade together, but not the other materials.
And please, if someone has an idea on how to easily tell the template how many rows should be included and how to format them, enlighten me! — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 10:57, 4 January 2007 (CST)
The only way I know to add rows in a template is to hide them inside another template. Then you can use #if and refer to the template.—├ Aratak 11:47, 4 January 2007 (CST)
I've been able to hide columns inside the table with #ifeq. Is this not possible to do with rows then, you say? It would involve ALOT of if's, but if it works with rows, I think I could sort it out. But no one else will be able to edit my template xD — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 11:52, 4 January 2007 (CST)
A #switch set with numbers of row could work but that would be HUGE with each switch with is full table. Or use a loop template that will call a simple template with one row.—├ Aratak 12:00, 4 January 2007 (CST)
How do you make a template call another template? I didn't get that to work with the Template:Cost but that is maybe because it requires input values? (I wanted those to be parameters, so I wrote {{Cost|{{{cost}}}}}, which didn't work out as I thought)
I'm seriously considering the #switch thing, since it's the one I understand at the moment. It's no big deal for me it if get's huge, but maybe it's a problem for others, maintaining the wiki. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 12:30, 4 January 2007 (CST)
I just check and cost work like it should. When you save the template it will react badly but when use with a value it shows correclty.—├ Aratak 18:37, 4 January 2007 (CST)
Ah, ok. Thank you! — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 18:43, 4 January 2007 (CST)

I've been thinking about this template, that it might get too big to handle for new users. The maximum table I have seen is 5 rows, which would result in 5 different materialcost-parameters and 5 different materialname parameters, and that's if there only one material used for crafting, which there mostly isnt. So it will involve a huge amount of parameters. Of course all of it can be explained in the template page, but the question is if it's making our lives easier or harder. What do you think? Maybe Aratak have a nicer solution that doesnt include so many parameters? Anyway, I'm up for finishing the template if you want it, but it will take time. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 19:21, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Hehe. If you look at template a little up here, I was pretty much against this from the start. If at least they would use all the same material for each armor lvl but they don't. So sorry this is beyon my skills and I don't see anyway to make it simpler. The table arn't to much to edit anyway :)—├ Aratak 19:28, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Well it's compltely voluntary for you to keep going with it. I can just put the ordinary table in the s & f until you complete it. Or we can do that if you think the template isn't going anywhere.
Basically once the crafting table is in, and armor art box is finished, we're done, apart from the category issue and collector/trading tables (which are a mess and I will work on that bit in a couple of hours probably). - BeXoR Bexor.png 19:31, 5 January 2007 (CST)
What is missing in the art box and what is the category issue?—├ Aratak 19:39, 5 January 2007 (CST)
The template-project is on ice, it will be too hard for others to edit in it's current state. I will continue working on it, but put in the table format instead until I find a solution that is ok. I still hate the tables, but there's not much to do about it I guess.
Art box needs to address that there can be two campaigns for an art, plus icons maybe should be removed. And the category issue is the one about Category:Luxon Armor or Category:Luxon armor I think. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 19:59, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Well the campaign parameter can contain more then one word. Or I could put a switch to inclued what campaign is inlued. Material work like that for the WeaponInfo box.—├ Aratak 20:02, 5 January 2007 (CST)
The existing one cant handle multiple campaigns, as it will categorize wrong. Maybe the one you did can handle it, but then you need to tell me how to get it to properly link both campaigns if I put in "campaign = Prophecies & Factions". — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 20:11, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Ok didn't check that it did cathegorie automatictly. I'll look into that.—├ Aratak 20:17, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Ok saw my error. The art box is a inclusion in art box main. It's in the main template that make the category. We could use a #if or a #switch to make more the one campaign. We sould end up with campaign, campaign 2 and campaingn 3 parameters, we will have to add a new lign for each campaign that come up.—├ Aratak 20:26, 5 January 2007 (CST)


I'm still working on the template, since I find it fun. It now accepts several rows (maximum 5)! *happy* I got none of the things Aratak mentioned to work, so I made my own solution. The example is here. Press edit and look at the number of parameters also, and tell me if you think that's too much to edit or if it could work. Next plan is to allow several locations and crafters, and add a third material row to the last max armor row, then this template should be possible to use for all crafting tables there is. I think. I will need to look through the armor pages to see if I have missed something. I'm dreading to add the three locations/three crafters parameters.. since my template is HUGE. But that's just my problem :) So, please take a look. If you think it's too complicated, I will still work on it, just not implement it. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 16:29, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Well if someone is making a table, then it's pretty much the same amount of editing, but at least here theres control over the style and if someone doesnt understand wikicode then just filling in blanks is probably an easier alternative. It is a lot of parameters, but I don't think it's a bad idea, because the amount of text still ends up being less than the table code right?
I think what I will do is later on today I'll add the crafter table into the page, and then see if Aratak is done with the armor art box and gallery template and then move the articles over to the style and formatting area. Then when you finish working on this you are free to change the actual guide giving you more freedom with time and all that. - BeXoR Bexor.png 16:48, 6 January 2007 (CST)
I think the gallery template is done. Simply look at Paragon_Vabbian_Armor/Female. For the art box I will have to change art box and art box main and I don't have time now. Maybe tonight.—├ Aratak 16:50, 6 January 2007 (CST)
Awesome, great work. :) I don't know what time it is for you, but its 8am here (I am nocturnal and sleep during the day most of the time but I'm trying to stay awake til 5pm and then sleep at night for once). I'm going to do some housework and go for a walk and take some photos so I'll be computering on and off during the day for the next 9 hours.
I can't believe we got all of this done in only a few days. ^_^ - BeXoR Bexor.png 16:55, 6 January 2007 (CST)
It not in a few days, Ledrug and many other users, we have been working to find a format way before that. Meking it a standards wasn't the biggest job. Well good work none the less.—├ Aratak 16:57, 6 January 2007 (CST)
Yes it is lots of parameters, but as you say, any table writing would involve more things to write. I've now added compatibility with a second location, I will be working on third location and third material tonight, so it might be done if you check in before going to bed. But I think we need more peoples opinions on this too, just you and me don't make the whole wiki :)
I've made an example table with actual numbers and locations here, and I've tried to make the parameters as simple and logical as possible.
But I think it would be a good idea to do as you say and implement the new S&F with tables first, and then introduce this template for all of the S&F interested on the talk page of S&F, so maybe I can get more feedback. I have a feeling most people will hate this, but I will stand up for it! ;) — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 17:05, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Image thumbnail resize[]

Go here to see what I am proposing with an example of what I can do and what currently is. Please let me know if this might help make the armor pages look nicer, etc. Comment on my talk page at the same link please.--VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 10:20, 5 January 2007 (CST)

I think that having standardized images would be a great idea, as I find the current mis-mash to be horribly ugly. Keep in mind the current Guildwiki:Armor galleries project which is also working at improving the armor galleries - hopefully there can be collaboration. While currently the images are of varying quality, and people will upload sub-standard images, they can always be replaced. Could we make a tag like the "cleanup" or "stub" tags that can be applied to images that don't meet expectations? - Lord Ehzed 14:18, 5 January 2007 (CST)
I didn't know that someone was already working on the art galleries. That's kind of.. not good. What we're doing is changing the S&F, so any changes that get made by people working on your project are likely to clash with what we're doing. - BeXoR Bexor.png 15:14, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Armor inventory icons[]

I like the idea of the armor inventory icons, but in their current state, they aren't much help. We have some very nice images for most items, mostly by User:Smurf, so perhaps we could get individual icons made in this style. A 2x4 grid for icons could then display the inventory images in a very pleasing manner. - Lord Ehzed 14:22, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Problem is that no one quite makes icons look as good as Smurf and that's a lot of work for one person. I believe that there is next to no need for them to be there at all. I also don't think they belong in the armor art box template, because they should be an optional thing and if they aren't uploaded it looks awful.
My opinion is that the inventory icons should only be uploaded for items that can't be easily seen. For instance if you have a scroll of something, the only way to cross reference what you have between the wiki is the name and if you were to drop it on the ground. When you have weapons and armor you can just equip it to preview. Plus the name should be information enough to search for here. - BeXoR Bexor.png 18:16, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Component views[]

Remember those animated gifs that show the dances of each different profession? What about replacing the component views with something like this? If there is a small thumbnail (of standard dimensions) that shows the clothing piece in question, it can then be clicked on to see the gif with the model turning around. This would cut down on bandwidth because only people that actually want to see the component views would follow the link to see the details while everyone else would only upload a tiny image. I would also prevent having to show front, side, back, etc. images for every piece. - Lord Ehzed 14:32, 5 January 2007 (CST)

I think having animations would be just about the same file sizes as the existing jpgs, plus the colour loss would be horrible. - BeXoR Bexor.png 14:38, 5 January 2007 (CST)

New example[]

Could everyone take a look at Ritualist Ancient Armor/Female and give me the okay on that? I would say that gallery is complete. Are there any problems with it before I set it as standard? - BeXoR Bexor.png 14:59, 5 January 2007 (CST)

I always use abreviation for the profession but I don't see probleme with the full name. So thumbs up from me. I can make a template for the gallery if you need one. But do we need the /attention?—├ Aratak 15:17, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Well, the template is kind of on my gallery s&f page (which is not finished yet). I need to add in the headpiece bits because when I first wrote it I had based it off the article with no headgear. I don't want to put it in the guildwiki namespace until the armor art box is revised, but it's nearly finished (apart from one or two small things that can be changed when they aer finished like the function issue and crafting template stylva is making). The attention thing is just because when you're relaxed you cant see down the side of the character. I like to have the body more squared off and symmetrical so both side are clearly visible. It's not something I'd expect anyone else to do, but I think it looks better. - BeXoR Bexor.png 15:38, 5 January 2007 (CST)
O well I did User:Aratak/Sandbox and the result User:Aratak/Test_Armor. I couldn't find yours so could check how you did it.—├ Aratak 15:52, 5 January 2007 (CST)
I meant syntax, not template sorry. That looks good, I'll add it to the s&f project, but one flaw with it is "Profesion" should be "Profession". And does it work with and without headgear? - BeXoR Bexor.png 15:56, 5 January 2007 (CST)
I should have just read the edit page first. If you want to set it up out of your sandbox I'll put it into the s&f! :P - BeXoR Bexor.png 15:58, 5 January 2007 (CST)
It was fix before you wrote that and yes should work. If the paramater Head is not specified it will turn a gallery without head gear if Head= Yes then head gear will appear. I still need to make it for if the armor is not simitrical. Not sure how to make it to be simple and intitive. Maybe the parameter Simitrical. :D —├ Aratak 16:01, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Hmm, another problem would be that some headgear only has front view. Could you add in a parameter that eliminates the side and back views for things like masks? I think there's only two types of headgear, masks and helms, and masks only need a front view. And other class has a headgear that surrounds the entire head, so they have the side and back views as well. - BeXoR Bexor.png 16:14, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Head can now use parameter 0 for well no head gear, 1 for front, 2 for front and side and 3 for front, side and back. Any other idea?—├ Aratak 16:22, 5 January 2007 (CST)
That's all I can think of so far. :) - BeXoR Bexor.png 18:12, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Art Box[]

{{{name}}}
Profession: [[{{{profession}}}]] [[Image:{{{profession}}}-icon.png]]
Campaign: [[{{{campaign}}}]]
Used by:
{{{used by}}}
Crafting
{{{materials}}}

You are looking for something like this?—├ Aratak 19:04, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Yes! :D That looks fantastic> ^_^
Did the old art box add things to categories automatically? We had thought all of the armor was pretty much being miscategorised, but I asked aberrant, and I'm waiting for him to get back to me on that.
Questions about this one: what happens when there are more than one campaign and material? - BeXoR Bexor.png 19:13, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Like evertything else. campaign = [[Campaign 1]], [[Campaign 2]] and [[Campaign 3]]. You can insert br and all.—├ Aratak 19:16, 5 January 2007 (CST)
Okay, that's awesome. Thank you so much for doing that for me. It's so far beyond my comprehension. :P - BeXoR Bexor.png 19:19, 5 January 2007 (CST)
BTW Aberrant confirmed that the categories should be lower case "armor" not "Armor". - BeXoR Bexor.png 03:07, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Is it possible to get this new template to autocategorize as the previous one? It made our lives alot easier ;) Maybe it cant be done with campaigns, if we dont use parameters as campaign1, campaign2 and campaign3. But to sit and write out all the categories to all armor pages, what a pain -__- — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 06:38, 8 January 2007 (CST)
I think Aratak said it was part of Template:Armor art box main so it shouldn't be difficult to change. - BeXoR Bexor.png 06:44, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Trading tables[]

Okay at the moment the collector acquisition tables are pretty messy. If you look at the armor pages here you can see how different the tables look cross profession. Most of the Canthan armor articles don't have the trading module included.

What I'm going to do is make the tables match the crafting table and rename them to art type (at the moment they are called Prophecies armor or Collector armor, so I'll move it, for instance, to Warrior Krytan Armor/Collector and then add that module into the Krytan armor gallery and the Warrior Collector armor page).

What I want opinions on is whether max AL armor rows should be green, and if we should alternate with the gray and white like in the crafting table. - BeXoR Bexor.png 23:33, 5 January 2007 (CST)

I think collector tebles should be formatted as similar to crafting tables as possible, since it looks standardized that way. And the green and alternating white/gray is for readability, so why not. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 05:57, 6 January 2007 (CST)
I will do that then. Should I move the gallery formatting to a separate article? The art s & f getting a bit long. I mean pretty much all they will need to do is copy and paste the first syntax, and then copy and paste the gallery template onto a new page and the collector syntax onto a new page. Then it's just the blanks to be filled in. But I kind of feels like the gallery deserves its own page because it has so many guidelines to follow. - BeXoR Bexor.png 10:18, 6 January 2007 (CST)
Yes, good idea. I agree, gallery need so much explanations that it xan be placed separately. Plus, the galleries are on seperate pages anyway, so we will not edit them in at the same time as the rest of the armor article. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 10:54, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Galery Template[]

Hi just to let you see how it turn out. The parameters are for the moment this:

{{User:Aratak/Sandbox |
   | Profession = Mesmer
   | Type = Ascalon
   | Sex = M
   | Head= 0
   }}

or with headgear:

{{User:Aratak/Sandbox |
   | Profession = Ritualist
   | Type = Ancient
   | Sex = F
   | Head= 3
   }}

so as you can see easy to fill out and the template does the gallery. One probleme I still don't know what to do when gallery need both side. Like the Ranger Sunspear Armor/Female. I use right and left in my gallery but since here we will have side, I'm not sure how to do it. Any idea to make it intuitive and not out of place with the rest of the template?—├ Aratak 11:26, 6 January 2007 (CST)

I was thinking about that earlier, but I couldn't decide whether the side views were that important. I thought the profile view was just to see the shape, not all the small details. And the galleries would not be that negatively impacted if the side views were not there at all. It's not that difficult to imagine the side from front and back view, imo. I think it's on par with the discussion about where to stop. I mean some armor has tiny details that you'd love to show but then the gallery would have 40 images. If it *must* be included, then can't you make it like the headgear? With 1 for front, back, side and 2 for front, back, left, right? Or is it the naming that is a problem?
Let me know when you've finished and moved it and I'll add it in with instructions. Will it be called Template:Armor art gallery? - BeXoR Bexor.png 11:34, 6 January 2007 (CST)
It was mostly naming but I don't find the second side important. It was just for a sens of completion.—├ Aratak 12:44, 6 January 2007 (CST)
Well at least if people do really, really want to do something extra like that, they can not use the template and go to the gallery s&f and use the guidelines in the bottom to direct what they should do. - BeXoR Bexor.png 12:50, 6 January 2007 (CST)
It messed up when I tried to do Enchanter's (art). :S - BeXoR Bexor.png 18:44, 7 January 2007 (CST)

Nearly finished[]

Okay for the armor art we are nearly done. Here's what is left and I will be finishing it in the next few hours if I can:

  • Add the syntax for armor art box and instructions once the template has been updated. (Art)
  • Add the syntax for crafting tables and instructions. (Art)
  • Add the syntax for trading/collecting page/table and instructions. (Art)
  • Add the gallery template when Aratak has finished it. (Gallery) - Gallery is finished!

Then I can start on function articles!

Here's what is planned:

Headgear[]

I also just realised I need some syntax for headgear galleries. - BeXoR Bexor.png 12:10, 6 January 2007 (CST)
I don't remember what I was talking about in that last comment and that worries me... - BeXoR Bexor.png 17:12, 6 January 2007 (CST)
Maybe articles like Ranger Headgear? — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 17:15, 6 January 2007 (CST)
Ah of course! Oh well I'll do that later on and add it in. Thanks for jogging my memory! - BeXoR Bexor.png 17:33, 6 January 2007 (CST)
I do not know where to write this comment, although I already put it on Talk:Mesmer Tyrian Armor. I checked and saw that it was Bexor who added the Mesmer Headgear there. It looks really nice, but I wonder why they are there. We've got fine pictures on the Mesmer Headgear article that works just as nice as the new pictures.
In my opinion, adding headgear galleries to armor pages may start a discussion. Shall we have a headgear gallery on every Mesmer Prophecies armor? I think that will be kind of stupid. So, why have it on any of it? It's not obvious that you should check those armor pages, Tyrian and Ascalon, for information about headgears. Although, it's quite obvious that Mesmer Headgear shows Mesmer headgear.
I think we need better information about and linking to the Mesmer Headgear article instead.
Helena Ranger-icon-small.png 07:42, 7 January 2007 (CST)
Well, the prophecies headgear is actually considered a part of Tyrian, Krytan and Ascalon armor in Factions, while it's not that way in Prophecies. In Prophecies, they work like Ele headgear does everywhere (except Kodash). But, I would still prefer a link, like: "Headgear: This armor uses the headgear art of Mesmer Prophecies Headgear, for information about looks, see here". — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 08:13, 7 January 2007 (CST)
  • The gallery already existed, I just updated the images and format beause they don't follow s & f or naming conventions.
  • Also what Styla said about galleries.
  • I also was wondering about the headgear pages because there are like 3 for the headgear. It's a mess... - BeXoR Bexor.png 16:58, 7 January 2007 (CST)
BTW if you really don't think they should be in the art page, feel free to change the inclusion to a link. I personally think they belong there because people from Factions may not know the headgear is prophecies and it is counted as part of that particular art. They may miss a link and think we don't have the headgear documented. - BeXoR Bexor.png 17:02, 7 January 2007 (CST)
Mesmer Headgear, Mesmer Attribute Headgears, Mesmer Prophecies Headgear. - BeXoR Bexor.png 18:09, 7 January 2007 (CST)
Yes, we have a problem with headgear pages. They are probably messy and confusing because headgear is treated in-game differently for each prof. However, all headgear art is in one of three situations:
  1. Headgear art that is part of only one armor set (example: Necromancer Shing Jea Armor).
  2. Headgear art that does not belong to any armor set (example: Elementalist Headgear).
  3. Headgear art that does not belong to any armor set in Prophecies but belongs to Ascalon, Tyrian or Krytan armor sets in Factions (example: Necromancer Prophecies Headgear).
Did I miss anything (such as Paragon)? If not, then we should be able to organise the headgear art pages easily:
  1. Headgear art belonging to only one armor set is described as part of that armor art page.
  2. Headgear art not belonging to any armor set is in a separate art page. This page could be separate for each campaign (example: Eyes and Auras) or could be combined (as it is now).
  3. Headgear art not belonging to any armor set in Prophecies but belonging to Ascalon, Tyrian and Krytan armor sets in Factions gets a separate art page. Ascalon, Tyrian or Krytan armor art pages include a link to this separate page.
Does that make sense? Any comments, suggestions or preferences? --Glynnis (talk|contr) 13:17, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Nice summary there, and I think it's very good ideas. Then we wouldnt need all the overview pages, but maybe a headgear section at the "Profession armor" page so you can easily view the links to all headgear articles for that profession. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 15:01, 8 January 2007 (CST)
What I am considering doing (but there's a lot of s&f to get out of the way first) is just having one page for profession headgear, and then gallery modules for headgear that are part of particular art. Anything else can just be a redirect to those pages and the information can be more concise.
Can you believe yesterday I did about 50% of the Mesmer galleries and there are so many random pages like Mesmer Something Armor/Gallery Female just hanging around. :S So messy!!!
I'm going to mock up a function page today. I'll work on Survivor and then something specific to a single profession. - BeXoR Bexor.png 22:28, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Advertisement