GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.
Headgear Section?[edit source]
Since Helena created a few headgear overview pages (such as necro, mesmer, warrior, monk and ranger), I propose we add a new section to the 'Armor types' page describing headgear armor in general and including a table with links to the overview pages.
As for the contents of each overview page (one per prof), I recommend the following to avoid repeating information on other pages:
- list of all headgears for the prof
- description and links to all headgear function pages
- description and links to all headgear art pages
- art gallery (for all headgear art)
- links to quick reference crafting tables (but not the tables themselves)
- links to quick reference collecting tables (but not the tables themselves)
- The Elementalist Headgear page is now created too. Assassin and Ritualist coming up.
- | -- Helena 01:38, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
- Done. (Ritualist Headgear, Assassin Headgear) I'm off to bed, good night!
- | -- Helena 15:01, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
- Thanks Helena for organising all those pages. A lot of that information is already on other pages. I reorganised the Necromancer Headgear page. I moved things around but tried not to delete anything. Please tell me what you think. I copied the format of the armor pages: Necromancer Headgear (overview similar to Necromancer armor), Necromancer Attribute Headgears (headgear functions similar to Bonelace Armor), Necromancer Prophecies Headgear (headgear art similar to Bonelace Armor (art), Necromancer armor crafting quick reference and Necromancer collector armor. --Glynnis (talk|contr) 16:40, 9 October 2006 (CDT)
- In my opinion, each of these articles are too massive, and overly redundent between the combined information of three other articles. If I look at the "What links here" for Mesmer Headgear, I am tempted to change the link back to a disambig. Pretty much none of those links to Mesmer Headgear should be an overview article. Instead, those links to Mesmer Headgear should each be modified so they are specific about the type of headgear (art/function) offered. After fixing those links, Mesmer Headgear would be unlinked, and still contain information redundent with the combination of Mesmer armor, Mesmer Attribute Headgears, and Mesmer Prophecies Headgears. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 06:45, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
- I see your point, though I like those articles myself. Maybe they could be kept like overview articles, linked at the bottom of the xx armor pages, but in the tables and articles we should link to the corresponding art/function article. Though, in the case of the Elementalist, where all the armors in Factions use the same art and function for headgear, how should it be done? Two separate articles (Elementalist Prophecies Headgear and Elementalist Factions Headgear) or one combined, quite alike to how it's designed now?
- I like the articles being quite big, then they contain almost all the information I'm looking for. But, if the general rule is to keep it in small articles to make it easier to find information quickly, or something, I can understand that. So we just need a clarification if it is a general GuildWiki "policy", or if it's just a personal opinion of PanSola ;) Not accusing you PanSola, you mostly seem to aim for the best for this Wiki. — Stylva 09:45, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
- I'm not aware of any policy. I'm just trying to figure out how "Warrior Headgear" is gonna avoid being a strict subset of the "Warrior Armor" article which already does the overview, and on the other hand not explode with details by the time Campaign 4 comes out, and on the THIRD hand minimizing redundent data that would need to be updated individually when something changes. As for Elementalist, if we choose consistency, then it'd be the Elementalist Factions Headgear option. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 12:16, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
- Yes, as when chapter three and four get out, a big article like that grows too big. And as you say, the information needs to be updated if something changes, the fewer places the better. Time to look through and clean up the already existing headgear articles. — Stylva 12:59, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
- I agree PanSola, most of the information is redundant (although we need to update some function/art pages.) I've updated the Elementalist headgear function and (two) art pages to include everything in Elementalist Headgear, which no longer has any unique information. Should it now be deleted? Is Elementalist armor clear enough with a link to both art pages? --Glynnis (talk|contr) 16:33, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
- There are probably still articles linking to it, so at most we should revert it back to the disambig (assuming it was a disambig before). Though I think what we really should do is to "fix" all the links that are referring to specific armor pieces but points to Elementalist Headgear (like what I did with Alemeth). I'd leave Elementalist Headgear alone for now, and only revisit it once we address all those links. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 18:23, 10 October 2006 (CDT)
- Oh, I've missed a lot since my last post.
- My thought when I created the pages was that you should have all information in one page, cause I get VERY easily confused by all the links here and there, and some are very hard to find. A simple <profession> Headgear-article is what I preferred, with all the information, so I don't have to gather it over the whole site. Just to give you an example, it took me about 5 minutes to find this talk page, since I couldn't remember that it was named Armor types. No link at all in any other article I could find.
- I have read all you have written, of course, but what I still don't understand is: what is really wrong with a big article with much information? You can aswell scroll down a bit as click a link, especially nowadays when the wiki is so slow on loading new pages. And besides, in most pages I have a hard time finding any links at all to the page I was looking for. The other day I had to click about 5-6 links from what I searched on, to reach what I was looking for...
- Yes I know that I'm only repeating what really existed (except the Prophecies crafting table at Warrior Headgear, which took me a whole day to create), but that was the point! Gather all the information we've got into one single article.
- Sorry for defending my own article so much, but I created it because I liked the concept, not just for the fun of it.
- | -- Helena 13:24, 14 October 2006 (CDT)
- No, I didn't mean the whole armors. These articles could have been about gloves aswell. If anyone was interested, it would be nice to have a collection of all the gloves, but I don't find gloves that important. Headgear often differs to the armors, and there are sometimes more headgear than armors. That is not the case with gloves or boots. You have got Enchanter's Gloves, but an Enchanter's Mask does not exist. You have got a Lieutenant's Helm, but the Lieutenant's Cuirass does not exist. This is what I want to make clearer.
- I do not want the Warrior Armor-article to contain as much information as the Warrior Headgear does. Although, I have had a very hard time finding information about headgears, and wanted to get all the information together, since headgear not always are part of an armor.
- I hope that wasn't dim, I'm not sure I understand what I just wrote myself...
- | — Helena 07:14, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
- My conclusion: These articles should be kept or the old system need to be ALOT clearer. Attribute headgears does not include Liutenants, the reason we have a article called Prophecies Headgear but mostly no Factions Headgear is not clearly stated.. The "Headgear?" column on the "xx armor" pages really confused me as a new wiki reader. I still don't see the logic in them always. As an example: Why do we state that "Mesmer Tyrian Armor" use "Prophecies Headgears" and "Courtly Armor" don't? In the Prophecies Campaign, they both use them equally... I'm throwing out alot of loose statements here I know, but it's not an easy thing. To make it clear for someone not used to read here and still make it convenient for us being here more often, makes my head spin. — Stylva 07:45, 25 October 2006 (CDT)
Is this article going to be merged with Armor or not? I think it's a good idea, it's not obvious that you should search for "armor types" when looking for this kind of info. And I couldn't find a link to this page on Armor either. — Stylva 07:44, 18 October 2006 (CDT) Oops my mistake, it's clearly linked. But nothing says what extra info could be found here. — Stylva 07:46, 18 October 2006 (CDT)
- Seconded. -- Gordon Ecker 05:12, 24 October 2006 (CDT)
- Personally I think, including all the expected changes because of the insignia's, the merged article would be of such a vast size that the user trying to find particular information will be drowned. If the articles are going to be merged, it needs a very good outline from basics, that apply to all kind of armor, to specifics, details that apply to certain professions or certain qualities for specific armor within professions. The other option is simply renaming the current armor pages (i.e. Armor will be renamed Armor basics, Armor types can remain etc.).Tiefschwarz 03:47, 3 November 2006 (CST)
- Armor types never included runes, and hasn't included functionals since they were split off around the release of Factions, so I don't see why we'd include inscriptions. I believe PanSola's proposal was to include insignia and rune info in the profession-specific armor pages. -- Gordon Ecker 02:40, 8 November 2006 (CST)
Does anyone feel like discussing this matter anymore or do something about it? Otherwise I will remove the merge-tag, since this hasn't been discussed for quite a long time. Personally, I don't like the name of this article, it's not easy to find, but I have nothing better. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 09:37, 12 December 2006 (CST)
Proposal: complete revamp[edit source]
- The concept of "Armor functionality" will be replaced with "built in insignias"
- All armor functional pages will be converted into insignia articles
- Insignia articles will point back to armor (art) types that have the particule insignia bulit-in
Comments? Anythign else to change while we are revamping everythign? -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 01:22, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
- I think common insignia should be listed in the main Armor article, common and profession-specific insigia should be listed in the [profession] armor articles and all insigina should be listed in the Armor Insignia article. -- Gordon Ecker 01:52, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
- Also, would it be possible to use a bot to tag all the current undyed images with the image update tag since all undyed armour is now grey. -- Gordon Ecker 19:19, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
- Regarding insignia listing in armor articles, I think it should be consistent with treatment of runes. Either we list insignias AND runes in armor pages, or we list neither. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 20:12, 26 October 2006 (CDT)
- I suggest that new undyed pictures/galleries are needed now that undyed is gray. Shouldn't have undyed pictures when now it's technically dyed. --Gimmethegepgun 15:50, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
- Maybe instead of "Undyed" rename it to "Classic". We still need shots at two different colors to show the contrast of effect anyways. This would minimize the workload. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 16:38, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
- Well there's no armor with built-in runes, but I don't see any problem with including runes and insiginias on the armor pages, some of the weapon type pages (such as Scythe and Spear include lists of upgrade components and inherent mods. We could probably handle common runes and insignias with a template. I think we should also add a gallery of all the Prophecies armor art styles that only have profession-specific names, maybe something like "miscellaneous Prophecies armor art". -- Gordon Ecker 23:58, 27 October 2006 (CDT)
Fun fun fun[edit source]
Ugh... I made almost all the little armor pages for the nightfall things and my hands are KILLING ME. Anyone want to volunteer to make Elonian Armor? I'll get Primevil. --Mgrinshpon 07:10, 29 October 2006 (CST)
Assassin and Ritualist armor in Nightfall[edit source]
Are there any 1k / 1.5k Nightfall Assassin and Ritualist sets, or do you need to buy one of the expensive sets to get Assassin or Ritualist armour that'll accept insignias? -- Gordon Ecker 02:08, 4 November 2006 (CST)
- And the answer is no. The only Assassin and Ritualist armour sets in Nightfall are the Vabbian and Ancient sets. -- Gordon Ecker 07:26, 29 November 2006 (CST)
Hero Armor[edit source]
Should there be a Hero Armor table? It seems like it would be a good idea with each hero having 4 sets.
- They only have 2 sets each. I think we should add links to "Standard Hero Armor" and "Elite / Prestige / Ascended / Alternate Hero Armor" in the nearly empty "By Status" column. -- Gordon Ecker 17:15, 28 November 2006 (CST)
- Three very soon ... -- Gordon Ecker 20:53, 29 November 2006 (CST)
Domain of Anguish[edit source]
Nowhere in Gaile Gray's announcment does it say that their will be new armor. It says their will be new armor upgrade options, not actual new armor. The Domain of Anguish armor needs to be taken off of here until we actyally confirm what the armro update will be.
- Yeah, you're right. It doesn't specify whether it's player armour, hero armour or both. For all we know the new armour upgrade options could be an NPC who can convert Prophecies and Factions armour to insignia-compatible armour, iridescent dye or armour decals. -- Gordon Ecker 07:24, 29 November 2006 (CST)
- And Gaile confirmed it's new hero armour today. -- Gordon Ecker 20:53, 29 November 2006 (CST)
Image File Names[edit source]
Over on Istani Armor, Aratek or Stabber or whatever his name is today, is playing the revert game based on the idea that armor should be referred to as GREY rather than UNDYED. This brings up two issue. The first is my laziness. The vast majority of thumbnail armor images use the term UNDYE rather than GREY. Since I was thinking about going through and try to standardize them all, my laziness makes me want to change the fewest names possible. However, it occurred to me that the second issue is much more important. Should the preview pages show GREY armor or UNDYED armor? What I mean by this is should all armor purchased from a crafter be dyed grey before being shown on the preview pages or should it be shown looking the way that it does when you buy it? Note that the pages I'm talking about are pages like Istani armor, Shing Jea armor, and Monk armor. I'm not talking about pages like Saintly Armor/Male and Ranger Sunspear armor (that's another can of worms we can talk about some day when it's snowing).
The second question would be what about the rest of the filename? If the effort is going to be invested, should it be clarified to make it simpler for people to use those armor images on other pages? A simple system of increasing granularity for the description would be Armor_TYPE_PROFESSION_GENDER_COLOR_PIECES_VIEWPOINT.jpg. That would make a front view of a full set of male, monk, istani armor = Armor_Istani_Monk_Male_Undyed_Full_Front.jpg if you'd just purchased it and hadn't monkeyed with the color. Since the dye preview window exists now, there's no reason to record the exact color mix on dyed pieces, so you can just call them a color (red, puce, lime, whatever) to show that it's been dyed. Shortened versions of the profession names could be used, but it's not as though it really matters. So, what does everybody think? PanSola mentioned standardizing the filenames, but I didn't see a result anywhere. --Boris 22:55, 28 November 2006 (CST)
- I've looked over file names in the past, and just got too tired to do something about it. My solution mostly includes using the picture that shows the armor best and don't think about it's name. Undyed or grey doesn't matter that much in the preview table, it's more important on the gender gallery pages, imo.
- What I think this person is trying to do is to get the pictures showing what the armor looks like when it's newly bought, which now since Nightfall is similar to it being dyed grey. Which is a nice aim, but showing the armor in a good way is more important. Rather a picture with nice lightning and blue dye than bad lightning and grey dye... You get my point.
- I really like your idea of standardizing file names. And the patter you describe is nice, it's very easy to tell what kind of picture is hiding behind that name. Though, I would never take this task on myself, there is simply too many images... And too many links to different things everywhere. But if you decide to start, I will try to help. — Stylva 05:28, 29 November 2006 (CST)
- I'm interested, but your link doesn't work, Lord Ehzed. --Boris 12:31, 30 November 2006 (CST)
- Link fixed - sorry I posted this just on my way out this morning, and didn't have time to check it. I don't know why it wouldn't accept it with the spaces. - Lord Ehzed 13:13, 30 November 2006 (CST)
- Every day is a school day. I tried the upper/lower case trick to get your original link to work, but it didn't occur to me to try forcing the underscores. Good to know. I checked the link and there's no discussion of file names. Great information there, but I don't see any conflict between anything on that page and anything here. Thanks for the education. --Boris 17:08, 30 November 2006 (CST)
- Ok I don't see your problem for the first points. When you buy them, they come in gray. The reason theire is undye is because it have been change, all armor use to be taken with dye remover but since that no longuer exist it would be hard to do no? To me undye is a vestige and should be replace. So the reason I use gray in the name its because it is gray not undye. The second part doesn't really bother me. I personaly like my way :D proffesion befor type. When looking for armor you look for your profession so I see it go first on the name.
- P.S. if you don't get the joke about Staber that can only mean that you are new to the wiki. I hope that people give feedback because I'm not looking for a war with you.—├ Aratak ┤ 20:21, 30 November 2006 (CST)