Template talk:Armor art box

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Redesign?[edit source]

I don't feel very strongly about this at all, but...

Looking around the armor section shows rather poor compliance with the inventory icons. Many armors just have ugly broken links there. Given that there was recently a move to get rid of icon/stat images for weapons, should we maybe do the same for armor? I'm not really clear on what purpose these things serve at the moment...

Hmm, okay, here's one: helping folks know what's up when they're buying them.

But, anyway, the question remains: do the little mini icons truly serve a purpose or should they be removed? — 130.58 (talk) (17:37, 7 June 2006 (CDT))

Actually, I like having the icons; and, honestly, I feel the inventory icons for all items - weapons, crafting materials, etc - serve a useful purpose in helping the user cross-reference from their in-game inventories over to the Wiki. I know there was a recent move to get away from them for weapons, but I'm not really sure why (which brings up the stats image - which I still feel was useful to help ensure no one enters bogus text stats, as it's now harder to be certain that a change is legitimate or vandalism ... but I digress). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:48, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
AFAIK, there was not a real push to get rid of the icons, it was more to get rid of the stats images. Most, if not all, of the conversation was in Talk:Canthan unique items list#Pictures showing stats, there is no mention of the icons there. As for these icons, I say keep them. --Rainith 20:21, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
Thanks for the responses. I don't really want to axe them, but I wanted to make sure there was still logic behind what we were doing, as certain templates and crusades have gotten randomly carried away in the past. Apparently, there is logic in the system! Rock on. — 130.58 (talk) (22:19, 7 June 2006 (CDT))

Icons[edit source]

"Please use the art corresponding to the PvP armor" Huh? No? This is used on the armor art pages, then we should use the arts own icons? ― Stylva 08:38, 12 September 2006 (CDT)

Questions[edit source]

Is there a reason there is still type and art as options? Most of the function specific armor is no longer function specific. Wouldn't it make sense to just have it listed as an art type, even if it is currently restricted to one associated function?

I was also rethinking the idea to get rid of the armor icons. I see no use for them and most of the time they aren't even there. If a person needs to cross-reference their inventory over to the Wiki isn't the name enough for that? I personally have never thought to compare the inventory pictures, and in fact, despite the armor area being the one I use the Wiki for most, have never actually used the icons for any reason.

Lastly the categories that the pages get added to automatically may have been misnamed according to ULC. For example "Mesmer Luxon Armor" is an item. "Luxon Armor" as a type should really be "Luxon armor" correct? Yet the category is named "Luxon Armor". Stylva made a good point on my armor project talk page about this.

Please visit User:Bexor/Armor Project if you want to see what I am working on in regards to armor style and formatting or if you have any ideas to share! - BeXoR Bexor.png 11:59, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes[edit source]

We want to implement this: User:Aratak/Sandbox. We need approval before it's done. See talk page. - BeXoR Bexor.png 13:19, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Looks good to me. Removing the inventory icons is a great idea. I always wondered why they were there. :) --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2007 (CST)
+ we get rid of the awfull notice at the bottom and the red links on most armor pages. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Campaign[edit source]

The only proper inputs here are proph/factions/nf right? I see some armor has "Core" (most incorrectly). BTW is pvp armors now core or is obsidian the only true core armor? The "needs icons" output is still there btw. - BeXoR Bexor.png 12:42, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Is there a reason campaign2 gets put before campaign? Correct options for campaign should be "Prophecies", "Factions", "Nightfall" or "Core" in response to my earlier question. And PVP doesn't count as core. In case anyone else sees that and is wondering. - BeXoR Bexor.png 10:15, 19 January 2007 (CST)
It was for the structure. All the page have campaing already on it. It's easier and smaller in the code to make it add campaign2 in front. So it appears like "campaign2" and "campaign". If there is 3 it would look like "campaign3", "campaign2" and "campaign". Too keep a good format in english it would be harder to code it the other way. I do see that you would expect prophecies before the other one but since there is very little armor that need 2 campaign that I tough it would be easier to just change them then change all the other one. Just have to make a note maybe that if there is more then one always keep prophecies last. I don't think theire is a 3 campaign armor yet, so maybe I could change it to only 2 parameters, then the "and" wouldn't matter since theire can be only 2, it would always be in the middle.—├ Aratak 10:33, 19 January 2007 (CST)
Sorry, I edited the template before reading this. It now lists campaign before campaign2, but it includes no "and". Revert if you find it necessary. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 10:36, 19 January 2007 (CST)
Well english ain't my cup of tea, so an english person would be better fit to judge this.—├ Aratak 10:37, 19 January 2007 (CST)
If it is something complicated then it doesnt matter. I was just wondering. I instead put Prophecies as campaign2 and Factions as campaign and it turns out fine on the page! - BeXoR Bexor.png 12:04, 19 January 2007 (CST)
Well better revert Stylva's work then.—├ Aratak 12:05, 19 January 2007 (CST)

More improvements[edit source]

Why does this template link to another template (Template:Armor art box main)? I want to merge the two as I did for the function armor box. To be honest, I didn't know what I was doing at the time but now I think it was a good idea. :) I want to:

  • Add #if for Profession = NA (icon and category). Festival hats will have profession "Any" and an "X" for the profession icon.
  • Remove the category for Category:Function specific armor art. Is this category still useful? Would anyone miss it, if I removed it?
  • The only armor that should be in Category:Core armor, is Obsidian armor.

The categories will be:

Any comments? Shall I have a go at it? --Glynnis 14:16, 29 January 2007 (CST)

The function specific armor art is a nice category I think, but still, it just includes all Prophecies armors, so it would be easier just to state that on a Prophecies armor page. Why should I put profession = NA to get the output Any? That thing really bothers me :P Either input NA output NA or input Any output Any.. For me that makes it more logical. Dor someone tryong to edit with this template and who have seen any in a page, he/she will try to type out any as input to get the same. You get my point?
One more thing. If you merge them, try to remove and rename all parameters in a nice way =) If fundtion specific is removed for example, we could just remove that parameter and use "name" or "type" on all armors. Which would be nicer to use. :) And I'm all for a merge of them, if that wasn't clear already :P — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 16:20, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Yea! One vote for merging! :D And better variable names!
Is that also one vote for deleting Category:Function specific armor art?
I used NA because this image NA-icon-small.png is called NA-icon and I prefer the text "Any" instead of "NA". I can change the #if to be (if profession="Any" then use the NA-icon). Do you think that is better?
--Glynnis 16:38, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Yes, that's a vote for deleting that category, if a note of it is placed on the correct page, but I guess it already is there :)
And yes, I like that better. The input should match the output, so you don't have to find template-FAQ to figure out what does what ;) (To find template FAQ is NOT fun. I tried. That's when I found that parser function page, my favourite page) — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 17:28, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Did you ever click on Any? Lol! Someone else has the same idea along time ago. --Glynnis 14:47, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Used by[edit source]

Since all armors are now with insignia slots, I say we should remove this. I'm already removing it from all Assassin Armor pages. — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 07:30, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Did they replace ascended with elite on every type of armor?—├ Aratak 13:15, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Every Assassin Armor... and every Prophecies Armor... so I think every other too. — Poki#3 My Talk Page :o, 14:28, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

updated[edit source]

I noticed that this template has been updated and no longer coincides with the prescribed use in GuildWiki:Style and formatting/Armor/Art. It would be much appreciated if someone more involved with this template could update the S&F. Thanks. — JediRogue JediRogueSig.jpg 01:39, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

materials[edit source]

If part of the armor (such as the tatooes or scar pattern) is using different materials, are they included in the materials section of the box? Not including seems to be the standard but its not mentioned here so I thought I'd ask. — JediRogue JediRogueSig.jpg 15:25, 29 May 2007 (CDT)