Talk: Style and formatting/Armor

/Archive

Headgear Articles

Will Factions introduce new headgear? If so, should we split the headgear articles? -SolaPan 12:09, 22 March 2006 (CST)

Icon images

I'm not comfortable with how the icon images seem to be handled currently. The armor box template generates the image links from the "name" variable. So far so good. In the example here, as well as in the "live" articles about Enchanter's Armor and Enchanter's Armor (15k), the image shows both the regular as well as the 15k version. The "name" on both articles is "Enchanter's Armor", without distinguishing whether it's 15k or not. Sure, the name of the items in the game doesn't seperate 15k from normal either, but here on the wiki I find this somewhat confusing. An article about 15k armor shouldn't show the regular icons and vice versa. After all, we don't show Rotscale's image in the article of Rotscale (Boss) ;). This is even worse with fissure armor: On the Fissure Mesmer Armor page, the "name" is set to "various" (of course, there are various names in the game). If we do the same for all the other fissure sets we need to put the icons for all of them (across all professions!) into one image, because the template will generate the same image name for all of them. This is not aceptable. We either have to change the template so that the image name is not automatically generated, or use more concrete descriptions for the "name" variable, even though they'll not match the ingame name (like "Fissure Mesmer Armor" on the Fissure Mesmer Armor article). --84-175 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

oops yeah, that issue came up in my mind but I lost track of it. I'll think about it some more. For now I'll go with the second option as teh immediate patch. -PanSola 13:23, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

Ok, the solution currently implemented:

Now there is a "name" parameter and a "art name" parameter. Icons will use art name, but if art name is not specified, then icons will just use name. -PanSola 13:54, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Actually, why are there even the icon images to begin with? I can't prove it, but really doubt anyone is interested in seeing those. And since a lot of armor articles are missing these icons, the boxes end up showing the intended file names instead, making the armor boxes really wide and unsightly--not to mention the potential layout problems. Are they really needed? - Ledrug 04:01, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

I actually agree with Ledrug on this one, but i guess it has been voted on and decided through the usual process. — Fenris 04:23, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

I tend to agree with Ledrug as well. I don't see the point in having armor icons in the armor box. If you are buying armor because of the way it looks then you surely only care about how it looks on your character. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 04:45, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

I very much agree with Ledrug & Co. Personally, I come to armor pages to see what it'll cost me and what it looks like, and pay very little attention to the icons. Who's going to care what they look like anyways, what matters is what the armor looks like..Although, guild-wiki is kind of like an encyclopedia on guild wars so it should list everything related, and I mean everything. Gabe 06:04, 2 February 2007 (CST)

The umbrella before it starts raining

At the FPE we saw a separation of functionality and art. If this isn't merely place-holder art, but rather a real move in separation of functionality and art, then the current way we do our armor articles will have a LOT of redundency.

With prophecies, we already have some of the symptoms:

1. Same art being shared across different armors
2. Same type of armor (functionality/name) having different art

Without knowing whether the separation of art and functionality was just for the FPE or will be for Factions, I'd like to be prepared for the latter case and start brainstorming on how to restructure the articles so we will be ready when Factions is released. -PanSola 13:41, 10 April 2006 (CDT)

Ok, User:PanSola/Mesmer armor is my proposal on how to reorganize the information. Please comment. -PanSola 15:27, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

I like this very much as it solves much of the confusion. If you can complete a few pages (in terms of what the functionality page will look like vs what the art page will look like and how the disambig will take place) that would help. I have a small note on how to make the headings clearer. We have had this problem with "basic" for a very long time where people keep going in to edit the page, over and over because they don't understand the headings. May I suggest renaming "Functionality" to "Additional Functionality from Basic" or just additional functionality and then state in the note above the table that all armor stats are relative to the basic one. Thanks. --Karlos 18:44, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

I'm taking transformation a few steps at a time. Right now I am separating the gallery into their own pages, as well as collapsing 15k & Fissure crafting info into the basic armor articles. Eventually I'll figure out some big revamp of the armor description, merging articles and/or splitting off the crafting information. I'm figuring things out as I make the transformations. -PanSola 22:53, 11 April 2006 (CDT)

Current plan: Enchanter's Armor (15k), Rogue's Armor (15k), and Fissure Mesmer Armor will be deprecated, as all the art-related information will be mirrored in the gallery pages (each of these 3 still keep their own gallery pages), while all the crafting info will be mirrored in the armor articles bearing the in-game name of the respective armor. -PanSola 00:50, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Current status: If you see a blue link in the first column in the "By Art" table, then the related armor types are ready to be examined. I haven't done Faction's galleries yet, but most of the Prophecies armor will have additional links in the "Detail view and customization" section to the Luxon and Kurzick galleries. -PanSola 02:16, 12 April 2006 (CDT)

Ok I'm mostly done. Most of my work went into Virtuoso's Armor and Enchanter's Armor, so those two should be the most complete if I happend to overlook anything. -PanSola 02:27, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

The only thing I don't really like is that a lot of the tables (armor box itself, crafting table) have broken/missing lines when I look at them (in Firefox anyway, haven't had time to check them out in other browsers). This seems to fix itself when you look at it a second time. Something to do with the 'collapse' command I think, when we started using that is when I first started to notice it. That and we really need to get the platinum icon fixed so that the background is clear. --Rainith 11:17, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

Missing lines also annoyes me, but I'm just lazy so I call Template:STDT which auto-collapses it. I will not oppose anyone who edit STDT to remove border collapsing. -PanSola 11:21, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

The problem with no lines in tables with the collaps command can solved for Opera with : rules="all", i have done this on the Ritualist Shing Jea Armor page for the aquisition. But I haven't tested it with Firefox, maybe someone with firefox can test it. Trilo 04:01, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

It looks like a good idea. I'd also add a unified headgear article and a unified headgear gallery (although combining the headgear article and headgear gallery also sounds like a good idea). I also think that the galleries should show at least one alternate skin colour (preferably in the same images as the alternate dye colour), since in a fair number of sets it's not clear what's opaque armour and what's sheer armour or just skin. The most prominent example I can think of are female Mesmer collector armour, female 15k pyro armour and male Necromancer fissure armour. -- Gordon Ecker 18:45, 13 April 2006 (CDT)

Update: Confirmed that Art and Function are going to be separate. I've moved the experimental article into Mesmer armor now. -PanSola 08:36, 27 April 2006 (CDT)

I'm currently in the progress of taking screenshots of the new armors, as far as they can be easiely accessed via pvp chars. But before I go berzerk creating all those galleries - one thing that came to my attention is: Material costs are linked to the armor designs, not to the functions. This means we would need one article for each armor by function (i.e. Infiltrator's), one article for each design (i.e. Seitung), where the table with crafting information goes, plus the galleries. Suggesting following sturcture:

• One article Assassin Armor. Similar to the one we have. Would need to link to the crafting articles for armor designs (see below)
• One article Infiltrator's Armor. Would be very small. No crafting info, no images (of course, as those are linked to designs), only basic features and maybe a list of possible designs
• One article Assassin Seitung Armor. Crafting info goes here, links to or includes the galleries, lists possible function variants
• One article Assassin Seitung Armor/Gallery Female. Indentical to what we have, just move to new name
• One article Assassin Seitung Armor/Gallery Male. Indentical to what we (currently don't) have, just move to new name

Maybe we should only list possible design/function combinations in the main "Assassin Armor" article, as listing that everywhere will create too much redundancy. Thoughts? Comments? Rotten Tomatoes? --84-175 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2006 (CDT)

For design/funciton combinations, I think we should still have for each function to list which arts are available, and for each art to list which functions uses it. If someone is just looking up infiltrator's armor, it'd be quite a hassel to check out its available art if the only way to get to that info is via the Assassin armor article.

I agree with putting acquisition info in the art articles, that's how I'm slowly reorganizing the Mesmer armors now. -PanSola 16:37, 30 April 2006 (CDT)

Ok, I have finished re-formatting the Mesmer armor articles. The only thing missing are the art articles for Canthan 15k, Luxon (reg and 15k), adn Kurzick (reg adn 15k). Even the headgears articles are done. Let me know how you guys like the new format. Start from Mesmer armor. -PanSola 02:53, 1 May 2006 (CDT)

Credits in images

I can understand the desire to take credit for these images, but it goes against a community effort to give credit for something as common as images of armor art to individuals. We have been very consistently against aggrandizement, be it of individual players or guilds of players, and I do not want to see credits for every damn thing. If I want to reference an image, I specifically do not care who posed for that image, and shouldn't have to remember if some yahoo's character name was "blitz frinkle" or "grink ballaballa". — Stabber ✍ 15:06, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

in general I agree. In the special case of armors I especially agree. -PanSola 15:36, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

Hmm, let me clarify my position. I'm especially against (and thus agree with stabber) about credits within the image, or as text annotating the image. When those happens, I believe they should be removed immediately. On the other hand, if the credits occure in the filename (and only in the case of filename), the image should be reuploaded under a creditless name, BUT before that is done, it is ok to keep the image. As anyone can download the offending image and reupload it under a new name, I think if someone got enough time and will to put noinclude tags and delete tags around the image, it actually takes less effort to simply download and reupload, and solves things faster. -PanSola 16:18, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

taking a break

I'm taking a break from patrolling newly created armor pages. The only thing I'll definitely keep a close eye on is the mesmer armor pages. I'll pay some attention to warrior and monk, and perhaps a bit of Ritualist. But otherwise I'll leave the other professions' armor articles to whatever evolution other contributors will take them through. I'm spending WAY too much time on these things, and I'm not even playing the game. If anyone needs specific help with formatting guidelines or advice, feel free to leave note on my talk page, or just check how the Mesmer articles worked. -PanSola 23:15, 3 May 2006 (CDT)

Gallery standardization

I know it is still a bit early to start talking about standardization as not all armors have pictures yet, but I think we should start work on a standard format for these galleries. Obviously, I am biased in favor of the format of the ranger galleries (1, 2, 3, 4) that I myself created, but alternative viewpoints should be expressed and examined. — Stabber ✍ 05:51, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

I'm highly biased toward the formate of the female mesmer galleries d-: -PanSola 06:36, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

BTW, are you volunteering to make sure the Warrior, Monk, Necro, Ele, Rit, and Assassin galleries stay with whatever standardazition we decide on? I tried making things comform to Mesmer, for a while, but then I gave up. Now I just stay in my little female mesmer world and not worry about how the other galleries evolve. We have enough trouble getting ppl to upload ICONS, standardizing the galleries and keep it enforced is way harder. -PanSola 06:41, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Hell no. They'd have to pay me a full time salary to slog through that much PvE grind. — Stabber ✍ 06:44, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

I meant just keeping pages to teh standardized format, as opposed to getting all the images. d-: -PanSola 06:46, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Well, it isn't possible unless I get the images myself. Look at Ranger Ascended Luxon Armor/Male. I couldn't possibly edit those images to fit the female gallery format. — Stabber ✍ 06:47, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

BTW, I'm starting to take headgear visibility into consideration when creating new characters. That means a bald monk and a necro whose hair is all tied in the back. All those hair blocking the head gear, arg. -PanSola 06:48, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

Ok, 2 questions to toss around:

1. . How come you don't make profile view for the components? I think if any view is interesting then the components should definitely use it, especially since art and functionality is disjoint in Factions, it makes mix-matching from different sets much more viable.
2. . How many columns should be the limit? I don't want things to span too wide that most ppl will need to scroll horizontally to see everything. On the other hand, I want things to be as compact (vertically) as possible.

-PanSola 07:09, 9 May 2006 (CDT)

To breathe some life into this discussion after a few months, Stabber's format isn't bad, but I prefer this kind... 1 2. Any ideas/suggestions? -Auron 05:37, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

One problem is, as already discussed by Stabber and PanSola, that there are so many different sets of pictures in the different galleries. Some have profile images, some don't, some have headgear closeups, some don't... simply for that reason a template would be difficult to apply to all of them. However, I agree that a common formatting would be a nice thing to have (i.e. table with visible borders or no borders, descriptions above or below the images, etc.). I personally like your approach very much, looks a lot like what I've been using lately :). To pick up some of PanSola's thoughts from above: I think we should keep the maximal number of columns at four, like it has become custom by now. However, we should limit the number of images in total. For example, I don't think it is necessary to include three "overview" pictures with and without helmet each. One set of pictures with helmet should suffice, for the look without helmet, people can refer to the component view images. Likewise, we could limit the dyed images to one set of pictures of the full armor set, it shouldn't be necessary to go that much into detail here again. --84-175 (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

I agree... the heading I've always seen was "colorable areas" and not "dyed armor," so we only need one set (AKA one dye color) to show. Even though the majority of armor pages need lots of work, we need a general format so they all look alike. I like your idea about no "without helmet" overview, I've always thought that was silly. To answer PanSola's question (#1) from ages ago, we could make a profile view of the components... but it would be split into vertical (i.e., the Chest/Boots Front, Back, and Profile, and under that would be the Gloves/Leggings Front, Back, and profile). That would include a profile view, and wouldn't go past 4 images horizontally. -Auron 15:39, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

I seen a lot of gallery use Undye, since I use gray ( and grey before I realise it wasnt name like that in game). I think we should talk about how many color we want to keep, undye or gray and if we keep without helmet. I personnaly think we should only keep one alternative color, name basic color gray and erase without helmet for the full armor shoot.—├ Aratak ┤ 14:22, 29 November 2006 (CST)

Gender Icons

Sorry it's taken so long, but I've just modified the Armor box to use male and female icons. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 07:09, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

Thanks. Don't forget Template:Armor art box! -PanSola, LAFTable (sing) 08:48, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

Ah, thanks PanSola. What's all this LAFT business? :P

Click on it to find out! -PanSola, LAFTable (sing) 20:06, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

How come in {{armor art box}}, the width of the icons is set to 30px, while in {{armor function box}} it is set to 50px? I believe some consistency is in order. If not, I do believe it should be the other way around atleast, the art pages being the more detailed ones. For example, compare Gladiator's Armor (art) and Gladiator's Armor). — Galil 00:08, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Art boxes are by naure usually shorter than funciton boxes. The 30/50 are experimental values that usually best matches the natural hight of the boxes. They are thumbnails anyways, so it doesn't matter that much. At least that's what I was thinking when I designed them.-User:PanSola (talk to the ) 00:11, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Perhaps this is the wrong place to ask, but function armor boxes are big enough as it is, do they really need the pictures in to? Seems a waste to me. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 01:28, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Not sure. Having pictures is more or less a tradition that I didn't bother to question. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 03:22, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Easy way to get M+F icons

If you own the female ele armour for example, put it in the vault and make a male pvp ele. Access the storage and it will show male icons. Or so i've heard :) — Skuld 20:33, 9 June 2006 (CDT)

Color coding in the crafting tables

I've noticed this in the armor tables. The green and gold have clearly defined uses. But, why the alternating gray/white? It appears to be decorative and nothing more. Can we just standardize all non-max armor to one color? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 12:52, 15 September 2006 (CDT)

Location

What location should be written out in the armor galleries when you have armor like the Elementalist Ascalon Armor, obviously crafted at alot of locations? I question why we even iclude that information at all, since it's easy to find in the art articles. Only exception is when showing the PvP variant, then it's nice to have the name at the top, and stating that it's the PvP armor at the bottom. Alternatively it could be named just PvP armor, since it's name should be the name of the Armor function page anyway. So, why location, and if it should be there for a good reason, what location? --Stylva 07:24, 17 September 2006 (CDT)

The Mesmer's Armor page uses "Starter Armor", "Collector" and "Ascalon City (Post-Searing)" for the labels. They are not really locations but it seems to make sense. --Glynnis 10:47, 17 September 2006 (CDT)

Yes, you're right, in those cases it also has a good purpose. But then look at the Shing Jea, Ascalon and Canthan in the gallery on the same page. Those armors isn't only available in Shing Jea Monastery... --Stylva 13:11, 17 September 2006 (CDT)

I think the tradition (from Prophecies) is to list the location where the armor is first available when following the story-line. From the Virtuoso's Armor page, Courtly Armor is first available in Yak's Bend but Performer's Armor is not available until Lion's Arch. ...I think, or at least that's how I wrote the necro armor pages. --Glynnis 12:30, 18 September 2006 (CDT)

Core armor art

As all the profession armor pages are structured now, Tyrian, Ascalon and Krytan armor are called core armor. Is this really true? I still haven't seen crafters for these armors anywhere in Elona, and not heard anybody talking about it either. If this is the case, they are just Prophecies and Factions armors (until chapter 4, who knows?), how should we reword it? And, especially, how should the armor art galleries be reworked? I have an idea of bringing those armor arts in under the Prophecies and Factions headers, calling them Ascalon Tyrian and Krytan for Factions, and Starter Basic and Collector(s) for Prophecies.. Would this work? This would just be the label in galleries, the armor info remain on the same page. Also causes problems with armor info boxes, since they now belong to two Chapters but not all... Just need some guidelines here =) — Stylva 11:05, 7 November 2006 (CST)

Messy

All of the articles are a mess. None follow the same format. There's multiple headings, different ways of doing the pictures, unstubbed articles that are missing descriptions and images. I am going to work on tidying this up over in my namespace. If anyone wants to help, let me know. - BeXoR 07:04, 27 December 2006 (CST)

I'd be glad to help, so we can get the articles into one standard finally. This guide is quite messy too, I would say. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 10:11, 27 December 2006 (CST)

User:Bexor/Armor Project - BeXoR 13:48, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Art gallery s & f is done and added to the s & f template. Art s & f will be coming in the next day or two. Functions will be worked on after that. - BeXoR 17:10, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Crafting box template

I have made a crafting box template over in my namespace, intented to be used on armor art pages. I'm new to templates, so it might still miss things I don't know about yet. I would like all interested to take a look at my template page and the result page and consider if it would be worth to use, or if it will be too complicated. In my opinion, to write a table is almost more complicated than to fill in this template, but I might be a little biased ;) Anyway, the template and usage notes is here and the results page is here. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 09:08, 7 January 2007 (CST)

Crafting box template updated to accept three locations/crafters and empty cells. Still need opinions! — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 08:15, 10 January 2007 (CST)

GGRRRRRRRRRRRR

I want to punch this page in the face!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - BeXoR 02:55, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Eh, why? :P — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 06:34, 8 January 2007 (CST)

A bunch of the images are used in there (and if I want the ones I replaced deleted they shouldn't be in use anywhere). So I go to replace everything. And when I paste in the new url it adds the whole gallery template in again. So there's 20 million extra copies of that gallery template in there.

I cannot wait til I can delete all that crap and fix it. :P - BeXoR 06:36, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Bah, just add a "under construction" note to this page and dont edit it until you can put in your new version. You can add a note to the deleta tag for the pictures also, saying that you're updating this page so it's ok to delete them anyway. That's what I should have done, to get rid of so much work and anger ;) — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 06:40, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Eventually I just started doing that, but only after I noticed the gazillion galleries on this page. I'll go look for a note to add to this page. :) - BeXoR 06:44, 8 January 2007 (CST)

I officially HATE this page. WHY oh WHY does it add the gallery every time you save? I will stop updating the links now. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 07:35, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I suspect it had something to do with the lack of nowiki tags on the pre text. I blanked the page and did some generalised info, because previously it wasnt helping anyone and it was outdated. I'm wondering what else we need for style and formatting for the armor pages. The suggestion at the top had crafting quick reference but there was no content about it in the old article. We have art pages nearly done, galleries done, functions being worked on and I did some generic info about profession indexes that needs expanding. Anything else? Is the crafting quick reference thing required? Where is an example?
I added links to all of the suggested pages but they may not be necessary depending on the length. They might just be able to stay on this main page. - BeXoR 11:48, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I ported the art s&f over from my namespace seeing as there were so many yucky red links and it's basically done anyway. It's a lot more complete than the old stuff we had. :P I'll fix the armor art box usage once Aratak gets back to me on it. - BeXoR 12:00, 16 January 2007 (CST)

What am I suppos to do? The box have all those parameters to switch between a art that have many functions and one that is specific, like most armor in prophecies. I don't know if we really need that but I don't see what I can do more. So if I'm missing the points just tell me what is bothering you with the art box.—├ Aratak ┤ 12:14, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I just want to know how to use it like how you have on the talk page for gallery template. Then I can copy that into the article and explain with some details what can be put as parameters. I don't know what you changed from the old version cause the usage on the actual template page looks like it has too many parameters compared to new version? - BeXoR 12:35, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I think I must have been looking at an old version, nvm - BeXoR 12:36, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Another small note about the template. I have now edited the auto-category to use lower case as we discussed earlier. I can't get the articles to show up on the correct category page yet, but they link to the right ones.. Anyone know why? — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 12:37, 16 January 2007 (CST)

It might be cause the template is like inclusion thing and sometimes it takes a while for the server to actually register the changes with included modules. Wait a few hours and maybe it will show, but if not I have no idea. Also, I asked this somewehre else, but what is "core" armor? I've been using the term in functions articles to say pvp/obsidian but I don't know what it really should be. And I am confused by campaign1, campaign2, campaign3, etc, cause some articles have "Core" and it categorizes into "Core armor". - BeXoR 12:45, 16 January 2007 (CST)

If you want to test an inclusion the best way is just open the article and save without any edit. It will not show in recent change but force the cache to reload the page. I'll check the template if I see anything esle that could cause that problem.—├ Aratak ┤ 13:03, 16 January 2007 (CST)

I just did it with platemail and it shows in Warrior armor. For the campaign you can write anything, it's not a switch. So you can but any 3 campaign in any order. No the best to have the same order on all the page but I think user will go Core, prophecies, factions and nightfall last. The parameters is campaign no campaign1.—├ Aratak ┤ 13:11, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Okay, so max 3 campaigns. What is core though? Just obsidian? Because everyone has access to pvp armor art, and now pvp is kind of a campaign seeing as you can buy it separate. Maybe add PVP as a campaign rather than saying it is Core?
Is this right as an example:

{{armor art box |
| art = Ascalon
| used by = [[Enchanter's Armor]], [[Masquerade Armor]]
| materials = [[Cloth]]
| campaign = Prophecies
| campaign2 = Factions}}

I am unsure about the parameter things and whether or not it needs capitals and also if things can be omitted (like when answer is no). - BeXoR 13:38, 16 January 2007 (CST)

A nice way to test if things can be left out is to just type {{Armor art box}} and see what parameter names show up. All the parameters needed for the template to look ok is then written out like {{{parametername}}}. Capitals is needed, in most cases. And yes, just Obsidian armor is core. But before Factions, Tyrian, Ascalon and Krytan was considered Core, since they were in both available campaigns. Now, when we see those aren't available in Nightfall, that is the use of campaign2. You put Prophecies in campaign and Factions in campaign2, for example. And then it will automagically put correct categories and links. :D I don't think we should put PvP as a campaign, just make a note on the armor art page itself that this armor is available as a PvP art. Those just into PvP aren't interested in looking at armor crafting pages anyway, I guess. — Stylva (talk)(contribs) 14:12, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Yes only 3 campaign, since to my knowlege there is only 3 set of armor that span on more then one campaign and they are only in 2 of them. the third was a force of habit since we have 3 campaign but I doubt we will see armor on more then 2. I agree that this project is for pve and that the "PVP campaign" shouldn't be in the box. To my knowlege any of the parameters that can have no can be ommited without problem.—├ Aratak ┤ 15:15, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Okay tyvm I'll put that in shortly. One note I must make is that when you put the PVP note into the article, check the name of the PVP armor. Like Elementalist Pyromancer's Armor is called "PVP Magma Armor" in PVP. Canthan and Shing Jea are the same names though, but the Prophecies armors often have unique names. - BeXoR 00:39, 17 January 2007 (CST)

GW:ULC

Aren't all of these armor articles violating GW:ULC? Shouldn't the articles be named such as Monk Ascalon armor instead of Monk Ascalon Armor? Or is the art name "Ascalon Armor" capitalised in game? At work at the moment - so can't verify. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:05, 16 January 2007 (CST)

That would be Judge's Ascalon Pants, I don't think "Ascalon Armor" is used anywhere in game. — Skuld 17:20, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Re: Talk:Monk Ascalon Armor - per comment there, "Ascalon Armor" is used in-game. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:07, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Armor totals

For the top of the armor articles, would it be possible to have a separate box that displays the totals without adding in the headpiece? Kind of like

Location	Crafter	Armor	Gold	Mask	Guise	Gloves	Leggings	Shoes		Total	Total w/o headpiece
Vasburg Armory	Giygas	70	15	50 Hide 5 Steel 10 Amber	150 Hide 15 Steel 30 Amber	50 Hide 5 Steel 10 Amber	100 Hide 10 Steel 20 Amber	50 Hide 5 Steel 10 Amber		75 400 Hide 40 Steel 80 Amber	60 350 Hide 35 Steel 70 Amber

Just a thought.     Linkforlife 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)