Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Items/A1

Proposal
I made this proposal for generell formatting items. Extended Infobox template as shown in User:MSorglos/ProposalForSalvageInfobox should be applied. Open for discussion! - MSorglos 07:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm in the process of making minor edits to the infobox template here. During testing of the infobox (and the current modification), it appears that the results of the auto typing if-tree can also be seen on the resulting page, as seen here. I'm working on trying to remove these. Great work with the Infobox so far :), I'm mostly just experimenting for my own sake (and to better understand ParserFunctions. --Indecision 06:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Thanks for your work. This if-tree is the thing I was not able to fix (didn't have any idea how to fix). Hope we get some more opinions on that formatting proposal, perhaps it is good to get it online until "official start". - MSorglos 06:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Ok, I've finished up work on my version of the infobox template. I made a mistake in analyzing the problem. It wasn't the if-tree at all (which works, just only in the order provided, ie. Alcohol (alclevel is non-blank), Quest item (questitem is non-blank), Trophy (collector is non-blank), Salvage Item (commonsalvage or raresalvage is non-blank) and then Not Specified. It was... three missing colons from the categorizing code at the bottom of the page... Anyways, after I recover from my stupidity, please feel free to review/edit/move the resulting template as you see fit :)--Indecision 09:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 * So it was my mistake. I did not notice that little missing :... anyway your template code is much more readable, so I hope someone will move it into template space to make it more official. I know it is my proposal, but until now nobody else made some additions to this proposal, so I don't know wether it is accepted. Still waiting for more pros and cons! - MSorglos 10:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
 * All done, I hope. Multi materials isn't quite supported, but the info can always be added manually in those cases. Still waiting for someone to come and provide discussions on this as well :). --Indecision 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Discussion
It looks good and encompasses items in general, which is a good thing. I went into obsessive-complusive mode and added spaces between the headings in the syntax so everything isn't so bunched up.

Regarding the template, I placed a note on User talk:MSorglos/ProposalForSalvageInfobox, that a single template could be implemented to accommodate every type of item. I see that it has been done, but I noticed that User:Indecision/Template did not have a parameter that included number of usages for items such as scrolls and kits, nor do the headings. For example, a Superior Identification Kit has 100 usages. &mdash; Gares 09:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Heh, every time I think I'm done with something, another thing pops up :), onto it now. I'm pretty sure only kits have actual multiple usages (can stack multiple scrolls but AFAIK they are one use only). Update: should be all done (only for kits). --Indecision 09:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Yeah, Scrolls, Alcohol, Special Event Items(CCs, Clovers, etc), and Food all have 1 usage. &mdash; Gares 10:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
 * At the moment I have assumed that single-use items will not use the usages parameter. Currently some auto-typing/catting is based of this parameter (namely it types and categorises as a Kit). I would think that this info can be stored elsewhere than having an extra line in the infobox saying Usages 1. It can be changed if necessary, but I would think it may be redundant. --Indecision 10:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


 * Lock pick will be something that could make problems... but if destroying is based on some titles, usage would probably assumed to be 1. Great work again. - MSorglos 11:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Get it on
I think template is working, let's get it on. In "productive" we will see if there is something missing in that template and formatting proposal. Anyway actually there are some pages that don't use this template/formatting proposal. The later we get it on, the more pages have to be adapted. - MSorglos 03:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

infobox
the item infobox does not currently contain all the options like salvage materials as required. -- Lemming64 11:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * I know that. User:Indecision/Template should replace the infobox currently in use. Somebody has to move it. The articles I create use the new template, so I don't have to change them once the template is used. MSorglos 11:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Nobody did move that template, so I did it now. Thanks for your work, User:Indecision. - MSorglos 04:24, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
 * Do we want any other types autocategorising than those currently enabled (e.g. Keys, Miniatures, Runes etc...)? I can add to the template as necessary for these if people will find them useful. --Indecision 03:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Chests
I'm thinking of doing some articles for the individual chests (kinda sick of doing skills :) I'd like to use the item infobox with only the most basic information to format the image and location stuff for the chest. Would that be an okay use of the template? --Aspectacle 23:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 * You might run into problems with the infobox as it stands, as it includes value by default (which isn't really appropriate for the chests). You could probably easily create a new template using the old one as a base, although I'm not sure about the colour scheme (another colour might be better to differentiate). I'd probably also like to have slightly more detailed information, say the region that chests occur in below the campaign.  Alternatively, the item infobox can be modified to include value as an optional parameter (although this might cause problems with some existing articles). --Indecision 23:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Ah yes - value. I'd forgotten about that one. :( Well can you think of any other items which might have a use for a valueless template?  The only thing I can think of are other in mission interactive things like catapults, gates, sentry traps, maybe bundle items like Raw Amber, Baskets of Apples which don't always have a lot of interesting information to capture about them.  The list got longer as I was writing that, so perhaps there is room for another template there. --Aspectacle 23:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Hmm, bundle items should probably use the existing item infobox (as they are still items), so it might be worth adding value as an optional parameter (doing this simply would cause articles with Value Can't be sold to simply lose their parameter). As yet another alternative I could attempt the implementation a system similar to the Weapon infoboxes unique hiding system (i.e. if you specify valueless=y then it will hide the value row of the table). Or I could work on another template for interactive objects (chests, wurm spoors, and the examples you've listed above. That might be the simpler option. What do you think? --Indecision 00:00, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't really know, my instinct is still that they can be combined, but I'm no longer as certain that it is a great idea. As I think on it I see that the current box copes with stuff which can appear in your inventory.  The stuff which I listed is interactive and useable, but doesn't appear in your inventory (a portable Wurm spoor would be nice ;).  If you were to draw a line between the two types that'd be a good place to draw it.  For items in your inventory "Can't be sold" is interesting information, which is a different state from "can't go in your inventory, so naturally doesn't have value" so I think you still need to be able to keep that functionality as it is. The optional parameter might be a nice approach to solve this, but I'd like to see other opinions on whether these interactive objects should use the item infobox before we decide on a particular approach. --Aspectacle 00:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I've quickly thrown together an interactive objects infobox for comparison that can be seen here. This is not finished, and is just for comparison in case people want to take that approach.  Thinking on it, I am opposed to making the item infobox any more complex than it already is (largely as there are still some catting/typing things that I may want to do in future to it, that will be more difficult if it handles interactive objects as well). I'd love to see a portable wurm spoor as well, should be a character's 2 year birthday present :). --Indecision 00:30, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Orange! The box seems fine.  I'm not too sure how the location field could work in practice.  There could be multiple locations entered into the field and a wide variance in the sort of information recorded there (maybe a specific mission, or an entire region).  Perhaps leave off the auto-categorisation from that field? --Aspectacle 00:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Why not just redefine an "Item" to encompass "Inventory item", "Bundle item", and "Terrain item"; respectively for items that can go into your inventory, items that you can hold, and items that are on the environment. Maybe "Environment item". Shouldn't need to separate, especially by calling it an interactive item. You can interact with inventory items too ;) -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * The colour is painful on that template. I much prefer separating the bundles from objects. An item is supposed to be anything you can pick up, whereas objects are things you interact with, like signs, chests, etc. - B e X o R  04:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * So, "Item" and "Object" then? "Object" is really broad though... "Terrain object"? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Object is just a broad as item. :P - B e X o R  05:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I guess I was just trying to separate inventory based items from objects that are interacted with in missions/explorable areas. Agree that the colour on the interactive object box is not perfect, was just trying to keep an orange whilst still being distinctive from existing infoboxes. As far as bundles go, I've always viewed them more as objects than items, in that you can't keep them and you basically just pick them up to put them down somewhere again or give them to someone/something (e.g. Gears, supply chests, etc...), but I'm ambivalent about where they are actually organised into. My opposition to changing the item infobox is purely to try and keep its use relatively simple. It's already being used for just about all inventory items apart from weapons, and I wonder if maybe we're asking a little too much from our item infobox :). --Indecision 05:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Perhaps that is the problem with having such a broad category you want to stuff so much into it. My opinion agrees more with Indecision's, see my monologue on inventory vs not earlier. The template information for the bundle and the environment items is identical and not very much information to capture at that. Basically this discussion boils down to which colour we would like the box to be and which items get which coloured box. I'm not sure that it is really worth the effort to argue, simply because I just want a box, any box, to use for these chests.  :D   "Environment" is an ok name, because all of the stationary things are elements of the game environment - terrain makes it sound too much like it is geographic which it isn't always.  Object if fine, and a safe name, but "Widget" or "Thing" might do as well. :) --Aspectacle 05:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Bundles are officially defined under "other item type" - their official name is bundle item. - B e X o R  09:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

(reseting indent) I've modified the item infobox to include a bundle parameter that will remove the value from an item. This doesn't effect existing items, as they won't be specifying the bundle param. I hadn't realised that bundles were officially designated as items, thanks for pointing that out BeXoR. I'd still like to split off environmental objects (is that the term we're using now?) from items as they are significantly different from items (can't be picked up at all, stationary, etc...). Soo, what colour should the infobox for these be? (Edit: Note that the only location information currently in the item infobox is Campaign) --Indecision 17:32, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Edit: I've also updated the environment objects infobox, with some minor changes and a slightly less strong orange (completely open to colour suggestions here). --Indecision 17:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * That orange isn't as orange, so isn't as much of an assualt on the eyes - however it is pretty close to the red colour used for NPCs. How about a dirty orange -


 * style="background:#EB6;" | #EB6
 * style="background:#ECA;" | #ECA
 * } --Aspectacle 19:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Environmental objects is way too unwieldy. Can't we think of something better than that? - B e X o R  00:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * You might also want to look at User:BeXoR/Infoboxes. Feel free to add your colour once you've decided on it. - B e X o R  00:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Environmental objects is way too unwieldy. Can't we think of something better than that? - B e X o R  00:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * You might also want to look at User:BeXoR/Infoboxes. Feel free to add your colour once you've decided on it. - B e X o R  00:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


 * The new colour looks good Indecision. For the term, drop either the "environment" or drop the "object". I prefer "Environment" but "Object" is just as well if length is an issue and seems a little more general. --Aspectacle 21:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I take it you mean Environment as in Template:Environment infobox? I'm really struggling to think of a good name for these objects. We could use chest, but then it'd be a bit weird to use Chest infobox for a ballistae/trebuchet. If we can't think of anything better I'll go ahead and implement the template as Environment infobox. --Indecision 21:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Environments are the maps, and Anet has referred to the areas as "environments". Object is the closest we're going to get without going into slang. - B e X o R  23:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I think we should use interactive item or interactive object, because that separates them from trees and other things in zones that can't be clicked on. - B e X o R  23:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I was flipping through a thesaurus trying to get good names, but really there aren't short and snappy ones. If Bexor thinks that interactive object/item is less unwieldy then I'm happy to use that for top level categorisation and a contraction for that in the info box name. --Aspectacle 23:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Well, as least its 2 letters and a syllable shorter. :P I just don't want to sacrifice accuracy for length. I think "interactive" is the best way to describe all of the things this refers to. - B e X o R  23:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * To me, object is broader than item (probably becos of Java programming... >.<). I chose "Environment object" over "Interactive object" because I'm thinking of things like signposts. These are "environment objects" but are not "interactive". And as I mentioned earlier... most inventory items are "interactive". But then again, you could say that trees are "environment objects" as well... I guess my "environment object" is more "selectable object" then. Trees are... "terrain objects" :P -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 23:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
 * So, "Interactive object" or "Environment object"? Wish people would stop confusing me :P, I'm just looking for a name to call the Template that everyone can be happy with. Templates for the above would probably be Template:IntObject infobox (Category:Interactive objects) and Template:EnvObject infobox (Category:Environment objects) respectively, if that helps. And, just to muddy the water a little more, do we really want to use the infobox for signposts? --Indecision 00:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Yes absolutely we should document the location of every signpost in the game. It is hugely important we do that!  O_o Maybe because they've yellow links and are sort of clickable we could do a general signpost page, but I'll probably just ignore it and see if someone else makes the page. :)
 * We could clarify interactive object to "interactive map object" if that helps at all? But I'm going to bow out of the conversation about the name now, because I'll just agree with (pretty much) anything which has either "interactive" or "environment" in it and not particularly mind which it is - which is not very helpful for making a decision. :) --Aspectacle 00:38, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Signposts are interactive - you can click on them. This also applies to monuments. I still think the box should be called Template:Interactive object infobox or Template:Interactive item infobox. Please don't shorten the name and use caps like that - that's a thing that was used on Guildwiki. All the infoboxes here have full names, and there's nothing wrong with having three words (guild hall infobox for example). - B e X o R  01:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Ok, for now I'm going to go with Template:Interactive object infobox and Category:Interactive objects. I'll copy across the template after I check the wording. --Indecision 01:43, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

You can 'use' them all, but most of them have no associated triggered events. You could call them just 'Objects'. since thay can be almost anything. MithranArkanere 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Version 2
I've updated the item formatting guideline to be more comprehensive and detailed (included materials and other information), please feel free to comment/revert as people like. I'll be updating the Template:Item infobox to treat value as an optional parameter in line with the discussion here--Indecision 22:33, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Looks good. Just one thing: If we include a ==Salvage== in item articles, should we also include this section in weapon articles? In both cases the infobox shows this information yet. - MSorglos 02:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
 * One more thing: weapons use ==Locations==, Items use ==Acquisition== . Should these sections be named equal? - MSorglos 02:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Stupid me, should have posted all ideas in one post... When are locations "confirmed" - if there are entries in the drop research on talk page? (see Kris Daggers for an example where confirmation is missing(?)) - MSorglos 02:46, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Glad someone likes it :). Firstly, I don't think it would hurt to include salvage information in the weapon articles as it may allow more specific salvage information (e.g. amounts expected from items/weapons(without better salvage upgrades of course)), however I'm open to the idea of dropping it if people want (as the info box does include the basic information). Secondly, I think acquisition is more appropriate as it (to me anyways), is a broader term than location. Again I'm open to changing it if that's what people want :). And thirdly, as far as 'confirmation' goes, to me this is a subjective term in that when an editor feels confident in saying that the information collected is complete, the reference to research can be removed. Note I'm not suggesting that previously 'confirmed' information be removed/relocated in this case, rather that if an editor doesn't know all the drop locations, that they can use the proposed formatting to gain more information :). Personally, I'm a fan of keeping the research information ticking over, even on 'confirmed' pages, mainly because I feel it may be helpful to some people. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Indecision.


 * That "more specific salvage information" sounds good to me, so including should be good. I don't know wether gathering that data will be difficult, but I support this (because I also want this data). See here for Gares' comment on that.
 * No opinion on location vs. acquisition (besides more difficult spelling :) ) I support chance to Acquisition, because it better states what this section does mean.
 * Keeping research data is sure enough. In my opinion keeping a link to this data could be useful, yet when enough data is collected. Unlinked data (I don't count the "talk page" link at top of page) is likely to be forgotten or unseen. Perhaps some little link right to the section header instead of that * research in progress, see here, such as ==Acquisition==?
 * When these changes are applied, don't hurry so much that I don't have anything left to do like with that Template_talk:Weapon_infobox. :) - MSorglos 07:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Updated the article again to remove some excess text etc... I'm not sure about the best way to incorporate the drop research link, as I'd like the link to be more visible than an endnote in the header. So any help with altering that formatting would be appreciated, as stated below :). As far as weapons go, after reading the note from Gares, it may be quite difficult to have a salvage section in the main article space, so I'm open to the idea of removing it entirely, if people prefer to use the item infobox for basic salvage information. --Indecision 20:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 * So only one problem left - how to present that link to drop research page... I agree on removing salvage section, if someone needs better data, we can collect this on salvage research page as for drops. - MSorglos 15:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Unwikify
Does every single mention of the article name have to be bolded? Only the first instance should be, IMO. I'm editing Roll of Parchment, and while I don't particularly like the use of the categories to record what contains a material (they are never complete), I've tried to follow the formatting guide. I did remove the recurrent wikifying of the article name, because it's ridiculous to have it bolded 20 times. - B e X  03:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I've made Roll of Parchment how I think rare crafting material articles should look. A lot of the text in this formatting guide is repetitive and superfluous. - B e X  03:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * That looks good to me! LordBiro 06:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Why listing some items that salvage into parchment and then link to Category:Contains parchment? Isn't that going to list some items twice, due to being in that category? Sorry, just being nitpicky ;) - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  06:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * If Category:Contains parchment was complete then I might agree, but I think in this instance, since we don't have every article yet, and since as BeXoR says some categories will not be complete, it makes most sense to have the list as well. LordBiro 07:00, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * What says the list will be complete? Have we tried salvaging EVERY item an exceptional number of times? :P If completeness is the reason to have a list, then the list should be complete.. But I guess it's hard to determine if it is. These lists was one of the things I really didn't like at GuildWiki. They were mostly not complete and sometimes very outdated. I'd rather rely on one of the two things, category or list, so we don't have to update on lots of places. - Anja Astor  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]]  (talk)  07:29, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * At the moment, items like armor aren't in the Contains material categories, which makes them grossly inaccurate. And at the moment, there are many items we know salvage into materials, but their articles haven't been created yet. I think both are necessary at the moment because of these two facts. - B e X  10:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I've updated the guideline to reflect these discussions, if there are any other issues people have with it, feel free to alter them directly :). Personally, I support the usage of the list and category at this stage, although it would be nice to have only one place to look for information. I'm also struggling to reconcile the usage of our own drop research with the current lists, as I would like there to be a permanent link to drop research in the articles (as discussed above), but I'm not sure about the formatting of this link. Any help with the formatting of the acquisition section for non-crafting materials would be appreciated (my brain isn't working so well atm). --Indecision 20:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * We can always just keep that on the talk page until we have more information. - B e X  01:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Drop research change for Hard Mode
I propose to slightly change Drop research table do mark Drops which are observed in Hard mode. A little H in front of table row should be enough. - MSorglos 11:36, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Where exactly is that drop research table? And uh... why not just have a separate table for hard mode instead adding an additional column? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 22:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Are you watching recent changes aberrant? ;) The drop research is in the items talk pages, and that's easily noticable every time MSorglos is online, since he/she does a lot of edits to them :) Btw, I don't care how you do it, as long as it's easy to fill with new entries and easy to read. An additional column before or after works, aswell as a new table. - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  03:45, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I did not even have thought about an extra table for hard mode drops. But I think that is too much work to do. An "H" in front of creature could be enough, but I'll change it to use an extra column - this should be better readable. - MSorglos 04:23, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Actually I do watch recent changes. It would be a simple thing as being in a different timezone. I don't dig through all recent changes. But I just noticed that the drop rate research is mentioned in the template and explanation, so my bad. I question both the place for it though. Wouldn't it be more practical to have a " /Drop research " page rather than putting it on the talk page? That way, you actually split drop research edits from other potential discussions on the talk pages. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:25, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'm sorry, it was meant as a joke. :( - Anja [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|Anja Astor]] (talk)  01:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Actually we have that drop research on talk page in an extra section. So the drop research edits are clear split from other discussion I think. That /Drop research is another possibility - if we get some more comments on that and more people think that it should be in extra page, I won't argue against. - MSorglos 02:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * No worries Anja :) I kinda suspected it was in a teasing sort of way :D Since I'm not really involved in drop research, I'll keep quiet now :P Until more data comes along then. *must try to remember to hit print screen when something drops instead of rushing over to pick it up* -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 04:05, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Hm, not sure. The good thing about the drop research tables in the talk page is that it makes it easier/more likely for users to add new entries there, while if we split it off in a separate subpage I'm guessing they'd be used less. Not sure. Maybe a subpage, with a link to it from a subsection of the main article, "Drop research data (click here to add more)"? Dunno. These things are only useful if they're used though, so encouraging the users to add more entries should be of high importance, I think. --Dirigible 08:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Are we meant to put the zone or the region the item was found in, cause the article says region, but all the research I've seen in zone. - B e X  22:26, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd prefer zone / mission. The Corsairs in the Dajkah Inlet mission don't have the same levels or drops as the Corsairs of the same name in the rest of Kourna. -- Gordon Ecker 02:16, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I agree, and have been using the zone/mission so far, haven't been thinking in the term region... If someone wants to update the notes/example for clarity, please go ahead, I can't think of the right name right now. --Indecision 02:20, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Location? :P - B e X  02:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * That's the one, now where did I put my brain? :) --Indecision 03:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Gwen's probably run off somewhere with it. - B e X  11:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I think it was me... I started to do drop research and my stub states REGION as a note for me what to fill in. Should state LOCATION... That "Drop research data (click here to add more)" sounds good to me. I don't know wether there are more edits on talk page or subpage... I know I missed the link to drop research pages in Guildwiki... (that Drop_rate page I did not find)... - MSorglos 15:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Drop research
Exactly what should we keep track of. I get that weapons and other equipment need to be recorded, but can someone give me an example of what weapon "skin" is referring to? I'm pretty clueless when it comes to items. Also, the material drops just go on the material pages right? Where do I put in salvage info? What about drops that are known to come only from one species? Do we still need to keep track? Like Spider Web. -- ab.er. rant  19:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


 * The philosophy I have been following so far is to try to keep track of everything that gets dropped on the individual items own talk page (e.g. Bone drop research on Bone talk page, Earth Staff drop research on Earth Staff talk page, etc...). More specific answers:
 * The "skin" section refers to weapons such as the Earth Staff, which have multiple skins depending on location (some other items have different skins dependent upon rarity as well). Its a way of helping to determine whether particular enemies drop a particular skin of that weapon.
 * At this stage, I'd like to see the material drops recorded on the individual material pages (although we don't currently link to this research in the main article). Once enough information has been collected it should be relatively simple for someone to go through to the individual NPC pages and add Category:Drops x to each NPC listed in the research. This could also be done in parallel with the drop research as well if people want to. I also support the recent addition of an amount column to the drop research table.
 * For drops that only come from one species, I feel its still helpful to record drops for a few scenarios, just to confirm the accuracy of the statement only (e.g. Stormseed Jacarandas in normal and hard mode drop Sentient Spores, but so do the Vicious Seedlings in one of the Nightfall quests). I would guess that when people are comfortable with knowing where these trophies drop, the reference to drop research can be dropped easily from the main article.
 * Generally for salvage items, I've noticed that many of them can drop from multiple types of enemy, so I feel its important to record information to determine the list of creatures dropping the item.
 * The way I see it, we are collecting raw information that can then be interpreted to provide answers to player questions similar to, "I'm looking for a Nightfall-skinned Earth Staff, what drops one?" and at more advanced levels, "Do monsters in normal and hard mode share the same drop tables?" and "Which chests should I open to try and get an Elemental Sword?". I see this as an ongoing research thingy with people intermittently analysing the data generated and providing the conclusions for people's use in some form. Hope that helps :). --Indecision 21:23, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * Sure does. I think it might be a good idea to reword your points into the article as a section explaining drop research. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * What about things that are dropped by everything? Like lockpicks, dyes, and keys? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


 * For dyes, I'm pretty sure these have already been confirmed to be a "pure" random drop (i.e. not linked to any campaign, area or monster). We can still record the information as there is no harm to doing so the way I see things (it just re-confirms what we know already). As for lockpicks and the like, I believe these are Hard Mode random drops, so would need to be differentiated in the main article as such, (again no real harm in recording the info anyways). I believe keys are linked to regions only, and as such could be summarised as Region->Random drop. In my opinion, there's no harm to throwing in the research information, it is after all only "observed" drops and not the complete list of drop information, however the main articles should probably provide a clear summary of known/suspected drop information (e.g. Dyes drop from everything (with Black/White dyes having a lower observed drop rate than others). Vabbian Keys drop randomly from enemies within Vabbi. Lockpicks drop randomly from enemies in Hard Mode.) --Indecision 21:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand why the research data is collected under the dropped item rather than the drop source. For example: Why record an earth staff dropping from a carven effigy under Talk:Earth Staff instead of Talk:Carven Effigy? For information on what-drops-what, either way is fine...but it seems like you'd have to review things in the second way for all the really juicy statistics analysis. --Rezyk 22:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


 * I guess both ways are fine, I've been operating from the perspective of "What drops ?" as opposed to "What does this drop?". I'm pretty sure that both ways would require about the same amount of review for juicy stats (Is there any other kind :)?), although as always I'm open to suggestions for improvement. The only way I can see around it is to have a dual entry system (info on both NPC and Item pages), but that might introduce errors from all the additional edits. Also, just a thought (and correct me if I'm wrong), but many of the NPC pages encompass both Hard and Normal mode information, as well as various evolutions/regions of the enemies, which may prove detrimental in determining whether or not a drop is location, enemy or level-linked. Keep the questions/suggestions/comments coming :). --Indecision 22:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
 * I think this recording is still in its infancy stage, so things are basically recorded just for the sake of recording first, and then sorting them out later on when a more formal process comes up. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 22:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


 * Towards key drops. They are not really location-dependent. Graven Monolith in Domain of Secrets dropped an Ancient Elonian Key instead of Margonite Key. Don't know wether Margonites drop Margonite Keys in Vabbi too. I think it is somehow location and monster specific... most Graven Monoliths "live" in The Desolation, so they drop ancient elonian keys... - MSorglos 03:06, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Make official
Are there any outstanding issues that still needs to be discussed and decided? Otherwise this should be made official. -- ab.er. rant  01:42, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Nothing to discuss for me - that ==Acquisition== should also be used in weapon formatting, I'll change it there. - MSorglos 03:05, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Farming locations
I posted this on Talk:Trophy and BeXoR suggested I ask here instead. I have started work on the GuildWiki in adding information about farming for trophies and wondered whether there'd be room for something similar over here. So far I have done Plague Idols and Mantis Pincers. I realise this site is still very much in its infancy and deciding where/how to best implement this would be hard without some practical examples, so would anybody like to suggest a good mature trophy article to try this on (in userspace)? Cheers. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Eerie Moss.
 * I don't really mind having that sort of content. I just want to nitpick on the map. The way the map stretches the page downwards and causing empty space is inelegant and ugly. Personally, I'd rather just have a list of farming locations, so as to prevent the setting of a precedent where suddenly, there could be several thumbnails stretching the page downwards on one side. A gallery or something could work I suppose. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 23:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Agreed on the map hideously poking down into empty space bit, but I'm not sure how else to do it (I'm, er, new. ;). Perhaps a text link to the map? How's this? Eerie Moss 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I love that info! And I also think that way is a nice way to put it. No big map stretching the page, but the map is easy to find :) - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  08:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I can't believe I did that, feel like such a noob. >.< Thanks for the move Bex! Eerie Moss 10:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * NP, I've done it before too. ;) - B e X  11:19, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If there are no objections I'd like to incorporate this into the formatting guide so I can start doing it to actual pages. First though, which layout is better, with Farming as a subsection of Acquisition or with Farming as a section on its own? Eerie Moss 09:26, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I'd like to see it as a subsection of acquisition. - B e X  22:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Agree to see it as a subsection of acquisition. I don't know wether it could be usefull to set a naming schema for the farming maps. - MSorglos 02:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I would suggest Image: farming map.jpg - B e X  03:46, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 * There could be cases where "this is the best place, but if you're not up to there yet, here's good too", so I would like to include the name of the area in the image name. Image: farming map.jpg ?
 * Good idea. :) - B e X  04:22, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Added. I'd appreciate if you guys could look over it as I've never edited anything official before. :P Eerie Moss 05:22, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Okay, I screwed that up royally, sorry for all the edits. I reverted to last good and did them again, carefully. What did my head in, and I think is still laid out very confusingly, is the drop rate tables. Logically they should be under Acquisition, but since that's where I wanted to put Farming, I had to either put Farming below Drop Research, which makes it look like it's a subsection of Drop Research, or put it above Drop Research, which breaks the flow of the page. I did the former, but as you'll see it's very confusing, so I look forward to hearing other ideas. Sorry again for all the edits. Eerie Moss 05:45, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I... can't see actually. Where exactly did you do all your edits? And drop rate tables are on talk pages, so how does that interrupt your farming section? Your farming section is a level 3 header under "Acquisition". Any drop data that will get added can simply be another level 3 header either above or below your farming details. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:21, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Ah, I see them now. On the guidelines. Anyway, I can't tell what's wrong. "Drop research" is a level 2 header. Your farming is a level 3 header that should be located inside "Acquisition". From what I'm thinking, "Drop research" should also be a level 3 header under "Acquisition". -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:28, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
 * You want drop research in the main article? o_O - B e X  01:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Isn't that what's on the... *goes to re-read the formatting article* ... oh... misread. In that case, I propose we move the drop research section out of "Syntax and Example" and into a separate section. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Bundle
Bundle items (things like exploding powder kegs, master gears, massive honeycomb, etc) aren't covered by the interactive object formatting, and technically are items. I created Slow Totem. Any thoughts on how to improve this? Should it have its own infobox and formatting? Some parameters would need to be added to the box, for instance a mission parameter (this is also needed for items like Cell Keys from the Kodonur Crossroads mission) and map. There are other existing bundle articles which incorrectly label them as quest items. They may be involved in certain quests, but they aren't quest items. - B e X  10:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Pre/Post Searing items
Is it worth separating Pre-searing Ascalon items (Spider Leg) from other Prophecies items? They are practically different worlds. Eerie Moss 17:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Practically, but not technically. Exactly how are you proposing to separate them? FYI, pre-Searing Ascalon is just treated as a separate region. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 21:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Not sure really, it was a spur of the moment suggestion after seeing the Spider Leg, which at the moment is just a stub. When it gets fleshed out it should become more clear that it's a pre-searing drop. Eerie Moss 04:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Yep, it will be. There would be an "Acquisition" section that would group the sources of that particular item by region (and by campaign if necessary). -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 04:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
 * Anyone know if you can bring a spider leg from pre and trade it to a post searing collector? Do they stack with Post items? - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  04:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
 * I don't think there's a post-Searing collector for it. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
 * You missed my point :P My question was rather, does the game database consider them the same or different items, if there is something in both Post and Pre with the same name. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]]  (contribs)  05:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Easy way to test, get one from both regions and see if they'll stack. &mdash; Skuld 05:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
 * According to GuildWiki they only drop in Pre. There's a whole Spider Leg category, but they're called different things; Corrosive, Ebon, Igneous. Eerie Moss 06:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Double bolding
After this guide was implemented it's easy to see a few areas where it's not working. One such area is the rare crafting material crafting line where the material is bolded again. I think we should revise this now that there are many examples around. - B e X   04:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely open to the idea of additional revisions. Another change that I'd consider making would be to split off the drop research into another formatting guideline, although I only have a vague idea of what that guideline should contain at this point in time. Also, this will need updating anyways if the potential merge with the rune and insignia infoboxes goes ahead. I am still however of the opinion that it is better to keep the weapon and item infoboxes separate. Feel free to go ahead and draft up changes you'd like to see. --Indecision 02:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Environment objects
Bleached bones, Splinter Mines, Sentry Traps, Landmark singposts, Gravesites, Chests, Tablets of Wisdom... they are all the same: Yellow names, targeteable and stuck in their locations. I suggest we give them a common name and a category. Something like 'placeable objects' or 'Environmet objetcs' or just simply 'Objects' or something like that. MithranArkanere 16:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you scroll up to the "Chests" section, you can find some discussion on this. Might give you some ideas. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you put something like Hollow Log or Inscription Stone here? Something that is inanimate and doesn't do anything, just there with a nice yellow label to make sure you know it's there. --[[Image:User_Jasmine_the_Fey_Sig.jpg]]Jasmine 03:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, you've got it. Take a look at Dusty Urn if you'd like an example of item which is quest related. What you've done with Inscription Stone is fine.  Perhaps use 'Quest item' as the type? --Aspectacle 03:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Take the 'quest item' thing back - those things definitely don't go into inventory! There might be room for another category in there but in the meantime Interactive object is better. --Aspectacle 04:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interactive objects?-- §  Eloc   §  04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. Read the link and the discussion way up the top of the page if you want to know more. --Aspectacle 04:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Trophys
We need a Format for Trophys.-- §  Eloc   §  03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain? The current guidelines already covers trophies. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where at?-- §  Eloc   §  03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, according to this guideline (and the existing pages), a trophy needs the "Acquisition" section and the "Collectors" section. Then follow the rules in Item infobox on how to get the type and categories correct for them. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They are covered, you just need to put 'Trophy' as the type an the monsters that drop it under acquisition. MithranArkanere 15:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Salvage
This subheading is already being removed from articles by multiple users because it is redundant. Because this is not a policy, all changes don't need to be discussed first and Eloc was just changing it to fit the pattern of behaviour that people are already using when editing/creating item articles. - B e X   03:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remove the salvage heading. I think his edit was ok, not everything has to be discussed first, as Bexor pointed out. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Policies about changes state that discussions should be to prevent Revert Wars, not before every single change. So the first change was fine, and this discussion after the second is ok too. MithranArkanere 11:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LoL, why keep the Salvage heading? It's already covered by item infobox.-- §  Eloc   §  22:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition of category similar to GuildWiki's: Category:Profit if collected
I would like to add a category similar to GuildWiki's Category:Profit if collected, and also one for the reverse case.

The stated purpose on GuildWiki for the category is: "A list of collectable drops that can be given to a collector for an item which is worth more than the individual drops when sold to a merchant. "

I am using the term "profit" as that is the term that was already used before me on GuildWiki. I realize every trophy can be sold to a merchant as a profit, but please bear with me and read the example definitions. Maybe someone can suggest a better terminology.

Profitable trophy: For example, Stone Summit Badge. It will resell directly to a Merchant for 8 gold. If you trade 5 of this trophy into a collector (listed on the page), the reward item's resell value (125 gold) exceeds 40 gold that you would normally get selling the equivalent number of trophies straight to a merchant. Thus, the trophy is a Profitable trophy, and should be collected and traded in for a profit.

NonProfitable trophy: For example, Fibrous Mandragor Root. It will resell directly to a merchant for 20 gold. If you 5 of this trophy into a collector (listed on the page), the reward item's resell value (100 gold) is equal to or less than the 100 gold you would normally get selling the equivalent number of trophies straight to a merchant. Thus, the trophy is a NonProfitable trophy, and should be sold straight to the Merchant instead of using the collector. In other words, the equivalent of "junk".

Another example would be the Stone Summit Badge before EOTN (see the page). The collector was taking 5 badges for an item worth 24 gold. Clearly not a profit.

I had started one for each category (Profitable Trophies and NonProfitable Trophies), but BeXor suggested I should bring it up here first. I hope you understand my request, the justification for this category, and the need for it. I am totally open to not using the word "profit", and using something else.Erpbridge 01:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree, that profit is totally subjective as a good weapon can be enough profit even if there is the same value. If you choose another term instead of profit, I would disagree as well, as I don't see any reason for this. We don't want to list possible "farming" methods here, we want to list facts. Those who are interested in getting gold by using Trophies, can easily find out, if one or another tropy is "profitable" (btw. someone who wants to make money by using Trophies wouldn't use hundred different Trophies but one or two instead); but otherwise it's just wasted space for another category..
 * Those things should be located in fan forums but not on a wiki.. poke | talk 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally am not against the use of these categories, but only in the case when the reward is worth more than the trophies. I don't think something being of equal value warrants mentioning because it's just the norm. Perhaps if the item is worth less than the reward also. The information was already included in the notes section of some of the trophy pages anyway.
 * If these categories are implemented they need a better name, because the current ones are misleading and confusing, and they don't conform with our formatting guideline for category names. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 01:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already registered disagreement with the NonProfitable category at Category talk:NonProfitable Trophies. It's subjective and contingent.  There's also not much point to a "Not-A" category.  --Valshia 02:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this.-- §  Eloc   §  18:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Eloc, are you disagreeing with what Valshia said or what Erpbridge said? As for me, I have no problems with such categories. It's just a matter of finding the right words for it. Use a longer category name if necessary to clarify it. Valshia, the "Not" category was not meant to hold the rest of them. It's meant to hold those trophies where you're actually better off selling it directly because the collector item has a lower value. Again, it's just the name.

Poke, these are also facts. It's a fact that the collector items for Stone Summit Badge sells for more gold than the Stone Summit Badges themselves. Why shouldn't something like this be mentioned when it's only a little category? And personally, it's actually more useful than the "Contains " categories because I hardly care what I get as I always keep a big stash of them. And I also hold onto the trophies I get, so it's good to know what to keep or clear out when I need space. And for the comment about farming, are you saying we shouldn't? Things like Faction farm and Fast faction farming? We shouldn't add notes on which explorable areas are best known for farming a certain title? Why is a farming method not fact? -- ab.er. rant  15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is facts, and great to know. I think we should have them. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 15:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, shoulda been more secriptive. I disagree the idea of Category:Profit if collected.-- §  Eloc   §  22:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that something more generic would do. A category for those trophies that can be exchanged by something different (other than just weapons, offhands and armor): Weapons with salvageable upgrades, consumables(alcohol, food, sweets, etc), etc... MithranArkanere 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Category:Trophies profitable if sold to merchants"? Too long I suppose.... "Category:Profit if sold to merchants"? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 10:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Collector) reward worth more (more valuable) than trophies? - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 11:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't think we need this category. Why not just put a note on the collectors page saying that you can make money that way?--- §  Eloc   §  17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or we create a page which holds a list of those things.. We don't have categories for each subject of this list: List of skills by related subject.. poke | talk 17:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * List of trophies worth less than their collector reward? - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A list is slightly less useful than a category because the category name self-descriptive and can be less wordy than a note saying something like see this list of trophies for which are more profitable or this is one of the more profitable trophies, see here for more. But if you can get the DPL to work for such trophies, sure, otherwise, a list is more work. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 16:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant only a list. poke | talk 16:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, which is why I said it's less useful than a category simply because you wouldn't need to manually add a sentence to describe and link to the list on all the relevant trophy pages. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 17:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or we could just link to it from Trophy. :/ - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 01:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have one: "Trophies with uncommon rewards". It's not too long, and self-descriptive, and is useful both for trophies with unusual and worthy rewards. MithranArkanere 14:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should give a reason to being opposed to this, shouldn't I? Anyways, the reason I'm opposed to this is because I've always seen this Wiki as a formal kind of wiki, like, all policys and all pages are run pretty much the same. But, this is a good thing. I just don't think this idea sounds very formal in my opinion.-- §  Eloc   §  14:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Uncommon" is too vague or broad, imo. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 14:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the idea. Common refers to all common leveled weapon offhand and armor rewards. Uncommon would be all that are not that kind of thing: food, alcohol, consumables, tems with salvageable upgrades, items that get more gold when sold... That is, Trophies worth keeping even if you don't need equipable items. MithranArkanere 14:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the point of categories was to sort things into specific and searchable groups. Using "uncommon" would make the category next to useless. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 15:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Uncommon" is already used as an item rarity, so I usually disagree with any term being reused for a different meaning. Eloc, what exactly is "formal" to you? Just trying to get your meaning. Do you consider farming guides and farming locations to be "informal" as well? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 02:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno, nvm. Doesn't matter.-- §  Eloc   §  04:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The can be found:
Do we really need "The can be found:" under acquisition on every page? I think the heading serves the purpose enough. Same for weapons formatting too. And a lot of pages have the name bolded which it shouldn't. :/ - B e X   02:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get rid of it too. It's inaccurate as well, since "Acquisition" is being used to list all sorts of sources. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 03:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * iawtc - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Camels? Where? :). Seriously though, I also am waving/agree. --Indecision 04:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just keep the drop research part, or even put the research on the main page from now on maybe?-- §  Eloc   §  04:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The drop research note is fine, and the research is best on the talk page because its quite untidy and repetitive. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 07:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both points. What would acquisition be other than that? Places where the item cannot be found? Backsword 07:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Value
I'd like to suggest to either make Value hold both buy and sell value, or include buy value as an optional thing in the infobox. Most new people take value as what it costs to buy the item, it seems, and I also think it makes sense to include (static) buy values in the infobox. - anja   10:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Insignia
i'd like to incorporate insignia into this infobox since runes have been incorporated. the code change is basically a copy of the rune code. i've made a test template and a test insignia entry to show what it would look like. thoughts? -- VVong | BA 19:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * no comments? if no one objects, i'll move insignia over on monday the 17th. -- VVong | BA 21:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Insignia are just a type of Armor upgrade, just like runes. So, either neither of them are there, or both of them. I'll go for 'concentration', the more uses a single infobox has, instead of having many different infoboxes, the better, so, I will not oppose to this. MithranArkanere 22:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't affect me any. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  09:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Acquisition
Should bosses be listed under acquisition for items such as tropies and salvage items? Tedium 06:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, after going through several salvage items, I noticed some only drop from bosses so I'll go ahead and list bosses. Should there be something like "(boss)" after a boss name in the list? Tedium 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PvP Items
Just wondering what the general view is on whether to include these in weapon lists. Weapon pages themselves are a bit inconsistent. Some don't include links (Sword, Shield), some have redlinks (Hammer), and some have been created (Dagger, PvP Daggers). Has there been a discussion on whether to include them, or should I just go ahead and create the pages? -- AT (talk | contribs) 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)