Template talk:Polymock piece infobox

What's the form icon? --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about the need for 3 images? There is a form and there is a piece, what is the third for? -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 15:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's the inventory icon for the piece, the render for the piece when dropped, and a "form icon"... not sure what that is though. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When you play polymock you take the form of the piece you are using I believe. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 15:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For a Fire Imp Polymock piece :
 * First image represents a Fire Imp (actually it's the player disguised)
 * Second image represents the inventory icon of the piece
 * Third image is the icon that appears in the top-left of the screen while you're in this form (see this)
 * Didn't care about the dropped image. You think I should? Chriskang 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then the first image should be a variable so we can reuse renders of existing monsters -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 15:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if they look the same, they're functionaly different and I thought it was a better idea to have different renders. For example, we don't want to use the miniature Asura render to represent an asura NPC, do we? In the same way, I think a Fire Imp monster and a Fire Imp Polymock piece should have different renders. Chriskang 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually yes we would and do, see Miniature Gwen for example. They are identical models, there is no point having redundancy in different names for the same image. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 15:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know we do it for now but I thought everyone agreed to say it's wrong. If you look at the Asura page, you can see clearly that this is a mini and I strongly believe that the image doesn't fit the article at all. Do we really need to spare room on Anet's hard drive so we can't upload different versions of a same model when needed? Look at the Mergoyle picture. If we re-use this one for the Mergoyle Polymock piece, player will clearly see that it's not Polymock piece but taken from another render. Personnaly, I would find that disturbing. Of course, if we can get clear renders of the monsters (I mean hi-res, with no background, like in the NPC project) then I would be the first one to take those renders and put them on both pages (Mergoyle monster & Mergoyle Polymock piece). But for now, I don't think we have that. Chriskang 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Campaign
Is this label necessary, they are all Eye of the North at the moment as far as we know? -- Lemming 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I put it here because I thought it was mandatory to mention campaign on each item page but I don't like it either. Let's remove it. Chriskang 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Some more useful variables to add?
How about: Obtained from: -- Lemming 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure on that. There seems to be a lot of possible acquisition sources (unlocked while playing the minigame, found in multiple chests). I think this deserves a full section in the main article, not just a few lines in the infobox. Maybe we could wait until release and see how many ways there are to gain pieces? Chriskang 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I suspect each dungeon chest only gives one type of piece based on the limited information we have so far. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or at least if it's a quest reward or not. Also, the rarity would be interesting, no?--[[image:User_Cyberman_Mastermind_Sig.gif| ]] Cyberman 07:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Item
Isn't this an item? - B e X   09:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saw this and propose merge with the Item infobox as this is simply an item.. poke | talk 22:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When I created this template, there were 3 images in it as I thought the environment effect icon would be different for each piece. Now that this image has been removed (cause icons are all the same) I suppose the merge should be possible. Just a little warning : it will be very hard to comply with the GWW:ITEM policy, because articles don't describe just the inventory item but also the piece that you use while playing the game (including its build and maybe later a little strategy specific to the piece). If it's not a problem to be a little out of the policy, then merge. Chriskang 08:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can change GWW:ITEM because it's a formatting guideline, not a policy. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 08:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeh I agree, may as well use the item infobox. -- Lemming [[Image:User Lemming64 sigicon.png]] 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree in merging this with the item infobox. &mdash;Zerpha[[Image:UserZerpha The Improver sig.png|talk]] The Improver 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So ...everyone agreed 1.5 years ago, and it's still not done? Backsword 11:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Render image name
Isn't the "render" suffix in the name redunant? The inventory icon uses a .png file, the render a .jpg file. So it should better be: (We already had a quite similar discussion on the Inventory icons project and ended up using the same names for both pics (I also asked the same question on Item infobox template talk)) &mdash;Zerpha The Improver 13:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)