Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Armor art articles

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Proposal 2 Icons 3 icon integration into the armor pages 4 Disambig 5 Materials 5.1 In-game order 6 Festival hats

[edit] Proposal

Anja and I have been wrestling with the armor crafting tables. We have to present a lot of information without letting the table get too wide, otherwise it overlaps with the infobox and everything goes to heck. On the majority of pages it isn't too bad, unless you're browsing at 1024 or lower, at which point I think most of the armor articles would make you tear your own hair out.

A great many crafting materials have very long names, and we've been using the shorthand forms (like "Cloth" instead of "Bolt of Cloth"). Unfortunately, some names can't be shortened, and even some shortened names are longer than desirable. Some names have two words (like "Elonian Leather Square" is shortened to "Elonian Leather") and in order for the crafting table to fix onscreen without spazzing out under the infobox, we have to add a linebreak and spaces to the link (i.e. [[Elonian Leather|Elonian<br>  Leather]] - those are manual spaces if you look at the code). Adding a linebreak stretches the table out and makes it look horrible.

In game, the names of crafting materials aren't listed at all when you craft your armor. Instead you have the icons which mouseover to give you their name. I know a lot of people think that this is presentation over content. I think of it as a balance. I figure if it's good enough for in game, it's good enough for the wiki.

Keep in mind that the images templates have alt text which tell you the name of the material on mouse over, otherwise you can check your status bar to see the image name. Clicking on the image redirects you to the crafting material article also.

So for your perusal: User:BeXoR/Armor crafting tables. At this point it's just a test. I'm expecting more negative feedback than positive, but at least I can try. I'm trying to make the content as accessible and well presented for all users. Personally none of the armor articles are causing me problems, but the line breaks added in for users' with smaller resolutions are an ugly solution.

(I was also toying with using inventory images (if Smurf could retrive them somehow and .png them) rather than names in the heading row, and have the full item name (as in the image above) as alt text, rather than just having "Vestments", etc). - BeX 13:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

To me these tables with icons instead of material name look good. Perhaps the icons could be a little bit bigger for not looking so blured. Support! - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I support this change (of course, I was part in suggesting it ;) ). First of all, it imitates what we see in game, and the alt texts also makes sure those viewing the page without images still can see what material it is. Secondly, it definitely makes the crafting tables easier to manage, since many of the long material names now make formatting hard. They force linebreaks and make the tables hard to read (and ugly, but that's not the main point, imo). - anja (contribs) 11:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I also support this change. The armor pages are visited by many people speaking different languages. With the icons they don't need to click on the text to know what materials they need. The icons are more universal and because of this are much better then the text. If someone is interrested in the text, he should just hover the icon to see the name. As the icons are redirected to the specific materials page, it also stays easy to access the specific materials page. A sideeffect (for me, for you this was intentional) is a smaller and more concise table. Der moon 11:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal. Perhaps if the numerals also were links to each material's page, it would be obvious that more information could be garnered by click or mouseover. -- Dashface 06:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to get this implemented as soon as possible (or just forget about it, if consensus suddenly goes towards not using it), any idea on how to make it more visible? - anja (contribs) 07:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on RFC too. I guess keep talking about it and people will notice in RC? - BeX 09:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So I should just keep posting stupid comments here until people notice? ;) Nah, I thought about posting on some big editors talk pages also, that usually draws attention from even more ppl than just the talk page holder. But we'll see :) - anja (contribs) 10:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not getting much more attention. Should we get around making random talk page requests, or make this change? - anja 18:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, the "Recent changes" entry caught my attention : P I don't really like this change - I like how it's easy to tell on a glance what the materials are, something that would not be possible with some items (and even worse, someone could look at the Elonian Leather Square icon and think those are common Leather Squares, and things like that), but I don't really have a better idea, so... Erasculio 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's a big problem: - . You can see the difference, you can hold your mouse over the icons to see the correct name and you can click on them to get more information. -> Go for images! poke | talk 14:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I support this change. Images for president (or something like that). Der moon 19:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

These new images rock! :D - helena 18:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Icons

Lemming meant we should continue our talk here, now i'll do so.
Does it make sense if we choose a common name for several icons and then use this for them? If i think for a longer time of it, i actually would say no.
In opposite to the NPC models project, icons do not necessarily common names.

• The files are very small anyways (if this is even matters)
• Making templates with icons that have a permanent consistent structure will be easier.
• Icons often redirect to a specific page. If an icon is used for several pages, we cannot do so.
• If an icon is shared, we could leave a note on the corresponding files.

So, if you ask me, i arrive at a decision that advices to avoid common names and simply use a decided structure (which is in most cases simply the item's name) —ZerphaThe Improver 08:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine what format the icons would have on an art article. I imagine moreso that they would go in the gallery. And I would not really expect them to have redirects, but I can see how in terms of armor it would be helpful. I see the major use for these icons to be on user pages. In any case, a template is not necessary. We did all of the armor galleries without a template and it worked well. Templates are best for situations where data is changed constantly, and so that input of data is simple. - BeX 08:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

right because their main use will be on userpages, i supposed that we would use templates.
We could only define one of the shared icons to add to the Category to prevent double icons in the gallery.
But no matter for what we finally decide, trophy icons should also then become adjusted to our decision. (For example, All Ales use the [:Image:Huner's Ale.png|Hunter's Ale]] pic, we should then upload an Image:Ale.png for these to have a common name. Or the Rune of doom and Golem Runestone should also get a common file like Image:Runestone.png, or the Cowbells and Run Relics...) —ZerphaThe Improver 16:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another template (besides the personal armor set template i tried to make) wanted to create is an equivalent of the {{skill icon}} for weapons. Specific names would be useful for this. (Because of that every Monster skill also uses the same icon, doesn't it?) —ZerphaThe Improver 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Some salvage icons already have a shared image, like Salvage meat or Salvage heavy etc but discussion about that should probably go on at gww:items.

You can still accomplish a template with that with semi-manual name input - and you're always saving the formatting code etc. People mix and match anyway. Typing "Kurzick Cuirass" isn't that different from typing "Kurzick Cuirass m". I think in both these situations, templates aren't really essential, and thus shouldn't dictate how we format things. People will customize their own formatting for user pages. - BeX 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion there Zerpa, I'm all for "duplicating" the images so to speak, since it makes using them alot easier. Icons (and now I'm talking about armor icons since this is an armor formatting) aren't shared in the same extent as for salvageable armor drops, but only in a few cases. - anja 21:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, ok. Making the armor set template semi-manual is't a big problem. But it'd be a pity if the item icon template equivalent would be semi-manual imo. Could I then maybe already add the exceptions within the {{Weapon icon}} template? Or would that cause to use too much data when used? And in any case, we cannot upload those images? —ZerphaThe Improver 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the need for so many templates? :S - BeX 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a bunch of template ideas i could think up making with those icons :> And every template can help the Wiki, either winthin the articles, or on the user pages. And having a redirect on every icon is also useful when having {{Item icon}}, as with {{Skill icon}}. —ZerphaThe Improver 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We still don't even know how the icons will be used in articles yet! Don't step ahead of yourself. ;D - BeX 22:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] icon integration into the armor pages

→ moved from GWW talk:Projects/Inventory icons

Yes i know we cannot do so yet as we need all icons at first, but we could already discuss about the design now. (Not sure if this is the right place to do so)
I tried to make some designs that include the icons into the armor art infoboxes, but the first is too elongated, the second too big and the third does not use full size icons. Some problems could maybe partly become fixed if i knew how to "stack" the icons without leaving needless space. —ZerphaThe Improver 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be on the formatting page. ;P Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Armor art articles. - BeX 02:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :) - BeX 18:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In my sandbox, I've done a different infobox. I want to put the Female/Male Gallery links and box below the icons it pertains to. Feel free to toy around with it, either in my or your own sandbox. Calor 03:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything horizontal will be way to wide. :/ We already had problems with the infobox layering over the crafting table (which is why we switched to crafting icons). - BeX 03:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Alright then. Calor 05:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems hard to include them in the armor pages (from your examples), would it be ok to have them only in the galleries? - anja 10:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig

I think we should add the following line to the top of the example armor article:

{{otheruses|the armor art style|the armor bonus formerly associated with this armor style|<insignia name>}}<!--only include if this armor style was once associated with a specific bonus-->

-- Gordon Ecker 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Materials

How should materials be arranged for armour types with more than one material? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

what exactly do you mean? - Zesbeer 11:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Like this, not like this. ~Celestia 11:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

^^ Yes. Rose Of Kali 14:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks baed. Change back plz. --JonTheMon 14:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, reverted Chaos Gloves page too...but now looking at the contribs it's for more pages... ~Celestia 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above. The latter looks teh ugleh, is formatted terribly, and might break the appearance of the templates for some people depending on their resolution. Really not sure why the standard format was changed to that. -- pling 15:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above, the former looks better and the latter looks fugly, however just had a wee gander through some of the armour pages and seems a few of them are in this ugly format. Will go about changing them now. -- Salome 15:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay I went through all the common armour, warrior armour, ranger armour and half the monk armour, updating it to the preffered formatting as discussed above. However I have noticed that many of the pages with the unpopular two collumed formatting date back to 2007/2008 and thus have been this way for some time. Therefore stopped changing it for now and going to let the wiki decide if they prefer one style over another before i go round implmenting the change to a one collumed format. -- Salome 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

/shakefist at you editing your comment after I mass tabbed the pages -.-. I don't mind either of the two, but the ones that they were just now looked horrible on my screen (1280x800). I noticed them changed earlier but didn't say anything because I thought it was just my screen, but then I saw this talk topic. ~Celestia 15:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL sorry about that. It was only after I looked through all those pages that i noticed that the formatting is not consistent across them and never has been, as at first I thought it was just Ariyen that had changed all the formatting recently. However it seems the dual collumed appraoch has been used for some time, I just never noticed it as I am only ever really on the ranger armour pages and they were mostly in the prefered style. As you have already done all the undoing though, no point in redoing it now. At the moment I suggest we leave them as is (with the chamges you and I have made) and let people who have an oppinion on this have their say. As even with all of the recent edits being undone, their is still a lack of consistency in the formatting as shown when you compare the Vabbian armour pages. (elementalist and monk are different to all the other vabbian styles and have been that way since june 2007) -- Salome 16:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So many look horrible as is. Considering in resolutions, how about we just have them all look more like [[1]] that? that way they're better and able to tell the numbers with the icons. Let others revert if they like some of the old messed up ways. It's just better to have it consistant to a way. Not clumped up. -- riyen ♥ 18:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to having the standard be br's between materials. --JonTheMon 18:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest aligned right for them all. like this for example. so that it's not having the numbers and images being uneven looking. -- riyen ♥ 18:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at the newer of that = All are aligned, top two rows are center. The names are left. Icons and numbers are right. What you guys think of that for all of the armor (and maybe even weapons?) -- riyen ♥ 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest, Ariyen, that you do those kinds of edits in a sandbox type area until a consensus is reached. de Kooning 19:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. However, it wouldn't 'appeal' look the same, unless everything was copied. Whereas, I'd done only the table part and it could/would come out differently. Anyway, damage done. I'm wondering how we could 'fix', 'correct' or have these pages look better than some currently do. I'm wanting this as a project to do. -- riyen ♥ 22:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if we decide to have more than one material per row, we can make them line up using invisible tables, see the following two examples:

Crafting
Location	Armorer	AR	Cost	Helm	Cuirass	Gauntlets	Leggings	Boots		Total cost
The Kodash Bazaar	Mateneh	80	5	25 4 2 2	75 12 6 6	25 4 2 2	50 8 4 4	25 4 2 2		25	200 32 16 16

Crafting
Location	Armorer	AR	Cost	Helm	Cuirass	Gauntlets	Leggings	Boots		Total cost
The Kodash Bazaar	Mateneh	80	5	25 4 2 2	75 12 6 6	25 4 2 2	50 8 4 4	25 4 2 2		25	200 32 16 16

-- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"LOL sorry about that." I noticed you stopped reverting (looking at RC) so I assumed you gave up, so decided to do the rest...Mass tabbed and reverted all the top edits, and then saw the post about why you didn't do them :P Anyway as Gordon Ecker has stated- using an invisible table looks much better than using differing spaces between materials (the above example is hawt). ~Celestia 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed one random thing:


Due to the shape of the icons when dust is immediately above hide it looks kind of messy/cluttered. Only way I can think of to fix this off the top of my head is to shrink the images by a few pixels in the template, but maybe it doesn't actually look horrible to anyone else. I can't remember where this happens exactly, but I've seen it. Monk Shing Jea armor is similar, but not as bad. Misery 14:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I kinda see what you mean, but could we not just put dust as the bottom icon no matter what or would that be tricky? Also to be honest I like Gordon's example and I would like to be able to get everything uniform across the board. -- Salome 14:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Gordon's table (choose we decide on that) could prevent this from happening:

Crafting
Location	Armorer	AR	Cost	Helm
x	x	x	x	25 4 2 2

Also it would depend how the lines are arranged (2x2, 2x1, 3x2, etc.). ~Celestia 14:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why were they changed in the first place? What was wrong with the old with the "10 {{Parchment}}<br>5 {{Ink}}<br>10 {{Jadeite}}"? de Kooning 15:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I kind of prefer a single column instead of 2x2 "invisible" cells, which makes everything kind of flush together and looks like things are just floating in space with no visible dividers. It's already hard to see the borders between adjacent cells, and when you have multiple columns of items in a single cell, it makes it even worse. I have to lower my head and look up at the monitor from a 45-degree angle below my normal viewing to even see the cell dividers and be able to tell what goes with what. Single columns made it easier in the sense that you know that there is only one column you have to look at per armor piece, and there was wider spacing between columns. That, or at least make the cell borders darker than the current virtually invisible - a darker gray would work nicely. Rose Of Kali 16:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think the example gordon provided are clear enough for everyone to understand, actually putting in visible gray dividers however would look ugly in my opinion. As for the 1 column approach, I will admit i favour it however it becomes somewhat ugly when there is alot of composite materials, for example necro and monk stuff can have up to 6 component materials which when put into 1 collumn looks ungainly and overly long. -- Salome 16:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't agree that I find it confusing? :P Anyway, while I agree that some of them, like Vabbian, can get rather long, I'm just not liking that example. I'm sure different people see it differently, but to me it looks like someone spilled some material-shaped marbles. Compare it to a straight wall of text as opposed to something that has paragraphs. It's too stinkin' uniform, so I lose track of what I'm looking at too easily. Can you see where I'm coming from? I think 4 mats in a column isn't that bad. The Totals is where the problem comes in, as it gets even longer because diff pieces take diff mats and it all ads up, so Totals can be made into 2 columns, but not the 5 armor pieces in a row. Basically, I prefer a 5x4 martix rather than a 10x2. Rose Of Kali 17:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to see your example Rose.I agree with both in that it looks ugly too long, yet looks ugly all cluttered up. Hence, I'd like to fix all of them, but only by what's compromised. -- riyen ♥ 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Crafting
Location	Armorer	AR	Cost	Scar Pattern	Tunic	Gloves	Leggings	Boots		Total cost
The Kodash Bazaar	Mateneh	60	5	5 3 2 2	75 12 6 6	25 4 2 2	50 8 4 4	25 4 2 2		25	175 5 28 3 16 16

Like that? Rose Of Kali 22:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

the parchment, Ink, Linen, and hides look too close together on this resolution. Makes it hard to separate them. -- riyen ♥ 02:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

What order should we use? I'd prefer to use the same order as the crafted, but I don't know how we'd handle things for sets with different materials for the head. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) How about something like below in the total.

Crafting
Location	Armorer	AR	Cost	Scar Pattern	Tunic	Gloves	Leggings	Boots		Total cost
The Kodash Bazaar	Mateneh	60	5	5 3 2 2	75 12 6 6	25 4 2 2	50 8 4 4	25 4 2 2		25	5 3 16 16 175 28

Hmm? -- riyen ♥ 08:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That Totals order makes no sense to me. You switched from vertical order into horizontal with different matrix dimansions on top of that, so it doesn't fit with... well, anything. Rose Of Kali 11:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea, true. The Head piece is first (completely first) added in then the armor pieces, just done backwards. Can switch the last four around. Unless you'd like to see it in a horizontal view. Can do that.

Crafting
Location	Armorer	AR	Cost	Scar Pattern	Tunic	Gloves	Leggings	Boots		Total cost
The Kodash Bazaar	Mateneh	60	5	5 3 2 2	75 12 6 6	25 4 2 2	50 8 4 4	25 4 2 2		25	5 28 3 16 175 16

There, Horizontal view. -- riyen ♥ 11:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think what Rose was getting at was that when you re-arrange the totals, you're not keeping the ability to add rows across.

Crafting
Location	Armorer	AR	Cost	Scar Pattern	Tunic	Gloves	Leggings	Boots		Total cost
The Kodash Bazaar	Mateneh	60	5	5 3 2 2	75 12 6 6	25 4 2 2	50 8 4 4	25 4 2 2		25	5 175 3 28 16 16

So this way, if you add across the rows, the materials will be in a similar place in the totals cell (Parchment over ink in the top, hide over linen in the top, rubies and sapphires at the bottom). --JonTheMon 16:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason I did what I did above (my first necro example) was because that way the totals first column is identical to 4/5 of the armor pieces, and the 2 extra headgear materials that are different from the rest went into the second column. That way the total was the closest in its arrangement to the rest of the columns, and the table looked more consistent to me. Could you tell me what you didn't like about it? In the last 3 examples that you guys suggested after mine, the totals was laid out completely different from the detailed columns, so it makes it inconsisted and difficult to correlate between the individual pieces and the total. Also, it makes sense to separate the headgear mats into the second column, rather than any others, because more often than not people only have a few pieces of headgear, and after that they are interested in buying just the body armor without the headpiece that goes with it. This also extends into the HoM, where the head piece is not required to display the set. So, it makes the most sense to me to have a split between head/body rather than any other way, hence two columns, one that matches the body pieces, and the other having the headgear extras. You suggested alternatives, but never said what you didn't like about that layout, so I'm just curious what it is. Rose Of Kali 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And yes, Jon is right, that's exactly what I was getting at. The only thing that I don't like about his last example is that in all the pieces the gems are vertical, but in the total they're horisontal, so again, it's inconsistent. It doesn't really matter if the main pieces go in the first column or if the first column mirrors headgear order and hide/linen goes into the second, but keeping the 4 vertical in my mind makes the most sense, because then it clearly matches the order of the other pieces. Basically, what I'm "lobbying" for is to keep the vertical order, which is hide and parchment on top, linen and ink second, ruby third, sapphire fourth, so that each type of material appears in the same row all the way across. Rose Of Kali 19:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Crafting
Location	Armorer	AR	Cost	Scar Pattern	Tunic	Gloves	Leggings	Boots		Total cost
The Kodash Bazaar	Mateneh	60	5	5 3 2 2	75 12 6 6	25 4 2 2	50 8 4 4	25 4 2 2		25	175 5 28 3 16 16

I uze proxy. I helpz Kaili

For the inner table, definitely need cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" for the formatting--JonTheMon 20:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, that's exactly what I posted 4 examples up, but yeah. Don't know what the 0's do, but also don't care in this case. Also, you shouldn't use proxies for access while blocked, it's bad form at the very least. It could also carry further administrative actions if anyone is provoked. (Hint: if you do that, at least don't hint at who you are.) Rose Of Kali 20:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm for using your example Rose, just align it to the right as shown by ip above. I think that'd be alright. thoughts? -- riyen ♥ 03:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Align what to the what? I still don't see a difference between my example and the above. :P But the above is fine. ^_^ Rose Of Kali 03:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, the above has this align="right". which aligns the images and numbers to the right of the screen, instead of the left. -- riyen ♥ 03:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, funny... except not. It still appears left-aligned to me. O_o Rose Of Kali 04:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Only the total cost is right-aligned. -- riyen ♥ 04:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Numbers are jagged and mats are straight, I see now. I thought the whole cell contents were supposed to be right-justified, the gems still being on the left threw me off. Rose Of Kali 09:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In the total in the last one, the gems and everything is aligned right. Reminds me of a calculator with the numbers. Wouldn't it look better with all images and numbers aligned to the right, instead of the left? -- riyen ♥ 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with aligning everything to the right, though I'm not sure we're seeing the same thing exactly. Rose Of Kali 23:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, explain what you're wanting to see. Please. Might help us to see the same thing. -- riyen ♥ 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be taking screenshots and trying to figure out minor browser differences, the above example is ok with me. I also split off the next comment, as this section grew into a monster. ^_^ Rose Of Kali 11:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, something got messed up in one of the last little warrior two necro-color examples, it reset the left page indent, some tag probably got left open or something, but I can't figure it out right now. Rose Of Kali 11:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In-game order

i have no idea what exactly you guys are trying to do here but my one cent is to have the mats show in the same order that they show up in game.- Zesbeer 01:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean one armor piece per row instead of columns? I think that's worth trying, since we now have icons, the old verbal tables did not allow this by far. Care to make a draft example? I gotta go for a few hours, and then it's Dhuum hunting till I drop dead. :P Rose Of Kali 11:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

i cant be bothered with wiki shit right now too busy playing assassins creed 2 and omg that game is fun. also this is what i was thinking

What you see in game.

i think i am stealing the above persons idea but i don't care.- Zesbeer 12:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Festival hats

Is there anyway to add inventory icons to the festival hat pages using the current template? Armor sets display the inventory icon on the armor art galleries pages, but given that festival hats use the armor art articles page (and special galleries on some festival hats) is their a way to add them to the pre-existing template? I had a little muck around here (bottom of the page). Would anyone be opposed to adding an optional parameter if that's what you call it to allow festival hats to have inventory icons, or would it be better just to make a festival hat template (or guidelines) for that matter? Or just ignore the inventory icons all up (only displayed on respective festival pages at the moment). ~Celestia 14:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Armor_art_articles"