Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Armor art articles

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.

At 800x600. This page barely fits at 1024x768.

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.

What you see in game.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Armor

Fixed up warrior here you all are welcome to edit it all up till it suites to go on pages. Gonna do the same to others and let you guys edit to suite so we can have something that doesn't look... out of 'whack' so to speak (or strange, or out of order, etc.) -- riyen ♥ 09:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC) i retract what i said earlier and dont understand why we are fixing something that isnt really that broken. - Zesbeer 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is to keep the armor the same in all pages (if possible). Not bad on this one, but I'm doing these to show how they'd look fixed up. because as I saw, when looking at originals. Most were similar, but some of the coding was messed up actually. I think 1. we need to clean up the codes. 2 determine at the total amounts how we'd like them to look. some are just horizontal with four or more. others have three that's clumped together and my thing is. Shouldn't we have them all clumped? or all horizontal or what? Kinda have a 'consistency' with each profession so to speak. Like we do with missions and quests. Basically, help with the looks, whether broken or not. -- riyen ♥ 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay redid Warrior, showing original and the style agreed on above. Gonna do this to the rest, to be sure if this is the direction we'd want. -- riyen ♥ 05:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The only diff I can see is un-bolded max armor (why?) and right-aligned totals only. Why not right-align all materials? Rose Of Kali 12:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't notice bolding. Can change it to bold. Right align all material? Sure. We can see how that'd appeal. Will do that when have time. -- riyen ♥ 16:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that'll look good, I have no further suggestions. I did notice that some of the code wasn't in order, I fixed up a lot of parts where column widths weren't set right and cell borders were messed up because of it, so please pay attention to tags like "colspan" and "rowspan" to make sure they have correct numbers, because if they are higher than needed, the table won't break, but the cells will look un-bordered. Rose Of Kali 16:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why want your and other's help to fix it correctly so we'd have it loaded onto the pages w/out lots of edits there. -- riyen ♥ 17:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed up the warrior section, aligning the gold and material to the right and the names and AR centered. With the help of Rose of Kali fixing a spot here and there (Thank you!). Thoughts? -- riyen ♥ 04:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we're completely done there yet, some minor cosmetics left. I will discuss on that page's talkpage in order to not cluter here with minor details. I like it. Rose Of Kali 13:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Now that Warrior is settled, (if you object, please edit warrior to how you'd like.) Here's the page for Ranger. Thoughts? -- riyen ♥ 10:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

May I go ahead and put the Warrior armor on the pages? And what of the Ranger Armor in my sandbox? -- riyen ♥ 09:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal with some of this materials pages. Should this be used on those with separate head pieces from the body? -> such as. User:Kaisha/Sandbox/Monk#Shing_Jea - User:Kaisha/Sandbox/Monk#Shing_Jea.28Original.29 <- that being an example of original to the change I propose on some of these pages? If so, May I go ahead and make this change? Kaisha 00:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine by me. Much cleaner Rose Of Kali 00:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

/agree –alistic 01:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really dislike having the names centered in the table. None of the other tables on the wiki do that. It looks awkward. I would like to propose we leave them left justified. -- Wyn talk 07:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Something is wrong with the way it's being coded, I just can't figure out what. I would like to suggest that this be put on hold until it can be figured out. -- Wyn talk 07:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem that Wyn is referring to is the ! in front of align="center". That can be easily changed as she showed me on a sandbox of mine from ! align="center" to | align="center" with the ''' around the word that's needed in bolding. I can change all of those with ! to | and fix it to her proposal, if you all agree to this. Kaisha 02:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No one answers, what shall I do? go with it or wait longer? Kaisha 06:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not 100% sure what Wyn thinks is "wrong with the way it's being coded." I like how it is in your sandbox. I'd say I usually prefer things like this centered, but won't "fight" for it if it goes against some kind of "tradition." Rose Of Kali 13:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing just a change in coding. Not a problem for me as it'd still look the same. Just would or might do better in browsers. Kaisha 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Large Scale Armour Project

Hello everyone, I am proposing to go through all the armour pages on the wiki and edit them so as to improve the quality of the images and increase the utility of these pages to the general user base.
This project will take the following form:

• Taking all images on the dye preview screen, while removing the dye preview background so as to maximise detail, reduce distraction and provide the best neutral lighting in the game,

• Changing images to png format (due to their ability to hold transparency),

• Resizing Anet provided renders where needed, so as to reduce dead space, while at the same time adding an alpha level so as to accommodate different monobook styles,

Examples:

Male Original - http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Obsidian_armor&oldid=1895145

Male Proposed - http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Obsidian_armor&oldid=2060804

Female Original - http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Obsidian_armor&oldid=1614789

Female Proposed - http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Obsidian_armor&oldid=2059753

• Uploading mask pictures on the same avatar using the same dimensions so as to increase ones ability to compare and contrast masks, again adding alpha levels to accomdate different monobook styles,

Examples:

Male Original a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Istani_armor&oldid=1614798

Male Proposed a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Istani_armor&oldid=2060813

Male Original b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Sunspear_armor&oldid=1614803

Male Proposed b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Sunspear_armor&oldid=2060812

Female Original a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Istani_armor&oldid=1614786

Female Proposed a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Istani_armor&oldid=2059743

Female Original b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Sunspear_armor&oldid=1614791

Female Proposed b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Sunspear_armor&oldid=2059744

• Completing all Comparative Mask Galleries on the Same avatar, to again increase utility and allow ease of comparison;

Examples;

Original - http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Dervish_hoods&oldid=1455215

Proposed - http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Dervish_hoods&oldid=2049703

• Completing all component images on same avatar using the same dimensions, so as to increase ones ability to compare and contrast the armours. (alpha levels will not be added to these images as the reward does not equate to the amount of effort and time needed to do so per image)

Examples;

Male Original a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Elite_Sunspear_armor&oldid=1614817

Male Proposed a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Elite_Sunspear_armor&oldid=2060810

Male Original b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Vabbian_armor&oldid=1916830

Male Proposed b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Vabbian_armor&oldid=2060809

Female Original a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Elite_Sunspear_armor&oldid=1614784

Female Proposed a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Elite_Sunspear_armor&oldid=2059746

Female Original b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Vabbian_armor&oldid=1614792

Female Proposed b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Vabbian_armor&oldid=2059747

• Uploading ALL Gwen armours in their primary profession colours, again using the same avatars and with the introduction of an alpha level to accommodate different monobook styles,

Examples;

Male Original a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Norn_armor&oldid=1614800

Male Proposed a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Norn_armor&oldid=2058463

Male Original b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Asuran_armor&oldid=1614795

Male Proposed b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_male_dervish_Asuran_armor&oldid=2058466

Female Original a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Norn_armor&oldid=1614788

Female Proposed a- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Norn_armor&oldid=2059750

Female Original b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Asuran_armor&oldid=1614783

Female Proposed b- http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Gallery_of_female_dervish_Asuran_armor&oldid=2059751

• Completing all armour icon galleries in their primary .dat colour.

(For the removal of any doubt, where the term "same avatar" has been used, this is dependent upon profession/gender. E.G. the same female dervish model would be used for the uploaded female dervish images, where as the same female monk avatar would be used for the female monk images and so on.)

In closing I would like to say that you can see an example of this project in it's entirety on the Dervish armour pages, as I have done those first as a test run and as an example for the project as a whole. I shall now hold off before proceeding with the next profession until the wiki has given me feedback on this issue. -- Salome 17:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

this idea seems fine with emilys renders, i vote yes.--Neil2250 17:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Your versions look better to me. Go for it champ. Misery 18:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. –alistic 18:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has hair! Yeah this looks a lot better, awesome! :D --Lania 19:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I say go ahead except all the headgear shots could be closer, both to show more detail and so they're more focussed on the relevant piece. | 72 | 21:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the closer focus head gear, their is however a slight problem. I wanted all head gear pics to be the same size so that people could open them and compare them side by side. The problem happened with the norn headgear which is substantially longer than the other dervish pieces, which kinda forced my hand in making everything bigger. :( I can forsee me having a similar problem with the female asuran rit head piece. EDIT: problem norn pieces can be seen here:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/3/3c/Dervish_Norn_Hood_m_gray_back.png

http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/b/b5/Dervish_Norn_Hood_f_gray_back.png -- Salome 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

i think it looks fine i think you should just make the head shots all the same size from the biggest headpiece.- Zesbeer 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree although going to leave ritualist head gear to last because of this: http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/2/2a/Ritualist_Asuran_armor_f_gray_front_head.jpg -- Salome 21:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth having a few anomalies for an average greater headgear, but that's up to Wiki opinion. On the other hand, maybe both can win: is there any way to make only part of an image display on a page (or in a table)? If so, you could even have all the images the same size (and of the same area) for opening and comparing as you say, but for the vast majority of headgear that only takes up x% of the biggest one, you could only display the centre x% .... | 72 | 22:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea. Like framing the images somehow and allowing the thumbnail to show the main part of the image but then allow the bigger images to be expanded upon for comparing to get an overall bigger feel to thumbnailed images. Unfortunately I don't know how one would go about doing that or if it's even possible. I'll ask poke and see what he thinks. -- Salome 22:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a rendering program available to the public or did you erase the backgrounds from the character on any of those pictures? Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ аІiсә ѕνәи Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ 01:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

He used texmod to remove the background from the dye preview window, giving that "rendered" effect. --Lania5:26, 29 Jul 2010 (UTC)

Table Alignment Proposition

Due to recent controversy over the left-or-right-or-whatever alignment of the materials and costs in armor tables, I propose that all data cells (that is, non-header cells) in armor tables be right-aligned. I have created sample tables for comparison, along with a brief analysis, at User:Proton/ArmorTables. Please view these sample tables and comment here. Thank you for your time. —Proton 20:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the new alignment better. It lines up the icons rather than the numbers. --Lania 20:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell your friends, I want a big discussion going :). —Proton 00:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

...Anyone else? Anyone at all? It's frustrating when there's a big hooblah about "well you have to get the consent of the community before doing anything" and I get one comment in a twenty-six hour period. —Proton 05:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

well seeing as you seem to be able to do whatever you want with out consent, it looks like it doesn't mater what others think seeing as the other thing you are referring to didn't get consensus and was changed anyways.- Zesbeer 07:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Zesbeer, that is irrelevant to this topic. Sarcastic personal criticism belongs on my talk page, not here. —Proton 16:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you make a request for comment? And personally, I think aligning the numbers works best. --JonTheMon 12:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "aligning the numbers"; aligned in both styles, just in different ways. —Proton 16:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Right-aligning ftw. Aligning the costs might be easier if we display costs differently where costs of different magnitude appear in the same column. This could be done by displaying the gold count anyway, or by adding a sufficiently sized margin:

100 1 000 1 000

Tub 17:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I see what you mean. If gold counts are not displayed when they equal zero (as in your current example above), it only looks good when there is a platinum-and-gold cost somewhere else to align everything. If there's just gold costs and platinum costs, it looks weird. It may look too cluttered if gold counts are always displayed (and would involve making new templates, which I think is unnecessary to resolve this). Then again, in-game costs always display the gold count, and do not indent, as such:

100 1 0 1 200

...which...actually doesn't look too bad at all. I'll add it to the sample tables page. —Proton 18:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I made an edit regarding this like months ago. I think aligning right and aligning by number if it's the right-most object, OR aligning by image if it's the right-most object would be best. - Infinite - talk 18:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Proton/ArmorTables has been updated to include table samples that include the above-mentioned cost display modification that forces gold pieces to be displayed. When commenting on which table style you like most, please indicate whether you favor the modified or unmodified cost display (I personally prefer modified). Thanks! —Proton 18:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you also mock up like Vabbian armor? --JonTheMon 18:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

editElementalist_Vabbian_armor to be exact. --JonTheMon 18:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Any dual-column material displays like that should be put into an invisible table in each cell. I have to go for now, but I can do that in a couple hours. —Proton 18:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive the intrusion into your userspace, I added the vabbian armor with costs/materials right-aligned. Since this table doesn't have multiple versions of the armor, there's enough vertical space to afford vertical alignment of the materials, so I added that as well.

On that note, there's a tiny problem with the alignment: the material icons differ slightly in size. Maybe we can fix that later. Tub 19:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's totally welcome. If you did something I didn't like, I'd just revert it :). I appreciate you being proactive and adding stuff as you saw fit. I see the difference in size, and that is an issue due to inconsistent resizing of the images (e.g. Ruby.png is properly sized at 64×64, whereas Both_of_Cloth.png was resized to 50×52) that messes with the aspect ratio; the templates themselves consistently resize the image to 19px. I'll see what I can do about it. Also, I like the way you did the material rows for the Vabbian armor. —Proton 21:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

(Update) I have re-uploaded all of the common crafting materials at their actual inventory-screen resolution (52×64 pixels), along with the rare materials used in User:Proton/ArmorTables; this means that they should all have identical dimensions when used as little icons. I have the rest of the materials ready to upload, but am waiting so that my head isn't severed. Anyone is free to give me the go-ahead for that. —Proton 22:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The alignment was already discussed and this -> User:Kaisha/Sandbox the armor pages within, were going to be fixed according to the agreement. I don't like the new proposals, because no one seemed to have paid attention to the other discussions. The discussion was up at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Armor_art_articles#Materials. I don't mean to be rude, but I feel this whole thing was rude, because as I have just mentioned, the alignments, etc. were discussed as above, just never got implemented, because of so many pages being out of sync, etc. Oh, this I feel would be best suited User:Kaisha/Sandbox/Monk to seeing as to how things were going to look from original to the changed. As, I don't have the warrior back up. :-( Kaisha 05:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That discussion is a year old, and this is a new day. -- Wyn talk 10:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Though I "do" like the new alignment, consensus still have to be achieved before implementation. Old discussion is old. There are other discussions that reached consensus but never fully implemented due to loss of interest and limited scope of the discussions. Implementation of a old consensus is in many cases, inappropriate due to shifts in the wiki user base preferences. Now there are more people that are opposed to the changes than before. --Lania 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Armor Pages

Okay, I am working on a sandbox of right aligning the materials and the amount. I am also center aligning the names and maxed armor. I keep coming across inaccuracy of the amount. By this, I mean the usage. It's either {{cost|Amount}} or Amount {{gold}}/{{plat}}. I see more of the {{gold}}/{{plat}} than I do the cost. So, which should we use (I've been sticking with the gold/plat as I saw more of that than I did cost)? I am for consistency and I feel this is the best way of consistency. I will say that the gold/plat actually is less wording and hassle than going for a cost of 5000 or 15000. Kaisha 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Which would the others like? Cost? Or Gold/Plat ? Kaisha 19:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I hate that this has stalled already. I would love for input. :-( Kaisha 07:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)