Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Weapons

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Acquisition 2 Collectors and weaponsmiths 3 Icons 4 Same name items

[edit] Acquisition

Is it necessary to add every dungeon end chest that drops each skin to be listed since they all have the chance to drop random rare skins? It goes back to the question I asked here regarding listing every rare skin that drop from each chest. -- Wyn 10:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know if a dungeon chest can drop a skin without keeping track of it somewhere? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Collectors and weaponsmiths

While adding collectors and weaponsmiths to the weapons pages, I got to wondering if it wouldn't be better to put them in a table format to save from having such long lists. As an example, take a look at my sandbox compared to Spinal Staff. Opinions?--Shana Something 19:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, easier to read too. - anja 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also fine with having the collector/weaponsmith info in table form. I think the names should be ordered alphabetically and campaigns ordered by release with core at top. Do we want to include more info in the table like what each collector is collecting and their location or just leave their name linked for more detailed info? Tedium 01:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes to alphabetical! And campaign order. As for including more info... my opinion would be that since collectibles and location are a click away, repeating it on the weapons page, though arguably convenient, clutters up things. Those tables would get pretty chunky with two more columns of stuff. For now, unless the tide of consensus moves the other way, I'll begin with the simpler table. Thanks tons for the input, Anja and Tedium!--Shana Something 14:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think adding location and collectible would make it a bit clunky. It doesn't require that much effort to click on the name, and since they are already sorted into campaigns you have a first selection done already :) - anja 14:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a table for Holy Rod. I think it may be easier to just use a bullet list with class="hidelist" rather than use many linebreaks, since the current listing already uses bullets. Should the "(non-max)" text be removed. I originally added it for convenience, but that info is a click away. Tedium 07:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh that looks much better! I didn't know about the "hidelist". That will be a breeze to use now. And... you're probably right, Tedium. If we're not going to put the other bits of info in, we might as well leave the "(non-max)" off as well. --Shana Something 12:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Icons

IMO we should incorporate icons into the weapon formatting guidelines. This would be particularly useful for items with multiple skins. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance... do you mean the profession icons, like for the unique items? Or should they be going somewhere else as well?--Shana Something 14:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As member of the Inventory icons task force I fully support this. Thought this was in the guidelines already. --Arduinna 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm referring to inventory icons. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some pages already do this. And I see no ready why not to put it on every page. Most icons are available anyway. Template:Item icon -- Karasu (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Same name items

I was wondering if we could devise a guidelines for weapons with the same name, but different skins. Currently there's a lot of different methods out there. There's two main types currently out there:

1. Original page has a disambig to separate pages for each skin (such as the War Hammer)
2. Original page lists all skins with separate sections in each category for each different skin (such as the Water Staff)

For an editor it's confusing trying to know which type to follow- "Do I propose a split for this page or do I merge them?", "Where does this information go?", "Why is it leading me to this page?".

This issue for me was first brought up when looking at items that have the same name, but different skins, depending on their rarity. They are several of these weapons in the GW universe, such as Ancient Daggers, Steel Daggers, Elonian Daggers, Ancient Scythe and Talon Daggers. There may be more but those are the main ones that I can think of. I went through the four daggers and changed the names of them from "Lesser <dagger name> Daggers" and "Greater <dagger name> Daggers" to their actual names and added (common), (uncommon) or (rare) to them. I believed that giving a name such as "Lesser Talon Daggers" is awfully misleading as they are in fact not like other weapons that are actually given a Lesser status (such as the Lesser Highlander Blade, Lesser Guardian Spear, etc.). The Ancient Scythe currently is split based on a name given to it based on it's appearance (the prongs) while in fact the item's skin is based on it's rarity (as stated by the note).

While I would of just decided to split all the pages (as has already been done with the Elonian Daggers) and done it my way, this is a wiki and I feel that we need to find some consistency in the way we organise it. I would like to propose we follow the Elonian Daggers' layout for items of same name rarity based items, and follow the Inscribed Chakram's layout for items of same name but different skins. The disambig page would contain a description of why they have been lead to the page (Rarity, different skins, etc.) and contain a gallery of the weapons. The gallery on the disambig page allows users to think "Okay, my one [or the one I want] looks like that, I'll go there". Information for skin based items may differ (salvage, drop location, etc.) so that would be another reason for a split. Thoughts? Mystical Celestia 08:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been a few various discussions on this subject (see the archive of this page). I believe there are more benefits in splitting them, as the gallery pages call the images according to page name, so presenting multiple skins on a single page eliminates those images from the galleries. -- Wyn talk 08:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Argh! Didn't see the archive page before I posted. After reading it I realise that the Lesser and Greater names came from Tolkano's naming- I had always assumed they were just player givens names. But that would create more problems, as they aren't referred to as "Lesser" in PvE so they would require their own page? Similar to other PvP-only items? I still think a split would be ideal and the notes could include something like "This item's PvP-only skin is called the <name>" on the respective pages. A redirect added for "Lesser Ancient Scythe" to "Ancient Scythe (common)", etc. As you said Wyn this way each weapon could be automated in the gallery pages, users could see which item they are looking for, pages would not be overcrowded and it would seem more "complete". Best thing in the archives: "I think we would gain some more consistency. <3 consistency." Now I know I'm wasn't the only one thinking about it. Mystical Celestia 09:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Don't worry, I knew it was there, because I'm the one that brought up the problem with the galleries when they were trying to eliminate all the duplicate images by using one image for all shared skin pages (you can just imagine what this did for the galleries.) -- Wyn talk 09:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Split looks much better. Onlything that makes sense too. I mean,l who would like to combine Shiro and Ruins of Surmia in one article if they happened to have the same name? Backsword 18:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

With really no discussion (or consensus reached) I'm going to start splitting them. It pains my heart to try to find a skin in the galleries only to see a line of text instead, then going into that article and finding it's a multiple skinned item. If you don't like it, stop me ;) Mystical Celestia 14:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)