Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs

From Guild Wars Wiki

< Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting(Redirected from User talk:Erszebet/NPCs)

Archive

[edit] Weaponsmiths

I suggest we remove the "Profession" column from the weaponsmith tables. It's redundant as we list requirements, and the tables are already too wide. I also suggest that we move all tables over to {{STDT}}. - anja 17:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that we should also change the materials required column so that it displays the images of the material rather than the writing just like the armor pages, it looks a little neater and also looks more presentable.--

Gummy Joe 17:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with removing profession column, and changing materials to images, but I think we should develop a table format based off the "infobox style" that's being used (i.e. armorers, skill trainers, etc). Even if that just means having the silver border and an orange (item coloured) heading line. :) - BeX

04:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a style you guys like: Teipao Tahliwaj. I used the collector subpage as a model so the headings are the same except for the extra Materials and Cost columns and I forgot the Value column. I know the table is plain and still pretty big, but maybe someone can use it as a starting point for a better style. Tedium 09:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks really good to me. I'm working on a new collector table formatting though. :P You can see it here User:BeXoR/Collector subpage - BeX

10:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How about it BexoR? Your suggestion for the new table layout would make those tables perfectly in line with the current GWW formatting of tables for skills. I'd say, we let a bot modify the tables so that they'll use your formatting. Or isn't it finished yet? --

(CoRrRan / talk) 17:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the armor collector table a bit too colorful? And if ever a general collector's table is put on the same page with a armor collector's table, they'll look inconsistent. Are those two different proposed designs? -- ab.er.rant

01:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They all have 3 different styles corresponding to the infobox colours of the item. The skill trainer tables are just as colourful as the collector ones, if not even moreso. If on the same page I think they would look fine, and the difference in style helps differentiate the content for those looking for specific rewards. - BeX

04:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's good to have differentiating styles. -- ab.er.rant

05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I will start a request on the mediawiki:common.css page to add the class/id in after I get some technical help with the coding and such. It will have to be reworked if it is going to encompass weaponsmiths too, and if so, I'd like to have any further uses for the table style brought up now. I also need to find out if it can be disabled by adding something to your personal .css (like how Skuld was asking for an id to disable the recent addition to RC). I've put a "less colourful" alternative colour scheme on my page, which I like a little better, but shows the flaws that exist in our tint schemes (they aren't as easily differentiated). Tell me which you like better and I'll get the ball rolling. - BeX

06:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Link btw User:BeXoR/Collector subpage - BeX

06:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Tint looks better imo. But btw. I would like to modify the css a bit, but that should be discussed at the common.css talk I think. poke | talk 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer the bottom two as well. -- ab.er.rant

13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are actually 3 styles because there are three type of collector rewards. I've updated the .css a bit for the tints and adding missing professions. If the weaponsmith formatting is just going to be like the weapon collectors I can simply rename some classes. - BeX

14:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tournament Dialogues

The "Quotes" section of the article states "no mission- or quest-specific quotes". I would like to suggest making an exception for the Norn tournament: the dialogue there is technically part of a quest, but the other informations about the tournament (like what skills each NPC uses) is already on the NPC page. I would suggest adding a "The Norn Fighting Tournament" section under the Eye of the North subheader, and displaying the tournament dialogue there. Erasculio 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not have those quotes there as it will become even more messy, because you then have to identify which is the start quote, the victory quote and the loss quote. I'd rather keep them in the Norn Fighting Tournament page in a nicely laid out table. As for skills, they are skills of the henchies as an NPC, not a henchman. On GuildWiki, I was the one who laid out keeping the different "types" of an NPC separate, so there are separate main sections for the henchies as an NPC, and as a henchie. Here, everything is merged into one section. As such, I personally have no problems with moving those skills to the Norn Fighting page either. -- ab.er.rant

14:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that it would be too much content for a single page. For example, adding all quotes to the main The Norn Fighting Tournament article would make it cluttered (more than it already is). Making different pages for each NPC is something I don't really agree with, as many bits of information would have to be repeated on all the pages. Given how the skills for the tournament have just been removed from the NPCs' pages, I think the best compromise here would be to add the quotes to the main Norn Tournament article, although it is going to be bigger than I'm confortable with. Erasculio 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voiceover, not read-only

With GW:EN coming out, characters say a quote when clicked on (Who goes there!?!?"). How do we document this in NPC articles. I would suspect under Dialogue, but where exactly is quite interesting. Calor| talk 01:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... we could set them as ===Interaction=== under Dialogue, just before battle quotes. MithranArkanere 02:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly...you "interact" by clicking on them too...slightly confusing. You could do ==Dialogue== then ===Speech=== and ===Read===, but that's too tacky and still obscure.

==Dialogue== with ===Voice=== and ===Text=== subheadings? Might still be a bit much with a whole separate subsection just for that small qoute they say.. - anja

22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done a few pages on Asura NPCs. Lork, Plaxx, and Blorf. See how I did the Dialogue. Good, not great, but will suffice until something is figured out.

Calor| talk 23:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

When I remember correct all NPCs of one race say exactly the same text.. Or at least most of them (I mean when you click more often) poke | talk 09:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nearly all. A select few (I think) say an extra thing or a different thing every now and then. Calor 22:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't like "When spoken to". It doesn't convey the meaning of the voice response, especially when it's placed under "Dialogue". How about something more obvious like "Voice response"? I would also oppose the use of an additional subsections to keep it simple. That said, I'm probably gonna skip helping with these though... anything I can't screenshot makes it a little difficult to document... since my machine is such that alt-tabbing between the game client and the browser isn't a particurly speedy business... lol -- ab.er.rant

01:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like "voice response" better than "when spoken to". - BeX

05:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do too. I couldn't think of anything else before, so I put in "When spoken to:". "Voice response:" is great, I'll begin using that on NPC edits. Calor 01:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A guildie of me noticed yesterday that the "Voice response" depends on your actual Norn/Asura/whatever title track. He said that they get nicer with a higher rank. How do we want to express this? poke | talk 08:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because they all seem to use the same dialogue, why dont we just have one centralized article for it? We could even add soundbytes from in game as examples. - BeX

11:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

We could use in-game sound bytes...hmmm...it could get messy if Poke's guildie is right. Calor 19:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Another one from my alliance said it's true. Both hear a more friendly text when speaking to Norn.. poke | talk 20:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok...so we know:

Races (Norn at least) become friendlier as you gain more rank with them
Each race's people say the same thing(s) no matter who you talk to, but vary by title level
Each race has approximately 5 things to say per level
Female and male NPCs say the same thing, just different voice
Each race says different things

So how do we document this? I'm partial to something looking something like this.

==Dialogue==

===Voice Response===

Race response levels 1-10.

===Text Response===

''"blah blah blah"''

Instead of race, it would (obviously) say something like "Norn response level 1-10". Something in that phrase would be wikified, and we could create pages for all the races' voice responses, and what title level certain things are said at. Clearly, this is a rough sketch, and can be totally scrapped, or relatively accepted and built upon. Time to start figuring this whole new function out. Calor 03:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should centralize the generic voiceover info in the title articles, and only include NPC-specific voiceovers in NPC articles. -- Gordon Ecker 03:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Not all titles are linked to voice responses. We can always use inserted pages, like we do with collectors, write the common resposnes once, insert them were needed. MithranArkanere 12:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We should probably figure out the pattern behind who says what before deciding on this one. Backsword 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What about putting the Charr responses in the Charr article, the Shining Blade responses in the Shining Blade article and putting any NPC-specific responses in the specific NPC's article? -- Gordon Ecker 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Gordon hit the nail on the head there. I agree 100%. Put it in the species articles, created under a heading of "Voice Response", or something of that nature, and any NPC specific stuff goes in Dialogue > Voice Response in the NPC article. Now to edit previous edits incorporating voice response into the article, and finding out what exactly all the responses are. Calor - talk 23:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for ignoring the fact I suggested that a week before he did. :P - BeX

03:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol sorry Bex, I saw it but misinterpreted it earlier I guess. Nothing personal though. Calor - talk 19:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

^_^ - BeX

01:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Enchanted Hammer

Some input required on how to split the NPC articles. -- (CoRrRan / talk) 11:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gates of Desolation and ^R

→ moved from User talk:MithranArkanere

Is there a reason for the ^R on Queen_Aijundu? None of the other articles seem to have it. If you do not object, I will remove it, otherwise it should be added everywhere. SimonBanefull 17:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That means 'Hero required' and yes, it should be after every quest or mission that requires heroes. MithranArkanere 23:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that then the "R" should be linked to some page explaining the letter and it's meaning. SimonBanefull 17:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you are: Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/NPCs fell free to suggest that there. Althout you can just use:

<sup title="This mission requires this hero" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: underline;">R</sup>

Instead of that. MithranArkanere 18:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that would make a good template, ie {{hero required}} - BeX

01:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that "R" thingy was adopted from my use of it on hero pages, to indicate which of a hero-involved quest/mission requires that hero in the party. I would say it's pointless to tag all quests with that. They can see whether a hero is required if they just click on it. It's useless because even if you tell that Queen Aijundu requires a hero, you do not also tell me which hero... so I'd still have to click on it... On the hero page, it works, because that "R" is specifically for that hero. -- ab.er.rant 02:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A parameter could easily be added for the title text to say which hero. - BeX

02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Kinda like Queen Aijundu ^{Hero: Koss}? Hmmm.... I dunno, I feel it isn't really necessary (and doesn't look so nice :P), but I have nothing to be against it. -- ab.er.rant

02:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Like Queen Aijundu ^R - BeX

02:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't an explicit "Koss" be better? I wouldn't say it's intuitive to hover the pointer over the R. -- ab.er.rant

02:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with it. If the user doesn't know to mouse over then they will just check the article anyway which is no loss for them. Those who do know now get a shorthand to check that requirement without messing up the page formatting. - BeX

03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Known attribute levels

So where do these go? Under the skills or notes section? -- (gem / talk) 08:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well according to the formatting guide, it says to put it in a single line in the skills section. So I did it like in this article: Master of Energy Denial. Tedium 09:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would put them to the notes section or at the end of skills... poke | talk 09:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done it like this: Dead Collector. Yeah, now I can see the attribs thing in the formatting guide. Do we want to keep that system? --

(gem / talk) 21:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel like the known attributes should still go in the skills section since it's related to the skills. I don't mind how it is formatted. Tedium 01:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've gotten rather used to the way it's done here (as Tedium pointed out). I didn't really like the "known attribute levels" style of GuildWiki because it was rather wordy. To me, if it's there, it's known; if it's not there, then it's not known. I'd oppose putting it in the notes section because for certain NPCs, the notes section is pretty far from the skills section. And I'd rather have attributes above skill listings than below it because I feel it's the more natural way of representing a skill set. -- ab.er.rant

01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll change all the ones that I did to this method. --

(gem / talk) 10:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we then sort skills by attribute? Backsword 16:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'd keep it at the example given. Sorting by attribute means you need to actually put in the name of the attribute even when you don't know what value it's at. -- ab.er.rant

16:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And you would have a problem with monster skills as they don't have an attribute.. poke | talk 14:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification on skill sorting

Should Common Skills, such as most monster skills and Resurrection Signet, be treated as a seperate profession or listed alphabetically with other skills? If so, above or below profession skills? If not; within which prof. for two prof. creatures? Backsword 01:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been ordering the skills by profession ordering (warrior, ranger, ...), common skills (Resurrection Signet etc.) and then monster skills. Within each group, it is alphabetized. Not saying this is how it's suppose to be done, just how I interpreted it from the formatting guideline. I've also seen some people just alphabetized the skills regardless of profession or if it's a monster skill. Either way works for me. The wording in the guideline is a bit vague about the ordering and could be cleaned up. Tedium 03:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've also read it as profession ordering goes first, with common and monster at the end. And alphabetical ordering as second measure. Not making them into distinctive groups though, just listed right below each other. - anja

08:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded the guidelines. Any problems with such an ordering? Since that seems to be more commonly seen style. -- ab.er.rant

03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Might be potental issues with the very few monster skills that are not common skills.Backsword 04:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I've noticed that for most EotN articles, you (Aberrant) have but common skills at top. (Eg. Bear Form for Norn). Backsword 04:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I know, I was still following an old version of the formatting. -- ab.er.rant

09:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPCs in quest-specific zones

I've noticed that a lot of articles for NPCs in quest-specific zones incorrectly use {{NPC location|<name of zone which shares map with quest zone>}} (only during [[<quest name>]] instead of {{NPC location|<name of quest zone>}} (only dunig [[<quest name>]]. Could we include a specific mention of quest zones? -- Gordon Ecker 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah *ahem* I'm guilty of removing quite a few of those :P you mean that should be how it is? It just seems a little strange to be using "NPC location" for a quest area... but then again... ah well... I just don't understand why Anet couldn't try to stick to the obvious mission and quest separation. It just feels very strange to see entries like "Warband of Brothers" or "Attack of the Nornbear" or "What Must Be Done" listed under Locations... -- ab.er.rant

05:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But when you zone into do some of those quests it's not called the normal name, but instead the quest name as a special zone. - BeX

06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Nornbear and Warband of Brothers are zones, but What Must Be Done isn't. -- Gordon Ecker 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But since we have a special "Missions" for mission appearances, wouldn't it make more sense to adapt "Quests" for this purpose? Rather than location? We could change it such that "Quests" would be for all quest-related appearances, and leave "Locations" for permanent appearances. -- ab.er.rant

09:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems odd that mission and quest-related spawns aren't under location. -- Gordon Ecker 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What we know fr sure is that the name that appears in the loading screen is the name of the 'instance', regardless of if there are other areas or quests with the same name or other areas using the same map. Remember than many missions use the same map as many explorables, as many cinematics (and some are loaded as separate maps) and many dungeons share maps with many others, with some changes. It may be sound strange when an area is named after a quest. For example 'A Land of Heroes' use the same map as 'Cliffs of Dohnjok', but it has its own separate layout. It's a different 'Instance' that Cliffs of Dohnjok. Just like missions that take place in the same area as Explorables. Same area, different name. Troublesome, eh? We could call them 'Instanced quests' or 'mini missions' or anything like that. I think there is one ingame text with a name for them during A Land of Heroes. MithranArkanere 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do we split of one type of map zone in it's own section, while all the others share the first? Just copied from guildwiki? Backsword 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collector Items Profession

Just thought I'd suggest a small change to the present collectors pages. During the time I've been working on the All Collector Weapons pages, I've noticed that unless you know what attributes correspond to a profession it's sometimes difficult to know if a weapon is available to you; especially when first starting out with a new profession. Anyway my suggestion is that for collector lists can we add another small column to the left side which says what profession can use the weapon/item using the profession icons? The first example is our present layout and the second is my suggestion:

{| {{STDT}}
! Item || Stats || Requirement || [[Weapon bonus]]es || Value
|-
| [[Item]] || [[Energy]] +X <br> [[Damage type]]: X-X || X [[Attribute]] || List the modifications on the item with links to associated attributes || List the item's Value
|}

{| {{STDT}}
! colspan=2 | Item || Stats || Requirement || [[Weapon bonus]]es || Value
|-
| {{x}} || [[Item]] || [[Energy]] +X <br> [[Damage type]]: X-X || X [[Attribute]] || List the modifications on the item with links to associated attributes || List the item's Value
|}

Just wondering if this would be useful to include, I know it's a lot of work seeing as how we have so many collector pages but for people newer to the game it would be a great help. --Kakarot 22:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't like the fact that we would be telling people "Swords are only for warriors" etc. But maybe that's not such a big issue. - anja

22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the attribute is already stated, there is no need for that. Each attribute corresponds only to one profession. MithranArkanere 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your example that swords aren't only for warriors Anja, couldn't the "requirement" also suggest that you need X attribute just to use a weapon also?

@Mithran - while it does already include the attribute, someone just starting as a new profession or even more so someone just starting the game wouldn't know that for example Communing is a Ritualist attribute or that Earth Prayers is a Dervish one and not Monk (seeing as 3 out of 4 of the Monk attributes are prayers). I know even though I've been playing Guild Wars for quite a while now, I had to check to make sure that the attribute was for the profession I thought it was while doing the lists mentioned in my first message. I just mentioned this because the wiki should be as easy as possible to use and also you shouldn't have to go to another page or even mutliple pages just to find out if you can use a weapon. --Kakarot

01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When players look for an item in the collector lists, they look for items for its current character or heroes. For example, a player looking for a strength Shield for his warrior, or a Bow for his Jin hero. No one goes for getting something they won't use, and almost no one get collector items to trade with other players. So it doesn't matter if they don't know for which profession an attribute is, since they can use the attribute link to see that, and if they are looking for items for its own profession, they should know its attributes. MithranArkanere 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not always, some people searching for what they can get for a certain collector item will search for said item and use the lists from there to see what they can get for it; since it also uses the collector items page. Also like I said, a person shouldn't have to go to another page to find out, a lot of people are viewing the wiki from in-game and this can often cause a lot of slowdown/lag or worse; both the game and the browser; so opening another page would only further worsen this. --Kakarot

01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But it does imply that as a necro, I shouldn't be getting a sword, despite the fact that I can use a sword (and that it could be quite fun to do so). I'm not sure about the potential confusion it might cause when you also take armor collectors into consideration. For armor collectors, the profession does mean that the armor use is restricted. -- ab.er.rant

06:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Everything is linked. You don't explain what a skeleton is in every single skeleton page, you explain it in the skeleton page and link it to the page of each skeleton. That is how this work. A collector that offers armor offers armors for professions, and collector that offers weapons and off-hand items offers them for attributes, not for professions. Players should get used to that. If they are planning to make a Curses build, they should look for Soul Reaping or Curses equipment, not just for necromancer equipment. MithranArkanere 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I would like to agree with Kakarot for potentially different reasons. First of all, the weaponsmith pages all include the icon, and as collectors and weaponsmiths serve much the same function I would like to see the two consistent in their presentation. Secondly, and probably less important, I believe it's the style of GWW in using icons and colors that really sets GWW apart from GuildWiki.

I would like to also say that I use collector weapons extensively, not just for heroes, but to create specialized weapon sets for my characters. I also do trade them, and I know several others that do as well.

My opinion of the argument that just because there is a warrior icon next to a sword, it's going to discourage a necro from getting that item is that whole line of reasoning is just silly. If you follow that line of reasoning, then all the listings of items by profession are just moot, and should not exist. It is just a way of organizing things, and any one with half a brain knows that any profession has the potential to wield any item. This is really a style question and I vote for promoting the style that GWW has developed.-- Wynthyst 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say you kinda convinced me there Wyn. Collectors and weaponsmiths should be consistent, and the icon does add some readability and design niceness. I don't feel strongly either way, but you have some good points. - anja

17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just say that there is no need to put a 'monk' next to a 'divine favor', since Divine Favor will link to its description, armors are linked profession because only headgear is related to attributes, but if you list the collector items just by attribute, you know the professions already, since there are no attributes that belong to two different professions. Sometimes redundant data may be necessary, but this is not the case. Mith

Talk 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise that we list the collector weapons by profession. I thought they were listed in the order they appear in-game? Regarding your statement that anyone with half a brain knows that any profession can use any weapon, try asking the huge number of players who come from those Chinese, Korean, and Japanese grind-fest MMOs and you'll realise that most of them has the idea that one profession/class = one type/group of weapons. Sure, they'll figure it out sooner or later, but why put in the possibility of a misunderstanding when it can be avoided? I still think an icon is unnecessary but if you think having a icon makes it more "GWW-esque", well, I'd rather you use weapon type icons rather than profession icons. Maybe just use generic-looking ones from Category:Weapon icons. -- ab.er.rant

00:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. then take them off the weaponsmith pages... I don't really care other than I would like to see some consistency, though imo it really IS the most striking difference between GWW and Guild Wiki, and one I would like to see promoted rather than squashed with hair brained ideas that an icon is going to discourage someone anymore than the word REQUIREMENT would. --

Wynthyst 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A few notes. First off, there is the plain and simple fact that if you are not either primary or secondary in the profession of the requirement for a weapon, you aren't going to be able to use that weapon as effectively as someone who is. If someone doesn't understand how that works, they probably shouldn't be getting weapons that aren't designed for their primary or secondary profession. The only case I can see this arguement holding up for is for energy +5 swords, axes, and spears, which are used as much or more by various caster classes as by warriors and paragons. If you (or anyone, really) can come up with some sort of icon for these weapons that indicates their usefulness for the various caster classes, by all means, I think that would be useful for easily finding those weapons. For other weapons, I think having the associated profession icon is both visually appealing and easier for picking out what you're looking for. - Tanetris 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ab.er.rant, I agree with Kakarot et. al. too. Can we implement their suggestion and see if anybody complains about confusion later? —Tanaric 05:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To add to Wynthyst's last comment regarding the word requirement, this word suggests that you need the attribute to use the weapon, not that it's preferred that you have it to get full use of the weapon/item. While any profession can use any weapon in the game, if you don't meet the requirement it acts just like a starter weapon in relation to damage as well as other things. If the word requirement doesn't discourage people why would a simple icon?

Lastly I think having a consistant theme going with the weaponsmiths/collectors; as has been done with other lists including unique items; should be the way we have the wiki. --Kakarot

14:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Requirement" is used because that word shows up in-game. But you're right, if an attribute requirement is fine, an icon is just more of the same. I still think a weapon type icon would be better than a profession icon, to differentiate from armor, but meh. I'm also find your (Wynthyst) strong desire to "differentiate" ourselves from GuildWiki a little baffling, considering most of our info came from GuildWiki. Anyway, since most everyone prefers having an icon instead of no icon, don't let me stop anything. -- ab.er.rant

02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just an addendum about something I thought of on my talk page, regarding my suggestion for weapon icons, I'd like to point out that collector tables differ from weaponsmith tables in that not all collectors exchange weapons. What icons do we use for those? It would look oddly inconsistent if some collector tables don't have icons. Now (just throwing it out for discussion), what if we create a set of generic-looking icons to represent collector item types? Weapon icons, inventory item icon, consumable item icons, sweet tooth stuff icons, party animal stuff icons, etc... of course, it would need the help of the more "icon"-ically inclined users :) -- ab.er.rant

14:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And a second addendum, again for consistency, the weaponsmith tables should be changed to use these new icons instead... since the profession icon is basically repeating what is already stated by the attribute. Right? Seems like worth a try. -- ab.er.rant

14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would go for that. Though I think using the 'any' profession icon for those non profession specific collector items would also work. --

Wynthyst 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a selection of collectors and added the icons so you could see what it would look like here.--

Wynthyst 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the look of those Wyn, although the 'any' icon looks ok for non-profession specific weapons; as seen in early sections of the games; I think icons for other non-equipable items like food, bags, party items, etc would look better using their own new icon. Something similar in look and size to the profession icons but related to the items type could look good. --Kakarot

17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree with Tanetris on this issue again, and would like to have an icon showing that a certain martial weapon might be a good choice for casters. -- (CoRrRan / talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think such a thing would be better off in a list or a guide, rather than trying to design a symbol to mean "melee weapon good for casters". -- ab.er.rant

02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) To weigh in on this discussion, I don't feel that weaponsmith or weapon collector subpages should include icons. The reason that icons are used on armor subpages is that if it was just a name, there is no other visual key to show what profession they are for (unless you mouse over a link or are familiar with profession ordering or armor stats). And they are also used because unlike weapons or other collector items, they cannot be forced cross-profession. Weapons already have their requirement stated. And as it has been stated above, any profession can use any weapon to maximum potential by raising their secondary profession attribute (true maximum would be extra armor penetration or critical hits from primary attributes). - BeX 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's fine Bex, I was just noting that currently the weaponsmith pages DO have the profession icons, and the collectors don't. I just want some consistency. If we end up not using icons at all, but use other style elements, as in your examples below, that is fine with me as well. I would just like to see A) Consistency, and B) well thought out and appealing design to go with the well thought out and complete data. --

Wynthyst 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collector/weaponsmith formatting

I worked on revamping the collecter subpages a few months ago, and now that there is some interest in it check out this page: User:BeXoR/Collector subpage. The css to preview it is in User:BeXoR/monobook.css. There are 4 types of NPC subpages there. If it looks interesting we can discuss adopting (aspects) of that. - BeX 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. I'm a relative noob at this. What is it I have to copy out of monobook, and where do I have to put it? And is it going to be required for others to see the page?--

Wynthyst 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You copy all the "table.blah" lines from Bex's css and put it in your own css, save it and hit Ctrl-F5, then go look at her collector subpage. -- ab.er.rant

03:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The styling will go into MediaWiki:common.css. There's some for the skill infobox and progression tables in there already. :) - BeX

05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok... I like the first one.... the rainbow table is just right out of there imo. Again, I would like to see the collectors and weaponsmiths presented in the same way. I don't really care how we do it, whether it's with icons of some type, or with colors. Keeping any bright colors to the header row with the muted grey on the rest is good... not overpowering. Does the shade of orange on the header row match the color on the info box? I think that would be best from a design standpoint (can't help myself after years of webpage designing). This will also give some style to the Lists of Collectors I compiled, as they are simply lists of the subpages. --

Wynthyst 08:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the header row matches the infobox for the item type. I did this long ago based on existing precedent with no "requirement" colors for the weapons or other items (only for armor which cannot be used cross professions), but if it is decided to adopt that from the discussion above then it'll be easy enough to implement. - BeX

13:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've checked out your page Bex with the new css. I like the Weapon Collector one; although I still prefer having a profession icon; but would it look better with a slightly darker border (maybe #CCC or #BBB) and maybe center the headers as it is now? For the Armor Collector, I don't really like the rainbow background either, ever since I changed the All Collector Weapons pages from that to their present design it's looked a lot better to me. For the Item Collector it should have at the very least a border around the outside if not both the outside and inside as I mentioned above.

Overall I think it would look better if they all followed the same design to give continuity to the wiki. For the header colour it should use the same colour as the info box thingy for the person they are on, again for continuity. --Kakarot

14:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The border is the same color as the infobox - I tried to make the formatting as similar as possible. I'm confused about changing "from that" to what the pages use now. The pages never used that formatting. o_O The item collector does have a border around it, and you didn't mention borders before (apart from the color?).

They all do follow the same design. The reason one uses colours and icons is because they cannot be forced across professions and because that is the way the current pages are formatted (apart from the colours). I chose to use the infobox color of the items represented, because the pages are used on trophy pages as well and because they are about the items, not the NPC. - BeX

15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the profession icons are appropriate for the armor collectors, just not the colors. I would rather see them on a grey background for consistency. I think setting up the tables with the same colors/borders as the info box will maintain a consistent design theme for the individual pages. I am looking into creating/getting created a set of icons representing the item classes to possibly use on the collectors/weaponsmith tables, since that's what we were talking about earlier in the discussion. --

Wynthyst 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bex I meant the header labels centered as it is now, guess it was a little confusing the way I wrote it lol. For the darker border (#CCC or #BBB) it was for the inside although it's not really neccessary. Also I agree they should use the item colour rather than the NPC because as you say they are about the items not the person. Is the Item Collectors border the same colour as the background because at the moment I don't see a border on it? --Kakarot

01:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It shows fine for me. :/ That's why I was confused. Centering I don't really mind either way. And for the icon thing, must we have icons? They are used for a specific purpose with the armor - a purpose that doesnt exist for the other items. It seems unecessary to have pictures all over the place when they provide little or no added information... - BeX

02:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW I will change the page when I get a little more feedback. :) - BeX

02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I took the liberty of duplicating Bex's page and adding in some icons here for comparisons. -- ab.er.rant

02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that aber. :) If we use icons for everything, does that mean we'll use inventory icons for armor as well, for consistency? - BeX

02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I believe the icons give it a visual boost, and would be happy with using type, or class icons rather than profession icons, but I also wouldn't have a problem being in full agreement to doing without in these designs. I do believe the profession icons should be included on armor collector pages one way or another. -- Wynthyst 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the prof icons for armor collector tables need to stay, especially if we drop the background profession colors. Would it look weird to have two columns for icons? Or we could shift the prof icon into the same column as the armor piece name. -- ab.er.rant

05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just use profession icons only for profession restricted material and leave it at that. :P - BeX

06:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'll go for that. Only necromancers can use the Necromancer Tyrian armor, but not only necromancers can use a Curses staff. You don't even need any points in Curses attribute to effectively use a curses staff if you just need the energy and it has no curses-linked properties. Mith

Talk 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just discovered what could be a design problem with this whole idea :( The collector table pages are also included on the trophy pages, which have a different color scheme. Could make for some bad color clashes. --

Wynthyst 14:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The header color is not there to match stuff, it's there to signify what type of content is displayed in the table. That isn't affected by the pages it is used on. - BeX

03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, then I guess my previous question "Does the shade of orange on the header row match the color on the info box?" should have been, "Which info box does the header row match?" Since these tables appear on multiple pages, the whole color scheme thing is kind of out the window, and imo, we are back to finding some other style options. Creating pages that are going to nauseate people with clashing colors of orange is not my idea of good design planning. --

Wynthyst 06:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Having two or three different colours on a page isn't going to nauseate anyone. There are plenty of colorful pages on the wiki already. How is having similar shades of one colour any more nauseating than having 10 different contrasting colours? - BeX

07:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's all a matter of personal choice. I don't see the orange used on the collector tables in your option as working at all with the golden color on the trophy infobox, and I now understand the armor collectors are going to have yet another color that imo is even worse with the trophy color. As far as not nauseating people, there are several pages on which the introduction of extremely incompatible colors have made them virtually unusable for me already, the ranger armor pages for example. So I guess speaking for myself, now that I have a better understanding of where and how these various tables need to interact with other elements, I can't support the use of the color mixes that have been proposed in your design. --

Wynthyst 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Infoboxes#Existing_color_schemes. The colors serve a purpose, other than making things "look good". To make everything match just so it would look better seems wrong to me. The world isn't colour coordinated. It can't hurt to look at a page and have two different colours on it. - BeX

09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I understand the colors have meanings Bex, and that's fine, all I'm saying is I personally can't support it, just as I would not have supported many of the color choices to begin with had I been here at the time they were made, which I wasn't. And yes... it does hurt me to look at pages that have colors that are incompatible. -- Wynthyst 09:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said anything if there was an accessibility problem, or if the information was obscured, but your problem wasn't that it was unclear, or misinformative, but that you didn't like that the colours didn't match. To completely write off a proposal because of one thin bar of color, that potentially may be used on a page with a thin bar of a slightly different shade of the same colour, is something. o_O And use of colour is one of the things that sets this wiki apart from others, something I thought you would appreciate. - BeX

10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Bex, there is a certain visual element to the wiki just because of the fact it is displayed as a graphical user interface.... and yes, I do really appreciate the fact that GWW has adopted a more colorful style than GW. And I understand that all the colors used have meaning. I'm just saying there is really no reason we have to abandon aesthetics for content in all cases. I'm also not saying that you have to scrap your proposal... I am just saying I personally can't support it, so I will remove myself from the discussion, and continue to look for alternatives which I will propose later. That's the other wonderful thing about the wiki... with consensus as an ever changing beast, nothing is ever written in stone. --

Wynthyst 11:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, is there any way on a wiki; maybe something in templates although based on what I know about them I doubt they can; to make the header colour of these tables use the colour from the actual page they appear on rather than a set colour? If it's possible then it would solve the problem Wyn mentioned. --Kakarot

14:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I already have a solution about that already but it didn't seem elegant. They're all in the main namespace, and there's no identifiable pattern in the article name. The simplest way would be to just add an additional parameter for the color. Of course, DPL can solve it, but I think using DPL for this is overkill. -- ab.er.rant

18:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox and hard mode levels

Due to hard mode, the infobox can get pretty messy for creatures with a broad level range. I suggest one line for each hard mode level, with a separate line for levels with an unknown hard mode counterpart or no hard mode counterpant (pre-searing, bonus mission pack etc.). For example, for Krait Neoss, the level entry would be 18, 19 (25)<br>20, 21, 22, 23 (26), while for a Risen Ashen Hulk, the level entry would be 24 (26)<br>28 (30), and for Corsair Raider, it would be 8 (23)<br>10<br>15 (25). -- Gordon Ecker 08:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! poke | talk 08:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes it alot clearer, I like it. :) - anja

11:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Neat. — ク Eloc 貢 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Hard mode levels are unnecessary... is there any creature that do not follow the rule 0..28..30 ->20..30..32? If all creatures follow the rule, we can just add in the Level page, linked in the Infobox, a table with the matching levels. MithranArkanere 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sand Giants and Snow Wurms. -- Gordon Ecker 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Never knew there was a rule to it =S — ク Eloc 貢 15:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, usually, it's:

NM	HM
0..2	22
3..9	23
10..14	24
15..19	25
20..24	26
25..26	28
27..28	30
29..31	Special

But I've been searching different family pages and there are some more exceptions (specially in Factions and Prophecies). At least most level 20, 24 and 28 creatures follow the rule. If there were a few exceptions they could be set generically, then noted the exceptions in he note, but since there are more than 5, let's keep noting all levels. MithranArkanere 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a table in the Hard Mode article. I haven't been able to find any non-boss level 25 monsters, and all the level 26 monsters seem to be upgraded to level 30. -- Gordon Ecker 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boss maps

If there exists a map that marks the location of all the bosses in a particular area, such as Image:Sunqua Vale bosses map.jpg, do people consider it redundant for all the bosses in that explorable to have individual maps that show the path to that boss? Is it better to retain the maps with the red-dotted paths for each individual boss, or is it better to have all the bosses in one area share one map? I'm leaning towards the latter (and have done such before) but I'm curious to what others think. -- ab.er.rant 13:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's redundant, but sometimes people just go for a boss, and look only the boss page, and sometimes people go to vanquish an area, and want to know where the bosses are, and go to the area map. The big deal comes when their spawn points are random and/or they may appear in different areas, so it's not the very same info in both pages. With the maps in both places, you can see in a glance where a certain boss may spawn, and where the bosses may be in both pages. If it where something that it's always the same, like descriptions about professions or skills, it would really be redundant to add them in the page, since players only need to seem those things once. On top of that, area boss maps show only where the bosses are, while Boss maps show possible routes from different outposts. If the boss map do not show any routes, and only the position, then I think it could be replaced for one that does. MithranArkanere 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, those routes are really helpful when trying to track down bosses. It may not make a big difference in Sunqua Vale, but Morostav Trail is a bit trickier, for example. The labels on the (overview) map hides the paths and details, making it less optimal for finding a specific boss. - anja

15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

iawtc. - BeX

03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wohkay :) keep the paths then. -- ab.er.rant

03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The labelled maps are prettier but less informative. :( - BeX

04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flavor categories

Moriturus has created several flavor categories (as opposed to "mechanical" ones) for several NPCs, such as Category:Researchers and Category:Artists and Category:Dejarin Family. I've tagged some of them for removal or rename but it might be just me that we don't need to add flavor categories that don't really offer much, so I'm asking for more views on this. I'll go an revert if more people think it's fine to keep these - just bear in mind that if we do keep them, I believe we need to specifically state that these are not in-game mechanics or classifications. -- ab.er.rant 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think ones pertaining to lore would be okay. I like the family ones. As for their "professions", I don't think they are necessary or of any benefit. - BeX

01:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

agreed w/ bex. although having that category would seem to ask for articles like House of Dejarin. dunno if there's enuf info for that. --VVong|BA 15:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite get what you mean by "flavor" — ク Eloc 貢 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Those not related to any mechanical or technical categorisation. -- ab.er.rant

15:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

However, we simply must keep Category:Mimes. It's mimes! -- Hong 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep all these categories -- they're interesting to at least one person and they don't cause any harm. —Tanaric 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

Could we add a == See Also == to the formatting? — ク Eloc 貢 02:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not having it in the guidelines doesn't mean you can't put it in. And it's not applicable to most NPCs so I think it's probably not common enough to warrant being put into the guidelines. -- ab.er.rant

14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPC maps

The guidleine says to provide maps for noteworthy NPCs such as bosses, but I am encountering a lot of normal creature pages that have the map needed template added. Since in most cases this would require about 25 or so maps, can I remove that template from non-boss enemy NPCs that are not unique? (I would obviously not remove the template from a page like Rotscale) Mohnzh say what? 14:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, go ahead. Wonder how the tag ended up on those articles.. - anja

16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds weird. But as long as a normal image is there, it's fine. poke | talk 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Eloc went around adding them. Was wondering why. Backsword 04:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. — ク Eloc 貢 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monster skill icons

"Monster skills that use the generic monster skill icon () should use {{monster skill icon}} instead."

Shouldn't this apply to all monster skills? poke | talk 17:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lava Ground is a monster skill not using that icon. So no, if I understand what you're asking right. Calor

21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means it should be changed to apply to all monster skills, since it also provides the nifty (monster skill) after the name. And still shows the real icon :) - anja

22:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The template was made to try to get the skill icon from the name and uses the normal monster skill when there is no explicit skill icon set. The guideline currently says that for those monster skills, which have a custom icon, the normal skill template should be used; but to me that doesn't make any sense. poke | talk 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it didn't make any sense to me either, so I never really bothered with it. I agree that it should be applied to all non-player skills. -- ab.er.rant

02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd much prefer uploding the icon, as that allows redirecting it to the skill. If anything, we should stop using it at all. Backsword 04:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

using what at all? poke | talk 10:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess this template Poke, we could also use a modified simplified version of the navimg template in that monster skill template to redirect the icon to the correct page, have it a set size and the only thing that would be changeable would be the link which would be based on the skill name that the user entered. This way those that use the default

icon wouldn't need a seperate image and would still redirect to the skills article. --Kakarot

14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason we use the monster skill icon is also the "(monster skill)" which is applied. poke | talk 14:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The monster skill template uses the uploaded icon when it is available, and almost all our monster skills do have the generic icon uploaded with their unique name since that's how the infobox works. The real reason I want to use this template for all monster skills is the nifty and simple addition of (monster skill), and that it is easy to do new features, like categories and lists, if we separate monster skills and other skills. - anja 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So, does this mean that the actual text will be changed to include all moster skills? --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then. Are Formatting pages appropriate for which to request change as per GWW:POLICY? Seems that the agreement is that this should be used for all monster skills, since it works for all icons. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hard mode skills

there appears to be an inconsistency in how to show hard mode vs normal mode skill sets. this page isn't clear on how they should be shown. Is it:

[edit] Normal mode

[edit] Hard mode

also, you include (elite) for non-bosses? —♥Jedi♥Rogue♥ 03:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say do the former when only a skill or two is the difference between normal and hard; only do the latter when the skill sets have a large difference, e.g. if they use another attribute, or many of the skills aren't included in both modes. --

Brains12 \ talk 03:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One skill's difference doesn't warrant a new section, but if there are two or three different skills, I'd do a new section. - anja

08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, technically, hard modes skills are not a seperate skill set, but an addition to the base set. Backsword 08:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with both Brains and Anja, if there is only an additional skill be it normal or elite it only needs to be added the first way but when there are multiple new skills or when there are replaced skills and/or attributes then the second mode makes more sense. --Kakarot

10:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Attributes

I recently noticed that some NPCs & Foes pages has attributes listed, but at the moment it looks kinda messy in my opinion. Can we have a policy about the formatting of attributes for those pages? --Mage Montu 10:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've bee thinking about that, and I guess the choice is been selfexplanatory implementation and 'clean&quick' information gathering.

I was thinking of adding something to the NPC infobox --Mage

Montu 10:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd think attributes makes most sense together with the skills they affect. Backsword 10:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? You mean something like

Glowing Gaze (16 Fire Magic)
Immolate (16 Fire Magic)
Liquid Flame (16 Fire Magic)
Searing Flames (elite) (16 Fire Magic) --Mage Montu 20:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he says something more like this:

But I'll go for the way it's show in the skills and attributes panel when you are under the Bonus Mission Pack disguises. Like this:

Attributes
16 Fire Magic
12 Energy Storage
Skills
Glowing Gaze
Immolate
Liquid Flame
Searing Flames (elite)
Glyph of Lesser Energy.

Like that. Mith

Talk 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying the infobox is not a good place, as it's too far from the skills. Context, yknow. Backsword 10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks more organized Mith but since we have Hard Mode I think it should be something like this

Attributes

Normal Mode

16 Fire Magic
12