Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Weapons

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search




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's Talk page 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? -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Collectors and weaponsmiths[edit]

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 talk 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 talk 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)


IMO we should incorporate icons into the weapon formatting guidelines. This would be particularly useful for items with multiple skins. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png 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 talk 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm referring to inventory icons. -- User Gordon Ecker sig.png 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 --User Karasu sig.png Karasu (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Same name items[edit]

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 User Wynthyst sig icon2.png 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 User Wynthyst sig icon2.png 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)

Drop/Salvage Research[edit]

I have now started a new project for drop/salvage research and would like to get your views and opinions on it before progressing any futher. Dakota 12:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure who has been consolidating images on Weapons pages, but each weapon page has to have a unique image for the Category:Galleries to function properly. -- Wyn User Wynthyst sig icon2.png talk 19:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Items#Core

Some question about "Core" in the weapon infobox:
1) Some item pages count the Zaishen Chest as core, and some don't. I don't think if an item only drops in, for example, Nightfall and the Zaishen Chest that it should be counted as Core. Except for a few Factions items, (seemingly) every weapon that can drop from an enemy (minus uniques of course) can drop from the ZChest, so it seems silly and uninformative to declare the great majority of items in the game as "Core".
2) There are items that drop in all four campaigns, some of these are listed as "Core", and some have all four campaigns listed. Should these be labeled as "Core" or "Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, Eye of the North" or "Core, Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall, Eye of the North"?
3) If an item drops in Prophecies and the UW, should it be listed as "Core, Prophecies", or "Core", or "Core, Prophecies, Factions, Nightfall"?
4) If there is an "Item (PvP)" available to a PvP character with any campaign, is "Item" a Core item?
Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 17:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. Don't count weapons that drop from the Zaishen chest as Core.
  2. Items that can drop in all campaigns should be listed as Core.
  3. Items that drop in Prophecies and the UW should probably be listed as Core, but possibly just as Prophecies. There are strong arguments either way. Core, Prophecies seems wrong to me but maybe it would be a better solution for items that are normally campaign specific but also drop in the FoW/UW/HoH.
  4. PvP versions of almost every weapon exist, so they should definitely not cause an item to be listed as Core.
Note: I'm directing part of a discussion at User_talk:Tub#I_love_your_template to here. -- User Kirbman sig.png Kirbman 20:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox template[edit]

Doesn't the weapon infobox also allow Eye of the North as a Campaign parameter? It's not listed as an option here. --Irgendwer 22:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Weapon stubs everywhere[edit]

I've noticed that almost every weapons page has a stub tag on it, even though they to my eye looks complete. For example: What does the unstubbed Chaos Axe page have that makes it complete compared to the stubbed Crystalline Sword page? If noone has any objections, I will start to remove the stub tags on weapon pages which doesn't cleary miss key elements according to this formatting guide. --Manassas User Manassas Mannysig.png 09:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that 90% of the stubs were never removed as the missing info was added into the articles. However, in some cases, research is still continuing (e.g. salvage or locations). If you find stubs that need to remain could you include what's missing as an unused parameter (so that it's clear to others why the stub remains)? e.g. {{stub|missing salvage info}} or {{weapon-stub|missing confirmation for location x}} etc. And thanks for volunteering to clean this up.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd hoped to get core nomenclature decided before looking into this, myself. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 14:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Weapon renders[edit]

I thought the consensus was to not use render images, but regular screenshots for scale comparison between a weapon and a character. Yet Magamdy has uploaded a ton of renders to replace the current ones. - J.P.User J.P. sigicon.pngTalk 18:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should require all weapon images to be taken with a person in obby armor and chaos gloves holding them. Preferably /ranking. If it's a one-handed/offhand weapon, make sure their other expensive weapon is obscuring it as much as possible. Oh, and include the gold-trimmed cape, and a screenshot of their record-breaking SC.
In fact, we should re-title the pages to be "Character Name - Weapon Name". Include a list of all accomplishments of the character in the weapon description. 08:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Well that sucks. I'm in favour of reverting the images back. — δ(x) 17:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Skin note format[edit]

I'm going ahead and changing it from the first box below to the second box. The first way can have format problems with and is inconsistent with other notes. Many pages already have it the latter way.

Other weapons with this appearance:
*{{w}} [[Tanzit's Cleaver]] ([[Unique item|unique]])
* Other weapons with this appearance:
**{{w}} [[Tanzit's Cleaver]] ([[Unique item|unique]])

If anyone disagrees with this change please discuss it here. -- User Kirbman sig.png Kirbman 16:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I like the formatting with the skill icons up front (instead of the outdated seperate skin section) - I'm wondering if we should sort these lists by the profession then alphabetical though?, e.g. Miella's Focus would then be ordered in the form
instead of
Just my idea of neatness User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't like bullets for introducing a topic and I don't see any reason why we should use "profession-order" — it's distracting, imo. I'd prefer to see something like this:

Other items with this appearance
(These items look the same, but have notably different modifications.)
Unique items with this appearance
(These items look the same, but have notably different modifications.)
Exact duplicates
(These items have the same stats and skin.)
Similar items
(These items have the same benefits, but differ in either damage type or requirement)
  • etc Monk (requires Protection Magic)
  • etc Mesmer (requires Fast Casting)
  • etc Necromancer (deals Fire damage)

That looks cleaner to me and, when the list is long, I find it easier to browse and easier to find a specific item. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Only reason i suggested profession order is that would get the icons to be in similar patterns across many pages, and anything that keeps the same icons together is prettier than random icon orders >< --User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 19:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Prettier is a good reason (also worthwhile is: less ugly). However, I prefer that the order be helpful rather than pretty...and profession-order makes it harder to find a specific item in a long list. Arguably, since casters use swords/axes/spears and spiritspammers of all professions use staves, and 95% of necro heroes are using 20/20 rit weapons, perhaps we shouldn't use prof icons at all. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
@Alex Either way looks good to me, I've just been doing it the way convention states to.
@TEF Why are your necros all using 20/20 rit weapons? O.o Anyway, if we formatted it like that (or similarly) we would have to make that it's own section, which I'm not opposed to, but I think it would multiply the work required to clean up weapon pages several times over.
On a similar note, I think the "Unique counterparts" and the "Replica" sections could use an overhaul. -- User Kirbman sig.png Kirbman 02:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:ongoing drop research[edit]

In addition to my topic above, I'm adding the use of the ongoing drop research template to keep things simple and prevent editors from adding it without adding the category for it (even the example on this page forgot to do so). It will automatically display as this page already instructs. -- User Kirbman sig.png Kirbman 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can you fix the template so that, on {{ongoing drop research}}, it will display the transcluded text (following the convention on this wiki). That allows the (albeit unlikely) possibility that we might want to review the phrasing/presentation. Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'll have to add a dummy talk page to it though so it doesn't come up with a wanted page for it. -- User Kirbman sig.png Kirbman 02:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I added it, but I had to use a workaround because template talk pages are named differently. :/ It seems unnecessary and burdensome to me. -- User Kirbman sig.png Kirbman 03:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)