Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Weapons/Archive 1

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

This page is an archive. The contents have been moved from another page for reference purposes only, and should be preserved in their current form. Discussion on this page is not current. Any additions you make will probably not be read. The current version of this page can be found at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Weapons.


Discussion

However we decide to format weapons I think it's really important that we use something that can be applied equally to collector, crafted and green weapons. Consistency makes life so much easier in the long run. --NieA7 03:06, 14 February 2007 (PST)

New Style

This newer version of Weapon formatting not only carries over the good parts, but gets rid of the bad parts.

  • Description section is gone. All relevant information can still be placed in Notes section. Most of the time on GWiki the description was just repeating information found in other areas.
  • Location has been reformatted to exclude all the entries of individual monsters scattered here and there. Based on research, the three ways listed in the Location section should handle any and all cases of a weapon's location. I was asked to research if different professions could also be a basis, however, my research indicated, for example, spellcasting professions on occasion drop melee weapons and visa versa. — Gares 08:33, 25 February 2007 (EST)
My research indicates the following:
  • Martial weapons and shields can generally be dropped by anything in the appropriate species & region combination.
  • Fixed attribute spellcasting weapons and focus can generally only be dropped by casters of the appropriate profession. This is particularly noticeable in Nightfall, where everything drops daggers but only Ritualist bosses and Shiro'ken Ritualists drop Ritualist equipment. "Random" attribute focus items can only be dropped by casters, and appear to always be linked to the primary attribute of the foe's profession, however I don't have enough data.
  • Some random attribute spellcasting weapons can be dropped by anything of the appropriate species & region combination, while others, such as Bo Staves, Raven Staves and Forbidden staves appear to drop only from non-casters.
Because of this, I believe we should include profession, but only for wands, staves and focus items. I'd also suggest that we include subspecies / subtype, as Kurzicks don't drop the same weapons as Outcasts, and I suspect the same is true for Am Fah and the Jade Brotherhood, Corsairs and the Kournan Military and the roughly half-dozen types of demon in the Realm of Torment. Also, do we really need to list every mission and explorably area in which something drops for monster loot? That seems to be the main source of clutter on GuildWiki's weapon pages, and the specific misison / explorable area only appears to be a factor for chest drops (where I believe it should be included) and unique items. I'd be okay with an area list for everything as long as it's on one line instead of getting a separate bullet point for every one of the dozens of areas where demon Elementalists can drop Blazing Wing Wands or plants can drop Bramble Bows. -- Gordon Ecker 20:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Actually, it was a combination of contributors adding every area and every single monster that dropped a weapon that made the location section so bloated for most articles. I can see specifying it even more by changing area to region, as that will still take care of chests and while it is less user friendly (not every area in a region contains the same monsters), it will reduce the number of entries even more.
The exclusion of subspecies was an oversight due to not being specific enough apparently.
I'm for profession if it helps the users, but if stated incorrectly, it could create the main thing I was trying to prevent, individual naming of monsters. Possibly Region -> Random Drop -> Profession. Also, while I have not paid attention to Bo or Forbidden Staves, Raven Staves do drop from casters as well as non-casters. — Gares 21:41, 25 February 2007 (EST)
What about something like this?
Example Weapon Dropped By Everything in Nightfall
Location
It's fairly concise, only taking up 5 lines (excluding the chest section) for an item dropped by every single monster in Nightfall, and would probably be within 10 lines for something dropped by every monster in the game. As for chests, I can't think of any way to make them more concise while remaining accurate, as there are some items, such as the Celestial items, which are only available from chests in a few areas within a region, and other items, such as Plagueborn items, which are only available from chests in several areas in multiple regions. -- Gordon Ecker 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)
If my choice is the monster you listed above here, or:
Sign me up for the shorter one. --Rainith 00:02, 26 February 2007 (EST)
From what I surmise from, "only taking up 5 lines (excluding the chest section) for an item dropped by every single monster in Nightfall, and would probably be within 10 lines for something dropped by every monster in the game," you seem to be too precise when for the nightfall campaign all you need is:
==Location==
[[Nightfall]]
*Random Drop
or for a weapon that can drop from any monster in the game:
==Location==
[[Core]]
*Random Drop
Here is some location examples as it is written right now in the guide:
Brute Sword would be:
==Location==
[[Core]]
*Random Drop
Summit Axe would be:
==Location==
[[Prophecies]]
*[[Stone Summit]]
My Summit Axe broke my own guide as I did not record each area the stone summit is located in. Why? Because it would be around 10 areas. I believe that you were on the right track with regions over areas for simplicity purposes, though some "if-thens" may be in order for exceptional cases, such as area-specific chests. — Gares 00:16, 26 February 2007 (EST)
How are we supposed to find out something's a random drop if we don't record detailed information to begin with? Should there be some kind of threshold, like creatures from X different species and Y different professions, at least Z of which must be in each region in the same region for a random region-specific drop in order to be declared a campaign-specific random drop? Should we keep track of every monster and chest known to drop an item in the talk page, or in a subpage like [[<weapon name>/drop data]]? -- Gordon Ecker 00:31, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Core drops are no problem, as with each new campaign, we already have a list. If the Spatha drops in C4, then it is still a core random drop. If a record is needed, I believe the talk page is a better option that creating a new page, as not many weapons iirc, have a talk page created, or even if it is created, it's one or two sentences. The talk pages that have the most traffic are the rare weapons and being rare, they will not have much information in regards to location.
Basically, if there is a wide variety of foes documented then the weapon is a random drop. If contributors placed that a weapon drops from a Skree Raider, Rain Terror, Corsair Marauder, and Kournan Seer, then obviously it is a campaign random drop. It doesn't take much to conclude that information. — Gares 09:19, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Agreed, talk pages are a good place to record the data. -- Gordon Ecker 21:06, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Changes 2.26.07

  • Added exception for weapons that appear in certain areas in a region and from certain monsters.
  • Changed the word area in the regular location format to region.
  • Removed campaign under location section for less bullets. Campaign can be found in Weapon Infobox.
  • Added subspecies in addition to species.
  • Changed categories to a drop down format.

— Gares 14:31, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Weapon renders

Hello everyone. I am able to provide you with renders for weapons and weapon poses, and have provided an example of this on the Battlepick weapon page. If you have any input, please let me know! --Emily Diehl 21:09, 26 February 2007 (EST)

As many have stated on the other talk page, I think it looks great. I thank you for all your assistance.  :) --Rainith 22:18, 26 February 2007 (EST)
That render of the battle pick looks fantastic, it'd be wonderful to have something like that for all the weapons (especially impossible-to-get-for-a-mere-mortal greens). I don't think we need the pose images for every weapon though, seems a bit like overkill. With weapons that've got an animated component can you export the animation as a .gif (or maybe flash)? It'd be very nice to have examples of the really shiny stuff in action, rather than having to describe it... --NieA7 04:30, 27 February 2007 (EST)
While I agree that having an animation of the weapons would be cool, I don't think that this is something I can realistically provide at this point. I can, however, get shots of all weapons (although it's going to take me a bit to get all these shots) :) If you guys could decide whether you want character shots of the weapons, that would be immensely helpful, since it's a significant step and adds a bit of work to the process for me. --Emily Diehl 14:39, 27 February 2007 (EST)
Animations would've been the icing on an already delicious cake ;) Like I said I don't think we need equipped shots, especially if it adds significant work for you, but let's try and find out what others think. --NieA7 15:33, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Question

What happens if an item is found in the Underworld and only in one of the other campaigns? Surely you can't specify Core, because Core means all campaigns? I generally say Core means areas like the Underworld, that sort of thing, not that it drops in all three campaigns. I'm also going to add a parameter into the template that allows two images for those weapons with multiple skins. - BeXoR 23:17, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Scratch that, I'll wait til we get parser functions. - BeXoR 23:20, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Yep, I had already thought about the multiple skins.
Core means things that are similar to every campaign, i.e. Underworld, FoW, core skills, HoH, most crafting materials, and certain weapons. If a weapon drops in the Underworld and all campaigns can access the Underworld, that makes that weapon a core weapon. — Gares 15:03, 27 February 2007 (EST)
Edit: I have found some examples of cases where some weapons appears in FoW and Nighfall campaigns. I reworded it a bit and added a little explanation. — Gares 15:27, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Equipped shots

What do people feel about including shots of characters equipped with the weapon on each of the weapon pages? While it can be done I don't think it's worth the effort - you can already get a great idea of what the weapon looks like from the plain render, I don't think including two other, large images with more character than weapon in them would be very useful. --NieA7 15:36, 27 February 2007 (EST)

There's some discussion on that issue here Guild Wars Wiki talk:Policy/Images#Items Screenshots. Personally I'm in favour of having at least one picture of a char wielding a weapon, for the reasons I mentioned in the discussion in the other page. --Dirigible 15:41, 27 February 2007 (EST)
Missed that, thanks. --NieA7 17:56, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Changes 2.27.07

  • Added subtitles to location exceptions for ToC use.
  • Reworded campaign parameter to include the recording of multiple campaigns.
  • Added Multiple campaign locations section to the location exceptions.
  • Added Equipped Appearance section and weapon gallery template to syntax and decription.

— Gares 17:32, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Locations

This is a continuation from new style, but is focused on locations of weapons. As those that have read this ongoing discussion, I am trying to turn the specific location data found on GuildWiki into a broad, less bloated, but accurate section. Here is what was spoken of so far:

  • There was a concensus that all findings regarding individual drops would be recorded on a weapon's talk page. After some time, a hypothesis can be used with the relevant data to conclude whether a weapon drops from a certain species, in a certain area, from certain chests, campaign, etc.

I propose to add a location template on the talk page for a place where users can record data on the locations of weapons. Also, if a hypothesis cannot be accurately reached for the main article's location section, a special stub can be placed under the location section which points to the talk page in order to record such specific data until the time when an accurate summary can be placed in the main article. This weapon location stub will allow users not to be confused as to why a main article's location section has not been completed and will point them to the talk page where they may still add their findings and contribute to the drop data and understand the reasoning behind the new format. Using such a broader way to record locations in the main article, there are loopholes, which have been addressed to the best of my abilities and from suggestions from other users in the locations exceptions section of the formatting guide. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. Please remember the goal of this is to keep the location section simple, but as accurate as possible. Thank you. — Gares 09:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good to me. I left out locations of weapon drops when I created weapon article as I don't exactly know wether drop depends on region or species. With collecting data on special page that would be easier. (although it is little more work for someone who concludes collected data) Perhaps we can use same procedure (collect data and after some time add it to page) for amount of salvage data (e.g. contains 5-10 wood planks). We also could get percentage of rare salvage such as diamonds. MSorglos 10:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Drops are discussed higher up on the page. Martial weapon drops appear to be based on species / subspecies, region and, occasionally, level range (level 20 Corsairs in Kourna don't drop the same loot as level 21-23 Corsairs, level 24 Dredge in Urgoz's Warren don't drop the same loot as level 28 Dredge). Wand, staff and focus item drops appear to based on species / subspecies, region, profession and, like martial weapons and shields, occasionally level range, some are dropped only by casters of the appropriate profession, some are only dropped by non-casters and some are dropped by all professions. The rough concensus appears to be that the raw data goes in the talk page, and the article contains the "best guess" about drop patterns based on that data. -- Gordon Ecker 18:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, the location section will be an experiment that's for sure. My thought process was to lower the number of entries while still giving users who wish to find a certain weapon the best places or species that the weapon would most likely drop from. Individual monster documentation just seemed to unwieldy. I will try to have this section finalized as best I can before the opening.
In regards to MSorglos's comment about having an exact number for salvage (I know this is a late response), salvage potential is too erratic to document successfully, except for trophies, which is a set amount. You have the variables of the requirement of a weapon, the use of a measure for measure, possibly damage may have something to do with the number of materials you can salvage as well, and just sheer luck. The percentage ratio of salvaging rare materials such as gems, parchment, etc. is something Tetris and I thought of on GWiki, but we never followed through with it. — Gares 11:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
One addition towards location: perhaps it could be usefull to "externalize" that Location Section and use it both for weapons and all other salvage items. Towards salvage info: perhaps we gather that information when we know all depending variables, thus means later or never ;) - MSorglos 10:11, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
We started to use this "template" for Drop research:
==Drop research==
Observed Drops for [[{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}]]
{| {{STDT}}
! Drop || Signature
|-
|[[MONSTER]] in [[REGION]] ||~~~~
|}
Perhaps we should include this somewhere in the formatting proposal? - MSorglos 08:06, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Auto-categorising infobox

I've completed work on an auto-categorising modification to the weapon infobox that can be found here. Could people please view and let me know what they think about implementing this infobox instead of the old one. The new infobox:

  • Auto-categorises martial weapons, bows and shields (by single-attribute).
  • Auto-categorises by common crafting materials (single terms only).
  • Auto-categorises by rare crafting materials (single terms only).

Thanks. --Indecision 21:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

If multiple attributes are specified, categories have to be entered manually, correct? If so, it should be fine. If it attempts to auto-categorise multi-attribute items it'll need a nocats switch, otherwise the categories for multi-attribute / variable attribute items will probably be really messed up. -- Gordon Ecker 22:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
At the moment it only attempts to auto-categorise multi-attribute items according to the following attributes:
  • Axe Mastery -> Axes
  • Swordsmanship -> Swords
  • Hammer Mastery -> Hammers
  • Dagger Mastery -> Daggers
  • Spear Mastery -> Spears
  • Scythe Mastery -> Scythes
  • Marksmanship -> Bows
and:
  • Tactics, Strength, Motivation and Command -> Shields.
AFAIK, no items apart from those requiring both Tactics, Strength, Motivation and Command could be messed up by this, as these items are all categorised as Shields, this should not be a problem. If categorisation is desired at a higher level, e.g. Tactics Shields, then the categorisation code can be amended to remove these (Tactics, Strength, etc...) auto-categorisations. I have deliberately avoided caster weapons and offhands as these tend to have multiple attribute versions (e.g. Raven Staff). This means that in cases not supported by the above, no auto-categorisation by attribute will occur :). Please let me know if there are any items that have a dual/variable martial weapon requirement. --Indecision 00:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
It seems odd that the infobox doesn't include the item type (Bow, Shield, Staff etc.). According to the current formatting guide, the item type for non-bows isn't included anywhere on the page except in categories. -- Gordon Ecker 00:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I've tried not to modify the original infobox too much, as type would definitely be a mandatory requirement (i.e. it would have to appear within most infobox calls, and existing infoboxes would generally need to be altered). On the other hand it would allow for some auto-typing similar to the categorisation above and that used in your item infobox (which I appropriated for use in mine :)), as well as allowing for a much greater range of categorisation. I'm ambivalent about the addition of a type parameter, with it I can do more, but it may be simpler without it (and pages may be straightforward enough without it). --Indecision 00:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Surely you could make "type" optional by saying, if it is missing, use the attribute to categorise the weapon. LordBiro 06:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, just thought of that a while after posting, will make the appropriate edits now. Update: added a type paramater with auto typing and auto-categorisation (staff, wand and foci). --Indecision 09:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Is foci really the correct term for more than one focus? - BeXoR 10:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Pretty sure it is, although we can use focuses if you want, its no big deal :) --Indecision 10:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
According to answers.com both focuses and foci are acceptable plurals for the noun focus. LordBiro 10:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, but the noun focus doesnt refer to an offhand item from the game Guild Wars. :P I'd like to see if there's in game precedence. Or otherwise check the patch notes and use the find command to look for the text in the page. - BeXoR 11:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I've changed the infobox to use Focus items, which seems to be the category/type currently in use. I don't know of any in-game precedence for offhands unfortunately. Otherwise, if everyone else is happy with the proposed auto-cat/type infobox then I'm happy for it to be implemented over the old infobox. I've also updated User:Indecision/Sandbox with various examples of the infobox in use. --Indecision 03:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
The only in-game precedent I'm aware of is Inscriptions, which both refer to them as "Focus items", with focus capitolised. -- Gordon Ecker 04:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Messed?

Are there too many Location-Sections now? - MSorglos 17:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

uh, dude...that's ugly. LOL Vladtheemailer 17:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
LOL! -- Scourge User Scourge Spade.gif 17:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Acquisition

Can we have a section called acquisition that links to crafters and collectors who offer the shield. I often find a weapon with a nice skin and wonder if I can get it crafted somewhere rather than haivng to find it or buy it from a player, so I think a section about this would be useful. - BeXoR 09:18, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this what you are talking about? Collectors & Weaponsmith format. — Gares 10:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
As you may have noticed I have the attention span of a gnat. :P - BeXoR 11:04, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Multi-Attribute weapons

I saw that table for Attribute/Damage-type mapping on Staff of the Forgotten. Perhaps a table like this is usefull for weapons with many different linked attributes such as Shadow Staff or Bo Staff? - MSorglos 10:48, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I have done some work to present Attribute/Damagetype-mapping. Please give some comments on Attribute/Damagetype formatting proposals. I would put this table into an extra section for weapons with many different attributes (most likely staves and wands). - MSorglos 15:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
GuildWiki has a table here, but the information for wands and staves haven't been updated since Nightfall. -- Gordon Ecker 21:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
that table is a good hint, I didn't know it til now. Thanks. But that is no answer how to handle such weapons which can have multiple attributes. Weapon template does not say anything special about that multi attributes. In my personal opinion gathering all attributes and damage types in the template does not look very well. To add an extra section with that information could be a better way. I don't know wether we can generally link to such a table (as presented on Guildwiki) because I don't know wether each of these staves/wands can be obtained with every attribute (or if there are restrictions). - MSorglos 12:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
I've added similar tables to the Wand and Staff articles. The GuildWiki article can be copied here, as I made all the edits except for typo corrections. -- Gordon Ecker 20:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Categories

Should we have weapons by family? I always liked how all the shadow weapons were grouped together etc on Guildwiki. --Lemming64 14:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I started that with Category:Ancient items and some others, but it's only a matter of going back through, locating the weapons in a family, and adding the correct family cat. — Gares 15:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Synchronicing of Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Items and Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Weapons

User:Indecision proposed new formatting for Items, including a ==Salvage== section for salvagable items. Location/Acquisition section should be named equal. Propably this should also be applied for weapons, see talk page

above was noted by me ;-)
I changed formatting to acquisition instead of location. Salvage section is abandoned, salvage research can be done as for other items on according talk page. - MSorglos 03:12, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Suggestions

NOTOC, subheadings for different skins (this is especially useful when the weapon shares a name but not skin), notes should always be at the end of the page, imo - see Flame Artifact for my example. - BeX 01:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Also Acquisition is better than "Location". Some of these items can be acquired from collectors and crafters you must remember. - BeX 01:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Agreed, the "location" subheading is misleading, implying that the section should only contain a list of areas where the item can be obtained in. -- Gordon Ecker 02:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Skins

What exactly is the correct procedure for multi skinned weapons? Some have separate articles with campaign identifiers, others have them all in the one article, with multiple images, etc. In the case of multiple skins, I would suggest that the name without the identifier be used as disambiguation. Can we decide which is the right thing to do though, because it's stupid having everyone do different things. - BeX 13:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I can only remember axes to use multiple pages for multiple skins. For staves these different skins are noted in the article. I think it would be better to merge these multi-articles, so no disambig page is needed. - MSorglos 03:15, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Found only axes with multi skin pages, placed a merge there. - MSorglos 03:20, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. Don't see much of a point in splitting them. If I'm looking for info on a weapon, I wouldn't think of typing in the disambig identifier. I'd also rather be able to see all the skins of a weapon on the same page. -- ab.er.rant sig 09:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
After seeing how prolific these types of weapons are, I'd have to disagree. The weapon pages become bloated and unwieldy. Take a look at Ancient Scythe or Water Staff (the infobox in that one is horrible). The information in these articles is unnecessarily complicated as well when salvage or drop information differs between the skins. I think they should be split up, with the main name being a disambig with a gallery or thumbs of images for easy identification. The way those pages look now is just crappy and way below the standard of the other articles here. - BeX 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I don't like these skin identifiers in pagename, perhaps it could be usefull to create a subpage for each skin, including weapon gallery into main article and giving additional links to skin pages. I made a quick example from Water Staff: User:MSorglos/Proposals/Water_Staff Perhaps instead of Gallery the Infobox Icon can be included into main article. This way there is no need to add e.g. (canthan) to page title only for skin identifier. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 17:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to hold off any splitting until after all of the weapons offered by Tolkano have their skins identified, so that we'll have the official skin names and won't have to move anything. -- Gordon Ecker 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should wait - some of the names users have come up with are mispelled or stupid. And as for the identifiers, I really dislike the brackets too, but subpages should not be the alternative. The only other way it should be named is "Canthan Water Staff", but because these are specific item names and not just article names, I don't think we should do that. As for the disambig page I'd rather it look like this: User:BeXoR/Water Staff. - BeX 03:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Getting that official skin names by Tolcano is good - I don't play much PvP right now, so I can't see what skins to get there. If they are named e.g. Canthan Water Staff I have nothing to say against that and fully support these names. I don't understand why these are "not just article names". Could you please explain? Thanks. Your disambig page looks better than mine, should have taken more time to create it. Subpages were only a quick idea, did not think about searching these pages. - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two ways of creating an article, one with the disambig identifier, and one using it as a suffix. For example you have "Prophecies quests" instead of "Quests (Prophecies)" or "List of Prophecies skills" instead of "Skills (Prophecies). But in the case of the weapon, because it is an in game item name, it must be named "Water Staff" and we should use the bracket identifier. - BeX 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand. So we will end up like Water Staff, Water Staff (Canthan), Water Staff (Tyrian)? - MSorglos (talk|contrib) 15:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, but we still have to wait on the PvP rewards to find out what the game calls them, if I interpret Gordon correctly. - BeX 03:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah... I see the light. While I can see the advantage of splitting them into separate pages, I still think they could work as a merged page. Maybe it's just the weapon images that needs to be standardised. -- ab.er.rant sig 07:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought it would work in one page, but some pages are just getting far too long. Look at Ancient Scythe for one. 3 skins = 3 images, 3 galleries, 3 acquisition sections, 3 salvage entries (or more), and so on... - BeX 08:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. Which is why before I was sidetracked at the beginning of creating weapon articles, was creating separate articles for each type of skin variant due to what I was seeing as the articles would and as you can tell from Ancient Sycthe, highly bloated. See something such as Axe where I separated the variants into their own articles. — Gares 12:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we add icon images for multi-skin items to the formatting? Icons are the only way to distinguish a rare skin version of an item from a common skin version in the trade window. -- Gordon Ecker 09:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

<Reset Indent> Could this discussion be revived? It's been a long time since this dicussion took place and Tolkano was introduced. I personally think Bex's Disambig page is fantastic for this, much better than having them on all the same page. There is a distinct difference between these items and we need to make that clear, for example Charr Axe is simply terrible, I strongly beleive that the BMP weapons need their own page. Anon

Just to note, Charr Axe has been split, in a similar form as Ironwing Flatbow is. I don't know many other multi-skin weapons along these lines, but having a disambiguation works well, I think. --User Jioruji Derako logo.png Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Rarity

Is there any need to mention rarity? Just general terms like "Rare", "Uncommon", and "Common"? I was just thinking that the wiki page could at least give a hint as to the rarity of a particular type of skin. It's not to the detail of price check forums, but just a little indication so people not familiar with it can quickly decide to either sell it off or try to sell it to other players. -- ab.er.rant sig 09:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this can be helpful if some skins or items are very rare, but only note it for rare items. I don't want to note "common" to every item that can be found in masses... - MSorglos 10:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Make official?

Are there any issues still being discussed or disputed? Doesn't seem like there's anything major going on. Anything else to bring up before "official-ising" this? -- ab.er.rant sig 01:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Weapon galleries

I originally created the weapon gallery template for Battlepick when someone thought that only uploading the weapon renders would annoy people that wanted to see a weapon equipped. As a default the template does not include the profession name, but just generates the gallery based on the pagename. In hindsight, I think adding the ability to specify a profession was a mistake for a few reasons:

  1. Weapon types are not bound to profession, in the traditional sense that warrior weapons can only be used by warriors, etc. For instance, I'm sure there are far more monks out there wielding Rajazan's Fervor than there are warriors.
  2. Several weapon types aren't bound to any particular profession, but rather play type. For example staves, wands and offhands are used by all caster professions. It would be a bit silly to have a gallery for Wayward Wands for every profession the wand has an attribute tied to it.
  3. People create the image links with typos which is at most a bother because there is no simple way to move/rename an image.

But after going through so many weapon articles, I believe that the gallery on the whole, is a terrible idea. It looks bad, and I feel personally that the information isn't vital, except in cases where a weapon is bugged or exceptional looking when wielded (i.e. clipping errors or the huge size of Drago's Flatbow).

The images that people have uploaded are often too big, or taken from poor angles, or obscured by bulky armor. Most don't really assist at all in determing what your character would look like if they held it. All in all, I think (apart from special cases like Drago's, etc) we don't need to have images of people with weapons equipped, and we really don't need them for both genders. The renders are generally so detailed and beautiful that it should be enough to see that and decide whether you want the item or not. And in the cases where the renders haven't been uploaded, it seems silly to have a screenshot of an item, and then a copy of that picture in a weapon gallery except that it is uncropped.

I think that a render should suffice information-wise, though a weapon screenshot is just as good. Someone also suggested that we should also start including inventory icons for items, because with many weapons you cannot tell which version of a weapon you are being traded (i.e. Ancient Scythes seem to have rarity tied with appearance). - BeX iawtc 07:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I never saw why equipped shots were needed in addition to simple renders, so I'd be in favour of removing them. Weapons look different with different armour, all we end up with are a load of shots of people's knickers. --NieA7 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Remove the weapon galleries already! :P I don't see what more info they provide from the render/screenshot in the infobox. - anja talk 11:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with removing the {{weapon gallery}}-entries. However, I think we should put this discussion @ GWW:RFC and have some more users' input. Afterall, there are a lot of people who have already uploaded images of equipped weapons. (Sorry for the late reply to this thingy, but Anja only now pointed it out to me. :-) ) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 18:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Thank god it has been removed... :) - BeX iawtc 02:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to this, are the galleries officially deprecated now? ie: I shouldn't use the gallery template on new pages? --Tankity Tank 02:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't use them for new pages. - BeX iawtc 02:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Boo... well, it was fun putting it in, but I understand your point. I second this.--User Zemmy Signature.png Zemmy 17:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh, it's probably too late for this now, but I actually think the renders are not enough for the weapon pages. Not that I think the current equipped galleries are needed - I agree with Bexor, they're ugly, they're too big, and so on. But the problem I have with displaying only the renders is that I think they are unrealistic pretty - they are the best way possible for us to see the item with great detail, but that's not exactly how the item looks in game, given how there's shading and positioning and other things like that. Granted, this is a minor thing, but I would suggest using two images on each weapon page - the render, and a small, focused image of the weapon equipped, like the image currently in the infobox of Zodiac Sword (for example), at the bottom of the infobox. We would end with more or less the same information given by the (far bulkier) equipped weapon gallery, while doing something smaller. Erasculio 12:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
To keep real screenshots we could do it in the same way as with items/trophies. See for example: Fibrous Mandragor Root - We could add the render below the infobox and keep one screenshot of the weapon in the upper one (or the other way round) poke | talk 13:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Btw. It would be good to decide this within 3 days as the removed images contain mostly good images of the weapons (and they will be around for 3 days from now). poke | talk 13:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The renders are enough - the equipped shots varied hopelessly depending on profession and location, I don't think they had any real value. To be honest I felt that the pages looked ridiculous with naked avatars all over the place. --NieA7 13:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Aye the weapon galleries were just an excuse for vanity shots imo. Completely unnecessary. I would support have a render and a screenshot focused on the weapon for use in the infoboxes. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 00:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm in full support of the weapon galleries going bye bye. I've seen a bunch of pages with the weapon about 10 px in size, and the rest of the 200 px screenie showing off the character's armor died black or something. Those shots would look fine in Userspace, obviously named correctly, but not on weapon pages many people look at to decide which wepaon to buy/farm. Calor - talk 01:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against adding a screenshot parameter to the infobox - but we don't know when or if we will be getting the renders because there's only one person able to provide them at the moment and she is busy enough as it is! I'd actually like to see inventory icons being discussed, now that there are so many weapons with different skins. - BeX iawtc 10:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Drop research notice formatting

I find myself looking twice at the drop-rate research notices on a lot of the weapon pages. The notice looks enough like the acquisition list that it takes me a second to parse whether I'm looking at a part of the list or a note about the list. I'm going to give two examples below, notice how in the first the text directly under the drop list looks similar enough that it could appear to be another list header, and in the second how the text is clearly something else. All of the usability studies that I've read suggest that this type of at a glance differentiation is beneficial.

The Amber Longbow can be found:

Factions

Drop research is ongoing, and can be found here.

The Amber Longbow can be found:

Factions

Drop research is ongoing, and can be found here.

Thoughts? --Tankity Tank 02:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good change to me. The name of the weapon shouldn't be bolded though. And I would suggest using a semi-colon instead of the bolding for the campaign name.

The Amber Longbow can be found:

Factions

Drop research is ongoing, and can be found here.

I also think we need an article(s) about bow class for that link. - BeX iawtc 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the extra formatting was my fault - I used another page as a template when I made that drop rate update. I like using a ; instead of bolding the region, that's cleaner/easier/faster. --Tankity Tank 03:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Drop research

Could we place it on the actual page? For example, see here & here & here for an example of what I mean. — ク Eloc 貢 22:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Drop research should go on Item name/Drop research imo. The talk page should not be used for something like this. And no, I disagree including it into the page itself.. It will look messy if you include a page like Zaishen Chest/Drop rate into the article.. poke | talk 17:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is for weapon formatting. Last I checked, the Zaishen chest wasn't a weapon ;P — ク Eloc 貢 19:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
there are many research tables that can be seen on most weapon talk pages. i also know that there are /xy research subpages for several weapons, but that seems quite unknow for weapons. i also made many research edits on the weapons' talk pages as in those "research tables". —ZerphatalkThe Improver 17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

weapons that chance appearance with diffrent rarity

(see also Talk:Elonian_Daggers#Split) Normally, items with diffrent skins and the same name should be split, as their salvage, drop locations and sometimes the attributes as well are diffrent. It's also clearer if one page is not messed up with both. So should we split items like Ancient Scythes that only differ in appearance with rarity as well, or should they stay one article? —ZerphatalkThe Improver 17:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

disambiguations on weapon pages

i split several weapon pages and moved several split pages. I adapted the disambigs to Tolkano's reward weapon's names, but used minorcase for them as i didn't know adjectives derived from location names are written with capital letters to be polite. Should the artilces stay as they are currently, or sould they all be moved again? —ZerphatalkThe Improver 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Salvage research

Planned? Skin (omit for single skin items) Rarity Damage (most weapons) / Energy (focus items) / Armor (shields) / Base stats (staves) HS? Value Material Amount Signature and timestamp
Yes / No wiki skin name White / blue / purple / gold #-# (weapons) / # (focus items and shields) / #, E+#, HSR #% (staves) Yes / No #Gold [[full material name|short material name]] (first time the material is mentioned) / short material name (further entries) # ~~~~

I think we should incorporate salvage research tables into the style guide. I would prefer the above format, which is based on the standard format used for many expert salvage research tables. The planned column would be used show whether the decision to report the salvage was made before or after the salvage was made in order to separate data which may be subject to selection bias (which is useful for determining which items can be salveged in which amounts) from data which is not subject to selection bias (which is also useful for determining the probability of specific salvage results). -- Gordon Ecker 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Split and image issues

I have seen two issues arising when browsing our weapon pages. First of all, it is the weapons that share name but not skin. These are handled differently, although the formatting implies different skins should still stay on the same page. How do we want it handled? Should skins be split or kept together?

Secondly, it's the issue of images when skins are shared with multiple names. Here, I have also seen different solutions and a lot of discussions. I personally prefer to keep an image for each name in the case of shared skins. This results in redundant images, yes, but it makes it easier to create galleries, infoboxes and other such automated stuff.

If it would be possible to get a consensus on this, and implement it in the formatting, I think we would gain some more consistency. <3 consistency. - anja talk 08:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been working to fill in the holes that currently appear in the weapons galleries. The way the dpl galleries are set up, they need an image that is named exactly the same as the weapon page. In the first instance Anja has identified, if multiple images appear on a single page to identify the different skins available for that weapon, there is a blank in the gallery, if none of the images are named as the page is. If only one image is named properly, the other skins are left out of the gallery.
In the second instance, if several different weapons share the same skin, AND share a single image on several pages, they do not appear in the galleries.
The only solution I see to have it all work correctly is to create a separate page for each skin, and each page would then have it's own image. Either that, or someone who is better with the dpl protocols needs to rework how the gallery pages are set up.--Wyn's Talk page Wyn 08:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I both agree with Anja and Wyn. I recently didn't think about the automated stuff like weapon galleries. We should maybe also leave a note about that in GWW:PR/WMODEL, as we were planning to upload images with a common name for shared images - this should be avoided then instead.

At first, i didn't want to split weapon pages like Ancient Daggers, as each diffrent Ancient Daggers skin has the same drop locations, as it's therotically the same item, but changes its appearance dependant on rarity. Much diffrent from that are for sure articles like the Earth Staff. I think this one is a good example how these weapon pages that include diffrent weapons with the same name should be cleaned up. (The disambiguations for the Earth Staves were chosed according to Tolkano's reward item names. Some other pages like the Grim Cesta didn't have a reward item version for every page, so the disambiguations were chosen according to another existing weapon with the same name, or simply an approximately suiting disambiguation) —ZerphatalkThe Improver 08:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/Weapons/Archive_1&oldid=2516094"