Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Unique Items

Category Completion

What constitutes completion of a category? The Paragon Unique Items are crossed off the list, but a description has yet to be created for Hassin's Shell. Also, many items to not include images yet. While I tend to agree with the idea that images can come later, I argue that crossing a category off the list prior to all the descriptions being entered will lead to confusion for those of us that are trying to contribute. Rohar 10:17, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

It's just been created. If you are going to work on these pages, I'd suggest adding your name to the list here and add some more items on the "To Do" list as well. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 10:25, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I wasn't trying to be critical, just curious. I've been added items as time allows today. Rohar 13:08, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Categorization of items

First of all, as pointed out at Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Unique items#Category, categories should be of the form Category:Nightfall unique items, and not Category:Unique Items (Nightfall). This same style of categorization has been suggested for creatures, locations, etc. It reads easier.

Anyways, to the meat and potatoes of the matter. We should discuss how the items will be organized here, in order to keep the categories sane. Here's what I'm thinking it should look like, with "Unique items" being the top category, and "Kepkhet's Refuge" being the item in question.

This way, almost all unique items will belong in three categories.

Charr bag would have Category:Prophecies unique items and Category:General unique items (a subcategory of Category:Unique items by profession). Can't think of any other items that might be problematic right now. What do you guys think about this category tree? --Dirigible 21:59, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Excellent. I'm been struggling with what categories are appropriate for the unique items, and many of the existing articles seemed to be going in different directions. Your tree is logically conceived and easy to define. After Rapta signs off on it, I'll start dialing through items and inserting "blank" templates to be filled out with the proper categories, as well as adjusting categories This should help others, who like me, may not have understood the proper category trees. With luck, at least the unique items will be properly categorized within the next day or two.Rohar 07:54, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I reposted your suggestion at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Categories in order to bring a wider audience to your proposal. --Rohar (talk|contribs) 10:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Looks awesome! I'll start recategorizing the current ones, since the ones I put are in "Category:Unique Items (Nightfall)" rather than "Category:Nightfall unique items". — Rapta (talk|contribs) 15:55, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I sort of have a system going in the Paragon Unique items section. Currently, I am following a straightforward, strict, 4-category template, being:

• [[Category:<Profession> unique items]]
• [[Category:<Attribute> unique items]]
• [[Category:Unique <item type>s]]
• [[Category:<Campaign> unique items]]

It seems to work pretty well. It follows that chart above, almost exactly. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 16:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Why not have the Attribute category as a subcat of the profession, though? I'm fine with it either way, just seems slightly more practical like that. --Dirigible 16:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I tend to agree with Dirigible. Having Category:Paragon unique items and Category:Spear Mastery unique items. We should decide on one or the other.After looking at it for a while, I don't think having 4 categories is too overbearing. Personally, I think the attribute category would be more helpful for people who are looking for unique items to support what every build they are putting together. --Rohar (talk|contribs) 18:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

As I said above, I'm fine with it either way. 4 categories it is. :) --Dirigible 11:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Quick refs

Currently, the formatting of quick refs is being discussed here. -- Gordon Ecker 20:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Hurray!

All of the green items have been stubbed! *dancing for joy*. Now for the massive clean-up effort :( -- Rohar (talk|contribs) 15:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Warrior Axe Section

The entire Warrior Green Axe portion has been updated according to S&F. Any comments/suggestions/questions? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 01:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Participation

I was thinking of joining this project as many many many items are missing a lot of stuff, but I'm far too much of a wiki-gnome and RC patroller to hold down a home such as this project, but I might contribute as I have in the past to this section. --Jamie 12:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just contribute whenever you can. -- ab.er.rant 12:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Replica

I started working on the Mesmer part of this project. I'm not sure if I'm doing the Replica part right. Could someone judge it by checking Kaolin Domination Staff? BlazeRick 14:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Is the format on Milefaun's Staff the way to go? BlazeRick 14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, looks fine to me. Don't worry too much about the formatting. As long as you get the info correct and it more or less resembles the rest, it'll be fine. Someone else will tweak it if they think it needs tweaking. -- ab.er.rant 01:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unique Categories

We need to figure out what we're going to do with redundant categories, such as Category:Spear Mastery unique items and Category:Unique spears. Which should be left? Which should we keep? -- Wandering Traveler 19:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The second section of this talk page, which defined the categorization of unique items decided that it's be ok to have both. But as two of these four categories for a unique item (the one for the type and the other for the attribute) are identical for non-caster, non-shield weapons, removing one of those for the accordant unique weapon types might be worth considering. —ZerphaThe Improver 19:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the second section, but there are exceptions to that, which is what I'm trying to bring up. Take Protection Prayers for example. There are different types of protection prayers items (i.e. wands, staves, foci), but all linked to one category. the same holds true with the unique staves section, there are a whole manner of staves that take different attributes. But what about martial weapons? They only have that one attribute, falling into a redundancy in Swordsmanship unique items (never seen a sword that req. tactics) and Swordsmanship Unique items. (again, a shield with swordmanship attribs?). Thats what isnt making sense, which is why i'm bringing up whether we should get rid of one or the other. -- Wandering Traveler 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Leave them be. They do no harm, may be helpful by making it easier for some user to find stuff, and my come to have different content in the future if Anet introduces new items. Backsword 14:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with keeping redundant categories, it means that someone searching for either term would find appropriate information. Misery 12:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Rez

I hope no one minds. I've been using the unique weapons pages a lot lately and since I have a lot of extra time on my little OCD completist hands I thought I would pitch in and clean up. I will be following the template and mainly expanding the Replica sections as per BlazeRick's format above. One thing I'm not sure of, though, is if ALL options for replicating unique weapons should be included... as in the Norn, Asuran, Deldrimor, and Raven crafted base weapons. My gut reaction is to include them, but if someone has a reason not to include them, please let me know and I will cease and desist with that part. An example of a complete list of replica "ingredients" is in Milefaun's Staff.--Shana Something 19:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)