Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Armor formatting

Hey guys, I'm wondering, for things like armor with a variable defence rating (drops from various levels), shouldn't the armor table support this range? I'm seeing errors when a range of defence is given in a lot of tables. The workaround I've noticed is just putting 1 defence value in the table and using the note section to indicate that it's a range value, but this doesn't look like a very tidy workaround. Kueller (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Dungeon rare armor pages

→ moved from User talk:Chieftain Alex#Dungeon whatnot

Continuing the discussion from Talk:Orrian Reward Helm (rare), I've taken a look and all that info is super wrong. I will go over all that with a fine tooth comb and mark everything for deletion that needs to go, but first I need some help getting the dungeon equipment template working. Example use including both rare and exotic equipment. I have a few points that I need help with:

• I tried wrapping the uslot bit in an #if so its hidden if there's no nothing defined, but it didn't work and I ain't sure why. Or should it to remain there, indicating that it has an unused slot?
• How can I grab information from the infobox for use in the three subobjects that the template creates? I assume its possible but I ain't know how to do it. Right now it depends on you redefining those variables, which probably isn't necessary.
• SMW pulls values from the infobox and treats it as an object, so how does that interact with the three subobjects created by the template? Will there be four objects on this page, the 3 fully defined subobjects from the dungeon equipment template, plus the partially defined object from the infobox? How does that all work?

OK THANKS Psycho Robot (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

^^^^ Okay I'll fix that. We could get it working cosmetically (i.e. the #if fix), and then start using it. and then fix the subobjects later tonight.

1. with #if statements, its checking if the first bit is blank or not. So you need to write {{{parameter name|}}} rather than {{{parameter name}}} - so it defaults to being blank.
2. probably with an #ask query.
3. currently there aren't any subobjects created by the armor infobox - worry about that when/if we put them in :P -Chieftain Alex 21:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at {{armor infobox}}/{{weapon infobox}} and they both use item stat lookup, which leaks variables for use in {{fm table}} - meaning we can use them to. Unluckily they don't provide the canonical name or the icon, but I did that with smw. looks ready to me. -Chieftain Alex 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Its not liking the rarity value. No idea why... might be smw cache, not sure with subobjects. -Chieftain Alex 21:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

subobjects can be slow to update, they will eventually.--Relyk ~ talk < 21:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I reckon this was due to my putting a space before the item rarity >.< I've done that before. <3

example setup on Inquest Greatsword using "User:Psycho Robot" as the template. -Chieftain Alex 21:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

One other thing before I get started that I'm not sure what to do with... each dungeon vendor sells two types of armor. The exotic armor that has the unique appearance and name that we all know and love. That's not a problem. But they also sell rare armor. Each set of rare armor shares a name and an appearance. Each vendor sells a light (cabalist), medium (pirate), and heavy (reinforced scale) in three different prefixes. So that's 9 full sets of rare armor per vendor. However some vendor's sell this armor in the same prefix. For instance, a rare Berserker's Cabalist armor set comes from citadel of flame, crucible of eternity, and ruined city of arah. These all have the same name (berserker's cabalist coat, etc.), but different levels. Therefore I'm not sure how to structure the articles. I could have individual pages for each piece, like I would do for the exotic armor, but that would mean having pages of the format Cabalist Hood (Citadel of Flame), Cabalist Hood (Crucible of Eternity), Cabalist Hood (Ruined City of Arah). I could also have one page for Cabalist Hood and describe all the different variants from the different dungeons there. I could also have Cabalist Armor (Citadel of Flame), Cabalist Armor (Crucible of Eternity), and Cabalist Armor (Ruined City of Arah), and not bother with pages for each individual armor. However if I do that, one might wonder why bother having pages for each individual piece of the exotic armor. What are your thoughts on this categorical conundrum? Psycho Robot (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

All different stats? srs lol this game wasn't made to be documented.

It looks like Dungeon rare armor has some of the required prefixes, and all the armor levels, but the names of all the pieces are wrong. (doh) - is that a correct assertion?

Vendor	Level	Cabalist	Pirate	Reinforced Scale
Historian Symon (Ascalonian Catacombs)	35	Rejuvenating Potent Honed	Rejuvenating Potent Honed	Rejuvenating Potent Honed
Seraph Outfitter Eva (Caudecus's Manor)	45	Penetrating Potent Enduring	Penetrating Potent Enduring	Penetrating Potent Enduring
Valiant Saeraquel (Twilight Arbor)	55	Rabid Magi's Rampager's	Rabid Magi's Rampager's	Rabid Magi's Rampager's
Morro (Sorrow's Embrace)	65	Carrion Soldier's Knight's	Carrion Soldier's Knight's	Carrion Soldier's Knight's
Officer Veros (Citadel of Flame)	70	Berserker's Carrion Rampager's	Berserker's Carrion Rampager's	Berserker's Carrion Rampager's
Ulof Sindersson (Honor of the Waves)	80	Rabid Magi's Soldier's	Rabid Magi's Soldier's	Rabid Magi's Soldier's
Peacemaker Skrimm (Crucible of Eternity)	80	Berserker's Rampager's Dire	Berserker's Rampager's Dire	Berserker's Rampager's Dire
Officer Hetja (Arah)	80	Berserker's Knight's Rabid	Berserker's Knight's Rabid	Berserker's Knight's Rabid

It might be helpful to finish filling in the prefixes to give an idea of the scale of this, but I reckon we could do it with one page for each piece of rare armor (irrespective of dungeon) - i.e. 3 (weights) * 5 (pieces) = 15 pages with 8 different prefix/stat combinations on it, and a whopping great table that I'll design tomorrow :p -Chieftain Alex 02:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Added level to your table, since that also affects the number of permutations. —Dr Ishmael 02:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely right, each dungeon vendor sells 3 different sets of cabalist, 3 different sets of pirate, and 3 different sets of reinforced scale armor; that is to say, one set of each weight for each prefix. That's a total of 9 sets per vendor, and with 8 vendors, that's 72 sets of this armor. I've edited your table to demonstrate the silliness. Also you are correct, the names of all the items on the Rare Dungeon Armor page are wrong. The names listed there are the names for the exotic dungeon armor. The rare armor is all standard form, like Berserker's Cabalist Hood, Knight's Pirate Pants, Soldier's Reinforced Scale Gauntlets, etc. Oh also there's one anomaly. The CoE rare armor is all level 80 except for the headgear, which is 78. I think this is a mistake, and they should all be 78, since every other piece has a level requirement equal to the level requirement of the story mode. Psycho Robot (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that its the morning, and I've read what was written on the dungeon rare armor page again, the stats I pasted in were meant to be applied to all three ;) thanks for filling the prefixes in though. -Chieftain Alex 10:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok now I've substantially blown up RC and my morning, I've deleted all the duplicate files - leaving these 15 files. I've created a possible layout mockup at Reinforced Scale Helm (rare). thoughts? (shouldn't that be 30 for the ascalonian catacombs armor only the helm, and what was the "rabi's" prefix supposed to be?) -Chieftain Alex 12:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Corrected Rab(b)i's to Magi's. I don't think there's any culture in GW2 with a Jewish background. —Dr Ishmael 15:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

me neither, thanks for fixing :D -Chieftain Alex 15:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, how could I have made such a silly mistake? *coughsixtimethreeiseighteencough* I like the table, but the title of the page is not quite what it should be. Rare cabalist, pirate, and reinforced scale armor is also found as loot. I believe it should be titled Reinforced Scale Helm (dungeon armor) or possibly just (dungeon). Also prompted by your confusion I double checked. AC rare head armor is indeed level 30, while the rest of the set is 35, just like CoE rare head armor is level 78, while the rest of the set is 80. Psycho Robot (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Good job I kept to the one piece of armor rather than 18 then ;)

So we've got the three types (cabalist/pirate/reinforced). All three can be obtained as both dungeons and as drops. In addition reinforced scale (not rare) can be crafted. So... Reinforced Scale Helm (crafted one), "Reinforced Scale Helm (rare)" (drop?) + "Reinforced Scale Helm (dungeon)" (the rare dungeon armor). is that really clear enough? -Chieftain Alex 19:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what it is. Though I would have just one page for "Reinforced Scale Armor (loot)" if its not already like that. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've only just noticed Cabalist armor, Privateer armor + Reinforced Scale armor. how deep does this rabbit hole go? -Chieftain Alex 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Those just need to be rewritten, and they're fine. Since it comes at so many levels with so many different sigils and such, all we can really say about it is that its dropped as loot, comes CFine through FExotic, levels, x through y, and is dropped with a random rune. Throw in some disambiguation at the top saying there's also dungeon variants, and a reinforced crafted set, bada bing bada boom you're done. I'll get started on all that tonight and report back here with any additional issues. Psycho Robot (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

since randomly obtained loot items don't have any fixed stats, why not combine those items with the ones from the dungeon vendors? -Chieftain Alex 21:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

post move

(Reset indent) Not to be picky, but can this conversation be moved to Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Armor formatting? A lot of discussion on equipment-related topics and organization takes place in talk pages--Relyk ~ talk < 21:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@Relyk DEAR GOD EVERY DAY ITS SOMETHING NEW WITH YOU. Ok. So do we like cut and paste or what. @Alexis I am curious what you mean by this. Do go on. Also, can you move the "18" files you indicated here to the suffix (loot), or you could move them to no suffix and move the files used by Reinforced Scale Helm et. al. to the suffix (crafted). Having them as (rare) isn't exactly appropriate as items using this icon can be found as all rarities, and having them as (dungeon) doesn't seem ideal because most of the time players encounter this is when it is found as loot. Cabalist and Pirate's icons are already set up fine. Psycho Robot (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Random loot items do have fixed stats, they have to in order to have an item ID; it's just that there are so many different items with the same name that makes it seem like they're random. For example, according to the API there are 67 different items called "Cabalist's Hood", and while they all use the same icon, they have rarities from Fine to Rare and levels from 30 to 80 and a bunch of different prefixes. Among those are the 8 rare versions without a default rune that are sold by the dungeon vendors.

My approach would be to extend {{Dungeon rare armor row}} into a fully generic template for non-crafted items, and then document all non-crafted items with the same base name and appearance on the same page. Use subsections under "Acquisition" to split out loot vs. dungeon vendor vs. personal story reward vs. whatever. —Dr Ishmael 21:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Psycho; my suggestion is thus:

• Move the crafted heavy pieces to ____ (crafted) to match the armor parent.
• Put everything else on _____ without a suffix. Stick the note that "this item can be found as loot between levels X (fine), Y (masterwork) and Z (rare)" at the top above the new dungeon template we've made. this way I only move 6 files to without the suffixes.

(this approach works with dr ish's EC'd suggestion - the crafted set has a different skin apparently) -Chieftain Alex 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will proceed with creating articles such as "Reinforced Scale Helm (dungeon)", and in the event that the entire set is combined onto one single page, Reinforced Scale armor, the (dungeon) link can be used as a redirect to the dungeon acquisition section of the combined article, and used in the various vendor pages. P.S. I've inspected the Dungeon rare armor page and every single piece of equipment linked in the tables is a page that needs to be deleted. I figured I'd say that here rather than tagging all 60ish of them. Psycho Robot (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I got the impression dr + I were thinking the page would be called "Reinforced Scale Helm" - without the dungeon prefix, and there would be a vendor and a loot section on the same page. -Chieftain Alex 22:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@ dr ish, it seems likely that the loot armor won't have 3 attribute variants... and so would be ugly with the formatting I've suggested. while putting the loot variants in subobjects might make sense, 68 "random" variants might not be helpful to display :/ -Chieftain Alex 22:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's going to be ugly, but loot really should be documented just as much as anything else. —Dr Ishmael 22:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh right, that's what I meant to say. I'm not sure why I linked reinforced scale armor instead of reinforced scale helm. In any case, the chat links aren't displaying. its the end of the world! Psycho Robot (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

i am earth shatteringly tired. goodnight -Chieftain Alex 22:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I jiggered the table to make what I think is a compromise between looking good, having the info, and not being too vertical or too horizontal. The only issue is that the item like has a ginormous amount of white space above it and I dunno why or how to fix it. Psycho Robot (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately as long as it displays the information, I'm happy. (can always change template later to issue a formatting change across the pages) -Chieftain Alex 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

SMW duplicated entries

Since we're talking about using subobjects on a lot of pages, almost to the point where they will be used on the majority of equipment articles, I think that we should try to address the duplication that occurs when both an infobox and subobjects are used. On my user page I queried for inquest weapons and the result includes four of each type. The fourth is a partially filled out object generated from the infobox. However if the article is using a table with subobjects set up in it, then we don't necessarily want the infobox to create an object too. Is it possible to set up a switch in the relevant infoboxes to turn off the creation of objects should in cases where its not desirable? I know that the objects won't show up if the query terms are refined, but wouldn't it be better to just not have those objects in the first place? Psycho Robot (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Naming

A minor issue to be sure, but I figure I should ask. When we're creating a page for an armor set, I believe its already decided that the "armor" should be lower case, but what of the rest? For instance, Dry Bones armor. Each individual piece is upper case, but then again all items are. So should the actual armor page be at "Dry bones armor" or "Dry Bones armor"? Personally I'm in favor of all lower case, but I don't have a particularly strong feeling one way or the other. Psycho Robot (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

pling thought uppercase. Theres quite a few variations about, but I think that everything other than "_armor" (as in "Oh My Goodness This Is OP armor") should be uppercase on the first letter of each word (or at least match the ingame capitalisation). -Chieftain Alex 20:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

btw, if you move pages and those pages have hundreds of associated files that need moving, create a list of them somewhere and I'll move them later. -Chieftain Alex 20:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The canonical part of the page name should match the canonical names of the individual pieces, i.e. as Alex pointed out the overview page for "Superior Studded [X]" armor pieces should be "Superior Studded armor." —Dr Ishmael 03:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In related news, with the way some of the templates are currently set up, it doesn't permit qualifiers. Much to my chagrin, a number of the Dungeon armor sets, as well as Ascended armor sets, share a name amongst all 3 weights. They should be split up, but because of the inability to use qualifiers, we can't call the armor page "Illustrious armor (light)." So should we call the armor set "Light Illustrious armor" even though its not exactly canonical? Or should the templates be changed to accommodate qualifiers? I'm pulling for the first option because I think its the easiest to manage and the most clear for readers. Psycho Robot (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Which templates are causing this problem? I bet we could get them sorted out. I don't like the idea of putting the qualifier first in the pagename. —Dr Ishmael 02:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Its the same issue as Weapons of the Dragon's Deep, the infobox automatically applies "armor" to any Set input. Of course, now that I mention Weapons of the Dragon's deep, the heavy arah armor set is now called Armor of the Lich. Dammit. Why does Anet insist on making Arah "different"? Psycho Robot (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Just applied a workaround to both {{armor infobox}} and {{weapon infobox}} so that if the parameter value already contains "armor" or "weapons", respectively, it will use the value directly without appending anything. —Dr Ishmael 02:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Collapsible/expandable tables?

Many of the karma armor pages, like Primitive armor, have really long lists of how to acquire the separate pieces of the armor sets, which make the pages really long. Could the tables under the Acquisition headers be made collapsed to save some space? -Tulen elementti (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

alright I've had a play about with this.

• I've setup a collapsible header element in User:Chieftain Alex/sandbox (collapse button looks kind of similar to the edit button, which may be a problem). I'm not so keen on individual tables being collapsed on page load
  • I've put a version without the custom css on the Primitive armor page for the moment - see if I can get an opinion on that.
• {{TOCright}} - makes sense if we haven't got an image in the top right corner.
• Wrapped the gallery bits in display:inline-block elements to save on vertical space - not sure about this one either, I might need to add min-width to the left hand tables to ensure they line up that looks terrible.

-Chieftain Alex 11:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing is a last resort imo, we can organize it differently before resorting to collapsing. The first problem is we're organizing by zone->armor type->rarity. There's no point to have three separate sections for each zone when it can be put in one table. The next problem is attributes, these really aren't important to show when we can mention the prefix and the focus of the guide is the appearance. I'd also like to sort by armor type->level->rarity->vendor by default. People can sort by zone if they want to. It should make it easier to identify if you want to choose one helm or other first before deciding if you nee to travel to another zone.--Relyk ~ talk < 14:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why Tulen removed the top-right overview image and the dye images. In any case, I think we should restore the overview image to the top-right and the TOC to default position - people seem to forget that the TOC is designed to be collapsible, there's no need to shunt it off to the side because it's too long. Also, we should move the game links to the top of the page - they are more important than acquisition because people need to decide if they like it before they go and buy it.

I'm also thinking we should make an armor set infobox so that the overview image isn't so lonely. We wouldn't have to annotate this at all, and it would show the armor class and list the available levels/rarities. [edit] Here's a rough draft: Template:Armor set infobox. —Dr Ishmael 15:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

My take on it is thus: On the armor page, for instance, Stately armor, we have information about the appearance only, with maybe a small summary of how to get it (karma merchants in bloodtide coast, sparkfly fen, etc). Then we have a list of links to the individual armor pieces, as taken from the piece names in the pvp locker. Stately Helm, Stately Mantle, etc. On those pages, we have detailed acquisition info. The benefit of this is that it allows for a very graunular approach. We can break it up into sections. Where to get the stately helm from loot, where to get it from karma merchants, where to get it from crafting, and so forth. It also allows the use of {{Item variant table header}} to list the different versions that are avaliable as loot. The result of this is that we are able to ensure that each variant of each piece has its own fully filled out subobject, and it doesn't require any chicanery such as collapsible tables. Psycho Robot (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ishmael, I thought the top-right overview might be unnecessary because the armor images can be found enough times in the gallery section, and as for the dye preview I thought I read last year at some point a discussion about them not being needed, but I could remember wrong. But of course, I can add all that stuff back if they really helpful, I just didn't want to have too much repetition of the same content throughout the page. -Tulen elementti (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

All I meant was that you didn't leave any edit summary, and the reasons weren't clear from my outside perspective. Now that you've explained:

1. I think an overview image and/or infobox is useful because it gives readers an immediate visual of the armor set, rather than making them scroll down or use the ToC to reach the Gallery section. Now that I'm thinking about this, perhaps the infobox should include both male and female human images - since human/norn/sylvari are all essentially the same, and the male form is the basis of asura/charr, including both would provide a complete visual overview.
2. If the normal racial/gender gallery images demonstrate the dyeable areas, then that will be sufficient, sure.

—Dr Ishmael 05:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point about the overview image. I'll start working on getting the male and female images added there, and I apologize for the confusion. -Tulen elementti (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized that I'm not good at editing templates. Could someone else add the option to add images to the Template:Crafted set infobox, and perhaps create similar templates for karma and loot armor?-Tulen elementti (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Added as requested to crafted set infobox. I still think that infoboxes on armor pages are worth pursuing. -Chieftain Alex 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Armor page naming

I've noticed that the armor pages have an inconsistency in the naming convention. Some just have the piece name, and some list the armor name followed by the weight. For example, [[Nightmare Helmet]] but [[Nightmare Gauntlets (Heavy)]]. The annoyance (for me) was that [[List of Level 80 Exotic Armor]] has what look like a bunch of missing pages, when the pages actually do exist.

Options:

1. Create redirect pages for any links that are being used, so that [[Nightmare Gauntlets]] just redirects to [[Nightmare Gauntlets (Heavy)]]
2. Rename the armor pages for consistency (my favorite option!)
3. Or edit the links in the [[List of Level 80 Exotic Armor]] to go to whichever page name already exists.

Also, I'm new-ish so feel free to redirect me if this is answered or discussed elsewhere. Tkschmidt (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason why those items have suffixes is because there is also [[Nightmare Gauntlets (Medium)]], because anet loves us. Nightmare Gauntlets should exist, but because its a case where neither "nightmare gauntlets" is the more important of the two, it would exist as a disambiguation. As for the page, list of level 80 exotic armor, don't bother trying to clean it up. I know that there is a way to clean it up using SMW, and somebody who knows it better than me could do it in just a few minutes. It basically involves telling SMW "make a list of all level 80 exotic helmets and show these facts about them" and then SMW does what SMW is told. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As PR says, pages with (qualifiers) in the titles are to help us distinguish between the main item and the others which may be identically named ingame, much to the annoyance of wiki editors.

I've put together a template at {{Armor table}} which could be used to help cleanup the page (Copy the example bit and preview it on a random page to see the results). Unfortunately the SMW tells us that our armor pages are horribly formatted + many need updating.

By the look of things, most of the pages exist except the Emblazoned, which is medium and not heavy. -Chieftain Alex 22:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I intend to tackle armor pages after my great karma odyssey, which I am taking a break from to enjoy Escape from LA at the same time as I enjoy Escape from LA. Psycho Robot (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Armor set property

Someone make it pls so I can do {{#ask: [[Has armor set::Superior Duelist's armor]] [[Has armor type::Helm]] }} to facilitate making tables. Psycho Robot (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

sounds like an alright idea. -Chieftain Alex 16:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that the wardrobe is out...

I'm gonna make up a proposal in my sandbox but before I do I figured I'd discuss some general ideas of what to do about armor sets. Now that every single piece has a singular "skin name", its clear that we should have an article for each skin name, but how do we handle an item where there is a piece of equipment which has an item name that is the same as the skin name? An example of this is Conquest Coat. What do we do in that case? I advocate for giving the parent name to the skin, and having all items have a disambiguated title. The justification for this is that if someone searches for "Conquest Coat", they aren't going to care necessarily about just that piece of armor, and with good reason - its very hard to actually get that merchant activated. They care about how they can get the skin above all else. This would also be the case for Devout Garb, among others.

Another question is how granular are we supposed to be? Consider Caudecus's Manor medium armor aka Divinity Council armor. It can only be obtained in two places - the personal story and the token vendor. So do we then have an article for the CM Helmet skin, an article for the CM helmet item, and a third article for the Trooper helmet which shares its skin? You could use the same argument as above - that they care about the skin more than any individual armor piece, but in this case, its really not any easier to get the skin from the personal story, so its not as clear cut. Psycho Robot (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

See User_talk:Dr_ishmael/Feature_pack#PvP_locker. Ishmael is suggesting to create pages for non-unique skins and stick the skin on the the item page for unique items. I don't think the skin page is needed unless we want to compare sources, but that's still a relatively small table to stick on the item pages themselves.--Relyk ~ talk < 22:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Why duplicate a table like that across multiple pages when you can make one central page for the skin? That's inefficient. —Dr Ishmael 03:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I shall talk here now. I see having the different skin pages interlinking to each other like Relyk suggests as having a walled garden with no clear/logical point of entry. Its not hierarchical is my point. Plus, while it might work for most skins, it won't work for karma armor. Preview {{armor vendor list|set=Duelist's armor|type=Gloves}} if you don't believe me. I believe that Iron weapons would be even worse, since they're used by tons of karma vendors, plus they're on the global loot table. I'm not convinced it would be elegant or user friendly. Psycho Robot (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We can create the skin pages and see if we want to leave the pages at that. The pages are going to consist of a table of 2-3 items for most pages though.--Relyk ~ talk < 06:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

New formatting proposal

In my sandbox I've put together a formatting proposal for armor sets. I will summarize it thusly:

• A minor rewrite of Armor found at User:Psycho Robot/Sandbox/Armor.
• A rewrite of Armor set, proposing it be moved to Armor set and to eliminate the unhelpful, poorly formatted list of every single armor set. Rewrite found at User:Psycho Robot/Sandbox/Armor/Armor set
• Splitting pages such as Named armor, Temple armor, Ascalonian Catacombs armor, and other pages that combine three weight sets into one. The pages as they exist now will be reformatted to a brief overview page. Example is at User:Psycho Robot/Sandbox/Armor/Armor set/Named armor
• Dungeon armor redirects to armor acquisition by stats. While this overview page is useful to some users, it doesn't replace a dungeon armor summary page. Dungeon armor rewrite found at User:Psycho Robot/Sandbox/Armor/Armor set/Dungeon armor
• Armor set pages to be rewritten, with acquisition methods moved off-page, meaning the set page focuses almost entirely on the appearance. Acquisition methods summarized, with special attention paid to methods that yield a full set. Examples: Rogue, Seer, Ascalonian Performer armor
• Creation of Skin pages that detail acquisition of a particular armor set by slot. Examples: Rogue Mask, Rogue Gloves, Seer Mask
• Creation of armor subset concept that links users to the parent set. Examples: Bloodsaw Leather Work armor, Zhed's armor
• Reformatting of List of standalone armor. Move it to "Standalone armor" and separated by slot. Rewrite at User:Psycho Robot/Sandbox/Armor/Standalone armor.

The implementation is a little ragged in some areas, but I think it's a good starting point. An issue that I'm not sure how to handle is on Seer Mask and Rogue Gloves, the infobox is an armor infobox and loot subobjects are defined using an item variant table. But is that really the best way? Or should the article be split into Rogue Gloves (item) and Rogue Gloves (skin)? Beats me. Psycho Robot (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for separate pages for loot items with the same name, storing them as subobjects is good enough. However, I would definitely say we need a new infobox for skin pages, because they need to have {{Property:Has game context}} set to "skin" rather than "item".

Outside of the loot table, though, we should be setting things up so that the other tables (where the items have different names and thus are already documented on separate pages) can be generated by semantic queries based on the skin. The {{armor vendor list}} is based on a combination of "armor set" and "type", when it should only require a single input, the skin name. The crafting table requires the names of the target items as input, which is exactly the opposite of how it should be. —Dr Ishmael 02:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

So it is your belief that if there is a piece of equipment which shares a name with the skin itself, then we use armor infobox and document the item(s) using subobject templates? Before the wardrobe update that would have presented lots of problems. Now, it only presents one problem that I can think of. Tailor Pibb sells a set of devout armor whose names share the name with the skin in all cases. Because it is a vendor item it is listed when you use the armor vendor table template. So if we use the armor infobox on that page, it will be doubly defined. What is your recommendation in that case? There's also a crafted set, but that is already moved to Devout X (crafted) so its not an issue. An easy fix would be, in this one case, move the pages in question to Devout X (Tailor Pibb) and be done with it. Psycho Robot (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"move the pages in question to Devout X (Tailor Pibb) and be done with it." Yes, exactly; I don't think subobjects would be appropriate for non-generic-loot items. —Dr Ishmael 19:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Peanut gallery header

I didn't read User:Psycho Robot/Sandbox/Armor/Armor set - but I assume its replacing the hideous Armor set, + its much prettier and so it has my vote of support. The one table I don't like is the loot one (too wide), imo move the notes to a short ref list beneath the table with superscripts. -Chieftain Alex 16:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you drew my attention to it - I would combine tier 6 and 7, since there's really no difference there, and we otherwise use tier 7 to refer to Ascended gear. —Dr Ishmael 16:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The only reason I separated them is because tier 6 is exotic, level 62-78, and uses the name seer/sneakthief/scallywag, and tier 7 is exotic, level 80 only, and uses the named armor names. All other tiers use the same name the whole way through. It's a minor point though and I won't argue if they're combined, I'll just internalize my anger and transfer it back to you at a later date over something completely unrelated.. Psycho Robot (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sets vs Skins

Discussion [[Talk:List of level 80 exotic armor|elsewhere]] has seen an agreement to separate the concept of "skin" and "set". In my proposal I indicated that certain karma pieces are part of the rogue armor set, but instead of calling it part of a set, it would just be listed as having a rogue helm skin. Set would be reserved for armor components that share a name, like named armor sets, ascended armor sets, and certain minor sets like bloodsaw armor and shadow armor. Armor pieces that are part of a set and do not have a unique skin will have two parameters, both skin and set. So yakkington's helm would have set = yakkington's armor and skin = skallywag helm. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, since a "set" is really about more than just appearance or even name. Yakkington's armor is a set because they all have the same naming scheme, use a common set of skins, and have the same stats, rune, and acquisition method (loot). A random piece of armor sold by a karma vendor isn't part of a set just because it shares a skin with other items. —Dr Ishmael 20:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Some final issues

After working on cleaning up armor pages, most issues have been ironed out but there are a few that I don't personally know how to handle. First off is armor skin items, like gem store items, heritage armor, and Armor Master skins. They aren't currently set up for having info about a skin type and an armor set. I'm not sure if it's important to do this. Should Supple Leather Mask Skin have skin = Rogue Mask in its infobox? And should gem store armor skins have set = Profane armor, for instance? Is there any problem with counting a skin item as part of an armor set?

Another is the skin acquisition page, example here. Skin infobox has already been made, but I don't know how to execute the rest of the article. Would skin items sold by the WvW armor master be included in the vendor table, or should they be separated in another section like I've done? Furthermore, Fishmael said that rather than manually listing the crafted armor pieces isn't a good idea, and there'd need to be a template that did it automatically. I don't really know how to do that. Finally, if everything ought to be a template, then we'd need another one that fetches personal story rewards that have the skin in question, and I doubly don't know how to do that, given that I have no idea how any template would be able to tell the difference between a personal story armor reward and any other armor item. Psycho Robot (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Everything should identify its default skin. I know that's a massive project, but it really needs to be done. Hopefully in the process we'll be able to clean up and streamline our item documentation.

Once that's done, it should be relatively simple to set up semantic query templates for most of the skin acquisition methods. We may need to introduce a new parameter/property to identify those methods. —Dr Ishmael 22:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)