Talk:Gallery of daggers

I created this page because I couldn't find the other gallery for some reason, and now that they are redundant to each other I'm reluctant to wipe this one. I noticed "Gallery of Daggers" updates automatically with all daggers from across the wiki, but it makes it very difficult to navigate and understand. I really like the organization of this one, but I'm not sure if the need for manual updating will act against it. Nefara

The reason I didn't organize the galleries I added and put them in the format to automatically update was because the main purpose of a gallery is to find a skin that you like. Once you have found a weapon that you like the look of you can click on the link to go to that weapon's page to find out how to obtain it. Manually updating each gallery seemed like an awful lot of work to me and the auto updating format seemed to work well in the GW1 wiki, which is why I opted to go that route. --Souldonkey 20:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, in GW1 the way to get weapons was a lot more random and more based on chance and location. Pretty much every skin was a loot drop specific to a location or a reward from a collector, so it wouldn't have taken as well to organization like this. They're both still visual galleries, and I think the issue is that right now a lot of people are creating pages for karma weapons or other loot drops that have already had their skins documented under their weapon sets, making the pics redundant. I think an automatically updated gallery would be great if the community on a whole could work together to avoid redundant pages/pics, but for now I think updating the galleries manually with new weapon set skins as new content is added/discovered would help avoid confusion. Nefara 04:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The only thing we really need to do to avoid redundancies is make sure those redundant pages get deleted (Bronze Axe and Healing Bronze Axe, for example, don't need their own separate pages). Updating them may not seem that bad now (though it is still la lot of work and will take a lot of time), but it will become harder and harder to manage as time goes on. And, as I said, a gallery is really only for visual purposes. The whole point of a gallery is to be able to see what every weapon of each type looks like, so you can find the one that's most visually appealing to you. Once you find that you click on the weapon and it takes you to the page that tells you how to acquire it. I like having them organized but, given the purpose of a gallery, don't see it as a necessity given the amount of work needed to keep it constantly up to date. --Souldonkey 07:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The only way I can see it working where we could use the DPL and have it be sorted would be if we went to all the different weapons and added them to a new category, say crafted weapons for example: we would have to go to the page for Simple axe, Simple dagger, etc. and add them to the Crafted weapons category. Then we could add a line in the DPL to specify axes and crafted weapons and only display those. We would have to do this for every weapon of each type, so I'm not sure that this would end up being more or less work at that point. Probably more work now, but less work later as new weapons are added. It would end up looking like this:

== Crafted weapons ==
<dpl>
  category = swords
  category = crafted weapons
  allowcachedresults = true
  format = <gallery perrow="5">\n,Image:%PAGE%,.jpg|[[%PAGE%]]\n,</gallery>
</dpl>

== Cultural weapons ==
<dpl>
  category = swords
  category = cultural weapons
  allowcachedresults = true
  format = <gallery perrow="5">\n,Image:%PAGE%,.jpg|[[%PAGE%]]\n,</gallery>
</dpl>

etc.

--Souldonkey 18:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Weapon Only

Is it ideal to replace the default image of all daggers to the Weapon Only preview option? If we did, the image size could be standardized to the preview window (perhaps smaller, cutting out the dye pane, Clear Preview icon, and armor icons), and would be more easily organized into tables. The only disadvantage would be showing scale on a player model, but unless we include all five races, that would be incomplete anyway. An example below:

-OR- . If anyone agrees this is a good idea, I'll do that for this and all other weapon galleries. --Kristofferus 17:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't find the exact talk page now, but usually screnshots from preview window are not welcome, firstly because it, yeah, doesn't show the size, secondly, not all animation effects are shown, thridly, not all weapons fit inside the window. MalGalad 17:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Image formatting#Weapon preview, prefer equipped with hi-res images and scale seems to be extremely important, but I would definitely use them for any images we are missing.--Relyk ~ talk > 17:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No no no. That is a bad idea on many levels, but primarily because large weapons like greatswords and rifles are often too big to fit in the preview window. As Relyk said, it's fine if it's the only image we have, but don't replace better images. —Dr Ishmael 17:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)