Talk:List of non-set weapons

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

formatting[edit]

what were they thinking. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's an obvious WIP. Feel free to keep adding missing weapons. I wouldn't search a format until the list is complete.--Lon-ami (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

Unique weapons are weapons with 'unique' skins. Named weapons are weapons using the same skins from weapon sets. For example, Volcanus.pngVolcanus has an unique skin, that isn't part of any weapon set, while Tribal Speargun.pngAtlatl uses a skin from tribal weapons, which makes its skin not unique.

I think it's important to separate both. Someone browsing unique skins doesn't want to have repeated weapon set skins mixed with them.--Lon-ami (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea of distinguishing named weapons from one-of-a-kind ones. But that doesn't mean we need two articles. The list of named weapons could use a symbol (e.g †) to indicate weapons that don't share a skin with other weapons. Further, the word "unique" has a special meaning for trinkets. I'm not sure it's the best choice here. tl;dr merge some of these articles and identify special skins 75.37.16.77 09:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Unique may be confusing, yes, but named is too generic. We need a new name, one that implies independency from weapon sets. Standalone? Independent? Singular, maybe?--Lon-ami (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I really didn't understood what the diffrence is and even now I have problem grasping the exact diffrence. Some of the listed weapons apear in both list. It doesn't matter much if we merge or not, but I think the articles should give a clear cut definition.
By the way I feel that every unique weapon is basiclly a named weapon but not neccessary the other was around, at least not by your definition, Lon-ami. - Yandere Talk to me... 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
If the purpose of a page is to promote weapons with unique appearances, then it should be using the gallery format. -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 12:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
@Lon-ami, the intro currently on the page does not explain your purpose very clearly, like you did here, which is probably why the merge was suggested. 12:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Modified intro (hope it's better now). I planned to start the other page myself, but I arrived late.
As for using a gallery, I like the idea, but I fear it would overload the page too much. Also, we should decide beforehand if it's worth adding more info than just the name, for sorting and navigation purposes. If there's enough information, a table with no gallery could be better. Or maybe both, one after another.
But yes, the idea behind this page and my changes to List of weapon sets is to focus on skin navigation.--Lon-ami (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

test appearance of page as a gallery[edit]

meh. I'm not convinced a user would gain anything from this over any of the regular weapon galleries, e.g. Gallery of axes. (bluntly I don't see the point in this page at all >.>) -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 21:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We could call the page gallery of strange weapons or something ^^
But with the gallery function I can see at least a value in this page because it basiclly show you that there are a lot of interesting weapons in the game besides the ovious legendary weapons and the also prominent set weapons. But it shoud be a gallery page because the icons do nothing! - Yandere Talk to me... 21:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

merge vs not merge[edit]

I don't think we need two articles. Instead, I'd like to see the {{weapon infobox}} have an additional two parameters:

  • special name, which indicates that the name of the weapon isn't generic, e.g. Naegling, rather than "Berserker's Greatsword of Nullification."
  • shared skin, = "generic" by default, "no" if it's the only weapon with the skin, and a list of weapons with the shared skin otherwise.
    • "Pearl Broadsword" is generic, Dawn would be "no," and Naegling and Dusk would each point to the other.

(I don't really care what the parameters are called and I'm sure there are a dozen other, likely better, ways to code this, too.)

This way, we can automatically generate a list of weapons (or items) with special names and automatically highlight (or use a footnote) to indicate which items also have special skins.

I also think it's worth having the current table and a gallery: the table makes it easy to compare stats, the gallery makes it easy to compare designs. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Searching a new name[edit]

Unique has an ingame meaning already, so we need a new name. There's 3 types of weapons:

  • Weapon sets, collections of weapons that share visual characteristics and name patterns.
  • "Unique" weapons, weapons that aren't part of any set.
  • "Named" weapons, weapons that are just weapon set weapons with unique names, with no specific skin of their own.

Any ideas?--Lon-ami (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

First of it is about weapon skins, therefor this page should be names Gallery of because you want to show of weapon skins. Than you could go totally decriptice like weapons not included in a set. Perhaps that is a bit long... What about non-set weapons? - Yandere Talk to me... 17:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
How about "standalone" weapons? Sounds right, nope? "Singular" and "individual" could work, too.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Purpose and definition of standalone weapons[edit]

This has been the definition for pretty much the last 5 years:

  • Weapon sets: Complete set of 16 terrestrial weapons, fulfilling at least 2/3 of the following conditions: Common aesthetic, obtainment method, and naming pattern. Each set has a dedicated article listing its members, which follows the "name weapons" / "name weapon skins" nomenclature.
  • Standalone weapons: Weapons with no set, or incomplete sets. Some have dedicated articles, and others are grouped together in compiled articles. When the source is unique and distinct, the nomenclature is "name weapons", but when it's not, it's "name standalone weapons" instead.

It's far better than the original mess, but still leaves room for problems, so here's my upgrade proposal:

  • Weapon sets: Complete and incomplete sets of weapons, with the same conditions described above. No weapon type repeating allowed, there can't be two different weapon skins for a single type in a single set. Same nomenclature: "name weapons" / "name weapon skins". New layer of categorization: Complete and incomplete sets. Examples: Desert King weapon skins and Mordrem weapons.
  • Standalone weapons: Weapons which don't fulfill the conditions to be part of a set. They will be grouped in compiled articles, divided by source, these being: Non-PvE game mode ([[Fractals of the Mists standalone weapons|Fractals of the Mists]], Raids, PvP, WvW), Festival (Festival of the Four Winds, Halloween, Lunar New Year, Super Adventure Festival, and Wintersday), Crafting/Achievements (Elite specialization equipment, Experimental, Perfected, Precursor, and Legendary), and Expansion (released during HoT's or PoF's life cycle). Those outside any of the described categories will go to a general article. If there aren't enough weapons to fill an article, those will go to the general as well. Each of these compilations can have further divisions inside, represented as sections in the article. Example: Path of Fire standalone weapons has sections for each map the standalone weapons drop at. The nomenclature will be "name standalone weapons", except for the Crafting/Achievements group, which will stay as "name weapons", since they have an unique identifier. Subcategories will only be included if they're used outside the weapon hierarchy.

This would leave us with three nomenclatures for weapon pages:

  • Name weapons: Complete and incomplete weapon sets, items.
  • Name weapon skins: Complete and incomplete weapon sets, skin consumables.
  • Name standalone weapons: Weapons with no set or less than 5 per set, items and skins.

There's two category trees at the moment, for each group. The upgrade proposal reduces the number of standalone weapons, so we might get rid of the category split altogether. The above standalone group pages would now be considered "weapon sets" for categorization purposes. Categorization nomenclature would stay as "name standalone weapons", so category navigation wouldn't be affected.

Some potential points of conflict:

  • If a set fulfills the conditions, but lacks the numbers, is it a set? Where do we draw the line? I would say 5 is a good number. Every set below 5, would go to one of the standalone groups.
  • Caladbolg weapons breaks the rules above. The article should be reserved exclusively for the 5 ascended weapons, the rare sword and the greatsword skin being excluded. Both of them would go to Heart of Thorns standalone weapons.
  • If we put the set limit at 5, Mist weapons would no longer be allowed to have its own article, since it's just 3 weapons. By the rules above, they should be moved to Path of Fire standalone weapons, since they were released during PoF's life cycle, even if they are originally part of HoT.

I think that's all. Tell me your opinion, and let's see if we can finally get a clear guideline on this, once and for all.

And by the way, stop deleting and moving stuff until there's a final model. Even the empty categories, leave them where they are until they're deemed useful or not.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Some additional potential points of conflict:
  • Oni Blade would be considered part of Heart of Thorns standalone weapons, even if it could be related to Lunar New Year, since there are no other weapons that qualify for said festival.
  • Shadow of the Mad King weapon skins and Blood and Madness weapon skins qualify for sets now. These names were used by ArenaNet too, in the latest patch notes.
Also, if these rules are accepted, we could push for a "weapon set infobox" template, which could include vital information like collection achievements, source, and more.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I honestly see the whole attempt at categorizing weapons into standalone sets as being self-defeating; it's implying a set that's a non-set. Combined with trying to impose a strict number of items before a standalone subset becomes its own set is just begging for disagreements, future misunderstandings, and a whole host of people who will be oblivious to to a policy on a wiki which tries to be fluid over rigid.
Label all HoT weapons as being from HoT using the | release = parameter. Label all festival weapons in the same way. Label all items that belong to clear sets, e.g. Dominator weapon skins as being from that set via a nav. Other, smaller, related items can use the "See also" section. Unless you can present a clear use-case scenario for having it, I see no need for "standalone" categories or labeling. G R E E N E R 19:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Can't we navigate to all the obscure items via the weapon type galleries? Is that not sufficient? -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 00:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
We can avoid the problem entirely by having the overview pages, like the ones I suggested on the community portal. And on the bottom of the page for the non set weapons have a "see also" section with a link to the overview page. - Doodleplex 02:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Basic mockup of how I'd so these pages: [[User:Konig Des Todes/List of festival weapons]] (note I was lazy about the chat links because it's just a mockup and I'm lazy and sure some coding can make it fancier than I can bother to do). If possible, I'd have another column for TP price where applicable, but that's not necessary. I'd use the same set up for Core, HoT, and PoF, using the sections of loot, crafted, then each season for that release (core=1+2, HoT=3, PoF=4+5); and only have those five pages. Link to sets (5+ weapons), and table non-sets.
@Alex: The main issue with that is that some folks may want to sort by release or festival across multiple sets. It wouldn't be hard to have four (until the next expansion) pages.
Side note: Making that mockup made me realize how lacking the other festivals are in weapon skins. Konig (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I really love that set up Konig, everything on one line. That being said you forgot Festival of the Four Winds Zephyrite weapons, and wrapped weapons. - Doodleplex 14:19, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
If you start to use tables, put everything in one table, use the new Widget:Filter table and let the user decide what he/she wants to see. --Tolkyria (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Grouping standalone weapons together is just a way to find them quickly, since half the time you don't even know they exist in the first place. Some are even hidden in the wardrobe, and you can't seriously expect people to "find them" when looking across galleries with 200+ weapons each, that's just ridiculous. These pages are an useful tool for anyone who wants wadrobe information.
Weapon sets are pretty self-explanatory, if you like the aetherized sword and want similar skins, the set page will provide easily. But what about standalone weapons? There's no clear "here's everything" point of reference. Thus, my suggestion above, using secondary themes and acquisition sources as the grouping factor.
I don't like Konig's version because it kinda misses the point. First of all, Halloween weapons already covers the first part, Halloween standalone weapons being its own distinct thing. Second, the thumbnail gallery isn't as effective as a normal gallery (you need to open each image separately to view the models properly), and it also occupies more vertical space. I do like an extra column for source, as long as it's kept simple, like the tonics page, but only when there's multiple different sources in the same table.
The main goal of these pages should be usability, and thus clarity. So, no pages with hundreds of weapons (like one with all HoT/PoF weapons, including loot, elite spec, legendaries, and raids), but no pages with just two weapons either, which is why I'm against raid standalone weapons having been split to one page per raid, in some cases to cover just two weapons. So now, I need to open 6 different pages to see every raid weapon? Sounds like a pain, and pretty counter-intuitive.
I would leave it like this:
That's a total of 9 compilation pages, which would cover every standalone weapon in the game. Pretty straightforward, clean, and easy to understand. I could go even further, and follow the example of elite specialization equipment to make the fractals, raid, halloween, and black lion pages cover equipment in general, including weapons, armor, back items, and even the infusions. So, want to see every single fractal/raid/halloween/black lion skin in a single page? There you go.
I don't really understand what's the point against the existence of these pages, they're a useful tool, and their existence doesn't hurt anyone.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Doodle: Links to the Zephyrite, Sovereign, Divine Sovereign, and Wrapped weapons are at the top. They're sets with their own pages. Hence my comment of how surprised I was that festivals get so few standalone weapons besides Halloween.
@Tolkyria: I was thinking of such too to be useful, but wasn't sure how that was used. I wouldn't oppose such as a filter for festivals.
@Lon-ami: It seems you missed the point of my suggestion. In regards to the festival page, I'm basically saying we should combine Halloween standalone weapons and Halloween weapon skins along with the four other festivals. There is no need to divide them. And the image set up I provided is just as effective. You need to open each image to view the models properly regardless! I tried to be as close to the same size as the gallery as possible; without exact measurement I eyeballed it to 100x100px. It also occupies less to equal vertical space because you're not having the table and then a gallery underneath it - you also have no repetition of the weapon name, gallery header, or space for the gallery boxes. I also reduced scrolling for when you want to look at a model and then look at how to obtain or verify what kind of weapon it is (hard to tell between maces and scepters sometime, or staves and hammers, and not all weapons are obvious).
And what "pages with hundreds of weapons" is at all part of my suggestion? There'd be no more weapons in the tables now than what we got at Heart of Thorns standalone weapons, Path of Fire standalone weapons, or List of standalone weapons, since weapon sets (again, by my argument, 5+ weapons; which is what we currently have pages for) would just have the set page linked.
We do not need those "tiers", every list in your Tier 1 is redundant - and hell, the Fractals of the Mists standalone weapons is with only one real entry anyways. Precursors and legendaries aren't really part of these lists, specialization weapons being added to HoT/PoF pages wouldn't add much, the raid weapons should, imo, be added to HoT/PoF pages since they require one of those expansions dependent on wing, Black Lion should be combined with core (as that is what they are), and there's no need to keep Halloween separate from the other festivals (aside from the lack of standalones which could change at literally any festival release). Konig (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Konig btw, since I forgot, I think all of the 2012 Halloween weapon skins were later/roughly a year ago dropped in the mystic forge as a super rare drop, so should we include them on there/your page somehow? Ie Ghastly Grinning Shield and Ghastly Grinning Shield Skin. - Doodleplex 16:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
[[User:Konig Des Todes/List of HoT weapons|Created a HoT/S3 weapons preview]]. Vertically, it is only a little longer than Heart of Thorns standalone weapons with its design, and includes raid W1-4 weapons that the standalone weapons page doesn't have atm. I was a bit lazy in listing the methods of obtaining, mind you, and obviously tweaks can be made.
@Doodle: Yes, they can drop as super rare green weapons now. Note: Scythe Staff versus Scythe Staff Skin. This should get noted somehow, but I'm just proposing an appearance with my pages, not "ready to move to mainspace" (feel free to alter my sandboxes to such a state though).
Oh and a note about Lon-ami's compltain about vertical length, [[User:Konig Des Todes/List of festival weapons]] is actually shorter than Halloween standalone weapons despite having more weapons included and linked to. Konig (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's my alternative: User:Lon-ami/Sandbox. Since there's no sections now, I took back the "incomplete sets" and put them in here too. I added a sortable for the weapon type (using filters for that is a waste), and I used the filters for the "subcategories" instead. The columns can be expanded or customized further with other options, like source, etc.
The screenshots would use a conventional gallery, ideally with similar filter options included.
Since the space used has been drastically reduced (which I love), I'd be willing to merge some of my 9 proposed categories. I'll do tables for the rest of the standalone categories.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's my final take: User:Lon-ami/Sandbox. Summarized:
  • Every standalone list is in the same page now.
  • Five major sections: General, Legendary, Elite specialization, Raid, and Festival.
  • Heavy usage of filters, you can apply multiple of them at once.
  • Core filters: loot/crafted/vendor/achievement, plus gw2/hot/pof/bltc.
  • Advanced filters: source/set/generation/profession/wing/year/etc.
  • Tables are sortable by type, name, and price.
  • No gallery.
Opinions?--Lon-ami (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Having every release in one page is potentially confusing and, imo, needlessly lengthening the article. Four articles (Core, PoF, HoT, Festival) is best imo.
  • Legendary are not standalone and are already on their own page which for sake of people searching should remain its own page.
  • You're once again applying 'micro sets' of just two weapons. They do not need to be filtered to such a degree.
  • A gallery is a must, IMO.
I do like the sortable and TP price, but it feels like you refuse to accept that no one else agrees with you on your "sets of two" ideas which you're constantly applying as the core philosophy of your suggestions. Konig (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I view pages on this wiki as tools which the player-base can use. They should be designed to guide or help answer questions which players may have. I can see a player asking, "What skins can I get from Halloween?" and we should be able to provide them with a gallery to show the skins off. I can see players asking, "What skins are available if I do this raid wing?" or "What can I get by purchasing HoT?" or more broadly, "What daggers are there for my thief?" Each of these can be answered with an appropriate gallery.
What I cannot see players asking is, "What skins are available from HoT that are not already already in a large set?" And I do not think providing them with a list of such, without a gallery, is at all useful. It seems like solutions are being created for problems that are ill-defined, and I'm still looking for a use-case scenario to support this recategorization. How is "Halloween standalone weapons" any more useful or clear than "Halloween weapons"? G R E E N E R 18:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Greener: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I was thinking "what is your average player gonna look up?" and came to the idea to nuke standalone pages in favor of overpages, which is why I brought up on the Community Portal before this thread was started. Additionally because of that, I'm not terribly a fan of the idea of "festival weapons" since that's again sort of not what your average player is gonna/would think to type after /wiki from in game. Or at the least leave Halloween weapons as it's own page since it does I think have the more notable list of knick knacks wand what not, and link to it on the "festival page" maybe? BTW Konig you are missing a group of things: LWS1 weapons and armor since there were things that were only part of LWS1 I would not consider to be core since I, who came after Season 1, had no access to them either entirely or only via the Trading Post for crazy sums of gold until recently with the Wardrobe unlock and Memory Boxes. - Doodleplex 22:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
@Konig: I didn't know there was an "incinerator" weapon set. Legendaries are standalone by definition.
@Greener: Well, that's what we have now: Halloween standalone weapons, Black Lion standalone weapons, etc. It was the model I was applying before this whole discussion, and the first suggestion I made in this thread.
@Doodle: Halloween weapons is already a thing, as a disambiguation page. I think the "standalone" part should be kept as a mean of distinction from complete sets.
I still think a mega-list like the one I did could be useful, but that doesn't mean we can't keep the dedicated pages too.--Lon-ami (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
"Legendaries" is the set, as far as the readers care. And "what we have now" seems to be what Greener is arguing against, if I'm understanding him correctly, that is he seems against the whole "separating standalone" concept. Doodle too. That they don't see the need to split Halloween standalone weapons, Halloween weapon skins and Halloween weapon sets, that they can fit nicely onto one page and that would be most beneficial to your average reader. And honestly I agree, though I do believe having sets can make pages unyielding hence why I include lists to links at the top of my suggested pages. Konig (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Lon-ami, the biggest complaint I've seen from people using the wiki is with stuff being all over the place/having to click through multiple things to find information: overview pages like what I proposed/Konig & Alex poked would resolve that issue, the standalone pages are hard to find, even for me. Additionally, seeing as how the general opinion is to delete the standalone pages, I'll likely tag them for deletion in the next few days in favor of the weapon overview pages, which I think is the only thing left to be agreed upon, since I'm not a fan of festival and would like to see LWS1 added. - Doodleplex 02:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Seems there's two lines of thought here? Some people want more individual pages, and others just want to put it together in a single place?
Let me try this again, going back to the original setup, leaving the "sets" concept completely out, and covering both weapons and armor now:
  • Elite specialization equipment (stays the same, with both weapons and armor pieces together; filters for expansion and profession)
  • Legendary weapons (merge Experimental weapons, Perfected weapons, and Precursor weapons; filters for expansion and generation)
  • [[Raid standalone equipment]] (merge every wing's equipment page, contains weapons, armor pieces, and trinkets; filters for expansion and wing)
    • Since there's only one set, with individual weapons dropping from different bosses, we could include it here as well, and call the page just [[Raid equipment]].
  • [[Festival standalone equipment]] (everything related to festivals; filters for festival and year)
  • [[Black Lion standalone equipment]] (everything Black Lion Chest and Gem Store; filters for year)
  • [[Standalone equipment]] (everything else, including LW1 and fractal stuff; filters for map/region-specific acquisition; includes links to every other standalone page, and is considered the parent page)
  • [[Heart of thorns standalone equipment]] (same as above, for equipment requiring HoT)
  • [[Path of Fire standalone equipment]] (same as above, for equipment requiring PoF)
No piece of equipment would be in two pages at once. Each page would have a single table with filters, instead of multiple tables in different sections. Filters for weapon/armor type could be included too. The gallery would be below the table, and ideally, be affected by the filters as well.
The following pages would be disambiguation pages, linked at the top of each standalone page: [[Raid equipment]], [[Festival equipment]], [[Black Lion equipment]], [[Heart of Thorns equipment]], [[Path of Fire equipment]]. They would contain links to both the standalone page as well as all related weapon and armor sets.
Standalone category tree:
So, how's that?--Lon-ami (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
(Reset indent) There are two lines of thought in regards to number of pages. Yours and everyone else's. You're the only person who thinks there should be standalone pages at all. Though there are differences in everyone else's thoughts on how to specifically go about it, it seems everyone but you is in agreement that 1) we do not need standalone pages, 2) we do not need to make a page, category, or section for every microset of two or so, and 3) we do not need pages and categories for something as simple as "Black Lion weapons".
The only disagreement, baring you Lon-ami, seems to be how to handle raid gear (Alex), and how to handle Festival and Season 1 pages (Doodle). But above these disagreements is the agreement that we should focus less on specific categorizing and more on user usability (which, tbh, none of your suggestions have accounted for).
Also, we should never combine armor and weapons, they're two different things. And please, stop flooding the discussion with redlinks or what may become redlinks depending on the source of the discussion - it just needlessly floods (or will flood) Special:WantedPages. Konig (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Konig {{ri}} is all that's needed, you don't need "subst". That don't worry about all the red links being made; all the broken links will be fixed after this matter has been resolved since more may be created as a result of either more conversation or by things being deleted/moved. - Doodleplex 22:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_non-set_weapons&oldid=2179336"