Template talk:Skin list

Should this template exclude historical and other unavailable statuses? Or at least flag them somehow? The purpose of this template is to list the items a player would want to acquire in order to unlock the skin, so listing historical items seems to run counter to that purpose. —Dr Ishmael 16:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer flagging them. With the whole PvP overhaul, many players got a bunch of skins they didn't even know they owned; it's natural that they'd go to the skin page to see all the possible items that have the related skin, which includes historical items, such as old PS rewards or the PvP rank-up rewards. —Ventriloquist 16:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This look good? —Dr Ishmael 16:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks neat. I don't suppose it could categorize it by availability instead of alphabetic? —Ventriloquist 16:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You mean sort? Yep. —Dr Ishmael 16:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, that looks pleasing. Thanks. —Ventriloquist 16:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Can we sort it alphabetically when done with sorting after availability? Stately Epaulets for example has a lot of sources that have no discernible order. Tyndel (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought that happened by default as the final sort, after the specified criteria - the Country Mantle results came out that way and fooled me. Fixed now. —Dr Ishmael 19:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Trading Post information

I think it would be a good idea to turn this template into a table, and include trading post prices (when the item isn't accountbound) next to each item. Skin pages are pretty useless now, and this would make them somewhat valuable.

For example, let's say I love these skins:

• Scallywag Helm
• Tribal Sword
• Primordus Staff (skin)

Naturally, I want to find the most efficient way to acquire them. As of the moment, I need to open every item in the skin list and check them one by one; even worse, the items following the generic name convention are centralized into a single article, which doesn't distinguish individual entries, and of course, doesn't include their individual prices either.--Lon-ami (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

In my experience, connecting a skin with its related item and the item's trading post price automatically often gets awkward and results in not nice-looking formats. Weapon and armor pages may not be tradable for several reasons, e.g. equipment that share a common name and thus only the subobjects have an id and a trading post price or the equipment is soul/account-bound. Choosing the best price from the pages with subobjects isn't possible, hence we would have to list in general more than 30 subobjects (one for each prefix) instead than one page link, unnecessary blowing up the skin list and heavily reducing it read- and usability. Having many soul/account-bound equipment items will result in lots of "-" or "—" as not having a price should be somehow indicated; imaging a skin with fully bound items, it will result in an awful looking table.

I think a wiki may or even should utilize several pages and not overload single pages as it may reduce the readability, this isn't some kind of guide that puts everything on one page.

Hence, I suggest to improve the item pages instead to show the trading post price there, e.g. the template {{Loot variant table row}} now shows the trading post price automatically, the template {{Equipment variant table row}} shows the trading post price when setting trading post=true (we could change this to show on default, pretty much 50% of the pages using this are tradable, 50% are bound). --Tolkyria (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The point would be to have everything in one page. If the table isn't a good idea, how about a link to a query below the list of skins?

We already have Special:RunQuery/Base ingredients query and it works pretty well.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)