Template talk:Weapon infobox

Archive

---

• Archive 1

Uslot for white items

Can the template be updated so that you can put in "unused" as the uslot, and it will trigger the "unused upgrade slot" message to appear? Right now, it doesn't appear if there is also no description or prefix. I can sort of fudge it by putting in an alt+255 whitespace in the description, but that probably isn't idea. Psycho Robot (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It should appear if uslot is defined, that would mean the description, prefix, or variables parameter is left blank.--Relyk ~ talk < 21:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, however if i put something like "unused" in, it attempts to pull up the upgrade component "unused", which doesn't exist, instead of displaying "unused upgrade slot". Psycho Robot (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I remember I removed that logic in this revision because the parameter wasn't needed. I'm pretty sure I did that because all weapon have an upgrade slot and the only time we need to show an upgrade slot is when there's an item in it, which is limited to items that can only be obtained with the upgrade. We would only have a parameter to display unused if there are items that do not have an upgrade slot. I'm not sure if there's an example, otherwise I would've left the logic in.--Relyk ~ talk < 22:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Starter aqua breathers do not have an upgrade slot. I don't know of any other piece of equipment that does not. I don't have a strong opinion on whether we should display whether there's an empty upgrade slot, I just thought maybe this behavior was unintentional. Psycho Robot (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Skin parameter

Now that every single skin has an unique name, I think an autocategorized skin parameter should be added, for the skin that appears in the item's description. That way people can click the skin name in the infobox, go to the category page of that skin, and see a category automatically listing all items with that skin (e.g.: "Category: Soft Wood Focus skin items"). Then we could manually put those categories into sets (e.g. "Category: Priory skins"). MithTalk 19:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This was a good idea, but we've run into a problem with name clashing - nearly every skin name is already being used as an entry for the weapon or armor piece that uses it. I've been getting around this by appending (skin) to the name of most of the entries, but this creates a few more difficulties:

1. The skin link requires the canonical name, which almost always becomes a self-reference for the page because the skin's canonical name is the same as the item name.

2. A lot of skins do not have unique names. This is mostly a problem for armor pieces, where several gem store skins have the same name across different weights. There are a few issues with weapons doing this too (namely the former Steamfire skin which is now Flame Trident). In this instance, just appending (skin) does not go far enough to allow for individual entries. In the few entries I've made that deal with this, I either specify the weight for armor (i.e. (heavy skin) ), or add more information in the parenthesis for weapons. Neither works well with the skin entry for this infobox. SarielV 22:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried proposing a separate namespace as a solution to this, but we couldn't come to a decision. Disambiguations would still be necessary for the special cases you mention of skins that have the same name, of course, but it would make all unique skin names so much easier to deal with. —Dr Ishmael 22:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Defense shown as question mark

All shields have "?" listed as defense in the infobox, instead of the normal values. Could it be this change by BryghtShadow on the item stat lookup that caused this? —Ventriloquist 16:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite right. BryghtShadow's edit meant that shields produced defense_lu : "x shield" - which it falsely interpreted as invalid. I've asked on their talk page to clarify why they wanted to "cleanup" invalid values. It'd need an explicit check for type_std=shield if it were to work at all. -Chieftain Alex 17:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Seraph stats

We have a new stat called Seraph (https://api.guildwars2.com/v2/itemstats/1222). Could we get the template to allow for this? -Darqam 18:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be good to go in any infobox. -Chieftain Alex 19:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Collection parameter missing

collection parameter is missing in the description. The F. Prince (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Prefixes

Would it be possible for the prefix to show up in the infoboxes of weapons and armors with predefined stats, such as Lepidoptera? It would save users (like me) the hassle of comparing the piece of equipment's stats with a list of prefixes to get the stats' name. Prefixes are already in the code, it would only be a matter of making them show up on the actual page. --Faelys 21:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Items with multiple skins

Some items unlock multiple skins. This is usually noted at the bottom of each item's page. However, there are some items which display multiple skins at once, inside the infobox itself. Some examples:

• Cavalier Axe Skin
• Lunatic Noble Coat
• Mistforged Obsidian Shield

I don't think the infobox is the right location to place this information. The field should be limited to one skin only, the default skin of the item. Other unlocked skins should be noted down elsewhere.--Lon-ami (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

But why? The idea behind the two skins per one item is to give the weapon user the possiblity to decide which skin he/she wants to use for his/her weapon. It seems like if the ingame possibility of choosing a skin for a weapon exists, they would have used this. Since it doesn't, they give the weapon one skin and furthermore on accountbind second skin is unlocked. Summing up, the current implementation is fine for me. --Tolkyria (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That's more of what a gallery is for, you will be going to the skin pages instead of the weapons pages for choosing skins. We can update to match the default_skin from the API. Cavalier Axe Skin is an item, not equipment, so it doesn't have a default to rely on. We put the source piece of equipment for skin unlocks on the equipment page. We'll have to move the "Unlocked by item" relationship to the skin infobox.--Relyk ~ talk < 19:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

What about armor pieces that unlock skins for the three weights? Those aren't represented in the infobox, yet it's the same issue.

Also, skin items have defaults too. If you want to use a Guild Cavalier skin, you have to consume the skin and then spend transmutation charges.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

"skin Optional. Name of the skin that the item uses according to the wardrobe". According to this definition at the template page everything is clear.

However, my point is that there are reasonable items which have two skins (in the case of Obsidian and Mistforged Obsidian weapons, explained above). They just have to went with one skin (which of course, no surprise, is called default_skin in the api).

This doesn't hold for example for living world season armor rewards which also unlocks the skin for different armor classes. There at the moment of unlocking I cannot decide which skin I want, I have to change to another character, etc... --Tolkyria (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not against including that information on the infobox, but it should use a different slot from the main thing, and also cover cross-weight armor unlocks.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

May I specify my point a little bit more? Maybe the two skins per one item isn't quite correct... what I wanted to say is that if ingame there exists the option on a weapon Turn effects on/off they would have used it, see Sublime Mistforged Triumphant Hero's Raiment and any Obsidian weapons. But this isn't the case, so there are two skins with one only one is set as default, which according to the definition should be set to the skin parameter. I have to deal with it.

"I don't think the infobox is the right location to place this information." vs "I'm not against including that information on the infobox [...]."

So now basically you suggest that there should be a Property:Unlocks skins (or similar) (not sure why "we'll have to move "Unlocked by item" relationship to the skin infobox", I think the weapon infobox is the right place ) as well as a parameter unlocks skins and section Unlocks skins in the infobox with the following behaviour:

• Not having the parameter unlocks skins should not display the section Unlocks skin, however the Property:Unlocks skin is set to the input of the parameter skin.
• Having the parameter unlocks skins should display the section Unlocks skin and set the Property:Unlocks skin.

Seems fine to me... but this should definitely be approved by someone else.

P.S. The initiating edit was this: Template:Armor infobox edit regarding the Sublime Mistforged chest pieces; so this somehow motivated my reasoning. --Tolkyria (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the ideal solution. Weapons, back items, and armor, should only have one skin. The rest should be noted down outside the infobox, or in a separate section.

I'm also not sure how the "secondary skin unlock" process works. I think it's mostly linked to the skin (you can see this clearly with gem store armor sets being wholly unlocked by just getting the coat piece through the wardrobe unlocker), but there could be instances where it's linked to the item too. I would stick to the skin, adding the information inside the skin infoboxes, and then make item infoboxes retrieve it from the item pages.

Some consumable items let you apply the skin to multiple weights, gotta cover that somehow too, because these might not have a "default" skin, effectively having multiple skins at once, and breaking the above rule used for weapons, back items, and armor.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

There are two skin unlock sources, salvaging a piece of equipment or a consumable item that unlocks the skin. We can lookup equipment that unlocks a skin by looking at the default skin, but the rest of the information needs to be add on the item infobox or the skin infobox for the relationship. For stuff like salvaging, we put the relationship on the source item page. For something with multiple source types like recipes that have many-to-one, we put the relationship on destination page (aka the output item page). We can look up the source type by the item type.

Adding the information to the skin page seems more likely. This way is easier to manage since the code is in one place and less confusing for users on where to add the information.--Relyk ~ talk < 22:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The new field could be called "unlocks", and include as many skins as we want. The "skin" field would only be allowed to include one skin (the default skin). Is that right with everybody?--Lon-ami (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure why adding the information at the skin page should be easier and less confusing? Actually, to be honest, it sounds pretty confusing for me. So far the only real information that is set at a skin page is the skin id. The other parameters, as the name, the type, the icon and the set are still set, but somehow can be extracted by the name (up to some inconstencies, therefore it's more convenient to set it per hand). So now you want to set such important information at the skin infobox? Set the parameter Unlocked by in the skin infobox, just to ask for the same in the Acquistion section with {{skin list}}? Or, create a template {{Unlocked by|<item name>}} so one have to decide if he/she uses either {{Skin list}} to get the default skin or set the skin acquisition method with {{Unlocked by}} by hand. Now that really sounds confusing to me.

On the other hand, using Unlocks skins in the Weapon infobox results in one little change at {{Skin list}} (replace Has skin with Unlocks skin) and not a single skin page edit. --Tolkyria (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If multiple skins exist in the infobox, wouldn't it be easier to identify the first one with the suffix " (default)"? Personally I like the current layout but concede some demarcation of the default skin might be useful. -Chieftain Alex 17:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

{{#if: {{{skin|}}} |
;[[Skin]]
:{{#arraymap: {{{skin|}}} |;|@@@ |{{#vardefine:skinName|{{ifexists|@@@ (skin)|@@@ (skin)|@@@}}}}{{increment|skin count}}{{cname|{{#var:skinName}}}} {{#ifeq: {{#var:skin count}} | 1 | {{#if: {{#pos:{{{skin|}}}|;}} | ''(default)'' }} }}<!--{{#set: Has skin={{#var:skinName}}}}--> |<br>}}
}}

skin = Mistforged Obsidian Shield (skin)

Skin

Mistforged Obsidian Shield

skin = Mistforged Obsidian Shield (skin); Slumbering Mistforged Obsidian Shield (skin)

Skin

Mistforged Obsidian Shield (default)
Slumbering Mistforged Obsidian Shield

-Chieftain Alex 17:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That was exactly my suggestion, I was just thinking too complicated again (by splitting the parameter skin into skin and unlocks skins). --Tolkyria (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I would still suggest to split the properties, like this:

{{#if: {{{skin|}}} |
;[[Skin]]
:{{#vardefine: skinName | {{ifexists | {{#vardefineecho: skinDefault | {{#explode: {{{skin|}}} |;|0}} }} (skin) | {{#var:skinDefault}} (skin) | {{#var:skinDefault}} }}}} {{cname|{{#var:skinName}}}} {{#set: Has skin={{#var:skinName}}}} {{#set: Unlocks skin={{#var:skinName}}}}
{{#if: {{#vardefineecho: skinOthers | {{#explode: {{{skin|}}} |;|1}} }} |
;Unlocks skins<!-- optional, or just: ''(default)'' <br> -->
:{{#arraymap: {{#var:skinOthers}} |;|@@@ |{{#vardefine:skinName|{{ifexists|@@@ (skin)|@@@ (skin)|@@@}} }} {{cname|{{#var:skinName}}}} {{#set: Unlock skins={{#var:skinName}}}} |<br>}}
}} }}

--Tolkyria (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea too, just need to make sure the default skin is always first. No need to update every page, so even better.

Would be nice if a similar approach was used for armor pieces, the likes of Karka Helm Skin, making "(heavy)", "(medium)", and "(light)" appear next to each skin.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

So, are we good with the suggestions so far?--Lon-ami (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Items with multiple skins (continued)

Oh look, yet another abandoned discussion lol.

Anyway, this is still kind of a mess. For example, see Mistforged Obsidian Shield, it says it has two skins, when it obviously only has one. The second one is unlocked when you bind the item, yes, but it's not the one used by the weapon itself. Another example, Witch's Hat, you can't see the weight of each skin without hovering over each link (I understand they're sorted h-m-l, but still; also, shouldn't it be l-m-h like in the wardrobe?).

The last suggestion was pretty decent, keep the visuals intact, but add some disclaimers after each link when there's multiple skins at once.

• For weapons, add (alternate) after the second skin. Maybe split the "skin" field into "skin" and "skin-alternate".
• For armor, add (light), (medium), and (heavy); but only when the skins have the same canonical name. Maybe change the armor infobox "skin" field to "skin-light", "skin-medium", and "skin-heavy".
• When we have the two cases at once (if there's any), just combine both and use (heavy alternate).

Alternatively, just move secondary unlocks to a different field (unlocked). Note that nowadays we have back items which unlock gliders and legendary weapons which unlock musical instruments too. Don't forget about legendary weapons and armor unlocking the skins of the precursors as well.

I originally suggested changing the properties as well, since this issue gave problems when extracting skins from items, but that was some sort of personal project that got scrapped altogether, so they can stay intact for all I care.--Lon-ami (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"Oh look, yet another abandoned discussion lol." Well, this doesn't sound very encouraging to actually contribute to this discussion.

The discussion got stuck because there is no simple straight forward solution. E.g. your suggestions to add six new parameters (if I understood it correctly) instead the parameter "skin": this sounds incredible clunky to use, forcing the wiki editor to unnecessarily go into detail, in the end driving them away from specifying it. Two parameters, e.g. "skin" and "unlocks skin", might work, but more than this is definitly too much. --Tolkyria (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's why the "maybe" is there, I'm pretty sure there's a better solution. Might even be doable without using any new parameters.

The "unlocks skin" parameter seems like a given at this point, but does it really need to be manually inputted into the weapon/armor infobox, every single time? Maybe it could be automated by giving the skin infobox a new "unlocks" parameter, containing the list of skins automatically unlocked once the parent skin is aquired. Then the weapon/armor infobox would check that property and print them out automatically, with no new input required.

I haven't noticed any case where those "double/triple skins" can be acquired from different items at once, but it would help centralize the information for the future. After all, items only unlock one skin, and the other skins are unlocked once the item's primary skin is unlocked. You can see this crystal clear with Guaranteed Wardrobe Unlocks.

But yeah, as long as you can tell the skins apart, I couldn't care less about the new parameters or how it works internally, I'm just throwing ideas out there.--Lon-ami (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

So, are we actually talking about a skin page template edit/creation only, because that's the behaviour you describe it right now: acquiring a skin unlocks further skins, not the weapon/armor piece itself. Hence, any additional skin shouldn't be noted in the weapon/armor infobox (neither set manually nor received automatically). Does this mean that we hould we remove any further skin from the weapon/armor infobox and create "unlocks skin" template (probably not put into the infobox but into a new section)? Or is account-binding a weapon/armor piece, unlocking its skin and then unlocking any further related skin one process such that we are allowed to associate two or more skin with one weapon/armor piece in the weapon/armor infobox (in whatever way)?

Nevertheless, I tried a few "unlocks skins" (or whatever we want to call it) options, e.g. new fields: "Additonal skins", "Further skins", "Unlocks skins", etc... none of these was really satisfying (mostly due to the length). --Tolkyria (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That's it, instead of moving the secondary skins to a new parameter in weapon/armor infobox, we would move them to a new parameter+property in the skin infobox, then read that from the weapon/armor infobox and print them automatically in a new section "Unlocks:" below "Skin:". As for the new skin infobox parameter, I would call it just "unlocks". The property could be named "Has skin unlock" and be exclusive for skins that unlock other skins. The weapon/armor infobox would only input the primary skin of the item itself, and the other ones would generated automatically. I think it's a pretty solid solution for alternate skins.

As for armor skin consumables with multiple weights, it shouldn't be hard to detect the weight and add (light), (medium), or (heavy) afterwards, inside the armor infobox itself, with no new parameters or any changes in articles for that matter. Could be done for all skins, or only those with identical names.

Alternatively, and might be a better option depending on the length of skin names, just tabulate each skin in a different section, so instead of "Skin:" we get "Light skin:", "Medium skin:", and "Heavy skin:". Only when the consumable has multiple weights, in normal cases it would be just "Skin:" with no weight distinction.

I just saw that the first option was already implemented, and it looks pretty good, thanks to the different font size. As long as there aren't many cases where the names are too long and they break the line, I'd say it's fine.--Lon-ami (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Now it gets wierd, setting skins as properties on the skin page (namely the skins that are unlocked by receiving this skin), passing them to the weapon/armor infobox (why should we do this?!) and then probably marking them as Has skin to finally pass them back to skin pages by calling them via the template skin list. With such totally confusion construction we are on the fastest way to get stuck in this discussion again.

Note that I never said this, recapping what I suggested: a "skin page template edit/creation" (not in skin infobox) approach where additional skins are "neither set manually nor received automatically" in weapon/armor infobox. --Tolkyria (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There's lot of stuff that isn't covered right now, or it's just noted on the trivia/notes section as "unlocking this skin also unlocks whatever". The long term plan would be to cover those cases as well. For example, Dominion Tribune Manica (heavy) unlocks all three weights on bind, but that's nowhere to be seen. If we added the "unlocks" parameter to the skin infobox, we could put it there. People looking at any of the two pages would know it instantly.

More examples:

• Legendary weapons and legendary armor. Those unlock the skins from the previous steps if you happen to skip them. That's nowhere to be seen right now, but if we had that new parameter, we could place it there. If I look at Song of the Numberless Pack (skin) acquisition, both The Bard and The Minstrel are missing. Would you add those to the item infobox, or the skin infobox?
• Chest pieces in the Guaranteed Wardrobe Unlock. Some of them unlock the whole armor, not just the chest. No way to know that right now. Same for some weapon skins such as the Cavalier weapon skins.
• Imagine we happen to get a new helm with an alternate skin (few of those lately), but there's multiple items using that skin. Are you going to input the alternate skin every single time for every single item entry? Sounds pretty inefficient to me.

Alternate skins are unlocked by unlocking other skins, not through items, and thus that information should be at the skin infobox, then replicated it at the weapon/armor infobox (no duplicating). Still, I'm fine as long as the final result lets people distinguish the skin used by the item from other secondary skins it might unlock.--Lon-ami (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your infobox fixation, especially when it comes to lengthy names, probably combined with different armor weights sharing the same canonical name, it gets incredibly clunky and hard to read. Instead I suggest the following:

== Acquisition ==
{{skin list}} <!-- modified s.t. it also lists skins that unlock this skins -->

== Unlocks skins ==
{{unlocks skin header}} <!-- Stating: When unlocking this skin, the following skins are automatically unlocked too: -->
* {{unlocks skin|<skin1>}}
* {{unlocks skin|<skin2>}}

Remains the question, why should we put this additional skin unlock information in the weapon/armor infobox? In may eyes this is purely a feature of the skin and not of the weapon/armor piece and hence doesn't belong into the weapon/armor infobox. --Tolkyria (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to compromise, but in fact I'd rather see no alternate skins on the infobox whatsoever as well, which means your last idea is absolutely perfect. The infobox should only show the skin of the item itself, everything else should be moved into the skin page under that new "Unlocks skin" section.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Upgrade Slot 2 Identifier

I was adding pages for some gear obtained from the Level-80 Equipment Package and the template as it stands does not appear to support displaying upgrades in both slots on a two-handed weapon or aquatic weapon. Would it be possible to add a simple "uslot2" parameter to support displaying something in both upgrade slots or is it not worth it at this juncture for a collection of (at max) 9 items? 97.115.176.189 05:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The parameter uslot already supports two weapon upgrades, use the seperator "," to split them. --Tolkyria (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)