Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Armor art galleries

Formatting

Topics that needs to be addressed:

1. Pose - complaints that the /attention pose ruins pictures and complaints that relaxed poses obscure detail
2. Headgear
3. Lighting and other graphical effects
4. Sizes
5. The video

My opinions:

1. Varies depending on profession. I feel that female monks definitely need the attention pose, whereas male warriors wont. We should decide which professions and genders require it and which don't. Before the need for the pose was also affected by the index - many males had to stand to attention to fit into the gwiki ratio because their arms stuck out otherwise. Luckily that doesn't matter here.
2. If you're taking pictures of monk armor or necromancer armor, please don't have hair that obscures the tattoo or scar pattern. Gwiki had a lot of missing monk headgear pictures because no one liked bald monks. And obscured scar pictures because their necromancer had bangs.
3. Please turn anti-aliasing on, post processing off, and take your pictures on the beach in the Isle of the Nameless (outside Great Temple of Balthazar). Here is a map. If you face the hill and turn the camera so that you're viewing as if you're standing on it, you are able to view higher in the torso than zooming in from the ground. You can also get a lot closer. My armor images aren't cropped along the bottom at all - I am able to zoom in that far thanks to the hill. I think this tip helps more with taller characters.
4. Please crop your screenshots to the same size, or at least to a matching ratio so that they look uniform in the gallery. And if you are using software that allows it, save the file for web (in Photoshop it is ctrl + alt + shift + s). This eliminates the metadata which is highly unecessary and just adds useless kb to the file.
5. Yes, THAT video - I suggest that anyone taking pictures uses this procedure, whether they use the emote or not. - BeX 07:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Then I'll also add my comments.

1. /attention whenever it does not obscure parts of the armor, in my opinion. It simply looks more professional and shows the armor in a better way. Most females have a very weird pose normally, for getting a good armor picture. Male warriors look very odd in /attention though, so we might go through every profession and gender and decide individually.
2. Headgear is only done in separate pictures, correct? Not in the component view?
3. No special opinions, but my comp will hate me for anti alias :P
4. I think we should have a preferred ratio, though not make it a rule. The 3:1 ratio is a good guideline imo, but nothing we should force people to take new pictures over. As long as their pictures are all the same size/ratio from the beginning.

No other comments so far. - Anja (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Responses:

2. That depends on whether the overview images will have it or not. For instance, the warrior helms show up fine in the overview image, and overview gallery images, but Emily can't change hairstyles, so all her females monks have hair. I don't know how important it is to have the full "set" pictures for monks and other professions with missing overview headgear, but if everyone is happy to leave it out of the component view even when its missing from the overview, then I'm fine with that. It is a little bit of a pity for sets like monk Kurzick that we wont have pictures of the entire set worn at once.

3. Aratak turns his AA up to 8x by forcing his graphics card. It made my graphics card heat up an extra 10 degrees. Not fun. :P

4. Ratio shouldn't matter at all, because the only place component images will ever be is next to each other in the individual gallery. All we need is for people to crop each component image to the same size. What's the point in having an inch of blank space above someone's head if all the images are next to each other anyway? - BeX 08:12, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it's that important to have the whole set shown in the same picture. As with monk head tattoos, they aren't very visible from anything else than above anyway. So, for me, only have them gray in the component headgear part is enough.
Bleh, we'll see what my comp says. It might just die. But I need a new one anyway :P
You're right there, ratio doesn't matter. Just cut out as much white space as possible, and, most importantly the same size. That should be bold and big letters if we make a guide, people doesn't seem to care about that all too often. (In Emily's case, I understand though. Paperdoll pose isn't really made for same size pictures, and she knows how to make it look good anyway) - Anja (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Hehe I agree. It doesn't matter in Emily's case because the backgrounds are white and you can't tell if they are a few pixels off. It looks terrible when the images have a background though. It's so easy to do in Photoshop because you just add each screenshot in as a layer, nudge them into place so they're all centered and then crop to the same size. (As a side note, the technique I used to use when the ratio was required was adding in a 200x600 layer of black set to 50% opacity, scaling it so it neatly covered the character, hiding all the layers except the black one and using Trim to cut out the blank space. Voila!)

If you don't think the headgear is required I'll fully back you on that. I don't think there will be many complaints. Now all we need is someone to make a bald monk and get it all the headgear. :P - BeX 08:31, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My turn:

1. Given how the renders in the main armor pages are already in the relaxed pose, I like the idea of having the galleries themselves in the /attention pose. We have the best of both worlds this way, IMO.
2. I don't really care about whether to allow those in component view or not. But I would like to have set parameters for components view (for example, how many screenshots are we supposed to take? Is it legs with gloves and boots with body, or is it something else?). In fact, that's the only thing I feel is missing from the Formatting article - one example page with everything perfect, so we could use that as the standard.
3. As long as we are not required to be in the exact same spot (I would likely be one or two steps to a side : P), I'm ok with it. I really like both the map and I like the video (although it's kinda repetitive), as those make it very clear how to take the screenshots.
4. The only problem I have here is that, without Photoshop, I don't have a way to make sure that all images begin and end in the exact same position (for example, Bexor's trick of adding all screenshots as layers and centering them doesn't work that well in GIMP, and Paint cannot do that), so the images may have some imperfections regarding those issues. Erasculio 21:24, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Reponses:

2. The formatting article has the syntax above which shows the filenames. You don't need to change anything in the template there except the headgear name, gender, profession and type. I can put an example below easily enough though.

3. As long as you have the sky background, it wouldn't really matter. I just find that is the best spot for taking pictures of my tall characters. I don't think it works as well with short characters because it ends up looking like a down angle. And also, the reason you face that direction is so the sunlight is in front of you, or at least mostly in front. A lot of my armor pictures weren't taken there, but I found the ones that were looked better.

4.You can at least crop them to the same size. You can specify the canvas size in paint if I recall. And honestly, if worst comes to worst, just email me the pictures in a rar file - I'm happy to crop them and send them back so you can upload them. - BeX 00:14, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey, I just specify a size in Photoshop and crop all my pctures with that size.. Does it matter if in the back image he/she stands three pixels higher than in the front image, really? :P - Anja (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Anonymous input:

1. No /attention pose should be used. In most cases it does more damage by hiding the arms behind the armor, it is also hard to tell the legs apart and the head faces too high up in both back/front pictures hiding what you normally would find from the other. Also it is misleading to show a character in a different pose than what they normally look like ingame. People don't run around in /attention pose. The different side poses should provide enough reference to the armor so that no silly /attention poses need to be used. (I personally draw a lot and the /attention pose provides for very poor reference of the armor)

2. Headgear should be found within the article but separatelly posted so you can more easily picture what your character without the helm might look in armor. Also separatelly it is easier to have it be worn by a face model that doesn't hide the headgear scars/tattoos with hair or other things.

3. Only the screenshots taken with the character facing the source of light seem to look clear and good quality. Background should only be of secondary importance. You can easily see the light source watching where the shadow of the character hits the ground.

Character facing light: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_female_monk_Monument_armor

Not facing light: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Gallery_of_female_monk_Norn_armor

Pay attention to the shadow!

4. Good large size would be nice.

-anonymous 80.221.40.16 13:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Render cropping in Photoshop

If you guys get your characters to be approximately the same size and pose, you can set up a macro in photoshop to automatically crop and resize them. This is what I do with my renders (after learning that doing it other ways was just crazy). In case you guys didn't know how to, here's a little walkthrough for CS (although it should be about the same in past versions too).

• Open up your screenshots.
• Open your history panel. It's usually open, but if it's not, go to "Window" and select "History".
• Click the "Actions" tab in that window.
• Look at the icons at the bottom of the window and click "Create a New Action". It looks like the new layer button.
• Name the action. If you want to bind it to a hotkey, you can do it here.
• When you hit the "Record" button, you will be actively recording the steps of your macro. Bascially, photoshop will remember every button you click and let you replicate your actions by using the saved settings. Here is what I did for my crop and resize macro.
  • I used the marquee tool to select what I wanted to crop in one of the screenshots.
  • Once highlighted, I cropped the shot (Image --> Crop)
  • I then decided the height that I wanted the image to be, and resized it. I believe I chose 900 height. This is really big, but I figured I wanted people to be able to expand the renders if they wanted to.
  • I decided that I did not want my macro to do anything further, so I clicked the "Stop" button next to the "Record" button in the history window.

With this new macro saved, I could simply select the next full-sized screenshot and click the "Play" button to have it repeat the exact thing I just did to the other screenshot.

I found that some armor sets could use the same macro to crop them. I also found that some sets were too wide or too tall for the current settings. If this happens to you, just select your macro from the history panel, pick the step that is giving you issues (it will usually be the "Set Selection" step), hide the layer, and then hit record again and do your selection again. By doing this, you can have multiple size settings or whatever else you need in the same macro.

I don't know if this was common knowledge or not, but I figured I'd share anyways :) -- Emily Diehl (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! This will help alot while cropping pictures, I had no idea Photoshop could use macros. (Then I'm not a frequent user either) - Anja (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Discussion

First draft is up. I have one question I want opinions on - Mesmer masks back view - omit entirely? Also if I've left anything out let me know. The other armor formatting guides will be available shortly. - BeX 10:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey guys! It's hopping around the studio today, but I got a chance to read over the proposal. I think it looks great! Here are some things I had

I can take pictures of most headpieces, but tattoos are what gets me due to technical issues with the program I use to capture the renders. This means that monks and necromancers will need to be captured in game for the time being. I can change hairstyles, and try to pick ones that don't obscure the armor that I can taking shots of.

I can help take max-setting screenshots in-game if you guys would like me to. I don't want you to have to spend loads of money on dyes and armor just for the sake of the screenshots. I'd rather have you guys figure out the poses you'd like to see, and take the shots that you can take without spending your own resources. I can easily mimic these poses for any in-game armor, and since it's in-game, I wouldn't have to worry about tattoo or color issues.

As a side note (in case anyone wonders), I would not be doing this on the live servers. Even as a dev, I cannot generate any items/armor/money on live, hence my saving up for the past 6 months for Vabbian armor :( :( I'm pretty sure most of you guys are a LOT wealthier than I am.

As a side project, I think it would be a lot of fun to eventually get information like this up on the wiki. It would be AWESOME if we could ask the contributors of those images to post them over here, but unfortunately I can't really ask personally. Being a big armor person myself, I love looking at stuff like that, and I think it would be really cool information to have over here. I'm not sure if any of you guys know those posters and could talk to them, or if we could look into eventually doing something like that ourselves. It's worth a thought.

Anyways, that's what I have for right now. If I think of more stuff, I'll pop in and mention it. I'm excited nonetheless. I love these armor pages, and I think it will be really great when they get all filled out ♥ -- Emily Diehl (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Guideline page

Since we have a lot of information on this page, I'll just move into this section. I really like the proposal page, and I think we should push it up as soon as possible. Here are some specific points I'll mention for discussion.

• I agree that we should probably axe the back view of Mesmer masks, as they rest on the front of the face only.
• If we have people putting female Monks and Eles at attention, do you think we should put female Paragons in that pose as well? I assume you guys are recommending /attention due to the fact that those two models have a standing pose that makes them appear to be leaning. The Paragon female also has this happen to her. I actually like the /attention for all of the models personally, but if some people are really opposed to it, whatever looks good works for me.

Other than that, I really think we should push for the page to be policy :) Great job on this by the way!!! I'm excited to see all the galleries filled out. -- Emily Diehl (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

The current list of poses is incomplete because I can't go from memory as to which professions actually stand like that. :P - BeX 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Doesn't look like there's anything stopping this from being official. I'll make the change if there are no objections and if no one else does it before me. -- ab.er.rant 01:36, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I dislike article naming such as "Warrior Shing Jea armor/Male". I believe that we should try to avoid using subpage notation for base articles (and also in the main namespace). Articles should be consistently named for the case where a user goes to the page directly, without the assumption that they navigated there from other articles. I would prefer to see "Gallery of male warrior Shing Jea style armor" instead. Also, monk headgear could use a top view (example). --Rezyk 04:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd support a name change from the subpage, but I'd rather the name be Gallery of male warrior Shing Jea armor. I'd like to hear the opinion of others about that first though. And I agree with the monk headgear, I'll make sure to add it in. - BeX 05:29, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Male warrior Shing Jea armor gallery? I find the "Gallery of.." quite confusing to read... Though nothing sounds really great. And yes, the monk headgear really only needs a top view, I just created the galleries for Emily to have somewhere to put her renders, and to have something to base the discussion on. - anja (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Rezyk is basing that name on the article naming guidelines which are still under discussion. The "List of" or "Reference of" is quite unwieldy, but is likely to be implemented wiki-wide unless you raise a protest at that page. - BeX 06:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I've kept away from that discussion on purpose, I feel I cannot explain my opinion well enough. My first thought is always: "This name must be searchable". "List of comparsion tables of mesmer weapons with perfect stats" is not :P But I have no other good arguments :P - anja (talk) 07:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

As arguments go, that is a good and valid one. You should really have your say before it becomes accepted. - BeX 08:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Anja, as I personally try to avoid long titles for pages. I find that the wiki search engine tends to spit back weird results when you try to search against long titles, and I think that long titles (despite being well worded), are hard to remember. Could we do something like Wikipedia does, and continue to name pages like : "Warrior Shing Jea armor (male)" and "Warrior Shing Jea armor (female)"? If we wanted to mix up the order of broad to specific (like the current example), we could even do "Shing Jea Warrior armor (male)" and "Shing Jea Warrior armor (female)". This is kind of a disambiguation, but wouldn't one be valid in this case since there are two aspects of the same item? -- Emily Diehl (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I usually dislike bracketed identifiers, but I agree that the longer names aren't exactly the best either. I think this discussion really belongs on the article naming guideline page, because that is what ultimately will decide how the articles should be named. I think it would be a very good idea to take up this discussion there, because in this context we are already able to see what is and isn't working. - BeX 03:25, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

I've responded on that guideline discussion page, but here are some more things specific to this discussion:

• You would generally not see articles like, say, "wikipedia:Flags (city)". With "Warrior Shing Jea armor (male)", it would also be more confusing (as in many more possibilities) to determine which adjectives go inside or outside of the brackets. For example, why not "Shing Jea armor (male warrior)"?
• One thing that would shorten the name is if we combined the female and male versions into a single gallery and dropped the gender from the list of identifiers in the name. How does that sound?
• I guess I would just push for Gallery of warrior Shing Jea armor for now.

--Rezyk 03:04, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

(ri) Unless someone suggests something I'm really against, I'm cool with doing what every one else decides is best. - BeX 03:31, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd rather not combine the male and female galleries. As it is now, you don't have to scroll alot to find the picture you're after, which was one of the things I hated over at guildwiki. Slow loading and lots of swrolling to find your picture. I'm ok with the "Gallery of.." thing as long as it's searchable and not extremely long. - anja (contribs) 05:17, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I personally liked the galleries just as "Warrior armor" with both male & female pictures for each. Splitting these would make for more back-and-forth searching, page changing. But also if there are more images, it may cause more loading, and the pages would be longer. Is there really a need for a seperate sections for male/female? That depends on what you dislike more. Long pages or more page flipping. ~ BlackGeneral File:Blackgeneralsig3.png 02:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

As a person who only plays female characters, it's an easy choice ;) I agree that the galleries at Warrior armor etc should not be split, though I still think the galleries with alot of images (Warrior Ascalon armor/Male etc) should still be split. :) - anja (contribs) 02:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

It might be for the best, seeing as how it would be worse to have a slow loading page. I sign for it. ~ BlackGeneral File:Blackgeneralsig3.png 04:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I wouldn't see scrolling as much of an issue (because we could address it here with anchor tags & links), but agree that slow-loading is. I think I still prefer merged galleries despite that, but not enough to continue pushing for it. So, are we all roughly okay-ish with "Gallery of male warrior Shing Jea armor"? --Rezyk 16:57, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Ok with me. - anja (contribs) 17:07, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I modified the draft to match "Gallery of male warrior Shing Jea armor", pending consensus. I also changed the category name from "Category:<profession> armor galleries" to "Category:<gender> <profession> armor galleries" -- this makes more sense to me from the point of view that a player will often be interested in one particular gender+profession combination at a time (that of their character they're shopping for). Anyone disagree with this? --Rezyk 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Both changes are fine with me. - BeX 00:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

No objections :P - anja (contribs) 04:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Just one note, could we please make ascended armor sort under their type name? So, instead of [[Female warrior armor galleries|Ascended Canthan armor]] we use [[Category:Female warrior armor galleries|Canthan ascended armor]] That's the kind of sorting we use at the armor pages, and to me it's more logical to look for canthan 1.5k and 15k at the same place, not under different letters. - anja (contribs) 14:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Seems a bit weird to me, but I'll go along with it. --Rezyk 22:56, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Real galleries

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Armor#Real galleries

Armor art comparison

Hey guys, I made this: User:Ab.er.rant/Armor comparison. Might be useful to others. -- ab.er.rant 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm already using it every time I'm about to buy armor ;) - anja (contribs) 08:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh :P heheh. Do you think it would be fine to add a link to Armor? Hmm... I'll go ask a question on GWW:USER regarding this. -- ab.er.rant 08:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine, and I wouldn't mind having it in the main namespace (Template namespace) as a easy-to-reach tool for all users either. - anja (contribs) 08:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... good point about moving it into Template. -- ab.er.rant 08:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

More colored views

Some editors are adding more colored views on the art galleries, below the grey version. What do you think of that? Is it nice or not really necessary? Personally, I don't think it's necessary, but if it's nicely formatted and screenshotted I don't really mind having it there either. (Examples: here and here) - anja 13:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are necessary and if we allow it then people will want to keep adding more and more. :P Those should be fine to stay though, but they should be replaced by gray shots in the future. - BeX 13:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Doh, should have added this example too to get your opinion on it :P - anja 14:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't think it's a good idea to encourage it. It will lead to people having a picture set for every colour. :P And as we said when we were discussing the formatting, all we really need to know are details and the colourable areas, which would be already covered by renders+grays. - BeX 14:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We could say then, colored are fine until grays are in place? - anja 14:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that those should be replaced by gray shots in the future, but I think it's better to keep the collored ones around until we get said gray shots, just like character screenshots were accepted as temporary images before Emily could provide us with the renders. My main reason for saying this is something very, very silly, but it's something I have noticed - some players (like myself) have armors dyed before the change to the dye system. The result is that the colors we currently have on our armors may not be reproduced easily in case we dye the armors to gray and try to dye them back to the previous hue - I frankly don't know how to get some of these colors with the current dyes, for example - but I don't think that kind of thing should prevent players from adding images, even if temporary ones. I do think it would be good if we could add a note somewhere stating that those images are temporary, though, just in case an user feels bad when seeing that his submission was removed for gray screenshots. Erasculio 14:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I have the same problem. I think we should keep those shots until grays are available, but then remove them with a note to the uploader or something. - anja 14:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to be on the other side for this. I don't actually see a problem with keeping the dyed ones in addition to the grey. It is called a "gallery". If people start adding several different dye combinations, then yes, I can agree to a little trimming, like removing the side and back shots and retaining only the front shot. Or possibly add a link to an image category containing all the different dyed versions. I personally wouldn't mind a comprehensive dye color reference on the wiki. -- ab.er.rant 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want dye comparisons, then a dye chart like the ones (I think Zemmy made) for the weapons would be preferable to multiple component shots. - BeX 02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If by dye chart you mean showing me a picture of a colored vial of dye, then no, I don't find that useful at all. I'd much rather see an actual armor with the dye applied, takes away the need to try to visualise :P I know I could use the dye preview, but the preview is less than ideal in that I can only preview one piece of armor at any one time, so it makes it difficult to see a complete overview. I want to see how my armor would look overall, not piece-by-piece... anyway, aside from this, I just don't see any problem with having additional dye colors being shown. It's not like it's gonna to ruin the page or reduce loading speed horribly (in which case, we can trim). But if you guys are insistent on having just a short "gallery" :P, I don't feel too strongly about it either so I'm fine either way. -- ab.er.rant 03:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant like this. But I see what you mean about the preview. I just think it's really not necessary, and we're having enough trouble getting people to follow the style and formatting as it is - I can't bear to think of one article requiring 8 (or more) times more image updates because someone didn't take or crop the pictures properly, as well as the in game cost involved. - BeX 05:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Woah! Now that is something I like! *double thumbs up for Zemmy!* -- ab.er.rant 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more reasonable to have the grey components and also at least one type of dye preview. Color isn't the issue here and only one basic color should be used(no mixes in other words). This helps provide reference of how strongly or lightly an armor set will dye. You all know that some armor dyes more darker than others and some brighter than others. It would be a useful reference to have at least one type of dyed version shown. No more ofcourse. (Not to mention the basic grey looks so horrible that it is hard to tell wheter the armor really looks nice or not...) -anonymous 80.221.40.16 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dye preview gallery and grey compenents.

Hey guys, as you may or may not be aware, im currently in the process of making dye preview galleries for each of the armours in the game as can be seen here and here, not to mention the necro ones ive uploaded. However once added to a page it raises the question of what is the point of the grey component page anymore, as the grey components are displayed in with all the other colours on the dye galleries im making. It's not a major issue or anything, its just as can be seen in the male ranger obsidian gallery, the grey dye compenents are missing at the mo and with the dye gallery I added below, their addition is now somewhat pointless. So should I remove the grey component section or leave as is? -- Salome 18:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the Gray components part are a bit redundant after adding that. — Galil 19:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

After you have added those galleries I see no reason to have a grey component gallery, really. If the images are in place already, I think they could stay, but if there's just red links as in the male obsidian you linked, it could as well be deleted imo. If that makes sense. (Tired atm, so just tell me and I'll try to clarify if needed :P ) - anja 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No that makes perfect sense; You're basically saying if theirs already a grey component page to let it stay after i add the dye gallery, but if their is currently just red links then i can go ahead and delete the section. I'm actually alot more comfortable with that, as deleting dead links is fine by me but deleting images other peeps have uploaded, I find somewhat off putting as wouldn't want to annoy anyone. Thanks guys for you're input. Just to clarify at what point can i go ahead and do these things, as im guessing as its a page formatting change i have to wiat for some kind of higher consensus. As a none-admin I'm somewhat hazy on this area of the wiki. -- Salome 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Galil. I think the pictures you uploaded look better than the old ones and have a consistent size/position as they are all from the exact same pose & zoom level. --Kakarot 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, formatting is alot looser than policy changing. Secondly, this formatting guide isn't even finished (accepted). This (imo) means most things with a few approving comments is ok :) I would suggest waiting like a day or two, maximum. All those who care about the formatting should have this watched already (like.. me and Bex ;) ) - anja 21:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe the addition of the dye galleries to armor art pages has not done anything to benefit the pages, they just make them look overly cluttered, and the views are too crowded in that format and size to really provide anything but a headache. I would have to vote in opposition of their addition to the guideline. Possibly the creation of a separate page that would allow users to view the colored galleries if they chose, and then display each color full size rather than in the reduced size creating an additional click for the enlargement. I can not in mixed company repeat some of the comments I've heard from guildies and other friends in regards to this subject, it is actually what drew my attention to them in the first place. I also have some difficulty with using screenshots of the dye preview windows as they don't always give a true representation of the way the colors are going to look once applied. I think that actual screenshots of dyed armor are better.-- Wynthyst 06:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is so bad with additional galleries that you wont even see most of the time (requires scrolling) that you "can not in mixed company repeat some of the comments I've heard from guildies and other friends". I think you are overreacting.
I also disagree, but that you may know ;) I prefer extra clicks for the images I'm interested in, rather than having to load a separate page, but that's just the two of us having personal preferences. We should get more comments.
The size could be bigger if we want, it's not set in stone, but I'm definitely opposed to full size. Too much scrolling to compare different dyes. As for screenshots of already dyed armor, there's this big problem with people not wanting to waste dye (I know I don't want to). I'd much rather have some dye pictures in the dye preview than none at all. - anja 07:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to get heated up Anja, I was just stating my opinion, and I literally don't want to repeat the comments I've heard from guildies/friends in regards to how having the galleries on the pages looks in their opinion. And yes I did fully expect you to not agree with my opinion, but I felt it should be voiced anyway. Afterall, we don't have to agree on everything :D -- Wynthyst 07:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a bit worked up there :) - anja 07:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

i think the current formatting is very cluttered and i don't like it much. however, if the formatting were expanded some so that it didn't feel so cluttered, why shouldn't we just replace the grey screen shots entirely w/ the dye previews? i mean right now we have this oddly formatted page design w/ different poses, backgrounds, views and colors. the most inconsistent looking pics are the grey ss b/c their sizes don't even match. i know why they were put there, but can see little reason to keep them if we have these previews. --VVong|BA 14:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion - what about having a bar of dye jars at the bottom so that people could simply click on the color they are looking for and have it take them to the full sized gallery image of that color(see here). This would reduce the clutter on the page, while still allowing easy access to the gallery images. Also in regards to the gray component images, while it is true that adding the gray gallery would give everything a seamless look, I feel having at least one set of images of the armor that are actually screenshots of a character wearing the armor in game is important. The variety of poses/image sizes etc, can and should be addressed by providing a 'How to take a screenshot' guide and educating editors how do do it right. The sizes of the images can be addressed as part of the guideline, or for that matter are fairly easily fixed by any editor with a little savvy.-- Wynthyst 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.... Well you are entitled to your opinion Wyn, but i don't agree with you. I don't see how the image size is an issue. If you click the image it enlarges, click it again it enlarges again and so on, giving all the detail you may need. Also initially i did have it as a wee extra gallery page with just a simple link at the bottom but was advised by some of the sysops that to just add it to the page would be the better course of action. As for your idea about using the link from the dye jars, personally i think that would look somewhat out of place and ugly on the page. Also in regards to your friends/guildies comments i have to say I take offense from that. Each of those galleries takes me about 90 min's to 2 hours to screen cap, compile and upload and if they honestly think they could do it better with a better system they are more than welcome, but making snide remarks is neither needed nor wanted. Obviously i'm directing that comment at those individuals, not yourself Wyn. As for your comments about actually wearing the armour, i don't see how it is any different from the dye preview??? It shows the Character wearing the armour in composite form which is what is required from the secondary gallery pictures as we already have the primary gallery renders showing the full set dyed in a default colour. I am also not prepared to shell out on the abundance of dyes it would take to dye each of the armour sets the range of colours needed. The current method means i don't have to buy more dyes and i don't need to buy every armour as i can just borrow them from friends thus making it the most cost effective. The format I'm currently using has several benefits: Uniformity of pose and maginification; All the detail one would require of a picture and finally the price factor. Also several flaws you have raised are intrinsic to all screen shots of armours, in that one persons screen shot may not exactly reflect another persons screen setting but at the very least it shows an idea of what their armour could approximate with a certain dye. Regardless of the format chosen this flaw is inherent as everyone screen settings and graphics settings differ. Also personally i don't see how you can state that on one hand it clutters the page but on the other hand the pictures are too small to be useful. The gallery at the bottom is meant purely as a link format so that peeps can see the thumbnail of the pic they want to enlarge and study further. In the end I am hoping to make each dye gallery resemble this, to give uniformity throughout. I'm not actually understanding in what way the page seems cluttered in that example. On the top you have the official rendered images of the full armour and beneath that you have the dyed composite links for those interested. I have to be honest I have received many whispers from people in game pestering me to hurry up with the project and get certain armour dye previews in place so that they can see what an armour they want will look like in the colour they want to dye it in. So I think honestly this is coming down to a matter of taste. Personally my vote is to remove the grey composite view as no one dyes in grey anyway and to have the main rendered image and the dye preview gallery beneath, Like Wongba suggested. -- Salome 23:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Personally I prefer the way Salome has done the layout on this page. On that page it first gives a thumbnail version of the armor renders and then the various dye versions below. Using the dye preview means that all the images have the same basic look and don't cost anywhere near as much; both in money and in time; as it would if it was done using actual dyed pieces of armor. --Kakarot 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Salome, I'm not discounting your galleries and the remarks of my guildies are in no way directed personally, I'm saying that the layout of the page is cluttered by too much visual. None of this is a personal attack on anyone just me exercising my right as a member of this wiki community to voice my opinion and the opinion of people I play with. I would prefer if you would screen your galleries one piece at a time, rather than just dying the one piece you are focusing on, having the rest of the armor in view is distracting, but otherwise the galleries are good. As far as the dye jar idea, that's fine, take the jars out and just have the colors listed on a colored bar. I'm very open to compromise ideas, and was simply offering my suggestion for a possible alternative, thinking it's better to be part of a solution to a problem than just a problem. I don't see the difference between having to click on a word to see the full size gallery, or having to click on a thumbnail that gives you very little overall benefit and imo just makes the page look bad (cluttered and busy). As far as the difference in seeing a character wearing the armor in actual play environment rather than in a dye preview, it all comes down to the discrepencies in image rendering between the static dye preview, the Anet provided renders and the game environment, making them not always look the same. But as you say it all comes down to a matter of taste, and I prefer a clean streamline design and look that still represents GW reality and I have just as much right to have a say in how the page is designed as anyone, that's the nature of the wiki. Just as all the people pestering you to finish the project are welcome to lend their voices to the discussion. -- Wynthyst 02:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wyn, as i said I wasn't offended by any of your comments and although i didn't agree with them, I still respect them. I was offended by your guildies/friends comments as I just didn't find them helpful and just negative and not really constructive in anyway. As i said before above, I initially had a wee link at the bottom of the page to a dye gallery page, so that they didnt clutter up the main armor page, but i was asked by a few of the sysops to merge it into the main armor space. As for your comments concerning doing one piece of armour at a time, i completely agree. I kinda mucked up the elite female luxon one and forgot to undress her completely first and its on my list of things to redo and fix. However i hasten to add that please dont confuse the dye charts i've done, which can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here with the ones Luush has done, which look like this, as i think her template is distracting, where as mine is smaller and more discrete. Anyway in closing i would just like to say, no hard feelings Wyn. I welcome your feedback, just not your friends comments which cant be repeated in mixed company. :) -- Salome 03:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't believe the grey component shots should be removed. And I prefer the dye chart style I made which you can see here. - Bex 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But the dye charts I'm currently making contain a grey dye compenent view. Also bex although you're dye chart is very nice, IMHO it's kinda lacking, as it only shows a wee bit of the overall armour without the detail of how the armour dyes throughout, thats just my oppinion though. -- Salome 11:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

i like that bex has the dye color icon instead of the word b/c that means less clutter. i don't like how grey is still broken out. i mean, really, what purpose does that serve anymore w/ the dye charts available? it also makes the chart inconsistent b/c u have a blank where grey is supposed to be. --VVong|BA 04:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The grey is there so you can compare brightness to what you see in game when you buy it. And some people like to keep their armor grey. :P - Bex 12:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I like how Bex included the dye color icon rather than the word, I still prefer Salomes version partly because in his you can see each piece of armor so if you want a different colour for a particular piece you can see what that would look like whereas on Bex's it's centered solely on the chest armor. Also because each colour is on a seperate picture if you only want to see one colour the uploaded screenshot can be at a bigger size (pixel wise). --Kakarot 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to find some time to do what Salome did with some of the armors that I have. Personally, I don't find it cluttered, neither with Salome's version nor Bex's version. After all, it's called a "gallery". It'd feel weird to call it a "gallery" when there's only the rendered images.

Function beats form though. I believe it's better to have a nice table for an overview of dye colors right out in the open than not have any for the sake of having the page look nicer. I can accept the removal for better organization, but I think it's detrimental to remove the dye gallery simply because it doesn't look good. I might just want to browse and have a look-see, not examine the dye colors in detail, so a page that shows everything is simply more useful.

As a middle ground, what does everyone think of changing Salome's gallery into something like what Bex did, with one addition: link them to the dye pictures that Salome prepared instead (and add in a note like "click to see more details" or something). Does anyone find Bex's page layout to still be cluttered? -- ab.er.rant 02:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea, just image map Bex's dye gallery to each of Salome's for a more detailed view. And no, I don't find Bex's version objectionable at all if there is a way to view all of the pieces. -- Wynthyst 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Now we just need to make it obvious that the dye preview image is one click away, and make it easy for users to recognise that a dye preview image is missing, and make it easy for them to upload... that is, unless someone disagrees or has a better idea. -- ab.er.rant 02:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) sorry not really been keeping up to speed with this page recently as been distracted by other things. As for what aberrant suggested, I do kinda like the idea as I think it's a good compromise, however I can see some major problems with it. Firstly it's only going to work on female mesmer and possibly male mesmer attire, as bex is using the dye preview gallery too for this and their is no way to get a composite dye preview of all the pieces in the same colour at the same time. The reason why bex's is working at the mo is cause female mes chest armour tends to be huge and cover most of the avatar, but other models don't do that. Take monk for example you would only get up to its elbows and waist on a chest piece pic. Thus any preview pic to link to my greater detail gallery would either have to consist of just the one piece of armour dye previewed, with weird cut off points at the elbow and waist, or we wait for people to upload a pic of their complete armour set dyed in that colour, which i think would be worse, as we will then have a composite of hundreds of different lighting effects and graphics capabilities displaying the image and that's just on the pics we'll actually get but their is a high chance that many of the pics wont even be uploaded leaving more dead links, which is what im trying to combat with these galleries im making. On top of that, even if we work out someway for this to work, which i honestly hope we can, I would need the people making the preview image, to keep up with me on the creation of the dye galleries, as at the moment I've not been making them due to this ongoing discussion but on my hard drive i have the composite images already made up for another 20-ish prestige sets. Although i really like aberrant's idea, i honestly think that the merging of my and bex's image galleries is gonna cause formatting problems in the future, although i do concede that bex's gallery looks nicer and clearer than mine i also think that her gallery will only really work on mesmer chest pieces as said above and that she might start experiencing some issues with her gallery having weird cut off points on the armour when she starts making the dye preview galleries for some of the other professions which dont have huge chest pieces. Although on the flip side of this I have been deliberately avoiding doing the dye gallery for armour with full length chest pieces, like the ones Bex has been working on, as im not sure how well my armour preview gallery will hold out for such a zoomed out image. I hasten to add that im not against the merging idea just playing devils advocate here as i can see potential issues with it, that's all. -- Salome 12:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe it needs to be formalized as having one correct way of doing it. :) - Bex 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(: I suppose you're right bex, I just suffer a tiny bit from OCD. So differences in templates get to me, but as i said that's just my OCD speaking. ;) -- Salome 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, just do it on a case-by-case basis. If you added a dye gallery, drop the gray components. I'd rather that good content doesn't get stalled from being added to the wiki just because of a disagreement over how it should best be presented. -- ab.er.rant 03:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Armor galleries by location

It has been suggested that we do armor galleries by location of acquisition. Since there are 2 sets of Elite armor from both Marhan's Grotto and the Granite Citadel, the HoM titles the statues slightly differently if you have both. I'm not sure exactly how this should be noted, but there were two pages created "Resilience" Granite Citadel Ascended and "Resilience" Granite Citadel Exclusive and I don't feel it's necessary to have both, but possibly a single page with two sections to make the distinction if that distinction is necessary to make at all. -- Wyn 09:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I combined the two into Granite Citadel Prestige armor. -- Wyn 10:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd use the in-game names, dropping "Resilience" from the front. -- Gordon Ecker 10:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't think this is needed at all, just more pages to keep updated :/ The main armor page, with the galleries, doesn't it have enough of an overview? - anja 15:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand where they're (Wyn and Mmbah54) coming from. I think the section header is a bit misleading, since initially I too got the impression they wanted to do a whole new set of pages that deal with galleries by location. I think the problem here is that the Prophecies prestige armor do not share names, as such, unlike other campaigns, they don't get a "central" gallery (such as Kurzick armor for all Kurzick armors). Since HoM groups these as "Granite Citadel <something> armor", I think it's more appropriate to name them "Granite Citadel armor" and "Marhan's Grotto armor" instead, since we also have Asuran armor and Norn armor. -- ab.er.rant 05:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess they share a page but use separate subheadings, similar to the way in which the Canthan, Exotic, Imperial and Sunspear armor pages include both regular and elite armour under subheadings. I'd prefer "Granite Citadel armor" over "Granite Citadel prestige armor", as there is no non-prestige Granite Citadel armor to distinguish it from. -- Gordon Ecker 06:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the page is called, there are at most three armor sets per profession at Granite Citadel and Marhan's Grotto. Monks, for example, have exclusive, ascended, AND elite GC armors. It was mentioned that perhaps if you only have one set in the HoM, it is titled "elite" and if you add another, it's titled "ascended" or "exclusive." I think that's incorrect because my elementalist only has one set displaying (from all campaigns) and account-wide her iceforged armor is the only GC armor displayed -- yet its called "exclusive." I'm quite sure the titles are linked directly to the armor sets, and like I said there can be up to 3 per profession per area. --Mmbah54 08:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, we'll need to figure out which armor is labelled what for each profession. I'll check my necro's Elite Cultist... when I next log in. -- ab.er.rant 08:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm, now I do understand your idea better. Could we try to make it just the two pages Granite Citadel armor and Marhan's Grotto armor, and explain everything on those pages? Preferably redirect "Marhan's Grotto Exclusive armor" etc there :) I have too much armor, I'll start documenting names. - anja 08:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine redirecting/renaming the pages. I'm pretty sure when I first created the page, there were only 5 GC exclusives and 5 GC ascended. I don't think each profession can get all three different sets. As it's documented, Monks are the only prof that can have GC elite. We definitely need some verification on the titles of the armors. Mmbah54 08:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I also have no problem with the rename of the page. I have Mes Noble armor, but that's it, and it is listed as Elite in the HoM. I think also the note on the Resiliency page needs to be changed/clarified. I'm sorry for the confusion I caused with this. -- Wyn 08:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all good. Looks like the pages are falling into place. --Mmbah54 09:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)