Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Professions

Archive

---

• Archive of the old version of this page
• Feb - April 07

Merge

We currently have Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Attributes and Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Professions which I don't believe need formatting guides. There aren't going to be any new articles made using these guides and there are only a limited amount of them as it is. I believe they should be deleted or merged into Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Professions and that page should list everything about our profession formatting, for instance, ordering, colors, templates and anything else. If there are no major objections I'll delete/move these soon. - BeX 03:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am waving to camels. LordBiro 06:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Waves happily along. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Icon Change

→ moved from Template talk:X#Icon change

Since the style of the other profession templates has changed, I propose a change to this template also. Maybe this icon could fit? - anja 11:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with replacing it with that. - BeX 11:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) LordBiro 13:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The only problem is theres no large version. - BeX 13:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I also made this --> . Maybe we could use that?--§ Eloc § 05:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pullus's red x is tango style so it matches Biro's icons. We do need a larger version of the tango x though. - BeX 05:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but Pullus' is being used for Template:No.--§ Eloc § 05:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can make one that matches Biro's icons then we'll use that instead. - BeX 05:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

work?--§ Eloc § 05:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Tango style guidelines. - BeX 05:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya, is tango.--§ Eloc § 06:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a square though. If the icon was an X it would look more like Pullus'. None of the other icons are square so it wouldn't make much sense for us to use something that's so different. - BeX 06:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that taken directly from the Tango project Eloc? I agree it's unsuitable; it looks more like it was designed as a close or cancel button. LordBiro 07:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Are we allowed to use it from Project Tango?--§ Eloc § 08:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I thought I read on their site that the icons were under a CC license and not GFDL, I could be wrong though. --Rainith 08:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw alot of things they're released under. If not, I could make one eventually if no one else will.--§ Eloc § 08:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If this is supposed to indicate no profession as opposed to any profession, might something like be more appropriate? Either way I could produce a larger image if one is needed ... and perhaps soften the X if that's preferred, as it's a little bright when put next-to the profession icons. -- pullus talk 10:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that design though it doesn't quite match the style of the other icons. - BeX 11:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the red X fits better with the other icon design overall, but it might just be that I'm used to it. - anja 11:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still playing with the colour pallet to try to get it to match better (if colour is what you meant by not quite matching Bex) ... I think this is probably an improvement ... but like I said ... this is just a suggestion for a possible alternative. -- pullus talk 11:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

- imo the shading isn't as smooth and the highlights don't seem right atm. I like the shape though, but Anja might be right about an x being more appropriate? I like the new shape idea though. :P - BeX 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I really like Pullus' image, and I wouldn't mind if it were use to mean "no profession", but I think that {{x}} should produce an x, because that's what people expect. LordBiro 17:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that {{x}} should produce an x, and I kinda think its more logical anyway to make a partner for the {{any}} template called {{none}}. Of course that means more work changing the appropriate {{x}}'s ... -- pullus talk 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the shading though Bex ... the real difficulty is that tango calls for a thin border ... then a thin highlight border, and then the fill ... it's hard to get all that in in such a narrow space. If you leave the highlight border out you get something like this, which maybe works better under the circumstances ...

-- pullus talk 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What software are you using to produce the icon Pullus? LordBiro 19:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Photoshop CS2 ... I'm making vector paths and then loading them as selections and filling them ... no idea if that's the best way to be doing it though, the checkmarks were my first ever vectors, so I think it'd be fair to say I'm new to them ;) -- pullus talk 23:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to have a crack at the icon to see if you can get it looking better than I can LordBiro then feel free. -- pullus talk 00:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The seems more like a notice picture, rather than a profession icon. I think a tango X will do just fine.--§ Eloc § 00:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a fair idea, and I agree with the assumption that users will expect this template to provide an X. I suggest we continue this discussion at Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Profession colors. - BeX 03:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

After move

(Reset indent) There we go, all moved. That work?--§ Eloc § 16:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

i read the discussion now, too, and just like the conclusion you got to i'm fine with a red cross. - Y0_ich_halt 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And this all happened without me getting in trouble...yay ;P--§ Eloc § 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

would be no good if you got in trouble. you're one of the few who use my templates xD - Y0_ich_halt 22:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

XD, I love that header that you made. Good job on that.--§ Eloc § 22:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks :) - Y0_ich_halt 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't realised we'd got to a conclusion ... I thought the whole point of moving this here was to start the discussion in earnest? ...

Either way, for what it's worth, (i) I'm still in favour of a partner template for {{any}} called {{none}} or something similar (because an X has more uses than just "no profession", and "none" follows "any" logically). (ii) I also think {{x}} should definitely produce an X, so to save confusion between {{x}} and {{none}}, {{none}} would have to have a different image. (iii) I think the circle with a line through it works well for "no profession", but it needn't be that icon if people don't like it, just something distinguishable from {{x}} and in keeping with LordBiro's tango profession icons. -- pullus talk 01:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always preferred to have both "x" and "any", with "x" to mean none. How come no one mentioned ? (I can't find the name of the smallest one)? Is it being used to represent "none" or "any"? It seems like it's only being used in the skill box. -- ab.er.rant 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

is being used for {{any}} ... but I guess my observation is that {{x}} with it's N/A tooltip is currently being used in all sorts of cases like "any profession", "no profession", "monster skill" and more. So my question is, as we have a specific icon for "any profession", and the "monster skill" icon is on the way, couldn't we introduce {{none}} to cover "no profession" so that {{x}} is really only used when we mean "N/A". -- pullus talk 02:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the larger one, {{any}} can now show both the small and large icons. -- Gordon Ecker 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not make a tango but grey because grey seems to be like a N/A colour.--§ Eloc § 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You can see any in use at Template:Armor nav and it is also used in the armor infobox for common armor pieces. There is also {{monster}} if that is desired. I think Eloc has a good idea about making the X grey. It's less "NO" then. :P - BeX 05:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realise was up, nice one Bex!

So you'd suggest having for monsters, for any profession, a red x for {{none}} and make {{x}} a grey X? -- pullus talk 08:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be the other way round? Red for "x" and grey for "none". Using a red x for none makes it feel like having no profession is wrong. -- ab.er.rant 08:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a situation when you'd need a red x. If an NPC has no profession it's just not listed at all. I can understand the possibility for needing a "N/A" type template and I think that {{x}} in gray would suit that fine. The red x is just a bad idea all around because it makes it seem like something is wrong. - BeX 09:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the red x makes it look like something is wrong, which is why I suggested the struck through circle. I'd be happy with a grey X for {{x}} as the "N/A" type template. But, I do still see the need for a {{none}} template, because {{x}} is often used in that context at the moment (eg NPC/monster lists like Sunjiang District). If we cover all the possibilities profession-wise (specific profession, common/any profession, monster skill, no profession) then the ambiguity over when {{x}} should and shouldn't be used will be cleared up, which I think is needed.

I think people are wanting to put some sort of icon in for no profession so that the formatting is equal all the way down the list ... I suppose an alternative might be for it to be made policy that if an NPC has no profession it should be listed icon-less. -- pullus talk 10:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In what way are none and n/a different? In the case of that spirit, it has no profession so the profession icon is not applicable. I don't think we need two different ones for the same situation. - BeX 10:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the grey x would suffice. - anja 10:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't thought about it that way, but you're right. OK ... so we already have if we wanted a white X ... and here's if we want a grey one. -- pullus talk 11:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

or
. Grey imo :) - anja 11:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Go go gray. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 11:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah, since the balth priest panel also has a grey circle for "no specific profession". that looks cool. - Y0_ich_halt 11:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya, grey X FTW! Besides, if it was red, then it seems more like an Elementalist kind of colour as each profession has it's own colour theme to it. Also, grey just seems to be like a N/A colour or a neutral kind of colour.--§ Eloc § 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded the grey x and updated the {{x}} template ... the table of professions on this page needs to be updated to include the {{any}} template too (and the {{monster}} template?). I wanted to be sure everyone agreed before that was done though, so I've left it for now (or someone else). -- pullus talk 18:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty content with the atm. It seems fine right now. Anyone appose?--§ Eloc § 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Nah, it looks good in my MiniBuild template :)> - Y0_ich_halt 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good. Can you make us the larger versions also when you get some time? - BeX 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Does anyone have any suggestions on what to add to this new version of the page? I plan on adding the following:

1. Of course a brief usage guide about the profession icon templates, though we are waiting on the parameters for the old icon styles.
2. Color scheme for monster stuff

Anyone have anything else to add? - BeX 11:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that I can think of, apart from what you've already listed, is adding a note similar to "any refers to items and skills that can be used by any profession" for the none and maybe monster ... something along the lines of "none applies only to those cases where any does not, eg. an NPC of no profession". -- pullus talk 11:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Profession		Icon	Tint color	Background color	Border color	Color template
	Monster	{{monster}}	#FAA	#D77	#A33	{{m-color}}
	Elementalist	{{e}}	#FDD	#FBB	#B33	{{e-color}}

my proposal. wait, those are a bit hard to distinguish... - Y0_ich_halt 12:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The larger monster icons have more grey-tones in them so maybe something like...

Profession		Icon	Tint color	Background color	Border color	Color template
	Monster	{{monster}}	#EDD	#DBB	#744	{{m-color}}
	Elementalist	{{e}}	#FDD	#FBB	#B33	{{e-color}}

-- pullus talk 13:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest using {{monster-color}}, since "m" is not an official abbreviation of monster, and some languages have only one profession starting with M. I simply think m-color could cause alot of confusion. - anja 13:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would ask Biro for the colors he used for the icon... poke | talk 13:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't use the colours from the small one, they aren't same as Biro's (though the border colour should be). Also agree for {{monster-color}}.

As for the no profession, the reason I left that line out is that I don't know how useful that's going to be, because in the case of service providing NPCs we don't actually list a profession at all. If someone can find me somewhere where we would need to list specifically that an NPC has no profession and isn't a monster, then I'll add the note with some clarification. :P - BeX 01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

well, i guess pullus' are better. - Y0_ich_halt 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I went a bit creative with the colour scheme on the little one. :P - BeX 01:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Bex, Nearly all the articles about explorable zones etc list what you'll encounter in the zone and in many cases there are profession-less NPCs marked with the {{x}} template (eg. Sunjiang District, Throne of Secrets, Wilderness of Bahdza, and it's not just collectors/traders either Gate of Pain, Urgoz Warren). In these cases {{x}} is applicable, but I see many cases where {{x}} is used when it should be {{any}}, so I was hoping to spell out when {{x}} applies. -- pullus talk 09:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the trend (the impression I'm getting) with the new EotN locations is that all the allies and prof-unknown NPCs are having their profession and level omitted, so {{x}} isn't even being used. -- ab.er.rant 09:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The NPCs with unknown professions shouldn't really have an icon at all in my opinion. In many cases NPCs in towns may not seem to have professions, but under different circumstances they might (e.g. you have some of the Kaineng Center NPCs with professions during that quest to go to Nightfall). Allied NPCs should not have the because I believe listing it provides no benefit, but I can see that the template can be used for the Spirit of Portals or those Hopping Vampires because you expect that they would be using offensive skills. Meanwhile, are we going to use the monster icon for creatures that solely use monster skills? - BeX 09:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No for allied npc's works for me too, in which case the clarification for none should somehow make it clear that only applies to foes of no profession. Do we then also need to clarify that allied NPCs shouldn't have their profession listed? Because in Tihark Orchard or Minister Cho's Estate for example there are allied NPCs listed that do have professions ... are we not coming back to the distinction between listing

• an NPC with a profession (edit: even though he/she may be allied eg. Palace Guard or Minister's Guard),
• listing an NPC where his/her profession is N/A (eg collectors/merchants - even though in a different explorable or mission they might have a profession),
• and listing an NPC with no profession eg Hopping Vampires?

As for I can't think of a use for it beyond monster skill pages, I don't see the logic in the leap from "this creature only uses monster skills" to "this creature's profession is monster". Can anyone else think of anywhere it might be used in the "this creature is a monster" sense, and not only in the "this skill is a monster skill" sense.

Sorry if I seem argumentative over this stuff, I'm getting this down quickly as I think about it and don't have time to re-word ... I'm really not interested in pushing one or the other agenda, I just want to be sure that as we're doing this anyway we do it properly and discuss all the aspects. -- pullus talk 11:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that clarifying {{x}} is for no profession, rather than unknown profession is the way to go. - BeX 11:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Recapping for my benefit. is no proff, is any proff, do we have an unknown? Єяøהħ 11:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're stipulating that in the case of NPCs of unknown or inapplicable profession no icon be used. Up until now {{x}} has meant "N/A" so far as I had understood ... in which case could the change to mean "None" be highlighted on the template's page maybe? and it's tooltip updated to read "none" not "n/a"? -- pullus talk 11:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If something is unknown then an X doesn't really fit that. Nor if something is unapplicable because it can never be discovered or doesn't exist. To me X is not the same as ? or N/A. And in situations where these NPCs exist, the information doesn't need to be included. I think it's generally known that most allied NPCs don't need to have "no profession" listed because the information is irrelevant unless you encounter them in a situation where they use skills, which 90% of the time, you dont. Those allied NPCs that do have professions during those quests are sort of an anomaly, differing from the norm. Remember before Factions came out there were a few collectors that used healing circle and that note was included on their pages because it was so strange. Also I think whether their profession is listed in their target bar should also be a consideration. Would we have to start listing professions of animals or Xunlai Chests? I think that's unecessary. - BeX 12:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%, I'm just pointing out that at the moment the {{x}} template is being used to mean unknown/inapplicable and if, as I agree we should, we're changing it to mean none, we need to spell that out on this page and the template itself. -- pullus talk 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

grey cross

we need a bigger version for {{x|big}}. - Y0_ich_halt 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay ... been busy ... -- pullus talk 09:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a new small one that works better with the rest. -- pullus talk 10:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Very nice. :) - BeX 10:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

looks good. - Y0_ich_halt 12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

LoL, big enough for the last one?--§ Eloc § 20:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Profession order

"always use the profession ordering seen on the character creation screen and rune traders"

The problem is the following:

• Rune trader: Dervish before Paragon
• Priest of Balthazar (Runes): Dervish after Paragon
• Priest of Balthazar (Skills): Dervish before Paragon
• Character creation screen: Dervish after Paragon

Which order shall we use now? Also we have to reword that sentence above.. poke | talk 15:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Edited for clarity (poke told me to). This is a bit weird. On one hand, I think we should stick with the order we have now, just because we are used to it. On the other hand, alphabetical ordering of D and P would make much more sense since Anet isn't consistent. - anja 15:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We should use whatever order it is in when you create a new character as that's what all of the people see as they have to make a new character to play the game.--§ Eloc § 19:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pragmaticly, we should stick to D->P as we have so much content ordered that way. I don't see any signficant gain in either ordering, so the cost of changing is just not worth it. Backsword 19:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The ordering has always been based on the order they appear on the character creation screen. The traders were only something that got brought up in the previous discussion on this. I would say removing that "and rune traders" part is a whole lot simpler than performing a wiki-wide reordering of P and D... -- ab.er.rant 19:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently everything on the wiki is ordered > , not > (a typo on Backsword's behalf?), so yes, remove the line from the guide and we should be fine. - BeX 23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondary profession

Seriously consider getting rid of this, alt. moving to the beginners guides. Subjective taste and telling people how to play have no place in a descriptive article. Backsword 16:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is still some old playstyle info that would be better on the guids. Backsword 17:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Profession ordering (2)

I recently just realised this, but why don't we match up what is used in the game manual? The order for the manual is . See ftp://ftp.guildwars.com/downloads/gwp-manual.pdf pg.86-97. — ク Eloc 貢 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, although I would prefer that it was in {{game description}} and there was a player-written summary of the attribute alongside it. Some of the game-written descriptions may be a bit off, and non-verbatim comments would help a new player understand what each attribute does. -- Brains12 • Talk • 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also regarding the attribute description, it seems that there are differences between the Prophecies manual and Nightfall manual (haven't checked the Factions one yet). Although it doesn't seem to be all attributes or even all professions. --Kakarot 17:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We should rather list it as it is in-game (in-game is always fact) and the only problem there is Dervish before or after Paragon. But as we know how the professions are stored internal, this is not a problem either. poke | talk 18:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was already previously established that we use the ordering on the character creation screen, since that one appears to be the most consistent (hasn't changed with any release). The in-game NPCs have different ordering for NF professions, the manual isn't read by most people, hence we keep wanting to scream RTFM on the help pages, and thirdly, I think it would an extreme waste of effort for us to start re-ordering professions everywhere - might as well work on something else. -- ab.er.rant 01:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Skills list

While it makes sense to sort by profession, any henchmen in a location, why does this need to be applied to the skills list? I understand the idea, but if an NPC is multiple professioned, why force someone to go through and figure out which skill goes with what profession just to put them in prof order?

If they have multiple skill sets, keep them separated, but otherwise, I suggest just going by alphabetical order in skill lists, including any "monster" skills. This makes it easier on editors all around. Not only that, the "professions" page seems an odd place to be discussing a list that has a big part on NPC pages. 42 - talk 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The ease should be for the reader, not the editor. -- Wyn talk 07:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wynthyst. It's better the way it is right now. Erasculio 09:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the way it is now. Same for the other one you posted (in the NPC talk page). It's not only for henchmen and skills list either, it's for many other things that the profession order is used, i.e. armor. Screw the editors anyway- their too busy blogging! ~Celestia 09:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The sorting is primarily to group the skills. It's easier to spot at a glance how many skills of a certain profession there are. Many players, especially casual players, are usually only familiar with the skills of a small number of professions, so I feel it helps to group them. -- ab.er.rant 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason it is posted there and here, Mystical, is because it is listed on the professions section guideline page. I don't feel this is the place to have this if it isn't also on the NPC page, which this particular item isn't on that page.

I am not against it strictly because it is in the profession order others have. On the others, it is not a difficult thing to tell if they belong to a certain profession. On the skills list, there is no tag, for example. All that people can visually tell is different (other than the spelling, obviously) is the (elite) or (monster skill) tag. 42 - talk 20:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forgot this. Wyn, posting the skills in profession groups does no good if there is no way to tell which profession a skill is for. It actually hurts to group them without marking out which skill chunk belongs to which profession. 42 - talk 20:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)