Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Titles

Some titles require an 'investment' of a large sum of money to achieve do you think it is worthwhile spliting the money required to buy your way into a title into a new section or is that something you envisage on the guide page? Otherwise it looks okay - mainly because I can't think of anything else you could do with the page. :) --Aspectacle 14:06, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I would think keep the money out of the table and in the guide/description area. Also, why is tier 4 bolded in the the table? --Rainith 15:33, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I thought it would be a good idea for titles that require that you reach a certain tier before you can display it. Jack 18:08, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Ah, ok, that should probably be explained on the page, a bullet point stating that you must be at tier 4 in order to display the title or something similar. Bolding "tier 4" in the bullet point would (in my warped and distorted mind) link the two on the page. --Rainith 18:24, 15 February 2007 (PST)

linking

Why not make our own guide?Qanar 00:20, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Make our own guide of what? -- ab.er.rant -- 00:45, 16 February 2007 (PST)

Rewrite

I have rewritten this guideline to better match the structure of the other formatting guides and to take the existing title articles into consideration. One thing I'm unsure is about the title of the tables. Say "Cartographer title track", is it better to use the table caption for it (as per the previous formatting guidelines) or to use a level 3 section (as per most of the existing articles)? -- ab.er.rant 04:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Two bolds

I feel that having two bold in a the table is unncessary. I'm thinking that the bold text should only be shown on the wearable title tier for the following reason: People know when the end of a table is. Therefore, they will assume that it is the end of the title tier. Should the max level and wearable title tier be the same, then I can see that being okay, but in some cases (Commander, Hero, etc) is is not. Jack 17:35, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're talking about... your sentence "I'm thinking that the bold text should only be shown on the wearable title" is exactly what is explained in the guideline... and whether a title is a max rank or not has nothing to do with it being wearable... -- ab.er.rant 21:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Example title track

Tier	Title	Requirements
1	Rank 1	Rank 1 requirement
2	Rank 2	Rank 2 requirement
3	Rank 3	Rank 3 requirement
4	Wearable Rank 4	Rank 4 requirement
5	Wearable Rank 5	Max rank requirement

This is what I'm suggesting because I believe it's rather obvious that when you reach the end of the table, it's the max level of the title. Having the first wearable rank bolded (along with it's requirements) draws immediate attention and gives the reader the feeling of "Okay, this is how much of whatever I need to get to wear the title." Jack 22:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Ah, I see. So you're suggesting that we drop the "Highest rank" label (since it's obvious which is the highest), and only bold the minimum level to wear it (since all higher titles from a wearable title are also wearable, at least for now). Ok, makes sense. -- ab.er.rant 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Make official?

Bump. I suppose title pages are a small matter, so any objections or changes should be minor and can be handled at a later date. I'm proposing to official-ise this soon. -- ab.er.rant 02:59, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

The changes I made are the only problems I had with the formatting guide becoming official. I believe that all titles now have a defined max rank so there's no issue there. I moved Acquisition to above benefits because I do believe that the information on how to get a title is more important than it's benefits but on second thought, I do think we should have a short discussion on this before making the guide official. Jack 23:21, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

The reason why I placed Benefits above Acquisition wasn't because I think it's more important. I only though that it'll definitely be a very short section and only used for a few titles, hence I put higher up as Acquisition can potentially become very long and might easily push Benefits out of even the second path. But I'm fine either way and I have no problems with your changes. -- ab.er.rant 21:37, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

As it seems we two are the only ones who are discussing this particular article, I've moved it to official policy after making one final change. I agree that benefits is definitely a small section, therefore, it should be a part of the title track area. It doesn't warrent a whole section of it's own, which is why I believe it should be made a sub-section of the title track table. Jack 01:07, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to have the benefits section as a level two heading, not a level three heading. -- (gem / talk) 22:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not even a level three actually, just bolded text. Maybe we should remove the section header above the table as well? And change it into a table caption instead. -- ab.er.rant 01:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)