Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Items/A2

Acquisition

Should bosses be listed under acquisition for items such as tropies and salvage items? Tedium 06:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after going through several salvage items, I noticed some only drop from bosses so I'll go ahead and list bosses. Should there be something like "(boss)" after a boss name in the list? Tedium 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

PvP Items

Just wondering what the general view is on whether to include these in weapon lists. Weapon pages themselves are a bit inconsistent. Some don't include links (Sword, Shield), some have redlinks (Hammer), and some have been created (Dagger, PvP Daggers). Has there been a discussion on whether to include them, or should I just go ahead and create the pages? -- AT(talk | contribs) 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bundles

Was thinking. We use this formating for bundles, but since they are not the same sort of technical entity, much of it in non applicable. Especially goes for the infobox. Would anyone object to having a seperate infobox for bundles? Backsword 10:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't think of any issues that would arrise from a different infobox. — ク Eloc 貢 22:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What information do bundles have that is not handled by the item infobox? poke | talk 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bundles are not kept in inventory after being picked up, so they do not have visible inventory icons, value or description. The only thing left would be autocategorization, but that can be done by setting the type of the item. Even if some bundles have associated effects, some items do have their own. The only thing left would be 'vanishes when dropped' for some bundles. There's nothing else. MithTalk 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As you say, it's primarily the things that shouldn't be listed. But also the fragility thing and the skills. Backsword 19:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For all that don't see the need for a seperate {{Bundle infobox}} yet, take a look at the template, compare it with {{Item infobox}} and you'll notice how much bundles can differ from inventory items. Backsword and me also discussed here a bit about this, and he came up with the idea to change the color for interactive obects and use their color for bundles. That would seriously better i suppose. —ZerphaThe Improver 21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

subcategorization for Trophies

as the article's talk page seemingly remained undiscovered, i thought i point to this again here, also because i will (as mentioned on the talk) categorize all the icons, and want a nice arrangement for Category:Trophy icons before preceeding. —ZerphaThe Improver 21:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bundles

Bundles are mostly following this formating, bar the infobox, but one thing I've noticed is the section for where you can find it: it's bout 50 50 for "acquisation" vs "location". Should something be done? Backsword 06:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Salvage section?

I'm a recent convert to Official wiki, and I notice that some item pages have a 'Salvage' section (as well as the infobox), and some don't. Should it be in or out? I prefer it in, myself.

Examples with it in: Weaver Leg, Huge Jawbone.

Examples with it out: Abnormal Seed, Alpine Seed -- Elwynd 13:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(I tweaked your post so as to fix the broken links; you need to use the actual capitalization in-game to get the correct page).

The salvage section is currently optional. -- ab.er.rant 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - and thank you! Elwynd 16:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox params

I was thinking about adding two extra params, one for party points, the other for rarity. We do alcohol, so why not points? And rarity is one of those values everything has and tends to get noted in the text anyways. Opinions on this?Backsword 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

if we add party pts, why not sweet pts too? also, how do u plan to indicate rarity? by the colors it comes in or just by how often it drops? --VVong|BA 20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you could include sweets too, by the same logic. Backsword 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering about what you intend with rarity too. I see no issue with adding the party points and such. -- ab.er.rant 03:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean rarity in the common English meaning, but the offical ingame usage. Don't think the former is doable either, as creatures and chest have independents drop tables. Backsword 14:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It could work I guess. It does leave next to nothing to say for some of the intro text though :D -- ab.er.rant 06:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just implemented this. (bar any bugs). Two questions:

1. Left the colours at the default despite finding them much to bright, as I think people will want to have specific input here.
2. Didn't do any autocats, despite this being a quite suitabel setup. Anyone feels any specific ones are warranted?

Backsword 11:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Rearranging salvage research

I propose that we change the order in which salvage research columns are arranged. IMO it would be faster to add results if the fields followed the same order as the stat lines. In other words, rarity, base stats, req, HS, value. IMO skin should go before everything else, and material and amount should go after the stats since you don't get that information until it's too late to check the stats. IMO signature and timestamp should still go last. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Salvage Amounts

Is the number of possible items slavaged from a whatever supposed to be in the infobox? I swear I saw reverts for this in the past, (and I've done at least one myself, though that already had a note about slavage quantity that could be amended), but I've been noticing changes adding these being left alone lately and I've noticed the format appearing on a number of item pages.

Any thoughts? --Star Weaver 17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all items have fixed amounts of salvaged items. Almost all trophies have limited amounts (never more than 12, never more than 30, never less than 5, always 1, etc), but almost all monster armor depend on armor rating and all weapon drops depend on req, so with those it's very hard to add an amount. MithTalk 10:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To return to this slightly, is it considered required to include the salavge amounts or not? I'm curious to know, since the {{Item infobox}} has an autocat function that only works if salvage quantities are NOT listed--if quantities listed, then contains categories must be added manually.

Personally, it would be helpful to know if it will be acceptable to remove quantities when editting items pages (so that the autocat function can work properly), or leave the pages as is when salvage quantities are show.

on the other hand, could the {{Item infobox}} be updated to include additional fields, e.g. commonquantity / rarequantity to codify these values, thereby allowing autocats to work properly again... --BramStoker (talk, contribs) 12:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Drop Rate Research

I've just started contributing to drop rate research and was wondering if there would be any objection to me ordering the tables so that they display alphabetically by either the enemy that drops them or the location the drop was noted in. I'm asking about this as some of the longer lists can be a pain to look through to see if a particular enemy/location combo has already been listed. Personally if people agree I'd prefer to order the lists by the enemy that made the drop as this is the first piece of info (other than mode) thats listed. --Dakota 02:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking at a few more I think the best sorting would be by mode (N/H) then alphabetically by enemy and finally location--Dakota 03:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also would it make any sense to add a column for rarity (white, blue, Purple, gold), where appropriate (weapons, armour and salvage items) ignoring greens as they're unique and only drop from individual bosses anyway. --Dakota 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now started a new project for drop/salvage research and would like to get your views and opinions on it before progressing any futher. Dakota 12:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2 categories for items that contain Tempered Glass Vials

Should Category:Contains glass vial (created on 9 April 2007) or Category:Contains tempered glass (created on 6 May 2007) be deleted, since both categories cover the same thing? Note that Category:Drops tempered glass is the category that covers Tempered Glass Vial drops, but it has no pages in it. --Silver Edge 05:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Core

← moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Weapons#Core

Salvage table

Im confused with this template:

==Expert salvage research==
Expert salvage research for {{SUBST:PAGENAME}}
{| {{STDT}}
! Material || Amount || Signature
|-
| [[MATERIAL]] || Amount || ~~~~
|}

Because the original will need to be distinguished if it was collected in Normal Mode or Hard Mode as it will change the resulting number. And the kit type will depend on what the player has preferece at the time: the normal salvage kit for common materials and the Expert Salvage Kit/Perfect Salvage Kit for rare materials. I will refrain myself from incorporating this table to talk pages until I see some concensus. So please bring your opinions. Yoshida Keiji talk 04:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The assumption was always Expert Salvage Kit. The standard Salvage Kit was never a consideration since it cannot salvage rares. I actually never bother with standard kits. Perfect Salvage Kit is not for crafting materials. -- ab.er.rant 09:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay will remove from my mock up the kit column, what about "Loot Mode"?

==Salvage research (with [[Expert Salvage Kit|Expert Kit]] only)==
{| {{STDT}}
! Loot Mode || Material || Amount || Signature
|-
| ? || ? || ? || ?  
|-
| ? || ? || ? || ?  
|-
| ? || ? || ? || ?  
|}

Im about to incorporate this table to all Thophy talk pages and need concensus first, if accepted this STDT would also need to be included to the guideline formatting. Yoshida Keiji talk 07:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Syntax proporsal

==Acquisition==

<!--For items other than crafting materials, -->
<!--list all places or monsters where the item can be obtained. -->
* [[Campaign]]
** [[Region]]
*** [[Monster]]
''Drop and salvage research is ongoing, and can be found [[Talk:{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}#Drop research|here]].''

I want to propose we leave 2 line spaces for the link to talk page as it gets too close to the listing.

==Acquisition==

<!--For items other than crafting materials, -->
<!--list all places or monsters where the item can be obtained. -->
* [[Campaign]]
** [[Region]]
*** [[Monster]]


''Drop and salvage research is ongoing, and can be found [[Talk:{{SUBST:PAGENAME}}#Drop research|here]].''

Like this. Yoshida Keiji talk 08:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Updating syntax so that the research link is not miss-sighted as part of listing, this should improve chances for more contributions. Yoshida Keiji talk 11:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Drop research/Page template

→ moved from Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Drop research

I have found that some pages have this sub-pages but are not linked, thus hidden from the users that are not aware of this Project. Is it because it didn't gain acceptance or Project contributors failed usage? Yoshida Keiji talk 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Such as?.. show me some links. (You mean not on Category:Drop and salvage research right.) --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 14:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

For example: This category is listing Maguuma Mane/Research...BUT... if you double-check Maguuma Mane or its Talk:Maguuma_Mane... I don't understand how are irregular wiki contributors with less experience than myself will ever get awared of the Research page itself if it is NOT LINKED in its main page... a bit odd...I would say... LOL Yoshida Keiji talk 14:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Right. So you mean the /Research pages aren't linked from the Talk pages. I think thats ok in the cases of items with tiny (like 1 contributor with 1 reported foe drop) research pages - but yes if there is a decent sized research page (say it fills your monitor :p), then introduce a link by all means. I'd use the following text at the top of the page:

;For salvage and drop research, please use [[<pagename link>|this]] page.

Also english language lesson: "ever get awared of the research page" is incorrect - it should be "ever become aware of the research page" --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 14:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

HAHAHA I liked the English lesson, feel free to add more in talk pages and thanks. I was trying to say something different like: Since the Research pages are kinda "hidden", main pages should all link to Research because even myself after 6 months active as a regular contributor, had never been awared of their existance and so I believe may have happened with others, is happenning and will happen as they are not a "commom" page. And if pressing foward maybe "we" (if you are interested)...all ITEM pages should be updated with such research tables in blank state so that irregular users get awared of it as in "visual" and start adding their findings. I believe most pages are incomplete because nobody ever left a place where people would input their data. Yoshida Keiji talk 15:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I will start listing to give more examples in Alphabetical order (will exclude indentations):

• Talk:Abnormal_Seed needs bookkeeping update: it has Drop table with repeated input and the lasts have no author. Also the Salvage documentation is a topic and not under table format.

• Talk:Alpine Seed has data left outside of the table, apparently due to some disagreement.

• Talk:Amphibian Tongue has data within the table and also comments below, we don't need the last.

• Talk:Ancient Eye is the first example of what Im trying to say here. Somebody came with drop data but no table was there and the information turned to a comment instead.

Will be adding more examples above so here I leave my signature, Yoshida Keiji talk 15:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think we're going to get that many edits more on drop research on anything, the results we get are scant enough - so I'm not sure that adding blank tables will help. This is not really the kind of repetitive editing project I'm interested in - the ones I've started I've never finished. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 16:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

True, but an empty table is better than no page at all right? I'm pretty sure that if a newbie user sees an empty table (hopefully there's an example to show what they need to fill in), they're more likely to type something in, as opposed to be expecting them to create a drop research page, and then link to it from the item page. -- ab.er.rant 17:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. We can leave the first line with an example as a guidance too, cheers. Yoshida Keiji talk 17:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

How about like this?

==Drop research==
{| {{STDT}}
! Mode || Dropped by || Location || Signature
|-
| [[MODE (N/H)]] || [[MONSTER]] || [[LOCATION]] || [[Your Signature]] 
|-
| ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
| ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
| ? || ? || ? || ?
|}

==Salvage research==
{| {{STDT}}
! Loot Mode || Kit || Material || Amount || Signature
|-
| [[MODE (N/M)]] || [[NORMAL/EXPERT]] || [[MATERIAL]] || [[AMOUNT]] || [[Your Signature]]
|-
| ? || ? || ? || ? || ? 
|-
| ? || ? || ? || ? || ? 
|-
| ? || ? || ? || ? || ? 
|}

Yoshida Keiji talk 05:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's redundant to have two rows of titles. And linking those words will just cause people to create pages on [[MODE (N/M)]], [[NORMAL/EXPERT]], [[MATERIAL]], [[AMOUNT]], [[Your Signature]]. Mode has no affect on salvaging, since you can salvage in an outpost. See Talk:Ruby Daggers for example tables. Regarding your edit summary, admins cannot protect a portion of a page. --Silver Edge 05:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah...thanks for letting me know my mistakes and preventing them. In my experience the "Loot Mode" is important because I do FoWSC daily and I know that for example: Dark Remains collected in NM will give around 3 units of Dust... while Dark Remains collected in HM will give around 12 units of Dust. Yoshida Keiji talk 05:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I see this and understand that something is not good yet. Could you please: a) remove the column "complete" from the template, because it's almost non-informative, and b) provide a simple example of filled table on the page Guild_Wars_Wiki:Projects/Drop_research and/or on the template page? Then the table format would be much easier to evaluate and discuss if need. Thanks --Slavic 07:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

After editing it... I just realised it was a research page and not the talk page of the item, will be fussing them. Yoshida Keiji talk 07:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This is a clear example of why researches didn't advance as expected: Talk:Juvenile_Termite_Leg#Drop_research. Yoshida Keiji talk 11:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)