Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs/Archive 4

Collector Items Profession

Just thought I'd suggest a small change to the present collectors pages. During the time I've been working on the All Collector Weapons pages, I've noticed that unless you know what attributes correspond to a profession it's sometimes difficult to know if a weapon is available to you; especially when first starting out with a new profession. Anyway my suggestion is that for collector lists can we add another small column to the left side which says what profession can use the weapon/item using the profession icons? The first example is our present layout and the second is my suggestion:

{| {{STDT}}
! Item || Stats || Requirement || [[Weapon bonus]]es || Value
|-
| [[Item]] || [[Energy]] +X <br> [[Damage type]]: X-X || X [[Attribute]] || List the modifications on the item with links to associated attributes || List the item's Value
|}

{| {{STDT}}
! colspan=2 | Item || Stats || Requirement || [[Weapon bonus]]es || Value
|-
| {{x}} || [[Item]] || [[Energy]] +X <br> [[Damage type]]: X-X || X [[Attribute]] || List the modifications on the item with links to associated attributes || List the item's Value
|}

Just wondering if this would be useful to include, I know it's a lot of work seeing as how we have so many collector pages but for people newer to the game it would be a great help. --Kakarot 22:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't like the fact that we would be telling people "Swords are only for warriors" etc. But maybe that's not such a big issue. - anja 22:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the attribute is already stated, there is no need for that. Each attribute corresponds only to one profession. MithranArkanere 00:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your example that swords aren't only for warriors Anja, couldn't the "requirement" also suggest that you need X attribute just to use a weapon also?

@Mithran - while it does already include the attribute, someone just starting as a new profession or even more so someone just starting the game wouldn't know that for example Communing is a Ritualist attribute or that Earth Prayers is a Dervish one and not Monk (seeing as 3 out of 4 of the Monk attributes are prayers). I know even though I've been playing Guild Wars for quite a while now, I had to check to make sure that the attribute was for the profession I thought it was while doing the lists mentioned in my first message. I just mentioned this because the wiki should be as easy as possible to use and also you shouldn't have to go to another page or even mutliple pages just to find out if you can use a weapon. --Kakarot 01:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When players look for an item in the collector lists, they look for items for its current character or heroes. For example, a player looking for a strength Shield for his warrior, or a Bow for his Jin hero. No one goes for getting something they won't use, and almost no one get collector items to trade with other players. So it doesn't matter if they don't know for which profession an attribute is, since they can use the attribute link to see that, and if they are looking for items for its own profession, they should know its attributes. MithranArkanere 01:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Not always, some people searching for what they can get for a certain collector item will search for said item and use the lists from there to see what they can get for it; since it also uses the collector items page. Also like I said, a person shouldn't have to go to another page to find out, a lot of people are viewing the wiki from in-game and this can often cause a lot of slowdown/lag or worse; both the game and the browser; so opening another page would only further worsen this. --Kakarot 01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But it does imply that as a necro, I shouldn't be getting a sword, despite the fact that I can use a sword (and that it could be quite fun to do so). I'm not sure about the potential confusion it might cause when you also take armor collectors into consideration. For armor collectors, the profession does mean that the armor use is restricted. -- ab.er.rant 06:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Everything is linked. You don't explain what a skeleton is in every single skeleton page, you explain it in the skeleton page and link it to the page of each skeleton. That is how this work. A collector that offers armor offers armors for professions, and collector that offers weapons and off-hand items offers them for attributes, not for professions. Players should get used to that. If they are planning to make a Curses build, they should look for Soul Reaping or Curses equipment, not just for necromancer equipment. MithranArkanere 14:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I would like to agree with Kakarot for potentially different reasons. First of all, the weaponsmith pages all include the icon, and as collectors and weaponsmiths serve much the same function I would like to see the two consistent in their presentation. Secondly, and probably less important, I believe it's the style of GWW in using icons and colors that really sets GWW apart from GuildWiki.

I would like to also say that I use collector weapons extensively, not just for heroes, but to create specialized weapon sets for my characters. I also do trade them, and I know several others that do as well.

My opinion of the argument that just because there is a warrior icon next to a sword, it's going to discourage a necro from getting that item is that whole line of reasoning is just silly. If you follow that line of reasoning, then all the listings of items by profession are just moot, and should not exist. It is just a way of organizing things, and any one with half a brain knows that any profession has the potential to wield any item. This is really a style question and I vote for promoting the style that GWW has developed.-- Wynthyst 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say you kinda convinced me there Wyn. Collectors and weaponsmiths should be consistent, and the icon does add some readability and design niceness. I don't feel strongly either way, but you have some good points. - anja 17:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I just say that there is no need to put a 'monk' next to a 'divine favor', since Divine Favor will link to its description, armors are linked profession because only headgear is related to attributes, but if you list the collector items just by attribute, you know the professions already, since there are no attributes that belong to two different professions. Sometimes redundant data may be necessary, but this is not the case. MithTalk 22:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise that we list the collector weapons by profession. I thought they were listed in the order they appear in-game? Regarding your statement that anyone with half a brain knows that any profession can use any weapon, try asking the huge number of players who come from those Chinese, Korean, and Japanese grind-fest MMOs and you'll realise that most of them has the idea that one profession/class = one type/group of weapons. Sure, they'll figure it out sooner or later, but why put in the possibility of a misunderstanding when it can be avoided? I still think an icon is unnecessary but if you think having a icon makes it more "GWW-esque", well, I'd rather you use weapon type icons rather than profession icons. Maybe just use generic-looking ones from Category:Weapon icons. -- ab.er.rant 00:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. then take them off the weaponsmith pages... I don't really care other than I would like to see some consistency, though imo it really IS the most striking difference between GWW and Guild Wiki, and one I would like to see promoted rather than squashed with hair brained ideas that an icon is going to discourage someone anymore than the word REQUIREMENT would. -- Wynthyst 03:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

A few notes. First off, there is the plain and simple fact that if you are not either primary or secondary in the profession of the requirement for a weapon, you aren't going to be able to use that weapon as effectively as someone who is. If someone doesn't understand how that works, they probably shouldn't be getting weapons that aren't designed for their primary or secondary profession. The only case I can see this arguement holding up for is for energy +5 swords, axes, and spears, which are used as much or more by various caster classes as by warriors and paragons. If you (or anyone, really) can come up with some sort of icon for these weapons that indicates their usefulness for the various caster classes, by all means, I think that would be useful for easily finding those weapons. For other weapons, I think having the associated profession icon is both visually appealing and easier for picking out what you're looking for. - Tanetris 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ab.er.rant, I agree with Kakarot et. al. too. Can we implement their suggestion and see if anybody complains about confusion later? —Tanaric 05:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To add to Wynthyst's last comment regarding the word requirement, this word suggests that you need the attribute to use the weapon, not that it's preferred that you have it to get full use of the weapon/item. While any profession can use any weapon in the game, if you don't meet the requirement it acts just like a starter weapon in relation to damage as well as other things. If the word requirement doesn't discourage people why would a simple icon?

Lastly I think having a consistant theme going with the weaponsmiths/collectors; as has been done with other lists including unique items; should be the way we have the wiki. --Kakarot 14:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"Requirement" is used because that word shows up in-game. But you're right, if an attribute requirement is fine, an icon is just more of the same. I still think a weapon type icon would be better than a profession icon, to differentiate from armor, but meh. I'm also find your (Wynthyst) strong desire to "differentiate" ourselves from GuildWiki a little baffling, considering most of our info came from GuildWiki. Anyway, since most everyone prefers having an icon instead of no icon, don't let me stop anything. -- ab.er.rant 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just an addendum about something I thought of on my talk page, regarding my suggestion for weapon icons, I'd like to point out that collector tables differ from weaponsmith tables in that not all collectors exchange weapons. What icons do we use for those? It would look oddly inconsistent if some collector tables don't have icons. Now (just throwing it out for discussion), what if we create a set of generic-looking icons to represent collector item types? Weapon icons, inventory item icon, consumable item icons, sweet tooth stuff icons, party animal stuff icons, etc... of course, it would need the help of the more "icon"-ically inclined users :) -- ab.er.rant 14:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And a second addendum, again for consistency, the weaponsmith tables should be changed to use these new icons instead... since the profession icon is basically repeating what is already stated by the attribute. Right? Seems like worth a try. -- ab.er.rant 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would go for that. Though I think using the 'any' profession icon for those non profession specific collector items would also work. -- Wynthyst 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken a selection of collectors and added the icons so you could see what it would look like here.-- Wynthyst 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the look of those Wyn, although the 'any' icon looks ok for non-profession specific weapons; as seen in early sections of the games; I think icons for other non-equipable items like food, bags, party items, etc would look better using their own new icon. Something similar in look and size to the profession icons but related to the items type could look good. --Kakarot 17:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I agree with Tanetris on this issue again, and would like to have an icon showing that a certain martial weapon might be a good choice for casters. --  (CoRrRan / talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think such a thing would be better off in a list or a guide, rather than trying to design a symbol to mean "melee weapon good for casters". -- ab.er.rant 02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) To weigh in on this discussion, I don't feel that weaponsmith or weapon collector subpages should include icons. The reason that icons are used on armor subpages is that if it was just a name, there is no other visual key to show what profession they are for (unless you mouse over a link or are familiar with profession ordering or armor stats). And they are also used because unlike weapons or other collector items, they cannot be forced cross-profession. Weapons already have their requirement stated. And as it has been stated above, any profession can use any weapon to maximum potential by raising their secondary profession attribute (true maximum would be extra armor penetration or critical hits from primary attributes). - BeX 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

And that's fine Bex, I was just noting that currently the weaponsmith pages DO have the profession icons, and the collectors don't. I just want some consistency. If we end up not using icons at all, but use other style elements, as in your examples below, that is fine with me as well. I would just like to see A) Consistency, and B) well thought out and appealing design to go with the well thought out and complete data. -- Wynthyst 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Collector/weaponsmith formatting

I worked on revamping the collecter subpages a few months ago, and now that there is some interest in it check out this page: User:BeXoR/Collector subpage. The css to preview it is in User:BeXoR/monobook.css. There are 4 types of NPC subpages there. If it looks interesting we can discuss adopting (aspects) of that. - BeX 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. I'm a relative noob at this. What is it I have to copy out of monobook, and where do I have to put it? And is it going to be required for others to see the page?-- Wynthyst 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You copy all the "table.blah" lines from Bex's css and put it in your own css, save it and hit Ctrl-F5, then go look at her collector subpage. -- ab.er.rant 03:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The styling will go into MediaWiki:common.css. There's some for the skill infobox and progression tables in there already. :) - BeX 05:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok... I like the first one.... the rainbow table is just right out of there imo. Again, I would like to see the collectors and weaponsmiths presented in the same way. I don't really care how we do it, whether it's with icons of some type, or with colors. Keeping any bright colors to the header row with the muted grey on the rest is good... not overpowering. Does the shade of orange on the header row match the color on the info box? I think that would be best from a design standpoint (can't help myself after years of webpage designing). This will also give some style to the Lists of Collectors I compiled, as they are simply lists of the subpages. -- Wynthyst 08:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the header row matches the infobox for the item type. I did this long ago based on existing precedent with no "requirement" colors for the weapons or other items (only for armor which cannot be used cross professions), but if it is decided to adopt that from the discussion above then it'll be easy enough to implement. - BeX 13:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've checked out your page Bex with the new css. I like the Weapon Collector one; although I still prefer having a profession icon; but would it look better with a slightly darker border (maybe #CCC or #BBB) and maybe center the headers as it is now? For the Armor Collector, I don't really like the rainbow background either, ever since I changed the All Collector Weapons pages from that to their present design it's looked a lot better to me. For the Item Collector it should have at the very least a border around the outside if not both the outside and inside as I mentioned above.

Overall I think it would look better if they all followed the same design to give continuity to the wiki. For the header colour it should use the same colour as the info box thingy for the person they are on, again for continuity. --Kakarot 14:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The border is the same color as the infobox - I tried to make the formatting as similar as possible. I'm confused about changing "from that" to what the pages use now. The pages never used that formatting. o_O The item collector does have a border around it, and you didn't mention borders before (apart from the color?).

They all do follow the same design. The reason one uses colours and icons is because they cannot be forced across professions and because that is the way the current pages are formatted (apart from the colours). I chose to use the infobox color of the items represented, because the pages are used on trophy pages as well and because they are about the items, not the NPC. - BeX 15:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the profession icons are appropriate for the armor collectors, just not the colors. I would rather see them on a grey background for consistency. I think setting up the tables with the same colors/borders as the info box will maintain a consistent design theme for the individual pages. I am looking into creating/getting created a set of icons representing the item classes to possibly use on the collectors/weaponsmith tables, since that's what we were talking about earlier in the discussion. -- Wynthyst 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Bex I meant the header labels centered as it is now, guess it was a little confusing the way I wrote it lol. For the darker border (#CCC or #BBB) it was for the inside although it's not really neccessary. Also I agree they should use the item colour rather than the NPC because as you say they are about the items not the person. Is the Item Collectors border the same colour as the background because at the moment I don't see a border on it? --Kakarot 01:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It shows fine for me. :/ That's why I was confused. Centering I don't really mind either way. And for the icon thing, must we have icons? They are used for a specific purpose with the armor - a purpose that doesnt exist for the other items. It seems unecessary to have pictures all over the place when they provide little or no added information... - BeX 02:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW I will change the page when I get a little more feedback. :) - BeX 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I took the liberty of duplicating Bex's page and adding in some icons here for comparisons. -- ab.er.rant 02:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that aber. :) If we use icons for everything, does that mean we'll use inventory icons for armor as well, for consistency? - BeX 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I believe the icons give it a visual boost, and would be happy with using type, or class icons rather than profession icons, but I also wouldn't have a problem being in full agreement to doing without in these designs. I do believe the profession icons should be included on armor collector pages one way or another. -- Wynthyst 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the prof icons for armor collector tables need to stay, especially if we drop the background profession colors. Would it look weird to have two columns for icons? Or we could shift the prof icon into the same column as the armor piece name. -- ab.er.rant 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just use profession icons only for profession restricted material and leave it at that. :P - BeX 06:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'll go for that. Only necromancers can use the Necromancer Tyrian armor, but not only necromancers can use a Curses staff. You don't even need any points in Curses attribute to effectively use a curses staff if you just need the energy and it has no curses-linked properties. MithTalk 09:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just discovered what could be a design problem with this whole idea :( The collector table pages are also included on the trophy pages, which have a different color scheme. Could make for some bad color clashes. -- Wynthyst 14:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The header color is not there to match stuff, it's there to signify what type of content is displayed in the table. That isn't affected by the pages it is used on. - BeX 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, then I guess my previous question "Does the shade of orange on the header row match the color on the info box?" should have been, "Which info box does the header row match?" Since these tables appear on multiple pages, the whole color scheme thing is kind of out the window, and imo, we are back to finding some other style options. Creating pages that are going to nauseate people with clashing colors of orange is not my idea of good design planning. -- Wynthyst 06:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Having two or three different colours on a page isn't going to nauseate anyone. There are plenty of colorful pages on the wiki already. How is having similar shades of one colour any more nauseating than having 10 different contrasting colours? - BeX 07:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's all a matter of personal choice. I don't see the orange used on the collector tables in your option as working at all with the golden color on the trophy infobox, and I now understand the armor collectors are going to have yet another color that imo is even worse with the trophy color. As far as not nauseating people, there are several pages on which the introduction of extremely incompatible colors have made them virtually unusable for me already, the ranger armor pages for example. So I guess speaking for myself, now that I have a better understanding of where and how these various tables need to interact with other elements, I can't support the use of the color mixes that have been proposed in your design. -- Wynthyst 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Infoboxes#Existing_color_schemes. The colors serve a purpose, other than making things "look good". To make everything match just so it would look better seems wrong to me. The world isn't colour coordinated. It can't hurt to look at a page and have two different colours on it. - BeX 09:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I understand the colors have meanings Bex, and that's fine, all I'm saying is I personally can't support it, just as I would not have supported many of the color choices to begin with had I been here at the time they were made, which I wasn't. And yes... it does hurt me to look at pages that have colors that are incompatible. -- Wynthyst 09:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have said anything if there was an accessibility problem, or if the information was obscured, but your problem wasn't that it was unclear, or misinformative, but that you didn't like that the colours didn't match. To completely write off a proposal because of one thin bar of color, that potentially may be used on a page with a thin bar of a slightly different shade of the same colour, is something. o_O And use of colour is one of the things that sets this wiki apart from others, something I thought you would appreciate. - BeX 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Bex, there is a certain visual element to the wiki just because of the fact it is displayed as a graphical user interface.... and yes, I do really appreciate the fact that GWW has adopted a more colorful style than GW. And I understand that all the colors used have meaning. I'm just saying there is really no reason we have to abandon aesthetics for content in all cases. I'm also not saying that you have to scrap your proposal... I am just saying I personally can't support it, so I will remove myself from the discussion, and continue to look for alternatives which I will propose later. That's the other wonderful thing about the wiki... with consensus as an ever changing beast, nothing is ever written in stone. -- Wynthyst 11:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, is there any way on a wiki; maybe something in templates although based on what I know about them I doubt they can; to make the header colour of these tables use the colour from the actual page they appear on rather than a set colour? If it's possible then it would solve the problem Wyn mentioned. --Kakarot 14:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I already have a solution about that already but it didn't seem elegant. They're all in the main namespace, and there's no identifiable pattern in the article name. The simplest way would be to just add an additional parameter for the color. Of course, DPL can solve it, but I think using DPL for this is overkill. -- ab.er.rant 18:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox and hard mode levels

Due to hard mode, the infobox can get pretty messy for creatures with a broad level range. I suggest one line for each hard mode level, with a separate line for levels with an unknown hard mode counterpart or no hard mode counterpant (pre-searing, bonus mission pack etc.). For example, for Krait Neoss, the level entry would be 18, 19 (25)<br>20, 21, 22, 23 (26), while for a Risen Ashen Hulk, the level entry would be 24 (26)<br>28 (30), and for Corsair Raider, it would be 8 (23)<br>10<br>15 (25). -- Gordon Ecker 08:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good! poke | talk 08:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes it alot clearer, I like it. :) - anja 11:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Neat. — ク Eloc 貢 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Hard mode levels are unnecessary... is there any creature that do not follow the rule 0..28..30 ->20..30..32? If all creatures follow the rule, we can just add in the Level page, linked in the Infobox, a table with the matching levels. MithranArkanere 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sand Giants and Snow Wurms. -- Gordon Ecker 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Never knew there was a rule to it =S — ク Eloc 貢 15:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, usually, it's:

NM	HM
0..2	22
3..9	23
10..14	24
15..19	25
20..24	26
25..26	28
27..28	30
29..31	Special

But I've been searching different family pages and there are some more exceptions (specially in Factions and Prophecies). At least most level 20, 24 and 28 creatures follow the rule. If there were a few exceptions they could be set generically, then noted the exceptions in he note, but since there are more than 5, let's keep noting all levels. MithranArkanere 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a table in the Hard Mode article. I haven't been able to find any non-boss level 25 monsters, and all the level 26 monsters seem to be upgraded to level 30. -- Gordon Ecker 03:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Boss maps

If there exists a map that marks the location of all the bosses in a particular area, such as Image:Sunqua Vale bosses map.jpg, do people consider it redundant for all the bosses in that explorable to have individual maps that show the path to that boss? Is it better to retain the maps with the red-dotted paths for each individual boss, or is it better to have all the bosses in one area share one map? I'm leaning towards the latter (and have done such before) but I'm curious to what others think. -- ab.er.rant 13:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's redundant, but sometimes people just go for a boss, and look only the boss page, and sometimes people go to vanquish an area, and want to know where the bosses are, and go to the area map. The big deal comes when their spawn points are random and/or they may appear in different areas, so it's not the very same info in both pages. With the maps in both places, you can see in a glance where a certain boss may spawn, and where the bosses may be in both pages. If it where something that it's always the same, like descriptions about professions or skills, it would really be redundant to add them in the page, since players only need to seem those things once. On top of that, area boss maps show only where the bosses are, while Boss maps show possible routes from different outposts. If the boss map do not show any routes, and only the position, then I think it could be replaced for one that does. MithranArkanere 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, those routes are really helpful when trying to track down bosses. It may not make a big difference in Sunqua Vale, but Morostav Trail is a bit trickier, for example. The labels on the (overview) map hides the paths and details, making it less optimal for finding a specific boss. - anja 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

iawtc. - BeX 03:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wohkay :) keep the paths then. -- ab.er.rant 03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The labelled maps are prettier but less informative. :( - BeX 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

See Also

Could we add a == See Also == to the formatting? — ク Eloc 貢 02:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Not having it in the guidelines doesn't mean you can't put it in. And it's not applicable to most NPCs so I think it's probably not common enough to warrant being put into the guidelines. -- ab.er.rant 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

NPC maps

The guidleine says to provide maps for noteworthy NPCs such as bosses, but I am encountering a lot of normal creature pages that have the map needed template added. Since in most cases this would require about 25 or so maps, can I remove that template from non-boss enemy NPCs that are not unique? (I would obviously not remove the template from a page like Rotscale) Mohnzh say what? 14:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, go ahead. Wonder how the tag ended up on those articles.. - anja 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds weird. But as long as a normal image is there, it's fine. poke | talk 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Eloc went around adding them. Was wondering why. Backsword 04:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. — ク Eloc 貢 16:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Monster skill icons

"Monster skills that use the generic monster skill icon () should use {{monster skill icon}} instead."

Shouldn't this apply to all monster skills? poke | talk 17:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lava Ground is a monster skill not using that icon. So no, if I understand what you're asking right. Calor 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he means it should be changed to apply to all monster skills, since it also provides the nifty (monster skill) after the name. And still shows the real icon :) - anja 22:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The template was made to try to get the skill icon from the name and uses the normal monster skill when there is no explicit skill icon set. The guideline currently says that for those monster skills, which have a custom icon, the normal skill template should be used; but to me that doesn't make any sense. poke | talk 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it didn't make any sense to me either, so I never really bothered with it. I agree that it should be applied to all non-player skills. -- ab.er.rant 02:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd much prefer uploding the icon, as that allows redirecting it to the skill. If anything, we should stop using it at all. Backsword 04:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

using what at all? poke | talk 10:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess this template Poke, we could also use a modified simplified version of the navimg template in that monster skill template to redirect the icon to the correct page, have it a set size and the only thing that would be changeable would be the link which would be based on the skill name that the user entered. This way those that use the default icon wouldn't need a seperate image and would still redirect to the skills article. --Kakarot 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason we use the monster skill icon is also the "(monster skill)" which is applied. poke | talk 14:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The monster skill template uses the uploaded icon when it is available, and almost all our monster skills do have the generic icon uploaded with their unique name since that's how the infobox works. The real reason I want to use this template for all monster skills is the nifty and simple addition of (monster skill), and that it is easy to do new features, like categories and lists, if we separate monster skills and other skills. - anja 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So, does this mean that the actual text will be changed to include all moster skills? --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then. Are Formatting pages appropriate for which to request change as per GWW:POLICY? Seems that the agreement is that this should be used for all monster skills, since it works for all icons. --Chaiyo Kaldor talk contribs 15:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Attributes

I recently noticed that some NPCs & Foes pages has attributes listed, but at the moment it looks kinda messy in my opinion. Can we have a policy about the formatting of attributes for those pages? --MageMontu 10:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've bee thinking about that, and I guess the choice is been selfexplanatory implementation and 'clean&quick' information gathering.

I was thinking of adding something to the NPC infobox --MageMontu 10:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd think attributes makes most sense together with the skills they affect. Backsword 10:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? You mean something like

• Glowing Gaze (16 Fire Magic)
• Immolate (16 Fire Magic)
• Liquid Flame (16 Fire Magic)
• Searing Flames (elite) (16 Fire Magic) --MageMontu 20:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he says something more like this:

• 16 Fire Magic
• Glowing Gaze
• Immolate
• Liquid Flame
• Searing Flames (elite)
• 12 Energy Storage
• Glyph of Lesser Energy.

But I'll go for the way it's show in the skills and attributes panel when you are under the Bonus Mission Pack disguises. Like this:

• Attributes

  16 Fire Magic

  12 Energy Storage

• Skills

  Glowing Gaze

  Immolate

  Liquid Flame

  Searing Flames (elite)

  Glyph of Lesser Energy.

Like that. MithTalk 21:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying the infobox is not a good place, as it's too far from the skills. Context, yknow. Backsword 10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks more organized Mith but since we have Hard Mode I think it should be something like this

• Attributes

• Normal Mode

• 16 Fire Magic
• 12 Energy Storage

• Hard Mode

• 20 Fire Magic
• 15 Energy Storage

• Skills

• Glowing Gaze
• Immolate
• Liquid Flame
• Searing Flames (elite)
• Glyph of Lesser Energy.

What do you think? --MageMontu 21:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Certain NPCs have a largely different set of skills for hard mode, so it would be best to keep the attributes and skills of a particular mode close together (e.g. Afflicted Mesmer). The way it's currently done is that if there is not separate section for levels or hard mode, the level or mode indication would be done in parentheses (eg. Awakened Defiler). It would be nice to have a better more structured format though, preferably without having to specifically say "Attributes", since it would be pretty redundant. -- ab.er.rant 02:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Side question, what do you mean? According to Afflicted Mesmer, the skill sets are identical, which is not what I'd consider "largely different". Backsword 10:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't look closely. I was just "random-paging" around to look for that specific formatting (the subsections for the modes and levels) for an example. -- ab.er.rant 05:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)