Deldrimor armor

I thought those were all done already, including the pieces using the common template. Why are they here? RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... so they wouldn't feel left out? >.> —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


I think the formatting for this page is more useful because it allows all armors in a column (which is usually a campaign) to be seen together when editing. No one should ever need to modify the table formatting after the page is set up, so I don't think the complexity is really an issue. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 22:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just unlike just about anything I've seen on this wiki. Just something to get used to, I guess. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG 00:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Ascalon, Krytan, and Tyrian armors are not core, but I guess they're fine where they are. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG 00:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I typically think of "core" as referring to "something that isn't specific to a single campaign," rather than "something available in all campaigns," and since those art styles are available in both Prophecies and Factions (with different names in Proph), I consider them "core" art styles. Meh, semantics. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 01:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
→ Continued at Talk:Core#Semantics

if (undyed != gray) {...

As I'm starting on this project, I'm finding that a LOT of galleries still have "undyed" images from before the Nightfall dye update that changed the default color for everything to gray. I've already deleted those images from a couple galleries, but now that I've looked ahead a bit and seen just how many there are like this, I'm thinking we don't need that many redlinks in our armor galleries. So should I...

  1. continue throwing out any "undyed" images that aren't gray, leaving hordes of redlinks, or
  2. reupload them as the new "gray" images, even though they aren't.

I'll put this project on hold for now until we can decide what to do about this. —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 19:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What we have here, in my eyes, is a choice between quality now or quality later. Reuploading the images as the new grey would definitely be a more smooth conversion. However,throwing out the old undyed images would give us redlinks, but allow us to make our information/images a better percentage of quality. Really a choice best made by those who work on the galleries the most. Rsz PLSig 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, their presence provides a contrast between two colors (old undyed and dyed) to show colorable areas. But, their presence also means less motivation for someone to upload the correct images, because "something is there already." I think I'd lean towards removing them for that reason. But, we have very few armor gallery contributors who can do it right without many wrongs first, so it's a tough choice... If you delete them, the red links may be there for a long time... What makes it more dangerous is the advent of GW2, which will probably shut down the contributions to this wiki to almost none. This is a do it now or never kind of thing. You can always make a note saying that those are "legacy" colors and are not true gray images and need to be replaced, but are there now to show colorable areas. Or, you can always move them to the new Color2 section, but that means no Component view at all. RoseOfKali RoseOfKaliSIG 17:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Good idea - I think I'll add a bit to the template to display a note like that for the ones that don't have true gray images. I will also make notes on the main Armor galleries project to indicate those galleries (stick a small Vial of Dye Gray next to the checkmark or something). —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 18:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Festival Hats

Not to add to the confusion, but is there a plan for the festival hats at all? I can and would update all of the male set (I suppose I could make a PvP char and do female as well), but I have no idea what template to use, and what to do about what is currently there. IMO with these, the "fun" pics taken at the event (such as conga lines) should be kept, but a consistent view should also be present. --GW-Blackdog 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering only a few of the hats(the only one I can think of is the wicked hat) look different on each gender, I think showing both would be kind of redundant. Maybe a special template for them, with the ones that can be dyed have a dyed view as well? Wanmoke 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of the Fest. Hats cannot be dyed, so they don't need a gallery.. When they can be dyed, there could be a dye gallery as on some Weapon pages (Reinforced_Defender par example). --- VipermagiSig-- (s)talkpage 21:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Use the {{Common armor art gallery}}. I just made a minor edit so it can generate a gender-neutral gallery, just leave out the Sex parameter. It'll give an "Overview" section for front/back/side views, then a short "Colorable areas" section that simply says, "This armor piece cannot be dyed." —Dr Ishmael Diablo the chicken 22:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Color parameter in armor art gallery‎ templates

Just to post a note in a central place, the Color parameter (when specified) is now rendered in all-lowercase. So regardless if called with "Color = blue" or "Color = Blue", it will still output as "Dyed blue". Too often, was seeing people having to make minor edits just to change the case, this way, it's done automagically. --Wolfie Wolfie sig (talk|contribs) 05:14, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA unless otherwise noted.