Item talk:Mournlode Armors

Pictures
Hey, do not you guys thinks it would be good to have PICTURES of those armors?

I think it would be good. But, I do not want to make an account here to upload pictures. Not just yet. 87.228.59.6 06:44, April 14, 2012 (EDT)
 * Would be great to have pictures of the armor. But being I don't own most of the armors, it's tough to get screen-shots of em. I encourage you to re-consider creating an account and contributing. It takes all of 30 seconds to sign up. Zero personal information is required, nor even a valid email is required, you may make one up - email confirmation is optional and can unlock additional privileges, though nothing really relevant (lets you edit maybe 2 locked pages on the wiki, nothing related to uploading files - anyone registered may do that). --Shade (Contributions &bull; Message) 07:30, April 14, 2012 (EDT)
 * I second what said.  It's as simple as picking a user name, password, entering the same type of CAPTCHA you had to enter to make this post, and you are done.  Further-more, uploads count as edits, and when you near 100 edits, the requirement to enter the CAPTCHA security codes goes away. -- ShoeMaker (Contributions &bull; Message) 10:26, April 14, 2012 (EDT)

Item versioning policy
I was about to create pages for the docent, then I realized I'm not sure how to handle the several variations of this item group. In order to expand on the pattern established by similar groups (say, Swashbuckler), I believe I should create 20 pages (4 armor types times 5 levels). That sounds odd but doable, but then how should I link the individual pages to the group list? Is there any previous example of this? Aldyron (Contributions • Message) 20:49, September 23, 2013 (EDT)
 * My opinion is that Cavalry_Plate is as good an example of an ideal format. An item page for each version of the item, and a non-item page listing information about all versions of the item.
 * Separating out the different versions of the item is good because it allows for instances where a different version has different properties, like Item:Cavalry_Plate_(Level_16) that is medium armor, and Item:Cavalry_Plate_(Level_12) that is heavy armor.
 * *Disclaimer : I have suggested this in the past, but have gotten some opposition due to the work involved in creating / maintaining different versions though.


 * Yes, I'm good with that.

Mournlode Armors are more complicated, though. Imagine we had Cavalry Plate, Cavalry Breastplate, Cavalry Chain and Cavalry Docent, all with the same special abilities (with some exceptions), each with its own basic item properties. More or less, that's what happens with Mournlode Armors.

So now I'm thinking about 4 Cavalry Plate-like tables, one for each basic armor type; or 1 larger table with all basic armor types, which would have 4 lines (the 4 armor types) for each tier of each level.

Either way, I'm worried about readability first and maintainability second.

What do you think? Aldyron (Contributions • Message) 04:51, September 24, 2013 (EDT)



You know, I think too much. For once, I can't see the trees for the forest.

I'll start by putting up pages for the individual docents first (because I have pics of the docent), which is something I'd have to do anyway. Then I'll see about the other armor types.

And then we'll see how to bind them together. Aldyron (Contributions • Message) 04:56, September 24, 2013 (EDT)