Talk:Zodiac Light Armor Skin

Why Two Pages

Zodiac armor (light) and Zodiac Light Armor Skin? Same for the medium and heavy skin, I'm a bit confused why there are two when it seems these two are the same things, unless I'm misunderstanding something. - Do_odleplex 18:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue is the pages are a bit *too* similar. One is the container you would get from the gemstore itself upon purchase, the other is the skin item that you could double click to equip (If I recall properly this was before wardrobe existed, so you needed a permanent item). -Darqam (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. The gallery and armor nav should be removed then, because this a page for the container, and not the armor, correct? - Do_odleplex 18:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. SarielV 18:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I poked around a bit, and it seems like all of the containers like this (Category:Gem Store armor sets) and their respective armor sets have the same set up, so it should be done to all of them. Lol, all I wanted to do was find if it had an interwiki, and bam. xD - Do_odleplex 19:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "The gallery and armor nav should be removed then, because this a page for the container, and not the armor, correct?" — technically and for the sake of consistency, yes, but I'd prefer it if we stuck to how it is currently since the Gem Store pages link to the container boxes, so having the galleries and the preview codes on the pages would be nice. It's all just a matter of convenience. Keeping the armour nav is debatable, but I'd probably leave it, too, once more for convenience and ease of navigating. Players are lazy after all. ;) talk 19:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, users can be lazy, and yes it does make it look pretty, but having the two pages look so similar is just a bit too confusing. If I got confused, I can only imagine how an anonymous user might feel. The preview codes should be removed(already on the armor page, and part of why I got confused) and perhaps the nav could be changed from the armor one for a Gem store armors navigation instead(of which would need to be created). I'm not a fan of the gallery being here, but what if it only showed the front so it was smaller and looked less like the armor page, but still made this page pretty? - Do_odleplex 20:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... considering these armour sets are the last of its kind (since there will not be any more armours sold in the Gem Store), this is almost not worth the trouble. I'm actually pretty torn in this case. On the one hand I'd like to keep the functionality of the pages as they are right now intact (and ideally, a user comes across either this page or the armour-specific page at one time, neither both at once nor consecutively, i.e. a visitor might not be aware that both pages exist), and a sudden change might be even more confusing; on the other hand, the container page should look like this, but it'd be awkward to include the armour page, i.e. Zodiac armor (light), considering the container does not directly unlock the set but single pieces.

Ultimately, since no information is missing and there were no complaints so far, I'm doubting whether there are any merits to gain by stripping the pages, since the time and effort required to do so may outweigh the possible profits (particularly if we want to add a special nav and break apart the gallery template).

Might be worth a shot to ask non-editors though, since they're the target audience. talk 09:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Gut instinct on this one is to remove any armor navs from the "container" pages. If we're duplicating the information we should probably keep players to the side they started on, i.e. a player visiting a container page shouldn't be directed to the gallery only pages.

In addition to removing armor navs from container pages, I'd be tempted to replace the galleries on the container pages with {{main}} linking to the armor set page. basically this -Chieftain Alex 17:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

^ Exactly what I had in mind. We can still link the two articles together using tl main, but gallery repetition should be avoided in this case. Having galleries on a container page doesn't feel right to me. —Ventriloquist 18:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I prefer the previous structure of the page(s), but well, that's just me. If we're going to do it properly though, the preview codes and the gallery header need to go, too. The primary article link could be moved to the content section. talk 18:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I tossed up the chat links while reorganizing many pages. Willing to bet I got turned around with which page I was on, or I became infatuated with the templates I had Alex make for me at the time. I'm all for removing the two portions and keeping the preview codes on the armour overview page. G R E E N E R 07:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)