Template talk:HoM rewards nav

Uh...

...Do we really need this one? I'm not fond of big navs, and this is a rather big one. It also looks a bit ugly, it has no particular pattern (weapon types aren't together), it doesn't list all HoM rewards (titles?), it has some speculation (we're not sure if everything other than the Heritage Armor is actually armor or something similar to GW1's costumes), and so on. Erasculio 12:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I would keep it. And for another long (and incomplete) nav, see here. - Infinite - talk 12:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would rather delete both of those : P And keep the settlement one based on region or race. They are way too big and way too ugly; I doubt we would see such a demand to browse between the HoM item rewards, or between settlements that are both from different races and from different parts of the world. Erasculio 13:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I also feel that this nav serves a purpose, as for size, it had been brought up to make it expandable, but favour was chosen to leave it as is. In terms of there being a lack of titles, you are more then welcome to rename it to reflect items gained from the HoM. Whether or not some items are costumes or actual armor can be amended a ta later time. I beleive at this time it is referred o as armor because it goes in armor slots. Venom20 13:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"I also feel that this nav serves a purpose": uh, why?

"it had been brought up to make it expandable, but favour was chosen to leave it as is": where? Erasculio 13:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Hall of Monuments - Infinite - talk 14:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Armor means anything equipable in armor slots IMO (including the 4 standalone pieces). Why would we list titles? We are listing the item rewards; listing titles would just make it BIGGER. And what specifically do you mean by "weapon types" are together. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 15:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Pling for making it consistent with other navs. (Can't believe I didn't think of that.) - Infinite - talk 16:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This looks horrible, not needed at all. I think the HoM page is much better due to images. I say delete it. --Naut 17:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks, debatable. "Not needed at all", it is actually needed. - Infinite - talk 17:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "I think the HoM page is much better" This nav is not in replacement of an actual article. I do not understand where you are going with this comparison. The nav is to facilitate travel through HoM items. While I agree that perhaps the items themselves could be sorted in a different manor, I fail to see how this nav would be useless (or not needed). Would you mind elaborating? Venom20 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see any point in having both. It's just bulky and messy. The HoM pages itself is a lot of viewing through all the rewards with the images and the enlarged text. Adding navs everywhere just doesn't work in most cases >.> --Naut 18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

As example: I am on the Orange Tabby Cat article. I would like to compare miniatures from the HoM rewards. Without the nav: OTC --> HoM --> Whatever mini. With the nav: OTC --> Whatever mini with use of the nav. I just saved a page load. - Infinite - talk 18:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

On GWW we have armor galleries and armor nav bars, and those certainly aren't unnecessary. Same general concept IMO Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 20:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

After reading the discussion at the HoM rewards page... I still don't understand who are you people aiming this nav for. For the user who thinks "I want to browse between all HoM rewards to see what do I get and how many points I need for each thing", this template is incomplete since it doesn't show all HoM rewards (it lacks titles). For the user who thinks, "I want to see all the useful, non aesthetic thing I can get from the HoM", this template has too much stuff - it should not have titles, but then it should not have minipets as well since those are also only aesthetic.

Infinite mentioned an user who would like to compare two minipets. Right, that's feasible (although IMO that's not a good justification, but more on that below), but do you people really expect a reasonably high number of users to want to compare the Icelord's Diadem with the Mountaincall Warhorn? Or to compare the Red Servitor Golem with the Fellblade? Those comparisons don't really make sense; and browsing from one to the other would only make sense for someone who's looking all all HoM rewards, which again this template doesn't show.

There's also the argument of how this would make navigation easier. Yet, we have, including this template, three ways to navigate between the HoM rewards: the HoM page itself, the HoM category and now the navbox. Could someone please explain to me why do we need three different navigation systems for something as trivial as this? And while it is true that the navigation box allow users to skip a page, I have to strongly question if increasing the loading time for everyone who looks at those items would be worth increasing the navigation speed of the few users who would actually use this template; you could argue that the difference would be of milisseconds, but the time it takes to load the HoM rewards category isn't much higher than that in the first place.

And, of course, there's the matter of the increasing use of navboxes. Most people in this discussion were part of the Template_talk:AxeSkillNavBox, so you people should still remember how the community was torn about the use of navboxes at the time. The fact that none of these concerns was even mentioned at the discussion about implementing this navbar makes me extremely unhappy, as I know everyone here is wise enough to think of all those issues after a few seconds of consideration. It worries me how we are seeing implementation of big, ugly and redundant navboxes with the only justification being "why not?"; I wouldn't be surprised if in a few days someone proposes to make a navbox for all the weapons in the game, and the only question asked were "why not?" again.

So in less words, I think this template should be deleted, as it's unnecessary, redundant and detrimental to the wiki, both by its flaws and by the precedent it would create. Erasculio 20:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple counter-argument would be and is the fact that the Hall of Monuments has a wide variety of rewards which are argueably better sorted without a HoM category than with one (I don't think so, though). As for the nav, the big difference with the Axe skills nav is that the Hall of Monument rewards are one collected set of rewards, whereas Axe skills nav would depict complete stand-alone profession axe skills in one big nav. I am more in favour of adding the titles in the nav than I am in favour of removing this nav. Simply put, not all users know how to browse via categories, whilst a HoM nav is (more) obvious to such users and takes away the process of navigating back to HoM article to view the other rewards. - Infinite - talk 20:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This nav is hardly harmful to the wiki, as Erasculio says it is. When most people consider HoM rewards, they do not consider the titles (which would be incorrect). To many people, the rewards are the actual items. To this, I can only again suggest that you propose a better name if it is bothering you so much. Minipets are indeed items, as are costumes, but they are still items. So I believe you are attempting to stretch something that isn't there. You talk about an non-necessity to compare items. Many navs have this. For example, the book nav, are you comparing book 1 and book 2? really? a nav for 2 items? Oh wait, there's an art book, perhaps that's what you are comparing. How about the trailer nav, what purpose does that serve? navs are made for ease of navigation. There are indeed several ways to navigate the rewards, but even with the newly redesigned category system, it's still a pain and I know I won't be using it much. You argue that load times are increased now that the navs are added, this is true; however, it is still shorter than any page loaded with a graphic for each item. If you wouldn't mind pointing out the justification of "why not", I am failing to see it on the HoM talk page you were referring to. I don't beleive there was any why not justification. There was an idea put forth that a nav would be nice, then several people joined in. That's how a wiki should work. It should not be a 1-person or 2-person show. Not everyone will be pleased (obviously you are not). As Infinite has poited out, there is a huge difference between this nav and an axe nav. To say that no one considered the conversation that was had in august of 2010 is a blanket statement put over everyone who contributed to this and any nav recently created. Venom20 02:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, saying "most people think" or "many people say" isn't a good argument - I could say the opposite and we would end with no way to figure it out, since we don't know what most people think. So my reply, again, is that it doesn't really make sense to list only the item rewards - they are not all rewards neither only the "useful" ones.

If you think the book nav and the trailer nav are pointless, I would suggest discussing so at their own talk pages. I would join the discussion there, but I don't want to make the walls of text here even bigger by discussing other templates as well.

What I'm really curious about, though, is the statement: "There are indeed several ways to navigate the rewards, but even with the newly redesigned category system, it's still a pain and I know I won't be using it much" - why? It takes a single click to go to the HoM rewards category, where there's a list of rewards, not unlike the navbox. The category also makes the loading time issue mostly irrelevant - the navboxes may individually add less load time than a page with a graphic for each item, but the category does not have a graphic for each item. Between it and the HoM rewards article, we already have two simple and easy to use ways to navigate between the HoM rewards. Why do you think we need a third?

Regardless, what I know for a fact is that none of the concerns about navboxes mentioned at the axe nav talk page was even mentioned, much less replied to, at the talk page where this navbox was envisioned. That's not exactly something nice, as it shows that the very long discussion was pretty much ignored.

IMO, this template is detrimental to the wiki. If I were to add random big brown squares to some articles, it would be detrimental to the wiki; this navbox is pretty much the same thing, considering how it doesn't really add anything to the wiki beyond the features that were already here while increasing page load and adding visual pollution to articles. Erasculio 11:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I may be wrong Erasculio, but Venom's argument about the Trailer nav and Book nav is that, using your "this is useless" logic, there are many other navs that have significantly fewer functions, and, like this one, serve to act as additional ways of navigating throughout a set. On the topic of categories: Many new wiki editors or players who are just looking for information will find it quite difficult using categories. Categories are complex and IMO somewhat scary to new editors. (Again, I bring up the Armor set navs on GWW as a good example of how there are 3, but each is useful in its own way.) Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 12:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, the trailer and book navs have their own purposes. However, this isn't the talk page of those two, and I'm not going to enter into a long debate that would likely go into the minutiae of what is the point of those two other navs instead of focusing on how this nav is not useful.

Aqua, I believe the category system of GW1W is a big mess, which is part of the idea behind our project to change the category tree here. Brownsing between some areas of the wiki exclusively through categories is still going to be something complex (someone who wants to go from the Order of Whispers category to the Queen Jennah article is going to have a hard time). However, I honestly do not understand the complexity in using the HoM rewards category for brownsing. It's one single category; it links from every article linked in this nav; it links to every article linked in this nav. A new user would not have to navigate between categories - it's all within the same category page. It's literally one click between a HoM reward article and the list of all HoM rewards. I strongly disagree that we should accept the notion that new users would not be able to use such simple navigation system (otherwise, what is the point of categories in the first place?) or that we should use navboxes for something that has such a simple system in place, not to mention the HoM rewards article itself. Erasculio 12:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

New users (including myself, when I was new) have no idea how to even get to categories. You don't touch them. Yes it is available; is it user friendly? Absolutely not. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 12:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't navigate through categories there as easily as I can navigate it with its big, blown out-of-proportion navs and that wiki is still fine, if you ask me. Is this nav *really* that big? :) - Infinite - talk 12:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

See, that's exactly the kind of reasoning I want to avoid. It's one thing to say that the category system is too complex, or too hard to navigate, and so on; but in this case, it's the simplest category design possible (one single page with everything in this nav). So either we assume that users cannot use even the simplest category tree possible to navigate, or we agree that a navbox is the third navigation system for users, and so it doesn't really have much point. And if the simplest category tree possible is not useful for navigation... What is the point of categories at all?

In other words, what you people are using as your single argument is that the category system is useless, and so we should have navboxes for everything we want users to navigate through easily. I'm never going to agree with such argument; first because it leaves categories as something useless, second because it may be used as a reason to add navboxes to every single thing in the wiki. Erasculio 13:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

May I just remind you of our little project. I'm all for using Categories in a clear and structural fashion. But *we* (that is you and I) are not the standard for Wiki users, neither is anyone in this discussion. My argument for keeping the navigation box is to make it easier on "wikinoobs" to navigate different pages of the same type of article (in this case; HoM rewards). I know it isn't always the best "design-oriented" to have navigation boxes, but it is most definitely a big help to new users and non-users. - Infinite - talk 13:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Erasculio, I am not saying that categories are impossible to navigate if you understand them. But, this is a reference for GW2, random players will stop by for a check on HoM stats or a quest walkthrough or anything of that sort. These random players probably a) don't understand the category system and b) have no interest of learning something new just to find answers to in game questions. (Aka, pretty much what Infinite said). Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 13:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, it boils to the same thing. You two are saying that, despite the work we are doing to make the category system as simple as possible, categories by themselves are so complex that "the standard for Wiki users" (in other words, the users we make the wiki for) cannot use them for navigation. If you were true, what would be the point of even having categories, then? And if that were true, what's the reason for not adding navboxes for everything, since we want users to be able to navigate easily between wiki articles? Erasculio 13:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, not the nav box discussion again... I don't particularly find this nav box useful to be honest. There's no reason why we can't just link directly to the HoM article itself and say "go here for a list of rewards". The main article not only lists all of the items in numerical order, but they also link to each item and have a preview picture of them as well. If I was a new user, having them in numeric order with pictures will do me a lot of good. If the HoM article ever gets bigger, then you can split it, and it will be even more 'to the point'. (Xu Davella 13:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

(Edit conflict) It's a little *too* easy to use that logic in this argument, in my opinion; I'll elaborate. On this Wiki, we have TWO tasks ahead of us.

1 - We are to document Guild Wars 2, preferably exactly and completely, in a fashion that is both all-encompassing and orderly (that orderly part proves that the GWW is a joke to all wikis). A clear category system contributes to this to extreme degree.

2 - We are to create a Wiki that is easily navigated by ALL players (and non-players) who wish to use it. Some people may prefer category browsing to reach their desired pages, others may prefer navigation boxes where appropriate.

The big difference is that we don't have to have a nav for every type of article, but at most every type of in-game object. Armor sets navs are down-right enormous, but similar armor sets throughout armor classes (for example the sets sold in Shaemoor) could be tied together with a navigation box. It's not about making the wiki look pretty (of course, we might as well do that, too), it's all about making the wiki functional. Looks are opinions and opinions get us nowhere. Effectiveness is almost impossible to debate, because none of us have conclusive information about how users browse this or other wikis. In other words; until we know how every single user navigates, we need to account for all options and work accordingly. - Infinite - talk 13:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

" it doesn't show all HoM rewards (it lacks titles)" ... I just wanted to point out that the HoM rewads cat also does not have titles listed. Just wanted to make sure people were aware. Venom20 14:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Another reason it doesn't have titles is that there is no need to have an individualized page for each of the 10 HoM titles. How would we put that on a nav? Make an entire list just to link to a single page? I don't particularly like the idea. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 14:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

@Infinite: by that logic, what is the reason for us not to have a navbox for skills, one nabox for traits, one navbox for weapons, one navbox for armors, one navbox for titles and so on? Not listing some of those, but listing all of those per navbox? Erasculio 14:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Because article-long navs can't ever be justified. - Infinite - talk 14:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Why? Erasculio 14:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it is no longer a "navigation" box if it's longer than (or as long as) the actual article which encompasses eveything. And if that's what you're getting at for the Hall of Monuments, I would like to appoint that the HoM article is not all-encompassing in regards to the Hall of Monuments in Guild Wars 2. - Infinite - talk 14:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

A navbox listing all skills in the game would not be longer or as long as the skill list for the entire game; that's easy to see considering how our current lists of skills are bigger than the respective old navboxes for skills. So again, why not? Erasculio 14:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Quoting myself from earlier: "The big difference is that we don't have to have a nav for every type of article, but at most every type of in-game object." Yes, that implies a gigantic Armor nav, however that is not practical in any way. The game provides a few things on its own: Armor comparison with Better/Worse indication. It would be better to reflect such things on the wiki with a Comparison article or even a flash program than to put both pieces of armor (or every possible set) in one gigantic nav, containing all other pieces of armor. At one point navigation is no longer an aid but a nuisance. This is when we start to tie every article to another via navs. My proposal therefore is to have a nav for armor sets around the same level at most. As for skills, I am working on skill pages right now that encompass all 3 (or 5) skills per weapon per profession. That also obliterates the use of a nav. Last but not least; if a nav becomes too big for general oversight, we can safely assume it's no longer helpful. - Infinite - talk 15:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "Yes, that implies a gigantic Armor nav, however that is not practical in any way": see, that the gigantic armor nav is not practical is your opinion. As you mentioned above, "Looks are opinions and opinions get us nowhere". That's not an argument to not have those "gigantic Armor nav"s.
That's the flaw in your ("your" in the plural, not only Infinite) argument. More is not always better; you people can say that the drawbacks of navboxes are just opinions, not facts, but by ignoring the negative impact the navboxes have on the wiki (how they are ugly, how they add visual pollution to articles, how they are redundant with other simple systems, and so on), you are also destroying any argument to not have gigantic navboxes for everything.
Gigantic armor navboxes are not practical? This navbox is not practical. There is no way to say which navbox is "not practical" and which isn't through facts alone; there is no objective line to be drawn. I would rather remove this navbox than allow a scenario in which navboxes are added to everything since no one would be able to answer the simple question of "why not?". Erasculio 15:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Kay, so why is a HoM reward nav not practical? Because it gives a full overview of the item rewards from the Hall of Monuments? According to that logic the Ghastly Weapons nav can go also. As could every other nav. But then again, we'd be severely hampering user browsing. Where do you propose we draw the line? As per the gigantic armor nav not being practical; imagine the entire armor gallery in Guild Wars 1 and then at least 4-fold and put all of that in one single nav. It's not an opinion, the 800x600 resolutions are crying. - Infinite - talk 15:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"As per the gigantic armor nav not being practical; imagine the entire armor gallery in Guild Wars 1" - and since when a navbox is a gallery? Erasculio 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not think you required further elaboration: Only take the links from the galleries. - Infinite - talk 15:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

In other words, if we just take the GW1W armor navboxes and pile them up. Width wouldn't be a concern, and add an expandable function and they wouldn't even be visible unless people want to look at them. They would also add better navigation than just having a navbox for a single profession does. Again I ask, why not? Erasculio 15:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So instead of this back-and-forth questioning, you could've just asked "why not expandable". Go ahead. - Infinite - talk 15:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Expandable or not is not something I'm worried about. I'm just making it clear (again) so there is no doubt - you people cannot find a line to draw. Using your arguments, there is no reason to not add a navbox for everything on the wiki and fill most of our articles with gigantic navboxes. You cannot answer the "why not?" question. Erasculio 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Look, we *could* potentially fill it up with whatever we like, but that's not how a wiki works. Something gets added, is there for a while and at one points get contested. New consensus is to be reached at that point. By all means, we could discuss why and why not for hours/days/weeks/months, it'd just go nowhere and only minor changes to the template will be made (because we'll be looking for a new consensus). Currently, some users see the use for this template, wheras others do not. I am fine with making it less apparent (aka expandable option), but I do see the use of this nav in particular. I've used it myself even, as I wanted to compare the miniatures again (and their articles). I can't just give in to deleting something I see value in, but using a counterargument "why not make a nav for everything" just to win a discussion is not exactly improving the wiki (either). - Infinite - talk 15:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's also not how a wiki works. Precedent appears to be as valuable as gold around here - how often above has the argument "but we have navbox X or Y around" been mentioned? Just as this isn't the first discussion about navboxes (and the axe skill navboxes had its share of "why not?"s asked), I doubt it will be the last. If this template is implemented without much thought (because frankly that's how it was created, considering how all the issues pointed before were ignored), in the future navbox discussions someone will just say "look, we have the HoM rewards nav, why don't we make something bigger?".

In order to spare us the trouble in the future, and to avoid repeating this discussion from the very beginning (again), I suggest we draw a line regarding what we want navboxes for and what we doesn't, with some kind of argument behind it. Erasculio 16:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then; why is a HoM nav past the line? We have a HoM category. And a HoM Concept Art Gallery. It just feels in place to have a HoM nav (it's important enough, surely?). - Infinite - talk 16:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"why is a HoM nav past the line?" - we have to make a line first : P Erasculio 17:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) no, a line does not have to be made. This nav was created in the proper method. It was proposed, people added thoughts, people drew up designs (in their own sandboxes, not mainspace), no objects were had, nav was moved to mainspace. Each nav should be regarded as a separate idea. A line to determine what we need navs for an what we don't need navs for is not an idea that I could get behind. Each nav should be proposed and discussed. How many times is this "why not" question going to be suggested? It's a why question when a correct process goes on. This have wasn't just created for the sake of creating one, it was created to serve a purpose. Venom20 18:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Venom, you can't say both "Each nav should be regarded as a separate idea" and "Many navs have this. For example, the book nav, are you comparing book 1 and book 2? really? a nav for 2 items? Oh wait, there's an art book, perhaps that's what you are comparing. How about the trailer nav, what purpose does that serve?". Either you consider each nav idependently, or you continue to compare one with the other.

Regardless of which one you choose, though, I would rather not repeat the very long discussion from Template talk:AxeSkillNavBox every time we have to discuss a new navbox; do notice how many of your arguments could be copy and pasted between that discussion and this one, with the difference that this navbox manages to be even more useless than the axe skill navbox one. It would be better to discuss in a single place what the consensus is regarding navbox, and use that as a parameter for their creation and deletion. Erasculio 20:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I can say that and exactly mean it. Each nav's idea should be put forth; however, each nav should be similar in design so as to be standardized. Venom20 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not discussing the color of the navbox, I'm discussing the idea of implementing them or not. Unless you think the purpose of a navbox is part of its layout as opposed to part of its concept, I have a strong feeling that's what you meant as well. Erasculio 21:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have not read the whole discussion so I'll just comment on the first and last posts: I do not think that a size of a template is an issue. If it gets too big, then we can do what was done on the gw1w's historical and unimplemented content navs. That is, a collapsing feature. This template allows easy access between the HoM rewards - rather than having to go to the HoM page to go to each one or manually search it (the later not being possible if you don't know said rewards/spellings). Regarding the last comment: I'd have to say that the standardization in design should go two front: Those with an explicit and specific shared idea (example), and those with a general shared idea (example). The first being a title and a white box alone with the items (for the book nav example brought up - that should be reworked to this imo since all are books, while only 2 (soon 3) will be novels and 1 will be a book), the second being as this one is: A title, then divisions on the side to denote a more specific classifications. Regarding what a navbox should be implemented for: I'd say that they should be implemented for any series of articles (more than 5 preferably) that has a shared concept between them (i.e., the five "Storyline of..." articles on the gww), especially those which would not be immediately linked to all others of said shared concept without said template. -- Konig/talk 21:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Konig, you really should read the rest of the discussion : P Erasculio 21:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than that he pretty much nailed my ideas about this nav. - Infinite - talk 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about this issue a bit longer, I think we need to draw a line at how many other navigation tools are available for each subject: when a navbox is the third navigation tool, it's redundant to the point of not being necessary. We could then analyze the navboxes in the wiki:

• [[Template:Ghastly weapons nav]]: we have an article for the Ghastly weapons, but there is no “Ghastly weapons” category (which IMO shouldn't exist), so we could keep this nav (which is the reason why I don't think we need the category).
• Template:Trailer nav: there's a trailers category, but there is no Trailers article. Therefore, I think we should keep this nav (and since we have the nav and the category, I don't think we need a centralized article).
• Template:Playable races nav: there's the Playable races category, there is the Playble races article, so I don't think we really need this article. You people could argue, though, that the Playable races article is not readily reached from some of the races articles (I think the asura article does not link there, for example) and that the Playable races category is not easily reached from each racial article either (since people have to navigate through two categories to find it). I don't consider those two issues to be significant problems, but I would be willing to compromise due to them and keep this navbox.
• Template:HoM rewards nav: there's the HoM rewards article, which is easily reached from each item's page; there's the HoM rewards category, which is easily reached from each item's page and allows for simple navigation between the rewards. Thus, this navbox is redundant to an extreme and should be deleted.

Regarding the “some people like this navbox so we should keep it anyway” argument: uh, no. That's not how the wiki works. Want some examples? At the discussion regarding the main page, did we decide to make multiple main pages, each with a different design, since different people liked different designs and thus someone could have argued that we should have just kept them all? No. When discussing the skill infobox, did anyone ever suggest we make multiple copies of each skill article, using different skill infoboxes, so we could have designs everyone liked? No. Did someone suggest we should just use all designs in a single article, making them expandable so we could please everyone? No. We are not here to please everyone. We are here to, among other things, avoid unnecessary redundancy and that's exactly what this navbox is. Erasculio 11:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, I disagree with the Playable races category to the extreme. There is no reason for that category, the article alone is fine. If this nav goes down, I open fire on that category. :) All lame excuses aside: The HoM article WILL be expanded greatly after release. We documented about 10 maybe only 5 % of it now. The gallery of rewards there will be reduced to save space as well. The fact that the HoM rewards nav is efficient is not here and now, but there and then (lolquote), as it will help us rid the HoM article of that gallery, by plain linking to things and have interim navigation amongst the rewards themselves. This wiki treated the HoM rewards as special, so I'm treating this nav as an exception to the general "line" you wish to implement. - Infinite - talk 12:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

i have the catergory to ha--Icyyy Blue 13:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on many points. I feel strongly that this line should not be drawn up and that each nav should be considered as they are being proposed. As for redundancy, who is to say that a category is better? While I myself know where the categories are on each page, a wikinoob may not notice the links tucked away at the bottom. If this conversation is going towards cats vs navs again (as the aforementioned august 2010 discussion did), then I suppose I'll have to start in on that discussion on root. I have stayed out considerably because I know I won't be using the cat system; honestly, I dislike it (even if it's design is far superior to GWW's). Redundancy is not a bad thing. To have redundancy inside a single system (ie 2 cats that are essentially the same, or 2 navs that do the same task) is what would be a bad thing. I don't want to discuss the other navs mentioned, as era said himself, this is not the page for that. If you wish to discuss those other navs, please bring the discussions to the respected talk pages. In regards to making multiple main pages.... what now?! There can be only one main page, the main page. This example doesn't make any sense whatsoever please update your example. You know what, after reading the entire post again and your fascination with multiple copies of articles, I feel you have entered the realm of silly (by you, I mean your arguments, not you personally). Creating multiple copies of articles is akin to having multiple copies of a category or multiple copies of a single nav box, this is not akin to having redundancy between a nav and a cat. Unfortunately, as you have pointed out, we cannot please everyone. Many people prefer the navs, just as many people prefer the category system. Are you saying that people who prefer the navs are in a tough luck situation now because you think it is redundant (again, not you directly at era, but you in a plural sense)? Venom20 14:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I just re-read the entire thing and it boils down to this: The community, that is the participants in this discussion, essentially want one each. Why must ONE concept perish if BOTH are contested? Unless someone comes with clear evidence that this nav or the HoM rewards category is redundant and/or inefficient, both are going to stay. - Infinite - talk 14:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Infinite, that's not how we work. Again using the skill infobox as an example, do you think anyone would realistically suggest we solve the discussion between the traditional infobox and Locquay's one by just using both in every article? The same arguments made as to why navboxes don't clog a page could be used to justify adding both infoboxes, yet no one has suggested using both - we have accepted that, while some prefer one and some prefer the other, we are not going to please everyone. Is that saying "though luck" to some users? It's the only way to accomplish something. It's easy to turn your words around - Unless someone comes with clear evidence that the HoM article together with the HoM rewards category are not enough, this navbox is going to go. Erasculio 14:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The HoM rewards cat is redundant. The weapons should just go in their respective weapon types (as they already are). The minatures are in the HoM cat and the minature cat, both which are subcats of items. The HoM cat is incomplete, not only is it lacking the titles (apparently this was a big point of the initial conversation), but the category doesn't even list the heritage armors (which are 3/15 of the total item set). In short, the HoM nav is more complete and less redundant than the category. This isn't the place for me to start in on the category system, so I will end with just this last one. Again, I ask, why are we making duplicate pages of things? or having duplicate boxes in single articles? I don't understand what these mythical arguments have to do with anything. Are you trying to illustrate and example of redundancy? If so, it relates in no way to a discussion on navs vs cats (which IMO isn't a needed discussion anyways since both can co-exist). Venom20 15:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"Again using the skill infobox as an example, do you think anyone would realistically suggest we solve the discussion between the traditional infobox and Locquay's one by just using both in every article?" That logic doesn't even merit a serious response. Venom's logic beats Eras' logic by a mile. - - Infinite - talk 16:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

i say we keep it lol(:--Icyyy Blue 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Konig, you really should read the rest of the discussion : P" You'll have to forgive me for not reading a gigantic wall of text when my computer, for some reason, was having issues loading the page (I say for some reason because I can and could load 102kb pages with ease, and this was only in the 30s at the time of my posting). Again, I haven't had time to read the whole discussion (but from what occurred post my last comment, I've read most) but regarding what should and shouldn't... Regarding weapons and their sets - gww has a gallery, a category, and a nav for them, I do not want this. I would rather see the gallery and category merged; likewise, for this, I see no reason for a page to share them all, at most I see it as something for a redirect to the category and/or nav template. I'd like to use your (Era's) argument for the Trailer nav for what to do with all non-lore navboxes. A category (to act as a list) and a navbox is all that's needed; alternatively, however, if there's information that would be put down on a shared page so that it is more than a list (i.e., Elder Dragon). For the HoM rewards: IMO, I think that it is the category which can be removed, personally. The HoM page isn't a "HoM rewards" so much as the rewards is part of that page. The page doesn't hold the same purpose as the category, and the category - as Venom said - is incomplete (then again, so is the navbox, but the navbox is more complete). Effectively, IMO, Navbox>category>An article that's just a list or gallery - they share purposes (not 1 to 1 to 1 mind you), thus are not necesssary to have all, however navboxes require less article loading (you can go article to article rather than article to category to article), and categories are more obscure than navboxes; at the same time, categories can function as both a list and as a gallery (at the same time even), thus making a mainspace article pointless (as the items would be in that list anyways). I agree with Era that having three is pointless, I just disagree with which one of the three is the most redundant.
So to re-iterate my opinion on the primary purpose of this discussion: imo, it is the category which deserves deletion, not the HoM article (which should act as more than a mere list, thus holds the most value) nor the navbox (as it requires fewer page loading to go from one article to the next). -- Konig/talk 17:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"That logic doesn't even merit a serious response": it's a great comparison. In fact, I'm rather fond of it because it's the exact same thing; I hope I remember it the next time we have to discuss a navbox. But regardless, I agree with Konig and Venom's idea - let's delete the category and keep the navbox, then. At least we won't have so much redundancy. The navbox would have been better if it were expandable, though. Erasculio 19:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

To compare a navbox/category/article combination you used a mutually exclusive infobox example (as you said, only ONE infobox can go on the article, without being redundant). Your logic just stopped with that comparison. Just saying. - Infinite - talk 19:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree to deleting either the nav nor the cat. IMO, both should stay. Venom20 13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh... So saying "The HoM rewards cat is redundant. The weapons should just go in their respective weapon types (as they already are)" and "I disagree to deleting either the nav nor the cat" is not contradictory because...? Since you claimed weapons should just go in their respective types... Erasculio 15:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I might be mistaken in saying this, but Venom appears to be offering a medium as solution to this lengthy discussion. - Infinite - talk 16:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I had understood the same thing (the solution would be to delete the category, keep the nav and the article), until his latest remark, in which he appears to be taking his idea back. Regardless, I think that's a satisfactory solution. Erasculio 19:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I apologize about the obscurity of my last statement. Both the nav and the cat are redundant, personally I feel that the nav is less redundant though. My statements previously were to demonstrate that the nav is more complete than the cat. However, even though I fell that in this case a nav would be better than a cat, I don't feel that my opinions should penalize anyone still wishing to browse by category. In an ideal situation, I feel that the nav and the cat can co-exist in perfect redundancy (as long as the category is made slightly more complete ;)) Venom20 20:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Not reading the wall, sorry. Anyways, I agree with deletion of the category. And make the navbox expandable. Eive 22:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

No need to delete categories, where else would these go? But yes, the nav should be expandable. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 15:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea behind deleting HoM cat would be to put Weapons in their respective cats, armors in theirs, minis, etc. That wouldn't work if the weapons and armors are like costumes. We can't jump to conclusions so I say we keep cat and nav until conclusive information is released. - Infinite - talk 15:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the HoM rewards are already within their respective cats. It's also extremely unlikely that ArenaNet would create a new type of item specifically for the HoM rewards (for example, making the Heritage armor a costume and not making any other costume in the entire game), so it's a safe bet that all HoM rewards will have a category to be put into. Erasculio 11:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see the argument for keeping the cat, but imo, if such happens, it won't be a big deal to alter the articles' current category. And the HoM cat would still be redundant. -- Konig/talk 16:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)