Category talk:Equipment Images

Question, maybe based on my ignorance. Or not.
I notice both Category:Cosmetic Images‎ and Category:Armour Images‎ within this category. Why that distinction? Cannot any armour piece be added to the cosmetic slots? Or is there a distinction between the two categories that should be explained at their pages respectively?
-- Zimoon (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Cosmetic-only equipment vs actual equipment with stats? Seems like the only difference there could be, don't know if its the case here. Sounds rather pointless since anything can be added to cosmetic slots, but if you consider the level requirement/different equipment proficiencies (heavy/medium/light), not really, or not much.

--Gwenwyfar (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

You must be able to equip an item before you can use it as a cosmetic item. You must meet the minimum level requirement, and you must be able to use that type of equipment. A level 10 character may not cosmetically equip a min level 20 item, nor can a hunter, who can wear light and medium armour, equip a piece of heavy armour cosmetically.

Note that there are two techniques for cosmetically equipping items.

1. The original, simplest way, is to drag an item from inventory to a cosmetic slot. The item remains in inventory, only the appearance of the item is copied to the cosmetic slot.
2. The second method is to drag an item from your wardrobe to a cosmetic slot. I am not sure that all the restrictions on the original item are applied when copying a saved appearance from the wardrobe to the cosmetic slot. I believe I have been able to bypass faction reputation requirements this way, but that may have been a bug.

-- RingTailCat (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

RTC, you are talking about the items, I am talking about images. I fully understand level limitations on items. But I do not understand how that limitation applies to images. Perhaps the two categories should be merged into a "Category:Clothing Images" (or some better name)?? Today, it will not take you long to find an armour item which image is in the cosmetic category. I am not so sure about the other way around.

The original question regarding images is: Why the distinction?

Now I add: Does the distinction make sense or should it be wasted?
-- Zimoon (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

As I recall (not having been on the game since the 10th), the wardrobe has a drop down for cosmetic item types. I recall there are several armour types, plus several pure cosmetic types in that drop down list. I think that folds all (i.e, light, medium and heavy) leggings into a single category. I believe the armour imagery is similar to armour icons. Many different items share the same icon or image. I thought we already had categories for these images, just like we do for icons.

All my toons wear cosmetically equipped items, but I find most of the armour somewhat ugly, especially the heavy armour, so I have not paid too much attention to it. The only armour items I use are a few hats and capes.

I'm guessing that we have a new editor who is not familiar with the existing categorization. Sharing some more information about how armour images are handled now (with the new editor), might mean that we don't need a whole lot of new pages or categories. Perhaps links to some examples and current images would help clarify this.

I noticed, as well, that many of those new pages were named in a way that might confuse them with a namespace called "Cosmetics:". These pages appear to accommodate some addition classification information that is not present on the existing armour image pages. I do like the pages that have front, side and back views of costumes; a view from one angle is not enough when the whole point of cosmetic equipment is its appearance.

- RingTailCat (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

The different categories armour versus cosmetics existed long before, created by Rogue in 2008. I am asking for the underlying reason for having two image categories.

Feel free to approach her at her talk-page. I am uncertain whether she has upload new images or if she is just adding extra info for them, linking to existing item page(s). The extra info seems nice, the format is lean but conveys everything. Let us see :)

I noticed that name-with-colon thing too. Perhaps we should move to "Cosmetic - X" before we get too much of a backlog if we do that later? Everything considered though, it is a good idea, well worth commending.
-- Zimoon (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

About the separation of the two categories, I assume, along with everyone else who has spoken up, that the original idea was to distinguish between images from purely cosmetic items and images from statted armour items. But I'm also dubious about the necessity of keeping these separated now. An update a while ago took away all the restrictions on the wardrobe, so I can drop in any piece of armour and wear it cosmetically on any of my characters, no matter whether any of them can use that armour type, or have the correct reputation, or are of the correct class, or anything.

The only restriction now is that some character has to be able to have it in inventory in order to transport it to the wardrobe - some items have been placed on barterers that only a specific class is able to speak with, or in the Ettenmoors where non-VIP freeps cannot go, or cannot even be purchased until the correct prereqs have been met. Also, of course, if a person doesn't have any wardrobe space available, he'll have to go through the old process of equipping the item first and then moving it to a cosmetic slot. Other than those exceptions, any armour image is always a potential cosmetic image.

All that being said, the wardrobe does still keep the distinction in its categorization. Cosmetic head pieces are sorted separately from armour head pieces, even though in the wardrobe there is absolutely no difference between them. Many times I have wished they would change this. -- Elinnea (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

I think folks are missing the point completely. Looking at the contents of the two categories, I believe that what was being accumulated was an equivalent to Darzil's Armour guide [1]. Prior to 2008, there was no such thing as "Cosmetic" Armour, it was added with Book 12 in February of 2008, and it was pretty limited. The Wardrobe itself was not added to the game until VIII Book 2 - September 2010 developer-diary-wardrobe-system Which happens to answer RTCs question above.

"The image above shows a low level alternate character wearing an outfit normally requiring ally standing with the Elves of Rivendell. The character can use this outfit thanks to another character, on the same account, who met the requirements prior to adding it to the wardrobe."

But I digress. You will note that the Images, both Cosmetic and Armour, are clearly of the "same" entity, many simply in different colours, again as in Darzil, intended to make "comparison shopping" possible. If you look at Category:Head Cosmetic Images for example, you will see many items which are NOT armour. So while it is true that ANY armour can be worn cosmetically, not every cosmetic item can be equipped as Armour.

I think what was contemplated was a "listing" of Items available for cosmetic use, not just "Battle Armour." (And I won't expound on how disgusting it is to see people running around in Helgarod armour at Level 20.) Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

I get it that items as such are of different nature. I do not get it that we now distinguish between images (or appearance if you wish), since a certain appearance may cover many items whereof some may be purely cosmetic and others armour.

The Wardrobe seems not to distinguish between cosmetic and armour, or is the screenshot I added yesterday to that page maybe "half-done" since I just have cosmetics there?

Thanks for explaining the history, Magill. Reading it twice I understand that there once was a reason, definitely, and that answers my original question. Great! Thanks!

Then the second question, somewhat massaged: Is there anything that requires us to keep them divided now?

I merely ask since I now see a mixed content, not very much mixed but somewhat. That at least indicates confusion, and confusion comes from unclear use. If there was only one category per "body part" there would be no confusion. And new editors (and myself) are always confused facing something with a today hidden meaning -- at least until Master Scholar Magill gives a lesson ;)

If we find no strong reason to retain the two, then I suggest we merge them. Perhaps to new categories named such as "Cat:Head Appearance Images", etc. It would be easy for a bot to do the tedious work per image as the search strings are very strictly formatted, right? Low priority, yes, but...
-- Zimoon (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Remember that the F2P players must purchase the Wardrobe, 10 slots at a time. With all the other demands on TP, it may not be the highest priority for this class of player, so they may end up without the wardrobe for some time! RingTailCat (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Regarding the wardrobe making a distinction - yes, yes it does. It categorizes armour as armour and outfits as outfits. If you have a Helm of the Gloom-bane, it will be listed under the type "Armour: Head". If you have the Ceremonial Helm of the Gloom-bane, it will be listed under the type "Outfit: Head".

Having two categories separates out pure cosmetic items (dresses, funny hats, suits) from gear options (low level gear, crafted armor, raid armor). Which is nice if that's what you're going for, if you want to focus on just one or the other, but I'm not sure it's wholly necessary. Combining the two would make for singularly huge categories were they to be fully populated, but given as they're broken down by slot it might not be THAT bad. And it would allow for browsing across the board in a given slot.

I dunno, I guess I can see it either way. It seems fine like it currently is, but if we were to merge it, that would be workable too. -- JnK (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

Feel free to replace that screenshot at Wardrobe then, as it seems incomplete as is.

I am just against confusion, if a certain image can serve both a pure cosmetic item and an armour item, then the arguments for two categories fall flat. And since any appearance, regardless of origin, may be slotted as cosmetic outfit, nothing really supports the split.

This all started with the nice project started at Cosmetics, when we found the two categories but right away there were images mixed-up between the two, which confirms that there is a the confusion. And again I want to emphasize the difference between the item(s) the may utilize an image, and the images which to me rather are appearances quite disconnected from the items that link to them. However, this is indeed a low priority ;)
-- Zimoon (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2012 (EDT)