Talk:Leather Armor (Deadfire)

Leather Armor is also in Pillars of Eternity I not just only in PoE II it would be best to separate this a lil bit better.

--Arawn76 (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Good point! Perhaps just by moving it to Leather Armor (Deadfire) without redirect? This also highlights a bigger issue with pages like Leather armor - which talk about leather armor as a type of armor in poe1 and not poe2. I think this is fine, since the article contains stats that only apply to that game. My two cents is to make a new page Leather armor (Deadfire), which talks about leather armor as a type of armor in poe2, and then also change the name of this page to add the disambiguation.


 * Armor types in poe2 don't yet have their own page. Looking at Armor (Deadfire), it contains the following links, all of which link to the pages for the specific items in poe2. Drop the "(Deadfire)" and capitalization, and you get the page for the armor type in.
 * Clothing - redirects to Item
 * Robe (Deadfire)
 * Hide Armor
 * Leather Armor
 * Padded Armor (Deadfire)
 * Breastplate (Deadfire)
 * Mail Armor
 * Scale Armor
 * Brigandine (Deadfire)
 * Plate Armor


 * I think my suggestion of creating similar pages to this for poe2 makes sense. However, we run into issues when it comes to single-word armors like Robe and Brigandine - where the name of the proposed page "Robe (Deadfire)", would conflict with the item page of the same name. While the current poe1 pages deal with this by incorporating the base item into the armor type page itself, I think this isn't good design - since it makes the listing of information about the specific item seem unrelated and out of place. I'm not sure what the best option is for this, but here are some options:
 * Change the name of the armor page, e.g. "Robes (Deadfire)", "Robe (armor in Deadfire)", "Robe (armor type in Deadfire)", "Robe (armor type) (Deadfire)", and keep the item page "Robe (Deadfire)".
 * Change the name of the item page, e.g. "Robe (armor in Deadfire)", "Robe (item in Deadfire)" and keep the armor page "Robe (Deadfire)".


 * Another option is to change the existing armor pages for poe1 to be more generalized and include the information about armor types in both games. This option might make sense since every armor and item page already links to the poe1 type page, and would prevent us having to change the infobox to fix this issue. We also wouldn't have to worry about the issue as described above (other than for the base poe1 items). On the flip side, we then introduce conflicting information. The page would probably devolve into a stats table of every single armor of that type in both games, which isn't always a bad thing.


 * We could also change all armor pages to something like "Robe (armor type in )" or "Robe (armor in )", making the page "Robe" a disambiguation page which all current robe items already link to.


 * I try to avoid making changes like this by myself, since it becomes difficult without unanimous decision making.
 * --Macklin (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I figure it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. A plural, followed by the subtitle, feels like the right choice. Tagaziel (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You're right, this is a community driven site after all. But it's still good to get opinions. In this case, the single word armor type pages would be "Robes (Deadfire)", "Breastplates (Deadfire)" and "Brigandines (Deadfire)", the rest would be "Xyz armor (Deadfire)" - since the plural form of armor is the same. The infobox links can probably be handled later, as they should link to the type page for the specific game. --Macklin (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Arawn76 wrote:
 * But back to the topic. I think easiest way is to separate one item in two games of a serie when you try following structure:

For example

[Main Page] https://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Leather_Armor

 is a leather armor in and.