Talk:Vanity set

Page creation
I just put this together, expanding on and correcting my work in the subsection of the transmogrification page (which will soon be whittled down and mainarticle'd. A few notes on decision-making:
 * I thought "vanity set" was more appropriate than "transmog set" for the reasons hinted in the article: It's a more inclusive term, it predates "transmog set", and "transmog set" is misleading since it implies it is specifically for transmog when in fact transmog sets can be worn OR transmogged. I realize that transmog sets are the more popular term, but redirects work great, and something just feels wrong about elevating the new thing above the term that's been around for years. Honestly, I wouldn't fight anyone too hard on this, just think it over before making a sudden move. I feel like "accuracy" is better NPOV than "popularity".
 * I focused on sets with clear shared styles as implemented by Blizzard. To me that game/art design element is the most informative and interesting part of the concept to explore. There are gajillions of user xmog sets varying wildly in quality, so it's hard to think what there really is to say about them. That said if you would like to address that, feel free to take the line out of the top section saying "this wiki focuses on Blizzard sets", stick the relevant sections (Art design, Identification and categorization, and Naming probably) in their own super-section (called "Blizzard-designed sets" maybe), and make a new "Player-designed sets" section for the new stuff. You could also maybe put "Identical, lookalike and recolored models" above "Art design".
 * I had some trepidation trying to write about this since it was unclear to me how much was community generated and how much was "official". I spent some time poking around wowhead and asking questions trying to figure it all out. The conclusion I came to is that even if there's no official list of all the different groups of item art assets, the power of mass observation has done a good enough job figuring them out that we can be sure the asset groupings do exist and are worth talking about, even if any given one may be erroneously identified. I'm still waiting for answers on the wowhead forums (if you know the details feel free to respond here!), so if I discover there is an official basis for all of these groupings, I'll definitely be updating it.
 * I noticed none of the Siege loot seems to have been imported. I figured I'd leave Damron's Belt of Darkness anyway, I'm sure we'll get to it.
 * The whole network of pages relating to various types of "set" needs some consistency, crosslinking, and updatedness. Pages include item collections, set, armor set, look alike sets, and cosmetic. I'm working on 'em, piece by piece...

I surely missed a few clunky phrases in my editing; I tend to write with too much precision so feel free to make it flow better. Any citations you've got are welcome - I feel that most of the info is reliable based on firsthand observation but obviously this is a pretty subjective topic and concrete discussions are always nice. - jerodast (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oops, it's set look alikes. OBviously. - jerodast (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Add vanity to the list of related pages. I dunno, this is a decent enough reflection of the usage but maybe we should just call this kind of thing an "item art set" and leave all things "vanity" as the non-gameplay synonym of "cosmetic" (which is now an item type/attribute). I'll think about it, please chime in. - jerodast (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)