Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs

NPCs in quest-specific zones
I've noticed that a lot of articles for NPCs in quest-specific zones incorrectly use (only during   instead of  (only dunig. Could we include a specific mention of quest zones? -- Gordon Ecker 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah *ahem* I'm guilty of removing quite a few of those :P you mean that should be how it is? It just seems a little strange to be using "NPC location" for a quest area... but then again... ah well... I just don't understand why Anet couldn't try to stick to the obvious mission and quest separation. It just feels very strange to see entries like "Warband of Brothers" or "Attack of the Nornbear" or "What Must Be Done" listed under Locations... -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 05:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But when you zone into do some of those quests it's not called the normal name, but instead the quest name as a special zone. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Attack of the Nornbear and Warband of Brothers are zones, but What Must Be Done isn't. -- Gordon Ecker 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But since we have a special "Missions" for mission appearances, wouldn't it make more sense to adapt "Quests" for this purpose? Rather than location? We could change it such that "Quests" would be for all quest-related appearances, and leave "Locations" for permanent appearances. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 09:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems odd that mission and quest-related spawns aren't under location. -- Gordon Ecker 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What we know fr sure is that the name that appears in the loading screen is the name of the 'instance', regardless of if there are other areas or quests with the same name or other areas using the same map. Remember than many missions use the same map as many explorables, as many cinematics (and some are loaded as separate maps) and many dungeons share maps with many others, with some changes. It may be sound strange when an area is named after a quest. For example 'A Land of Heroes' use the same map as 'Cliffs of Dohnjok', but it has its own separate layout. It's a different 'Instance' that Cliffs of Dohnjok. Just like missions that take place in the same area as Explorables. Same area, different name. Troublesome, eh? We could call them 'Instanced quests' or 'mini missions' or anything like that. I think there is one ingame text with a name for them during A Land of Heroes. MithranArkanere 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do we split of one type of map zone in it's own section, while all the others share the first? Just copied from guildwiki? Backsword 12:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to mention this in another section, but since this is already started, I will add my comments. I have seen many NPC (mostly boss) pages lately that seem to be missing a Location section.  I have also seen many that have "Location X (but only during the following mission/quest)".  While it doesn't appear to be clear one way or the other, personally, I think that the location section should be included with the relevant information, and not just use the mission section for that.  If anything, the mission section should be the only one potentially not there; the location section always applies.  42 -  talk  19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Flavor categories
Moriturus has created several flavor categories (as opposed to "mechanical" ones) for several NPCs, such as Category:Researchers and Category:Artists and Category:Dejarin Family. I've tagged some of them for removal or rename but it might be just me that we don't need to add flavor categories that don't really offer much, so I'm asking for more views on this. I'll go an revert if more people think it's fine to keep these - just bear in mind that if we do keep them, I believe we need to specifically state that these are not in-game mechanics or classifications. -- ab.er. rant  01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think ones pertaining to lore would be okay. I like the family ones. As for their "professions", I don't think they are necessary or of any benefit. - B e X  [[Image:User BeXoR sig.gif|iawtc]] 01:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * agreed w/ bex. although having that category would seem to ask for articles like House of Dejarin. dunno if there's enuf info for that. -- VVong | BA 15:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get what you mean by "flavor" &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those not related to any mechanical or technical categorisation. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 15:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * However, we simply must keep Category:Mimes. It's mimes! -- Hong 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep all these categories -- they're interesting to at least one person and they don't cause any harm. &mdash;Tanaric 05:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not everyone would agree with you Tanaric, see discussion pages for Category:NPCs with elite skill and Category:Drops unique for specific examples of the lame arguments against having categories that "at least one person" thinks they are useful or interesting. These two actually do qualify for Aberrant's distinction between "flavor" and "mechanical" types, on the mechanical side.  42 -  talk  19:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Tanaric has left the wiki long months ago. These flavor categories are around and about still, so as he says, there's no harm. -- ab.er. rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 13:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

hard mode skills
there appears to be an inconsistency in how to show hard mode vs normal mode skill sets. this page isn't clear on how they should be shown. Is it:
 * (elite) (hard mode only)
 * (elite) (hard mode only)
 * (elite) (hard mode only)
 * (elite) (hard mode only)

or

Hard mode

 * (elite)
 * (elite)
 * (elite)
 * (elite)

also, you include (elite) for non-bosses? &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 03:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say do the former when only a skill or two is the difference between normal and hard; only do the latter when the skill sets have a large difference, e.g. if they use another attribute, or many of the skills aren't included in both modes. --[[Image:User Brains12 Spiral.png|16px|]] Brains12 \ talk 03:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. One skill's difference doesn't warrant a new section, but if there are two or three different skills, I'd do a new section. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC, technically, hard modes skills are not a seperate skill set, but an addition to the base set. Backsword 08:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree with both Brains and Anja, if there is only an additional skill be it normal or elite it only needs to be added the first way but when there are multiple new skills or when there are replaced skills and/or attributes then the second mode makes more sense. -- Kakarot [[Image:User_Kakarot_Sig.gif|Talk]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jedi Rogue, personally, I think that all of the skills shown, if they are elite, should be tagged as such, otherwise some people might go bug-eyed looking at what they aren't sure is a yellow-ringed skill box. It shouldn't matter if it is a boss or even an NPC ally type.  I do agree with the argument that if it is only a skill that is used by that boss in hard mode and not normal mode, then it should be marked as such, because it is a change from normal mode, even if it doesn't replace any other skills.  42 -  talk  03:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Quest region
In the "syntax and example" it notes that quests should be listed like this: *Region Does that mean that quests should be listed under the region they are acquired from (which would be redundant for NPCs that appear in one region as the Locations section would list that region already) or the region the quest is completed in? For example, should the Quests section in the Dinja article look like this: Quests given: or this: Quests given: --Silver Edge 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quest name
 * Istan
 * All for One and One for Justice
 * Chasing Zenmai
 * Kryta
 * All for One and One for Justice
 * Kaineng City
 * Chasing Zenmai
 * I think it's supposed to be the region (or other category) it's listed in under the quest log. IMO we should probably make region optional unless the NPC is in multiple regions or offers quests in multiple categories. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The only reason I can see for including that in the forst place would be to disabiguate for NPCs that offers quests when they spawn in one zone, but not when they spawn in another. Ofc, in that case, region might not always be a good way to seperate them. As Gordon says, consider it optional, not something that has to be followed in every case. Backsword 08:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I usually ignore when it's redundant (for example, NPC appears only in a single location). -- ab.er. rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a formatting change
I have created two templates made specifically for use on the NPC pages (depending on their acceptance, I might make more with a similar purpose on other pages where they would be usable) somewhat based on the idea behind the userbox tags that many of the wiki users have on their pages (mine is one). These templates are Template:Elite and Template:Unique, and respectively, they add the usual (elite) and (unique) ID tags already used after the appropriate skill or item on the NPC page (the template needs to be placed specifically after each entry). These templates also have the added benefit of adding and  to each page they are used on automatically.

Existing skills area

Skills
(20 Domination Magic in Hard Mode)
 * (elite)
 * (elite)

Skills
(20 Domination Magic in Hard Mode)
 * (elite)
 * (elite)

Proposed change using template in existing NPC page

Skills
(20 Domination Magic in Hard Mode)

Skills
(20 Domination Magic in Hard Mode)
 * (elite)
 * (elite)

This has the benefit of not having to have someone go through and manually add these pages to each applicable category, and if this change is done by a bot, can implement the change wiki-wide relatively simply.

The end result is that the page does not look any different in the top area, and the only difference is one or two new (to that page) category tags at the bottom. 42 - talk  03:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Small spacing change proposal
I propose a change to the current "guideline" of the spacing used in the NPC pages (this would apply to the other pages as well), of adding a space after a * or a : to make it easier to read for editors. Examples listed below.

Current

Level 20, Aeromancer
12 Air Magic (15 Air Magic in Hard mode) This text is on a regular line
 * Hard to read link
 * Hard to read link
 * Hard to read link
 * Hard to read link
 * Hard to read link
 * Hard to read link
 * This text is indented.
 * "This is indented and formatted bold."
 * ''This text is just in italics.

Proposed change

Level 20, Aeromancer
12 Air Magic (15 Air Magic in Hard mode) This text is on a regular line
 * Easy to read link
 * Easy to read link
 * Easy to read link
 * Easy to read link
 * Easy to read link
 * Easy to read link
 * This text is indented.
 * "This is indented and formatted bold."
 * ''This text is just in italics.

This is especially hard to read when there are multiple lines of indents, and this change would help making any necessary changes easier to find and effect, saving editing time cost. 42 - talk  08:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No dissent, no opinions of any kind on this. Since it is a minor adjustment, I am making the change to the page.  42 -  talk  07:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that you've done it (and brought it to attention), I strongly oppose it. Looks *expletive* horrible (and I don't swear much, so that's unusual). ~Celestia 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually like it and prefer spacing as well.. poke | talk 13:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It can look nicer to put a space after each initial line formatting, but I don't think that it needs to be hard-coded into the policy; just make sure it's consistent across a single page. --JonTheMon 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Celestia, I am sorry you don't like it. I happen to think it makes it easier for future editors to see issues, especially when it there are multiple lines with huge amounts of indents.  I forget which page now I was working on when I came up with this idea, but trying to see which line was where was horrible, to borrow a phrase.


 * Jon, people who see this first with the spaces will be more likely to put them in if they add new things. It makes it cleaner (IMO) all across if this is done.  42 -  talk  17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Affiliation
Is affiliation a purely technical thing? Would I have to use a bounty blessing or weapon mod to confirm an affiliation, as the article seems to describe, or is it just a non-technical and overly general thing? For example, is it as simple as an NPC living/born/working in Vabbi and with other Vabbians is affiliated with Vabbians? That would be kind of hard to confirm in a technical sense if it's an ally - can't really use weapons on him or kill him for bounty rewards. -- pling 23:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed that Category:Vabbians isn't in Category:NPCs by affiliation. Whether that should be the case, I don't know. However, I saw a couple of articles with "Vabbians" in the infobox and I think they were done so by Rezyk, who if I remember correctly was Mr Affiliation. So I'm slightly confused about this. -- pling User Pling sig.png 23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an unofficial term which, for some reason, the users of this wiki have chosen to use to refer to the purely technical NPC trait internally known as army. The categorizations are often speculative, as we can generally only test it with bounties and weapons of slaying, which aren't available for all armies / affiliations. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. Well, I put Category:Vabbians into Category:NPCs by affiliation. I think this could be clarified more in the article/guideline. -- pling User Pling sig.png 16:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that Vabbian was a nationality not so much an "affiliation." 42 -  talk  00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We were categorizing NPCs by nationality and organization before the army / "affiliation" trait was widely known. Most of the army / "affiliation" infobox entries are educated guesses based on limited information. Currently, the most popular theory seems to be that the armies / "affiliations" of friendly and neutral human NPCs are based on organization or nationality. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the "organization" the preferred affiliation, and then if that isn't know, the nationality? 69.182.192.195 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as Affiliation. I am doing the whole listing of those that need affiliation per the page Affiliation. It is my current project and I think if you don't know the preferred affiliation. It might be best to leave it to one that may know, like others on here. I do appreciate those whom have corrected the affiliations that I have misjudged and messed up on. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 06:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Does everything really need an affiliation? As far as I'm concerned, I don't think 'Tyrians' or 'Canthans' really qualifies as an affiliation. White Mantle and 1,000 Daggers are affiliations, but I think some things should be left as 'Not specified'. -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 09:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the the Npc box, the Affiliations are required. If you know of what they are affiliated with, please do correct. However, not specified does not help them being in the 'needing affiliation'. When they are like say this girl is from cantha. She's a canthan. So, what's the harm of 'Canthans' ? it describes her affiliation with her nationality. her 'history' sort of, where she's from, etc. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 09:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now we have things like ghost for the affiliation of celesitals, such as Hai Jii, which is totally inaccurate, and other non-affiliation type things such as Tyrians, Canthans, and even Kaineng City wildlife (for The_Afflicted_Huan_(necromancer)). -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An affiliation is not a nationality. I am not affiliated with Canada; I am Canadian. I am affiliated with, say, my university or a corporation I work for, but a nationality is not an affiliation. As for the affiliation 'needing to be set' in the NPC infobox, I always thought it of along the lines of, "If such and such an NPC has an affiliation and (someone) knows it, then it needs to be set, otherwise it's 'Not specified'." -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 10:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So where you work, go to school, etc. 'affects', but not where you 'live'... Okay... Here's the thing, part of the time you're at work or school, etc. you 'live' there, you 'deal' with it.  Please read the Affiliation. Tell me then, why were 'Vabbians' there? Nationality is an affiliation, it's where you live, part of you, what you deal with. I'm an American. I deal with America, because I LIVE there, I vote. I help change, voice my opinion, etc. be apart of the 'nation', whether it may be due to a job, etc. I'm sorry you're wanting to 'limit' the 'game' taking out what's already there... Why are 'species' then labeled as wildlife in affiliation? -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥  10:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not what affiliation means. An affiliation, as defined in dictionaries, is a partnership of people working together. If I work with the Am Fah, I'm affiliated with them whether I'm Tyrian, Canthan, or Elonian. A nationality or species, in my opinion, is far too wide of a scope for an affiliation. In fact, having 'Not specified' is kind of helpful, because it tells me that this particular creature or person is not affiliated with any army.
 * As a side note, this is from the Affiliation page itself:
 * -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 10:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what's on the Affilation page - wildlife, Vabbians, etc. You'd have millions of pages to go through, if you want to remove the 'where they live'. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 10:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that if affiliation is equivalent to the "army" field used within ArenaNet's creature development team, then it makes sense for some NPCs you fight to have an affiliation, and for those within towns and outposts to be left as 'Not specified' unless we're sure that a certain in-town NPC is a follower of the White Mantle, for example. And it also makes sense for some out-of-town creatures to be unaffiliated; the Am Fah are trying to kill you for a purpose, whereas celestials are just aggressive. I guess what I'm trying to say is being affiliated with some group requires intention, where nationality and things like "wildlife" do not. If everyone wants to use the affiliation category for those things, that's fine, but my opinion is that it shouldn't/needn't be. -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 10:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that according to the storyline, celestials do have a purpose - to test if you are worthy to become weh no su. Wildlife just try to kill anything they see. Pika Fan 10:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I meant that they haven't (it seems) consciously formed an organization to take down our heroes, unlike the White Mantle, who work together for the purpose of Tyrian domination. -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 11:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kill and test are two very different concepts, and you are not limited to want to kill in order to gain some silly affiliation. Pika Fan 11:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kill and test are two very different concepts, and you are not limited to want to kill in order to gain some silly affiliation. Pika Fan 11:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but it seems redundant to have things like 'Celestial' for both type and affiliation. -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 11:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC) I don't believe that the intent of the infobox guidelines were to have affiliations be randomly added because they are required. There are many unaffiliated NPC's in the game. I see this field as being more descriptive of organized groups (The White Mantle, the Jade Brotherhood, etc.) and lore based, rather than some random classification by nationality. I do not agree that all Canthan peasant NPC's be listed as Affiliation = Canthan, etc. The infobox already categorizes them as Canthan, iirc, so having this duplicated in the Affiliation field is totally redundant, and in some ways misleading. -- Wyn  talk  14:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC) . As for an example of why this affiliation mess is, well a mess, here you changed the affiliation of the Gretch from 'Grenth' to 'Far Shiverpeaks wildlife' for the reason that "they usually hang out in the far shiverpeaks [sic]". What?!...Oh and yes the IP is Ariyen so don't try to IP sock. ~Celestia 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh, what people really care about is how fast they can kill these NPCs, not who or what they are affiliated to, so it's ok. Pika Fan 11:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "the Affiliations are required. If you know of what they are affiliated with"
 * Before adding 'Canthans' didn't categorize them as Canthan. After, did. Affiliation, puts them in 'category' as well as directing them to the page too (like this is where i'm from and this is what it's about) -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, can we get a consensus on this before Ariyen and 42 finish their affiliation-adding rampage? -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 05:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, we need to reach a consensus before people just randomly put "affiliations" to NPCs...I prefer to leave it as not specified if they don't have a very clear affiliation, or make it an optional field with the default being it being removed. It's ridiculous to just go to an NPC page and say "Oh this NPC is a ghost because he's in a spectral form", etc. For instance Sogolon is/was a member of the Sunspear Order- excellent his affiliation is correct, he's should not be affiliated with ghosts because he's a ghost. It's also looks horrible to have affiliation as x (Norn, Vabbian, etc.) and their type as x aswell (i.e. the same). ~Celestia 09:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you in that the type shouldn't be the same as the affiliation. For example, the Norn, Asura, and Forgotten, are Species, yet they are their own groups and creatures, as stated in the Affiliation. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 10:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because they are Norn [species], does not mean they are affiliated with the Norn. They could be outcasts, they could be traitors, they could not even know who the Norn are. Just because they are a certain species, it does not automatically make them affiliated with that. You told Kokuou earlier to read the affiliations page, well maybe you should read it too- "They often, but not always, correspond to social organizations or common mindsets, including tribal identities, armies, and political groups (emphasis added)"
 * I agree with Celestia. Just because someone is Norn, doesn't mean they are affiliated with the rest of them. Personally, I think we should leave affiliations as 'Not specified' for those that we don't have a reasonable certainty of, even if only for the purposes of lore and canon. Choosing something arbitrarily (Ghost for celestials and wildlife for afflicted? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?) because you don't understand that 'needs to be set' doesn't necessarily mean that 'it has to say something' isn't a good reason to go in filling in the affiliations for EVERY NPC. -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 09:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the previous ones who have gone through adding Norn to affiliation. I've done a few, but not that many and the others are less likely of saying they are affiliated. Celestials aren't 'living wildlife creatures' either as well as Afflicted aren't 'undead' as many have set them to be. I do agree and wish Affilation was 'Optional', but it's not and though I don't know why it's 'not'... It's not. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 10:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see that others have put affiliations such as Undead for afflicted NPCs, and I honestly hadn't noticed it until now (because of the mass number of edits you are doing). However, didn't it strike you as odd that when you click on Undead, it's all skeletons and mostly enemies from Prophecies? Just by my knowledge of the GW universe, it's fairly obvious that Afflicted aren't Undead. As for the required part, I'm not really sure why the project page states 'Required'. It's not even in the example usage box, and it's obvious that not all NPCs are going to have affiliations. Perhaps that should be removed or changed to something like, "Required for NPCs whose affiliations (White Mantle, Jade Brotherhood, etc.) are known and set to 'Not specified' for those that aren't or have no affiliation." -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 10:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as this issue is still under contention, people should altogether stop adding the objected-to affiliations until a consensus is reached - you don't carry on doing it. -- pling User Pling sig.png 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have an idea! Let's change the word Required to Optional. Am I brilliant or what? Stop nitpicking Aryien. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't nit picking, just fixing the pages the others that had not done affiliation at yet (like Norn, Forgotten, Asura). Especially ones that were obvious. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Optional sounds like a good idea to me. Still, I think we should refrain from adding things like "Vabbians" and "Kaineng City wildlife" for affiliations, and only fill in this field for NPCs that are part organized groups like the White Mantle and Am Fah. -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about NPCs like Prince_Bokka_the_Magnificent. You're saying to removing Vabbians, to remove them from NPCs like that? -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 42 is adding affiliation no matter what's going on here. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 04:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * +1 Optional information, not added unless an affiliation is clear and distinct. ~Celestia 08:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see is that 42 uses "affiliation" to mean "affiliation", but the wiki uses it to mean "race". The first one is a matter of lore and naming, but the second deals with game mechanics; I think 42's project would be excellent... for a different field ("category..."). However, it would be a terrible idea to list the lore version in the box we've been using for game mechanics. For example, "FoW wildlife" has no game mechanic, and is only determined by its location; "Margonite" has a game mechanic and is testable by many means, and can apply even where it doesn't make sense (affiliation = a Margonite is a Margonite is a Margonite, even in Shing Jea; what's an Armored Cave Spider in Istan? FoW wildlife??). These two should not be mixed. Why would Zombies be affiliated with Zombies in Kryta, but everything whose type isn't a game mechanic be "Kryta wildlife"? Aren't Zombies Kryta wildlife? And what about ambiguous cases, like Rotscale or that one Margonite boss that doesn't fall under Servants of Abaddon? Affiliation should not mix lore and game mechanic--even if it unfortunately took the best name for what 42's doing. | 72  (UTC) 13:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some like Asura, Norn, etc. are game mechanics and Lore mixed. I don't think we should use it for wildlife, etc. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How are Asura and Norn game mechanic? But yes, some are bound to overlap. However, if you use one (parameter) for two things you get into the kinds of problems we're into, especially when -- as is the case with 42's edits -- this one parameter meaning "Race and Affiliation" is by analogy taken to mean both when it's only in fact one, as with FoW wildlife, for example, and you can no longer identify which only one it means. And worse when one is not just unspecified but also different, as I said with the Zombies in Kryta example. | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Asura for those that deal with one another, they talk as one, etc. If you remember the things where they're all discussing, etc. It's not just race or culture, it's how they deal with one another. Same with the Norn. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, I see (of course my main point is elsewhere). Though that's intriguing. I wonder if they have a (something like a) checkbox "Asura" that triggers the application of dialogue, much like they do for races for which there are player bonuses and stuff, or if they just added the same dialogue to all Asura...would raise an interesting epistemological point about "game mechanics by nature" vs. "game mechanics by nurture" ;) | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 03:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that if they are Norn, then they know who the Norn are.
 * "Just because they are Norn [species], does not mean they are affiliated with the Norn. They could be outcasts, they could be traitors, they could not even know who the Norn are."


 * I have no problem with using the affiliation to show a particular "army" or military unit affiliation. However, the affiliation section has an added benefit.  If the information is added that they are from a specific region in that affiliation tag, then the user can look up the category of all potential monsters they might deal with while in that particular region.


 * While not specifically a military affiliation, I do not see how, if there is no other already classified link (figuratively speaking), how it can be bad using the region the particular NPC is from to label them. It shouldn't be the specific map area, since there is already a category Category:Map area NPCs autoadded.  This would allow the region to have it's own as well.


 * In this case, the army unit (or whatever) should take priority, but the affiliation tag is useful for far more than just a military type unit. 42 -  talk  08:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am against wildlife being in affiliation. Because we are not describing where they are from that's Location. We are describing what they do, who they are, whom they relate to, etc. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥  08:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I wrote clearly, 42, while "affiliation" means that, the wiki does not use "affiliation" to mean that, just "race (as related to game mechanics)". If you mix the two, you get confusion like we have. What you are proposing seems is a fine and helpful idea, but is better--no, perfectly--implemented with one or more tags, rather than approximating the affiliation field for a different and incompatible use than the one it is in now.
 * You could even go beyond that and add an extra field to the infobox with a more specific category, like "FoW wildlife", but while "affiliation" is a good word for that, it is currently in use for something else. | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, you mean like adding a "region" section to the infobox template? If that is how you mean, I think I understand 72.


 * BTW, I still disagree with affiliation being "optional." It can let people know that there is information still not there.  It might not always apply, but assuming it doesn't just because it isn't there yet is not cool.  It makes it harder for people who want to help to be able to add missing information if they can't tell it is missing.  42 -  talk  06:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG, are you serious? LOL... See, that's what the Formatting guidelines are for. Changing it to Optional isn't totally removing it. It'll be in the guidelines, etc. People can look up the information and go "Hmm, Affiliation. Optional." They can look up what affiliation is and if that character needs it. Add it." I did that and I'm not the brightest bulb in the box, but information is there to find. Making it optional, would help not show up the horrible tag "Not specified", It wouldn't be removing any of the previous tags either. It'd be like the other optional key words like type, etc. that we use. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥  07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Redefining affiliation
For the sake of making it clear for everyone, i would like to hear feedback on the following change to the meaning we give to words (and their use on the infobox):
 * Species: the visual look of the NPC. Simmilar to current use
 * Army: the relation of the NPC with others, as per game mechanics (what we use currently for "affiliation")
 * Affiliation: the relation of the NPC with others, as per game lore (to match up with 42's idea).--Fighterdoken 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Affiliation covers more so game mechanics, but not quite so much lore. I don't honestly think we need to cover lore as much as mechanics to not only help the page, but the player. The basics, not the details that many may not really care about. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 07:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is, these particular mechanics are not only pretty unknown to players, but they're simply downright useless because all enemies are aggressive. It doesn't matter if it's an afflicted or an Am Fah; both groups are going to attack the player, so knowing the mechanics of which "army" they are programmed as by ArenaNet devs is useless information. Therefore, I think that if anything, affiliation should be used for more lore (or just general information) purposes than anything else. -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 07:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still useful for bane weapons/shield, skill requeriments and... well, that's pretty much all the use the parameter gets XD.
 * I agree on the second part, though. Lorewise is pretty pointless and should be in the bodypage anyways.--Fighterdoken 07:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, lore should belong in the body, because it'll have more detail. The mechanics in the side. They all may be very similar, but there's a difference to it as well. Wildlife, I'd consider as lore and should be a lore type detail in the body of the page. Not off to the side as that could confuse a simple minded person. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't all the mods like that fall under species, though, and not affiliation? -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 07:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. We have exceptions already as far as i know, at least of undeads not being "undead". I think i remember seeing it the other way also, but was unable to find an example (otherwise, the whose "affiliation" entry would be redundant and unneeded).--Fighterdoken 07:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Moving "affiliation" -- as your idea proposes -- to lore/region/etc, is a good idea (and in line with 42's editing). I also note that like "species" is a subset of "army" ("Undead" is army, and game mechanics. "Skeleton" is species). In which case, if we don't drop it altogether, we should format it to look like a subset. Besides that, I approve (now who'll implement it...) | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 16:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On a purely pragmatic note, it might be preferable to avoid actually renaming the template parameters (i.e. continue to call affiliation "affiliation" and find other suitable terms for the new fields). This would reduce the amount of "up front" work which would need to be done and would allow changes to be bled in as time and effort allow.  Also, I suppose it is conceivable that the template parameters might be used in some DPL somewhere....  --DryHumour 16:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never seen a subst in a template, much less am not sure that is possible. It wouldn't be hard to change affiliation to Army, but I have seen many parts where species is changed to type. Basically both of those words be used, but each word on a separate npc page. I think species was changed to type for a reason, just that much I can gather. However, affiliation may not be needed for wildlife - leave that in the notes, I think. Affiliation may not be needed with duplicates, with exception of like say that big char boss in Saul's story - I think he's the one that defeats the charr or one of the others you get books on. It should only be used when needed, but noted on the example pages, etc. I don't see a problem with it being optional, but do we really need a lot more in the box to define the character that we cannot do on the pages, like the changes proposed anyway or adding in more that could be added on the page it's self? Not every character is going have a lot of that information, such as the npcs you'd see at Lion's arch, Divinity Coast, Kaingeng Center - humans for example that don't have much information. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥  19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By subset I mean like
 * Army : Undead
 * Species/Type : Skeleton
 * Affiliation : Kryta Wildlife
 * And in the new system, yes, affiliation would be applicable to every enemy (with very few exceptions), and wildlife would probably be the biggest receiver. The current affiliation is moved to Army. | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 20:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can mess with the sandbox that I have - on the npc box, but with the coding as it is, I honestly don't see how we can add the subst like that or move the species type to being subst under Army. That's why I'm saying that while a good idea... Is it workable? I'll look about on wiki pages and see if there's a possibility of a subst. in a template, etc. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 20:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I don't know what "subset" means :P I just mean like indent it and make it smaller so it looks like a more specific field | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 21:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * yea, but not finding out about the indent, etc. yet. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥  21:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Did you have in mind something like what is done for the infoboxes of solo or profession specific quests, etc.? --DryHumour 21:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Was asked to comment here. Affilitation was picked as the name for an internal field in the creature database, after what it best correlates to. This based partly on testing, but mostly on information directly given to us by various Anet employees. Thus it is part of the game, and documenting it is part of documenting the game. There is no need to make up a bunch of involved theories about it. Backsword 00:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what should and shouldn't be included in the affiliation field, then? Is it reserved for things like White Mantle and Am Fah, or for broader categories like Canthans, too? -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 00:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither, by the most basic definition. Which is exactly why we have subcategories, and the mixing and overextension of the latter is what caused this confusion. Backsword, we know what affiliation is. We are not making up "involved theories"; we are categorizing NPCs by logical groupings, such as White Mantle and Am Fah (and on the lower level, "FoW Wildlife" and such) because it helps people find things. For those of you who are still confused, true affiliation is "Undead", "Zombie", "Margonite", and the like. If you haven't read the above wall of text, Backsword, please read it. | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 00:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, we started using the term "affiliation" before we knew that army was used internally by ArenaNet to refer to that trait. -- [[Image:User Gordon Ecker sig.png]] Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All the same, we used it to denote what is now known to be "army", or at least seems to be the case on any pages that declare affiliation. | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 15:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We started using it beacuase it was used internally. Backsword 07:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 72, I was refring to this thread. Backsword 07:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We use it for groups we know exists, or for groups whose existance can be derived from general principles we know. We know the Mantle exists, so we use that. If there is a group we would like to call "Canthans", then we do that. If not, we don't. Backsword 07:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NPC location
Why are NPCs categorised using one name even if that name is shared for an outpost, a mission, and/or and explorable area as well? For example, categorising NPCs in the Eternal Grove mission and the outpost and the explorable area into Category:The Eternal Grove NPCs. I wasn't sure about changing the categorisation (via the NPC location template) for Bujo from Category:Kaineng Center (explorable area) NPCs to Category:Kaineng Center NPCs as they're technically different locations. I've looked over some archived discussions, but I didn't really see much about keeping them together - Dirigible, for one, seemed to prefer to keep them separated, and I didn't see much opposition. That said, I looked through the archives by section titles, so I might have missed something.

Also, slightly unrelated to this, should missions be ordered by availability, similar to how quests are listed, instead of alphabetically? The former makes more sense to me, and it's also consistent with the quests section. -- pling 00:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I haven't looked through the archives I'd say separate the NPC categorization by outpost/mission/explorable would be better since some only appear in one or two and not all (eg: Mission and outpost but not explorable); hopefully I've understood you correctly. As to the mission order, I'd say by availability would make more sense. -- Kakarot [[Image:User Kakarot Sig.gif|Talk]] 13:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is more in response to the quest and mission order. I think that they should have an order, if it applies, Primary quests and missions should be listed first, then secondary ones.  I think alphabetically would be better.  I know there is a preference to have dialogue listed in campaign order, but since they would all be in the same campaign if listed on that page, keep them alphabetical otherwise.  42 -  talk  03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Missions should be listed in availability order, imo. --JonTheMon 05:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change for consistency
I propose taking out the "mission only" clause. To retain consistency across all NPC pages, which all are located in a location, this location section should be retained on all NPC pages. If the particular NPC only appears when under a quest or mission, it can be noted, as many pages are already.

Not all these pages need to have a mission section, but all should at least have a location. 69.182.192.195 06:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If a boss is only in a mission/missions then no location is needed. There is a link to the mission/missions page that has the location there. All your going to do is show the exact same location that is already listed somewhere else, we have a word for that "redundant". [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] Drogo Boffin 06:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The distinction between the mission section and other locations appears to be just for clarity purposes, for what i gathered from the previous discussions. I wouldn't really oppose changing it, but i don't see a reason for doing so really. Reader clarity should probably precede consistency for editors here.--Fighterdoken 06:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If a boss is only in a mission, there is no reason to not have a location section. It is for listing the location or locations that particular boss/NPC shows up in.  Nothing more.  This also makes a distinction between a map location and a mission location, if there is one.


 * This does not affect clarity negatively having the location section in, but it does more than potentially cause a negative impact on that clarity. 42 -  talk  13:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Er no thanks, this'll just introduce redundancy. It's unnecessary, the information is already listed on the page, and there's no need for a section header that heads redundant information. I'm not sure how your proposal makes anything more consistent, or makes anything better at all. -- pling User Pling sig.png 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not redundant. The consistency part is having a location section (which is always applicable) on all NPC pages.  Not all NPC pages need a mission section.  Having a mission section could be considered redundant, because you could have every NPC page have a location section, and tag the locations with something like (only during X quest, or Y mission).  42 -  talk  21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do think it is silly to have a l2 section for locations and the a second l2 section for yet more locations (of a specific type). We should either have just on section, or l3 subsections for all types. Backsword 07:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I see what 42 was talking about. Not sure if others are seeing it or not.  You have an NPC, that individual, monster, whatever, is going to be in X location.  So post it on their page.  Even if they are only in that spot because of a quest or mission, they are still at X location.  The ones that are needed can have the mission or quest or whatever section explaining they are only there for Y quest.  69.182.134.81 05:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Skill list
I am proposing a change, and putting it here only because it is more apppropriate than where it is "guidelined" on the formatting professions section.

I propose changing the format to have it, if not under multiple skill sets, to only sort skills alphabetically, including any "monster" skills. It makes it much easier on editors all around. 42 - talk  06:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Armorer pages
Ariyen, in going through NPCs and adding affiliations, has removed some of the formatting for the armorer NPC pages here, here, and here, as opposed to, say, Tsukare. However, this new format is inconsistent with the rest of the armor formatting for those from Factions, Nightfall, and Eye of the North. Personally, I prefer the original (coloured boxes) formatting. What do others think? -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 08:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Only main changes I've made is taking out the colors on the bottom two lines so people could read them. Even those who might be color blind. I don't see any harm in this. It helps the reader, ease of the reader. It's like this on the perfect page, the pre page, the suffix page, etc. of weapons, and there's no issue of colors being a problem on the material page for crafting armor. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 08:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And that's fine if that's what's decided. However, arbitrarily changing it on the few pages you're working on, and in doing so destroying the consistency that was already there, is not fine. -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 08:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would prefer the way it is on here to the others, with the gray background for the headers and the white table. I dislike the rainbow formatting especially on such narrow columns. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  08:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. It helps with my eyes and I can actually see that it's 15k and not 16k as my eyes were deceiving me with the colors. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 08:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with this change. | 72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (U|T|C) 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine either way, but as Kokuou noted, I'm for consistency too. Change a few, wait for objections, change another couple, wait again for objections, then if you're up for it, change the rest :) -- ab.er. rant User Ab.er.rant Sig.png 14:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really what I was doing. Changing some while changing a lot of affiliations - basically adding the affiliation to a lot of npc pages. May not be accurate on that, but trying. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then someone objected, now we have this. Anyways, I opt for the gray headers and white background. Less whatever, easier on the eyes. de   Kooning  19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the colored backgrounds. - Mini Me   talk  21:07, 3 December 2009
 * Taking those colors out does make it easier on the eyes. The first chart on Tsukare's page doesn't have colored boxes, so there's already an inconsistency. (Xu Davella 15:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC))
 * I like the colored columns too, and the colors themselves are quite pale, so I don't find them distruptive at all, I think it's actually easier to find what I need that way, but that's my personal opinion, and seems to be in minority in this section. [[Image:User Rose Of Kali SIG.jpg]]<font color="#000099">Rose Of Kali 17:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't we use lighter colours for the 15k links, then, as it seems we need to come to an agreement between people that like the colours and people that want it to be easier to read? -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 04:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are three different levels of color available, just use the lightest. That is almost white anyway, and it keeps the profession color there for the people that want it, and it is light and almost not even there  for the people that don't.  42 -  talk  07:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just show what colors are wanted and I'd be glad to add them. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 07:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the colours in the Tint column here? -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 07:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not too bad. I can go with that over the background color. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 07:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good compromise to me. | <font color="Red">72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 16:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll change them, if and once I get the Okay. No problem for me. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Locations

 * region1
 * (during quest name)
 * : Level 2
 * : Levels 1 and 4
 * : All levels
 * : Level 2
 * : Levels 1 and 4
 * : All levels

This example shows several dungeons in the same indentation as several other locations. This is very unlikely, because Depths of Tyria contains all dungeons, and only a few other areas. Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but I don't want anyone to get confused. I also think the example should show a more complex situation, one with an NPC in several campaigns. I propose the example should look something like this:

Locations

 * campaign1
 * region1
 * (during quest name)
 * region2
 * : Level 2
 * campaign2
 * region3
 * : Level 2
 * campaign2
 * region3

<font color="#008800">Manifold 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind that I made the sections subsections just for the sake of demonstration on this page. (Undo if you want.) I think this is a good idea and I advocate its implementation. | <font color="Red">72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 04:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was a bit worried about the formatting here, thank you. <font color="#008800">Manifold 04:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't have a preference either way. Some people seem to want to get ridiculous on the separation on things, especially on things that it is hard to tell at quick glance that they should be separated, or even tell how they are different.  On this, I think if you made a section title "Dungeons", then that would make it work the way you want, and still keep the identifying mark.  42 -  talk  07:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Should the campaign levels start with a semi-colon (for bolding) instead of an asterisk? That's the way weapon articles are formatted, so it would be consistent to do it for NPCs. I think it separates the campaigns more clearly, too. -- pling User Pling sig.png 16:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The dungeons were just tacked on. Doesn't mean anything. Can't think of a single case where the campaign stuff would be useful, so skip that. There are only  very small number of cases of a region being used in more than one campaign, and I can't think of a single case where a NPC is in both. Even if there is, how much use would it be? Backsword 07:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

UW, FoW, and DoA
I've seen some inconsistencies among these areas. UW and FoW appear a few different ways currently. Some list The Mists before UW/FoW, some have the individual area(s) after UW/FoW, such as Ice Wastes. For example, assuming these are multi-campaign:


 * Core
 * The Underworld
 * Ice Wastes


 * Core
 * The Mists
 * The Underworld


 * Core
 * The Underworld

Which should be used? Or should it even be 5 tiers with both The Mists and individual area?

For DoA, some NPCs list Domain of Anguish as a sub-area of Realm of Torment:


 * Realm of Torment
 * Domain of Anguish
 * Stygian Veil

and some don't:


 * Domain of Anguish
 * Stygian Veil

which should be used? <font color="#008800">Manifold 21:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)'
 * Individual areas of The Underworld/FoW are kinda lame. On the other hand, I guess it's true that the monsters aren't throughout the FoW/UW; though any unique NPC listed as in a location isn't "throughout" it, either, and they don't get "Majesty's Rest -- the Big ol' Hill." If we were to drop the other side, the wider one, "The Mists" pretty much = "Core", and maybe we only need to keep one. | <font color="Red">72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 03:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no personal preference, not having spent much time at all in either location. But what I have seen, and is apparently accepted, is the map location, and then one level up, the region it is in.  42 -  talk  05:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go ahead and include sub-areas of UW, FoW, and DoA, as they have seperate pages, and already have NPC location categories. I'm also going to consider DoA as a sub-area of RoT. Also, if I'm reading this correctly, only The Ebony Citadel of Mallyx (the final part after you do the other 4 areas, the equivalent of the dungeon Duncan is in) is considered a mission. Which I don't think a single NPC page reflects. <font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 00:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not fine
If it was fine where it was, then I wouldn't have moved it. It was fine where I moved it to. 42 - talk  05:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. It clutters it up and there is more than one person saying so. Also if you look the almost all other talk pages have the TOC where it is now. It lets you choose where you want to go and keeps you from having to read a big jumbled mess. [[Image:User DrogoBoffin sig icon.png]] Drogo Boffin 05:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The main reason that the TOC is where it is is more than likely because no one has bothered to have an opinion about it. I do so, and I get (figuratively) slapped nine ways from Sunday for it.  Never mind when I use the same points that others do to prove my side (not on this one, on others) then those points are totally useless, yet the people who are voicing their opinion against mine can use those same exact points, and then they are perfectly fine.  42 -  talk  05:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Forgot to add this in last post. It being where it is keeps people from getting to read any of the first part of the page until they either click or scroll down.  With the TOC to the right like I had it, at least they can get to reading the posts right off.  42 -  talk  05:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with TOC and the Talk page, please discuss it here. -- [[File:User Ariyen sig icon.gif]] riyen ♥ 09:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Dialogue
For NPCs outside outposts who are found in multiple locations, I don't think the current Dialogue structure is clear enough. One example is the Dialogue section of Justiciar Hablion's page:

Prophecies:
 * "The swamp is still befouled. Clear out the undead."

The Rise of the White Mantle:
 * "You have led us to the true faith. Kryta will never be the same."

That NPC is found in three missions, but only displays the "Prophecies" dialogue in one of them, something which isn't noted in the section. In some ways, this is a mission specific dialogue (not only in the meaning that it's limited to a mission, but it's also about the events that happen during a mission). I suggest changing those cases to the following structure (using the same example):

Prophecies

 * Kryta
 * Gates of Kryta
 * "The swamp is still befouled. Clear out the undead."

The Rise of the White Mantle

 * Kryta
 * "You have led us to the true faith. Kryta will never be the same."

Or alternatively...

Bonus Mission Pack

 * Kryta
 * The Rise of the White Mantle
 * "You have led us to the true faith. Kryta will never be the same."

Erasculio 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why all that would be needed. We don't really have any standard, but what we generally do is provide just enough info to isambiguate it. In your example, just changing it from prophecies to gates should be fine. Backsword 08:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Armor ratings
The armor rating project has most of the enemies one sees during the main storyline now, and I would like to start adding that data to creature pages. But first I'd like to know how people would like this data formatted.


 * Relative or absolute armor ratings. For example, a Stone Soul is a level 24 caster, so it is expected to have 72 armor. However, it has +40 armor to everything except cold and blunt damage.

A relative format would look like this:

This format would require a wordier explanation of what's being displayed, and may not mean much to someone with little knowledge of how armor rating effects damage.

and an absolute format:

One issue with absolute armor ratings are enemies that appear at several levels. Enemies gain 3 armor rating per level, so there would either need to be a set of data for each level or a note of which level the data is for. It's also less apparent at a glance what types of damage it is strong or weak against.


 * Many enemies have plus or minus 1 or 2 armor rating because of an apparent bug in how the game calculates damage. It could be confusing for users to see that Stone Summit Heretics, for example, have -1 armor from expected against all forms of armor-sensitive damage. I'm sure in the game code these armor ratings are listed correctly, but it doesn't make any practical difference since in-game the effective armor rating is always a bit off.


 * There are some potentially important notes attached to several enemies on the armor ratings page. Namely, some creature's classes are only being guessed, and most Warriors and Paragons don't wield shields. Also, all of the data collected so far is in Normal Mode. Preliminary testing shows Hard Mode is erratic with armor changes.

As for how it appears on the page, there could be a "linear" table as seen above or a "pyramidal" table to distinguish physical from elemental:

Except without those empty boxes, I couldn't figure out how to make the physical damage columns fill the whole horizontal space, sorry. This table could maybe be added to Template:NPC_infobox, or as a separate section in the main body of the article. I think a table is the most sensible way to display it, though perhaps has another idea. Perhaps color coded in some way to make it easier to tell strengths and weaknesses at a glance. <font color="#008800">Manifold  03:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TBH, i don't know if I'd want a table of the armor rating on every monster page. Since it's kinda detailed information, it seems to me that it would be better just to have a master table and link to parts of it from each monster page. --JonTheMon 07:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Would it also be possible to use one of them tango-like icons to replace the names? (I don't know why I wrote possible, I meant better.) Perhaps clicking on the table, or any tango, would redirect you to a master page, or show a legend, or something. | <font color="Red">72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 15:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would rather have absolute ratings. It would be hard to explain with a quick glance how an enemy with -1 armor in the table has actually a higher armor rating than an enemy with +20 but lower level and different profession. Erasculio  21:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jon - I think it's pretty fundamental information about a creature, like skills used. Is there a format other than a table you'd prefer?


 * 72 - Sorry, but tango icons to replace the names of what, exactly? <font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 21:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the damage types. A small flame instead of "Fire damage" and so on, probably to list the ratings in a list instead of in a table. Could work, but we don't currently have tango icons for that kind of thing, and I'm not sure there's anyone currently here who knows how to make those icons. Erasculio  21:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Since apathy is setting in, how about: ? I like the first row, but I think the second one isn't clear enough. Erasculio 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about, , , and let's say ? Also, is there a way to make the tooltips say the damage type? <font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid people would take it too literally if we used the "raw" skill icons, so I tried to edit the red background and replace it with a white one. The result is incredibly ugly, though >.>:


 * The tooltips are stating the damage type, at least. But IMO we need better images for the elemental damages.
 * How about...


 * Or...


 * ? Erasculio  01:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do like the Elementalist headpieces, especially Elementalist_Flame_Eye.png, Elementalist_Glacial_Eye.png, Elementalist_Stone_Eye.png, and Elementalist_Storm_Eye.png although I don't know how widely recognized they would be. Then again, I'm fine with text too.<font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A little butt-in, but you might want to produce proper Image:Fire_Damage.png etc icons, with redirects to the wiki pages for those types of damage, so that should a viewer click on the icon, they will be sent to details on how to inflict each kind of damage. -- BramStoker (talk, contribs) 08:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be only two people interested in this issue after an extended length of time, despite even a request for comment, I'm going to start adding armor ratings to creature pages in a day or two in the following manner barring some dramatic upsweep of opposition: Absolute armor ratings, +/- 1 bug displayed as tested, "Armor ratings" subsection between "Skills" and "Armor", color codings to distinguish deviations from expected (if I can figure out a nice way of doing it), relevant notes in small text below the table. Example for Snarling Driftwood:

Data assumes creature does not wield a shield. <font color="#008800">Manifold  04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'll chime in. First, where on a page should this table go? If it's in the body text (and I don't know what "armor" section you're talking about), I think it might benefit from being collapsible; if it's part of the infobox/under the infobox, then it could go either way. Second, why aren't you including a shield in the value? or can the same creature spawn w/ and w/o a shield? Third, why don't you, when you're making your changes, do a small batch first and get some more feedback before going full-scale? --JonTheMon 04:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jon, I don't think we (as in, those involved in this discussion so far) know how to add the table to the infobox (I don't) or how to make the table collapsible. I like Manifold's idea of beginning implementation as a way to actually get more feedback on this (since no one appears to be opposing implementation, and we could really use the help of people with more technical expertise); considering how long it would take to add that table to every enemy, I think what will happen is that Manifold will only have done a small batch before people chime in with more opinions.
 * Also, notice how the "Data assumes creature does not wield a shield" comment is just an example of how relevant notes would be displayed; it actually makes no difference if we assume the creature uses a shield or not, given how we're displaying the absolute armor rating, not the relative (in which assuming there's or not a shield would make a difference).
 * A few enemies do have an "Armor" section, although they are very few, and I don't remember a specific example; but I'm not against creating a new section at the NPC articles, since one day we could increase it to add not only armor ratings, but also maximum health and maximum energy.
 * The only thing I'm worried about is the elemental icons; I don't think the common elementalist headpieces would be widely recognized (especially the earth and air pieces). How about we use the elementalist headpieces from Vabbian armor: [[Image:Elementalist Vabbian Flame Eye.png|40px]], [[Image:Elementalist Vabbian Glacial Eye.png|40px]], [[Image:Elementalist Vabbian Stone Eye.png|40px]] and [[Image:Elementalist Vabbian Storm Eye.png|40px]]?
 * Regardless of which images we choose, I think it would be better for the table to have the following format:


 * We would then uploaded the desired images to each name, and redirect from said images to the articles about each damage type, so someone who clicked on the Cold damage icon would be redirected to the Cold damage article. It would also make it easier for us to replace the icons for each damage type, if we find something better in the future. Erasculio  11:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I have no objections either way I thought I would comment while I have the chance. Anyway if this goes into a separate section; this would be better than the infobox I think; are you going to make the table into a template and just have something like this:
 * As to making it collapsible add class="expandable" to the start of the table to make it look like the following (exact duplicate of Manifolds example above except I replaced the 's with
 * As to making it collapsible add class="expandable" to the start of the table to make it look like the following (exact duplicate of Manifolds example above except I replaced the 's with

):
 * {| class="expandable" style="border:1px solid ; font-size:90%; text-align:center; clear:both;" align="left"

! style="background:; font-size:120%; padding:0 .5em;" colspan=11 | Armor ratings
 * [[Image:Magmas Arm.png|40px|Blunt damage]]
 * 115
 * [[Image:Dryad Bow.png|40px|Piercing damage]]
 * 115
 * [[Image:Ascalon Razor.png|40px|Slashing damage]]
 * 75
 * 75


 * [[Image:Elementalist Glacial Eye.png|40px|Cold damage]]
 * 115
 * [[Image:Elementalist Stone Eye.png|40px|Earth damage]]
 * 115
 * [[Image:Elementalist Flame Eye.png|40px|Fire damage]]
 * 75
 * [[Image:Elementalist Storm Eye.png|40px|Lightning damage]]
 * 115
 * }
 * [[Image:Elementalist Storm Eye.png|40px|Lightning damage]]
 * 115
 * }


 * Data assumes creature does not wield a shield.
 * Hopefully this is what you are looking for Erasculio for the collapsible part. -- Kakarot [[Image:User Kakarot Sig.gif|Talk]] 13:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, thanks : ) Also, thank you for the clear template, I didn't know about it and it's a very useful thing. Erasculio  14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (May as well shorten the template though by or similar before we implement it all over). | <font color="Red">72  User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 15:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be that short. The parameters should be clear enough for most people to edit. --JonTheMon 16:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said "between skills and armor" the armor I was referring to was the hero armor section, which I know isn't relevant to any of the pages, but I wanted to give the precise location I wanted to place it in regards to the formatting policy.
 * Erasculio is correct that the shield note isn't necessary with absolute armor ratings, I actually forgot about that. The only notes that would be needed are the "assumes creature is [class]".
 * The Vabbian headpieces are fine with me if you think they're more visually descriptive.
 * A template would make things much easier, Kakarot, I don't know how to make templates yet, however. One little thing I didn't mention was I changed border color to reflect the profession, so it would need a parameter for that too. <font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So how about (those are templates)... User:Erasculio/Sandbox User:Erasculio/Sandbox Erasculio 21:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. <font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Prof will be primary prof for multiprof foes I assume? | <font color="Red">72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 04:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohey, quick question: how are you gonna treat the armor ratings for NM vs HM? --JonTheMon 04:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, 72. Jon - I was planning on adding a little note below the table indicating that these values are for NM (all of the data so far is NM), and the level it applies to, if it varies, but maybe that could be put in the table header? <font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 04:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One potential option would be to put it into like when listing levels. --JonTheMon 05:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * lol, I looked at this again and realized prof only decides the colour, making my question quite irrelevant. Carry on! :P | <font color="Red">72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 19:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The proper template:

I have chosen "NPC statistics" as the template's name since we may want to expand it in the future to include more data about the monsters (maximum health and maximum energy, for example). Erasculio 11:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see two issues. One, which readers are this info directed to? It should be tailored to suit the target audience. Two, presenting set values are problematic for compound values. What would be included, what would not, and how would a reader know?


 * Jon, Yes, Shields spawn somewhat erraticly, and there are reported cases of creatures that normally have shield spawning without one. In addition, Shields don't always spawn with max AR, so two otherwise identical creatures could take different damage. Backsword 12:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in the fourth spot in the top row could be an icon determined by a variable shield = 0 or 1. It's true that creatures with shields spawn erratically with or without them, but it's also true that some creatures can't have them and others can, right? If so, a shield = 1 puts the icon there, shield = 0 hides it, and it would indicate that this creature is shield-eligible. I don't know, it's just a thought for the empty space. | <font color="Red">72 User_Seventy_two_Truly_Random.jpg (UTC) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Most Paragons and Warriors don't have shields, and even fewer seem to have the variable armor rating issue, all of them level 20 or lower, I think. I was going to put the range of armor ratings I'd found into the table with a note that the discrepancy is due a variable shield spawn. I've only found a couple of enemies with invisible shields. As far as totally random appearance of a shield, I only remember seeing one Necromancer boss in Prophecies, once.


 * If the space is bothering you it could be filled with Holy damage. The page claims that "Some Demons, such as Margonites and Onis, take about 140% of inflicted holy damage." which I've been meaning to test precisely some time, and if it really is variable among Demons, it might be worth adding at least to those creature's tables. <font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 19:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering how no one has opposed any of this in one month, I think it's ok to continue adding the armor rating box to the articles. Erasculio  20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I got caught up while standing on the Rings last weekend, actually. <font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 23:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Mission section
Kinda going back to, it seems that there is a proposal to merge the Missions section into the Locations section. While both are technically "locations", I feel that missions are sufficiently different from standard locations that it merits its own heading. I do recognize that for normal monsters, having to list locations in both Locations and Missions might be a tad redundant, but for Bosses and other NPCs, I think it certainly has merit. --JonTheMon 13:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two different subsections may not be the way I would choose to do it, but I do agree that they should clearly separated. <font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Jupiter.jpg|19px]] 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Any special reason you started a section of your own, rather than responing to people in the existing one? I don't particularly feel like repeating myself. Backsword 23:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's easier to find/participate in discussions at the end of a mission, and the above section also dealt with 42's issue of "it has to have a Location section" --JonTheMon 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're on a mission then, Jon? I'llputa question here then; you say Missios are specia t yu, but don't say why. Howre theymeaninfully dierent from, say, Dungeons, in a way Dungens aren't dffrent frm Towns? And why does this differenc need to be documnted on NPC pages, rather than, y'know, locaton pages? Adn e level 2 header style, that mismatches with the rest of the wiki, should that spread? If we flip and reverse it: How about the NPC section in location articles, sould that be all level 2 headres? Backsword 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going to respond, please at least make it clear and legible. I can interpret it, but I don't want my brain to bleed out while doing so. --JonTheMon 13:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, I'll interpret your brain problems as 'no objections'. Backsword 17:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I want you to restate your position in clear, legible english. --JonTheMon 17:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * well, if your problems prevents you from reading it, then you have no objections, right? Backsword 17:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an objection to it, since I cannot understand it either. Backsword, I think you've been here long enough to know how discussion works - you can't enact a change when no one can understand you. -- pling User Pling sig.png 17:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * you have an objection? Same goes for you as for Jon; you have to present an actual arguemnt, not just trolling. You should have been here long enough to know that's how concensus actually works. Backsword 17:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I will repost it here, since it seems this discussion has been continued further on, and basically saying the same thing as above.

I think I see what 42 meant before. All NPCs will be in location X (whatever one they are in) even if they are only in location X because of quest Y, so they should have a location section. Then, if needed, they can also have a mission/quest section as well explaining they are only in X because of Y. 69.182.134.81 05:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Passive (invisible) monster skills
I think most or all enemies with Stun Immunity and Stun on Critical Hit have it listed under skills. But should the following be added?:

Undead sensitivity to Light to all Undead enemies

Burning Immunity, assuming this is the mechanism that prevents burning

Hard Mode Dungeon Boss not sure what this does or even if it's implemented

Lesser Hard Mode NPC Buff, Hard Mode NPC Buff probably not worth adding to every NPC

Rand's Attack, Selvetarm's Attack, Thommis's Attack I don't remember anything like this when I fought these, but perhaps someone remembers encountering these effects, perhaps in HM? Or perhaps they were never implemented. <font color="#008800">Manifold  20:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For the top half, sure. Undead sensitiity is the only major one, that may cause issues. But it is beter to tell readers that this creatute takes double damage nd that one doesn't, rahter than tse creaures probabl take double damage wih is what we do now.


 * The bottom half sems to be done on spawn, and is never on anyskillbar, thus I don't think it agood idea to list thm in the kill section. We generally don't list skills a creature will probably be under the effectof. Perhps we should? Backsword 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Many creatures in high-level areas have less than 8 skills, because they have slots occupied with passive skills. If we are aware of those skills, and we know for sure that a skill slot is used up with a skill, I think that skill should go there. And it's easier and faster to see "Natural Resistance" in the list of skills that checking notes stating that this or that skill is an exception to the a rule of thumb. As for effects aplied to them that are not in their skill bar... I don't think they should go there. Maybe in the notes section, saying something like: "This monsters is always under the effect of . For the natural resistance, undead sensitivity, stun immunity and stun on critical, it's easy to know they have them, so at least those should be noted. Mith[[Image:User MithranArkanere Star.png]]Talk 00:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

One exception for keys
Currently this guide restricts inclusion of keys to the drop list (not by the same reason as Gold, though). I agree that it's right in almost all cases, but I suggest to make an exception: allow to include a key to the list, if this key is unusual. This means that key is different from the keys to chests which can be found in current area.

For example, if a Frigid Kuskale in Marga Coast drops the Kournan Key, it's a usual drop because Kournan Chests spawn in that area, so it should not be listed. But when the Warrior's Construct in Sunjiang District (explorable area) drops the Forbidden Key, it's unusual drop because only Canthan Chests can be found around. Would this boss also have another location somewhere in Raisu Palace (an area with Forbidden Chests), this key should be counted as usual drop in that location; but this boss spawns only in Sunjiang District (mission and explorable area). --Slavic 04:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Better noted as an anomaly. - Tanetris 04:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Dialogue formatting- Accept, Decline, etc.
The guidelines aren't exactly clear of dialogue in terms of NPCs who had several dialogue paths (choose one answer, leads onto another set of text, etc.). In terms of formatting dialogue, how is it done? There's a few methods out there right now, such as: So...thoughts for consistency? <font color="#bb00bb" size="3px">~Celestia 07:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically states Question: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", Accept: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", etc. (example is Lumo the Mime)
 * Uses symbols (No "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", Norn Hunting Party.jpg "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet") and arrows (&rArr; "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet") (example is the Master of Magic and Norn bounty givers)
 * Uses symbols and images ( "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", Yes "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", ingame "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet", "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet",) (example is Jejumba)
 * Some use bolding to emphasise and show the main dialogue paths, others don't.


 * Don't have a complete answer for you, but the princimple of documenting the game as it is, not as someone wants it to be should be a fundamnet. Backsword 17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe some of the icons used at the time were what was available, and need to be updated if the actual in-game icon is now available? 69.182.134.81 06:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Order of skills
The guideline states:

"Sort the skills by profession, then alphabetically within each profession. Punctuation marks are sorted first (i.e. all the shouts). Common skills and monster skills are sorted below profession-specific skills. See also the profession formatting guidelines."

I've taken this to mean that for creatures with skills from more than one profession, profession order should be used. It's somewhat ambiguous, but the statement "See also the profession formatting guidelines" seems to say that this is case, or else why would it be mentioned? I've gotten every relevant creature page to adhere to this standard, reverting people when they occasionally change them.

Backsword has recently started going through all of these pages, changing it to primary class skills first. I don't see anything that says this method should be used, and I've repeated my argument in edit summaries on other occasions that have been ignored.

How should multi-profession NPCs have their skills listed? <font color="#008800">Manifold  14:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would personally prefer to have primary above secondary, just 'cause that's how you read the NPC's profession. --JonTheMon 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

War in Kryta notation
So, how do you think we should distinguish areas exclusive to WiK for purposes of NPC locations? Something like this:   ?
 * Prophecies
 * Kryta
 * (during Temple of the Intolerable)
 * War in Kryta

or does it work better like this:   ? --Musha 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Prophecies
 * Kryta
 * (during Temple of the Intolerable)
 * Guild Wars Beyond
 * Kryta


 * Not that I am Konig, but "War in Kryta" already implies that we're in Kryta. So I'd say the former for all bits that are in Kryta and then the latter for parts that aren't in Kryta (Evennia?) -- <font color="#ef8f50">R <font color="#916142">i <font color="#333333">ddle 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this proposal:


 * Guild Wars Prophecies
 * Kryta
 * Guild Wars Beyond
 * War in Kryta
 * (during Temple of the Intolerable)
 * This way, we can 1) denote which part of GWBeyond it is in, we can 2) note that it isn't part of Prophecies (for those who don't know what the War in Kryta is), and we can 3) actually call a new campaign as its own campaign instead of calling it all either GW:P or GW:EN. A second benefit to doing this (which coincides with the first point) is that if GW:B returns to Kryta for non-WiK stuff, then we can list that place under a new section for further organization and fewer confusion. -- Konig / talk 18:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I like konigs one <3 -- Neil   2250  User Neil2250 sig icon6.png 18:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like that, too. However, shouldn't we also list the "country" it's in? For example, some WiK stuff happened in EotN areas, and some in Ascalon. --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't think there's a need to list areas as GW:B unless they have a separate GW:B area (which in thus far is WiK areas). For instance, the Hall of Monuments and Ice Cliff Chasms only have one page, due to the minimal changes (only dialogue), and Old Ascalon still has one version since it was one temporary NPC (Evennia). So, how I see it, there are three ways to do this - let's use Evennia as an example for ease. Version One:
 * Yes, I like that, too. However, shouldn't we also list the "country" it's in? For example, some WiK stuff happened in EotN areas, and some in Ascalon. --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't think there's a need to list areas as GW:B unless they have a separate GW:B area (which in thus far is WiK areas). For instance, the Hall of Monuments and Ice Cliff Chasms only have one page, due to the minimal changes (only dialogue), and Old Ascalon still has one version since it was one temporary NPC (Evennia). So, how I see it, there are three ways to do this - let's use Evennia as an example for ease. Version One:


 * Guild Wars Prophecies
 * Maguuma Jungle
 * (only during quest Defend Denravi)
 * Southern Shiverpeaks
 * (level 20)
 * (level 15)
 * Guild Wars Beyond
 * War in Kryta
 * (level 15)
 * Ascalon
 * (after scene in Ice Cliff Chasms and before Temple of the Intolerable, level 15)
 * Far Shiverpeaks
 * (only during dialogue)
 * Version two:


 * Guild Wars Prophecies
 * Maguuma Jungle
 * (only during quest Defend Denravi)
 * Southern Shiverpeaks
 * (level 20)
 * (level 15)
 * Guild Wars Beyond
 * War in Kryta
 * (level 15)
 * (after scene in Ice Cliff Chasms and before Temple of the Intolerable, level 15)
 * (only during dialogue)
 * Version three:


 * Guild Wars Prophecies
 * Kryta
 * Maguuma Jungle
 * (only during quest Defend Denravi)
 * Southern Shiverpeaks
 * (level 20)
 * (level 15)
 * Guild Wars Beyond
 * Kryta
 * (level 15)
 * Ascalon
 * (after scene in Ice Cliff Chasms and before Temple of the Intolerable, level 15)
 * Far Shiverpeaks
 * (only during dialogue)
 * Version one denotes important regions by events (e.g., War in Kryta) and uses the unimportant regions/explorables by the region's name. The second one ignores regions all-together and puts everything under their events. Version three ignores the region but continues to link to the region even though it may be previously linked (not clearly shown here), much like what is done in the various "List of hostile NPCs" sections on pages - there are multiple linking to the same page within the list in order to make it look nice. I vote for either the first or third. -- Konig / talk 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There we go. Yeah, that's what I was talking about. I like all 3 versions, including version 2, because her appearance in the other areas IS PART of the WiK, not just the more general GWB. In contrast, the trial of zinn and the gwen & thack story are part of GWB, but not part of the WiK. --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Noticed a typo in the last version. Considering how large GW:B will eventually become, and that not everything will be officially named like the War in Kryta, I suggest going with version three. (altered version three a bit to make it more clear that if a region is shown twice, it gets linked twice). -- Konig / talk 22:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol. Well, now, versions one and three are exactly the same. --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, version one notes by event when there is one (e.g., War in Kryta and not Kryta) while version three notes by regions and never events. -- Konig / talk 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it now. Anyway, I vote for 2 or 3. Version 1 makes it look like the Ascalon and Ice Chasms appearances AREN'T part of the WiK. --Musha [[Image:User_Musha_Sigc.png|19px]] 18:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If GW:B is going to be treated like chapters in a story (e.g. WiK, Tales of Ascalon (?) etc.), then my vote is for Version 2. It's succinct, and documents the locations of the NPC's as the story progresses. I do see that the Trial of Zinn could be a bit stranger to incorporate, but they could be handled as branching directly off the WiK, or as a "prologue" section. G R E E N E R  00:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If GW:B is going to be treated like chapters in a story (e.g. WiK, Tales of Ascalon (?) etc.), then my vote is for Version 2. It's succinct, and documents the locations of the NPC's as the story progresses. I do see that the Trial of Zinn could be a bit stranger to incorporate, but they could be handled as branching directly off the WiK, or as a "prologue" section. G R E E N E R  00:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dialogue templates
I notice that a lot of NPC's use templates such as Template:merchant dialogue and Template:trader dialogue. While I'm editing the pages, would it be preferable for me to use "subst:" on them, since these dialogues are unlikely to change? G R E E N E R 09:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope I'm not butting in, but "unlikely to change" is not the same as "will never change". You should probably not subst the templates, but include them as normal. -- BramStoker (talk, contribs)  13:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

EoTN primary quest areas
The format of NPC's location sections where one does EoTN primary quests, such as Finding Gadd, Against the Charr and Warband of Brothers vary wildly.

Although these may not mechanically be missions, they have associated Zaishen Mission quests and serve much of the same function. This is why I'd like all NPCs that are part of these quests to be listed under the "Missions" section. In the case of underground areas that share space with a dungeon, such as WoB, it would not be listed as the dungeon (Cathedral of Flames in this case), but as the quest. Also, as being a Depths of Tyria area, rather than the above-ground geographic area (Charr Homelands in this case). <font color="#008800">Manifold  20:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So you're looking to have Charr Effigy labelled with a Mission title for Warband of Brothers? Makes sense, as those repeatable primary quests are more similar to missions than locations. This could lead to a clearer separation of what is a dungeon instance and what is a mission instance of those areas, too. G R E E N E R  05:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's occurred to me that there's several non-repeatable primary quests too (it's been a while). I think for Finding Gadd, for instance, it wouldn't be necessary to add anything to the various undead creature's locations, as it is literally just Shards of Orr, and not a special Finding Gadd location. Inscribed Ettin's location would just be listed as Sparkfly Swamp (under locations, not missions) rather than Finding Gadd, as these non-repeatables don't have anything in common with missions and don't take place in altered areas. <font color="#008800">Manifold [[Image:User_Manifold_Neptune.jpg|19px]] 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So:
 * Creatures spawned during non-repeatable primary quests get a Locations title, and a Quests title.
 * Creatures spawned in the repeatable primary quest areas – such as Blood Washes Blood and Warband of Brothers – get a Missions title.
 * This would put them more in line with how the campaigns are treated. One potential issue is that people may think that those repeatable primary quests are missions. Personally, with the ZM treating them like missions, I see no reason to care about some potential fudging. Heck, who knows what the actual game mechanics are in this case. G R E E N E R  01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)