Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Locations

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Proposal to Accepted 2 Collector Maps 3 Allies 4 Subheadings 4.1 Allies of allies 5 Refocus on Shrines/Bounties 6 Latest changes - shrines and NPCs 7 Final call for comments 7.1 Allies revisited 7.2 Points of Interest 7.3 Exits 7.4 Henchmen and Bosses 7.5 Experimental application of guidelines 8 Getting there 9 NPC section. Again. 10 Elonian Landmarks 11 Vanquish count... time to call consensus on it? 12 Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Locations#Middle_sections 13 Quest influences 14 Points of interest 15 Vanquisher notes 16 Shrines 17 Exits

[edit] Proposal to Accepted

Since we are actually using this, and more than most accepted formating, listing it as just a peoposal seems misleading. And objections to changing it? Backsword 19:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, do we have it completely finished or are we still missing some things still? — ク Eloc 貢 22:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say let's get the last things hammered out first. You just posted a suggestion yourself, Backsword. There's no gain in making this accepted and changing all articles to conform to just change this again very soon and have to change the articles again. - anja 11:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I did? Backsword 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

One section up. Maybe not a formal proposal, but I think it shows that we're not really finished. :) If you can wait until the weekend, I'll try to summarize what I think is left to decide. - anja 06:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bounties section still needs to be finished to compensate for Eye of the North. — ク Eloc 貢 00:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this should be really finished soon. 9 months may be a bit too much for something that should have been a priority given that locations articles are one of the bases on which the wiki should be built.
Since it appears that the general structure of the article has been accepted, may i suggest just implementing each section independently, and leaving the ones where there is not concensus aside? Otherwise, this guideline will not be finished before GW2 goes live... (that, and some people may feel discouraged to update location articles if they feel everything will need to be changed in a week).--Fighterdoken 18:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold and done some changes to the syntax and tried to implement what has been suggested over the last weeks. I have also made a suggested change to the infobox (the formatting guide already acts as if this change is in effect). Comments? - anja 10:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a gwiki imitation now. Like it not at all. I'll get baqck to it, uhm, later. Backsword 05:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain what made it a Gwiki imitation? I read your comment above as you wanted to get rid of alot of subheadings, so I tried that.. - anja 12:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have several nitpicks with it too. Why is "Exits" under "Getting there"? It's like the GW version of the Windows "Start menu -> shut down" thingy. What's the dialogue for? We have dialogue for locations? And Anja, what's with the infobox? I thought you dislike services? Shouldn't we be seeing if they should be removed or reworked rather than just renamed? -- ab.er.rant 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Exits under getting there, just because big heading, short line, big heading looked ugly. Feel free to tweak that. The services is moved out of the infobox, but the categories are still there. That's what I thought we agreed on earlier. - anja 12:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Errr... right. Misread the infobox :P As for "Exits" being too big for a second level header, well, not all "Getting there" sections are long either. Some are just a couple of words, so I'm thinking it's fine to keep both at level 2 (and optionally to remove it if there's a map I suppose). -- ab.er.rant 12:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, ok. Better now? - anja 12:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The dialogue bit is mine. And yes, for GW:En Anet have placed dialogues that are not quest based. Grothmar Wardowns have two. Backsword 06:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would find those dialogue more to be more appropriate elsewhere. The first should go onto Vael, since it's related to him, and the second should go as a preliminary dialogue for Falling Out. Is this dialogue a requirement for the quest? I just they would have more context outside of Grothmar Wardowns. If anything, Grothmar Wardowns should just have a note of them. -- ab.er.rant 10:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ab.er.rant in how, IMO, the dialogues would be better in a different page (the first in Vael's page, the second in the quest that follows that dialogue, the one that begins with the body of the Vanguard guy). However, I disagree with him on the "Getting there" section - I think "Exits" should be a part of it, as the entire section revolves around how to get to an area, and the exits often (in most cases, I think) are all someone has to know in order to reach an area. For example, the "Getting there" section for Sifhalla would be just a list of its exits, as it has no other requirement other than finding it. Erasculio 12:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The placed dialogue is not new to EotN (cf. The Underworld) and has usually been listed on the NPC's pages.

With "Getting there", outside of Prophecies it sometimes involves a bit more than just running to the exit. With (if?) exits/entrances listed in the infobox, the "getting there" section should just list special requirements. (And why are portals only called exits if they are two-way?) --Valshia 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Epic amount of dilogue you placed in Epilogue, there. Backsword 17:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The change to the infobox (services removed, categorization kept and parameters renamed) have been implemented. - anja 14:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We need some sort of section for EotN bounties. Also, why not change

== Blessings and bounties ==

==== God blessings ====
* [[God]] ([[Avatar of God]]), shrine location.

==== Sunspear ==== <!-- Replace "Sunspear" with appropriate title -->
There are X [[bounty giver NPC]]s in this explorable offering X different [[bounty|bounties]].
*[[Bounty's name]]
**Direction (south, east, etc) - Shrine of [[God]] if available, and location, using some point of reference 
(such as, outside of [[outpost]] exit).

to

== Blessings and bounties ==

==== God blessings ====
* [[God]] ([[Avatar of God]]), shrine location.

==== Sunspear ==== <!-- Replace "Sunspear" with appropriate title -->
There are X [[bounty giver NPC]]s in this explorable offering X different [[bounty|bounties]].
*[[Bounty's name]]
**Direction (south, east, etc) - Location, using some point of reference 
(such as, outside of [[outpost]] exit).

In other words, why are we keeping having 2 places where it says shrine of the god? — ク Eloc 貢 20:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "I'm using Revival of Discussion". Seriously, we should get this finished :P - anja 17:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer the formating most articles have, based on the old draft of this, to guildwikis formating. Our style have generally been clearer and more consistent, making it easier to read. Backsword 09:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With this, you mean the section you posted about subheadings below? Just making clear so we can adress all issues :) - anja 11:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collector Maps

As seen here, it appears that a Collector Map has been put up. Should we add this to a policy or keep it out? Personally, I'm against them as you can just hit U and find the collectors at any time. There's also Category:Factions collector maps — ク Eloc 貢 16:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

They are in place instead of a separate map for each collector, like we had before, so I think it's definitely an improvement. I think you meant add it to the formatting, Eloc? - anja 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this could be added to the Formatting page. But, I think that Collector Maps are useless as you can just hit U ingame and it shows all collectors and what they collect. — ク Eloc 貢 20:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No need for formating. We already have maps. As for ingame, people may well want to plan a route before getting to the zone. Backsword 05:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That map could do with some improvement, or to merge it with others, but having a map is better than none. You use the map to decide which outpost to start from. -- ab.er.rant 09:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the map, I'm talking about collectors on the map. Do you think we really need an individual map just for collectors? — ク Eloc 貢 00:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there exists a nice map that shows all the relevant info, then of course it's better than separate maps. But if one single map is too cluttered, separating them isn't a bad thing either. -- ab.er.rant 04:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By all means, yes, but like the maps which show the bosses could be combined with collector maps. — ク Eloc 貢 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Uh yeah, we only had a brief discussion about those on this page I should've posted it here, sorry about that.
The reasons I didn't use the existing bosses maps (mostly made by User:Dirigible) are because:

• a) those maps were made for GuildWiki and don't follow image rules on this wiki (not made with said u-map).
• b) re-editing them would only reduce quality (jpg-format).
• c) combining collectors with bosses maps will be too cluttered in some cases.

If you want to combine them with something that's fine by me, but not with bosses - I already tried it, doesn't work. Combine with artisans maybe ?
And why not have collector maps ? Because you can see them on U-map ? Well yes, I can see the entire explorable area on the u-map as well. I thought it was just part of documenting the game and nice to have, simple as that. I do agree that some maps I've made can be improved (esp. the icons don't always look to good).
Oh and Eloc, I promptly removed your deletion note on Category:Collector maps as a category in itself has nothing to do with formatting. And those maps in it are used on the collector pages as well. Remove them from location pages if you must but don't tag them for deletion without even checking what links to them. Erszebet 12:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Placing a {{delete}} doesn't mean it will get deleted without a second thought. The Sysops check talk pages and all that link to it and the formatting pages and all that before they delete anything. — ク Eloc 貢 15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to this page my images aren't following the formatting rules and needs to be added to GWW:FORMAT ? AFAIK I followed the image formatting guideline and the only thing I didn't always check was to turn off post processing effects.

If somebody would at least tell me what's fundamentaly wrong with them, so I can (or try to) replace them with correct ones. Erszebet 18:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Against what exactly? The location formating doesn't mention what maps are allowed or not, or even if there should be maps at all. Yet the {{Location infobox}} has space for 5 of them. Should we tag all of the boss maps for deletion untill they're added to GWW:FORMAT as well? --Valshia 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It shows in the Syntax what maps there should be. — ク Eloc 貢 19:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why aren't you also leading a crusade against the boss maps as well? --Valshia 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Never noticed boss maps XD — ク Eloc 貢 19:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... you guys are taking to the formatting guidelines too strictly. It's a guideline, it's the preferred way we would like it. If we can't meet the guidelines, it doesn't mean those images should be deleted. It just means those images can be improved. Don't not use maps or images that are perfectly acceptable just because it doesn't follow guidelines. -- ab.er.rant 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my thought Aberrant. I'll finish the work I started (already went through Factions, NF, halfway Proph before I got the note on my talk page...) and just place the maps on NPC pages only. Now if somebody would remove the ridiculous deletion-tag Elog placed (again!) on Category:Collector maps... Erszebet 10:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Again? You make it sound like I placed it back on after this conversation. Just remove it yourself. — ク Eloc 貢 15:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You did place it again, the history doesn't lie. If I removed it again I'd be violating GWW:REVERT as you pointed out before. But I see Aberrant has already taken care of it (with my eternal gratitude ofcourse ;-) ) Erszebet 17:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the 1 revert rule doesn't apply if the issue is resolved. — ク Eloc 貢 19:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allies

Could we change the policy to show similar to what is like in the Foes section with the species and affiliation or subtype? See Temple of the Unseen for an example of what I mean. — ク Eloc 貢 04:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a point for that, just as I don't think having the level and profession on allies is not necessary either (as mentioned here). That information is important for enemies as it has some gameplay impact (often enemies will be grouped by kind, there's the matter of EoE and enemies attacking each other, the bounties, etc), but I think it's not that important for allies. Erasculio 13:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot I already posted that one, but what about putting their species down? Such as

== Allies ==
'''[[Human]]s'''
* White Mantle
** #1
** #2

== Foes ==
'''[[Human]]s'''
* White Mantle
** #1
** #2

Similar to that. — ク Eloc 貢 16:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Only if there is also a change to Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Missions. Same as what happends to Foes, dialogues, etc, I think it would be a good idea to keep consistency between formatting guidelines that share common sections, so if it's not changed there, shouldn't be here.--Fighterdoken 16:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, it already looks sort of how I want this page to look. — ク Eloc 貢 16:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No objections? — ク Eloc 貢 20:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subheadings

For the NPC->Allies section, we have more subheadings than fits with out general style, as can be seen in our other sections. I don't make a difference here based on if they're 'real' or faked with formating here.

For explorable areas, dungeons, landmarks and by extention mission locations, this including quest zones, I just don't think there is enough creatures to warrant subheadings at all. The foe list is longer, yet not in need. For outposts, I think one is enough: the one for henchmen, as these make up a special group.

Towns, otoh could do with divisions, as there are so many there. Otoh, only allies, so wh could do the split at that level if we wanted. If every town had subdivisions such as Lion's Arch's, that would be my preference, as they would then also serve the purpose of making NPCs easier to find, for those looking for them. Unfortunately, that's not the case. And if we use different formating for the same zone type, we might cause more harm than good. Not sure about this one. Backsword 09:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean you would prefer something like this:

==Allies==
* NPC (merchant)
* NPC (rare material trader)
* Random NPC
===Henchmen===
* {{mo}} Alesia

for most things smaller than towns? And it's not clear if you want to remove subheadings from the Foes section or not. I think we could do away with the species subheadings, for most locations. But in cases like Nightfall explorables with bounties, it can be good information, so I'm not sure. - anja 11:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many subdivisions is just going to be overly bulky. IMO, listing them as they appear in game <NPC Name> (profession) makes the most sense as it is how players are used to seeing them.-- Wynthyst 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, agree with that. What do you say about foes, should there be species subheadings or not? - anja 13:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As a user of the wiki, I like having the species of foes listed. Not only for bounties but for determining what build would be most effective. -- Wynthyst 14:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Species grouping yet, but not subheadings, especially if we're not doing it for NPCs. And speaking of NPCs, I don't find the "<name> (<service>)" style intuitive. When I scan an outpost more NPC services using ALT, I look at the suffix; I don't really care about the name. Similarly, if I scan a page for an NPC service (and this is important since these service availability has been removed from both the infobox and the table of contents, plus have the NPC groupings removed), I tend to search by NPC type, rather than by NPC name. Again, I don't care what the rune trader's name is, I just want to find the rune trader. Wouldn't it make more sense to put "Rune trader" at the forefront? It's also more intuitive for sorting. We can sort by NPC type and it'll look more natural. When you put the name first, and if you sort by type, it'll look unordered and prone to users adding NPCs in the wrong order. -- ab.er.rant 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, good point >< It seems I'm just too eager to get this finished and I change everything too fast. I think both name first and service first have their pros and cons, so I don't mind either way. :) - anja 17:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I still have to say for the wiki purpose, I think the <NPC Name> (Service) looks better. -- Wynthyst 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more important for it to be more functional than better looking. I don't mind putting the name first as long as the subgrouping is kept. I'm concerned that without subgroups like "Merchants and traders", "trainers and traders", a long list of NPC services like those in ports is just going to look messy, especially so if we sort by NPC service rather than name. The list of NPC names is going to look like a jumbled list of names at first glance. When the service-before-name was proposed, the original section heading was "Services", but I guess I missed the point where that heading got removed and everything lumped into "Allies" instead. How about doing it like Backsword said, we use the subgroupings if there are more than maybe 4 or 5 NPC services in the same location. -- ab.er.rant 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Gotcha, I guess I missed the point of the argument somewhere. I have no problem with the subgroupings, and agree they make the most organizational sense.-- Wynthyst 02:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allies of allies

This is partly a subissue of the above; should we in any way indicate the general relations between groups of NPCs? I think one of the first things people may want to know is if so called allies will fight by their side, or just stand around being friendly with everyone. We currently subdivide by relation to the player party only, but such relations exist between all groups. Backsword 09:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think noting this would be good, and maybe also noting which foes will ally and which foes will fight each other. Could this go into notes or would it be too big? - anja 11:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends. It'd be too large if all facts are detailed on every map, but that may not be needed as there are a lot of standard expectations, such as civilians being friendly to all and wildlife hostile to players almost always. (Can think of only on exception to that). SO if we stick with noting the exceptions, an list the general case somewhere, it wouldn't be there most of the time, and be short most times it is, making it suitable for the notes section.

OTOH, that means not mentioning in context. A radical alternative would to get rid of the ally foe sorting, and list all creatures by affiliation. Backsword 09:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

IF we have a comprehensive guide somewhere about all affiliations, I would maybe agree with that sorting, but currently I have no such list. To me, it seems easier for the random user (and for me, of course) if we sort by name/looks (kinda how the species are sorted atm) or not at all. - anja 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How many exceptions are there to the general rules, and in how many areas?-- Wynthyst 13:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refocus on Shrines/Bounties

It seems this issue has become rather stalled and disjointed.... so bringing it back together here. If you still have active alternatives, relink them all here please :D

I personally prefer the header Shrines to Bounties... aren't all bounties collected at res shrines? Find me one that isn't and I'll be quiet. It also covers the God shrines and blessings. It also coveres all campaigns even though each campaign is different in what is available. I've always preferred the KISS theory (keep it simple, stupid) to making it way complex.

Something like this maybe...

==Shrines==
===[[Resurrection Shrine]]===
*[[bounty giver NPC]] → [[Bounty's name]]
**Direction (south, east, etc) - Shrine of [[God]] if available, and location, using some point of reference 
(such as, outside of [[outpost]] exit).
===[[Statue|Monument to (God)]]===
*[[Avatar]] 
**Direction (south, east, etc) and location, using some point of reference 
(such as, outside of [[outpost]] exit).

-- Wynthyst 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't all statues resurrection shrines? — ク Eloc 貢 02:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, there are res shinres on every map, and there are statues every here and there. The areas where you enter FoW/UW for example. — Galil 03:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Shrines seems like a good collective name to me, if all bountygivers are located at shrines. I thought someone said there was bountygivers outside shrines, but I may also have dreamt that. - anja 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good compromise for the bounties section. I'm for it - anything to get this over with :D -- ab.er.rant 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... how about something like this instead:

==Shrines==
;[[Resurrection shrine]]s with [[<bounty name>]]:
*NPC 1
**Direction and/or point of reference 1
**Direction and/or point of reference 2
*NPC 2
**Direction and/or point of reference 3

;Resurrection shrines with a [[<god name>]] statue:
*Direction and/or point of reference 1
*Direction and/or point of reference 2

;<god name> statues:
*Direction and/or point of reference 1

As usual, I don't like the subheading :) For pre-Nightfall areas where there are no bounties, we can cut away the "<bounty name>" part name and just document the locations of the resurrection shrines. Again, as usual, these should be kept short and concise if there is a map available. -- ab.er.rant 06:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for less headings (smaller toc). This should look nice. - anja 07:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The bounty needs to be tied to the NPC, not the shrine, as there are multiple bounties in NF areas, all at different res shrines around the map.

Like this...

==Shrines==
;[[Resurrection shrine]]s:
*NPC 1 → [[<bounty name>]]
**Direction and/or point of reference 1
**Direction and/or point of reference 2
*NPC 2 → [[<bounty name>]]
**Direction and/or point of reference 3

;Resurrection shrines with a [[<god name>]] statue:
*Direction and/or point of reference 1
*Direction and/or point of reference 2

;<god name> statues:
*Direction and/or point of reference 1

-- Wynthyst 08:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I know. My idea is to group the resurrection shrines by what they have next to it - bounties, statues, perhaps even Luxon/Kurzick NPCs. So it's more like "Resurrection shrines with Insect Hunt" followed by the name of the NPC plus the direction, and then "Resurrection shrines with Plant Hunt" and followed by more directions. I feel the name of the NPC is secondary to their location. If it's short enough, I'd merge the NPC name with the directions too. There's always only one NPC offering a bounty at one shrine any way, and the same bounty is always offered by the same-name NPC too. Since the section header is "Shrines", I figure grouping things inside by what shrines have nearby sort of makes more sense. Yet another point of splitting the bounties into multiple shrine groupings seems less cluttered than putting them all in one big list, but that's just me. -- ab.er.rant 09:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. so you mean to have 4-6 res shrines all listed individually with all the surrounding npcs.... I get it.

==Shrines==
;[[Resurrection shrine]] with [[<bounty name>]]:
**Direction and/or point of reference 1
*NPC 1 [[<bounty giver]]
*NPC 2 [[<merchant>]]
*NPC 3 [[<guard>]]

;[[Resurrection shrine]] with [[<bounty name>]]:
**Direction and/or point of reference 1
*NPC 1 [[<bounty giver]]
*NPC 2 [[<merchant>]]
*NPC 3 [[<guard>]]

;Resurrection shrines with a [[<god name>]] statue:
*Direction and/or point of reference 1
*Direction and/or point of reference 2

;<god name> statues:
*Direction and/or point of reference 1

-- Wynthyst 10:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not exactly. Hmm... since you put it that way, it didn't sound too good... let me just give it a try and we'll see how it goes:

ab.er.rant's (bad idea :p)

Wynthyst's (looks good ^-^)

Resurrection shrine with Insect Hunt Sunspear Scout Somewhere someplace sometime Just outside some blah blah place that will cause a long direction Right at the corner of some area Resurrection shrine with Plant Hunt Sunspear Scout Another place (has Grenth statue) Just outside here (has Lyssa statue) Resurrection shrine with Elemental Hunt Whispers Informant Just some obscure point somewhere Resurrection shrine Just a shrine with no NPC around it Resurrection shrine with statue of Lyssa Woo look, Lyssa! Right there. Statue of Grenth Some place some where Another place another time

Resurrection shrine Sunspear Scout → Insect Hunt Somewhere someplace sometime Just outside some blah blah place that will cause a long direction Right at the corner of some area Sunspear Scout → Plant Hunt Another place (has Grenth statue) Just outside here (has Lyssa statue) Whispers Informant → Elemental Hunt Just some obscure point somewhere Resurrection shrine Just a shrine with no NPC around it Resurrection shrine with statue of Lyssa Woo look, Lyssa! Right there. Statue of Grenth Some place some where Another place another time

Hmm... ok, my on-the-spot idea is definitely worse than yours. I ditched the bold, but it still doesn't look so as nice as I pictured it. Oh well :P I used your second template, and it should probably be as good as it gets without turning to tables.

Just three things though, I just added a plain "Resurrection shrine" part for those shrines with nobody there, maybe there's a better idea? Also, I feel that the bounty name and the NPC name should be swapped, to place more emphasis on the bounty instead of the NPC, so maybe something like "Plant Hunt (Sunspear Scout)" or "Dwarven Raider (Beacon of Droknar)"? And finally, do we need to treat the Luxon/Kurzick shrines in any special way? -- ab.er.rant 11:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, lux/kurz shrines have multiple npcs.... merchant, guards, and priest. The priest would be the bounty giver of course... and the npc's do fight if aggro comes close enough, so not sure if that's worth any mention.-- Wynthyst 12:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think that keeping the NPC name first stays more in the format that is being used with other NPC types. Bosses have their cappable skill listed after, etc... -- Wynthyst 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latest changes - shrines and NPCs

I've added to the template Wynthyst's second example (with some slight tweaks), plus added comments on how to sort the NPC lists, a new "Services" section, and comments on how to group the NPCs as necessary (some from the "Subheadings" talk section above). One last point I'd like to bring up again that Eloc brought up previously. After editing Monastery Overlook, I'm in favor of putting in the profession icons and the levels for allies as well. It's just more consistent, and is particularly useful if an ally will actually fight. For example, it'd be nice to see right away that Kisai and Mai are also first level, and those students who aren't joining Instructor Ng are already level 2 and 3. Charmable pets should ideally have a level specified too. And finally, aside from consistency with the "Foes" section, it also makes the page less bland (i.e. full of white space on the right side) when we have a long NPC list. (and I'm still thinking of how to make long "Quests" sections be less space-wasting) -- ab.er.rant 01:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all about consistency.-- Wynthyst 05:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I say no to the capitalization, as it does't fit with our policy on that. It also doesnt fit with the formatting of our other page types (ie. Boss -> Skill (elite)). - BeX 06:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think levels and professions for allies can look really weird at times, for example when we just know it for one of the NPCs in the list. Then that name gets a huge indent. but the others don't, making the list harder to read, imo. Also, I'd like to avoid listing or for those we actually don't know. But it's not a big issue for me, I'd rather get the formatting finished than have it my way. :P - anja 08:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good point on the capitalization. For the ally profession and icons, while it's mostly useless for NPCs that don't fight, I think they're slightly useful for allies that do help fight. Yes, we need the to keep the indentation correct. Also, I believe it is a useful crosschecking for NPC names, professions, and levels. Back on GuildWiki, I used to crosscheck both the info on the NPC page as well as the explorable page. It's just easier and faster for people to add in one missing NPC (complete with profession and level) into an explorable page than it is for them to try creating an NPC page just to specify the level and profession. Users may encounter a particular NPC in a certain level, and they may not think about adding to the NPC page, but just the explorable they are on. I'm thinking this redundancy helps to ensure that we get all the levels (while editing Monastery Overlook and Sunqua Vale, I've already noticed some levels that are missing from the NPC pages but are found in the explorable page. -- ab.er.rant 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One more thing I'd like to point out is that I've tried to word the NPC section such that the NPC groupings are flexible, basically, you can group them however if more appropriate for a particular location, allowing for something like Shing Jea Dojo. Someone reword the guidelines if this isn't clear. -- ab.er.rant 02:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Regarding capitalization, does that mean the henchmen list needs to be changed as well? To "Lukas (guardian)" instead? -- ab.er.rant 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you convinced me about both levels and icons. :P It's better to get the info than just look good (which is only imo anyway). About the headings, it's not really clear if you mean services, henchmen and allies are standard, and then subgroups can be added yo them, or if groups can be added in any way (omitting the services heading if there's only a few services and NPCs or similar). - anja 08:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, a definition: I refer to the "Merchants and traders", "Collectors", "Trainers", etc. as Headings. What I meant by flexible is that the guidelines should somehow say that these headings are not fixed in stone, and that if there's a more logical or flavorful or useful grouping, then the headings can be changed. As for henchmen, I'm not sure whether "Devona (Fighter)" should be de-capitalized into "Devona (fighter)", since we're de-capitalizing the NPC service (Merchant -> merchant). -- ab.er.rant 13:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now I get you. I don't think we need more guidelines that we already have on how to group the service NPCs, it is just a guideline afterall. It's easy to apply on each article as we see fit. On capitalization, I would consider Fighter a proper noun (thus capitalized) in this case since I see it as a name, not a description (Illusion henchmen use dom skills, for example), while merchant is a common noun. But I don't mind either way, really. - anja 15:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

on the thing I suggested. — ク Eloc 貢 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final call for comments

Final call for any outstanding issues (at least, any issue important enough to prevent this from becoming official first). -- ab.er.rant 04:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing the "Exits" section, since it's in the infobox already. Otherwise there doesn't seem to be anything worth noting, though I haven't actually read anything but the wiki-code. Still looks good though. — Galil 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you remove the "Exits" section where would you put the directions and conditions? Direction can be seen from map, true. But it should be nice to have a section that says you can't go out via this exit because you haven't done so-and-so quest. It's say most useful for Factions locations. -- ab.er.rant 05:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good to go. -- Wynthyst 05:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) But then remove the one in the infobox? I personally don't see the point in having the same information twice, especially not considering it usually lines up just next to each other. :S — Galil 05:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with a little redundancy, and the directions and other notes in the Exits section of the article are great to have. -- Wynthyst 05:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Galil has a point. Might as well remove it from the infobox if we're going to repeat it with more details anyway. And we don't have "getting there" in the infobox either. How about renaming it to "Neighbors" (ala GuildWiki) to sort of give a geographical reference on where it's situated. Or maybe remove it entirely. But this issue shouldn't stop the the whole "officialising" process. -- ab.er.rant 05:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd vote for "Portals" or "Adjacent areas". "Neighbors" just doesn't sound right to me. — Galil 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, keeping "Exits" would work too. ;) — Galil 05:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No capitalization? - BeX 10:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving this guide to accepted later tonight, since there doesn't seem to be any more outstanding issues. - anja 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, with this many things missing from the guide (see below), why's this in Accepted? — ク Eloc 貢 10:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allies revisited

Decided to make this a subsection as it's just easier that way. Anyways, what about professions on the allys? — ク Eloc 貢 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we agree somewhere up to include profession and levels on allies? *goes to search* - anja 01:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Then why isn't it in the formatting guide yet? — ク Eloc 貢 01:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because we forget :P And the last time I did a change I just had to revert because I was too quick. I'll fix it now :P - anja 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, ty. — ク Eloc 貢 02:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Erh... you know, i could swear that we had agreed just the opposite (for allies and pets), since level information on non-combatant npcs was not really relevant on the location article, plus we would fill the articles with s since most of the times it's not clear what profession npcs are. Check section 14 of the talk page. (added) So... any link to where the decision about changing it was taken? --Fighterdoken 02:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

See "Allies" above. - anja 07:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nnnnope, Allies was Eloc's proposal relating the inclusion of afilitation for npcs (unrelated here). Only topics related to class/levels of allies i can see are "Profession on Allied NPCS" where we kinda agreed (Anja included) that it was too much info, and "Allies revisited" where that was suddenly changed ignoring the previous concensus on the same talk page. In any case, since we usually don't keep this kind of arguments on a single page, kinda curious on where it was changed. Forget it, "Latest changes - shrines and NPCs" was the place (i thought it was "NPCS at the shrines (bounties)", silly me). In any case, i still think service npcs, traders, and in general every non-combatat npc should have this info excluded (because some places will look just ugly, and the information helps on nothing), but... --Fighterdoken 07:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Points of Interest

(Edit conflict) Change that heading to Landmarks as our GWW definition of landmark is "a notable location, architecture, building, construction, terrain, settlement, village or other point of interest". Also, below it says Landmark 1/2 if that helps any. — ク Eloc 貢 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Points of interest sounds more general to me, we don't make landmark articles for signposts and such. - anja 18:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So we add those signposts under Points of Interest? — ク Eloc 貢 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather call it "Landmarks" too since we don't generally bother with listing exactly what signposts there are.... but then again, "Points of interest" feels more appropriate with things like Bleached Bones. -- ab.er.rant 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Exits

Just to confirm the point Galil raised. Do we keep it as it is or would it be better to rename or reuse the "Exits" on the infobox for some slightly different purpose? "Adjacent" would be all locations that borders to the current location. "Portals" would be all locations that can be reached via portals. Something else? Or we just keep things as they are? -- ab.er.rant 01:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Henchmen and Bosses

One more thing. Does anyone else think it might be better to reduce "Henchmen" and "Bosses" into using just ";" (like the shrines section) rather than a level 4 header? The additional header causes a weird-looking table of contents, and we're never going to have more than one such level 4 header per location anyway. It just seems to look better when it's not a header. -- ab.er.rant 02:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that change would be consistent with the rest of the formating, since bosses are just a subsection of foes, and henchmen are just a subsection of service npcs. In any case, i think the pages look better without ToC :).--Fighterdoken 02:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I turned the "Foes" section into a table for Sunqua Vale. Opinions? Better not use a table since it's probably confusing to casual editors? I'm thinking of tables for of the longer quest sections too... I just find all the long-skewed-to-the-left location pages to be not-so-nice :P -- ab.er.rant 04:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a good idea to use tables. Like you said, it could be confusing for casual editors. Also, at low screen resolutions it could make entries use 3 or more lines of text, or cause horizontal scrolling when not needed. Finally, i think we should keep a single formatting guideline, so every article has tables in a certain section, or no article with tables at all.--Fighterdoken 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, reverted. Didn't look so nice anyhow. -- ab.er.rant 11:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Experimental application of guidelines

I've applied the guidelines to several starting Factions and Nightfall locations. Some of them include Shing Jea Monastery, Sunqua Vale, Tsumei Village, Plains of Jarin, Chahbek Village (outpost), Consulate, and Sun Docks. Take a look and let's gather some first impressions before we start a full-scale project to update all the rest of them. -- ab.er.rant 11:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First thing is to say that i want a flamingo pet (yeah, didn't know they existed). Overall, i think the guideline works fine, but i feel that some stuff appears to be a bit messy. Leaving aside what i think about pets/service npcs and level/class, i guess we could change a bit the way afiliations and species are shown as to allow for them to be more visually different. In that regard, i think i may need to retract of my previous statement about using ";", changing all of the to "====" instead, and maybe adding a bit of " ''' " to the afiliations/species (can we noinclude the l4 header? or remove the ToC?). --Fighterdoken 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the way the NPCs section is set up, allies are not a subset of service NPCs, service NPCs are a subset of allies. Also, I think it would be useful to distinguish combatants from non-combatants in some way. I'd also prefer to keep all non-boss quest spawns in the quest articles, possibly with a list of the quests which affect an area's spawns in the notes section. -- Gordon Ecker 08:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

@Fighterdoken: How would changing the ";" to "====" yet excluding it from ToC actually change how it looks? Visually, they'll be similar, except for the extra "edit" links on the side. I'd like a way to simplify or shorten or otherwise get rid of the large white space for the list of NPCs too. It still feels like it's too long. For levels... one thing I'm concerned with when we exclude them is that since we're interested in the levels of enemies in a particular area, shouldn't we be interested in the levels of allies that might help us fight as well? I can see that it's mostly useful for outposts and towns, so perhaps separate guidelines for the different locations? Or we could try (as mentioned before some time ago) to divide the allies by those who fight each other and those who don't.

@Gordon: I placed it such that Allies are on the same level as Services. Service NPCs don't fight (except in certain quests), some allies do. I suppose it won't make much difference to put Services under NPCs. It's just that I find it helps separate the service-oriented NPCs from those that don't. *shrugs* It feels a little weird to have a header called "Allies" and then inside there's a "Services" and a "Other allies". Might as well drop the redundant "Allies". I like your idea about filtering away the quest-only spawns though, it'll keep things cleaner. Maybe expand the "Quests" section for that? Like adding an icon or a superscript to mark quests that will change the spawns of an area (maybe different ally spawns and enemy spawns too)... -- ab.er.rant 13:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think removing quest-related spawns could get really messy, because I think the average wiki user doesn't know what spawns are there normally and which aren't (I know I don't, mostly). I think it's more informative to see all NPCs in an area, and then be able to tell what spawns (and disappeares) which each quest. If I understand you right, Aberrant, you are suggesting to move quest-related NPCs to the quest area of the location article? I think that could be a solution. - anja 14:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of getting rid of all quest-related spawns and mark each such quest with a ¹ this quest affects the spawns of this location. Or something similar, like an icon maybe. -- ab.er.rant 17:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Thinking again, since quests are listed above NPCs, I don't have a problem with that. Just need to make it clear :) - anja 17:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Since quests already list a spawn table, this may be a good solution for cleaning the pages a little. Maybe making a test page again, just in case, to see how it would work?.
@Gordon Ecker: The idea of using titles was to increase the font size of the text, and allow sections to be a little more differenced that with just using ";". Also, for levels, i agree that information on combat-related npcs is useful, but we still should reconsider if the extra information for service npcs (and basically any npcs that cannot die)is really needed.--Fighterdoken 22:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I just felt that if you had to manually prevent a section from appearing in the table of contents, then might as well not bother with the section header in the first place... but I guess I don't feel too strongly about that. It's just that the template for location pages would need one more obscure-looking (to casual users) piece of code. As for the NPCs, I have an idea, maybe we could split the NPCs by their "reaction" instead? So under "NPCs", we'll have three sections: "Allies", "Neutral", "Foes" (or we could call them "Friendly", "Neutral", "Hostile"). We group foes by species (excluding quest spawns), and we group allies and neutrals on a case-by-case basis - services, storyline groupings, lore groupings, etc... Allies are those we're sure will fight against foes, and neutrals are those that won't get attacked and won't attack. -- ab.er.rant 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to my own response, I've tweaked Sunqua Vale here: User:Ab.er.rant/Sandbox.

• The quest-only NPCs cannot be removed unless we expand the "Quests" section to include quests that are not offered in that location. To clarify that section, I propose renaming "Quests" to "Quests available".
• I've also moved "Services" under "Allies", and then renamed "Allies" to "Friendly" (to avoid confusion with ally) and "Foes" to "Hostile". Of course, this is no big deal and I'm fine both ways.
• I've also changed ";" to "====". While the extra "[edit]"s are nice, I feel the size difference is even worse than using ";" to easily show where the "Foes"/"Hostile" section starts. If you scroll down quickly, it's easy to miss the "Foes" section. I wonder if it might be a better idea to just split "NPCs" into "Friendly NPCs" and "Hostile NPCs" instead. That way, we can have them both as 2nd level headings.

-- ab.er.rant 11:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Aberrant, I'm just so tired of this whole guide, I think anything you propose sounds good. :P - anja 13:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I know what you mean. I'm getting a little tired of trying to get everyone to agree on guidelines. I'm going to go ahead and format more articles regardless of this soon. My latest changes hopes to address concerns (in reference to current guidelines, not my sandbox) raised by Gordon and Fighterdoken and hopefully resolve them.

I moved "Services" back under "Allies". I also moved "Charmable pets" out of "Allies", since they're not exactly allies. I also renamed "Quests" to "Quests available". I still insist on keeping the NPC levels and profession - it's not strictly necessary and they're mostly useless, but it's also mostly harmless to leave it there, and mostly harmless to omit them too.

And lastly, I agree with Gordon on removing quest-specific spawns and mentioning quests that affect spawns (just as how we avoid listing festival-related spawns). I'm only having trouble with what name to call a section of such quests. Until someone (or I) comes up with a good header name or at least a nice way of making the quests section look much better, I'll leave it as it this and we can come back later. At least agree on NPCs first. As before, samples can be seen in Shing Jea Monastery and Sunqua Vale. -- ab.er.rant 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe adding some kind of note or an icon (working in the same way as with repeatable quests) that just states that "X (or "this") quest changes the spawn table for this location"?. --Fighterdoken 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I thought of that too, but it won't work unless we change what's shown in the "Quests" section, because some quests that affect spawns are not offered in that location, so we'd need to expand the scope of the "Quests" section. -- ab.er.rant 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ow, i see. I guess alternatives could be just adding it to the notes section (as in "The following quests modify the spawn table for this location: A, B, C"); or expanding the "Quests" section splitting it into two, a "Quests acquired at this location" and a "Related quests" (with better names).--Fighterdoken 05:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! (even to the extent where I too couldn't up with a good header name :P) 10:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting there

Do we really need the Getting there section seeing as there is a map? — ク Eloc 貢 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The map doesn't tell anything about how you can unlock a specific area. Some players maybe just think "Oh I'm in the neighbour area so I can simply walk to that location" and they will often see a closed door :P poke | talk 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If I show you a map of Gate of Torment, would it be obvious how to get there? "Getting there" is much more necessary than "Exits". -- ab.er.rant 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tho' notes would do fine for special notes. Backsword 09:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPC section. Again.

I noticed that this section have been changed to not include anything spawned by a quest. I see both advantages, such as a much clearer list and the possibility to denote special groups of the same unts that also exists normally in an area (Eg. the 9 bodyguards in Anton's quest The Assassin's Revenge), but also disadvantages, such as vanquishers wanting to know if any quest increases the kill requirement, and also the situation where some editor notcies a creature when playing but do not realise that a quest they have acgtive can cause the spawn and thus adds it back, creating messy article. I thought we could turn the disadvantages into something positive by somehow standarising how we display quests that modifies the NPC section. Or something. Backsword 09:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've asked that before but received little feedback, so I've left all those quests under notes, above any vanquishing tips. I don't really have any good ideas aside from moving the list of quests that affect spawns into the quest section. For examples, see Zehlon Reach, Mehtani Keys and Plains of Jarin. -- ab.er.rant 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Those articles are a bit of an eyeopener. Didn't realise some locations had that many quests changing spawns. My thinking was to use the NPC section, as that's where people are most likely to look when it comes to NPCs. We don't use the area between ==NPCs== and ===Allies=== for anything, currently. I'll copy your usage in the notes section for now. Backsword 06:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elonian Landmarks

After noticing the very high number of red links in the templates for Elonian landmarks, I did some research, and I learned that most of those red links were taken from names found within the game's .dat file, together with a small description (more details on this [topic from GWO).

The problem, IMO, is that not only we don't have much information about those places, but we also don't even know if they were added to the game, or if they're "official" names for things we have in game. For example, the Freeman's Cove appears to be the cave found within the Barbarous Shore, but there's no factual evidence that they're the same place, nor that said name is the "official" name of the cave, even if they were originally intended to be the same thing.

Given how it's unlikely we will get any more information about any of those landmarks, I would suggest just removing all of them. Other option would be asking Emily about them, but IMO it would be a somewhat troublesome request. Erasculio 21:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that removing those that we cannot confirm to be in game (no name mentioned anywhere in game) would be a good idea. There are too much invalid/inapplicable information in the dat for it to be relevant to put on wiki. If there were info in the dat to add to wiki, fine, but since we just have a name and nothing else it doesn't seem very useful. - anja 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the fence. On the one hand, we have pages dedicated to skills and other features that were dug up from the dat file but never released in-game, so there's no harm having pages talking about landmarks that we don't even know where they are. On the other hand, because of their vagueness, they don't have much use either (but to make them longer, we can mention where those names were retrieved from and add a note saying that we really really don't know where they're located :) -- ab.er.rant 04:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

First, seems User:Zora has implemented most now, so that should be considered.

Second, this discussion seems a bit skewered to me. It should not be about that file in the first place, one way or another. The relevant question is whether those landmarks exist in the game. If they do, they should be implemented and listed regardless, if not, at most an article marked unimplemented and certainly no template listeing. Backsword 00:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Freeman's Cove is definately that area on the Barbarous Shore, you can figure out from a few of the DAT entries:

Mahnkelon Ward

Water pumping station used to filtrate parts of the Elon and flush the waste into the Bahnelon.

This is of course the area where the Rilohn Refuge mission takes place and where you kill The Drought.

Bahnelon River

Underground river that emerges to the south and flows into the sea at Freeman's Cove.

The underground river that emerges to the south is obviously the one in Bahdok Caverns, and where does the river finally flow into the sea? At the Barbarous Shore.

Now it does seem that not all of the landmarks mentioned are actually in the game, but there are a good portion that are and there really shouldn't be a reason not to include them at least. Sounds Risky | 00:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem, IMO, is that the knowledge that areas like those mentioned in the .dat files are in the game does not mean that those areas are exactly those mentioned in the .dat file. For example, maybe Arena Net had planned to make a large set of caves or even an entire explorable area where the "Freeman's Cove" is, and that's what would have been named Freeman's Cove. Maybe they were going to name those caves we have in game "Freeman's Cove", but decided against naming them in the end, and therefore the caves' name would not be "Freeman's Cove", regardless if they fit the description or not. And so on. If people are willing to follow this issue, we could ask Emily about this and get confirmation about which names are "official" and which ones aren't, but personally I wouldn't like to give her more work than we already do. Erasculio 12:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation would be grand, but until then I would consider the information valid as long as it doesn't directly contradict anything in-game. It would be nice to get Grubb to poke his nose in here though, I imagine he has notes written down somewhere. Sounds Risky | 13:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't have a problem with including those landmarks.. Even if the information is not within the game, I think a simple note with something like "The name and the description of this landmark are not available in-game, but were stored internally." would be fine.. poke | talk 13:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Would that issue not be readily resolved by adding a note explaining such? -- ab.er.rant 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Note: This article may or not be about what it's talking about"? Somehow that idea doesn't thrill me : P Asking Emily would be better, then, IMO. I'm writing a list of locations together with where they have been guessed to be, so we have something simpler to show to Emily. Erasculio 14:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well... I wouldn't put it that way... :D but you're right, it's a little pointless. How about we redirect all those names to a centralised page containing "unconfirmed locations" or something? Something along the lines of Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Unanswered questions? Or maybe we could merge it there or something. -- ab.er.rant 17:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll see. I have wikified the list, added the guesses by other people (and my owns), and asked Emily about it. Erasculio 23:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

(RI) Well, Emily said she would look into it, but she's extremely busy, so I doubt we're going to get a reply anytime soon. Mohnzh and me were discussing this, and we thought about adding the remaining landmarks (since so many of them are already there, and adding them would reduce the number of red links we have around here) with the descriptions from the .dat file together with a note explaining the source of that information and that it's a bit questionable, as Aberrant had suggested. Does anyone oppose? Erasculio 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I support Erasculio's proposal. I stumbled into this discussion while trying to make the missing pages list useful again by reducing the number of pointless red links. I noticed that the Elonian Landmarks were full of them and that some existed with only a stub-notice and infobox. I copied the template into all the empty Vabbi Landmark pages fully intending on doing some in-game research tonight. That's when Erasculio caught me and pointed me this way. From what I gather, there is a mixed message. It seems like we are not yet creating the pages because their only evidence is the .dat file. But we do not remove them from the nav-box because there is evidence for their existence in the .dat file. I think that we should either decide to allow for the .dat file to be sufficient to at least begin these pages, or conclude altogether that no reference to them can be made without in-game evidence (including excluding them from the nav-boxes). My preference is the former, along with Erasculio. We don't have to know everything in order to provide some information. We could even present them as sort of lore, indicating they exist and have been described, but exact locations have only been speculated. Mohnzh say what? 20:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vanquish count... time to call consensus on it?

For some time already, there has been two trends for adding a "vanquishing count" on explorable zones. One is the "average" aproach that intends to use standard language to convey the message about the numbers in question, and the other is the "min-max" aproach that tries to prevent constant changes to that section of the article by good-willed (but missreading) editors.

We already have the information on the Vanquish article, so whichever we choose could be filled without further research. Then... could we just pick one way of adding the information already? Pretty please, with sugar on top?

Current options are something like:

• For vanquishing the zone, players need to kill an average of xyz creatures.
• For vanquishing the zone, players need to kill between xyz and uvw creatures.

Or, if nothing else:

• For vanquishing the zone, players need to kill between xyz and uvw creatures, which means an average of abc kills.--Fighterdoken 08:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am simply of the opinion that it would be nice to be able to separate the reported min and max from the non-quest-influenced average. Since the Vanquisher template is now being used for min and max regardless of quest (except the special case of Zen Daijun), I thought it would be nice to state on the explorable area that the number there reflects the actual non-quest-influenced state of the area (since all quest-specific stuff is being moved to quest pages as much as possible to keep the location articles "clean" of quest info). I don't mind swapping them around but I think it would be good to note down a different average from the one in Vanquisher. -- ab.er.rant 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That would require some aditional research, but i think it is a good option if we decide adding min-max values, since (as you say) the vanquish article shows entries that are affected by quests. In any case, as a user who utilized the available info for deciding his vanquish methods, i must say that i found the "max" count and the quest notes a lot more helpful than min or average values.--Fighterdoken 17:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So what are you suggesting? That we swap them or place both types of data on both? I hoped the wording that I used would be enough to discourage people from trying to keep the numbers in sync (they won't); primarily to keep them from going out of sync so easily actually, since the average will deviate less than the min-max values. Add the fact that we aren't really verifying whether a reported min/max value is really possible or not kinda also makes the average without quests more accurate (to me anyway, since I have no quests left and thus the max is not useful). -- ab.er.rant 11:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As you say, the idea behind using the "average" wording is probably the best aproach document-wise, since it will give a good idea of how many opponents there are in the zone regardless of the conditions. But, as you also noted, wiki users will insist from time on time to replace that data entries with their own (be it average or min-max count), and since we don't have a official stance on it, revert skirmishes will just keep happening.

If possible, i would prefer to use "min-max" (AGF'ing the data entries) just to prevent stamping reverts right in the nose of new users, but more than anything i would just like that we make a official decision about the wording (even if it is "average") so other editors are aware of it.--Fighterdoken 06:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All right then, how about "Vanquisher runs of this area in hard mode are known to have about x - y enemies; tending to z enemies on average when without active quests." or something like that. -- ab.er.rant 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good enough as to ensure random_user_001 don't change the data entry just to fit it to his own observations.--Fighterdoken 21:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/Locations#Middle_sections

"It is not necessary to list quest-only NPCs or quest-specific spawns, as these should be listed in the corresponding quest page instead."

As this formatting guideline also applies to explorables, i request this sentence be changed or removed, since we have always been listing said NPCs. Much more because quest-related spawns exist only in explorables (and dungeons?). It would be omitting useful information if we wouldn't. I'll just change it if I don't get replies here, just wanna make sure i tell people before changing to give an opportunity to bring up other opinions. - Y0_ich_halt 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We have always been listing said NPCs because that's been the way GuildWiki did it and the initial data have mostly been copied over, heh :D iirc, I added that line, because I found all the "only during blah-blah quest", "except during blah-blah quest", "unless so-and-so quest" to be rather cluttering (since a lot of times, you don't really care about quest effects, and if you do, you're only interested in just one or two, not all). I figured that since the mission articles is meant to hold only the mission-specific stuff, and quest articles holding only the quest-specific stuff, I thought it would be logical to have location articles to have only location-specific stuff, which means no quest or mission related stuff.

Check out how I conformed all the Nightfall articles (except the Realm of Torment explorables; haven't done them) to the current guidelines. I'm on Factions now, but Bart has nicely done many of them so I'm just adding stuff here and there. I've removed all quest-only spawns and replaced them with a list of quest that affects the area, allowing a sort quick reference. The only NPCs I've retained are those are appear before or after certain mission/quest requirements, since they don't fit well onto the quest articles. -- ab.er.rant 07:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

well, i never had a problem with "not during" and "only during"... also, i'd count NPCs to location-related stuff in any case. the difference with mission and quest articles is that neither missions nor quests overlap with any other location where this guideline applies. as explorables are often where quests take place, they do, so they can't be treated equally. separating related and non-related stuff is harder with this overlapping, and it would be easiest to just list everything for completeness. i looked at