Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/NPCs

From Guild Wars Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Archive

Shortcut:
GWWT:NPC
GWWT:NPCS

Contents

[edit] NPCs in quest-specific zones

I've noticed that a lot of articles for NPCs in quest-specific zones incorrectly use {{NPC location|<name of zone which shares map with quest zone>}} (only during [[<quest name>]] instead of {{NPC location|<name of quest zone>}} (only dunig [[<quest name>]]. 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 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. - BeX 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 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)

[edit] 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. - BeX 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" — ク Eloc 貢 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Those not related to any mechanical or technical categorisation. -- ab.er.rant 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. —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 13:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

or

[edit] Normal mode

[edit] Hard mode

also, you include (elite) for non-bosses? —♥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. -- 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 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 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)

[edit] Quest region

In the "syntax and example" it notes that quests should be listed like this: 

*[[Region]]
**[[Quest name]]

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:'''
*[[Istan]]
**[[All for One and One for Justice]]
**[[Chasing Zenmai]]

or this: 

'''Quests given:'''
*[[Kryta]]
**[[All for One and One for Justice]]
*[[Kaineng City]]
**[[Chasing Zenmai]]

--Silver Edge 21:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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 04:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [[Category:NPCs with elite skill]] and [[Category:Drops unique]] to each page they are used on automatically.

Existing skills area 

==Skills==
(20 [[Domination Magic]] in [[Hard Mode]])
* {{skill icon|Backfire}}
* {{skill icon|Power Block}} ([[elite]])
* {{skill icon|Power Spike}}
* {{skill icon|Shatter Enchantment}}
* {{skill icon|Shatter Hex}}
* {{skill icon|Resurrection Chant}}

[edit] Skills

(20 Domination Magic in Hard Mode)

Proposed change using template in existing NPC page 

==Skills==
(20 [[Domination Magic]] in [[Hard Mode]])
*{{skill icon|Backfire}}
*{{skill icon|Power Block}} {{elite}}
*{{skill icon|Power Spike}}
*{{skill icon|Shatter Enchantment}}
*{{skill icon|Shatter Hex}}
*{{skill icon|Resurrection Chant}}

[edit] Skills

(20 Domination Magic in Hard Mode)

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)

[edit] 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]])
*{{skill icon|Air Attunement}}
*{{skill icon|Lightning Bolt}}
*[[Hard to read link]]
*[[Hard to read link]]
*[[Hard to read link]]
*[[Hard to read link]]
*{{skill icon|Lightning Javelin}}
*{{skill icon|Lightning Surge}}
*{{skill icon|Whirlwind}}
This text is on a regular line
::::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]])
* {{skill icon|Air Attunement}}
* {{skill icon|Lightning Bolt}}
* [[Easy to read link]]
* [[Easy to read link]]
* [[Easy to read link]]
* [[Easy to read link]]
* {{skill icon|Lightning Javelin}}
* {{skill icon|Lightning Surge}}
* {{skill icon|Whirlwind}}
This text is on a regular line
:::: 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)

[edit] 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 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 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)

[edit] 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 Talk 13:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Formatting/NPCs"