Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Interactive Maps

Archive

---

/Archive 1

Not to be a party pooper, but...

How do I get to the old region maps? I understand and appreciate the idea behind the interactive maps, but sometimes (frequently, lately) I don't _want_ to see the interactive version. For instance, I've been running my alts through the campaigns lately. I haven't been playing all that long, so I still don't know my way around very well in a lot of places (the southern shiverpeaks and maguuma, for example). When I'm trying to run a toon around to get all the outposts, I find it incredibly annoying to have to go back and forth between explorable area maps because there's a huge link box blocking a critical part of my path. A good example is going from drok's to deldrimor war camp, passing through camp rankor. On my first toon, I did this by looking at a single region map. Now on my newer toons, I have to go area by area, occasionally needing to switch back and forth. In this type of situation, it would be nice to have the old maps back so I could see all the areas on one image. Are those maps still around? If not, can we bring them back and maybe put a link to the non-interactive version on each interactive map's page? It would make getting from a to b a lot easier when you don't need to know everything wiki knows about everything in between... 216.229.78.186 08:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to the non-interactive (underneath the new maps). Also: I think you are asking for regional maps, which are linked from the regions (not the explorables).

However, I think the current caption is somewhat confusing:

"see also: Image on the world map and map with collector location)".

What about instead,

"Non-interactive maps: Plain or With Collectors"

— Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even too sure what you're talking about, but maybe that's me... As far as stuff blocking your view, that's what the controls under the map are for, they turn all the labels on and off. Under all the labels, the image used as the map is actually the "clean" map that used to be on the article itself. It does suck with the Shiverpeaks maps that the text has the backgrounds, but otherwise no text will show well on the white background. In your example of going from Drok's to the War Camp, see Southern Shiverpeaks/Map and you can turn off the labels to have a clear view.

I believe all the region (region as in geographical region e.g. Ascalon, Kryta, Jade Sea, etc.) maps have links under the interactive map image to the old game screenshots if really do prefer those, but be wary on the individual explorable area pages and check where you're going, (most) of those are still waiting to be made. Disregard that, and the removal of the links was discussed here, stating "There's no need - no matter how the interactive map is done - to link to the clean map, as the interactive maps can be made clean. Likewise, there's no need for the labelled maps to even exist as the interactive maps are labelled", which is very easy to do (again, with the hide/show tags). ~FarloTalk 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we please keep the links to the old maps? Right now, I'm digging through the article/file histories to use them (I find the labels on the interactive maps jarring, so I'd much rather use the old ones). Plactus 16:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be a reasonable compromise to include two map images on the articles:

1. Interactive map
2. Non-interactive maps

The second would be the plain version, but link to another subpage that has all the original maps (and nothing else). This gives people a choice on the main page and avoids cluttering with too many maps. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 17:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, as stated above, we originally did have links to the old images, but Konig, Alex, and I thought it was somewhat pointless since the interactive one can do any combination. If you want to make another sub-page for every zone with the old images, I guess we could do that, but I've also been over-writing "zone name map.jpg" with a screen capture of the interactive map, so that makes a lot more hassle, unless we just show the older versions on the non-interactive subpage.

Either way, I don't really care, but at least for me, making the maps and getting them linked takes precedent. If there's more support than the one or two people who have commented so far (By the way thank you guys for taking the time to contribute and voice your opinions), I guess I'll start including both, but (and I know neither sample is a good evaluation of the community as a whole) I've gotten at least 15-20 comments on my guild forums and in-game of people saying they're really good and help a lot.

Possibly after WoC is out and after the surge of debate and content we'll have to add is over, one thing I'd like to do is put up a topic on the Community Portal or wherever will get the most attention brought to it so there can be a larger discussion about what to do, because frankly, it's 90% me, TEF, Alex, Konig, and Mora trying to figure this out for the entire wiki. ~FarloTalk 20:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So how about for now: leave current articles as they are. For new articles, (if necessary) move the current map to a subpage [zone]/Non-interactive maps, then create a new page for the new maps.

It might be that a better solution will be getting someone to re-tweak the formatting on the labels (which, given how the maps are setup, is relatively simple to do — in fact, we designed them so that we could fix the formatting without having to re-edit substantially). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good for now. For the non-interactive map pages, should we just slap the related maps up and leave it at that? ~FarloTalk 22:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's just a matter of time and work, then I would be willing and able to create new pages for the old maps and links to them. Here's a mockup I made for Ascalon, with a link inserted as here. Plactus 23:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what we had before, but just linked straight to the images, not another sub-page. If we're just going to do links, not other maps, I suggest just doing it the way we had before. ~FarloTalk 00:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(apparent edit-conflict) That looks okay to me. If others agree, I'd recommend updating 2-3 articles, then posting another note on this talk (at the bottom) to check for any feedback. (Easier to find out early if something needs adjustment.) (I still prefer referring to these as non-interactive maps, but have no objection to calling them, other maps.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly what it was early on during the project, but I think Plactus is trying to say: let's offer two choices (not several) on the main article: a link to the interactive map (which functions as several) or a link to all the other (non-interactive) maps; this gives people an easy choice and avoids cluttering the page and gives everyone what they want via only a single click. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is true, and honestly, I could care less, but if you want the non-interactive maps, you'll have to click twice! :O ~FarloTalk 01:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I started this section before I set up my account, and I thought a great deal about the replies it got. TEF, I was indeed referring to the region maps and how they weren't doing the job for me because the solid background blocked certain details. However, when hiding the labels, I couldn't reliably tell where I was going, because I have an absolutely horrible memory. I think the problem has been perfectly solved, though. I really like the solution that has been implemented in certain pages (Kryta, for example) with the link to the old maps. The interactive map is very nice (I think the transparent backgrounds on the text are an EXCELLENT touch--please keep those coming) and a wealth of information, but if for any reason the non-interactive version is needed, it's easily accessible in a way that does not clutter the page. I feel a bit like a mooch, not having any time to contribute myself, but I really appreciate what you folks have done here. Very nicely done, so thank you all! My Profession Gender 09:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the feedback, and I'm glad we found a solution that can offer people choices without hindering the usefulness of the site. If you ever do have time, we'd love to have the extra man power, but don't feel bad, the entire point of a Wiki is to contribute and help the community without worrying about compensation :D ~FarloTalk 22:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Kudos!

Now that these maps are starting to appear in greater frequency:

• I get really annoyed when I encounter an article without them because...
• I can't remember how we lived without them for so long.

Hats off to the heavyweight contributors: C. Alex, Farlo, and Mora! — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the support, especially the dynamic label template! Hopefully we can make some serious headway here. ~FarloTalk 23:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Dungeon maps

Dungeon (and dungeon quest walkthrough) maps will present some interesting challenges:

1. We have some really bad maps (some look more like a Random Walk VQ rather than walkthrough).
2. The locations of many LoDs are incorrect (everything from: they never appear in that location through the locus of possible locations is large than the map suggests).
3. We have the usual problem of whether to separate the walkthrough dots from other features.
4. In some maps, locations of certain features varies between NM and HM (e.g. the usable bridge in Darkrime Delves).
5. We could use some better icons for certain features.

Dungeons can also be more annoying for testing locations, because you can't repeat them as easily as explorable areas.

For those doing the bulk of the work adding these maps (i.e. Mora, Farlo, Alex), what types of data/notes/testing would you like to be done before you get to this set? (I generally prefer dungeoneering to farming and I try to remember my LoDs, so I might be able to start collecting data now.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Very nice consideration, and I'll probably be doing some of this as well, mostly researching/fixing boss locations. As for your list:

• I'd like to get fresh (probably Texmod rips) clean maps for all of the dungeons and levels and photoshop paths and such on like I do for my IGMM. I'll do a lot of this, so not a big issue for you.
• The LoD placements and lists would be a huge help, and if you're willing, screenshots are always helpful in more hidden locations
• If we really wanted, I could try my hand at making the path another "label" that can be shown/hidden. Shouldn't be that hard, just another image to upload to the wiki.
• I guess we can add a HM label, or just note it in the hide/show location like the Kryta/Map has for WiK/HotN, of course depending on what's different.
• For icons, I'd like to use the in-game icons as much as possible, and I'll rip those that I can. (Maybe an A-Net would feel gracious enough to get them officially for us?) If it's something without an icon, I guess we find/make some Tango style icons.

Thanks again for your help! If you want to contribute for Explorable Areas and Missions before we get to dungeons, that'd be really helpful too ;) ~FarloTalk 23:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'll print out some dungeon maps and record LoD bursts (sometimes, it's a pain, as in Bogroots, when you are typically under attack while pinging).

I was thinking that one way of displaying/hiding the path is by having two maps, each with their own set of labels. You could still use show/hide, but instead of showing/hiding, it would actually load the other map (not as elegant, but possibly a lot easier).

A lot of icons can be pulled from existing sources (boss, key, etc all appear after displaying the dungeon map in-game), but there aren't any ANet icons for LoDs or what you find at them (Switches, secret door, treasure, ally). It's possible that dungeon icons should be small/tiny, since the maps themselves don't have a lot of room for text and/or large icons. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The path is easy. Make it the "bottom" (very first) label, have it not link, and it's just a path over transparency. I just need a screenshot (one of the ones in the file history should do) and about 15 mins in Photoshop.

We can use Media:Collector chest.jpg once some transparency is applied for the chest for treasure, but I'm not sure about the Dwarven Ghost, perhaps make a stupid icon like this? ~FarloTalk 02:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Collector icons

I'd like to catch this before we have to redo all the maps, and I was wondering everyone's thoughts on using the default collector icon () vs. the icon of whatever that collector collects. I think it might be worthwhile to make them more varied and use the collectable's icon. Thoughts? ~FarloTalk 04:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Variety is great...and the specific icon will be worth 10 words (Fritz, collects Quatloos) if not 1000. It's also more work than re-using the same icon. You could decide to split the project: use the plain icon now...and have a follow-up (which might never complete) to replace 'em with specific icons (and reduce some text). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's that big of a deal to pop in the right icons when they're being made, especially when you have tabs. I'll probably keep the label saying the item and still have the icon link to the collector. Unless anyone disagrees (I know it hasn't been that long, but revert if you truly care), I'll start redoing them when I finish Ascalon. ~FarloTalk 05:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I kinda liked the , it's kinda hard to see the trophy icons if they kinda match with the background map image. For example, in Lakeside_County/Map. Darthlight 18:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have noticed that. Where it does work, I like it a lot better though. Perhaps we can make a better icon for some of the ones that blend in well. ~FarloTalk 19:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

War in Kryta maps

Coming up on Kryta maps, and in preparation for Winds of Change in Cantha, how do we want to separate the the Beyond version of maps from the standard maps? I think we should have them both link to the same Zone Name/Map, and just have different headings like the Kryta/Map page does. So for Cursed Lands, it'd link to the map subpage as usual, but on Cursed Lands (War in Kryta), have the image link back to the normal map.

I can see this being a problem for some though, and it might be confusing switching between the WiK version and the normal version. If they're kept separate pages, I guess we just put a disambiguation tag at the top. Suggestions or thoughts? ~FarloTalk 19:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer each on the same page. Each could be sub-sections under Bosses. And on a side note, shouldn't the Bosses section be hidden by default to show a clean(er) map, and only show the extra info when wanted? •••Mora 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bosses

Regular bosses Boss 1 Boss 2 War in Kryta bosses WiK Boss 1 Wik Boss 2

I don't think there was ever really discussion about what should be shown by default, but bosses seem pretty important to me. Once more are completed, we can probably get more widespread responses on what should be shown and whatnot.

As for your example, I don't think we should have sub-headings, makes it a bit more confusing, I really like how I did Kryta, haha. Until we get more feedback, let's hold off on the Beyond versions of the maps. ~FarloTalk 20:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

GwCamUnlocker for towns and smaller areas

I just found these, and after oogling at them for a couple minutes, I realized the CamUnlocker has some potential to help us out if the maps (especially in outposts) become to small. This is a top-down image of Temple of Ages facing due North, and with a high resolution (1080 Ftw!), we get a decent image on which to place labels and such. Thought I'd leave this here until we got to that point in the project.

Also, I had to un-indent your table Mora, it did funky things with this section. ~FarloTalk 06:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I just tried the CamUnlocker and its good, but I'm wondering if someone with texmod abilities could remove the cloud as you zoom out? --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 11:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm playing with texmod - never actually made anything with it before, and I think i've found the cloud textures.. we'll see what happens. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 12:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Poke. Anvi God _zzz... 12:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

When I blank out the "cloud" textures I've extracted, I can get the sky white when viewed at ground level, but when I tried using Red/orange/blue as the texture colours, nothing changed. curious but I'll try again later. should I blank/black out/white out the texture? :/ File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 13:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened with the texmod stuff. Previously mine was very pale, but I've set the sky to black, and the particles to a dark green..--File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 16:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a bit touchie. Turning off Post-Processing Effects clears up a lot of the "atmosphere" as well. I'll mess around with it too and see if I can't make the clouds and other stuff a bit more clear. If you have Photoshop, the TGAs extracted from Texmod use black in the alpha channel to represent clear, so just repaint the image all black (in the alpha channel), and it should turn that object invisible. ~FarloTalk 16:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Poke - What are the advantages of having an interactive map? Anvi God _zzz... 19:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel as if my name is abused :o poke | talk 11:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Anvil is just a troll who followed from pvx. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 11:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-interactive maps

As discussed above, I've added links to the non-interactive maps of Ascalon, Green Hills County, and Old Ascalon, and am now looking for feedback and suggestions for improvement before I go any farther. For images that were overwritten by screen captures of the interactive maps, I've uploaded old versions of the images under new names. Ascalon and Old Ascalon got subpages for non-interactive maps, but Green Hills County, which only had a single map, just got a link to the map. Plactus 23:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Those look pretty good, and if you want to apply that theme to the rest, I'll follow it with the new pages. ~FarloTalk 00:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind doing them, if you'd rather focus on just getting the interactive maps made and linked. I have plenty of downtime at work for doing stuff like this.

In any case, I've now done all the Prophecies regions. Plactus 23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that's cool. Glad to have the man power. Once I get some free time, I'll hopefully get cracking on Cantha, I'm seriously tired of Tyria, especially Maguuma/Kryta. ~FarloTalk 01:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Monastery Overlook map

While it isn't a very "looked at" page, and I can't imagine there being too much traffic or interest in the zone normally, I think it should be included because not only is it a tutorial zone (so possibly helpful for newbies), but the boardwalk games create huge influxes of players into that area, and it might be worth having a map just to be safe/comprehensive. That said, I think we should have one map (and this formatting can apply for towns in the future as well), and just have tabs with the holiday information hidden by default. This can be repeated for however many events may change a town (Kryta/Map example again) and reduces the clutter of having multiple pages that are similarly named or may confuse people, which is always bad. ~FarloTalk 00:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok thats fine [ I thought perhaps could leave Monastery overlook til we think of a method for outposts], I'm thinking Linnok courtyard is too small to get its own map .. and can we omit it? --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 00:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Linnok Courtyard we definitely can omit, and yeah, don't even worry until we get to that. As a matter of fact, forget the noob intro explorable, I forgot that the festivities technically occur in the town. I don't see a need for that place by itself, haha. ~FarloTalk 03:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Zaishen menagery

I'm missing the menagery in the list of maps. Are you simply forgetting it? Cause an interactive map would be nice there....Rumian 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I forgot to add that! I'll put it... somewhere on the list, not sure where'd it'd fit. Thanks for that. ~FarloTalk 18:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

High resolution maps

See my last comment there: http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/User_talk:Stephane_Lo_Presti#Map_images_request --Stephane Lo Presti talk 20:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Navbar(s)

I took a little time and threw together this. It works like the tonics nav (option to auto-expand tabs) and I'm pretty sure it has all of the info of the current navbars (plus the missing Nightfall one) rolled into one. •••Mora 01:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That is pretty nice, and if it'll auto-expand the current section then it rocks. The only thing that concerns me is that people might not realize the region links are actually to the maps, but that's really minor and it should work otherwise. Give it a few days for people to see it and once we finalize it I'll roll it out :D ~FarloTalk 01:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Fonts

Sounds lame, but the fonts used on these maps sucks. Each one seems to be different and it makes the maps, while a brilliant idea, seem unproffesional and a bit naff. 92.233.36.81 13:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Which font/label type do you find the worst - personally I think the portals link should be same font in either white or black. Also bear in mind when we change stuff it also changes on awkward maps with lots of different colours such as the desert/maguuma + shiverpeak maps. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 14:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Boss Variations format?

I think the boss variations needs a re-design, it's too ugly. I like the format that's in Salt Flats/Map better than say North Kryta Province/Map, something smaller and less cluttered looking. Any other ideas or suggestions? ~FarloTalk 16:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks good + its easy to implement on top of existing formatting. What is your preference on spacing between profession icons and the boss names? I prefer with a space between the two. + a new line for boss names that are being word-wrapped. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 17:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like, since my university remote servers are down [lol], I can implement that change right now. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.pngChieftain Alex 17:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Go for it, unless there is any opposition. I prefer spaces too, and since we have them "inside" the map, the word wrapping would be nice. ~FarloTalk 20:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, should I remove the text saying "possible spawn variations"? --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 21:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the maps in Kryta and Maguuma, but without confirmation that its ok if i remove "possible spawn variations" i won't go any further. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 22:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, remove that. I think it's easy enough to understand and it looks a lot nicer. ~FarloTalk 04:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Do we want to have the variations included in the "hide/show" toggle? It'd any page with more than one spawn set a bit shorter and maybe easier to read. I set up North Kryta Province/Map as an example of them being included in the toggle. ~FarloTalk 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Beyond maps

I know I'm a fair bit late to the party, but I'm going to start on the Winds of Change maps since that's the new hot stuff, but it seems we never decided how to implement the different spawns.

1. We can have all versions of that explorable on the same Zone Name/Map page with on/off tags for each version, much like Kryta/Map is now. This is simpler to access since you don't have to worry about being on the right version of the page, but unless we can control which labels are shown with the link URL, it might confuse people when they load a map that has the wrong bosses on it by default.
2. We can have separate maps for the Beyond content, Shenzun Tunnels/Map vs. Shenzun Tunnels (Winds of Change)/Map for example. This of course keeps everything neat and separated, but it means more pages and the same issue of distinction that the articles themselves have.

I'm divided pretty evenly between them, any other opinions? ~FarloTalk 06:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

One compromise (based on technical possibilities) would be to have the map on Area/Map with default spawns shown and Beyond spawns hidden, and a transclusion on Area (Beyond)/Map which changes the default visibility. Thus each article links to the map that's relevant, each map includes the other spawns as well (if interested in), but you still only have to maintain one map.

For example, on Area/Map, use something like class="{{#if: {{#var:showBeyondSpawns}}|collapsible|expandable}} }}" on the respective tables, and on Area (Beyond)/Map, simply have {{#vardefine:showBeyondSpawns|1}}{{{:Area/Map}}}

(You could simulate that using the includeonly and noinclude tags, but a variable is more explicit about the intended functionality and helps as soon as we find areas with more than 2 spawnsets, i.e. for quests during mini-missions.) Tub 12:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. I'll start on a map that has a Beyond version and test it out. ~FarloTalk 15:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Beyond mobs are added on top of the default spawns, so I only have to toggle those on and not have to toggle the default spawns off, right? ~FarloTalk 17:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are we talking about region maps (like Echovald Forest/Map) or zone maps (like Morostav Trail/Map) here?

Displaying two links on top of each other is a problem when shadows appear, because two shadows on top of each other are visibly different from a single shadow. Always hiding what should be hidden would be cleaner, though I understand the restrictions of the javascript we have (e.g. no "toggle" option). Tub 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Doh! I was just thinking of the area maps and the different bosses, not the regions. Wouldn't it be fairly simple to have the "showBeyondSpawns" definition switched for anything that'd be hidden in the default map? For example wouldn't
"class="{{#if: {{#var:showBeyondSpawns}}|expandable|collapsible}} }}"" (switched the variables) cause a heading to be hidden if Beyond is enabled?

I'd propose a different approach for the region maps, actually. We only need split maps for the explorables, since we'll be linking the map from two different location articles, and we want the correct spawns to display by default.

On region maps, there's only one region article, thus only one link to the map, which means that all info should be visible on one map. I've added an experimental version on Kaineng City/Map. The exact spacing would need some tweaking, and they'll need their own locationtype= value, it's just a general idea for now. Tub 20:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to think of a different way to get them both on one map, it looks weird and empty if only the Beyond explorables are toggled. That should do the trick with some changes to the label template and position fiddling. ~FarloTalk 20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A separate question: do the Beyond bosses/NPCs replace the default ones, or do they get added on top of them? ~FarloTalk 18:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just tried it out, adding the variables to Kaineng City/Map and using User:Farlo/Sandbox 2 as "Kaineng City (Winds of Change)/Map", but the map isn't being projected onto my sandbox. ~FarloTalk 18:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems to work fine. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 18:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I was actually about to try that, but I had to step away from the computer for a few minutes. , it seems we've found our solution :D

Would it be as simple as adding <noinclude> around the Maps nav so that we could add a separate one for the Beyond maps? ~FarloTalk 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you making the nav template for that? I can probably do it tonight if not :p File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 19:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I just made a basic one. I posted my idea for a better nav nav (not a typo) at Template talk:Interactive Region nav, if I ever actually finish we're gonna have a lot of maps. ~FarloTalk 20:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Southern Shiverpeaks

Since most of the bosses on those maps are random spawns, would it be easier to just place points with "" and show the possibilities underneath? This will reduce the clutter on the map, but then if there are more than one "set" of bosses, say different species in the Frozen Forest, then we need some other way to distinguish them. I can't decide which path would be better, especially with the maps that have close to 10 bosses will get really crowded with names. What do you guys think? ~FarloTalk 20:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Shared spawn icon colors

Since it seems this is a better path to take, what do you guys think of the colors? Go ahead and replace any of them if you can improve them. When we get the colors right, I'll move them into the mainspace for the actual maps.

I'm currently using the colored icons on Frozen Forest/Map as a test. ~FarloTalk 08:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, should we start using these primarily for bosses that share spawn points or would we rather have each one labeled? Now that I've made a couple maps with them, they are a lot easier to work with and tend to look a bit cleaner, especially on small maps, but if you guys think we should keep the points labelled, I'm fine with that. ~FarloTalk 22:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as the list of bosses is easy to connect to the icon (without lots of scrolling/eyeball stretching), I don't think the boss names need to be on the map.

I assume you're going to templatize the use of the icon, so that it's easy to replace "red icon" with "red tango icon" (or whatever) and to also correlate the color choices with the map colors. (e.g. {{shared spawn|yellow|boss A, B, C}} might show "yellow" on one map, but "goldenrod" on another). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope using the colored "bullet point" with the labeled hover text is enough to specify what's what, one would think color recognition is easy enough ;). Thanks for updating the Frozen Forest map, I'll go through and add those notes with all the others as I fix them.

As for an icon template, I was thinking about the format for it when I was making the last map actually. By having it show yellow on one but goldenrod on another, do you mean if that label's tagged as "light", "green", or whatever? (I've got to make more colors if so.) So far the parameters I've thought of are icon color, zone name, boss type/species, and now map type. So it'd look something like "{{Map Icon|red|light|Snake Dance|Troll}}". Is there a call we can use to get the root page name so I don't have to type out the zone name? Then since the icon in the text below is smaller, I'd just add an "if" to change it's size. ~FarloTalk 20:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think these icons need to be changed, maps are looking like m&m's / chocolate envelops (I love these...), maybe use the monster icon File:Monster-tango-icon-200.png but coloured for each profession and create a rainbow-coloured icon for random spawn and adjust all these icons to the size of collector bags we see within the U map so that monster icons dont outstand too much. Yoshida Keiji talk 16:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

If you feel like uploading some image alternatives to demonstrate your idea, feel free. --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 16:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You must be tired today, you usually connect with me faster. The Monster-tango-icon I linked above is red, which could probably be used for elementalist bosses, just produce others alike but with different colors for each profession. Yoshida Keiji talk 16:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for using monster face images instead of circles, circles are a lot simpler and clearer at smaller resolutions. We only use the coloured icons if there is more than one profession boss at each shared location, so for example if the bosses were all elementalists then we'd use instead. (I've put a few quick mock ups of what I thought you were saying at this site. ) File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Consistency Alex, consistency. After all the map updates as of late...a profession icon alone is sometimes used to display friendly NPCs as well, having monster icons would distinguish allies vs foes. On an extended idea, you could also have monster icon variants since explorable areas have different species as well. Im not saying 1 icon per species which would be too much but at least 4-5 to distinguish when we have say...3-4 elementalist bosses in a same place but all of different species. Yoshida Keiji talk 16:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We don't distinguish between species, it only acts as a marker for the shared spawns. Afaik we don't use profession icons on any interactive maps to represent allies. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 16:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

*Cheers!* Shadows have arrived.

Okay but seriously, its just me being picky but since we're adding the new class of div to the top, shouldn't we also be using </div> at the end of the page? --File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

k I see tub has fixed this on the Kaineng Maps, I can fix any others if he wishes. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 12:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've simply added the required class to {{Image label begin‎}}, so there's no need to add the new divs. You can safely remove the half-divs that were added. Tub 13:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that confirmation. I've noticed that when the DML & DML2 are swapped, names along the right hand edge that previously automatically broke into two lines now rigidly stay as one line. This means we'll probably have to go around every map moving the text slightly on the RHS. (example: I had to move catacombs of kathandrax on Charr Homelands/Map). Although I've swapped DML1 for DML2 on all of the region maps it should be quick enough to use "find and replace" to swap them back after DML1 is overwritten. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 14:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, removing automatic linebreaks was a prerequisite for shadows to work in IE. Tub 15:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Putting in a few more linebreaks by hand is easy enough. Since it seems to work very well, I'm game for replacing the original template. I'm not sure why I didn't do that in the first place... *shrug* ~FarloTalk 19:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mission outposts

Shouldn't the links for mission outposts link to its outpost page instead of the mission page? --Silver Edge 21:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't honestly answer why we link to the mission articles, but Talk:Echovald Forest/Map had a similar topic. "outpost probably isn't the thing most people want, and even if they do, it's one click away". But all of the maps do consistantly point to the mission articles. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 21:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's always been my reasoning, and since the update the disambig for those articles is even easier to navigate. I mean seriously, who actually cares about the outpost page? :P ~FarloTalk 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistake on Issnur Isles Map

I put this on the maps talk page too but it's more likely to be seen by someone who can fix it here. The location of the Buried Treasure on the Issnur Isles interactive map is wrong. The real location (shown on the old map) is further to the west. I'd fix it myself but I can't make sense of the code for the maps and would probably break it. 86.150.26.197 09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I've changed the coordinates - I watch RC when not in lectures so posting in either place is fine. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 11:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Integration of maps on explorable area articles

→ moved from User talk:Chieftain Alex

I'm curious as to why you're moving certain maps to named "world map" - I don't see the purpose behind it. Firstly, there are only need for 4 maps: your "world map" (which I prefer to be the default map and thus simply named <location map), boss locations ("boss map.jpg"), collectors and bounties ("collector map.jpg"), and a blank ("clean map.jpg"). So what's your reasoning for putting the bosses one at the root map name? Konig/talk 19:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Maps I see as required and reasonings:

• _world map - this is the exact appearance of the in game map - we're here to document the game so we should have this copy somewhere.
• _clean - underlay for interactive maps.
• _map - this is the icon for the interactive map, it has the same "appearance" as the inter map but is in reality really low quality compared to the original gw map. Without seeing the boss icons on it, how would users really know that it wasn't just linking to a static image of the world map as exactly ripped from the game? (also imo its more useful when linked from the ZV pages since it has locations of the various bosses on it)

It was requested after we started implementing the maps that there should be non-interactive versions of the same maps, so we had everything on the interactive maps put on the "/Maps" sub page.

• _bosses map - redundancy was requested
• _collectors and bounties - almost redundant but unique in that it lists the nightfall bounty locations, currently unsupported on interactive maps.

Ok most of that is unrelated to your question. There is no way in hell I'm going to move 160 maps currently at "world map" to "map", and all of the maps at "map" to "icon" (and then tag them all) File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 20:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I recalled, "map" was far more common than "world map." I don't think a "boss(es) map" is necessary *if* the default one already has bosses - as you said, redundant. Still, 4 maps per explorable area at most. But I don't see why "world map" shouldn't be the root one - and as said, I recall "map" being more common. Konig/talk 22:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently farlo and I have been using different names - I've been using "_world map" as far as I can remember. Farlo appears to have used "_non-interactive map" on many occasions. Do you know if its possible to create a search for all files with the "_non-interactive map" suffix? File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 22:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

BAM! (Warning, contains 13 irrelevant images in title matches). Konig/talk 23:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh listed the "non-interactive map" at User:Chieftain Alex/sandbox 3. It turns out every map image created by farlo was using that name, and all the rest were made by me and use the other I assume, about to check. The real question is, does the inconsistancy between campaigns matter? File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 23:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to propose we move images from factions to "world map", and images from prophecies to "non-interactive maps", and then get a bot to switch to whichever we prefer at the end. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 00:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I want consistency throughout the wiki on the same matters. It just makes things simpler. If you're looking at maps and see one map of one name, then go to look for a map of the same kind but for a different location and it's named differently, it can cause a headache in trying to find it. Konig/talk 01:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you have a preference for the suffix for the intermap files? (if you don't, then I'm going to finish uploading the prophecies to _non-interactive map, and all the rest to _world map) File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 15:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've already stated my preference - I *really* don't see a need for a map which has everything, and then to divide it down (if we go and have a map with everything, might as well just have that at "map" and then a "clean map" version). But again, consistency throughout the wiki above all. Konig/talk 16:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you haven't stated a preference, only some mild statement that you thought "map" was more widespread than "world map" - which was irrelevant since they're different items + the only interchangable name has been "world map" and "non-interactive map". Also if the only point of this was to say "I don't like the interactive maps" - say it, don't beat about the bush. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I said in the very first comment my preferred statement, and my second comment holds a (minutely) revised version from your feedback - the fact that Farlo used a different naming pattern doesn't change my stance. To clarify, once more, my preference is:

• Have a clean map (<location> clean map.jpg)
• Have a map with location names only, in-game version preferred (<location> map.jpg)
• Have a map with bosses (and possibly collectors) (<location> <whatever> map.jpg)

Originally I had 4 in my list of what mandates a map, but seeing how we're going to have a full interactive map without the interactiveness to it, might as well shorten it into 4. I don't care if it's called "world map" or "non-interactive map" just so long as all of such images are named the same. I really don't care what the naming system is, so long as it remains consistent and easy to comprehend - it seems that the third map I'd prefer is being put at the root (<location> map.jpg) so the in-game map would make more sense to go to "world map.jpg" - however, if I'm wrong as I am most certainly confused by the map image naming situation (an asura couldn't word it more confusing than it already is), and it's the non-interactive version of the interactive maps are not at the root, then it makes more sense for them to be at "non-interactive map.jpg."
My absolute preferred is to have the in-game map at the root, and images of the interactive at "non-interactive map" but honestly, it doesn't matter, so long as, again, the system is 1) simple, 2) understandable, and 3) fully consistent throughout. Konig/talk 20:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I can kill a lot of time on here, but even though i agree that all the maps we have at "non-interactive"/"world map" should be "map" instead of the interactive - I'm not moving them.

Personally I'd go with:

• <location>_map.jpg - in game screenshot, the map that appears in the infobox on ZV pages
• <location>_collectors and bounties.jpg - same as current (NF)
• <location>_collectors.jpg - same as current.
• <location>_clean map.jpg - keep as current
• <location>_interactive map icon.jpg - my desired picture of the interactive map to appear on the explorable pages as the link to the interactive maps.
• <location>_bosses map.jpg - keep as current.

Bear in mind that I'm not interested in putting pictures of the in game explorable on the actual explorable page. Thats not my cup of tea. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 21:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure you won't be surprised in me saying, considering my efforts with the concept art which I know you noticed, I don't mind moving a lot of things - it'll take time mind you, but I won't mind moving them. What stops me from doing so outright is not having a naming consistency existent, and not wanting to have people move things in the future due to a "new want."

@"collectors and bounties" - I don't think the "and bounties" is necessary, personally. Sure, they're in the image, but do we need to say "hey, there are bounties here" - there are some resurrection shrines in the Echovald and Jade Sea which don't have the priests, so should we note on those maps where they are (so folks can see which shrines they aren't at as well) - probably, but it wouldn't dictate, imo, moving the image names to "collectors and blessings" (for that matter... I guess we should do the same for god statues in Prophecies, since they're so rare). Similarly, I don't see a need for the word "icon" in the last one.

And if we don't present the in-game explorable maps, my question becomes this: Why have them?

Also: What about boss map images? Share with the interactive, or what? Konig/talk 00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops I'd missed the bosses, I don't see any purpose of deleting any working maps.

Currently we don't have any other maps with the bounties labelled on for nightfall - I don't think we should lose those - when i was vqing NF, I used those maps all the time, fuck the text based description :p

A lazy solution could be to revert all the images of the interactive maps back to the original maps - perhaps we don't need an "icon" per se. (idk how people will know they're being linked to the right thing though.) File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 07:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean remove the maps, I mean don't bother (re)naming them with "and bounties" in the file name. As to an icon image... I don't really know. Half those maps look far too tiny to really be of any use without clicking on it whether or not it's interactive. How about this: show the in-game map, link it to the /Maps, and in the description have a link to the interactive - effectively, reverse how it is. That actually might draw more people to them (because 99.99% of all other images which are in the same place are just images, so atm, those interactive map links are most likely viewed as plain old images until clicked). Konig/talk 07:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so the process would be:

• revert the current "map" image to old version.
• remove the s from the top line, add it to the second line, change "Interactive map" to Map, and "Non-interactive maps" to "Interactive map".

e.g. this:

| pic1 = [[Image:Wajjun Bazaar map.jpg|196px|link=Wajjun Bazaar/Map]]
| pic1-text = Interactive map<br>[[/Maps|Non-interactive maps]]

becomes this:

| pic1 = [[Image:Wajjun Bazaar map.jpg|196px|link=Wajjun Bazaar/Maps]]
| pic1-text = Map<br>[[/Maps|Interactive map]]

And then after that, delete all of the files at "_non-interactive map" and "_world map" File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 13:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If my understanding of what's named what is correct, then I believe so. Konig/talk 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, what would you think of a button in the infobox to link to it (above the picture section) begun to experiment hereFile:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 21:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks clunky at the moment. I suggest adding it into the Images box so that it'd appear (in text) as Images (Interactive Map) - see how that looks, at least. The increased size would probably be more beneficial to getting it noticed, but I'm more concerned about how it looks. Furthermore, I think the entire location infobox (and similar infoboxes - mission for example) needs fixing because their current auto-categorization makes Category:Locations omgwtfhfh chaotic. Konig/talk 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to copy a template on the sandbox talk page into a 4th column and muck about with formatting, I'm going to try the scribe for a bit. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 22:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So do we know what names to go with now or...? I'm a bit lost. Konig/talk 02:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah we know what image names to go with, I'm just waiting on some suggestions on how to implement the link to the interactive maps on the explorable pages. (my current suggestion is to create a modified location infobox with "interactive maps" in a slightly larger than small text above the other images. - I don't really think the link is obvious enough on the Poisoned Outcrops page. (and yes I realise I haven't implemented the removal of the /Maps page on that link)) File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 07:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

---

→ moved from User talk:Farlo

Through the interactive map project, you have created a few duplication maps - not exact duplicates, but aspect duplicates. For example, we have had File:The Battle Isles map.jpg, and then you added File:The Battle Isles interactive map.jpg - similarly, there's File:Ring of Fire Island Chain labelled map.jpg and File:Ring of Fire Island Chain interactive map.jpg. Are there any plans in your project to go through the map images to remove any redundancies within the maps (which includes fixing List of maps)? I was currently going to fixing some naming convention in certain maps, but then I stumbled upon this and my head spins on how to proceed (I get like that a lot when I stumble upon oversights of mass projects - or just simply mass oversights and chaos - within the wiki). Konig/talk 22:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Update, I've moved the first one, I'll work my way down the page File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 23:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Alex, you're not getting the point of my post. Currently there are 2 labelled maps for multiple regions - those seen in List of maps and those seen on the individual region pages. The former are screenshots from the game (or snipped bits of fully explored posters from the CE) - a lot of them are misnamed, and was what I was looking into when I found the interactive map situation. The latter maps are images taken of the interactive map project. The former are "official" maps while the latter are "unofficial" maps, effectively. And I wanted to know what Farlo's intentions about this situation of duplication were. The misnaming is not the issue I was bringing up - and may very well be pointless time spent if Farlo was intending to delete the older images (but some of the older images are of better quality, but lack landmarks, hence my questioning). Konig/talk 23:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess since I created the problem I should go through and fix them. Is there any preference as to which is kept/displayed, personally I'd rather keep the interactive maps, but the issue of quality is apparent, especially on the Battle Isles? I uploaded the "wiki screenshots" just so it'd look the same on the article as it does on the map page. Unfortunately I did the regions first and I didn't realize the extent to which I was changing things. ~FarloTalk 19:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure by now you've seen the discussion on User talk:Chieftan Alex#"world map"s, but that more or less contains the preference overall. To show what should be done:

| pic1 = [[File:The Battle Isles interactive map.jpg|250px|link=The Battle Isles/Map]]
| pic1-text = Interactive Map of The Battle Isles

becomes

| pic1 = [[File:The Battle Isles map.jpg|250px]]
| pic1-text = Map of The Battle Isles<br>[[The Battle Isles/Map|Interactive map]]

And then deletion of the interactive map images (we only need clean and in-game versions of the regions, a bit more complexe for explorable areas though). After all, it's not going to really show, all those small words on the images. You can see them, but not read them, so it's quality that's important (also this allows the in-game maps be used). Konig/talk 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Except when I implemented a similar proposal at Poisoned Outcrops, I'm not sure if the image should link to /Maps as well as the text... I went for both in this case but think the image should be unlinked, and perhaps both the text link to alternate places File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 21:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it, do we even need the /Maps subpages? The explorable article can have the three or so maps all by itself. E.g.,:

| pic1 = [[File:Poisoned Outcrops map.jpg|200px]]
| pic1-text = Map of the Poisoned Outcrops<br>[[/Map|Interactive map]]
| pic2 = [[File:Poisoned Outcrops collectors and bounties map.jpg|200px]]
| pic2-text = Collector and bounty locations
| pic3 = [[File:Poisoned Outcrops bosses map.jpg|200px]]
| pic3-text = Boss locations

The articles already have two of the maps with this change, so it won't be too big of a deal to add the third, and having 2 already makes the subpage mostly redundant (the third image makes it completely unneeded). Sidenote: I hate how the second line under the first image is larger than the first line, so I'd add "of the <explorable>" to it. Also, why do articles put images at 196px? Why such an arbitrary number? Konig/talk 22:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So basically you want it how it was before we started putting any maps in at all. And you don't like where we're putting the link to the maps. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 22:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't like where you're putting the link to the maps? If you mean the /Maps subpages, I want to remove them completely. Personally, I'd rather have one - and only one - map on it. The in-game screenshot. And then link that to the interactive map with an additional link in text somewhere. However, my wants don't match everyone's and people want to see static maps of the bosses, collectors, etc. from the explorable itself. Because of that, I compromise to having the images the same as before, remove the /Maps subpage (which was never necessary in the first place), and add a good, noticeable, link to the interactive map without removing links to the direct images which would be preferred by some to view. Effectively:

1. Remove the /Maps subpages
2. Make the /Map subpage more prominent
3. Images link to nothing but themselves
4. Show all forms of the images on explorables (there's plenty of room for the infobox to extend, might as well use that room).

So it's not completely "how it was before we started putting any maps in at all" - a lot like how it was, but there's still the link to the interactive map there. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Konig Des Todes (talk) at 23:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

(Reset indent) Could y'all move this discussion to the project page? It's something that affects how maps are categorized and displayed for the entire wiki (and I'll only discovered this thread by accident of visiting Farlo's page by mistake). Thanks. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Explorable area maps p2

Ok it has been raised by Konig that he thinks the current setup with the clicking on the ugly "picture" of the interactive map is bad. :P At the same time, it has been suggested to move the other maps back onto the main explorable page.

It has been proposed that we revert all of the "File:<explorable name>_map.jpg" images on the articles back to the in game version, and that a different link is implemented.

My suggestion for this is located here, and may be previewed by copying the code in the example section onto the Poisoned Outcrops page and previewing it. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 19:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I far prefer the current setup where the interactive map is the active link on the page. I never use the regular maps unless the interactive is absent or missing features. I also think linking multiple maps clutters the article unnecessarily.

I have no objection to displaying the basic map on the article, so long as clicking the map leads to the interactive (in the Sandbox 3, it links to the plain map). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

(Its good to have more than two user's opinions!) I think there are two things here:

1. The current image stored at "File:<explorable name>_map.jpg" appears on the ZV page + is the root name, this should probably be rectified to an in game version
2. The question of should we change the way links are implemented.

File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 21:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd typically go along with TEF, but it was previously brought up that folks do want and use the non-interactive versions of the maps, hence why we even have so many maps per explorable as well as the arbitrary /Maps subpages. But from my understanding, no one is opposed to re-moving the maps onto the explorable area map and removing said /Maps pages... the question seems to be how to link to the /Map subpages (which is the interactive map for references; /Maps is just a list of various maps - e.g., <area> boss map.jpg). Konig/talk 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunspear/LB bounties

The Nightfall interactive maps appear to be missing the location of the various bounties, which I use for maximizing reputation during VQs. Where they missing from the original maps? Or do we need to adjust the template(s) to add them to the interactives? – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah this was raised here originally and I thought it would be a good idea. I guess users would want text labelling each shrine's bounty rather than just a hover over the shrine marker saying which bounty? File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 21:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Experimentally implemented on Plains of Jarin/Map. I've added another dynamic label with portal text style but in blue. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 22:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

May I also suggest the location of Kurzick/Luxon priests (they're not at every rez shrine in those explorables) as well as Prophecies god statues (considering how rare they be)? Konig/talk 23:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought we had most of the prophecies ones down as landmarks? I'm not sure we even have maps of them, perhaps you could add all 20 of them konig? :P (Also although neither of you may realise this, these will take ages to add if i'm the only one doing it) File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 23:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems that some areas have the statues, but not all. Let's see, of the areas I recall having statues which aren't marked on the map, we have (other than Majesty's Rest) Regent Valley, Ascalon Foothills, Nebo Terrace (both reg and WiK), Tangle Root, Dreadnought's Drift, and Mineral Springs (how can you forget Lyssa's ice cave!) missing statues. Lornar's Pass and The Falls have their respective temple landmark, but no statement of the statues - similarly, Sage Lands/Map has the text for the Statue of Lyssa, but no icon. And I think the statues should be separated from landmarks, personally, as the point of my statement was because they give blessings (and they're hard to get in Tyria).

"perhaps you could add all 20 of them konig?" I would, but the interactive map coding takes time to figure out, and I've forgotten how it worked already. And I got a full plate already and yet I'm not eating. :(

And uh, why that icon for landmarks? Bleh. Konig/talk 00:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Maps default display

Show and Hide options, between these features, I think town/outpost should be default to "show" as seen ingame (e.g. Perdition Rock file for ZVQ) and leave other options hidden. I would also like to suggest a new update feature for "my preferences" options where we could tick-up our own settings for interactive maps preference choices. Yoshida Keiji talk 15:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Global user preference options for the interactive maps are way beyond our scope. Also, if we defaulted to only the outposts being shown by default, with the rest hidden, won't the maps look rather dull and non interactive? It might be less intuitive to find the show/hide buttons if it just looks like a regular map. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Adjust the infobox text so that all readers can notice in a fast glance that maps are interactive but still leave it looking like a regular map, which is my preference. I don't recall now the proper saying in English but I think there's one that goes something like: "The only limit is your own imagination's", call for administrators, bureaucrats...could they do it?... it might be beyond the Project's scope but could still work wiki-wide. By the way, are you awared of this: Feedback_talk:Stephane_Lo_Presti#Meeting_with_the_wiki_community maybe we could ask for more flexibility within GWW settings so that administrators could also improve/update with ideas such as this one. Yoshida Keiji talk 16:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Its "aware" not "awared". The monumental effort required for a feature that barely anyone uses wouldn't make this worth stephane's time. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 16:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Side research assistance

As you may know, Im around Ascalon these days. If there's anything this projects needs confirmation with let me know. I'm unfamiliar with this one and not so much interested but still willing to give a hand. Yoshida Keiji talk 09:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping! No matter where you are you can check the project page for an icon or other note by the corresponding map. Also, there can be notes on the pages themselves; according to the maps, Eastern Frontier and Old Ascalon need boss research, so if you see one, make sure it checks out with what we have and if not, leave a note on the talk page. ~FarloTalk 18:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)